| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
Hello,
Anyone out there have any suggestions on what sized monitors I should use in a small control room (9.3' x 8'), and how I should treat it? I need extended bass response as I am mixing house music. The lower octaves are very important. They need to not only be represented, but detailed. I am positive the room will impose several issues on my listening experience, it is quite small for a listening environment, but is the best I can do. Here are the relevant facts: Walls: Will be acoustically treated with auralex surface tiles as appropriate to control reflections. Bass traps will be added as needed to help counter modes and phase cancellation... though I am not sure if traps will help with both, neither or one. Ceiling will have 2 4x8x3/4" plywood panels hung by wire at 10 degree angles peaking either at the middle or ends of the ceiling depending on the forum's advice, with cloth covered fiberglass insulation on both sides as a diffusion surface. Walls and ceiling have ample insulation inside and are fairly damped. They are full, but not packed tightly. Floor is concrete treated with carpet and padding. Keep in mind, this is only a mixing room. I am not trying to keep sound in or out of the room, or record there, only shape the listening environment as much as possible to reduce modes, reflections and phase cancellation and allow me to mix effectively. It is at the extreme end of the house and not directly connected to it. For vocal and instrument recording I rent a pro studio. I do production and post production mixes at my house. One side of room will have a full bookshelf, the other a washer and dryer (excessively damped to kill the reverb inherent in any sheet metal structure). During sessions, these will also be wrapped in moving blankets and stuffed with old blankets. I plan to treat the room with some auralex stuff, but would like to know if there is something that works better, especially if it is cheaper: ) Here are my questions: 1. I plan to get mackie or JBL monitors. Any recommendations on low-midrange monitors for a room this size? I currenly have Alesis M1 MkII actives. I will be keeping them as another reference, but know they are toys: ) I am open to suggestions on any brand monitor, specifically as it relates to room size. I don't want them to be too hot (HR824's, at volume, are most likely too hot), but at the same time, I need to feel them when doing loud mix tests. I typically get balances at a very low volume, then mix at a low to medium when getting the sound of the mix right. 2. Should the ceiling be diffracted with plywood as I described above? If so, peak in the middle or on the ends? Any advice would be helpful. I am getting good enough at mixing that my discs sound good no matter where they are played, but want to be able take it to the next level. thx, Neil |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
In article . net writes: Anyone out there have any suggestions on what sized monitors I should use in a small control room (9.3' x 8'), and how I should treat it? I need extended bass response as I am mixing house music. The lower octaves are very important. They need to not only be represented, but detailed. You need a good subwoofer (not just a one-note resonant box) that's placed properly, and you need to do whatever sort of treatment is necessary in your room to prevent buildup of energy at specific frequencies. This usually means broad band absorption. There are several web sites that offer design tools and materials to analyze and treat these problems. Use your newsgroup and web search tools. I plan to treat the room with some auralex stuff, but would like to know if there is something that works better, especially if it is cheaper: ) Check out http://realtraps.com for some good reading material and what's been a pretty successful treatment approach. 1. I plan to get mackie or JBL monitors. Any recommendations on low-midrange monitors for a room this size? That's fine. You might look at what NHT is offering too. They have nice sounding integrated systems and properly matched subwoofers. They subscribe to the "stereo subwoofer" approach, not necessarily better than a single subwoofer in all cases, but it does deal better with room problems. I don't want them to be too hot (HR824's, at volume, are most likely too hot), but at the same time, I need to feel them when doing loud mix tests. Everything can be turned down. With powered monitors, you don't need to worry about efficiency of the speaker itself since it's matched to the built-in power amplifier. They'll all produce ear-splitting volume at normal signal level inputs. Be sure that you have a monitor level control somewhere in your system. This is a standard knob on a mixing console, but usually requires an external box for a DAW. 2. Should the ceiling be diffracted with plywood as I described above? If so, peak in the middle or on the ends? Not necessarily. Diffusion improves the spaciousness of the sound, but it needs to be random. Just putting a couple of flat panels at different angles up there just gives you more reflections that you'll have to deal with. There's an approach that puts reflectors behind you at a specific distance so that the Haas effect does something useful (I can't remember what right now) but it's a trick, not something that you should plan into your basic design. -- I'm really Mike Rivers - ) |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
