Room division

[archive]

From: "Jose Ramon San Juan" <sanjuanjr@x????xxx.xxx
Date: Thu Nov 11, 1999 5:00 pm
Subject: Room division

I've got a room 12m l. x 4m w. x3 m h. Can somebody tell me the ideal
proportion for control room and recording space to get the best sound in
both sides?

Jose Ramon San Juan

[archive]

From: Dan Nelson <dprimary@x??????xxxxx.xxxx
Date: Thu Nov 11, 1999 6:11 pm
Subject: Re: Room division

There are a few ratios you might what to try for suggested proportions in
height, width, length
Volkmann 1, 1.5, 2.5 sepmeyer 1, 1.28, 1.54 or 1, 1.60, 2.33 louden 1, 1.4,
1.9 there are more in the master handbook of acoustics

I like to have at least 3.5 m from the mix position to the rear wall of the
control room and at least 2 m for the console and monitors in front of the
mix position
The louden ratio would give you 3m h by 4.2m w by 5.7 m l which is close.
So you could use about have for each space

Dan Nelson

[archive]

From: "Ty Ford" <tford@x????xxx.xxxx
Date: Thu Jan 1, 1970 4:59 am
Subject: Re: Room division

>There are a few ratios you might what to try for suggested proportions in
>height, width, length
>Volkmann 1, 1.5, 2.5 sepmeyer 1, 1.28, 1.54 or 1, 1.60, 2.33 louden 1, 1.4,
>1.9 there are more in the master handbook of acoustics

Dan,

Can you give me a full title, publisher and author of the book?

Regards,

Ty Ford

Ty Ford's equipment reviews and V/O files can be found at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[archive]

From: Dan Nelson <dprimary@x??????xxxxx.xxxx
Date: Fri Nov 12, 1999 1:23 am
Subject: Re: Room division

The Master Handbook of Acoustics by F. Alton Everest pub by McGraw Hill
its in the book review section of the studiotips site

Dan Nelson
www.studiotips.com

[archive]

From: SRF7@x??x.xxx
Date: Tue Nov 16, 1999 2:47 am
Subject: Re: Room division

In a message dated 11/11/99 12:03:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sanjuanjr@r... writes:

<< I've got a room 12m l. x 4m w. x3 m h. Can somebody tell me the ideal
proportion for control room and recording space to get the best sound in
both sides?

Jose Ramon San Juan >>

Cut it in half

[archive]

From: "Jose Ramon San Juan" <sanjuanjr@x????xxx.xxx
Date: Tue Nov 16, 1999 3:53 am
Subject: RE: Room division

> From: SRF7@a...

>
> Cut it in half

No problem, but can you tell me the reason why?

[archive]

From: SRF7@x??x.xxx
Date: Thu Nov 18, 1999 4:04 am
Subject: Re: Room division

In a message dated 11/16/99 1:59:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sanjuanjr@r... writes:

>> From: SRF7@a...
>>
>> Cut it in half

>From: "Jose Ramon San Juan" <sanjuanjr@r...
>
>No problem, but can you tell me the reason why?

You want a minimum of about 22' for the depth of your control room because:

Even with intense treatment of the rearward walls and ceilings of the control
room you will not achieve anything approaching an open reverberant field
behind your head without about 12' of room depth behind your head ... your
head is above your ass, which is behind a mixing desk which is behind a pair
of monitors which work better off the wall (not flush.. unless you build
doghouses which will make the common wall thicker and reduce room depth) all
of which means that 10' in front of your head would come in handy... thus a 6
m overall depth should work well.

In the tracking room you don't want to get it any smaller as your room volume
is already small. Additionally, as pointed out by Dan, cutting the room in
half provides a rational set of ratios with regard to axial room modes for
booth rooms.

Most important... it just seems so easy.

