Acoustic treatment

Rockshamrover

I've just finished reading the thread by Peter Maher, interesting.

One of the things that struck me, apart from all the shenanigans, was the amount of money Peter had spent to get his acoustics right.

I'm just wondering is there much point in the home based guys spending money on room treatment?

Does room treatment of a few hundred Euro or even a couple of grand make any real difference?

DamagedTrax

ive put about 1500 into treating (and soundproofing) my room here and i think it makes a HUGE differance. i have a few diffusors, absorbors and bass traps aswell as having dropped the ceiling, stuffed it with soundproofing and re-hung it on rubber hangers. also sealed up doors and windows. obviously its not perfect but its a nice compromise given that its a spare room in my apartment.

at the same time as doing all that i also spent good money on my mackie 824 monitors. i think a treated room with crap monitors is pointless and vice versa.

unfortunatly with the price of the treatments, even a small amount costs.

theres plenty of tutorials online about the best way to treat a small room.

Rockshamrover

DamagedTrax wrote: »

ive put about 1500 into treating (and soundproofing) my room here and i think it makes a HUGE differance. i have a few diffusors, absorbors and bass traps aswell as having dropped the ceiling, stuffed it with soundproofing and re-hung it on rubber hangers. also sealed up doors and windows. obviously its not perfect but its a nice compromise given that its a spare room in my apartment.

at the same time as doing all that i also spent good money on my mackie 824 monitors. i think a treated room with crap monitors is pointless and vice versa.

unfortunatly with the price of the treatments, even a small amount costs.

theres plenty of tutorials online about the best way to treat a small room.

Sounds like a nice set up, any pics:)

Yeah the monitors being top notch with no room treatment is probably pointless. Good advise as always DT.

Could you quantify the improvement in your room with the treatment?
Is it like a giant leap forward or subtle change?

Thanks

Rock.

DamagedTrax

ive pics in another thread here somewhere.. no idea where though

i think the improvement was vast but it was nearly 5 years ago so it was at a time when my mixing was just getting beyond that initial beginner level so i guess any improvements are hard to attribute to 1 perticular thing but the treatments were definitly a big factor and i would highly recommend them to anyone looking to improve there skills.

i also think theres a psychological factor aswell as the actual physics involved. if you think you're in a good room you'll be more confident about mixing and thats a large part of the battle.

Bluebirdstudios

Hi,
Over the years I've done some home made treatments for rooms I've worked in that have worked out great even when tested by an acoustic consultant against some of the specialist high-end products.
You can get excellent results with a bit of handy work and some off the shelf much cheaper raw products. There are many posts on the internet of experts in the acoustic field who show you how to make bass traps, diffusors etc.. with no compromise on performance. Yes there are excellent companies out there who can come to you studio and do a superb job. But if you don't want to ebay your TV, DVD player etc you can get most of the way there with simple pointers.

To be honest If I was better at wood work, fabric stitching etc the ratio of home made products to specialist gear might be different and also I think I felt pressure on the esthetics front.
If you want I can tell you of a simple bass trap design that a great acoustic consultant gave me that I use with everyday of the week. Cheap as chips in comparison to other bass traps I use and performs just as well.
Your very welcome to come to my studio and see these homemade jobs and I also can show you an acoustic analyzer that I use to get a read on room acoustic. Its very simple to use and it can help you get most of the way there in acoustic terms.
Finally studio owners (myself included )and acoustic sales people might be guilty of over emphasizing the need for absolute perfect acoustic conditions - Listen to some Neil Young most famous records and to this day regarded as great sounding / recorded in a barn !! If it sounds good it is good.
Hope this helps and again I'd have no problem if you wanted to call out for any help I can give
Cheers
- Declan

madtheory

Generally speaking, sound proofing is expensive, acoustic treatment is not, and it's easy to DIY. Here's a simple and highly effective solution:

http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=535

Basically, the goal with acoustic treatment is to create a room that acts as if there are no walls reflecting the sound. The ideal is "outside". So as much absorption as you can get in there, while retaining some pleasant reflections via diffusion. You can make a diffuser with a large piece of curved plywood. More info:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

These will not get you to Munro level acoustics, but will get you 50% to 80% of the way there, depending on how much work you put in. Just like high end gear, there is a diminishing return the more you spend.