snip
I plan to treat the room with some auralex stuff, but would like to know if there is something that works better, especially if it is cheaper: ) Neil, Lot's of good stuff here --some people might even help you design your studio  http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/index.php The short answer is YES, there are plenty of things you can build yourself, or buy that are much more effective and/or cheaper than foam. Here are my questions: 1. I plan to get mackie or JBL monitors. Any recommendations on low-midrange monitors snip Trust your ears. Listen to more speakers. Dynadudio, Quested, Tannoy,Adams, Haflers to name a few. You want the best speaker you can afford,that also translates,ie. works well for YOU etc. You said your mixes arealready translating, maybe there is no problem? I don't want them to be too hot snip Define Hot. 2. Should the ceiling be diffracted with plywood as I described above? If so, peak in the middle or on the ends? Get over to John's site and start reading. Also try this: http://www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html Any advice would be helpful. Take your time and read; don't expect acoustics and studio design tosink in over-night; realize that every room is different and so designs vary. There are some general things that can and should be done (affordably). If you rush,you might not be any better off, your "newroom" may no longer "translate." HINT: Realize that marketing forces and knowledge are two different things. Best, Mack |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
2mb wrote:
Everything can be turned down. With powered monitors, you don't need I realize this... but what I am concerned about is the volume necessary to achieve the flattest response. On some speakers, this is very loud, on others maybe not so.... The response curve changes with volume. This is a physical certainty despite the marketing propaganda. This is bad, but your ears also change response with level too, and that effect is more significant than the speaker nonlinearities. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
In article writes: ... but what I am concerned about is the volume necessary to achieve the flattest response. On some speakers, this is very loud, on others maybe not so.... The response curve changes with volume. This is a physical certainty despite the marketing propaganda. This is a function of your ears, not the loudspeakers. The speakers should be reasonably flat at any level. I know on the HR824's they need to be at 90db SPL to achieve their ideal response curve (I think they max at 112?) How do you know this? And exactly what is it that you really know? I've been in the chamber where Mackie runs the frequency response graphs that they provide with each speaker and the SPL is nowhere near 90 dB with the speakers under test. For the size of the room I am in, I want to get it down to around 75-85. Again, I only test my mixes at this volume. I typically mix at 45-55, get balances at below conversation level. According to Bob Katz (see http://www.digido.com on the page about the K-system of metering) 85 dB is about the right SPL for monitoring pop music, 75 dB for classical music (if I'm remembering the figures correctly) and he professes calibrating the monitor level pot and always monitoring at the same level. Frankly I find 85 dB to be pretty darn loud and I prefer to mix between 75 and 78 dB, but then I work with music that has real dynamic range. At 45-55 dB, your ears are pretty shy on both low and high frequency response. See a set of Fletcher-Munson loudness curves to get a hint as to how much. You can balance OK at that level, but you don't know what the bottom and top end really sounds like, other than at that level. Be sure that you have a monitor level control somewhere in your system. I wasn't aware that people operated without them: ) One of the most FAQs from a DAW newcomer is "how do I turn down the monitors when the phone rings?" Typically they'll connect the monitors directly to the main output of a sound card and the only volume control is the output level of the DAW's mixer in software. -- I'm really Mike Rivers - ) |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1067461762k@trad... In article writes: ... but what I am concerned about is the volume necessary to achieve the flattest response. On some speakers, this is very loud, on others maybe not so.... The response curve changes with volume. This is a physical certainty despite the marketing propaganda. This is a function of your ears, not the loudspeakers. The speakers should be reasonably flat at any level. I know on the HR824's they need to be at 90db SPL to achieve their ideal response curve (I think they max at 112?) How do you know this? Read it in an article.. And exactly what is it that you really know? I don't know crap about building a studio or the best reference monitors for my budget and situation. Hence my original post. What I read and find in my research