My $.02 worth

Good Luck

Scott R. Foster

[archive]

From: "Jose Ramon San Juan" <sanjuanjr@x????xxx.xxx
Date: Fri Nov 19, 1999 3:13 pm
Subject: RE: Room division

Thanks Scott but i continue having many doubts.

> You want a minimum of about 22' for the depth of your control room
because:
>
> Even with intense treatment of the rearward walls and ceilings of the
control
> room you will not achieve anything approaching an open reverberant field
> behind your head without about 12' of room depth behind your head ... your
> head is above your ass, which is behind a mixing desk which is behind a
pair
> of monitors which work better off the wall (not flush.. unless you build
> doghouses which will make the common wall thicker and reduce room depth)
all
> of which means that 10' in front of your head would come in handy... thus
a 6
> m overall depth should work well.

I'm not so sure about the real need of an open reverberant field. I've
always thought that in a control room the dryer (not dead) is the better.
When mixing or mastering we need to be sure that the sound we hear is the
sound we have. If the room contaminates our listening, how can we sure that
the FX, volume etc that we apply are the more adequates? A good pair of ears
can help to extrapolate this contamination and hear the sounds as tehy are
but if we have a good amount of absorbtion we can eliminate the risk of
mistake.

> In the tracking room you don't want to get it any smaller as your room
volume
> is already small. Additionally, as pointed out by Dan, cutting the room
in
> half provides a rational set of ratios with regard to axial room modes for
> booth rooms.

Don't know much about axial modes. I must to study it but I prefer a smaller
control room

> Most important... it just seems so easy.

King Solomon said that: cut it in half. :-)))

> My $.02 worth
>
> Good Luck
>
> Scott R. Foster

[archive]

From: Dan Nelson <dprimary@x??????xxxxx.xxxx
Date: Fri Nov 19, 1999 5:19 pm
Subject: Re: Room division

This relates to what we have been talking about with the ITD gap, it is one of
the factors that allows you to hear to recorded sound better without making the
control room unnaturally dead sounding. I find the smaller the room the more
difficult the acoustic problems become. Plus I have found the control room to
be more comfortable the when it is at least sizes we mentioned when four or
five people are in the room. What size room do you prefer?

Dan Nelson

[archive]

From: SRF7@x??x.xxx
Date: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:03 pm
Subject: Re: Room division

In a message dated 11/19/99 10:52:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sanjuanjr@r... writes:

> From: "Jose Ramon San Juan" <sanjuanjr@r...>
>
> Thanks Scott but i continue having many doubts.

Yeah.. those pesky doubts.

> I'm not so sure about the real need of an open reverberant field. I've
> always thought that in a control room the dryer (not dead) is the better.

Hmmmmm then why not just mix with headphones?

> When mixing or mastering we need to be sure that the sound we hear is the
> sound we have. If the room contaminates our listening, how can we sure that
> the FX, volume etc that we apply are the more adequates? A good pair of
ears
> can help to extrapolate this contamination and hear the sounds as tehy are
> but if we have a good amount of absorbtion we can eliminate the risk of
> mistake.

Perfectly logical provided everything you mix gets replayed in a dry (but not
quite dead yet) environment... on the other hand if there is a reasonable
chance somebody might someday slap a pair of speakers on top of a pickup
truck and play your mix at a beach party, or a 10,000 square foot disco while
a thousand rubber miniskirted Lolitas fruge and strut with arrogant gestures,
you might want to know what the mix sounds like in a more "open" and
"natural" reverberant field.

In fact you might want to mix in an environment which is as "open" as
possible because that is precisely the sort of space the recorded music gets
played most often. Wouldn't you be prone to adding to much reverb to the mix
if you were to work in an environment that is so small that it must be
"muffed out" to control room ring. If your mix has a nice reverberant feel
in a very "dry" room, won't it sound muddy when it gets out into the "wet"
real world? By the same token, if you stick your monitors in the corners of
the room and flip on the bass boost to enhance bass output, won't your mix be
bass-lite when played elsewhere?

