Crazy but maybe the most important question I've ask from any newsgroup. I
live in Brooklyn, NYC, I may moving (very soon) and buying a business out
of the city, I want to buy a house where I can record my wife and I ,
Classical singing and guitar also Classical singing with Piano. I know
there is some do's and don'ts I just don't know what they are. Like what
dimensions are better in what size rooms, are vault ceilings better , is
there a perfect size.

One house I know has a living room that's 27 L 20w 12 h, with doors that
closes the rooms up pretty tight, is that what I looking for? .An other
house has a living room that has cathedral or is it vault ceilings that is
huge but there is no doors to close . I can't see all the houses so I would
like to take some out of the picture.

Where I'm going, I have three days , to pick a house and I'm not that
bright about sound. I have many chooses , but if I had some "blue print"
in my head , it would help. I want the living room be our Sanctuary when
the 4 kids are in school. We always enjoy practicing in different
sanctuaries in Brooklyn.

The family living, recording and practicing for us is a quality of life
issue to be come better musician/parents among other things .I know a
studio in house is not "profession" sounding as a great sounding sanctuary
but still I want to do my best.

FYI, Oh yea ,, you all at rec.audio.pro, creamed me when you heard how
small of a room I have us practicing in and try to record in , so I listen
and I thank you for any help this time too.


Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com/

"Edward Bridge" wrote in message
ink.net...

One house I know has a living room that's 27 L 20w 12 h, with doors that
closes the rooms up pretty tight, is that what I looking for? .An other
house has a living room that has cathedral or is it vault ceilings that is
huge but there is no doors to close . I can't see all the houses so I
would
like to take some out of the picture.

That 27x29x12 room works out nicely in terms of standing waves. If it were
me, I'd go for that one, all other things being equal. Prepare of course to
do acoustic treatment to get the reverb times you want, but from a basic
shape point of view that one's a very good start.

Peace,
Paul

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...


That 27x29x12 room works out nicely in terms of standing waves. If it were
me, I'd go for that one, all other things being equal. Prepare of course
to
do acoustic treatment to get the reverb times you want, but from a basic
shape point of view that one's a very good start.

Cool, that place has the five bedrooms too!.. . .umm . is there a pretty
way to do acoustic treatment ?
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com

Edward Bridge wrote:
is there a pretty way to do acoustic treatment ?

Hang tapestries and quilts on the walls? It's not exactly textured
studio panels, but it beats BBC egg crates... and it can make a real
difference. (A few years ago, I had to work with a room which had about
a second-and-a-half reverberation in specific frequencies -- rather
painful. Hanging curtains along the two long parallel walls made a HUGE
difference.)

Note that you can never remove reverberation once it's recorded. You
*can* cheat it in. If the room doesn't have *exactly* the sound you
want, deader is probably better.

"Edward Bridge" wrote in message
ink.net...

That 27x29x12 room works out nicely in terms of standing waves. If it
were
me, I'd go for that one, all other things being equal. Prepare of course
to
do acoustic treatment to get the reverb times you want, but from a basic
shape point of view that one's a very good start.

Cool, that place has the five bedrooms too!.. . .umm . is there a
pretty
way to do acoustic treatment ?

The wooden-framed absorbers with cloth covers that F. Alton Everest shows in
several of his books look fairly innocuous in a Danish Modern sort of way.
Acoustic tiles on the ceiling are unobtrusive, especially 12' up.

Peace,
Paul

In article ,
Joe Kesselman wrote:

Edward Bridge wrote:
is there a pretty way to do acoustic treatment ?

Hang tapestries and quilts on the walls? It's not exactly textured
studio panels, but it beats BBC egg crates... and it can make a real
difference. (A few years ago, I had to work with a room which had about
a second-and-a-half reverberation in specific frequencies -- rather
painful. Hanging curtains along the two long parallel walls made a HUGE
difference.)

Note that you can never remove reverberation once it's recorded. You
*can* cheat it in. If the room doesn't have *exactly* the sound you
want, deader is probably better.


Bookcases make reasonable diffusers and look like... bookcases.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Note that you can never remove reverberation once it's recorded.


Now there is an interesting signal processing challenge.

Would there be a market for this if it could be done?


Mark

Mark wrote:
Note that you can never remove reverberation once it's recorded.


Now there is an interesting signal processing challenge.

To say the least.


Would there be a market for this if it could be done?

Sure--let us know when your quantum computer is up to the task.

Mark wrote:

Note that you can never remove reverberation once it's recorded.

Now there is an interesting signal processing challenge.

Would there be a market for this if it could be done?

There would be several different markets for different kinds of
dereverberation. This has been something of the holy grail of DSP
for the past 20 years, and every now and then somebody claims to have
a working solution but it never seems to pan out.
--scott

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

Be aware that it is relatively easy to absorb high frequencies, but
difficult to absorb lows. And for this reason, usually diffusers work
better than absorbers, unless you feel that there is excessive HF
reverberation. True, you can't remove reverb once it is recorded, and
this is true of HF *or* LF information. In fact, one hallmark (if you
can call it that) of "amatuer" recordings is just that: no sparkle but
definitely the sound of a room where highs have been absorbed but there
are still reflections in the lows.

Bookcases work well, and there are several inexpensive diffusers
available on the market.

To get a general sense of the acoustics in that room, just walk in
there and clap. Listen to the echos and reverb for an idea of what
kinds of problems you might need to fix. Distinct "flutter" is one of
the worst problems, but generally easy to tame with diffusers.

Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:

Note that you can never remove reverberation once it's recorded.

Now there is an interesting signal processing challenge.

Would there be a market for this if it could be done?

There would be several different markets for different kinds of
dereverberation. This has been something of the holy grail of DSP
for the past 20 years, and every now and then somebody claims to have
a working solution but it never seems to pan out.

