John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum Archive

Hi People. . .

Love this forum! I haven't been here for awhile. . . just busy on all fronts.

I finally got REW downloaded and did a quick test of my home/basement studio. I know I have a problem a big problem the low end, and have just had to leave things alone in that freq region when mixing and mastering, and do that balancing in my larger living room upstairs speakers (I do a feed from my mixing computer, over my network, to my upstairs system and control the ProTools Mac downstairs with my iPad. . . although elaborate, not very effective/productive, and I feel like I am always wrestling with balancing. I do have some corrective narrow band eq, but as well all know that can not make up for room nulls (bad idea), so I would really-really like to tame the room's problems, but I doubt it will be an easy task. . . the home studio was built 15 years ago without elaborate design, and I have kind of dreaded even trying.

I have attached the REW file, and would very much appreciate any help the more experienced may be able to toss my way.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r9tauxht8f8vgsg/uuDdx4tSf6

I have Blue Sky System One monitors with Sub. I know I like these speakers as I have heard them in other spaces, just don't like 'em so much in this room. I also have little Genelec 6010A's and Yamaha HS5. Of course the only speaker I notice the low end problems(40-100) are the Blue Sky, but it is also the only speakers that have a sub and really go down that low. The others do exhibit similar behavior in the midrange (100-250Hz) range that I am also having problems. My biggest issue is from 60-140Hz. . . If I sweep that region manually it goes up and down from strong to almost gone at 65Hz and 85Hz. . . it sounds even worse that it looks. I would really like the fundamentals of bass guitar and synths to be more even. . . and also eq'g toms is a challenge, but I am pretty good at guessing. . .

I will look for any basic layouts of the room I may have from old cad files as well. . . and will put all in that link above.

Let me know how bad it looks in your opinion, ideas/thoughts toward improving. . . etc. . .

Thanks in advance!

The frequency response doesn't look too bad at all, actually: It's pretty much +/-10 dB, which is acceptable for a home studio. But the time domain response... well .... um.... And the RT60 is pretty high too. And there's a lot of early reflections going on in there too!

You'll need to provide more info about that room (dimensions, layout, etc.), and what treatment it has already. Photos would be very useful, too. From the MDAT file, it seems there isn't that much treatment, especially for the low end...

Also, how did you take that measurement? What mic did you use? And which one of the speakers did you use for that test? It would be good to have data for both of the mains, to see if there are any differences in symmetry.

I'd also suggest increasing the level at which you are doing your tests: Average 70 dB is OK, but average 85 would be better, as the decay readings would be more accurate.

Also, you don't need to create separate files for each test: REW allows you to have multiple tests in just one data file. Just remember to label each one after you complete it, for clarity...


- Stuart -

Hi Stuart

Although it is a home studio, I do mostly pro work. Almost all projects that I work on end up getting played on national or college radio to some degree, so it really is not acceptable as it is. I am always fighting and have to check things in too many different listening environments to be comfortable that the balance is right. . . fine for tracking, but a pain for mixing/mastering, and I am doing more of the later these days.

I will get the know the REW application better. . . just a first crack at it. . . thanks for the pointers. Wish I would have gotten on it years ago. . . I often use Smart for big PAs and have used it in my studio, but when it comes to low/mid frequency response I just use a tone generator with a mic and watch a VU meter. . . which really does work well for response, but no help for RTA. I do well know that EQ is not the solution when fighting room mode problems.

Some thoughts and additional background:

1. The level of the file may have been low, but the audio volume in the studio was loud enough that I thought it best to put on my hearing protection, and I felt it was as loud as I wanted to drive my monitors. I would have thought there was plenty of digital resolution to do meaningful calculations. No?
2. Mic used the first time where just the cheap behringer ECM8000. I have a lot of great and expensive mics for recording, but only other mics that are candidates for this are my Earthworks TC25 omnis. . . although not really analyzer mics, they should be a good reference.
3. Speakers - used were Blue Sky Monitor One; i) wo/Sub and then ii) w/Sub.
4. Mic was at mix position, where my head usually is

I will redo the file and annotate things with more info. . . and include the little Genelecs as well, plus the Yamaha HSM50M on the Musician's bar/table, which is 6 ft back, just in case it provides any insights.