The bigger the space, the easier it is to have a diffuse and even reverberant
decay without the room "contaminating" the mix with artificial artifacts of
the rooms resonances. If you had a chance to do all you mixing from
near-front row center of a concert hall with your monitors up on stage, would
you do it?

FWIW, I would, because to me, the goal is to get the mix position as open and
airy as possible... lows that thump without booming.. Mids that cut without
buzzing, highs that zing instead of ring, but all of the above still have
some "airtime" where it hangs and then trails off, just like sounds do in
real open environments. Obviously early reflections are to be avoided (which
is kinda where we started) so absorption and/or alterations of reflection
paths (like abfusers) are a good thing in the front of most rooms... but
controlled rear room reflections (with as much diffusion as possible) are a
necessary part of any coherent concept of the sound you are making. Absent
reflections you are mixing in a muffin, and without them, you might as well
just use head cans and mix out of a cockpit.

Of course all of this is even more true (in some sense) in the tracking room,
and you don't want the tracking room so small that you can't have any natural
reverb in there while still controlling room modes... thus the cut it in half
idea... both rooms are at least workable. Share the pain.

> Don't know much about axial modes. I must to study it but I prefer a
smaller
> control room

Then make it real small... and have a big tracking room. IMO your tracking
room would be quite nice, and your control room would suck hind tit... but
hey! Maybe you could at least do the final mix down in the tracking room...
put all your stuff on casters and roll it in the other room when you've got
your tracks and scoring done.... Just a thought.

One other thing... don't you need space in the control room for the kibitzers
to mill around prior to leaning over your shoulder and asking you: "what does
this button do?", or telling you: "More Barn!"

> King Solomon said that: cut it in half. :-)))

And Mama cried: "Nooooooo not my baaaaabbbbbbeeeee!"

Good Luck

Scott R. Foster

[archive]

From: "Jose Ramon San Juan" <sanjuanjr@x????xxx.xxx
Date: Sat Nov 20, 1999 1:44 am
Subject: RE: Room division

> From: Dan Nelson <dprimary@e...>
>
> This relates to what we have been talking about with the ITD gap, it is
one of
> the factors that allows you to hear to recorded sound better without
making the
> control room unnaturally dead sounding. I find the smaller the room the
more
> difficult the acoustic problems become. Plus I have found the control room
to
> be more comfortable the when it is at least sizes we mentioned when four
or
> five people are in the room. What size room do you prefer?
>
> Dan Nelson

Four or five people in the control room is a disaster when trying to work.
It's almost imposible to make a mix and furthermore if you want to hear
altered sound this is just the situation. Two people is enough when trying
to mix and three should be the limit The control room can't be a place for
social reunions.

J. R. San Juan

[archive]

From: "Jose Ramon San Juan" <sanjuanjr@x????xxx.xxx
Date: Sat Nov 20, 1999 2:51 am
Subject: RE: Room division

> Hmmmmm then why not just mix with headphones?

Because a good pair of monitors give us the global image of the music.
Headphones are good to listen to details, study the stereo image, etc. Don't
despise headphones because many people use them to listen music and at
studio they help to hear things that can be masked by nearfield monitors or
baffles. Y don't trust in engineers that reject the help of headphones.

> Perfectly logical provided everything you mix gets replayed in a dry (but
not
> quite dead yet) environment... on the other hand if there is a reasonable
> chance somebody might someday slap a pair of speakers on top of a pickup
> truck and play your mix at a beach party, or a 10,000 square foot disco
while
> a thousand rubber miniskirted Lolitas fruge and strut with arrogant
gestures,
> you might want to know what the mix sounds like in a more "open" and
> "natural" reverberant field.