I've noticed that cutting low eq seems to reduce it significantly.

I would think that if one can collect the impulse response of the room,
dereverberation should be do-able. But just for that one mic location
and one source location at which the impulse response was collected.
I guess those limitations make it not usable in practice.

Mark

/
please reply to
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
news

"Edward Bridge" wrote in message
ink.net...

That 27x29x12 room works out nicely in terms of standing waves. If it
were
me, I'd go for that one, all other things being equal. Prepare of
course
to
do acoustic treatment to get the reverb times you want, but from a
basic
shape point of view that one's a very good start.

Cool, that place has the five bedrooms too!.. . .umm . is there a
pretty
way to do acoustic treatment ?

The wooden-framed absorbers with cloth covers that F. Alton Everest shows
in
several of his books look fairly innocuous in a Danish Modern sort of way.
Acoustic tiles on the ceiling are unobtrusive, especially 12' up.


Danish Modern, umm maybe I could pull that one off, how are his books?
--
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com

please reply to
"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Joe Kesselman wrote:

Edward Bridge wrote:
is there a pretty way to do acoustic treatment ?

Hang tapestries and quilts on the walls? It's not exactly textured
studio panels, but it beats BBC egg crates... and it can make a real
difference. (A few years ago, I had to work with a room which had about
a second-and-a-half reverberation in specific frequencies -- rather
painful. Hanging curtains along the two long parallel walls made a HUGE
difference.)

Note that you can never remove reverberation once it's recorded. You
*can* cheat it in. If the room doesn't have *exactly* the sound you
want, deader is probably better.


Bookcases make reasonable diffusers and look like... bookcases.

Plenty of those, So instead of having the cases against the wall, maybe have
them sticking out , sort of like a partisan?
--
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com/

"Edward Bridge" wrote in message news:kyV6e.4580

Bookcases make reasonable diffusers and look like... bookcases.

Plenty of those, So instead of having the cases against the wall, maybe
have
them sticking out , sort of like a partisan?

There's no need to politicize your bookcases. Non-partisan ones will do
just fine.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

In article . net,
"Edward Bridge" wrote:

please reply to
"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Joe Kesselman wrote:

Edward Bridge wrote:
is there a pretty way to do acoustic treatment ?

Hang tapestries and quilts on the walls? It's not exactly textured
studio panels, but it beats BBC egg crates... and it can make a real
difference. (A few years ago, I had to work with a room which had about
a second-and-a-half reverberation in specific frequencies -- rather
painful. Hanging curtains along the two long parallel walls made a HUGE
difference.)

Note that you can never remove reverberation once it's recorded. You
*can* cheat it in. If the room doesn't have *exactly* the sound you
want, deader is probably better.


Bookcases make reasonable diffusers and look like... bookcases.

Plenty of those, So instead of having the cases against the wall, maybe have
them sticking out , sort of like a partisan?
--

They'll work along the wall. The books should be arranged randomly so they
stick out different distances and create a fairly random reflective surface.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

"Hal Laurent" wrote in message
...
\

There's no need to politicize your bookcases. Non-partisan ones will do
just fine.


... red in the face . . .hey, I wonder does the word partisan comes from word
partition. . . .lol. .


--
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com/

"Edward Bridge" wrote in message
nk.net...

The wooden-framed absorbers with cloth covers that F. Alton Everest
shows
in
several of his books look fairly innocuous in a Danish Modern sort of
way.
Acoustic tiles on the ceiling are unobtrusive, especially 12' up.


Danish Modern, umm maybe I could pull that one off, how are his books?

Excellent; well-written, remarkably understandable. Don't start with "Master
Handbook of Acoustics", though; begin with one of his less fancy books and
work your way up. When you think you get the idea, then check out the Master
Handbook. It'll knock you back a couple of notches, but it will teach you a
lot of new things too.

Peace,
Paul

Mark wrote:
I would think that if one can collect the impulse response of the room,
dereverberation should be do-able. But just for that one mic location
and one source location at which the impulse response was collected.
I guess those limitations make it not usable in practice.

And impossible even in theory without full knowledge of the
environment. What enters a single mic simply doesn't have
the information needed to begin to approach a blind solution.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Jay Kadis wrote:
Bookcases make reasonable diffusers and look like... bookcases.

Good to know, since I expect my library to do double duty as a
performance room.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
There would be several different markets for different kinds of
dereverberation. This has been something of the holy grail of DSP
for the past 20 years, and every now and then somebody claims to have
a working solution but it never seems to pan out.

It's theoretically possible if you have a complete model of the
reflective environment and exactly where the sound source is originating
from. Of course that just reduces it to another unsolved problem, not
least because performers move.

Joe Kesselman wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
There would be several different markets for different kinds of
dereverberation. This has been something of the holy grail of DSP
for the past 20 years, and every now and then somebody claims to have
a working solution but it never seems to pan out.

It's theoretically possible if you have a complete model of the
reflective environment and exactly where the sound source is originating
from. Of course that just reduces it to another unsolved problem, not
least because performers move.

Right.

Most of the systems out there rely on some method to approximate the
impulse response of the room so they can convolve an inverse response.
This turns out to be hard to do even if you have good percussive sounds
to work with, and it turns out to be really, really hard to do with only
voice samples.

An example of a system that kind of works sort of a little bit if you
don't listen too hard for communications-grade teleconferencing systems
can be found in AES Preprint 6214, Hesu Huang and Chris Kyriakakis'
"Computationally Efficient Blind Dereverberation of Audio Signals."

As I said, this is one of the holy grails, like automatic translation
is for the computer folks. It looks like it ought to be pretty easy
at first until you actually try to make it work.
--scott


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