I did find my old CAD files, but they are crude and things have moved around, so I will check dimensions tomorrow and try and get a clearer drawing/layout.

I shall take some pictures. . . . I know the ceiling is too low for much of the room, which is a big part of the problem. I considered hammering out the floor/concrete and going down 4 ft in 1998, when I bought and renovated the house, but I would have been a big undertaking. . . and my wife and the cats would have had me checked-in for treatment, and I just didn't know that a visit to the rubber room would have been worth it.

I also mix FOH, touring on fly-dates, so I am away for 3-5 days at a time peppered thru-out the calendar. . . so it might take awhile provide meaningful information.

I really appreciate you getting back with questions and comments. Will do my best to get my ducks-in-a-row and will post again to notify when there is more information in the dropbox. . . you gotta love dropbox. . . I just keep finding one use after another for it.

Thanks!

Hi

I have added another REW file to the Dropbox, named:
2014-02-17a.mdat
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r9tauxht8f8vgsg/uuDdx4tSf6

It has two different mics, and two different speakers types.
Hopefully the levels are better. . . I have to call it a day, getting a bit late.

Thanks!

The level of the file may have been low, but the audio volume in the studio was loud enough that I thought it best to put on my hearing protection, and I felt it was as loud as I wanted to drive my monitors.

That probably means that you didn't calibrate REW correctly. You need a reasonably accurate hand-held Sound Level Meter to check the REAL level in the room, then you tell REW about that level by using its own internal SPL meter, and the "calibrate" option, until it matches the SLM. If you don't do that, then REW is just guessing what the actual level is, since it has no way of knowing. If the level in the room was loud enough to need hearing protection, then it certainly wasn't 70 dB! So REW is guessing very wrong right now. Once you get it calibrated correctly, then do the tests at a level of 85 dB or so, average.

Mic used the first time where just the cheap behringer ECM8000.

Yeah, I have one of those. They are OK, but not fantastic. Fine for home studio work, though. You should download a generic calibration file for an ECM8000 and select that in REW. It won't make a huge difference, but is worth doing for the sake of accuracy.

I know the ceiling is too low for much of the room, which is a big part of the problem. I considered hammering out the floor/concrete and going down 4 ft in 1998, when I bought and renovated the house, but I would have been a big undertaking. . . and my wife and the cats would have had me checked-in for treatment, and I just didn't know that a visit to the rubber room would have been worth it.

Yup, it can be kinda hard to get your spouse on board with some acoustical decisions!

It has two different mics, and two different speakers types.
Hopefully the levels are better. .

The levels look fine, but if REW isn't calibrated then they don't hold a lot of real-world meaning. The line that marks 80 dB might really be 60, or it might really be 120...

The other thing you didn't mention is which individual speaker you were using for those tests in each case: Was it the left main? The right main? Something else? A combination?

Anyway, what I'm seeing on all of those graphs is typical of a room that has insufficient broadband bass trapping. From around 300 Hz on downwards, there's a lot of ugly stuff going on that needs taming, so bass-trapping is certainly something you will want to do, when you get back from your next gig.

But first, let's see what treatment you have in the room already, and get accurate dimensions for it, then based on that decide what more you need. I'm just stabbing in the dark here, but based on the REW data I'm "guesstimating" that the room is about 20-something feet long, and a bit over 8 feet high? There's modal stuff that seems to fit those dimensions.

You could also roll down your sub just a bit: maybe 3 dB or so. Assuming your crossover is somewhere around 90 Hz., your mains are averaging around 68 dB and your sub is averaging around 71 (uncalibrated, that is), so you could bring it down a tad. It won't make a huge difference, but the less bass energy you put into the room, the less there is to come back at you...

so it might take awhile provide meaningful information.

