How To Totally Deaden a Room?

[Larry]

My little "studio" is 15' long, 8' wide, and 8' tall. The only
treatment I see that makes sense for this room is to make it totally
dead. It is used as a control room as well as the live room.
Would this be best accomplished with foam, or insulation? If
insulation, then what type? All walls and ceiling? Should the floor
be as dead as possible too?
I was considering leaving the wall opposite my monitors (the one 15'
away) untreated to have at least one reflective surface, but don't
know if that is a good idea or not.
I have read as many articles online about this as I could find, and
these are questions I have left.

Thanks for any help.

[BlacklineMusic]

I'd rather mix in a room with no treatment at all then in one that is dead.
Its impossible to mix in dead rooms, and its a very uncomfortable atmosphere.
There are ways to treat rooms and standing waves without totally deadening it.
Look into it.
Steve

[DaveDrummer]

simply record in a room that you want the final mix to sound like. sure, you
can add reverb, compression, and all these things can HELP, but they'll
effect the mix if the original was dead. In other words, unless you WANT a
dead mix, you dont want to completely deaden the room. Plus, I think its
hard to sing/play in a room with no reverb. Think about it, a singer needs
to hear the last note they hit. You dont realize it, but its important.

my $.02

Dave
"Larry" > wrote in message
...
> My little "studio" is 15' long, 8' wide, and 8' tall. The only
> treatment I see that makes sense for this room is to make it totally
> dead. It is used as a control room as well as the live room.
> Would this be best accomplished with foam, or insulation? If
> insulation, then what type? All walls and ceiling? Should the floor
> be as dead as possible too?
> I was considering leaving the wall opposite my monitors (the one 15'
> away) untreated to have at least one reflective surface, but don't
> know if that is a good idea or not.
> I have read as many articles online about this as I could find, and
> these are questions I have left.
>
> Thanks for any help.

[Dave Martin]

Don't make it as dead as possible. Besides the fact that it will sound
horrible, you most likely have neither the space or the expertise to deal
with the low end effectively (hint - certainly carpet or acoustic foam won't
do it).

If you are going to take a total DIY approach, at least buy a copy of F.
Alton Everest's "Building a Recording Studio On A Budget" and read it a half
dozen times. There's also an acoustics group on the Yahoo Groups where some
folks could give you some advice (at least better advice than you're getting
now, if you think that making the room totally dead is a good idea).

Good Luck!

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com

"Larry" > wrote in message
...
> My little "studio" is 15' long, 8' wide, and 8' tall. The only
> treatment I see that makes sense for this room is to make it totally
> dead. It is used as a control room as well as the live room.
> Would this be best accomplished with foam, or insulation? If
> insulation, then what type? All walls and ceiling? Should the floor
> be as dead as possible too?
> I was considering leaving the wall opposite my monitors (the one 15'
> away) untreated to have at least one reflective surface, but don't
> know if that is a good idea or not.
> I have read as many articles online about this as I could find, and
> these are questions I have left.
>
> Thanks for any help.

[Larry]

(BlacklineMusic) wrote in message >...
> I'd rather mix in a room with no treatment at all then in one that is dead.
> Its impossible to mix in dead rooms, and its a very uncomfortable atmosphere.
> There are ways to treat rooms and standing waves without totally deadening it.
> Look into it.
> Steve


The way I take it, a room this small, especially with the poor room
modes is better off being deadened. So what other options are there
for this room?

[Brian Takei]

Larry ) in article <769a24.0310221345.59977e28
@posting.google.com> wrote:
>
> The way I take it, a room this small, especially with the poor room
> modes is better off being deadened. So what other options are there
> for this room?

I'm no expert, but I think your plan to "Totally Deaden" an 8x8x15 foot
room could be better informed by such things as Everest's books.
Getting 'flat' frequency results from an absorbtion 'system' will be
very difficult, even if you throw a chunk of money at it, and you're
almost certain to end up with a room that is very heavy and problematic
on the lower end (with the opposite effect on your mixes). In any case,
good headphones might also be very useful to you for checking mixes in
that room.

- Brian

[DavidMackBlauvelt]

(BlacklineMusic) wrote in
:

> I'd rather mix in a room with no treatment at all then in one that is
> dead. Its impossible to mix in dead rooms, and its a very
> uncomfortable atmosphere. There are ways to treat rooms and standing
> waves without totally deadening it. Look into it.
> Steve

http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/index.php

Start reading, especially the SAE part. Post some pics and we can help you
out.

Best,

DMB

[Larry]

"Dave Martin" > wrote in message >...
> Don't make it as dead as possible. Besides the fact that it will sound
> horrible, you most likely have neither the space or the expertise to deal
> with the low end effectively (hint - certainly carpet or acoustic foam won't
> do it).
>
> If you are going to take a total DIY approach, at least buy a copy of F.
> Alton Everest's "Building a Recording Studio On A Budget" and read it a half
> dozen times. There's also an acoustics group on the Yahoo Groups where some
> folks could give you some advice (at least better advice than you're getting
> now, if you think that making the room totally dead is a good idea).
>
> Good Luck!
>
> --
> Dave Martin
> Java Jive Studio
> Nashville, TN
> www.javajivestudio.com

Thanks everybody for the help :)
I am a carpenter by trade, and money really isn't an issue for this
project (save adding a new addition to the house.) I have decent
monitors, but I do use headphones as an additional reference already.