It is simply amazing how much easier it is to mix in a room with this level of treatment.

Seziertisch

This is in relation to tracking guitars, but nonetheless is a manageable form of acoustic treatment.

http://ronansrecordingshow.com/

Scroll down a bit and you will see it, episode 7.

Also +1 on what Declan was saying, I think part of the sound of a lot of great records is that acoustically speaking the room they were made in had a distinct sound of its own. Neil Young is a good example, After the Goldrush was recorded in a lead lined basement in his house with just enough room for a couple of people. Another favourite of mine is Bone Machine by Tom Waits, recorded in a stone walled garage. Exile on Main Street was also recorded under similar conditions. There is a difference between acoustically quirky and acoustically problematic.

I also find that a lot of professional recordings done in perfect studios spaces tend to sound a bit too perfect. As a musician they don't sound like any room I have played in and indeed with the room staying out of the way, I sometimes find it a little disconcerting. This is also an issue with sample instruments, I have vox, guitars etc. recorded whereever and then I have a piano recorded in a concert hall or massive top level studio. It is sometimes difficult to get these elements to sit together properly and sound plausible within a track.

madtheory

Seziertisch makes a good point, but I think it needs clarification.

There are two types of room: The control room and the studio.

The control room is the one that needs to have a flat response, achieved as I have already described- basically, absorption.

You can do whatever you like in the studio, but generally speaking plenty of diffusion is preferred to avoid big peaks and nulls in the response, and keep little ones for the character Seziertisch was talking about. This also retains the room's natural reverb. So little or no absorption.

There was another thread here where a guy was trying to get a good drum sound in a control room. Not gonna happen!

Bluebirdstudios

Hi Madtheory,

Your absolutely correct in what you say about acoustic properties of monitoring inviroments and recording ones .
I think the asumption generally speaking - is when talking about home set ups, most home set - ups will only have the 1 room to both mix and record. So the compromise is based around that set up.
My reply was based on that asumption !
If I'm wrong sorry Rockshamrover.
-Declan Lonergan

Rockshamrover

Bluebirdstudios wrote: »

Hi Madtheory,

Your absolutely correct in what you say about acoustic properties of monitoring inviroments and recording ones .
I think the asumption generally speaking - is when talking about home set ups, most home set - ups will only have the 1 room to both mix and record. So the compromise is based around that set up.
My reply was based on that asumption !
If I'm wrong sorry Rockshamrover.
-Declan Lonergan

Yeah Declan,

I was just interested in finding out what difference it would make having treatment in that kind of set up, one room, as that's what most of us amateurs have.

All of the replies here have had some really useful information, which doesn't surprise me. It's like being back at school.

Your offer of a free two day recording session in your studio is very generous:D
We'll all be up after the 12 o'clock mass on Sunday. (joking:D)

The stuff about music sounding to perfect/sterile from Seizertisch was also really interesting, but makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Thanks guys.

madtheory

Here are two compromises I'd suggest, if you only have one room:

1. Use portable bass traps. Store them for tracking, install them for mixing. The other way around for difusers. I reckon you'll still get around a 50% improvement in room acoustics, which is a lot! And it'll be cheaper. Assuming the missus doesn't mind the spare room being full of crap while you're recording!

2. Commandeer a spare room as a studio only when you need to track. Permanently install attractive looking difusers and run a multicore in there. Shift the bed or WHY for sessions. Then you can have superchunks etc. permanently installed in the control room.