Looking forward to seeing the photos and diagram of the room!



- Stuart -

Hi Stuart

The other thing you didn't mention is which individual speaker you were using for those tests in each case: Was it the left main? The right main? Something else? A combination?

In all cases so far measurements where for both left and right speakers on. What do you suggest is best (all options plotted: R, L, L+R)?

You need a reasonably accurate hand-held Sound Level Meter to check the REAL level in the room, then you tell REW about that level by using its own internal SPL meter, and the "calibrate" option, until it matches the SLM. If you don't do that, then REW is just guessing what the actual level is, since it has no way of knowing.

Ok, I see what you mean. I had thought of level as relative, so I had no concerns on real SPL because I was just focused on the response +/-, but yes I see that with RTA time measurement it becomes critical. BTW, even an iphone is within a 0.5 DB in the midrange below ~90db. . . at least mine was when I compared it to several very expensive calibrated systems when on tour.

If the level in the room was loud enough to need hearing protection, then it certainly wasn't 70 dB! So REW is guessing very wrong right now.

My ears just hate pure tones in the higher frequencies. . . even at moderate levels, while with broadband noise my ears are not bothered even at much higher levels, so it was not super loud, but yes well above 70db, probably less than 90db, but it is foggy at this point. I will run the tests again once I have something I can calibrate to, but at least it is a start.

You could also roll down your sub just a bit: maybe 3 dB or so. Assuming your crossover is somewhere around 90 Hz., your mains are averaging around 68 dB and your sub is averaging around 71 (uncalibrated, that is), so you could bring it down a tad.

Problem is there are huge nulls in the sub that are missing important fundamental notes, so the sub is way to quiet at times. . . it is just so far from correct that it is a big problem.

You should download a generic calibration file for an ECM8000 and select that in REW. It won't make a huge difference, but is worth doing for the sake of accuracy.

I will look at that. . . so calibration files can be cascaded (one for the interface, one for the mic)?

Looking forward to seeing the photos and diagram of the room!

Will do. . . I might be able to get something crude up before I leave Wed. . . The room does not have much treatment at all. . . I do have a stockpile of some materials I have been gathering, a garage with space to build things, almost every tool known to man, and I have done a lot of fabrication over the years. . . it is just a matter of coming up with a plan that will work in the space, that keeps it workable for the players that come in (control room gets full). . . the other caveat is that I hope to build a new place in about 3 years, so I will want to make items that I can re-use in the next space, where possible.

I hope I am not with my goals and constraints. (just had to use that "beating a dead horse" smiley)

Thanks for your comments/input!

BTW, even an iphone is within a 0.5 DB in the midrange below ~90db. . . at least mine was when I compared it to several very expensive calibrated systems when on tour.

Mmmm.... wellll.... it might LOOK that way, but in reality it's nowhere near accurate for usable acoustic measurements. For starters, that tiny little US$ 2.00 mic is not even an omni, and in fact is designed to be directional! No use for acoustics. Then there's the response: nowhere near flat, on purpose. It is designed for voice frequencies, and deliberately rolls off highs and lows: Not to mention the digitizer circuitry, which is also designed for voice, not full spectrum.

If you really want to use your iPhone as an SLM, then get yourself a proper calibrated acoustic measurement mic meant for the job, such as this one:

http://www.daytonaudio.com/index.php/im ... phone.html

They work. I have one for my Android phone, and I use it with the "Audio Tool" app (paid, not free). On the other hand, the cost of those is not far short of the cost of a reasonably good hand-held sound level meter, such as an Extech or a Galaxy...

Problem is there are huge nulls in the sub that are missing important fundamental notes, so the sub is way to quiet at times. . . it is just so far from correct that it is a big problem.