and through practice. My experience over the last 12 seriously pursued projects over the last 4 years has also taught me a great deal... I have been playing instruments starting with violin since 1974 and recording with my own gear (however spartan) since 1984 on instruments including piano, guitar, bass guitar, clarinet(e flat, alto, contrabass), sax(tenor and alto), violin and vocals and the usual cheap synths such as a roland alpha juno 1, Korg DSS1, various ensoniq gear, a dw8000, and even some organs. I was never much of a performer, but have been in several bands as a bass player, keyboard player, and in school bands (jazz and orchestra). I have done a lot of recording over the years but always hit a brick wall with mix engineering. I didn't have the resources for a studio, and there really weren't a lot of books on the subject that were any good, that I knew about, or could find. You kind of had to go to audio engineering school to know what the good stuff was. Nowadays we have the internet and amazon... much easier to find information. I just got into the mix engineering side of things with vigor about 4 years ago. But I am no where near where a lot of you guys are. You might say I now know almost enough to fully grasp the vast expanse of what I don't know and still have to learn. I know but one drop from the vast ocean of knowledge that exists. I have never done any of it for a living, but recently realized I am ****ing my life away at an office when I can do a lot more. The right way to make a run for it is to educate myself as much as possible, work hard, and get the right gear and environment. This will maximize my potential for success. If I am not successful, I will simply keep trying and continue to **** my life away at the office. At least I will have a very cool hobby and get to work with some interesting people. My philosophy has resulted in the upcoming release of my own EP, an alliance with a B-List DJ who hangs out with A-list djs and relationships with a band and a great singer. The DJ just landed an intern position at a studio in Italy where a great engineer (2 TEC awards) works... We will be communicating via email and 24/96 loops. Hopefully his magnetic personality will result in some good advice from a masterful engineer. We are not yet releasing #1(or #203) hits, but are getting some stuff done in our own small way. I've been in the chamber where Mackie runs the frequency response graphs that they provide with each speaker and the SPL is nowhere near 90 dB with the speakers under test. Cool. That sounds like an interesting experience. I guess the article I read was bunk. I need to start finding out more about the sources of the information I read. For the size of the room I am in, I want to get it down to around 75-85. Again, I only test my mixes at this volume. I typically mix at 45-55, get balances at below conversation level. According to Bob Katz (see http://www.digido.com on the page about the K-system of metering) 85 dB is about the right SPL for monitoring pop music, 75 dB for classical music (if I'm remembering the figures correctly) and he professes calibrating the monitor level pot and always monitoring at the same level. Frankly I find 85 dB to be pretty darn loud and I prefer to mix between 75 and 78 dB, but then I work with music that has real dynamic range. Bob Katz's book is on its way from Amazon... funny that you mention him. I am about 16 hours into exploring his site. In a few months, I might have it fully digested. In 10 years I may have figured out how to put all of it into practice and have an ear which is 1/10th of one percent as good as the dirt under Mr. Katz's left thumbnail. Operative term being maybe. I am sure as hell going to try to get there. Like I mentioned though... I am not trying to do mastering at my house (or anywhere). The room is only 8x9! Bob Katz recommends a 20x30 mastering room in the documentation I have so far read by him. I am sure you can get great results in a smaller room, but I don't have the necessary experience or mastering engineer "ear". I am trying to set up a room for mixing and production. I am afraid I will leave mastering to the professionals who do this for a living. From what I understand, mastering your own mixes is a little like being your own attorney. You can do it, and it is legal, but you don't really want to. You miss important things. My goal is to be able to provide the best pre-master I can provide from my house. I don't have $45+ an hour to spend on a studio for months at a time. I feel the best way to do this is to mix in the best environment I can build with decent monitors and find out everything I can about mastering so that I give the mastering house a pre-master, which is as ideal as possible for them to work with, frequencies adequately represented, not compressed on the mains, and not "trying to be radio ready". At 45-55 dB, your ears are pretty shy on both low and high frequency response. See a set of Fletcher-Munson loudness curves to get a hint as to how much. You can balance OK at that level, but you don't know what the bottom and top end really sounds like, other than at that level. Thx... I will, I have heard Fletcher-Munson loudness curve term bandied about a lot