Bluebirdstudios

Hi Rockshamrover,

If I was approaching a single room set-up these are a few pointers

- I'd look at what freqs are getting most exicted in the room
( as I said before you can get a simple to use analzer to do this - heck I'll give you one on loan)

- I'd then tackle those freqs - Let me explain this point .
Lets say that the room has a responce that at 250hz there is a 12 db boast .Put simply the room gets exited around this freq cause by a thing called room modes and other tech factors which we leave aside for the moment. So now the problem you have is when you mix you'll hear plenty off that bass 250hz freq which effects your eq-ing decisions when mixing. But your actually hearing the room instead of whats going into your recorder. So when your mix's leave your studio people might say your mixs lack punch, theres no body in the kick drum , vocals sound thin etc... because your mix is actually being listen to now -12db down at that 250hz

- I'd try to treat these areas so to have as flat as possible freq responce that the room will allow also the budget- bearing in mind as I said before there are simple and affortable things one can do. Note Its nearly impossible to get a perfect frequency responce ( flat line ).So you might for example end up with a 5db boast at that 250hz but your ears learn how to compinsate for this . Some of the worlds most famous studios (control rooms) has these little characteristics !!

- I'd then set the room so you can have areas / examples

---your monitoring position is where most of the treatment as being focused to get as even a responce as possible
--- where the vocals are done near a corner where most of your treatment is bass traps, diffusors etc. to lessen the room influences on the vocal sound
--- I'd also consider setting up treatments so that they are portable - EX
When mixing the acoustics treatment is place so that the listening position is optomised.
When tracking whatever being recorded gets treatment moved to its location ----ex1 guitar amp has broadband absorbers built around it like a box effect

---

ex 2 then aborbers are moved to like a wardobe effect around the singer position -think vocal booth.

- you'll soon learn which part of the room works best for what instrument and which acoustic treatment should be moved where ?
Bear in mind that even small rooms have different acoustics responces at different locations.

What Seizertisch said is true there are plenty of proffesional acoustic places which some musicians don't like and of course the reverse is true. I think its fair to say that those type of problems are what most people wouldn't mind having for the simple reason its easier to change the characteristic of a well controled acoustic room than it is to rectify a poor acoustic enviroment . But again his point is very valid.

The most important point is with a bit of taught you get almost any room to deliver excellent results and its my view that if your enthusiastic about music and recording, no room in the world will get in the way of a great recording.
Cheers
-Declan Lonergan
PS hopes this makes some sense - see ye at mass !!

madtheory

Hmm, I think that on a tight budget, measuring room modes is an academic exercise. You can actually gain a lot of improvement by literally putting in as much superchunk as you can without any mode measuring. Maybe later you can measure and look at building absorbers for bass, low mid, hi mid , HF diffusion or whatever you need. After that, it's expensive, complicated and returns are severely diminished.

But my all means measure before and after so you can pat yourself on the back

petermaher

Rockshamrover wrote: »

I've just finished reading the thread by Peter Maher, interesting.

One of the things that struck me, apart from all the shenanigans, was the amount of money Peter had spent to get his acoustics right.

Dunno where you got that rock, the results were exactly as predicted, and nothing has been changed since.

Acoustic treatment is relatively cheap as in the actual foam itself but there's more than foam involved. There's a lot of timber of odd sizes which was all special order as was the type of rockwool specified, and there are many other materials involved too. Don't forget I used work out of an untreated garage, then a converted room full of auralex and then another converted room again full of auralex(which is for sale), The reason I went with a consultant is I was sick of trying to get it to work the other way, boxy sounding acoustics, comb filtering etc......

petermaher

Rockshamrover wrote: »

I'm just wondering is there much point in the home based guys spending money on room treatment? As I recall, Peter still has or had some problems after whacking out €60K.

Sorry rock, that was the quote I meant to use:)

Ronan Murphy

I saw that some one had linked to one of my shows on this thread and thought I would chime in a bit more.

Room treatment can really make a big difference in a workspace, some things are pretty easy to deal with and other are really tough.

The easy stuff is taming down high frequency "splat" or the room sounding too live. As mentioned even something as simple as packing blankets or foam can start to deal with that (although neither of those are the best solution) because its primarily high frequencies we are dealing with). As we start to deal with lower frequencies things get a lot tougher. High frequencies do not have as much energy and are easy to tame down, low frequencies can shake buildings.

People working in very small rooms are guaranteed to have exteme problems in the low end, and the truth is that all rooms (even high end mastering studios) have low end problems. Is it worth it to still try and improve the room? Of course it is. If you could put in some bass traps that reduced a big spike only 4 db, would that be worth it? You tell me. Put a plug in on one of your mixes and boost 90Hz about 4dB and see if it makes a big difference.