Well, you are actually looking at this backwards, so let me use an FOH analogy, to express the concept better. As an FOH engineer, you are well aware that if you have a highly reverberant, "echoey" venue that makes it difficult for your audience to hear the music/speech, then you cannot just turn up the volume to "fix" it: All that does is to make the reverb louder, along with the direct sound. The solution is to turn it DOWN, and spread more speakers around the venue, in a distributed arrangement (with delay, of course). That way, you don't trigger the room reverberation so severely, and everyone gets to hear better, clearer sound. It actually sounds both clearer AND louder like that. Not intuitive, but I'm sure you have done this many times in lousy "concrete cave" type venues, just like I can. The beginner will try to make the volume louder to "overcome" the reverb, but of course all he succeeds in doing is making the problem worse. The solution is to turn it down, not up.

Same with your sub: part of the problem with those big dips is because the speaker is playing too loud, not because it is playing some notes too soft! Turn the sub down, and the nulls will be SMALLER, not bigger, precisely because there is less energy feeding them. That's a concept that people don't get at first, since it isn't intuitive: How can pumping energy into a null make it into an even bigger null? Doesn't make sense, at first... Or, how can reducing the sound level actaully fill in those nulls, and make them LOUDER? They don't get it at first, because they don't' get what is really happening with how the sound waves interacting with the room.

That's the very same reason some people are so resistant to installing the massive bass traps they need: they can't understand how abosrbing a lot of bass sound is going to fill in those nulls and bring them up... "does not compute"! They argue that absorbing all the bass will make it quieter, not louder. But they are wrong...

What they don't get, is that the null they see in a frequency plot for a small room is part of a standing wave. The wave fills the room, and at some points it is at a peak value, while at other points it is at a null value, or some place in between. They only see it as a null because the mic was in a single fixed position for the reading. Move the mic exactly one quarter wavelength across the room, and you'll see the corresponding peak at the exact same frequency. That's the other "end" of the wave. It is called a "standing" wave, because it appears to be standing still in the room: the peaks and nulls don't move in space. Of course, the sound is not actually standing still it just appears that way: the energy is still moving through the room as it always does for all frequencies, but the sound pressure peaks and nulls always fall in the same spots in the room, and the particle velocity peaks and nulls always fall in the exact opposite spots: Where there is a pressure peak, there is a velocity null, and vice-versa. The total energy at any given point along the wave is the same, except that the pressure energy is high where the velocity energy is low, etc.

So the issue is not that the sub is putting out a higher level for some frequencies and a lower level for others: the REAL problem is that your head is in a pressure null for some frequencies and a pressure peak for others, and since your ears measure pressure differences really well (and particle velocity differences really poorly) you perceive some sounds as being louder than others. The solution, is simply to stop that "wave" from "standing", and get it to spread it's sound pressure energy more evenly, with lower peaks and higher nulls. You do that by having massive amounts of absorption in the very places in the room where it can do the most good. Since broadband absorption affects all frequencies more or less the same, but attenuates based on loudness, it knocks down the peaks much more than the average levels (frequencies for which there is no modal support), and since a peak in one part of the room is just the opposite end of a null in another part of the room, by knocking the peak DOWN you are also raising UP the corresponding null by the exact same amount.

Of course, you cannot actually "kill" a modal null like this, nor in any other way: Modes are a fact of life related only to the room dimensions, so you cannot get rid of them. But you sure can damp their energy, knock the tops off the peaks, and therefore fill in those valleys some.

You can get the same effect to a certain extent, by reducing the volume on your sub: since the sub will then trigger each mode LESS strongly, the nulls will actually not be so deep, precisely because the peaks will not be so high... And as a bonus, since there is less energy stored in each standing wave if they are triggered at lower levels, then they also decay to ambiance faster, and are therefore less noticeable.

That's one of the things that I teach in my seminars, and that my students have the hardest time understanding, until they actually try it out in practice: I teach it like this: "Turn it down in order to turn it up." Sounds totally counter-intuitive, until you understand the physics behind standing waves, then it makes total sense.

