Sound Board Suggestions

[adam79]

My ideal setup for my home studio would be to have a board that connects
through an interface into the computer. I don't have the money for a big
name, super expensive brand. There are just so many out there that I
thought I could get some names of quality companies or specific models.
I'd prefer an analog board. 24 tracks would be great, but I guess I'd
rather buy a better sounding 16 track for the same price it would cost
me to get a 24 track of lower quality.. Basically what I'm trying to say
is that I'm on a budget and I'd rather go for sound quality rather than
track quantity.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:
> My ideal setup for my home studio would be to have a board that connects
> through an interface into the computer. I don't have the money for a big
> name, super expensive brand. There are just so many out there that I
> thought I could get some names of quality companies or specific models.
> I'd prefer an analog board. 24 tracks would be great, but I guess I'd
> rather buy a better sounding 16 track for the same price it would cost
> me to get a 24 track of lower quality.. Basically what I'm trying to say
> is that I'm on a budget and I'd rather go for sound quality rather than
> track quantity.

Yeah, yeah, everybody is on a budget and wants a 24-track
studio. Good luck.

First, recorders have tracks. Consoles have inputs or
channels. Second, the computer has made this whole concept
fall apart for most people. You have a limitless number of
tracks, but the number of tracks you can record
simultaneously is a function of the number of channels that
your audio interface has, and may also be limited by the
program you're using (some "light" versions are limited to
recording 8 tracks in a pass) or by the amount of computer
horsepower you have available.

These days, most people who are on a tight budget (and even
many who aren't) mix in the computer,so if you've recorded
24 tracks, a few at a time, you don't need a 24 channel
mixer to mix them. But a mixer is a very handy thing to have
in the stuido because it gives you a lot of flexibility in
routing and monitoring. Also, today, some mixers incorporate
functions of the audio interface to the computer - in other
words, the mixer connects directly to the computer rather
than going through another box.

It would be a good idea for you to study up on how the
pieces fit together and then you'll be able to figure out
what you need. You might get something out of a few chapters
of The Mackie Compact Mixer Reference Guide, which you can
download from
http://www.mackie.com/support/compactmixer/index.html

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Arny Krueger]

"adam79" > wrote in message


> My ideal setup for my home studio would be to have a
> board that connects through an interface into the
> computer.

Ever even do any recording with a computer?

> I don't have the money for a big name, super
> expensive brand. There are just so many out there that I
> thought I could get some names of quality companies or
> specific models. I'd prefer an analog board. 24 tracks
> would be great, but I guess I'd rather buy a better
> sounding 16 track for the same price it would cost me to
> get a 24 track of lower quality..

Unless you actually have the resources to record 24 different musicians at
one time in your home studio, you're talking about a buying ton more mixing
board than you will actually ever need.

> Basically what I'm trying to say is that I'm on a budget and I'd rather go
> for sound quality rather than track quantity.

The acoustics of the room you actually do the recording in is the strongest
influence on sound quality. Then the mics. Then the board.

Actually, with all due respect, the weakest link is likely to be you.

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Aug 25, 3:47 am, adam79 > wrote:
> There are just so many out there that I thought I could get some names of quality companies or specific models.

Most brands are excellent these days. So buy based on features and
price.

> 24 tracks would be great

Mike Rivers already explained the difference between tracks and
channels. What you need is a sound card that has enough inputs to
accommodate the number of separate microphone (and DI) sources you
want to be able to record *at the same time*. And unless you're doing
5.1 surround mixing, you only need two outputs. This may help further:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/mixer2daw.html

--Ethan

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Unless you actually have the resources to record 24 different musicians at
> one time in your home studio, you're talking about a buying ton more mixing
> board than you will actually ever need.

Well, he might have a 5 piece band with four stereo
keyboards, some stereo guitar processors, and a bunch of
mics on the drums. Or he might want to mix hands-on with a
console without screwing with a MIDI control surface. If 16
channels is enough, he could go with a Mackie 1640i or if he
wants 24, a PreSonus StudioLive 24. Those function both as a
mixing console and multichannel computer audio I/O device.
But not a MIDI control surface. That costs a lot more.

> Actually, with all due respect, the weakest link is likely to be you.

Shhhh ....

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[cedricl[_2_]]

On Aug 25, 12:47*am, adam79 > wrote:
> My ideal setup for my home studio would be to have a board that connects
> through an interface into the computer. I don't have the money for a big
> name, super expensive brand. There are just so many out there that I
> thought I could get some names of quality companies or specific models.
> I'd prefer an analog board. 24 tracks would be great, but I guess I'd
> rather buy a better sounding 16 track for the same price it would cost
> me to get a 24 track of lower quality.. Basically what I'm trying to say
> is that I'm on a budget and I'd rather go for sound quality rather than
> track quantity.
>
> Thanks,
> -Adam

Look at the latest Mackie boards with the firewire interface. That
might work for you. If you want a board that also doubles as a control
surface interface, the easiest are the Yamaha digital boards. The
cheapest being the 01V96 and the DM1000. I'm sure there might be a
cheaper Bheringer out there that would do the job too but, I don't
trust them for anything that has moving parts.

[adam79]

On 8/25/10 8:12 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
>
>> My ideal setup for my home studio would be to have a
>> board that connects through an interface into the
>> computer.
>
> Ever even do any recording with a computer?

Haha. Yes. I'm currently running Pro Tools LE 7.3 with a MBox2 on my
MacBook Pro. This allows me to record four inputs at a time.. I use the
two analog inputs as well as the two SPDIF inputs (the SPDIF is
connected to a KORG D16 multitrack). The D16 has 8 mono channels and 4
stereo channels. If I'm recording more than 4 tracks simultaneously,
I'll transfer the remaining tracks from the D16 into Pro Tools after the
initial tracking process.

I like Pro Tools, and have successfully made some quality mixes with it,
but the interface compatibility is a huge annoyance. As I've written in
previous posts, I'm in the process of starting up a home studio. In
order to compete with the local studios, I want to upgrade my
equipment/interface so I can record everything into Pro Tools and bypass
the D16.

I want to buy a nice console/mixer with quality pre-amps; I'm looking at
this long-term. I'm in the beginning stages of looking into what
hardware/software to buy. From what I've read/heard, the 003 Rack+
doesn't have the best pre-amps. Again, this is where Pro Tools LE's
interface compatibility starts to cause problems. My MacBook Pro is a
good computer, 2.44 GHz Intel Duo 2 Core Processor, 4GB of RAM, etc.; it
can handle recording a good amount of tracks simultaneously.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to see what it maxes out at because I
don't have access to the equipment I would need to test it out.

I'm recording a friend's band this weekend so I can start have material
for potential clients to listen to and hear what I have to offer (in
terms of the recording quality). If things work out, I'll mostly be
recording local punk/hardcore bands. This means drums, guitar, bass and
vocals. To record everything live, I'll need atleast 8 tracks, but 16
would work out better. I got to this number by figuring that I'll use 4
tracks for drums (2 overheads, snare and kick), 2 for guitar (SM-57
close mic'd and one at a distance ), 1
for bass, and 1 for vocals. If there is more than one guitar player I
will need more than 8 tracks. I want to leave myself open for the
possibility of bands with keyboards, horns, etc.

I would appreciate any suggestions on where to start with this..
[i]
>
> The acoustics of the room you actually do the recording in is the strongest
> influence on sound quality. Then the mics. Then the board.

If I draw out a floor plan of the room I have my equipment set up in,
will you guys give me some feedback on where I have place the equipment,
as well as what type of sound board/foam I should look into buying? I'll
make the diagram in an hour or so.

Thanks for everything; you all have helped me greatly,
-Adam

[adam79]

On 8/25/10 10:05 PM, adam79 wrote:
>
> If I draw out a floor plan of the room I have my equipment set up in,
> will you guys give me some feedback on where I have place the equipment,
> as well as what type of sound board/foam I should look into buying? I'll
> make the diagram in an hour or so.
>


Here's the link to the floor plan:
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj209/adam_l79/recording/floorPlan.jpg If
you look at it, there is a alcove in the room (at the top right) that
fits the drums perfectly. I was thinking that this would be a perfect
place to put them in the room. If you disagree, please let me know where
you think they would fit best. As well as the placement of amps, etc. I
have other rooms that I could put amps, etc. for isolation.

Look forward to your input.
Thanks,
-Adam

[Sean Conolly]

"adam79" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/25/10 10:05 PM, adam79 wrote:
>>
>> If I draw out a floor plan of the room I have my equipment set up in,
>> will you guys give me some feedback on where I have place the equipment,
>> as well as what type of sound board/foam I should look into buying? I'll
>> make the diagram in an hour or so.
>>
>
>
> Here's the link to the floor plan:
> http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj209/adam_l79/recording/floorPlan.jpg
> If you look at it, there is a alcove in the room (at the top right) that
> fits the drums perfectly. I was thinking that this would be a perfect
> place to put them in the room. If you disagree, please let me know where
> you think they would fit best. As well as the placement of amps, etc. I
> have other rooms that I could put amps, etc. for isolation.

Loud sources in small spaces usually don't record well. Looking at the floor
plan, I'd probably try to deaden that alcove entirely, maybe using carpet or
heavy quilts on the walls and ceiling. I think it'd be better to work with
no sound reflection than anything bouncing off walls that close - but that's
just my opinion.

Check out Ethan's site for lots of good info on sound treatment, from a pro.

Sean

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Aug 26, 1:17 am, adam79 > wrote:
> Here's the link to the floor plan:

Where do you have the mix position and speakers? Nothing in that room
is symmetrical, which is critical for mixing. The best place I see is
the 7' 9-/3/4" alcove at the top. If you put the speakers there,
facing down, you'll have half a shot at symmetry. Even better is to
finish the half-wall at the lower right, then put the speakers against
the 6' 11" wall facing left. Much more here:

How to set up a room:
http://www.realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm

Acoustics Basics treatment advice:
http://www.realtraps.com/art_basics.htm

Much more detailed Acoustics FAQ:
http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

Tons more here:
http://www.realtraps.com/articles.htm
http://www.realtraps.com/videos.htm

--Ethan

[adam79]

On 8/26/10 9:06 AM, Sean Conolly wrote:
>
> Loud sources in small spaces usually don't record well. Looking at the floor
> plan, I'd probably try to deaden that alcove entirely, maybe using carpet or
> heavy quilts on the walls and ceiling. I think it'd be better to work with
> no sound reflection than anything bouncing off walls that close - but that's
> just my opinion.
>

Yeah, the low ceiling height is lame. I live in a basement apartment;
the one positive is that the ceiling is made up those gridded
tiles/panels, here's a picture:
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj209/adam_l79/recording/ceiling_tiles.jpg.
Do these tiles work as sound absorbers, or have I been given wrong
information? Also, would removing the tiles give me more headroom (or
would the grid that holds them up get in the way)? Also, the walls are
made of drywall and the floor has a carpet.

Thanks,
-Adamm

[adam79]

On 8/25/10 10:05 PM, adam79 wrote:

> 2 for guitar (SM-57 close mic'd and one at a distance [I want to buy a
> ribbon mic, I've heard good things about the Cascade Fathead II and it only:
> costs $219. $349 with a Lundahl transformer in replace of the stock one.])

I've been looking into ribbon mics, and the Beyer M160 seems like a way
better choice than the Fathead II (although it's over double the price).
There's a used one for sale from the 70s. The seller says that it is in
perfect working condition, but I have no way of trying it out. I'd be
saving a couple hundred dollars, but there's always that chance that
there could be something wrong with it.. Is the mic design the same now
as it was back in the day (i.e. are the new ones made with inferior
components)?

What's the difference in mic characteristics between the Beyer M160 and
the Royer R-121?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>Yeah, the low ceiling height is lame. I live in a basement apartment;
>the one positive is that the ceiling is made up those gridded
>tiles/panels, here's a picture:
>http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj209/adam_l79/recording/ceiling_tiles.jpg.

Drop ceilings are about the worst possible situation acoustically.

>Do these tiles work as sound absorbers, or have I been given wrong
>information?

The tiles absorb high frequencies but do nothing at lower frequencies
except to create this huge resonant chamber up there.

Also, would removing the tiles give me more headroom (or
>would the grid that holds them up get in the way)? Also, the walls are
>made of drywall and the floor has a carpet.

Drywall is good, carpet is good. Random shapes are almost always better
than flat surfaces.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>On 8/25/10 10:05 PM, adam79 wrote:
>
>> 2 for guitar (SM-57 close mic'd and one at a distance [I want to buy a
>> ribbon mic, I've heard good things about the Cascade Fathead II and it only:
>> costs $219. $349 with a Lundahl transformer in replace of the stock one.])
>
>I've been looking into ribbon mics, and the Beyer M160 seems like a way
>better choice than the Fathead II (although it's over double the price).

They are both ribbons but they sound totally different. There is no
connection between them other than that they both use the same basic
technology inside (much the way that a gas oven and a gasoline engine both
use fire).

>There's a used one for sale from the 70s. The seller says that it is in
>perfect working condition, but I have no way of trying it out. I'd be
>saving a couple hundred dollars, but there's always that chance that
>there could be something wrong with it.. Is the mic design the same now
>as it was back in the day (i.e. are the new ones made with inferior
>components)?

The new ones are the same, yes.

>What's the difference in mic characteristics between the Beyer M160 and
>the Royer R-121?