The good news is that if you have modest skills as a builder (or a buddy you can bribe with a few pints) its pretty easy and comparatively cheap to build broad band absorbers and bass traps, using rock wool or fiberglass (Owens Corning 703 and 705)

madtheory

Ah, but Owens Corning is not available in the EU! It's Rockwool over here- that's the actual brand, they have many distributors in Ireland. RW3 is about the most useful, though there are other grades. They give you absorption spectrum plots on their site, but as I said earlier that's all a bit academic when one is on a budget, and furthermore if it's a small room, you take what you can get.

Ethan Winer's page covers just about everything you'd need to know for DIY. Those superchunks are great though. Easy to build if you follow the instructions and use your noggin.

BumbleB

Lads , What is the whole idea of room treatment ?.Is it to reduce reflection and make the room as dead as possible. How do you know when your room needs it?.

cheers,

madtheory

I said earlier what the basic idea is... and Ethan Winer explains it very well.

You know you need it when you find that certain notes, especially bass ones, jump out louder than others, when you're listening to properly mastered music. Set up an organ sound on your keyboard, set all eq to flat and play all the notes starting at the lowest the keyboard can make. You'll find some notes are loud, some are quiet, and it depends on where your ears are. An inch move and they'll sound different.

Seziertisch

Ronan Murphy wrote: »

I saw that some one had linked to one of my shows on this thread and thought I would chime in a bit more.

Room treatment can really make a big difference in a workspace, some things are pretty easy to deal with and other are really tough.

The easy stuff is taming down high frequency "splat" or the room sounding too live. As mentioned even something as simple as packing blankets or foam can start to deal with that (although neither of those are the best solution) because its primarily high frequencies we are dealing with). As we start to deal with lower frequencies things get a lot tougher. High frequencies do not have as much energy and are easy to tame down, low frequencies can shake buildings.

People working in very small rooms are guaranteed to have exteme problems in the low end, and the truth is that all rooms (even high end mastering studios) have low end problems. Is it worth it to still try and improve the room? Of course it is. If you could put in some bass traps that reduced a big spike only 4 db, would that be worth it? You tell me. Put a plug in on one of your mixes and boost 90Hz about 4dB and see if it makes a big difference.

The good news is that if you have modest skills as a builder (or a buddy you can bribe with a few pints) its pretty easy and comparatively cheap to build broad band absorbers and bass traps, using rock wool or fiberglass (Owens Corning 703 and 705)

Many thanks for chiming in, Ronan. I enjoy your show. With a good Irish name like that, you fit right in here.

Rockshamrover

petermaher wrote: »

Dunno where you got that rock, the results were exactly as predicted, and nothing has been changed since.

Acoustic treatment is relatively cheap as in the actual foam itself but there's more than foam involved. There's a lot of timber of odd sizes which was all special order as was the type of rockwool specified, and there are many other materials involved too. Don't forget I used work out of an untreated garage, then a converted room full of auralex and then another converted room again full of auralex(which is for sale), The reason I went with a consultant is I was sick of trying to get it to work the other way, boxy sounding acoustics, comb filtering etc......

Sincere apologies Peter, I misread the original post about the 53 people in the room affecting the acoustics.:eek:

I have removed the incorrect sentence from my original post.

Sorry x infinity.

Rock

PaulBrewer

Rockshamrover wrote: »

I've just finished reading the thread by Peter Maher, interesting.

One of the things that struck me, apart from all the shenanigans, was the amount of money Peter had spent to get his acoustics right.

I'm just wondering is there much point in the home based guys spending money on room treatment? As I recall, Peter still has or had some problems after whacking out €60K.

Does room treatment of a few hundred Euro or even a couple of grand make any real difference?

Very good question Rock.

The short answer is anything that makes an improvement is worth doing.
A few hundred Euro can indeed make an improvement - the thing is to be realistic about how much of an improvement to expect.

Rockshamrover

Bluebirdstudios wrote: »

The most important point is with a bit of taught you get almost any room to deliver excellent results and its my view that if your enthusiastic about music and recording, no room in the world will get in the way of a great recording.
Cheers
-Declan Lonergan
PS hopes this makes some sense - see ye at mass !!