In all cases so far measurements where for both left and right speakers on. What do you suggest is best (all options plotted: R, L, L+R)?

Right! And since you have your sub set up rather well, there's no need to do further tests with the sub off. So it will be just R+sub, L+sub, and L+R+Sub. That way you can check how symmetrical your room is, acoustically: good symmetry is critical.

I will look at that. . . so calibration files can be cascaded (one for the interface, one for the mic)?

Right: For each measurement you can specify a different mic calibration file, in case you changed mics, and you can also specify a different sound card calibration file if you really want to, as well.


- Stuart -

Hi Stuart

On the subs, I appreciate you taking the time, and i hear what you are saying, and get it. . . When I wrote "so the sub is way to quiet at times" I meant that during the course of a song, at a specific level, one bass fundamental note will be way to quiet, while another too loud. . . to go a little further on this topic with more background to better explain my situation. . . I generally mix at very low levels. In my mixing session files I insert an eq preset in the monitoring chain that does mostly subtractive correction in the subs and hi bass frequency regions (built within waves Q12). . . this cuts back some of the higher areas in the sub and hi bass regions. . . so I need the sub gain in order to hear the in valleys a little better, as the eq cuts the rest back, and I know that there are some total nulls, so no winning on those. . . as I can't hear those frequencies at mix position, so it is pointless to boast those area. . . and I do realize EQ is a compromise, and not the desired remedy for a solution. . . I am actually very anti EQ when it comes to speaker systems, but it is the sin we have to commit much too often. In big PA rigs, and DSP crossover processing, it is often time and/or phase alignment that fixes a problem, but with some, there is no fixing it.

I am not using that EQ when testing the room, all measurements with speakers flat.

Yes, I certainly need bass traps, because I want to kill/reduce the reflections, reduce the hang time, and in affect bring up the nulls and and reduce the peaks as a result of cancellations or additions (1/2 waves/full waves). I just don't know that I can do so effectively in the space. . . but it seems that is the right challenge. Toward that, I have put up a bunch of photos, and plan to get a rough drawing up with some dimensions in the next day or so. There are higher on LoRez versions of the photos, in a photo folder in the Dropb box link:https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r9tauxht8f8vgsg/uuDdx4tSf6

On the iPhone mic. . . yes I know it is far from perfect, but if you just want to quick general volume measurement, it tends to be close to the expensive systems out there in tests I have done in the real world (I am not talking plots or spectrum, but just a quick SPL average level with A weighted noise). My situation is so far off right now, that whether my reading are at 85, 80 or 75 db is not the big issue right. . . there are things a mile off. . . but I get your point and the importance of it. I looked at the Dayton you suggested. . . last I did a search i don't think that product existed. . . and only $39 (also saw it for $18 on Amazon), it is a no-brainer, will get one ASAP. Thanks for that tip as well!

Thanks!

Hi Stuart

I posted a Sketchup .skp file that represents the shape of the control room, and vocal booth. The file at this point is named: GJ Studio Layout 2014-02-18a.skp . . and can be found here:https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r9tauxht8f8vgsg/uuDdx4tSf6

Here is a Panorama photo: http://360.io/CS5GFy

I will also put in a PDF file with a crude outline of the whole studio layout, shortly (Studio Layout Diagram as of 2014-02-18a.pdf)

I did not show any of the existing minimal acoustic treatment in these spaces, but the pictures in the photo folder should help. Hopefully this 3D drawing is useful. . . wish I knew Sketchup better. . . it was a long process even getting it to that point.

I am not completely opposed to rearrangement of the equipment, if there is a huge benefit to how the room sounds, as long as it still flows for the people etc. . . You will see by the pictures that there is not a lot of space left in the room for bass traps. . .