They are utterly and completely different in the midrange.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[adam79]

On 8/26/10 1:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> What's the difference in mic characteristics between the Beyer M160 and
>> the Royer R-121?
>
> They are utterly and completely different in the midrange.

Like I was saying earlier in the thread, I've seen alot of people use
the R-121 and SM57 on guitar cabs (the SM57 right on the cone, and the
R-121 about 4 to 6" away). When using the M160 on guitar cabs, is it
commonly used the same way, or does it like to be close mic'd? From
looking at the frequency response curve of both mics, am I correct in
saying that the M160 would be a better choice for a crunchy, heavy
guitar sound?

I was also reading that it's a good overhead mic, especially for
cymbals. If I end up buying the M160, would it sound better if I just
used one M160 in the middle of the kit, or match it with one of my MCA
SP1s (the M160 on the high hat side and the MCA SP1 on the other). I
know that the best way to figure out what sounds best is to physically
try it, but I figured it couldn't hurt to ask for some opinions.

The Cascade Fathead II has been recommended by a few different people. I
could buy a pair of Fathead IIs (one w/ stock transformer and one with
the Lundahl) for the price of one M160. Does anyone have any experience
with the Fathead II (stock and Lundahl versions)?

I found a used M160 from the 70s that is a couple hundred dollars
cheaper than a new one. The mic is described as being in perfect working
order, but I have no way of trying it out before I buy it. I'm not sure
if I have enough money to buy a new one, but if I did, I would spend the
extra $200 just to get the year warranty (and for the piece of mind that
I'm buying it new, rather than just taking someone's word). I'd also
have an extra $200 in my pocket to put towards another mic or piece of
equipment. Do you think it's worth the risk?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> What's the difference in mic characteristics between the Beyer M160 and
> the Royer R-121?

Same as the difference between blue and green. And the
Cascade Fathead is like yellow. The nice thing about buying
a Royer or Cascade mic is that if you don't like it, you can
return it (as long as you don't buy it from Guitar Center,
that doesn't take returns on microphones). Or you can buy
both and pick the one that you like best. The M160 is a nice
mic. I have two of them. But I have about 20 others and
often the M160 stays on the shelf.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>On 8/26/10 1:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> What's the difference in mic characteristics between the Beyer M160 and
>>> the Royer R-121?
>>
>> They are utterly and completely different in the midrange.
>
>Like I was saying earlier in the thread, I've seen alot of people use
>the R-121 and SM57 on guitar cabs (the SM57 right on the cone, and the
>R-121 about 4 to 6" away). When using the M160 on guitar cabs, is it
>commonly used the same way, or does it like to be close mic'd? From
>looking at the frequency response curve of both mics, am I correct in
>saying that the M160 would be a better choice for a crunchy, heavy
>guitar sound?

If you like that technique, you can use anything for it.... pick a random
condenser or dynamic mike with good off-axis response and set it up a few
feet away. The mike will make some difference in the sound, but the position
and the amp will make more difference than the mike.

>I was also reading that it's a good overhead mic, especially for
>cymbals. If I end up buying the M160, would it sound better if I just
>used one M160 in the middle of the kit, or match it with one of my MCA
>SP1s (the M160 on the high hat side and the MCA SP1 on the other). I
>know that the best way to figure out what sounds best is to physically
>try it, but I figured it couldn't hurt to ask for some opinions.

Depends a lot on the room.. the M160 is pretty directional which may
allow you to get away with it in a worse sounding room than something
like the SP1. And it's very clean off-axis, which the SP1 may not be.

>The Cascade Fathead II has been recommended by a few different people. I
>could buy a pair of Fathead IIs (one w/ stock transformer and one with
>the Lundahl) for the price of one M160. Does anyone have any experience
>with the Fathead II (stock and Lundahl versions)?

I have, and it's a mike with a very heavy ribbon so the top end detail is
not like that of the Royer or the M160. Also, no two of them sound quite
the same. But it's still useful.

>I found a used M160 from the 70s that is a couple hundred dollars
>cheaper than a new one. The mic is described as being in perfect working
>order, but I have no way of trying it out before I buy it. I'm not sure
>if I have enough money to buy a new one, but if I did, I would spend the
>extra $200 just to get the year warranty (and for the piece of mind that
>I'm buying it new, rather than just taking someone's word). I'd also
>have an extra $200 in my pocket to put towards another mic or piece of
>equipment. Do you think it's worth the risk?

Well, I never buy anything new if I can avoid it, so I would think so,
but it's your call.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[adam79]

On 8/26/10 4:47 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:

> The M160 is a nice
> mic. I have two of them. But I have about 20 others and often the M160
> stays on the shelf.
>

I read somewhere that the M160 was used on most of the guitar tracks for
the Hendrix and Zeppelin records. There's also an Eddie Kramer quote
with him saying that the M160 is the best guitar mic. Taking a step
back, I think these statements are the main reason I want the mic..
having never even heard/used the thing!

Maybe I should take a further step back, and buy a mic that I'll
constantly be using, like a RE-20.

However, this topic has kind of gone off of a tangent if you read my
original post..

Thanks,
-Adam

[adam79]

On 8/26/10 12:35 PM, Ethan Winer wrote:
> On Aug 26, 1:17 am, > wrote:
>> Here's the link to the floor plan:
>
> Where do you have the mix position and speakers? Nothing in that room
> is symmetrical, which is critical for mixing. The best place I see is
> the 7' 9-/3/4" alcove at the top. If you put the speakers there,
> facing down, you'll have half a shot at symmetry. Even better is to
> finish the half-wall at the lower right, then put the speakers against
> the 6' 11" wall facing left. Much more here:
>

That is the room where I have my equipment set up for tracking. My
bedroom is a perfect square, so once I record, I bring my laptop back
into my bedroom and start working on the mix.

When I put the floor plan up, I was looking for advise on where to setup
the drum kit, amps, etc. One of my friends recently went into the Army
and left me with his Pearl Export Series Kit. I finally got the hardware
he was missing, and now have the complete kit (I've been using a rubber
pad V-Drum kit when working on the material I have written). Now that I
have the kit ready, and got a band booked to come in and record, I'm
trying to figure out where to set everything up (for tracking). Everyone
in this band is a friend of mine. They know that I've just begun the
process of getting everything ready for this home studio business
attempt, so they will be patient.

In my eyes, the most important thing is where I put the Pearl drum kit.
Do you agree with me that I should put it in the alcove that you were
talking about putting the speakers in? Or do you think I should set up
my desk in that spot and put the drums somewhere else?

Please Help!

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> I read somewhere that the M160 was used on most of the guitar tracks for
> the Hendrix and Zeppelin records. There's also an Eddie Kramer quote
> with him saying that the M160 is the best guitar mic. Taking a step
> back, I think these statements are the main reason I want the mic..
> having never even heard/used the thing!

Yup, you're definitely a people like you. There's nothing
bad about taking advice from people like Eddie Kramer, but
remember, he had more money than you and if he didn't like
the mic he was using at the moment, he had five or six more
to try.

> Maybe I should take a further step back, and buy a mic that I'll
> constantly be using, like a RE-20.

I suppose if I could have only one mic, and it couldn't be a
condenser mic because I didn't want to waste the batteries I
had with me on the desert island on phantom powering, I
suppose I would be happy with an RE20. But an SM57 is more
likely to work after being dropped into the water.




--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[adam79]

On 8/26/10 8:28 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> adam79 wrote:
>
>> I read somewhere that the M160 was used on most of the guitar tracks
>> for the Hendrix and Zeppelin records. There's also an Eddie Kramer
>> quote with him saying that the M160 is the best guitar mic. Taking a
>> step back, I think these statements are the main reason I want the
>> mic.. having never even heard/used the thing!
>
> Yup, you're definitely a people like you. There's nothing bad about
> taking advice from people like Eddie Kramer, but remember, he had more
> money than you and if he didn't like the mic he was using at the moment,
> he had five or six more to try.
>

Atleast I'm starting to recognize when I'm in this mode.

>> Maybe I should take a further step back, and buy a mic that I'll
>> constantly be using, like a RE-20.
>
> I suppose if I could have only one mic, and it couldn't be a condenser
> mic because I didn't want to waste the batteries I had with me on the
> desert island on phantom powering, I suppose I would be happy with an
> RE20. But an SM57 is more likely to work after being dropped into the
> water.
>

What I ment by that comment is that I already have a SM57, the two MCA
SP1s, and a SM87 beta. The next logical choice for my mic locker would
be something that has good bass response (i.e. works with kick drums and
bass amps) and is also versatile.

-Adam

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Aug 26, 7:14*pm, adam79 > wrote:
> On 8/26/10 12:35 PM, Ethan Winer wrote:
>
> > On Aug 26, 1:17 am, > *wrote:
> >> Here's the link to the floor plan:
>
> > Where do you have the mix position and speakers? Nothing in that room
> > is symmetrical, which is critical for mixing. The best place I see is
> > the 7' 9-/3/4" alcove at the top. If you put the speakers there,
> > facing down, you'll have half a shot at symmetry. Even better is to
> > finish the half-wall at the lower right, then put the speakers against
> > the 6' 11" wall facing left. Much more here:
>
> That is the room where I have my equipment set up for tracking. My
> bedroom is a perfect square, so once I record, I bring my laptop back
> into my bedroom and start working on the mix.
>

A cube is a perfect way to create standing waves, dead spots and comb
filtering...it is the worse place in the world to mix....even with the
best of monitors, it is a train wreck.

Bass traps and ancillary room treatment will be needed...placement of
you monitor will depend on your treatment...
Ideally, you would have a rectangle with a 3:1 ratio (or golden
section or short wall plus 38% for the long wall). You could then
place some treatment at the back and place your desk along the long
wall.

Square and Cube = Bad

-CS

[adam79]

On 8/27/10 9:25 AM, Cyberserf wrote:
>
> A cube is a perfect way to create standing waves, dead spots and comb
> filtering...it is the worse place in the world to mix....even with the
> best of monitors, it is a train wreck.
>
> Bass traps and ancillary room treatment will be needed...placement of
> you monitor will depend on your treatment...
> Ideally, you would have a rectangle with a 3:1 ratio (or golden
> section or short wall plus 38% for the long wall). You could then
> place some treatment at the back and place your desk along the long
> wall.
>
> Square and Cube = Bad
>

DOH! So I assume the best place to put the drums be on the way right of
the room, so they're facing the other side of the room? The room in the
floor plan is common area that's connected to the kitchen (that's what's
on the other side of the wall at the bottom of the plan). This means
that there's open room on the right and left side of the kit. The one
obstacle would be the wall that separates the room and the kitchen.
Maybe I could rent a few of baffle to put around the kit. I'm in an
apartment so I can't start ripping the place apart. There must be
someway for me to make this work.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> DOH! So I assume the best place to put the drums be on the way right of
> the room, so they're facing the other side of the room?

Sometimes drums can work out OK if you set up in a corner
with the drummer facing toward the center of the room. I
didn't look at your floor plan, but if you have a corner,
you might give it a try.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[adam79]

On 8/27/10 8:18 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> adam79 wrote:
>
> Sometimes drums can work out OK if you set up in a corner with the
> drummer facing toward the center of the room. I didn't look at your
> floor plan, but if you have a corner, you might give it a try.
>

Setup so the drums back is to the corner, right? Is the distance from
the corner more of a trial and error process.. I guess I'm asking for an
initial spot since placement is so important.

As far as covering the ceiling tiles, is that the first priority when
setting the room up for acoustics (everyone has terrible things to say
about them). Can I get away with just covering the tiles that are
directly over the kit, or should I cover it a bit past the kit; I don't
have the cash to do the whole ceiling.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> Setup so the drums back is to the corner, right? Is the distance from
> the corner more of a trial and error process..

Everything about source and microphone placement is
trial-and-listen. There's no real error, just better or
worse than some other setup. You could agonize over it by
measuring the distance of each drum from its closest wall
and figure out what frequency will be canceled (even
multiples of a quarter-wavelength) and what frequency will
be reinforced (odd multiples of a quarter wavelength) by the
reflection and make some decisions based on that. But it's
easier to just set up and try it.

One of the reasons for setting up drums in a corner is that
it makes it easier for the drummer to hear himself. A
drummer who complains about not being able to hear himself
is a drag because they're so damn loud you don't know how to
best help him.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[adam79]

On 8/28/10 6:41 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> One of the reasons for setting up drums in a corner is that it makes it
> easier for the drummer to hear himself. A drummer who complains about
> not being able to hear himself is a drag because they're so damn loud
> you don't know how to best help him.
>

This is going to be my first "official" recording for the studio I'm
trying to start I'm still in the beginning stages of getting equipment;
I'll only have 4 mics. The drums will be the only instrument being mic'd
(making noise). The guitar/bass will be done with a POD XT and Sans Amp
as a scratch track. They'll all be wearing headphones..

I have enough money to buy a couple mics; I'm gonna rent them first (for
the recording) to make sure they're the right fit. Like I've said
before, I have 2 MCA SP1, 1 SM57 and 1 SM87. I need a mic that is good
with low frequencies (something for the kick and bass amps). I was
thinking of the RE20 for this. Do you agree that it would be the next
logical mic for me to buy? I have 600 to spend; I'm gonna buy the mics
used, which knocks alot off the price.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> I have enough money to buy a couple mics; I'm gonna rent them first (for
> the recording) to make sure they're the right fit. Like I've said
> before, I have 2 MCA SP1, 1 SM57 and 1 SM87. I need a mic that is good
> with low frequencies (something for the kick and bass amps). I was
> thinking of the RE20 for this. Do you agree that it would be the next
> logical mic for me to buy?

