Evolution of Studio Acoustics

[Kasey]

Forgive me if my idea of all this is inaccurate, i'll admit I don't know much about this topic, but it seems to me that the acoustics of recording studios have changed a lot in the past 50 years. I see old pictures of studios and a lot of them seem to be these massive rooms that look like gymnasiums. Of course there's smaller rooms as well, but in almost none of these pictures do I ever see any kind of acoustic foam for absorption of sound. These acoustics are obvious in the recordings too; tons of big room reverb on almost everything (Pet Sounds is the first to come to mind for me, but theres tons). Why these changes? Why did everyone suddenly go from big room reverb to foam everywhere? How else have the acoustics of studios changed over the years?
I'm curious.

 

[Kasey]

come on....someone has to know about this...

 

[RobertN]

Somebody, experimented as we as human do with everything. They out with a better sound so we ran with it. Its just like how people found out what type of mushrooms are not deadly and so on.

 

[Kasey]

Somebody, experimented as we as human do with everything. They out with a better sound so we ran with it. Its just like how people found out what type of mushrooms are not deadly and so on.

... ok i didnt mean have the post make me sound like an airhead...
are you saying that records today sound better than then? Last time a checked the stuff on the radio didnt come close to Pet Sounds or anything by the Beatles. theres got to be more to it.

 

[enferno]

i think it's not so much the science of te recording has changed how studios treat their roooms acoustically, but that people's tastes have changed.

especially so for the rock and rool scene, people like the dry, in your face sound instead of the big, open, reverbish sound of older recordings.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Kasey,

> Why these changes? Why did everyone suddenly go from big room reverb to foam everywhere? How else have the acoustics of studios changed over the years? <

Large rooms and small rooms have very different acoustic problems, so the treatment needs to be different. Also, large pro recording studios often have treatment built into the walls and ceiling, so you might see a photo of a large studio and wrongly conclude there's no treatment just because it's not visible. Most pro studios use treatment based on rigid fiberglass, especially for bass trapping.

--Ethan

 

[Autist]

Interesting inquiry. I did some stuff in studios back in the 80's and recall hardly any acoustic treatment in them at that time, although one studio had carpet ALL OVER the walls, but that engineer didn't know a good mix from [insert anything other than good mixes here].

I think in part that acoustic treatments may be part of the home studio movement and companies are cashing in on it, although obviously there is a benefit to treating a room. I do still see pictures of studios with bare walls, but they make me wonder what has been done to those rooms behind the walls. Perhaps the bass response of older systems was more limited to the degree that worrying about taming bass in a room was just, well, err, nothing to worry about... It may also be that no one ever thought about treating a room for acoustics (although live venues have been designed with acoustics in mind for ages) and the people behind the consoles just, uhhh, adapted.

 

[Ethan Winer]

> one studio had carpet ALL OVER the walls <

Yeah, that's a really lousy way to treat a room because it sucks all the life out of it above 1 or 2 KHz, yet leaves it boomy sounding at low frequencies.

> obviously there is a benefit to treating a room. <

Especially smaller rooms. Large rooms can get away with less bass trapping because the walls are far away so the reflections are weaker. In small rooms, like a lot of people mix in these days, serious bass trapping is a necessity.

> It may also be that no one ever thought about treating a room for acoustics <

Not likely. Pro studios - real studios - have used acoustic treatment for a very long time.

--Ethan

 

[Rod Gervais]

Autist,

Pro Studio designs tend to take room treatment into consideration as a part of the design - it's there even if you don't always see it.

Rod

 

[Autist]

Autist,

Pro Studio designs tend to take room treatment into consideration as a part of the design - it's there even if you don't always see it.

Rod

Yeah, I know. That's why I wonder what is behind, or in the wall, or how the room was built when I see pictures of studios with no obvious treatment.

 

[Autist]

Not likely. Pro studios - real studios - have used acoustic treatment for a very long time.

Then I guess it is safe to assume that the very old studios had acoustic treatment designed into them as well?

 

[Innovations]

The biggest difference is that it used to be really hard to add believable reverb so they really cared about the quality of sound that the room added to the recording. Now they mostly want the room out of the way and they will dial in the sonic space later.

 

[Ethan Winer]

> Then I guess it is safe to assume that the very old studios had acoustic treatment designed into them as well? <

I'm sure it depends on the studio!

--Ethan

 

[mshilarious]

These acoustics are obvious in the recordings too; tons of big room reverb on almost everything (Pet Sounds is the first to come to mind for me, but theres tons).

Here's a Pet Sounds pic, note the panels on the walls:

 

[RICK FITZPATRICK]

I couldn't bite my tongue any longer.

Then I guess it is safe to assume that the very old studios had acoustic treatment designed into them as well?