It's not a real hypothesis that what is mixed in a dry environment only can
sound well in the same kind of environment. And on the other hand there's no
guarantee that the best recorded song everywhere.
>
> In fact you might want to mix in an environment which is as "open" as
> possible because that is precisely the sort of space the recorded music
gets
> played most often. Wouldn't you be prone to adding to much reverb to the
mix
> if you were to work in an environment that is so small that it must be
> "muffed out" to control room ring. If your mix has a nice reverberant
feel
> in a very "dry" room, won't it sound muddy when it gets out into the "wet"
> real world? By the same token, if you stick your monitors in the corners
of
> the room and flip on the bass boost to enhance bass output, won't your mix
be
> bass-lite when played elsewhere?

I think that if you treat your room with the adequate levels of absorbtion,
diffusion and reflection you can get the real sound. Is it imposible in a
small room?

> The bigger the space, the easier it is to have a diffuse and even
reverberant
> decay without the room "contaminating" the mix with artificial artifacts
of
> the rooms resonances. If you had a chance to do all you mixing from
> near-front row center of a concert hall with your monitors up on stage,
would
> you do it?

Never. Specially if empty.

> FWIW, I would, because to me, the goal is to get the mix position as open
and
> airy as possible... lows that thump without booming.. Mids that cut
without
> buzzing, highs that zing instead of ring, but all of the above still have
> some "airtime" where it hangs and then trails off, just like sounds do in
> real open environments. Obviously early reflections are to be avoided
(which
> is kinda where we started) so absorption and/or alterations of reflection
> paths (like abfusers) are a good thing in the front of most rooms... but
> controlled rear room reflections (with as much diffusion as possible) are
a
> necessary part of any coherent concept of the sound you are making.
Absent
> reflections you are mixing in a muffin, and without them, you might as
well
> just use head cans and mix out of a cockpit.

IMHO you risk to record something very different of what you are hearing.

> Of course all of this is even more true (in some sense) in the tracking
room,
> and you don't want the tracking room so small that you can't have any
natural
> reverb in there while still controlling room modes... thus the cut it in
half
> idea... both rooms are at least workable. Share the pain.

Well, I know I am in trouble. That's why I ask and discuss. This is the only
way to learn something and don't walk in the wrong direction.

> Then make it real small... and have a big tracking room. IMO your
tracking
> room would be quite nice, and your control room would suck hind tit... but
> hey! Maybe you could at least do the final mix down in the tracking
room...
> put all your stuff on casters and roll it in the other room when you've
got
> your tracks and scoring done.... Just a thought.

A humourous thought. :-)))

> One other thing... don't you need space in the control room for the
kibitzers
> to mill around prior to leaning over your shoulder and asking you: "what
does
> this button do?", or telling you: "More Barn!"

Read my message to Dan. The social reunions must take place at the bar. If
you are seriously working the less people in the place the better. When
there is a bando of seven enthousiast guys recording for the first time you
must put it clear that they must elect one or two fellows and wait for the
results. Then all they can listen to a cassette or CD and celebrate or
regret how it sounds.

> And Mama cried: "Nooooooo not my baaaaabbbbbbeeeee!"

It was just a little joke.

Thanks again, Scott.

J. R. San Juan

[archive]

From: SRF7@x??x.xxx
Date: Sat Nov 20, 1999 3:36 am
Subject: Re: Room division

In a message dated 11/19/99 9:57:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sanjuanjr@r... writes:

<< The control room can't be a place for
social reunions.

J. R. San Juan >>

Ok Dad... but is it alright if I smoke pot?

Scott R. Foster

[archive]

From: SRF7@x??x.xxx
Date: Sat Nov 20, 1999 4:07 am
Subject: Re: Room division

In a message dated 11/19/99 9:57:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sanjuanjr@r... writes:

<< From: "Jose Ramon San Juan" <sanjuanjr@r...>

>Don't despise headphones (snip)

Okie Dokie... but do not hate me just because I am beautiful. ;-]

But seriously folks.. I have a pair, and I use them... but not for critical
listening when making mix decisions the way I use my near fields. But lets
not lose the point... you don't rely on them exclusively for good reason...
the same reasons I don't. A fully muffed room wouldn't be much better.