There are so many mics available today that I hesitate to
recommend any one. The RE20 is a good all-around microphone.
Just about any mic has good enough low frequency response
for a kick drum or bass amplifer, it's just that today
people feel more comfortable having vocal mics, kick mics,
acoustic guitar mics, drum overhead mics, and so on so the
industry and the community have accommodated. Try your SP1
on the kick, or even your SM57. These days when I have to
mic drums it's usually for PA, and it's usually with someone
else's equipment. And the PA company usually has an RE20,
MD421, or something like that like the mic that Audix or
Sennheiser makes for kick as part of a drum kit mic set. I
never have an opportunity to compare them, but generally the
drummer feels better if he doesn't see an SM58 in front of
his drums so I use the designated kick mic. But I suppose if
you want to get fussy about it, what's a great mic for one
kick, or one song, may be wrong for another.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[adam79]

On 8/28/10 12:08 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> adam79 wrote:
>
> There are so many mics available today that I hesitate to recommend any
> one. The RE20 is a good all-around microphone. Just about any mic has
> good enough low frequency response for a kick drum or bass amplifer,
> it's just that today people feel more comfortable having vocal mics,
> kick mics, acoustic guitar mics, drum overhead mics, and so on so the
> industry and the community have accommodated. Try your SP1 on the kick,
> or even your SM57. These days when I have to mic drums it's usually for
> PA, and it's usually with someone else's equipment. And the PA company
> usually has an RE20, MD421, or something like that like the mic that
> Audix or Sennheiser makes for kick as part of a drum kit mic set. I
> never have an opportunity to compare them, but generally the drummer
> feels better if he doesn't see an SM58 in front of his drums so I use
> the designated kick mic. But I suppose if you want to get fussy about
> it, what's a great mic for one kick, or one song, may be wrong for another.
>

I'm just trying to look at this on a long term basis. I want to get
something that I'll constantly be using on most recordings. Most, if not
all, of the the bands I'll be recording are punk/hardcore bands; alot of
it sounds the same. Besides the RE20 and MD421, is there another
versatile mic that you'd recommend I try out? I'm gonna rent the RE20,
MD421 and one other to see which one I like best. Also, are there
certain resistors that aid the RE20, MD421, like the 600ohm resistor
does w/ the SM57?

Thanks,
-Adam

[PStamler]

On Aug 28, 11:57*am, adam79 > wrote:
> On 8/28/10 12:08 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>
>
> > adam79 wrote:
>
> > There are so many mics available today that I hesitate to recommend any
> > one. The RE20 is a good all-around microphone. Just about any mic has
> > good enough low frequency response for a kick drum or bass amplifer,
> > it's just that today people feel more comfortable having vocal mics,
> > kick mics, acoustic guitar mics, drum overhead mics, and so on so the
> > industry and the community have accommodated. Try your SP1 on the kick,
> > or even your SM57. These days when I have to mic drums it's usually for
> > PA, and it's usually with someone else's equipment. And the PA company
> > usually has an RE20, MD421, or something like that like the mic that
> > Audix or Sennheiser makes for kick as part of a drum kit mic set. I
> > never have an opportunity to compare them, but generally the drummer
> > feels better if he doesn't see an SM58 in front of his drums so I use
> > the designated kick mic. But I suppose if you want to get fussy about
> > it, what's a great mic for one kick, or one song, may be wrong for another.
>
> I'm just trying to look at this on a long term basis. I want to get
> something that I'll constantly be using on most recordings. Most, if not
> all, of the the bands I'll be recording are punk/hardcore bands; alot of
> it sounds the same. Besides the RE20 and MD421, is there another
> versatile mic that you'd recommend I try out? I'm gonna rent the RE20,
> MD421 and one other to see which one I like best.

Try a Beyer M88. But I bet you go with the RE20 or MD421.

By the way, make sure the MD421 you get is the old one, NOT the Mk II.
The MK II is a completely different mic, with a shrieky high end and
none of the original's virtues.

> Also, are there
> certain resistors that aid the RE20, MD421, like the 600ohm resistor
> does w/ the SM57?

Nope; you can use either mic into just about any preamp or console
input and they'll sound the same, and adding resistors doesn't change
the sound.

Peace,
Paul

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Aug 27, 5:39*pm, adam79 > wrote:
> On 8/27/10 9:25 AM, Cyberserf wrote:
>
>
>
> > A cube is a perfect way to create standing waves, dead spots and comb
> > filtering...it is the worse place in the world to mix....even with the
> > best of monitors, it is a train wreck.
>
> > Bass traps and ancillary room treatment *will be needed...placement of
> > you monitor will depend on your treatment...
> > Ideally, you would have a rectangle with a 3:1 ratio (or golden
> > section or short wall plus 38% for the long wall). You could then
> > place some treatment at the back and place your desk along the long
> > wall.
>
> > Square and Cube = Bad
>
> DOH! So I assume the best place to put the drums be on the way right of
> the room, so they're facing the other side of the room? The room in the
> floor plan is common area that's connected to the kitchen (that's what's
> on the other side of the wall at the bottom of the plan). This means
> that there's open room on the right and left side of the kit. The one
> obstacle would be the wall that separates the room and the kitchen.
> Maybe I could rent a few of baffle to put around the kit. I'm in an
> apartment so I can't start ripping the place apart. There must be
> someway for me to make this work.
>
> Thanks,

Adam,

IMHO, drums sound best in big rooms...but you can record them dry (in
a booth) and perhaps effect them later...I've seen and heard both...I
like big better...a deep hall is nice...a stairwell can be
fantastic...monitoring becomes an issue if the kit is too far away (as
are visual cues and other "band" subtleties) and bleed can be a
problem if they are too close (though Gobos help). My comment was more
oriented towards your mix room which you described as "...a perfect
cube", which is generally considered the worst room configuration for
mixing. Untreated, depending on the precise dimension, you will get a
build up of a particular frequency and its many associated harmonics
colouring everything you listen to, small cubes are particularly nasty
and it can get very hard to judge the subtlety of any particular
frequency accurately, but most difficult with the bass end of the
spectrum. IMHO, in such a case, treatment is not an option, it is a
necessity...Side and rear panels and bass traps...do a Google on audio
room treatment or some such combo...and do visit the site Ethan
pointed you to earlier, even if you build your own bass traps (and
there are plans for that on the web as well), you can learn a bunch
from his site.

Cheers, CS


http://www.realtraps.com/

Regards, CS

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> I'm just trying to look at this on a long term basis. I want to get
> something that I'll constantly be using on most recordings. Most, if not
> all, of the the bands I'll be recording are punk/hardcore bands

That's not really my thing so there may be some favorite
mics for those kinds of bands. I'd probably get a couple
more SM57s, and maybe a Neumann TLM-102 when you can afford
it, or maybe a Studio Projects C4 or two for drum overheads
or acoustic guitars. A Beyer M88 is a nice versatile mic,
too, if you can find the original version (not the TG-88).

> Also, are there
> certain resistors that aid the RE20, MD421, like the 600ohm resistor does w/ the SM57?

No, not really. This one just happens to be a discovered
fluke. There are a few mic preamps that have adjustable or
selectable input impedance that allow you to play around
with how it affects whatever mic you have connected to it,
but most of them seem to follow the rumor that ribbon mics
are supposed be connected to a low impedance (which isn't
really true). So you might find a 300 ohm switch position,
then 500, then 1.2k and 2.5 k, kind of missing the SM57's
sweet spot. Somebody really should make a preamp with an
SM57 switch, but that's really a Paul Stamler invention, not
a Shure invention. I don't know what Shure thinks of it.
They probalby say it makes the mic not sound like an SM57
any more which, to the company that makes it, is not a good
thing.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>I'm just trying to look at this on a long term basis. I want to get
>something that I'll constantly be using on most recordings. Most, if not
>all, of the the bands I'll be recording are punk/hardcore bands; alot of
>it sounds the same. Besides the RE20 and MD421, is there another
>versatile mic that you'd recommend I try out? I'm gonna rent the RE20,
>MD421 and one other to see which one I like best. Also, are there
>certain resistors that aid the RE20, MD421, like the 600ohm resistor
>does w/ the SM57?

Three people have said this already. The RE20, MD421, and the like
are not sensitive to loading. They can drive just about anything from
a short to an open without changing their sound much. This is a side
effect of the low coupling which also produces fairly low output compared
with the SM-57.

There are lots of good general purpose mikes out there, including the
MD441 and the EV N/D 468... and there are a lot of very directional
vocal mikes as well which will be something you will find very useful
in this kind of situation. The AKG D880 is a good first pick on a
budget, with the Neumann KMS105 being a big step up. Punk bands will
like to at least record a guide vocal and the better the vocal you can
get with the band, the better the end sound will be.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Danny T]

On Aug 28, 7:19*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> adam79 > wrote:
> >I'm just trying to look at this on a long term basis. I want to get
> >something that I'll constantly be using on most recordings. Most, if not
> >all, of the the bands I'll be recording are punk/hardcore bands; alot of
> >it sounds the same. Besides the RE20 and MD421, is there another
> >versatile mic that you'd recommend I try out? I'm gonna rent the RE20,
> >MD421 and one other to see which one I like best. Also, are there
> >certain resistors that aid the RE20, MD421, like the 600ohm resistor
> >does w/ the SM57?
>
> Three people have said this already. *The RE20, MD421, and the like
> are not sensitive to loading. *They can drive just about anything from
> a short to an open without changing their sound much. *This is a side
> effect of the low coupling which also produces fairly low output compared
> with the SM-57.
>
> There are lots of good general purpose mikes out there, including the
> MD441 and the EV N/D 468... and there are a lot of very directional
> vocal mikes as well which will be something you will find very useful
> in this kind of situation. *The AKG D880 is a good first pick on a
> budget, with the Neumann KMS105 being a big step up. *Punk bands will
> like to at least record a guide vocal and the better the vocal you can
> get with the band, the better the end sound will be.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I bought a handful of the akg d880's and for the price they are indeed
a good mic. I got mine for something like 30 bucks each.

[adam79]

On 8/28/10 6:08 PM, Cyberserf wrote:
> IMHO, drums sound best in big rooms...but you can record them dry (in
> a booth) and perhaps effect them later...I've seen and heard both...I
> like big better...a deep hall is nice...a stairwell can be
> fantastic...monitoring becomes an issue if the kit is too far away (as
> are visual cues and other "band" subtleties) and bleed can be a
> problem if they are too close (though Gobos help). My comment was more
> oriented towards your mix room which you described as "...a perfect
> cube", which is generally considered the worst room configuration for
> mixing. Untreated, depending on the precise dimension, you will get a
> build up of a particular frequency and its many associated harmonics
> colouring everything you listen to, small cubes are particularly nasty
> and it can get very hard to judge the subtlety of any particular
> frequency accurately, but most difficult with the bass end of the
> spectrum. IMHO, in such a case, treatment is not an option, it is a
> necessity...Side and rear panels and bass traps...do a Google on audio
> room treatment or some such combo...and do visit the site Ethan
> pointed you to earlier, even if you build your own bass traps (and
> there are plans for that on the web as well), you can learn a bunch
> from his site.
>

The "cube" is just an alcove in the room. I can set the drums up in the
back corner and there will be open space all around the kit. The one
downside is that the ceiling is only 7' 3" high, and is made up of
ceiling tile. I can't tear my ceiling apart, so I'm limited to covering
the area directly above the drums (and a few inches beyond) with a panel
or other sound material. Can someone please tell me the name of the
material(s) I should use to cover the tiles (I think Ethan mentioned
some sort of fiberglass)? I'll read through his site tonight or tomorrow
and figure out where to put the bass traps and other treatment myself.
There is alot of great information on his site.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Aug 28, 8:34*pm, adam79 > wrote:
> On 8/28/10 6:08 PM, Cyberserf wrote:
>
>
>
> > IMHO, drums sound best in big rooms...but you can record them dry (in
> > a booth) and perhaps effect them later...I've seen and heard both...I
> > like big better...a deep hall is nice...a stairwell can be
> > fantastic...monitoring becomes an issue if the kit is too far away (as
> > are visual cues and other "band" subtleties) and bleed can be a
> > problem if they are too close (though Gobos help). My comment was more
> > oriented towards your mix room which you described as "...a perfect
> > cube", *which is generally considered the worst room configuration for
> > mixing. Untreated, depending on the precise dimension, you will get a
> > build up of a particular frequency and its many associated harmonics
> > colouring everything you listen to, small cubes are particularly nasty
> > and it can get very hard to judge the subtlety of any particular
> > frequency accurately, but most difficult with the bass end of the
> > spectrum. IMHO, in such a case, treatment is not an option, it is a
> > necessity...Side and rear panels and bass traps...do a Google on audio
> > room treatment or some such combo...and do visit the site Ethan
> > pointed you to earlier, even if you build your own bass traps (and
> > there are plans for that on the web as well), you can learn a bunch
> > from his site.
>
> The "cube" is just an alcove in the room. I can set the drums up in the
> back corner and there will be open space all around the kit. The one
> downside is that the ceiling is only 7' 3" high, and is made up of
> ceiling tile. I can't tear my ceiling apart, so I'm limited to covering
> the area directly above the drums (and a few inches beyond) with a panel
> or other sound material. Can someone please tell me the name of the
> material(s) I should use to cover the tiles (I think Ethan mentioned
> some sort of fiberglass)? I'll read through his site tonight or tomorrow
> and figure out where to put the bass traps and other treatment myself.
> There is alot of great information on his site.
>
> Thanks,
> -Adam


I'm certainly not gonna argue too long about it...I'm glad to hear you
don't plan to mix in a square or cube...but this is the response you
gave
in response to Ethan's question asking you where you are mixing:

Speaking of the alcove you mentioned: "That is the room where I have
my equipment set up for tracking."
You then went on to add: "My bedroom is a perfect square, so once I
record, I bring my laptop back into my bedroom and start working on
the mix."