DUH!!. From the early 1900's.
Note the use of a various techniques and devices such as:
small rug in the musicians area to reduce reflections from the floor.
Curtains to reduce comb filtering
gobos
multiple mic's(yes this is recording acoustic technique)
diffusers(furniture and other architectural protrusions)
absorbers(wall and curtain)

Not only that, but there is something that newbies to audio engineering don't understand. What if YOU had to design and build the equipment to record. My friend, you havn't got a clue. Where did you think the term Audio "Engineer" came from? Turning knobs? Ha!! The fact is, early engineers were EXACTLY that. Electrical and mechanical engineers who happened to be involved in the broadcast and recording ENGINEERING field, had to design and build most of the equipment they used. Like in RCA, BBC and other great studios, the engineers were constantly engineering, building and repairing the equipment of the era. BTW, if it hadn't been for Marconi, you wouldn't even have a mic!! That is AUDIO ENGINEERING!!!(see the last pic for true audio engineering-
Modern recording enthusiasts who think that all they have to do to be an audio engineer is buy a PC and a couple of mic's and VOILA!! are an insult to the term. So is this thread. Most homerecording "engineers" don't even know comb filtering exists. Let alone what a standing wave is. Thats why when I read a newbie describe himself as a "recording engineer", I just have to laugh.
fitZ

 

[Autist]

Geez, Fitz...

Just because someone knows little or nothing about acoustic treatment in pre-1980 studios and is discussing it in a thread in no way means they have no clue. It's too bad you didn't bite your tongue clean off and choke on it. If you notice, I DIDN'T EVEN START THIS THREAD! For you to assume I know NOTHING about what audio engineers do is stupid of you. You do not know how old I am, or how much time I have spent in studios and been around "real" engineers, or "fake" ones. You do not know. Just because I state an observation, or post a question doesn't mean I know nothing about it, so BACK OFF!

NO ONE in this thread claimed to be an engineer, that wasn't even what this thread was about! Perhaps you should start again from the first post. I NEVER certainly claimed to be an engineer, though most diffinetly I have much more than a couple of mics and a PC. According to your description of what an audio engineer really is, most people who actually are modern engineers really aren't engioneers at all because they bought their gear and didn't design it themselves. GIVE ME A BREAK! Audio engineering is not all about the equipment, it's about THE SOUND. You figure out what that means.

It's people like you that give socializing a "bad name" and make people like me glad we are not like people like you. engineers, or not. This thread is no insult to anything, but you are an insult to this thread.

What kind of pompous jerk bashes people for trying to learn more?

 

[Innovations]

kind of in support of Fitz' point (and my own) here is what used to be involved in creating something as simple as reverb

http://www.888moondog.com/reverb/

So indeed older studios cared a great deal about accoustics, they just weren't so focused on a really neutral space.

 

[HapiCmpur]

i think it's not so much the science of te recording has changed how studios treat their roooms acoustically, but that people's tastes have changed.

I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest that changes in technology often lead to changes in taste. When stereo was first introduced, for instance, it was considered really "cool" to do exaggerated panning that would be considered off-the-wall today -- such as putting all the vocals hard left and all the instruments hard right.

Likewise, as mulitracking and overdubbing became possible, studios shifted their goals a bit. Instead of working hard to reproduce a given performance as accurately as possible, they started using the studio to "add value," so to speak, to the performance. People's tastes evolved so heavily toward "studioed" records that after a while it got hard for musicians to reproduce their recorded performances when they went on tour.

Why did everyone suddenly go from big room reverb to foam everywhere? How else have the acoustics of studios changed over the years?

What triggered this change was that the price of egg cartons and the price of Auralex equalized in the mid-90s. (Okay, okay. That was lame, I know. But seriously, folks...) I think Innovations hit it right on the head with this:

The biggest difference is that it used to be really hard to add believable reverb so they really cared about the quality of sound that the room added to the recording. Now they mostly want the room out of the way and they will dial in the sonic space later.

Put another way, new technologies have made it possible to add the desired ambience and effects after recording. And that's a lot easier than trying to manipulate a whole room every time you want a different effect. So studio builders and sound engineers now do their best to take the room out of the equation.

 

[HapiCmpur]

P.s.

ms and FitZ, thanks for those excellent historic pics.

 

[jonnyc]

... ok i didnt mean have the post make me sound like an airhead...
are you saying that records today sound better than then? Last time a checked the stuff on the radio didnt come close to Pet Sounds or anything by the Beatles. theres got to be more to it.

So let me get this straight, in your opinion there isn't anything on the radio that compares to pet sounds or the beatles? Are you insane? Musically maybe but in actual sound quality? I listened to some Zep the other day, wanted to hear these "amazing" recordings for my self(first time since i got my studio ears) and man it doesn't sound nearly as good as todays stuff. So I decided to check out a lot of stuff recorded years ago, I basically went from the 40's up to the mid 90's and the difference each decade is amazing. Everything got better and better as the years went by not worse as indicated by you. From what you're saying nobody on this forum can match the beatles or pet sounds unless we have a 60's studio with 60's equipment. Now I won't say the recordings aren't good for what they are they are great but I just can't seem to hear what you're hearing to make it better. Could you maybe explain why you think this, is it that warm and fuzzy analog sound that does it for you, or is it really the music thats better not the recording. I don't mean to come off like an ass I'm just wondering if the equipment was so much better back then why did the industry change for the worse.