Alas, this is the only room I have available for recording.

I can gather from the replies so far that dead rooms must sound pretty
horrid. I have never been in one, so thanks for the warning.
Do you have the URL for the Yahoo groups?

Thanks again.

[Steve L.]

There's a lot of good advice on this board already. Download everything and
search.

"Larry" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Martin" > wrote in message
>...
> > Don't make it as dead as possible. Besides the fact that it will sound
> > horrible, you most likely have neither the space or the expertise to
deal
> > with the low end effectively (hint - certainly carpet or acoustic foam
won't
> > do it).
> >
> > If you are going to take a total DIY approach, at least buy a copy of F.
> > Alton Everest's "Building a Recording Studio On A Budget" and read it a
half
> > dozen times. There's also an acoustics group on the Yahoo Groups where
some
> > folks could give you some advice (at least better advice than you're
getting
> > now, if you think that making the room totally dead is a good idea).
> >
> > Good Luck!
> >
> > --
> > Dave Martin
> > Java Jive Studio
> > Nashville, TN
> > www.javajivestudio.com
>
> Thanks everybody for the help :)
> I am a carpenter by trade, and money really isn't an issue for this
> project (save adding a new addition to the house.) I have decent
> monitors, but I do use headphones as an additional reference already.
>
> Alas, this is the only room I have available for recording.
>
> I can gather from the replies so far that dead rooms must sound pretty
> horrid. I have never been in one, so thanks for the warning.
> Do you have the URL for the Yahoo groups?
>
> Thanks again.

[Garrett Cox]

I also agree that you want to have some "liveliness" to a room. And
mixing in a completely dead room would probably be a bad idea. I know
that if i walk into a completely dead room i get dizzy. Something
about it is just not right.

I have to disagree about "Plus, I think its hard to sing/play in a
room with no reverb. Think about it, a singer needs to hear the last
note they hit. You dont realize it, but its important." Every musician
i've recorded has been wearing headphones anyway. Especially the
singers. So i wouldn't be as concerned about your performances lacking
that special quality other than the acoustics or lack there of.

garrett

(Larry) wrote in message >...
> "Dave Martin" > wrote in message >...
> > Don't make it as dead as possible. Besides the fact that it will sound
> > horrible, you most likely have neither the space or the expertise to deal
> > with the low end effectively (hint - certainly carpet or acoustic foam won't
> > do it).
> >
> > If you are going to take a total DIY approach, at least buy a copy of F.
> > Alton Everest's "Building a Recording Studio On A Budget" and read it a half
> > dozen times. There's also an acoustics group on the Yahoo Groups where some
> > folks could give you some advice (at least better advice than you're getting
> > now, if you think that making the room totally dead is a good idea).
> >
> > Good Luck!
> >
> > --
> > Dave Martin
> > Java Jive Studio
> > Nashville, TN
> > www.javajivestudio.com
>
> Thanks everybody for the help :)
> I am a carpenter by trade, and money really isn't an issue for this
> project (save adding a new addition to the house.) I have decent
> monitors, but I do use headphones as an additional reference already.
>
> Alas, this is the only room I have available for recording.
>
> I can gather from the replies so far that dead rooms must sound pretty
> horrid. I have never been in one, so thanks for the warning.
> Do you have the URL for the Yahoo groups?
>
> Thanks again.

[Garrett Cox]

I also agree that you want to have some "liveliness" to a room. And
mixing in a completely dead room would probably be a bad idea. I know
that if i walk into a completely dead room i get dizzy. Something
about it is just not right.

I have to disagree about "Plus, I think its hard to sing/play in a
room with no reverb. Think about it, a singer needs to hear the last
note they hit. You dont realize it, but its important." Every musician
i've recorded has been wearing headphones anyway. Especially the
singers. So i wouldn't be as concerned about your performances lacking
that special quality other than the acoustics or lack there of.

garrett

(Larry) wrote in message >...
> "Dave Martin" > wrote in message >...
> > Don't make it as dead as possible. Besides the fact that it will sound
> > horrible, you most likely have neither the space or the expertise to deal
> > with the low end effectively (hint - certainly carpet or acoustic foam won't
> > do it).
> >
> > If you are going to take a total DIY approach, at least buy a copy of F.
> > Alton Everest's "Building a Recording Studio On A Budget" and read it a half
> > dozen times. There's also an acoustics group on the Yahoo Groups where some
> > folks could give you some advice (at least better advice than you're getting
> > now, if you think that making the room totally dead is a good idea).
> >
> > Good Luck!
> >
> > --
> > Dave Martin
> > Java Jive Studio
> > Nashville, TN
> > www.javajivestudio.com
>
> Thanks everybody for the help :)
> I am a carpenter by trade, and money really isn't an issue for this
> project (save adding a new addition to the house.) I have decent
> monitors, but I do use headphones as an additional reference already.
>
> Alas, this is the only room I have available for recording.
>
> I can gather from the replies so far that dead rooms must sound pretty
> horrid. I have never been in one, so thanks for the warning.
> Do you have the URL for the Yahoo groups?
>
> Thanks again.