> It's not a real hypothesis that what is mixed in a dry environment only can
> sound well in the same kind of environment. (snip)

No one I advance... I try hard not to deal in absolutes. They rarely survive
scrutiny.

But that aint the point, the point is a neutral acoustic field is a better
place to mix than a colored acoustic environment, and a small room calls for
more absorption (to control room modes) than could ever leave you with a
something approaching a neutral environment.

> I think that if you treat your room with the adequate levels of absorption,
> diffusion and reflection you can get the real sound.

I'll buy that.

>Is it imposible in a small room?

If I understand what you mean by small... then yes... you can have ringing
room modes or muff it out.. pick one.

> Well, I know I am in trouble. That's why I ask and discuss. This is the only
> way to learn something and don't walk in the wrong direction.

I'd highly recommend Everest's "Master Handbook of Acoustics."

Barring that, just build the damn wall and hear how it sounds. It couldn't
cost that much. Experiment, and satisfy your curiosity.

>(Snip) If you are seriously working the less people in the place the
better. When
>there is a bando of seven enthousiast guys recording for the first time you
> must put it clear that they must elect one or two fellows and wait for the
> results. Then all they can listen to a cassette or CD and celebrate or
> regret how it sounds.

Well, when I'm seriously working there aint nobody in the place but me. But
there is plenty of bullshit in between.

> It was just a little joke.

Not to Mama!

Let us know what works for you.

Scott R. Foster

[archive]

From: "Jose Ramon San Juan" <sanjuanjr@x????xxx.xxx
Date: Sat Nov 20, 1999 4:10 am
Subject: RE: Room division

----- Mensaje original -----
De: <SRF7@a...>
Para: <acoustics@o...>
Enviado: s·bado, 20 noviembre YYYY 4:36
Asunto: Re: [acoustics] Room division

> From: SRF7@a...
>
> In a message dated 11/19/99 9:57:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> sanjuanjr@r... writes:
>
> << The control room can't be a place for
> social reunions.
>
> J. R. San Juan >>
>
> Ok Dad... but is it alright if I smoke pot?
>
> Scott R. Foster

Well, son, if the stuff is yours you can even to piss and get the wetter
sound. :-))

J. R. San Juan

[archive]

From: "Jose Ramon San Juan" <sanjuanjr@x????xxx.xxx
Date: Sat Nov 20, 1999 5:03 am
Subject: RE: Room division

> >Don't despise headphones (snip)
>
> Okie Dokie... but do not hate me just because I am beautiful. ;-]

Really? I'm sure that only your grandma believes it. :-)))

> But that aint the point, the point is a neutral acoustic field is a better
> place to mix than a colored acoustic environment, and a small room calls
for
> more absorption (to control room modes) than could ever leave you with a
> something approaching a neutral environment.

An empty concert hall, where you want to make your mixes as told before,
doesn't seem a neutral environment to me

> >Is it imposible in a small room?
>
> If I understand what you mean by small... then yes... you can have ringing
> room modes or muff it out.. pick one.

Probably there's a solution for every problem, don't you think? I hope so.

> I'd highly recommend Everest's "Master Handbook of Acoustics."

This and another one about acoustics are in the way to my home, purchased at
Music Book Plus.

> Barring that, just build the damn wall and hear how it sounds. It
couldn't
> cost that much. Experiment, and satisfy your curiosity.

Voila a friendly advice: throw away your money and your time. Really
disappointing, Scott. ;-))

> Let us know what works for you.

When I find it I'll told you. I,m a songwriter and singer and I'm fed up of
so called "pro" studios. That's the reason why I want to build mine. I'll
claim the right to my own mistakes instead of been jointly guilty for the
awkradness of others

J. R. San Juan

[archive]

From: SRF7@x??x.xxx
Date: Sat Nov 20, 1999 7:18 am
Subject: Re: Room division

In a message dated 11/20/99 12:05:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sanjuanjr@r... writes:

> > >Is it imposible in a small room?