Just as a bit more background, pre-production sessions will often have 7 people in the studio, as follows:

1. Drummer in the Drum room, not shown (basically a room in front of the mix position).
2. Keyboard player on the keys (there are actually 3 keyboards stacked there.
3. Two guitar players at the counter behind mix position.
4. Bass Player ont he stool by the door going into the drum room.
5. Singer doing a guide vocal, hanging out in the control room with a SM58 in hand, or in the Vocal booth with a large diaphragm condenser.
6. Me at the computer

Demo recordings or bed tracks are often the same as above, however with larger budget projects I am often tracking one or two things at a time, and half the people are in the lounge or not here at all.

I look forward to hearing ideas on the best way to improve this room for mixing without reducing the space to such a degree that I can no longer have tracking sessions, such as outlined above.

Help is appreciated!

Thanks!

Hi

I changed the Subject name at the start of this Topic because the starting Subject did not really make sense for this thread.

I know everyone's time is valuable, and there is still much I can gain by my own research on this forum to find examples for solutions for my room, and I intend on continuing to do so, but I could use some help, and thought getting this info up here (trying to document my present situation) would give a better shot at success with value to those interested in helping, as well as maybe be useful to others down the road. See the post above for links to info.

I trust my inquisitiveness along the way will not to be confused for a lack of appreciation as I very much do appreciate this great forum and the people here.

I look forward to suggestions!

Thanks. . .

I've been meaning to get back to this thread several times, but also put it off several times because what I have to say is not what you want to hear, and I hate to be a wet blanket.

But to be very honest (perhaps too brutally honest) there's just so much wrong in there that I really don't know where to start. I just don't know how to say this kindly, so I guess I'll just dive right in and blurt it all out.

The control room is basically no use at all the way it is right now: there is no symmetry (which is critical for control rooms), the geometry of the speaker/mix position is wrong, the shape of the room itself is no use and will need to be modified to be usable, the arrangement of all the rooms is nowhere near optimal, and there's just so much clutter in there that even if it had a perfect shape, perfect geometry, and perfect symmetry, it still wouldn't be very good. You very literally have absolutely everything in there, including the kitchen sink! There no way that room can work as a control room, as it is right now.

Please take the above in the spirit it was intended: I'd really, really like to help you get that room usable, since there is potential there, and I see from your own explanations that you are suffering, and you know just how bad it is. So I'll do you a favor, and tell you straight: you will never be able to mix well in that room, until you rebuild it right. It can be fixed, but the task is daunting.

I'm not sure how much you are prepared to invest in this (both time and money), or how badly you need it, or how far you want to go, but to get it decent is a pretty big task.

I know I have a problem a big problem the low end, and have just had to leave things alone in that freq region when mixing and mastering, ... and I feel like I am always wrestling with balancing.

Those problems (and many others evident in the REW data) cannot be fixed without a major overhaul of the room itself. There is no treatment that can fix the problems. Sorry. The room itself has to be fixed first, then the treatment can be added to tweak the room response. There's no way on earth that you could ever hope to mix well in there, and mastering is totally out of the question.

I wish I had better news for you, but that's the sad truth.

The room is already over-damped in the highs, yet the decay time is way long in the low end: evidently, there's no bass trapping at all, or if there is, then it is not working, and is way insufficient. There are at least three different acoustic environments evident in the impulse response, all rolled into one, and they all have different decay times. I'd hazard a wild guess and say those are probably the front area of the room, the rear area, and the kitchenette area, but there's other stuff going on too. The room itself is bad, and cannot be used as a professional control room like it is

I do have some corrective narrow band eq, but as well all know that can not make up for room nulls (bad idea)

Right! In fact, there are precious few acoustic issues that can be "fixed" with EQ. And even then it should be used only as a last resort, for the final tweaking. It should never be used as the first approach.

so I would really-really like to tame the room's problems, but I doubt it will be an easy task

You are spot on there: it won't be easy, and it likely won't be cheap either. Do you have a budget in mind for this? Are you willing to whatever is necessary to fix it?

and I have kind of dreaded even trying.