My comment is:"Perfect squares" are bad for mixing

S'all I'm saying...if your bedroom has suddenly grown along a wall or
you were mistaken about your mix position, I apologize for the
confusion.

The material is typically called RockWool...you might also google
Auralex Foam

Hunt up some past issues of Sound on Sound...look for the Studio SOS
featurette (it's in most issues). The theme of mix position treatment
is a recurring one.

Luck, CS

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Aug 29, 5:55*am, Cyberserf > wrote:
> On Aug 28, 8:34*pm, adam79 > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 8/28/10 6:08 PM, Cyberserf wrote:
>
> > > IMHO, drums sound best in big rooms...but you can record them dry (in
> > > a booth) and perhaps effect them later...I've seen and heard both...I
> > > like big better...a deep hall is nice...a stairwell can be
> > > fantastic...monitoring becomes an issue if the kit is too far away (as
> > > are visual cues and other "band" subtleties) and bleed can be a
> > > problem if they are too close (though Gobos help). My comment was more
> > > oriented towards your mix room which you described as "...a perfect
> > > cube", *which is generally considered the worst room configuration for
> > > mixing. Untreated, depending on the precise dimension, you will get a
> > > build up of a particular frequency and its many associated harmonics
> > > colouring everything you listen to, small cubes are particularly nasty
> > > and it can get very hard to judge the subtlety of any particular
> > > frequency accurately, but most difficult with the bass end of the
> > > spectrum. IMHO, in such a case, treatment is not an option, it is a
> > > necessity...Side and rear panels and bass traps...do a Google on audio
> > > room treatment or some such combo...and do visit the site Ethan
> > > pointed you to earlier, even if you build your own bass traps (and
> > > there are plans for that on the web as well), you can learn a bunch
> > > from his site.
>
> > The "cube" is just an alcove in the room. I can set the drums up in the
> > back corner and there will be open space all around the kit. The one
> > downside is that the ceiling is only 7' 3" high, and is made up of
> > ceiling tile. I can't tear my ceiling apart, so I'm limited to covering
> > the area directly above the drums (and a few inches beyond) with a panel
> > or other sound material. Can someone please tell me the name of the
> > material(s) I should use to cover the tiles (I think Ethan mentioned
> > some sort of fiberglass)? I'll read through his site tonight or tomorrow
> > and figure out where to put the bass traps and other treatment myself.
> > There is alot of great information on his site.
>
> > Thanks,
> > -Adam
>
> I'm certainly not gonna argue too long about it...I'm glad to hear you
> don't plan to mix in a square or cube...but this is the response you
> gave
> in response to Ethan's question asking you where you are mixing:
>
> Speaking of the alcove you mentioned: "That is the room where I have
> my equipment set up for tracking."
> You then went on to add: "My bedroom is a perfect square, so once I
> record, I bring my laptop back into my bedroom and start working on
> the mix."
>
> My comment is:"Perfect squares" are bad for mixing
>
> S'all I'm saying...if your bedroom has suddenly grown along a wall or
> you were mistaken about your mix position, I apologize for the
> confusion.
>
> The material is typically called RockWool...you might also google
> Auralex Foam
>
> Hunt up some past issues of Sound on Sound...look for the Studio SOS
> featurette (it's in most issues). The theme of mix position treatment
> is a recurring one.
>
> Luck, CS

Oh, BTW, I should correct some misinformation I provided in a previous
post. I mentioned that if you were mixing in a rectangular room you
could place your desk along the long wall...I should have said along
the short wall, this give the sound someplace to go other than back at
you. Some Auralex to the right and left of your listening position as
well as forward and back if necessary...bass traps in the corner. A
proper surface to place your monitors is also a factor (solid stands
(if they are hollow, fill them with sand)...your speakers and your
head should form an equilateral triangle. Beware of reflective
surfaces in between as they may blur the stereo
field...etc...absorbers and diffusers are your friends in a small
space.

-CS

[Sean Conolly]

"adam79" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/28/10 6:08 PM, Cyberserf wrote:
>> IMHO, drums sound best in big rooms...but you can record them dry (in
>> a booth) and perhaps effect them later...I've seen and heard both...I
>> like big better...a deep hall is nice...a stairwell can be
>> fantastic...monitoring becomes an issue if the kit is too far away (as
>> are visual cues and other "band" subtleties) and bleed can be a
>> problem if they are too close (though Gobos help). My comment was more
>> oriented towards your mix room which you described as "...a perfect
>> cube", which is generally considered the worst room configuration for
>> mixing. Untreated, depending on the precise dimension, you will get a
>> build up of a particular frequency and its many associated harmonics
>> colouring everything you listen to, small cubes are particularly nasty
>> and it can get very hard to judge the subtlety of any particular
>> frequency accurately, but most difficult with the bass end of the
>> spectrum. IMHO, in such a case, treatment is not an option, it is a
>> necessity...Side and rear panels and bass traps...do a Google on audio
>> room treatment or some such combo...and do visit the site Ethan
>> pointed you to earlier, even if you build your own bass traps (and
>> there are plans for that on the web as well), you can learn a bunch
>> from his site.
>>
>
> The "cube" is just an alcove in the room. I can set the drums up in the
> back corner and there will be open space all around the kit. The one
> downside is that the ceiling is only 7' 3" high, and is made up of ceiling
> tile. I can't tear my ceiling apart, so I'm limited to covering the area
> directly above the drums (and a few inches beyond) with a panel or other
> sound material. Can someone please tell me the name of the material(s) I
> should use to cover the tiles (I think Ethan mentioned some sort of
> fiberglass)? I'll read through his site tonight or tomorrow and figure out
> where to put the bass traps and other treatment myself. There is alot of
> great information on his site.
>

Again, a cheap but not pretty way is hang a quilt or comforter from the
ceiling over the drums. You can find them cheap enough at Walmart, and tie
the corners the existing frame for the ceiling tiles. Hopefully you can find
a drum it to try it out with, you really need to hear the effect on test
recordings to figure out if you're going the right direction.

Also, although you may not be able to get rid of the ceiling tiles entirely,
you can still take out the tiles themselves, which will be a big
improvement. I've seen this done in a home tracking room, with the addition
of some fairly sheer fabric draped loosely across the ceiling. The
recordings I did there on drums don't have the comb filtering in the
overhead mics that you usually get with a low tile ceiling.

Sean

[Anahata]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:57:53 -0400, adam79 wrote:

> are there
> certain resistors that aid the RE20, MD421, like the 600ohm resistor
> does w/ the SM57?

No, probably not. I think Paul's article says he tried it on several
other mic types but the SM57 was the only one which showed a clear
improvement with this trick.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Scott Dorsey]

Anahata > wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:57:53 -0400, adam79 wrote:
>
>> are there
>> certain resistors that aid the RE20, MD421, like the 600ohm resistor
>> does w/ the SM57?
>
>No, probably not. I think Paul's article says he tried it on several
>other mic types but the SM57 was the only one which showed a clear
>improvement with this trick.

The EV664 is another example of a mike that is sensitive to loading.

In general, the higher the output of a moving coil dynamic, the more
sensitive to loading it's going to be. That's kind of a rough generalization,
admittedly.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[adam79]

On 8/29/10 9:42 AM, Sean Conolly wrote:
>
> Also, although you may not be able to get rid of the ceiling tiles entirely,
> you can still take out the tiles themselves, which will be a big
> improvement. I've seen this done in a home tracking room, with the addition
> of some fairly sheer fabric draped loosely across the ceiling. The
> recordings I did there on drums don't have the comb filtering in the
> overhead mics that you usually get with a low tile ceiling.
>

Just covering the tiles with a comforter, RockWool or Auralex Foam isn't
enough? Taking the tiles out (even if the material completely covers
them) makes a big difference?

The "mixing in my bedroom" comment, was a misprint/mistake on my part.
The living room is a rectangle. The celing tiles are in there as well..
one long wall is exposed brick, the other is wood paneling. One short
wall is drywall and the other is a large bay window with drywall under.

I can use a mic hooked up to the PA with a graphic equalizer to figure
out the natural room frequencies (so I can cut them out of the path
mic), right?

Thanks,
-Adam

[adam79]

This seems like a good deal:
http://jacksmusicstore.com/catalog/recording/misc/rcd-msc-f~studiofoam-2-burg.
4 square feet of Auralex foam for $15!

-Adam

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>Just covering the tiles with a comforter, RockWool or Auralex Foam isn't
>enough? Taking the tiles out (even if the material completely covers
>them) makes a big difference?

Rockwool does NOTHING at low frequencies. It is completely transparent.

>The "mixing in my bedroom" comment, was a misprint/mistake on my part.
>The living room is a rectangle. The celing tiles are in there as well..
>one long wall is exposed brick, the other is wood paneling. One short
>wall is drywall and the other is a large bay window with drywall under.
>
>I can use a mic hooked up to the PA with a graphic equalizer to figure
>out the natural room frequencies (so I can cut them out of the path
>mic), right?

It would be a lot better to fix things.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[adam79]

On 8/29/10 7:44 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
>> Just covering the tiles with a comforter, RockWool or Auralex Foam isn't
>> enough? Taking the tiles out (even if the material completely covers
>> them) makes a big difference?
>
> Rockwool does NOTHING at low frequencies. It is completely transparent.
>

What about the Auralex Foam? The question I'm most interested in is if
the tiles still cause problems, even when completely covered w/ the
right material.

>> I can use a mic hooked up to the PA with a graphic equalizer to figure
>> out the natural room frequencies (so I can cut them out of the path
>> mic), right?
>
> It would be a lot better to fix things.

I was talking about doing this once the room is treated.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Sean Conolly]

"adam79" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/29/10 9:42 AM, Sean Conolly wrote:
>>
>> Also, although you may not be able to get rid of the ceiling tiles
>> entirely,
>> you can still take out the tiles themselves, which will be a big
>> improvement. I've seen this done in a home tracking room, with the
>> addition
>> of some fairly sheer fabric draped loosely across the ceiling. The
>> recordings I did there on drums don't have the comb filtering in the
>> overhead mics that you usually get with a low tile ceiling.
>>
>
> Just covering the tiles with a comforter, RockWool or Auralex Foam isn't
> enough? Taking the tiles out (even if the material completely covers them)
> makes a big difference?
>
> The "mixing in my bedroom" comment, was a misprint/mistake on my part. The
> living room is a rectangle. The celing tiles are in there as well.. one
> long wall is exposed brick, the other is wood paneling. One short wall is
> drywall and the other is a large bay window with drywall under.

In really basic terms, you're dealing with two main factors treating a
recording space: high frequemcy reflection and low frequency room nodes (aka
standing waves). The high frequency stuff causes comb filtering and flutter
if the room is really live. Auralex foam works fine on that problem, to both
absorb and diffuse the sound. So do a lot of other treatments.

The low frequency problem is harder to handle, because there's a lot of
energy in the low frequency sound, and you need either mass to absorb some
of the energy before it can reflect back into the room, or more space to
disipate it. In a small room there's not a lot of space, so you're left with
mass. In general, the heavier the treatment, the better the results will be
on low frequencies.


> I can use a mic hooked up to the PA with a graphic equalizer to figure out
> the natural room frequencies (so I can cut them out of the path mic),
> right?

In a word, no. You simply can't EQ a bad a room into a good one, or even a
tolerable one.

I see in your other posts that you're looing at some nice mics, which is
good, but don't skimp on the room treatment. Using good mics in a bad
sounding room is not going to give the results you're paying for. That
doesn't mean you can't do it on a budget, you just need to do your homework
to get acceptable results.

Sean

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>On 8/29/10 7:44 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>> Just covering the tiles with a comforter, RockWool or Auralex Foam isn't
>>> enough? Taking the tiles out (even if the material completely covers
>>> them) makes a big difference?
>>
>> Rockwool does NOTHING at low frequencies. It is completely transparent.
>
>What about the Auralex Foam? The question I'm most interested in is if
>the tiles still cause problems, even when completely covered w/ the
>right material.

Zero, zilch, absolutely nil effect at low frequencies. Look at the datasheet.

>>> I can use a mic hooked up to the PA with a graphic equalizer to figure
>>> out the natural room frequencies (so I can cut them out of the path
>>> mic), right?
>>
>> It would be a lot better to fix things.
>
>I was talking about doing this once the room is treated.

If the room is set up properly, you won't have to worry about room modes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Aug 29, 6:28 pm, adam79 > wrote:
> Just covering the tiles with a comforter, RockWool or Auralex Foam isn't
> enough?