in my reading but have never researched what it is in detail. I get balances at low volume, do most of my mixing at low-med to medium volume, and frequently jack the volume to see what it all sounds like at all different volumes. I check my mixes in mono, in mono on a single speaker to gauge my phase issues, check them in a boom box, my home theatre system, and in my car, down the hall from the room at different volumes... etc.. I am still developing my ear. Part of this is learning how mixes translate, and at all different volumes and speaker to ear distances. I believe that you should utilize your listening references by using all the ones you have at your disposal, at all of the volumes they are capable of. Be sure that you have a monitor level control somewhere in your system. I wasn't aware that people operated without them: ) One of the most FAQs from a DAW newcomer is "how do I turn down the monitors when the phone rings?" Typically they'll connect the monitors directly to the main output of a sound card and the only volume control is the output level of the DAW's mixer in software. I didn't take any of it seriously until about 4 years ago, but knew about using a volume pot (aka fader) on a mixer to control speaker volume long before this, in fact at about age 12, I had a radioshack mixer with a volume control on it. I often used it to lower the volume so my mom would not continue to yell at me down the basement steps. I am a mix engineering newcomer, but have been using DAWs in one form or another since the mid-90's, midi sequencing since 1992 (Cubase, Mac II Classic) Just not producing anything worth mentioning. I was always more interested in the sequencing/composing/recording aspect than the mix engineering aspect. At that, it was all self absorbed. Before you can mix it, you need to produce it. Now I am getting into projects that have some potential and producing some good stuff, so I want to get it ready for mastering. I am a DIY kind of guy. Recording, mixing, and mastering engineering are really different skillsets. I understand recording engineering, am getting a handle on mix engineering, and will probably always get my stuff mastered by other people. -- I'm really Mike Rivers - ) |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
Well... got the auralex stuff and installed it last night. I will post a pic
when I get home... The room sounds fantastic! I bought the equivalent of a roominator pro plus, in pieces... for $250 less than the roominator kit costs as a kit. Still trying to figure that one out. Priced it both ways and the piece by piece was cheaper. Then again, I think the guy cut me a deal. Anyway, it turns out that I only needed 1/2 of a roominator and I have a great deal of coverage... Auralex is definitely stretching the truth to sell products. Since I bought it in pieces... I get to take the extra stuff back, which I will put down on a pair of HR824s. I could have covered every square inch and had 1/4 of the kit left. As it is I went for 60% coverage and I still have over half the kit. I plan to piece in some spots to get the coverage up to about 80%. I RTA'd the room, and had one mode and one resonance, funny right next to each other on the frequency scale. I am going to address this today and experiment with speaker placement. I will keep the forum up to date... Auralex rocks! Tip: When installing T-Fusors, if you have 16" studs measured properly, put the T-Fusors 45 degrees out of alignment with the studs so that caddy corner is on one stud. The other two corners end up perfectly on the studs to either side.... I only had one miss! thx, Neil "Neil Davis" wrote in message ink.net... Hello, Anyone out there have any suggestions on what sized monitors I should use in a small control room (9.3' x 8'), and how I should treat it? I need extended bass response as I am mixing house music. The lower octaves are very important. They need to not only be represented, but detailed. I am positive the room will impose several issues on my listening experience, it is quite small for a listening environment, but is the best I can do. Here are the relevant facts: Walls: Will be acoustically treated with auralex surface tiles as appropriate to control reflections. Bass traps will be added as needed to help counter modes and phase cancellation... though I am not sure if traps will help with both, neither or one. Ceiling will have 2 4x8x3/4" plywood panels hung by wire at 10 degree angles peaking either at the middle or ends of the ceiling depending on the forum's advice, with cloth covered fiberglass insulation on both sides as a diffusion surface. Walls and ceiling have ample insulation inside and are fairly damped. They are full, but not packed tightly. Floor is concrete treated with carpet and padding. Keep in mind, this is only a mixing room. I am not trying to keep sound in or out of the room, or record there, only shape the listening environment as much as possible to reduce modes, reflections and phase cancellation and allow me to mix effectively. It is at the extreme end of the house and not directly connected to it. For vocal and instrument recording I rent a pro studio. I do production and post production mixes at my house. One side of room will