Probably somewhat similar to my dread of even responding!

But the good news is that it can be fixed, and turned into a decent room. However, the bad news is the amount of effort and cost involved.

If I sweep that region manually it goes up and down from strong to almost gone at 65Hz and 85Hz. . . it sounds even worse that it looks.

And it looks pretty bad! It must sound awful.

As I said in my first reply, the frequency response isn't too bad: the issues are with the

time

-domain response, modal issues, reflections, and symmetry (among others), and there's no easy fix for any of that without fixing the entire room first.

The level of the file may have been low, but the audio volume in the studio was loud enough that I thought it best to put on my hearing protection, and I felt it was as loud as I wanted to drive my monitors. I would have thought there was plenty of digital resolution to do meaningful calculations. No?

Right, but you still haven't calibrate REW to tell it how loud that was! Like I mentioned before, you do need to get a good sound level meter (not a cell phone!), measure the real level in the room, then tell REW what that level is using the "SPL Meter" tool, and the "Calibrate" option. In other words, set both the hand held sound level meter and REW to "C" weighting, slow response, use REW to play pink noise on all three speakers at once (L,R, sub), adjust the speaker volume so that it is showing 86 dB on the hand held meter, then tell REW that the level it is hearing is 86 dB. After that, do not change any of the controls, no matter what! If you change the mic gain, or the speaker levels, or the sound card settings, or anything else, then you will need to recalibrate. After you calibrate, don't touch any levels at all: just run the tests.

If you don't do that, then REW has no idea what level you actually have in the room. It just uses the default values, which clearly do not match your sound card and mic setup.

Mic used the first time where just the cheap behringer ECM8000. I have a lot of great and expensive mics for recording, but only other mics that are candidates for this are my Earthworks TC25 omnis. . . although not really analyzer mics, they should be a good reference.

The ECM8000 is fine, if you have a good one: some of them are not so good... I have one of the "not so good" ones. I also have a PreSonus, which I find is much better. But you can indeed use any decent omni mic that has flat response down to under 20 Hz. Or if the response is not that flat, then you need a mic calibration file to load into REW

However, the issues seen in the REW data are not from the mic: they are the room. The mic might not be totally accurate in frequency response, but there's no way on earth it can be inventing time-domain issues such as those seen in the data.

I will look at that. . . so calibration files can be cascaded (one for the interface, one for the mic)?

Correct. There's a "Change Cal" button under each reading you take with REW: if you hit that, it brings up a window where you can load in different files for the mic and sound card. REW sorts out how to handle them both.

Speakers - used were Blue Sky Monitor One; i) wo/Sub and then ii) w/Sub.

Those are fine. No problem there.

Mic was at mix position, where my head usually is...

OK, but it wasn't centered, and you only tested with both speakers at once. You should test with each speaker individually (left, right, sub) then with all three together. That way you can spot the issues with symmetry, and figure out what to do about them.

I am not completely opposed to rearrangement of the equipment, if there is a huge benefit to how the room sounds, as long as it still flows for the people etc. . .

The main issue isn't re-arranging thins in the room (although that clutter really has to go!). The big issue is the room itself. The shape is no use, and there is no place you can get symmetry. Symmetry is absolutely, totally critical for a control room. The left half of the room has to be a mirror-image of the right half, at least as far back as the mix position, and hopefully all the way back to the rear wall. There just is no way of doing that with the current shape of the room: the solution involves either building walls, or tearing down walls. Or more likely, both. That's the question here: Are you prepared to do that? If you want the room to ever be usable for mixing, that's what you are looking at. If you don't want to invest in doing that for whatever reason, then to be very brutally honest (yet again) K really wouldn't bother doing anything much to the room, since the issues can't be fixed by treatment with the current shape and layout: Yes, yo could throw in a couple of big bass traps and get a noticeable difference, but it will not cure the sickness. It would be like putting a band aid on severed artery: it stops the blood flowing a bit, and gives the satisfying sensation that you accomplished something, but the patient is still dying....