Many materials can absorb well at low frequencies. The key is how
thick they are, how large they are, and where you put them. The
standard for broadband bass traps is rigid fiberglass and rock wool /
mineral wool. But you need material that's at least four inches thick
for bass frequencies. If you add a paper or thin plastic membrane they
absorb bass even better. With such a suitable membrane you can get
good bass trapping even when it's only three inches thick. But thicker
is always better, and even six or eight inches (or thicker) is not too
much. Here are some links with general acoustics information:

Acoustic Basics:
http://www.realtraps.com/art_basics.htm

Much more detailed Acoustics FAQ:
http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

--Ethan

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Aug 29, 10:33*pm, adam79 > wrote:
> On 8/29/10 7:44 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > > *wrote:
> >> Just covering the tiles with a comforter, RockWool or Auralex Foam isn't
> >> enough? Taking the tiles out (even if the material completely covers
> >> them) makes a big difference?
>
> > Rockwool does NOTHING at low frequencies. *It is completely transparent.

[adam79]

On 8/30/10 9:00 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> What about the Auralex Foam? The question I'm most interested in is if
>> the tiles still cause problems, even when completely covered w/ the
>> right material.
>
> Zero, zilch, absolutely nil effect at low frequencies. Look at the datasheet.
>

I want to focus on the room acoustics for the drums at the current
moment. I skimmed through the links Ethan gave me (I'll have a chance to
read it all tonight) and came up with the following.. If I remove the
tiles and replace them with dense fiberglass material (i.e.
Owens-Corning 703 or 705), then cover the fiberglass with Guilford FR701
(or something equivalent since FR701 is expensive), will I need a third
material to cover the FR701 to complete the ceiling treatment?

Once I have figured out a plan for the ceiling, I will move onto bass
traps for the corners.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
adam79 > wrote:
>On 8/30/10 9:00 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>> What about the Auralex Foam? The question I'm most interested in is if
>>> the tiles still cause problems, even when completely covered w/ the
>>> right material.
>>
>> Zero, zilch, absolutely nil effect at low frequencies. Look at the datasheet.
>
>I want to focus on the room acoustics for the drums at the current
>moment. I skimmed through the links Ethan gave me (I'll have a chance to
>read it all tonight) and came up with the following.. If I remove the
>tiles and replace them with dense fiberglass material (i.e.
>Owens-Corning 703 or 705), then cover the fiberglass with Guilford FR701
>(or something equivalent since FR701 is expensive), will I need a third
>material to cover the FR701 to complete the ceiling treatment?

Take the drop ceiling out. The drop ceiling causes problems that are
different and not related to the fact that it's absorptive in the midrange
and not the low end.

>Once I have figured out a plan for the ceiling, I will move onto bass
>traps for the corners.

How will that help when you have a huge partially-sealed chamber with a
massive bass resonance in your ceiling?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[adam79]

On 8/30/10 3:34 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> Take the drop ceiling out. The drop ceiling causes problems that are
> different and not related to the fact that it's absorptive in the midrange
> and not the low end.
>

A quick question on absorption. I understand that I need to absorb
reflections. As far as frequencies go, I not exactly sure what the goal
is, as I'm just beginning to read up on acoustical treatments. Are there
certain frequencies you want to keep in the room, rather than absorbing
everything. If there is an article about this topic that I missed along
the way, please send me a link.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> A quick question on absorption. I understand that I need to absorb
> reflections.

Actually, what you want to absorb is the direct sound that
would hit a reflective surface to prevent it from becoming a
reflection.

> As far as frequencies go, I not exactly sure what the goal
> is, as I'm just beginning to read up on acoustical treatments. Are there
> certain frequencies you want to keep in the room, rather than absorbing
> everything.

Not really. You want the absorbers to absorb equally over as
wide a frequency range as you can afford. If your absorbers
only work at high frequencies, your room will sound boomy,
because the low frequency reflections will still be present.
But you want to reduce, not totally eliminate reflections,
in the "presence" range so that it won't sound to the singer
or player like he's in a totally dead room. This is why
absorbers often don't cover the full surface, but there are
some untreated areas (the location and size determined by
both trigonometry and experimentation) that provide a
little liveness but with little enough energy to not create
comb filtering at the microphones.

Surely there must be something about this on Ethan Winer's
website, http://www.realtraps.com



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>On 8/30/10 3:34 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> Take the drop ceiling out. The drop ceiling causes problems that are
>> different and not related to the fact that it's absorptive in the midrange
>> and not the low end.
>
>A quick question on absorption. I understand that I need to absorb
>reflections.

NO! YOU CANNOT ABSORB LOW FREQUENCY REFLECTIONS! I keep saying this over
and over again to you.

>As far as frequencies go, I not exactly sure what the goal
>is, as I'm just beginning to read up on acoustical treatments. Are there
>certain frequencies you want to keep in the room, rather than absorbing
>everything. If there is an article about this topic that I missed along
>the way, please send me a link.

You want the general room response to remain flat. The hard part is dealing
with the low end. Once you have dealt with the low end, you will probably
find you don't have _enough_ reflectance in the room at high frequencies.

Deal with the low end, then worry about absorption and diffusion later on
once the low end is under control, in order to get the high frequency
reverberation to match the low frequency.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Aug 31, 1:28 am, adam79 > wrote:
> A quick question on absorption. I understand that I need to absorb
> reflections. As far as frequencies go, I not exactly sure what the goal
> is, as I'm just beginning to read up on acoustical treatments.

The type of "early" and "first" reflections you get from side-walls
and the ceiling are mainly damaging at mid and high frequencies.
That's the range that affects imaging and clarity. When those
reflections are absorbed you can better hear small changes in EQ and
panning and reverb effects. But Mike and Scott are of course correct
too - the general goal for absorption in a room is to be *broadband*.
Mike's comment to absorb "over as wide a frequency range as you can
afford" is a perfect way to put it.

> Are there certain frequencies you want to keep in the room, rather
> than absorbing everything.

It doesn't really work that way. Besides wanting a uniform frequency
response, you also want a uniform RT60 (reverb decay time). How long a
decay is acceptable depends on the size of the room. For smaller
domestic size rooms you should aim for no obvious reverb or ambience.
So it's not like it's okay to have lots of reflection at some
frequencies but not at others.

--Ethan

[Frank Stearns]

Ethan Winer > writes:

>On Aug 31, 1:28 am, adam79 > wrote:
>> A quick question on absorption. I understand that I need to absorb
>> reflections. As far as frequencies go, I not exactly sure what the goal
>> is, as I'm just beginning to read up on acoustical treatments.

>The type of "early" and "first" reflections you get from side-walls
>and the ceiling are mainly damaging at mid and high frequencies.
>That's the range that affects imaging and clarity. When those
>reflections are absorbed you can better hear small changes in EQ and
>panning and reverb effects. But Mike and Scott are of course correct
>too - the general goal for absorption in a room is to be *broadband*.
>Mike's comment to absorb "over as wide a frequency range as you can
>afford" is a perfect way to put it.

Well, within limits.... For the reasons you state you do want to kill early
reflections as much as possible, but you don't want a completely anechoic room. That
can get weird and even misleading.

I posted a reply to Adam that was meant to add to this thread but it got emailed by
mistake.

I'd suggested a review of the F. Alton Everest books, "Master Handbook of
Acoustics" and "Sound Studio Construction on a Budget".

>> Are there certain frequencies you want to keep in the room, rather
>> than absorbing everything.

>It doesn't really work that way. Besides wanting a uniform frequency
>response, you also want a uniform RT60 (reverb decay time). How long a
>decay is acceptable depends on the size of the room. For smaller
>domestic size rooms you should aim for no obvious reverb or ambience.
>So it's not like it's okay to have lots of reflection at some
>frequencies but not at others.

What we found here (and love very much) in a small room is an RT30 of <120 mSec
below 200 hz, rising gradually (with no spikes in the time) to about 1 second >
10Khz.

We got this through a combination of many panel traps, absorption, diffusion, and
even some very narrow and controlled reflections. It really is a great room to work
in. While it didn't take a huge amount of money, it took some basic calculations,
followed by a lot of trial and error. Well worth it. Everest and a simple
measurement system (MLS-based) proved useful tools.

Frank


--

[adam79]

On 8/31/10 2:43 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>
> What we found here (and love very much) in a small room is an RT30 of<120 mSec
> below 200 hz, rising gradually (with no spikes in the time) to about 1 second>
> 10Khz.
>
> We got this through a combination of many panel traps, absorption, diffusion, and
> even some very narrow and controlled reflections. It really is a great room to work
> in. While it didn't take a huge amount of money, it took some basic calculations,
> followed by a lot of trial and error. Well worth it. Everest and a simple
> measurement system (MLS-based) proved useful tools.
>

The big word in your post is "money." I only have a couple hundred
dollars in my budget for acoustical treatment. I realize the extreme
importance in room acoustics; I've put a halt to any other purchase
unrelated to this topic. I took a couple pictures of the room I plan to
record in. It's cluttered, but you can get the idea. I put them all in
one photobucket album:
http://s273.photobucket.com/albums/jj209/adam_l79/Acoustical%20Treatment/.
I also included the floor plan I drew up (which I failed [more like
forgot] to drawn to scale). So if I title a picture "Left End," it means
it's located at the left of the floor plan, and etc.

It was recommended to me by someone on this group to put the drum set in
the corner. Do you think it would be a better idea to put it where the
amps are (so the drummers back would be facing the wall)?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>The big word in your post is "money." I only have a couple hundred
>dollars in my budget for acoustical treatment. I realize the extreme
>importance in room acoustics; I've put a halt to any other purchase
>unrelated to this topic.

Then, look at Ethan's homemade bass traps. Build some. Deal with your
low end problems first, because everything else is cheap and easy in
comparison.

>It was recommended to me by someone on this group to put the drum set in
>the corner. Do you think it would be a better idea to put it where the
>amps are (so the drummers back would be facing the wall)?

Go in and use your ears and listen to what it sounds like. Do you hear
clanging sounds? If you put your finger in one ear and walk around the
room, does the kick drum sound dramatically different in two places a
foot away? If you clap your hands, it it hollow? Do you hear individual
slaps or does the sound decay evenly? Your ears are the best tool to
find out what is wrong with the room so you know what to fix.

I can make some pretty good guesses about what you're going to hear and
they're going to be pretty scary on the bottom end, but there is no
substitute for listening.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> The big word in your post is "money." I only have a couple hundred
> dollars in my budget for acoustical treatment.

This could be a problem. How much do you have (or have you
already spent) on microphones, monitor speakers, A/D
converters, and the like? There's no point in having a
$3,000 set of monitors if you can't accurately hear what's
coming out of them.

> It was recommended to me by someone on this group to put the drum set in
> the corner. Do you think it would be a better idea to put it where the
> amps are (so the drummers back would be facing the wall)?

When I suggested setting the drums in the corner, I meant to
include the drummer. He should be in the corner, facing the
center of the room, with the drums in playable position in
front of him. Maybe. What this does is puts the reflecting
walls fairly close to the drums so that early reflections
will be pretty close to in phase with the direct sound. On a
budget that allows only a couple of hundred bucks for
acoustic treatment, you probalby aren't going to be
close-miking each drum, so you're going to be recording
reflections. Might as well take advantage of them as fight
them.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Frank Stearns]

adam79 > writes:

>On 8/31/10 2:43 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>>
>> What we found here (and love very much) in a small room is an RT30 of<120 mSec
>> below 200 hz, rising gradually (with no spikes in the time) to about 1 second>
>> 10Khz.
>>
>> We got this through a combination of many panel traps, absorption, diffusion, and
>> even some very narrow and controlled reflections. It really is a great room to work
>> in. While it didn't take a huge amount of money, it took some basic calculations,
>> followed by a lot of trial and error. Well worth it. Everest and a simple
>> measurement system (MLS-based) proved useful tools.
>>

>The big word in your post is "money." I only have a couple hundred
>dollars in my budget for acoustical treatment. I realize the extreme
>importance in room acoustics; I've put a halt to any other purchase
>unrelated to this topic. I took a couple pictures of the room I plan to
>record in. It's cluttered, but you can get the idea. I put them all in


Certainly a challenge. The bad news is the low ceiling. The not as bad news is that
it doesn't appear that you're doing movie scoring or classical recording. You can
thus close mic everything (you probably would regardless of the room) and minimize
room issues, though you certainly want to experiement with room mics -- who knows,
you might find a sweet spot that will really bring amps and drums to life when
blended under the close mics.

For acoustical treatment, you can actually do some useful bits with that $200 if
you're handy with trim saw or even a hand saw if you're careful. You need a bundle
of Owens-Corning 703 unfaced pressed fiberglass insulation (probably $90-$110, if
you can find a wholesaler to sell it to you). IIRC, there are 20 sheets in that
bundle. Four will be used for the "springs" inside the absorbers (one sheet each),
the rest can be stacked in 2" and 3" configurations, faced with inexpensive cloth
(but listen "through" the cloth you select to make sure it's relatively transparent
acoustically). Placed those stacks as MF and HF absorbers as needed. Float those out
from the wall 2-4" to nearly double their effectiveness.

48 feet of KD 2x4 framing lumber will let you build the frames for four 2'x4' panel
traps, good for 50-120 hz absorption. Figure $12. A sheet of 1/4" ACX plywood will
work for the four diaphragms - $15. For a couple of bucks most yards will cut the
sheet into four 2'x4' panels for you. (You'll wind up trimming down the 703 panels a
bit to fit the *inside* of a frame where the *outside* dimensions are probably 24"
by 48" so that you don't wind up wasting a lot of 2x4.)

Figure another $10 for caulk or closed-cell weather stripping (I prefer the latter
because it makes the absorbers more removable), lag bolts, and smaller screws to
attach the 1/4" panels to the frames built from the 2x4s, which you've lag-bolted to
the wall. Lags are countersunk so that they won't interfere with the top panel.
Don't overtighten lags or panel screws; you want "softer" tension so that the trap
itself doesn't start "singing" because it's been tensioned like a piano string.