Declan,

Thanks again. I will be praying for forgiveness.

Rockshamrover

Bluebirdstudios wrote: »

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Very good question Rock.

The short answer is anything that makes an improvement is worth doing.
A few hundred Euro can indeed make an improvement - the thing is to be realistic about how much of an improvement to expect.

Apart from the bit about Peter having problems, Which is of course A GOD DAMNED LIE.


Yes, it looks like the answer to the question is acoustic treatment works

I always think it's a good idea to lock threads with the word Acoustic in the title.:D

PaulBrewer

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Bluebirdstudios wrote: »

Apart from the bit about Peter having problems, Which is of course A GOD DAMNED LIE.


Yes, it looks like the answer to the question is acoustic treatment works

I always think it's a good idea to lock threads with the word Acoustic in the title.:D

Ha!

Peter has problems ok ..... just not acoustical ones !

You're very welcome to be our guest for a visit if it's of interest.

I'm doing my first session down there this weekend , with the NS10,000s in tow ...

petermaher

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Rockshamrover wrote: »

You're very welcome to be our guest for a visit if it's of interest.

Absolutely!!:)

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Ha!

Peter has problems ok ..... just not acoustical ones !

You're very welcome to be our guest for a visit if it's of interest.

I'm doing my first session down there this weekend , with the NS10,000s in tow ...

That's a very generous offer Paul but I have to go to mass on Sunday:D

Anyway, I'd only have this compulsive urge to start measuring all those panels and maybe even sneak one out of the place. I reckon one of Peter's panels would be worth a few grand:D

Thanks for the offer though.

PaulBrewer

Rockshamrover wrote: »

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Thanks for the offer though.

No problem.

Rockshamrover

petermaher wrote: »

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Absolutely!!:)

Thanks Peter, again that's very generous, given that I practically ruined your reputation only moments ago.

It can only mean one thing, you and Brewer are doing the soundtrack to Ireland's first snuff movie and I will provide the blood curdling screams, in surround sound no less.:D

Thanks again.

Rock.

PaulBrewer

Rockshamrover wrote: »

petermaher wrote: »

Thanks Peter, again that's very generous, given that I practically ruined your reputation only moments ago.

It can only mean one thing, you and Brewer are doing the soundtrack to Ireland's first snuff movie and I will provide the blood curdling screams, in surround sound no less.:D

Thanks again.

Rock.

First you say ?

Bluebirdstudios

Seziertisch wrote: »

Many thanks for chiming in, Ronan. I enjoy your show. With a good Irish name like that, you fit right in here.

Ye I'll second that / just started to watch some of your shows good stuff Ronan well done
-Dec

Rockshamrover

Bluebirdstudios wrote: »

Ye I'll second that / just started to watch some of your shows good stuff Ronan well done
-Dec

What shows?

Any links?

Thanks

Bluebirdstudios

Hi,

It was seziertisch who put me on to ronan

http://ronansrecordingshow.com/
Thanks.

Rockshamrover

Bluebirdstudios wrote: »

Hi,

It was seziertisch who put me on to ronan

http://ronansrecordingshow.com/
Thanks.

Great stuff, thanks a lot Declan.

studiorat

http://ronansrecordingshow.com/

Liking the Village Recorders set-up. Nice to see an ol' Studer 827. And Clasp?? Ohhh! how the hell does that work?

That's crazy, I want a go at that, now!!!!

That's the sickest thing I've seen in ages.

Ronan Murphy

BumbleB wrote: »

Lads , What is the whole idea of room treatment ?.Is it to reduce reflection and make the room as dead as possible. How do you know when your room needs it?.
,

The idea is not to make the room really "dead" but balanced, so that all frequencies decay evenly (and hopefully not too long) How do you know if your room needs it? pretty much every room could use some of it. If your mixing space is anything under about 8 meters long, you probably have some pretty big low frequency problem. As stated before the Ethan Weiner site has tons of great info (as does the GIK acoustics site).

ps
Thanks so much for the kind welcomes and nice words about the show

BumbleB

Thanks Ronan and madtheory .I've a better idea of what I need to do now.

cheers,