have a full bookshelf, the other a washer and dryer (excessively damped to kill the reverb inherent in any sheet metal structure). During sessions, these will also be wrapped in moving blankets and stuffed with old blankets. I plan to treat the room with some auralex stuff, but would like to know if there is something that works better, especially if it is cheaper: ) Here are my questions: 1. I plan to get mackie or JBL monitors. Any recommendations on low-midrange monitors for a room this size? I currenly have Alesis M1 MkII actives. I will be keeping them as another reference, but know they are toys: ) I am open to suggestions on any brand monitor, specifically as it relates to room size. I don't want them to be too hot (HR824's, at volume, are most likely too hot), but at the same time, I need to feel them when doing loud mix tests. I typically get balances at a very low volume, then mix at a low to medium when getting the sound of the mix right. 2. Should the ceiling be diffracted with plywood as I described above? If so, peak in the middle or on the ends? Any advice would be helpful. I am getting good enough at mixing that my discs sound good no matter where they are played, but want to be able take it to the next level. thx, Neil |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
Neil,
Sorry I arrived late. Thanks to Mike Rivers for pointing you to my company's site. Too bad you ignored his good advice and bought foam anyway. Bass traps will be added as needed Yes, you need real bass traps, not foam corners. The good news is you can always add bass traps later. Ceiling will have 2 4x8x3/4" plywood panels ... Floor is concrete treated with carpet and padding. For best results in a small room you want a reflective floor and absorption on the ceiling - the opposite of what you proposed. --Ethan ================ www.realtraps.com The acoustic treatment experts. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
"Ethan Winer" ethan at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
... For best results in a small room you want a reflective floor and absorption on the ceiling - the opposite of what you proposed. How does that make a difference? (one way versus the other) Is this for tracking, mixing or both? I'm trying to think why it would matter unless it's because most instruments are closer to the floor so the reflection might help but the speakers will usually be too (or no higher than midway) unless they're soffit mounted. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
No tracking, just mixing/post
"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote in message news:H%yob.70986$HS4.626991@attbi_s01... "Ethan Winer" ethan at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ... For best results in a small room you want a reflective floor and absorption on the ceiling - the opposite of what you proposed. How does that make a difference? (one way versus the other) Is this for tracking, mixing or both? I'm trying to think why it would matter unless it's because most instruments are closer to the floor so the reflection might help but the speakers will usually be too (or no higher than midway) unless they're soffit mounted. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
Because you can put more than half an inch of absorption on a ceiling,
unlike a floor. A whole room surface of super thin absorption just knocks the very top off the room, and exposes the nasty bouncing around you've got in the mids. A foot or so of 703 or equivalent, or the same a few inches off the front of some panel traps, and you've got a ceiling that absorbs pretty uniformly. You're never going to get a floor to do that. Well, I suppose you could suspend some sort of grid to walk on a foot over the floor, and fill below that, but I just don't see that happening. You'd have a hell of a time rolling your chair over to the effects rack. -- Jon Best Muddy Creek Audio best results in a small room you want a reflective floor and absorption on the ceiling - the opposite of what you proposed. How does that make a difference? (one way versus the other) Is this for tracking, mixing or both? |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
For best results in a small room you want a reflective floor and absorption on the ceiling - the opposite of what you proposed. Ethan, I'm currently deciding what type of floor to put in my project studio. It will be a hard floor of some type. The more I read the more I am leaning to a wood floor and will probably do just that. Also, I now believe that I should put in broad band absorbtion on the walls, given the size of my room which is about 13' x 21'. Now I am thinking about the ceiling. Mine is almost 8 feet. What type of absorbtion do you recommend? Further, how much of it does one use and where should I put it? Thanks. Martin |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
Ricky,
How does that make a difference? Jon nailed it. I'll also add this, with regards to tracking: When you mike a drum set or other instruments from overhead in a room with a low ceiling, sound arrives at the mike directly and also after being reflected off the ceiling. This creats a comb filter that sounds like a phaser or flanger effect. In fact, it IS a phaser effect. So making the ceiling absorbent avoids that. A ceiling that is totally absorbent is acoustically identical to a ceiling that is infinitely high. That is, either the reflections from above are avoided by absorption, or by the ceiling being so far away. --Ethan |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