Do not bypass the weather stripping frame-to-wall and panel-to-wall. Panel traps
*MUST* be air-tight to work (see Everest for more details). Caulk the frame joints.

So at this point we're close to $200. So far, so good.

Where to put the traps is the question. In a room with that many changes in relief
it will be a little more difficult decision to make. (But in some ways, the somewhat
jagged changes in dimensions might help break up some of the modes.)

If you've worked a lot with pink noise and can hear the resonances, you can fill the
room with it and simply listen for resonances by moving around the boundaries,
seeing where you start getting bass tones climbing out of the noise. Alternately,
you can sweep sine waves from 40-100 hz and see where things really stick out. Don't
play the tones or the pink noise too loud, you'll quickly "funnel" your ears.

Expect issues around 160 Hz because of the 7'2" ceiling. You might even wind up
building some resonators to go after that aread -- cheap to do with MDF, concrete
form tube, and 3" PVC drain pipe.

Again, Evererst has some ideas on all this. Ideal if you can get your hands on some
ETF (energy-time-frequency) measurement tools. Careful with a plain old 1/3 octave
analyzer. It won't really tell you where the problems might be.

And, as Scott suggested, a finger in one ear while listening to instruments can be
useful, but often it takes a very experienced listener to make sense of what's being
heard in that mode.

Now, with the HF and MF frequencies, placement of those absorbers is a little
easier. Find the the flutter echos and plop an absorber there. Clapping your hands
will tell you a lot; I love my dog clickers (available at most any pet store for
<$2). It makes a nice pair of spike clicks -- flutter echos, funny decays (or good
decays) are then readily evident. (We do location work; I walk each new room with
the clicker -- you'd be amazed at what can be revealed. Saved my bacon more than
once.)

Sigh. Like I said, this can get fairly complex rather quickly. Study Everest.

I (and probably many here) admire your attention to this detail. You'll probably get
frustrated at some point, but stay with it.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[adam79]

On 8/31/10 9:27 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> adam79 wrote:
>
>> The big word in your post is "money." I only have a couple hundred
>> dollars in my budget for acoustical treatment.
>
> This could be a problem. How much do you have (or have you already
> spent) on microphones, monitor speakers, A/D converters, and the like?
> There's no point in having a $3,000 set of monitors if you can't
> accurately hear what's coming out of them.
>

Like I've been saying, I'm in the process now of planning on how to
spend my money to start this home studio. For recording I have Pro Tools
w/ a MBox2 and Korg D16 Multitrack (that I use with the MBox2 SPDIF
connection). For mics I just have 2 MCA SP1s, 1 SM57 and 1 SM87. I have
M-Audio BX5a monitors. I know they're low-end, but I talked a friend
into selling them to me for $100; they were just gathering dust with him.
For jamming, I have a Mackie 1202 VLZ-PRO mixer (that's old and starting
to die), a QSC RMX 2450 power amp and a pair of JBL MPro MP215 speakers.
I was planning on buying a new mixer, but after starting this thread, I
realize that I need to focus on the room acoustics first.

>
> When I suggested setting the drums in the corner, I meant to include the
> drummer. He should be in the corner, facing the center of the room, with
> the drums in playable position in front of him. Maybe. What this does is
> puts the reflecting walls fairly close to the drums so that early
> reflections will be pretty close to in phase with the direct sound. On a
> budget that allows only a couple of hundred bucks for acoustic
> treatment, you probalby aren't going to be close-miking each drum, so
> you're going to be recording reflections. Might as well take advantage
> of them as fight them.
>

I don't have enough mics to close mic anyways. My initial plan is to put
up the two SP1s as overheads, a RE20 or MD421 (I'm gonna rent a couple
mics) on the kick and a SM57 on the snare. I also might try some 3 mic
techniques I've used in the past (with good results), and others that I
read about in a Mercenary Audio article. I wanted to rent a Beyer M160
for the 3 mic scenario, but the only ribbon mic the rental place has is
a Samson V88 (which I've never used; the reviews I've read are mixed).

Like I've been saying, most of my clients will be local punk/hardcore
bands. They typically like more raw recordings than the highly processed
mainstream sound. However, this doesn't mean I can skimp on the room
treatment. I want to do everything within my means (budget) to make
everything to sound it's best.

Thanks,
-Adam

[WillStG]

On Aug 31, 10:57*pm, Frank Stearns >
wrote:
> adam79 > writes:
> >On 8/31/10 2:43 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>
> >> What we found here (and love very much) in a small room is an RT30 of<120 mSec
> >> below 200 hz, rising gradually (with no spikes in the time) to about 1 second>
> >> 10Khz.
>
> >> We got this through a combination of many panel traps, absorption, diffusion, and
> >> even some very narrow and controlled reflections. It really is a great room to work
> >> in. While it didn't take a huge amount of money, it took some basic calculations,
> >> followed by a lot of trial and error. Well worth it. Everest and a simple
> >> measurement system (MLS-based) proved useful tools.
>
> >The big word in your post is "money." I only have a couple hundred
> >dollars in my budget for acoustical treatment. I realize the extreme
> >importance in room acoustics; I've put a halt to any other purchase
> >unrelated to this topic. I took a couple pictures of the room I plan to
> >record in. It's cluttered, but you can get the idea. I put them all in
>
> Certainly a challenge. The bad news is the low ceiling. The not as bad news is that
> it doesn't appear that you're doing movie scoring or classical recording. You can
> thus close mic everything (you probably would regardless of the room) and minimize
> room issues, though you certainly want to experiement with room mics -- who knows,
> you might find a sweet spot that will really bring amps and drums to life when
> blended under the close mics.
>
> For acoustical treatment, you can actually do some useful bits with that $200 if
> you're handy with trim saw or even a hand saw if you're careful. You need a bundle
> of Owens-Corning 703 unfaced pressed fiberglass insulation (probably $90-$110, if
> you can find a wholesaler to sell it to you). IIRC, there are 20 sheets in that
> bundle. Four will be used for the "springs" inside the absorbers (one sheet each),
> the rest can be stacked in 2" and 3" configurations, faced with inexpensive cloth
> (but listen "through" the cloth you select to make sure it's relatively transparent
> acoustically). Placed those stacks as MF and HF absorbers as needed. Float those out
> from the wall 2-4" to nearly double their effectiveness.
>
> 48 feet of KD 2x4 framing lumber will let you build the frames for four 2'x4' panel
> traps, good for 50-120 hz absorption. Figure $12. A sheet of 1/4" ACX plywood will
> work for the four diaphragms - $15. For a couple of bucks most yards will cut the
> sheet into four 2'x4' panels for you. (You'll wind up trimming down the 703 panels a
> bit to fit the *inside* of a frame where the *outside* dimensions are probably 24"
> by 48" so that you don't wind up wasting a lot of 2x4.)
>
> Figure another $10 for caulk or closed-cell weather stripping (I prefer the latter
> because it makes the absorbers more removable), lag bolts, and smaller screws to
> attach the 1/4" panels to the frames built from the 2x4s, which you've lag-bolted to
> the wall. Lags are countersunk so that they won't interfere with the top panel.
> Don't overtighten lags or panel screws; you want "softer" tension so that the trap
> itself doesn't start "singing" because it's been tensioned like a piano string.
>
> Do not bypass the weather stripping frame-to-wall and panel-to-wall. Panel traps
> *MUST* be air-tight to work (see Everest for more details). Caulk the frame joints.
>
> So at this point we're close to $200. So far, so good.
>
> Where to put the traps is the question. In a room with that many changes in relief
> it will be a little more difficult decision to make. (But in some ways, the somewhat
> jagged changes in dimensions might help break up some of the modes.)
>
> If you've worked a lot with pink noise and can hear the resonances, you can fill the
> room with it and simply listen for resonances by moving around the boundaries,
> seeing where you start getting bass tones climbing out of the noise. Alternately,
> you can sweep sine waves from 40-100 hz and see where things really stick out. Don't
> play the tones or the pink noise too loud, you'll quickly "funnel" your ears.
>
> Expect issues around 160 Hz because of the 7'2" ceiling. You might even wind up
> building some resonators to go after that aread -- cheap to do with MDF, concrete
> form tube, and 3" PVC drain pipe.
>
> Again, Evererst has some ideas on all this. Ideal if you can get your hands on some
> ETF (energy-time-frequency) measurement tools. Careful with a plain old 1/3 octave
> analyzer. It won't really tell you where the problems might be.
>
> And, as Scott suggested, a finger in one ear while listening to instruments can be
> useful, but often it takes a very experienced listener to make sense of what's being
> heard in that mode.
>
> Now, with the HF and MF frequencies, placement of those absorbers is a little
> easier. Find the the flutter echos and plop an absorber there. Clapping your hands
> will tell you a lot; I love my dog clickers (available at most any pet store for
> <$2). It makes a nice pair of spike clicks -- flutter echos, funny decays (or good
> decays) are then readily evident. (We do location work; I walk each new room with
> the clicker -- you'd be amazed at what can be revealed. Saved my bacon more than
> once.)
>
> Sigh. Like I said, this can get fairly complex rather quickly. Study Everest.
>
> I (and probably many here) admire your attention to this detail. You'll probably get
> frustrated at some point, but stay with it.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
> --
> *.

Adam, great practical advice from Frank. And you can download a
free room analysis tool that can help you figure out exactly what is
going on with your space at http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/.
They have mac and PC versions. I wouldn't try to use eq on my room
like they do in Home Theatre though.

Build the broadband absorption panels, and place them as Ethan
recommends on his website. Do remove the ceiling tiles, and put some
up there. I'd read up about room design as much as you can, since the
rest will be a "shotgun", trail and error approach. I like "Live end/
dead end" design; make the room pretty dead behind the speakers and
diffuse the opposite wall behind your mixing position. Bookshelves can
be a cheap method for diffusion, and the couch back there helps absorb
the floor corner reflection. In the recording area, if you have any
cabinets in there for storage, angle them so they aren't parallel to
the wall. I have seen studios with built in storage cabinets, the
doors all angled in different directions like 5 or 6 inches, sometimes
making pairs of doors kinda trapezopidal. You also probably need to
build some gobos for the recording area, 4'x8' boxes stuffed with
fiberglass, one side exposed fabric the other side wood. Use light
wood, even luan.

You have to get used to figuring out what is reflecting where, and
prevent as much of that as possible. Not just in how your room is set
up, but in the recording process too. Where amps and instruments face
and where the mics are placed is important, it's all related. Because
you don't have a good open sounding room the drums will sound a bit
constricted, that's what happens when you rely on the close mics. I
like to catch some of the overall kit in the overheads, I try to get
cymbals close, hat/toms a bit next, and finally snare (they point at
the snare.) But if the room sounds bad you may have to just mic the
cymbals. In which case omni mics can be useful in creating a more
open sound, maybe a pair of cheap Behringer ECM8000's on your budget
(like $50 ea maybe.) You can also use an ECM8000 as a measurement mic
with the room analysis software. You might also research using a
blanket tunnel around the kick drum so the room doesn't get saturated
with the kick's lows. Keeping that out of the overheads might help
you.

As for the original question about "Sound boards". I have to
say, the Tascam DM4800 is a giant killer (sorry giants). $5500 with a
meter bridge and a firewire card. Over firewire it will do 32 channels
to any DAW except Pro Tools. It has 24 motorized faders for automated
mixing, 24 micpres, 8 auxes, 48 full featured channels, 64 total
channels on mix down, and will give you 24 fader control of Pro Tools
(or Logic, Cubase etc.). You can route any input to any output. It
has 4 expansion slots for adding more analog or digital I/O, or the
firewire card, and a cascade port built in for using 2! DM4800's
together. It sounds very very good. At 24/48k, I like it's
converters better than Pro Tools HD's 96 I/O. If you want to do this
for a long time it is well worth the investment, it's worth much more
than it sells for - and it's light enough to move by yourself.

Good luck.

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Frank Stearns]

Frank Stearns > writes:

Oops. Brain slower than fingers in a few places in my previous posts about your
room acoustics. A few corrections:

Regarding the Owens-Corning 703 used for the absorbers and panel traps. It comes in
thicknesses of 1", 2", and 3". I was referring to the 1" variety -- a flexible
format for your needs and budget.

703 is 3 lbs per cubic foot; 705 is 6 lbs per cubic foot. The latter can be a little
better in some respects, but is way more expensive (and harder to find).

Make sure you get it unfaced. (It can be purchased with one or both sides faced with
a thick aluminum foil sheeting -- not what you want).

The panel traps use a single 1" thickness just under (but not touching) the plywood
diaphragm, with air space for the remaining thickness of the trap. Weatherstripping
goes between the panel and frame, and then the frame and wall.

Once done with the traps, you can sandwich 1" sheets to make 2" and 3" absorbers;
I've used automotive spray glue to tack the layers together, with a cloth wrap for
the final binding.

Do not leave this stuff exposed. It won't burn but it will shed fine particles.
Supposedly, such particles are more or less benign, but I sure as heck don't want
to breath little micro-shards of glass floating in the air. (There are warnings on
the package, as I recall.)

Handle with gloves and long-sleeve shirts. You'll itch otherwise.

Have fun!