[Garrett Cox]

I also agree that you want to have some "liveliness" to a room. And
mixing in a completely dead room would probably be a bad idea. I know
that if i walk into a completely dead room i get dizzy. Something
about it is just not right.

I have to disagree about "Plus, I think its hard to sing/play in a
room with no reverb. Think about it, a singer needs to hear the last
note they hit. You dont realize it, but its important." Every musician
i've recorded has been wearing headphones anyway. Especially the
singers. So i wouldn't be as concerned about your performances lacking
that special quality other than the acoustics or lack there of.

garrett

(Larry) wrote in message >...
> "Dave Martin" > wrote in message >...
> > Don't make it as dead as possible. Besides the fact that it will sound
> > horrible, you most likely have neither the space or the expertise to deal
> > with the low end effectively (hint - certainly carpet or acoustic foam won't
> > do it).
> >
> > If you are going to take a total DIY approach, at least buy a copy of F.
> > Alton Everest's "Building a Recording Studio On A Budget" and read it a half
> > dozen times. There's also an acoustics group on the Yahoo Groups where some
> > folks could give you some advice (at least better advice than you're getting
> > now, if you think that making the room totally dead is a good idea).
> >
> > Good Luck!
> >
> > --
> > Dave Martin
> > Java Jive Studio
> > Nashville, TN
> > www.javajivestudio.com
>
> Thanks everybody for the help :)
> I am a carpenter by trade, and money really isn't an issue for this
> project (save adding a new addition to the house.) I have decent
> monitors, but I do use headphones as an additional reference already.
>
> Alas, this is the only room I have available for recording.
>
> I can gather from the replies so far that dead rooms must sound pretty
> horrid. I have never been in one, so thanks for the warning.
> Do you have the URL for the Yahoo groups?
>
> Thanks again.

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Larry > wrote:

> My little "studio" is 15' long, 8' wide, and 8' tall. The only
> treatment I see that makes sense for this room is to make it totally
> dead. It is used as a control room as well as the live room. Would
> this be best accomplished with foam, or insulation? If insulation,
> then what type? All walls and ceiling? Should the floor be as dead
> as possible too? I was considering leaving the wall opposite my
> monitors (the one 15' away) untreated to have at least one reflective
> surface, but don't know if that is a good idea or not. I have read as
> many articles online about this as I could find, and these are
> questions I have left.

First consider that there's really no such thing as a completely dead
room. Now consider that the problems you're likely to have due to your
room's dimensions will be irregular frequency response in the low
frequencies. Some will sound too loud and others too quiet at any
particular position in the room. Thirdly consider that most sound
absorption techniques are more effective at high frequencies than at
low frequencies. Add these factors together, and you'll start to see
that when you're done you're likely to have just as many problems as
when you started, and the specific frequencies you end up knocking down
in a brute-force absorption approach may be the ones that were already
lacking. The correct solution is to change the dimensions of the room.
Since it's probably not practical to make the room larger (can you
knock down a wall?), and the room is already pretty small, the correct
solution may not be available to you. The next-best solution, and the
next step in any event, is to analyze the room and assess the specific
problems you have. Then, it's a matter of finding the specific
treatments YOUR ROOM needs. There are going to be lots of frequencies
that you don't want to absorb or reduce, so don't just go for broadband
absorption. Find (calculate and/or measure) the frequencies where
you're getting modal reinforcement or cancellation, and build traps
tuned to those frequencies. Once again, you need some of those F.
Alton Everest books. Good stuff.

ulysses

[willp17]

(Larry) wrote in message >...
> My little "studio" is 15' long, 8' wide, and 8' tall. The only
> treatment I see that makes sense for this room is to make it totally
> dead.

Along with the Everest book, try these couple of links for starters:

http://www.recording.org/users/acoustics/

http://johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/index.php

[Ethan Winer]

Larry,

Everyone already told you not the make the room totally dead, which is
correct. One thing I didn't see mentioned is that most common acoustic
materials, like foam and fiberglass, absorb only the mids and highs and do
nothing for the lows. So applying such materials, even if you don't cover
all the room surfaces, makes the room sterile and creepy sounding while
still leaving it boomy. Low frequency absorption is also needed to flatten
the room response, which is surely very skewed now with no bass trapping.
The proper approach therefore is to install broadband absorption, using
materials or products that absorb down to at least 80 Hz.

The good news is a room that size can definitely be made much better, and
without killing all the ambience. But you'll need something more substantial
than foam or other thin materials. Besides the good advice to get Everest's
book(s), I urge you to read my Acoustics FAQ, second in the list on my
Articles page:

www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html

It condenses all the basics of acoustic treatment into a single large
article that avoids math and is easy to follow.

--Ethan

=================
www.realtraps.com
The acoustic treatment experts

[Your Add Here!]

Open a morgue.