>> If I understand what you mean by small... then yes... you can have ringing
>> room modes or muff it out.. pick one.

> Probably there's a solution for every problem, don't you think? I hope so.

Happily, there is a cheap easy solution to this problem in the your case.
Subdivide the space so that there is about 3.5 m behind your head from the
mix position.

> > I'd highly recommend Everest's "Master Handbook of Acoustics."

>This and another one about acoustics are in the way to my home, purchased at
> Music Book Plus.

You might also want to get a copy of the AES Anthology of Stereophonic
Techniques at:

<A HREF="http://www.aes.org/publications/anth.cfm">http://www.aes.org/publicat
ions/anth.cfm</A>

This text has information that may be of interest on misleading locational
cues and other psycho-acoustic effects.

> > Barring that, just build the damn wall and hear how it sounds. It
> >couldn't cost that much. Experiment, and satisfy your curiosity.

>Voila a friendly advice: throw away your money and your time. Really
>disappointing, Scott. ;-))

Well, you could throw away the idea of having a small room that doesn't
sound like a small room, but you've already rejected that bit of advice.
Since you are devoting time to supporting the idea of small control rooms on
this list, you might as well put some time to use finding out for yourself...
how much time and money could it cost you to build a section of wall making
two rooms, one big (say 9 m) and one small (say 3 m)? Do some mixing in the
big room and in the small one.... if you like the small one, then great! If
not, turn it into a iso booth.

In any event, "friendly" or not, I think a small control room is a bad idea
for a guy who has a choice.

>> Let us know what works for you.

> When I find it I'll told you. I,m a songwriter and singer and I'm fed up of
> so called "pro" studios. That's the reason why I want to build mine. I'll
> claim the right to my own mistakes instead of been jointly guilty for the
> awkradness of others

Aaaaaa the abyss of freedom and independence... I know it well.

Good Luck

Scott R. Foster

[archive]

From: Dan Nelson <dprimary@x??????xxxxx.xxxx
Date: Sat Nov 20, 1999 7:24 am
Subject: Re: Room division

I think you have misunderstood the amount of reverb in the control room. If you
have no reflections you are either outside or in a anechoic chamber both of
which make it very hard to mix.
Control rooms tend to have alot more absorption than the average living room of
the same size. The tricky part is getting the right amount of absorption at all
the frequencies, and still have enough reflections to sound like a normal room
and not like your underwater or something, like a dead room sounds.
Modern diffusers help accomplish this goal by returning some sound energy back
into the room but they also reduce some the energy as well.
The sizes of control rooms we have mentioned allow you use most the current
concepts of control room acoustics.
You can have a smaller room and many people don't have a choice, they have an
existing room and have to make the most of it. As the room gets smaller your
options are reduced and as a result the acoustic problems become more difficult
to control. They also tend to sound dead very easily.
While you are waiting for your books to arrive you might want to check out some
of the links on the studiotips.com site.
Malcolm Chisholm's The Recording Studio Design Page is a good place to start,
Walters-Storyk Design Group is another good one, check for articles under the
technology link and Acoustical Interiors has a great acoustics primer.

Dan Nelson

[archive]

From: Stephen Marinick <stevem@x????xxx.xxxx
Date: Sat Nov 20, 1999 8:21 am
Subject: Re: Room division

On 11/19/99 11:03 AM SRF7@a... wrote:

(snip)

>while a thousand rubber miniskirted Lolitas fruge and strut with arrogant
^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^

(snip)

Please contact me immediately if you have any more information on this
topic.

Stephen Marinick Electronic Media | stevem@p...
http://www.marinick.com | marinick@m...
http://www.primenet.com/~stevem | PGP key ID = 9CF73AFE

[archive]

From: "Jose Ramon San Juan" <sanjuanjr@x????xxx.xxx
Date: Sun Nov 21, 1999 7:40 pm
Subject: RE: Room division

Thanks a lot for your help, Dan.