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[adam79]

Thanks for all the help. I've been talking with a guy at Acoustical
Services, and he recommended this stuff called "Echo Eliminator," here's
the link:
http://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/echo_eliminator/wall_panel.htm?d=0.
It's absorption rating for low frequencies is decent (great when
compared to other materials). Does anyone have any experience using the
"Echo Eliminator?"

Thanks,
-Adam

On 9/1/10 12:43 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Frank > writes:
>
> Oops. Brain slower than fingers in a few places in my previous posts about your
> room acoustics. A few corrections:
>
> Regarding the Owens-Corning 703 used for the absorbers and panel traps. It comes in
> thicknesses of 1", 2", and 3". I was referring to the 1" variety -- a flexible
> format for your needs and budget.
>
> 703 is 3 lbs per cubic foot; 705 is 6 lbs per cubic foot. The latter can be a little
> better in some respects, but is way more expensive (and harder to find).
>
> Make sure you get it unfaced. (It can be purchased with one or both sides faced with
> a thick aluminum foil sheeting -- not what you want).
>
> The panel traps use a single 1" thickness just under (but not touching) the plywood
> diaphragm, with air space for the remaining thickness of the trap. Weatherstripping
> goes between the panel and frame, and then the frame and wall.
>
> Once done with the traps, you can sandwich 1" sheets to make 2" and 3" absorbers;
> I've used automotive spray glue to tack the layers together, with a cloth wrap for
> the final binding.
>
> Do not leave this stuff exposed. It won't burn but it will shed fine particles.
> Supposedly, such particles are more or less benign, but I sure as heck don't want
> to breath little micro-shards of glass floating in the air. (There are warnings on
> the package, as I recall.)
>
> Handle with gloves and long-sleeve shirts. You'll itch otherwise.
>
> Have fun!
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>

[Frank Stearns]

adam79 > writes:

>Thanks for all the help. I've been talking with a guy at Acoustical
>Services, and he recommended this stuff called "Echo Eliminator," here's
>the link:
>http://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/echo_eliminator/wall_panel.htm?d=0.
>It's absorption rating for low frequencies is decent (great when
>compared to other materials). Does anyone have any experience using the
>"Echo Eliminator?"

Have not heard of these folks, but the product sounds good, and it would save you
some steps. Is it within your budget? I didn't see pricing info, but might have
missed it.

Does anyone carry it locally where you can go see it and do a little tire-kicking?

One vague but somewhat useful test is to put your ear 4-6" inches from anything that
is supposed to be an absorber. The good stuff (for absorption, such as the 703),
makes you a little queasy because there is *nothing* coming back from it. You almost
feel as if you're going to "fall" into nothingness. If effective as an absorber,
this stuff should do something similar.

Also, assuming the specs are accurate, it would probably provide a little extra help
with the 160 Hz issue you'll likely have because of the ceiling height.

But, like all such products, including 703 and to slightly lesser degree 705, best I
could tell it won't do much below 125 Hz. For the next octave down, you'd still need
panel traps. The 4" product is no doubt a little better with bass control, but still
probably can't compare to a panel trap.

I too will be interested if anyone here has any experience with this material.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

Ethan Winer > wrote:
>
>The type of "early" and "first" reflections you get from side-walls
>and the ceiling are mainly damaging at mid and high frequencies.
>That's the range that affects imaging and clarity. When those
>reflections are absorbed you can better hear small changes in EQ and
>panning and reverb effects. But Mike and Scott are of course correct
>too - the general goal for absorption in a room is to be *broadband*.
>Mike's comment to absorb "over as wide a frequency range as you can
>afford" is a perfect way to put it.

I think it's bad to think of a bass trap as an absorber. It doesn't really
_absorb_ low frequencies in the way that people think. It's also not a
resonator. It's something different.

>It doesn't really work that way. Besides wanting a uniform frequency
>response, you also want a uniform RT60 (reverb decay time). How long a
>decay is acceptable depends on the size of the room. For smaller
>domestic size rooms you should aim for no obvious reverb or ambience.
>So it's not like it's okay to have lots of reflection at some
>frequencies but not at others.

I think in small rooms, talking about RT60 very quickly becomes useless,
but I wish I had a better way to talk about reverb decay in small rooms.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Sep 2, 9:30 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> I think it's bad to think of a bass trap as an absorber. It doesn't really
> _absorb_ low frequencies in the way that people think. It's also not a
> resonator. It's something different.

Well first, there are several types of bass traps. The most common
type is based on a "porous" absorber such as fiberglass, mineral wool,
acoustic (open cell) foam, or even recycled denim. This type of bass
trap absolutely "absorbs" sound waves. You can see the proof of
absorption not only in improved Before / After frequency response
graphs, but also waterfall plots that show a reduction in decay times.
The only way such improvements are achieved is to reduce the strength
of reflections. And the only way I know of to reduce reflections -
other than opening a window to the outdoors - is to absorb them. So
there's no question that bass traps work via absorption.

> I think in small rooms, talking about RT60 very quickly becomes useless, but I wish I had a better way to talk about reverb decay in small rooms.

Yes, RT60 is meaningless in most small rooms. If a room is totally
empty you can have a long enough decay over time to call it "reverb."
But even then, the decays vary by frequency. The longest decays occur
at the "flutter echo" frequencies, which in turn are related to the
room dimensions.

There is a better metric, at least as applied to playback rooms. I
suppose it could be used in recording rooms too. That metric is called
an Energy Time Curve, and it shows the strength of individual
reflections over time. This is a great way to spot early reflections
in a control room, and see if they're string enough to cause severe
comb filtering. Most room measurement programs can show an ETC graph.
For example, the freeware Room EQ Wizard program I use these days does
that:

http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/

--Ethan

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>Ethan Winer > wrote:
>>
>>The type of "early" and "first" reflections you get from side-walls
>>and the ceiling are mainly damaging at mid and high frequencies.
>>That's the range that affects imaging and clarity. When those
>>reflections are absorbed you can better hear small changes in EQ and
>>panning and reverb effects. But Mike and Scott are of course correct
>>too - the general goal for absorption in a room is to be *broadband*.
>>Mike's comment to absorb "over as wide a frequency range as you can
>>afford" is a perfect way to put it.

>I think it's bad to think of a bass trap as an absorber. It doesn't really
>_absorb_ low frequencies in the way that people think. It's also not a
>resonator. It's something different.

I've thought of them as small springs attached to a bring spring. The LF energy in
the room is the big spring, and as it begins to undulate at the various mode
frequencies the small springs, the panel traps, pick off a portion of that engery as
it rolls through the big spring. The energy is not returned to the big spring, so it
(the room) does not "boing" (resonate) as much in the low end.

The 1" 703 behind the diaphragm in the trap is a shock absorber, and moderates
rebound flex of the diaphragm, working with the air pocket in the trap (one of the
reasons air tightness in the trap is so important).

Diaphragm mass, tension, area, and trap depth set the Q and center frequency of the
trap. (There's nothing very narrow about this, but you can nudge the effective band
a little in either direction.)

Some or all the above might be incorrect; I'm up for any better explanations.


>I think in small rooms, talking about RT60 very quickly becomes useless,
>but I wish I had a better way to talk about reverb decay in small rooms.

Yes, quite true. My MLS system offers RT20 and 30, which seem to have more value in
a small room. (I hope I cited RT30 values when I noted our room's response.)

Makes more sense to measure the width of your front door with a yardstick rather
than with the odometer in your car.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:27:10 -0500, Frank Stearns
> wrote:

(Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>>Ethan Winer > wrote:
>>>
>>>The type of "early" and "first" reflections you get from side-walls
>>>and the ceiling are mainly damaging at mid and high frequencies.
>>>That's the range that affects imaging and clarity. When those
>>>reflections are absorbed you can better hear small changes in EQ and
>>>panning and reverb effects. But Mike and Scott are of course correct
>>>too - the general goal for absorption in a room is to be *broadband*.
>>>Mike's comment to absorb "over as wide a frequency range as you can
>>>afford" is a perfect way to put it.
>
>>I think it's bad to think of a bass trap as an absorber. It doesn't really
>>_absorb_ low frequencies in the way that people think. It's also not a
>>resonator. It's something different.
>
>I've thought of them as small springs attached to a bring spring. The LF energy in
>the room is the big spring, and as it begins to undulate at the various mode
>frequencies the small springs, the panel traps, pick off a portion of that engery as
>it rolls through the big spring. The energy is not returned to the big spring, so it
>(the room) does not "boing" (resonate) as much in the low end.
>
>The 1" 703 behind the diaphragm in the trap is a shock absorber, and moderates
>rebound flex of the diaphragm, working with the air pocket in the trap (one of the
>reasons air tightness in the trap is so important).
>
>Diaphragm mass, tension, area, and trap depth set the Q and center frequency of the
>trap. (There's nothing very narrow about this, but you can nudge the effective band
>a little in either direction.)
>
>Some or all the above might be incorrect; I'm up for any better explanations.
>
>
>>I think in small rooms, talking about RT60 very quickly becomes useless,
>>but I wish I had a better way to talk about reverb decay in small rooms.
>
>Yes, quite true. My MLS system offers RT20 and 30, which seem to have more value in
>a small room. (I hope I cited RT30 values when I noted our room's response.)
>
>Makes more sense to measure the width of your front door with a yardstick rather
>than with the odometer in your car.
>
>Frank
>Mobile Audio
You really can't think of absorbers as springs. Springs do not absorb
energy - they give back all of it. If they give it back with delay,
they are a huge problem. If they give it back with no delay, they are
purely elastic surfaces - tiles would be a good example. To kill
flutter echoes in a room, you have no choice - the energy must not be
returned along its incident path. You either absorb it, or let it out
into the outside where it can radiate. Both do an identical job, but
obviously with the second you do let the outside noise in.

You are absolutely right about the 703 being a shock absorber.
Absorbing and dissipating energy is precisely what a shock absorber
does.

RT20 and RT30 are no better than RT60 in small rooms. What they do is
offer a spec which can be verified in a reasonably noisy environment.
If you have an RT60 curve for a room, you can read the RT20 and RT30
values straight off it. Taming a small room is really hard. You need
to think about what you are doing in the room. Voiceover work is
simple, and "intimate" small instruments that don't mind being
close-miked are a possibility.

d

[adam79]

On 9/2/10 12:36 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> Frank
>> Mobile Audio
> You really can't think of absorbers as springs. Springs do not absorb
> energy - they give back all of it. If they give it back with delay,
> they are a huge problem. If they give it back with no delay, they are
> purely elastic surfaces - tiles would be a good example. To kill
> flutter echoes in a room, you have no choice - the energy must not be
> returned along its incident path. You either absorb it, or let it out
> into the outside where it can radiate. Both do an identical job, but
> obviously with the second you do let the outside noise in.
>

I know that you're using springs as an analogy, but it reminded me that
I have like 3 queen sized mattresses and box-springs. Do these do
anything in terms of absorption? I'm just trying to think of things that
I already have which might be useful, which would free up my budget to
buy more acoustical material.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Frank Stearns]

adam79 > writes:

>On 9/2/10 12:36 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> Frank
>>> Mobile Audio
>> You really can't think of absorbers as springs. Springs do not absorb
>> energy - they give back all of it. If they give it back with delay,
>> they are a huge problem. If they give it back with no delay, they are
>> purely elastic surfaces - tiles would be a good example. To kill
>> flutter echoes in a room, you have no choice - the energy must not be
>> returned along its incident path. You either absorb it, or let it out
>> into the outside where it can radiate. Both do an identical job, but
>> obviously with the second you do let the outside noise in.
>>

>I know that you're using springs as an analogy, but it reminded me that
>I have like 3 queen sized mattresses and box-springs. Do these do
>anything in terms of absorption? I'm just trying to think of things that
>I already have which might be useful, which would free up my budget to
>buy more acoustical material.

Not the most efficient in terms of room volume eaten up, and there might be a few
hiccups in terms of linearity, but sure, they're worth a try. The swept LF tones or
pink noise can tell you fairly clearly what effect those things are having.
Pump a tone into the room, find a really bad buildup, then tip a mattress
against the nearest wall or perhaps even the opposite wall and see what
happens. (Forget the box springs, though, and just use the mattresses.)

And speaking of big lumps of fiberous stuff... Haven't tried it personally, but some
folks have supposedly had success stacking insulation rolls in corners for LF
control. These are rolls of the pink stuff, designed to be unfurled into a wall
cavity. If you waited and got it on sale at the warehouse home improvement places,
you might get it for $10-12 roll.

Anyone done this?

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[[email protected]]

On 2010-09-02 said:
>>I know that you're using springs as an analogy, but it reminded me
>>that I have like 3 queen sized mattresses and box-springs. Do
>>these do anything in terms of absorption? I'm just trying to think
>>of things that I already have which might be useful, which would
>>free up my budget to buy more acoustical material.
>Not the most efficient in terms of room volume eaten up, and there
>might be a few
>hiccups in terms of linearity, but sure, they're worth a try. The
>swept LF tones or
>pink noise can tell you fairly clearly what effect those things are
>having. Pump a tone into the room, find a really bad buildup, then
>tip a mattress against the nearest wall or perhaps even the
>opposite wall and see what happens. (Forget the box springs, though,
>and just use the mattresses.)

I've used them for such a purpose to try to improve a bad
situation in an impromptu recording space. MIght not have
been ideal, but it was an improvement over what we had
without them <grin>.