"Ethan Winer" ethan at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ... A ceiling that is totally absorbent is acoustically identical to a ceiling that is infinitely high. That is, either the reflections from above are avoided by absorption, or by the ceiling being so far away. uhhh, not really... but good enough for this conversation... -- Fletcher Mercenary Audio TEL: 508-543-0069 FAX: 508-543-9670 http://www.mercenary.com "this is not a problem" |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
Martin,
I now believe that I should put in broad band absorbtion on the walls, given the size of my room which is about 13' x 21'. Yes, broadband absorption that works down to the lowest frequencies is exactly what you need. Small rooms need proportionally more bass trapping than larger rooms. Your room is not as small as some, but it's still small enough to need a fair amount of LF absorption. The purpose is not only to tighten up the sound so it's not muddy, but also to flatten the low frequency response. What type of absorbtion do you recommend? Further, how much of it does one use and where should I put it? All absorbing materials absorb 100% at high frequencies. What you gain by using thicker material, or "better" material, is absorbing to lower frequencies. So the correct answer is "As much as you can afford." If you make the entire floor reflective, you should make at least half of the ceiling absorbent for a studio room, and as much as 100% in a control room. Some people like a checkerboard pattern of 2x2 foot squares, but I've also seen studio rooms with the entire center area totally absorbent and a two to three foot wide band of bare ceiling around the perimeter. Either approach will do a fine job. Again, the real issue, in a control room anyway, is you need broadband bass trapping in all the corners. Without this your room will have a seriously skewed LF response. As to what I recommend, I admit my bias because I sell acoustic treatment. Have a look at my company's web site www.realtraps.com. Also see my Acoustics FAQ, second in the list on my Articles page: www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html. --Ethan |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
Fletcher wrote:
"Ethan Winer" ethan at ethanwiner dot com wrote A ceiling that is totally absorbent is acoustically identical to a ceiling that is infinitely high. That is, either the reflections from above are avoided by absorption, or by the ceiling being so far away. uhhh, not really... but good enough for this conversation... Well, a panel's absorbtion is measured against an equally-sized hole, so he's pretty much right. But diffusion may be a better candidate to combat reflection effects, and it can be easier to do. It's certainly something to consider. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
monitors vs. room size and reflection control
Ethan,
I have been reading your material at http://www.recording.org/users/acoustics/ This is just really great stuff. Given the amount of money I'm plowing into this project I'll be making the panels. Your articles have just set me off on the right track. I can do this. Thanks. Martin "Ethan Winer" ethan at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ... Martin, I now believe that I should put in broad band absorbtion on the walls, given the size of my room which is about 13' x 21'. Yes, broadband absorption that works down to the lowest frequencies is exactly what you need. Small rooms need proportionally more bass trapping than larger rooms. Your room is not as small as some, but it's still small enough to need a fair amount of LF absorption. The purpose is not only to tighten up the sound so it's not muddy, but also to flatten the low frequency response. What type of absorbtion do you recommend? Further, how much of it does one use and where should I put it? All absorbing materials absorb 100% at high frequencies. What you gain by using thicker material, or "better" material, is absorbing to lower frequencies. So the correct answer is "As much as you can afford." If you make the entire floor reflective, you should make at least half of the ceiling absorbent for a studio room, and as much as 100% in a control room. Some people like a checkerboard pattern of 2x2 foot squares, but I've also seen studio rooms with the entire center area totally absorbent and a two to three foot wide band of bare ceiling around the perimeter. Either approach will do a fine job. Again, the real issue, in a control room anyway, is you need broadband bass trapping in all the corners. Without this your room will have a seriously skewed LF response. As to what I recommend, I admit my bias because I sell acoustic treatment. Have a look at my company's web site www.realtraps.com. Also see my Acoustics FAQ, second in the list on my Articles page: www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html. --Ethan |
Linear Mode