>And speaking of big lumps of fiberous stuff... Haven't tried it
>personally, but some
>folks have supposedly had success stacking insulation rolls in
>corners for LF control. These are rolls of the pink stuff, designed
>to be unfurled into a wall cavity. If you waited and got it on sale
>at the warehouse home improvement places,
>you might get it for $10-12 roll.
>Anyone done this?
I've seen it done. ONly thing i"d suggest is keep folks
from coming in contact with the rolls, it's still itchy
fibrous stuff to come in contact with. There again,
iompromptu recording space, and the guy had it around for a
remodeling project.

Adam might want to look at Malcolm CHisholm's site, don't
have the url in front of me, but I asked for the location of
it since it wasn't at the old one in this group a year or so
ago. GOogle the name Adam. SOme great stuff on building
flats for absorption and/or reflection, whichever you need.
IF you haven't had a look at Malcolm's site there's some
ideas for you too.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com



Great audio is never heard by the average person, but bad
audio is heard by everyone.

[Bill Graham]

> wrote in message
...
>
> On 2010-09-02 said:
> >>I know that you're using springs as an analogy, but it reminded me
> >>that I have like 3 queen sized mattresses and box-springs. Do
> >>these do anything in terms of absorption? I'm just trying to think
> >>of things that I already have which might be useful, which would
> >>free up my budget to buy more acoustical material.
> >Not the most efficient in terms of room volume eaten up, and there
> >might be a few
> >hiccups in terms of linearity, but sure, they're worth a try. The
> >swept LF tones or
> >pink noise can tell you fairly clearly what effect those things are
> >having. Pump a tone into the room, find a really bad buildup, then
> >tip a mattress against the nearest wall or perhaps even the
> >opposite wall and see what happens. (Forget the box springs, though,
> >and just use the mattresses.)
>
> I've used them for such a purpose to try to improve a bad
> situation in an impromptu recording space. MIght not have
> been ideal, but it was an improvement over what we had
> without them <grin>.
>
> >And speaking of big lumps of fiberous stuff... Haven't tried it
> >personally, but some
> >folks have supposedly had success stacking insulation rolls in
> >corners for LF control. These are rolls of the pink stuff, designed
> >to be unfurled into a wall cavity. If you waited and got it on sale
> >at the warehouse home improvement places,
> >you might get it for $10-12 roll.
> >Anyone done this?
> I've seen it done. ONly thing i"d suggest is keep folks
> from coming in contact with the rolls, it's still itchy
> fibrous stuff to come in contact with. There again,
> iompromptu recording space, and the guy had it around for a
> remodeling project.
>
> Adam might want to look at Malcolm CHisholm's site, don't
> have the url in front of me, but I asked for the location of
> it since it wasn't at the old one in this group a year or so
> ago. GOogle the name Adam. SOme great stuff on building
> flats for absorption and/or reflection, whichever you need.
> IF you haven't had a look at Malcolm's site there's some
> ideas for you too.

The most acoustically "dead" room I ever heard, was a computer room at
Stanford University where the guy in charge had hung acoustical adsorbing
tiles vertically from the ceiling every 4 feet or so, over the noise making
items in the room. (which at that time were the high speed printers) Before
then, I thought those tiles were supposed to be pasted on the walls....They
were 2 by 4 feet each, and this guy hung them vertically from the ceiling,
so they only cleared your head by about two feet or so.....Boy, was that
room DEAD!!

[adam79]

On 9/2/10 8:33 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>
> The most acoustically "dead" room I ever heard, was a computer room at
> Stanford University where the guy in charge had hung acoustical
> adsorbing tiles vertically from the ceiling every 4 feet or so, over the
> noise making items in the room. (which at that time were the high speed
> printers) Before then, I thought those tiles were supposed to be pasted
> on the walls....They were 2 by 4 feet each, and this guy hung them
> vertically from the ceiling, so they only cleared your head by about two
> feet or so.....Boy, was that room DEAD!!

In alot of the stuff I've read/been reading, air space is a great sound
blocker.

[Arny Krueger]

"Frank Stearns" > wrote in
message
> And speaking of big lumps of fiberous stuff... Haven't
> tried it personally, but some folks have supposedly had
> success stacking insulation rolls in corners for LF
> control. These are rolls of the pink stuff, designed to
> be unfurled into a wall cavity. If you waited and got it
> on sale at the warehouse home improvement places, you
> might get it for $10-12 roll.

Household insulation has a nominal density of 2 pounds per cubic foot.

That $12 roll of insulation is 3 1/2 inches thick, and covers 40 square
feet, for a total volume of 11 cubic feet. It should weigh about 22 pounds
(unfaced). You are playing about $0.50 a pound for the fiberglass.

In comparison a package of 6 2' x 4' sheets of Dow Corning 703 insulation
board has a nominal density of 3 pounds per cubic foot. The package has a
volume of 8 cubic feet and should weigh about 24 pounds. It costs about $74
at a Dow Corning distributor. You're paying about $3 per pound for the
fiberglass.

If you could figure out how to compress the roll insulation by about 1/3 it
would work about as well as 703 for only a fraction of the price.

[Arny Krueger]

"adam79" > wrote in message
net
> On 9/2/10 8:33 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> The most acoustically "dead" room I ever heard, was a
>> computer room at Stanford University where the guy in
>> charge had hung acoustical adsorbing tiles vertically
>> from the ceiling every 4 feet or so, over the noise
>> making items in the room. (which at that time were the
>> high speed printers) Before then, I thought those tiles
>> were supposed to be pasted on the walls....They were 2
>> by 4 feet each, and this guy hung them vertically from
>> the ceiling, so they only cleared your head by about two
>> feet or so.....Boy, was that room DEAD!!
>
> In alot of the stuff I've read/been reading, air space is
> a great sound blocker.

No, air with fiberglass panels absorbs sound far better than just air.

[Frank Stearns]

"Bill Graham" > writes:

snips

>The most acoustically "dead" room I ever heard, was a computer room at
>Stanford University where the guy in charge had hung acoustical adsorbing
>tiles vertically from the ceiling every 4 feet or so, over the noise making
>items in the room. (which at that time were the high speed printers) Before
>then, I thought those tiles were supposed to be pasted on the walls....They
>were 2 by 4 feet each, and this guy hung them vertically from the ceiling,
>so they only cleared your head by about two feet or so.....Boy, was that
>room DEAD!!

Great story. Those old computer rooms can really hurt your ears.

Place where I swim (room is 90 ft x 50 ft by 25 high) had to take out the rotting
insulation batts in the ceiling and build a new roof over the old one and insulate
between the two.

But now we had a big cavern, with hard surfaces everywhere.

The RT60 went up to over 11 seconds (measured by their acoustician).

Patrons and owner agreed it was intolerable. Imagine a bunch of screaming kids; but
even the splash sounds of adult lap swimming was ear shattering.

The eventually hung, on the verticle, fifty or sixty 2'x4' sheets of styrofoam-like
material, about 2 inches thick, pressed with traditional anachoic wedge shapes
alternating 90 degrees; probably a 100 or so wedge clusters per sheet. One side was
an "innie", the other side was an "outie" of the wedge contours.

I was happily amazed. RT60 went down to just a little over 2 seconds. Much more
pleasant!

It's amazing what you can do if you stop the energy from rolling around and around
and around... And in this case, you only needed to capture it on one plain.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Frank Stearns]

"Arny Krueger" > writes:

>"Frank Stearns" > wrote in
>message
>> And speaking of big lumps of fiberous stuff... Haven't
>> tried it personally, but some folks have supposedly had
>> success stacking insulation rolls in corners for LF
>> control. These are rolls of the pink stuff, designed to
>> be unfurled into a wall cavity. If you waited and got it
>> on sale at the warehouse home improvement places, you
>> might get it for $10-12 roll.

>Household insulation has a nominal density of 2 pounds per cubic foot.

>That $12 roll of insulation is 3 1/2 inches thick, and covers 40 square
>feet, for a total volume of 11 cubic feet. It should weigh about 22 pounds
>(unfaced). You are playing about $0.50 a pound for the fiberglass.

>In comparison a package of 6 2' x 4' sheets of Dow Corning 703 insulation
>board has a nominal density of 3 pounds per cubic foot. The package has a
>volume of 8 cubic feet and should weigh about 24 pounds. It costs about $74
>at a Dow Corning distributor. You're paying about $3 per pound for the
>fiberglass.

>If you could figure out how to compress the roll insulation by about 1/3 it
>would work about as well as 703 for only a fraction of the price.


Aye, there's the rub (or itch, as the case might be). 700 series is way more space
efficient, both for acoustic use and insulating purposes.

Now, if you leave the roll insulation bundled, there is some compression that has
already taken place. The near 2 foot diameter of the roll should do something in a
corner to help with LF.

As far as compressing it to 1/3 for the same performance as 703... Not so sure about
that -- not entirely sure that the relationship is linear (compression v.
performance). The relationship might be leaning more toward log or "hocky stick"?
Don't know, just asking.

Also, have no way to know, but perhaps the geometry of the fiber particles (or
particle clumps) differs between what's used to make the batt and pressed forms?

Interesting discussion.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[PStamler]

On Sep 2, 8:22*pm, Frank Stearns >
wrote:

> Now, if you leave the roll insulation bundled, there is some compression that has
> already taken place. The near 2 foot diameter of the roll should do something in a
> corner to help with LF.

Put some cloth around it and some ends on it, and you've invented Tube
Traps.

Peace,
Paul

[Frank Stearns]

PStamler > writes:

>On Sep 2, 8:22=A0pm, Frank Stearns >
>wrote:

>> Now, if you leave the roll insulation bundled, there is some compression =
>that has
>> already taken place. The near 2 foot diameter of the roll should do somet=
>hing in a
>> corner to help with LF.

>Put some cloth around it and some ends on it, and you've invented Tube
>Traps.

Pretty close. The DIY tube traps we've done here use Owens-Corning 703 in an
industrial pipe insulation format. You can get 3 foot lengths of pipe sleeving
(clamshell configuration) with wall thicknesses of 1", 2" or 3", with inside
diameters from 6" to 24" and probably other sizes as well. We used mostly 12" ID, 2"
wall, some 16" ID as well.

Cap both ends with 3/4" MDF (loose partial fill with chunks of batt insulation), and
you have a fairly good tube trap. Use the faced version of the pipe insulation to
provide some MF and HF reflection if desired; the round shape gives some flavor
of diffusion.

Just like the panel traps, make sure the caps and tube are reasonably air tight. My
trick was to center up holes in the MDF caps and then in the ends of 1 1/4" dowel
(closet rod stock) slightly shorter then the pipe insulation length. Screw the
dowel on one cap, drop on and center the sleeve, loose fill with batt insulation if
desired, then fit the other cap. Again be careful about over tensioning, otherwise
the insulation walls can start to resonate.

They don't seem quite as effective as panel traps but they make up for it by being
portable, and they do look cool, if you can find a nice or interesting colored cloth
to use for a wrap.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message


> I hope the new styrofoam material was moisture
> proof/resistant....Strikes me that mould would be a
> problem with most materials in an atmosphere like that.

More to the point, hopefully it was fire resistant.

Lately we seem to have experienced a goodly number of unfortunate deaths due
to people obtaining good sound along with considerable risk of catastrophic
fire.

[Frank Stearns]

"Arny Krueger" > writes:

>"Bill Graham" > wrote in message


>> I hope the new styrofoam material was moisture
>> proof/resistant....Strikes me that mould would be a
>> problem with most materials in an atmosphere like that.

>More to the point, hopefully it was fire resistant.

>Lately we seem to have experienced a goodly number of unfortunate deaths due
>to people obtaining good sound along with considerable risk of catastrophic
>fire.

I probably should not have said "styrofoam" -- these sheets only look like it from a
distance (I missed the day they were put in and didn't see one close up). I'm sure
they are moisture inert (2 years and no visible decay so far) and flame retardant.

Inspectors come in for various things on a weekly/biweekly basis. The county here is
very strict, once in a while stupidly so...

This room has a full-on fire suppression system (lots of fire sprinkler heads
overhead). This is in a room with cinderblock walls and a corrogated steel ceiling.
And where the floor itself isn't concrete, it's water!!! Most of the floor area is
water -- three pools' worth.

I always chuckle as the spray from my backstroke obscures my view of the fire
sprinklers overhead.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Sep 2, 12:27 pm, Frank Stearns >
wrote:
> The 1" 703 behind the diaphragm in the trap is a shock absorber, and moderates
> rebound flex of the diaphragm

Yes, this is true for wood panel bass traps. Though the entire
assembly acts as a shock absorber for sound waves. The fiberglass is
equivalent to the viscous damping material in a mechanical shock
absorber. Regardless, the net result is still absorption. There may be
side-effects, such as the wood panel continuing to vibrate after the
sound source goes away. But as long as the sound reflected is less
than the sound arriving at the panel, at least some of the sound has
been absorbed.

--Ethan

[Bill Graham]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Graham" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I hope the new styrofoam material was moisture
>> proof/resistant....Strikes me that mould would be a
>> problem with most materials in an atmosphere like that.
>
> More to the point, hopefully it was fire resistant.
>
> Lately we seem to have experienced a goodly number of unfortunate deaths
> due to people obtaining good sound along with considerable risk of
> catastrophic fire.
>
Yes, but indoor swimming pools have a humidity problem all their
own.....When I first moved up here to Northern Oregon, I had the opportunity
to buy a house with one, but I decided not to assume all the problems that I
could see in its future.....I'm glad now that I didn't....Far better to buy
a house with an outside pool, and then figure out a way to cover it in the
Winter so you can swim all year.....