I look forward to hearing ideas on the best way to improve this room for mixing without reducing the space to such a degree that I can no longer have tracking sessions, such as outlined above.

OK, this is the part that I've been dreading writing, and you've been dreading reading. If that were my room and I were 100% committed to making it the best it could be, and I had the budget, I would start by ripping everything out, back to the bare walls of the basement, and start again. I would re-design the entire thing from scratch, making sure that I make the control room symmetrical and a decent shape and size, with two live rooms arranged around it, and forget the vocal booth. The control room would be JUST a control room: No sink, bar, fridge, counter, stools, or general clutter, with the bare minimum of equipment racks, better arranged at the mix position (not behind it), and it would be treated properly, with soffit-mounted speakers. The two live rooms would be one for drums and bass, and the other for everything else (kbds, guitars, etc.). Vocals would be recorded in the CR. You can't afford the space for a booth in the available area you have there. Two live rooms would give you plenty of space to split up the band nicely, and do the vocals in the CR itself. The kitchenette, hanging guitars, extra gear, and general clutter would all find a new home in the area marked "Lounge Area".

That would be my approach to fixing that studio, and making it useable.

That's not what you wanted to hear, I'm sure, and it's no fun saying it either, because I know just how disheartening it is to figure out that what you have is no use in its current form, and needs a large investment to make it work. Been there, done that, cried the tears, and then bit the bullet and did it right. More than once. It hurts. But the question is: do you want to have a room that is very usable for mixing? Or do you want to carry on suffering?

Sorry I can't sugar-coat this any, but the sad reality is that what you have can't be fixed by just dumping in some superchunks and throw rugs. There are major underlying issues that have to be addressed, and doing so does not mean re-arranging the furniture: means re-arranging the walls, windows, doors, ceilings, HVAC and everything else.

- Stuart -

Thanks for taking the time. . . was hoping there was a practical way to improve the nastiest of the problems. . . the low-frequency issues.

I have been in hundreds of rooms over the years. . . some very expensive, and very symmetrical, yet still very horrible (certain Westlake studios come to mind) and somehow I find a way, even if it means doing certain balances via running audio into another room/speakers, controlling ProTools with VNC, staying close to near-fields I know/trust, what-have-you.

This room has been working since 1998. From what you have said, it appears there is no practical way to find an improvement worthwhile for the short or mid-term, which means unfortunately I will just have to continue to live with it as is for the next couple years (hoping to move). Also, I am very busy in the studio so I can not afford significant down time. Plus, I am managing to get good results that stand up well in listening environments outside the studio. . . it is just a pain because I am fighting aspects of the room. . . I had hoped to make it appreciably better. Oh well, next time then.

I'm not saying you can't improve low end response by adding bass traps: they would help, certainly, but they won't solve the other big issues with that room, so I'm sure it is worth trying. The other issue is, bass traps need to be BIG, and need to go in the room corners for maximum effect, but I don't see any place where you could put them. The best type is the "superchunk" style, which is basically made from stacked triangles of OC-703: They measure about 36" across the front diagonal, and stick out from the corners about 24". I don't see any place where you have that type of space in your corners. Another very effective type is hangers across the rear wall, but you need about two feet of depth on the entire real wall to do those properly, and once again I don't see any place to put them. If you could make space for superchunks in all four vertical room corners, and also some of the horizontal corners (wall/ceiling or wall/floor) then that would be about the only suggestion I would have for doing something at reasonable cost that would help, and that could also be re-used in any future room, if you do decide to redo the whole studio properly.

- Stuart -

Hi Stuart

I presume you missed the word "not".

Soundman2020 wrote:so I'm sure it is worth try

I think what helps me get decent work accomplished is that I have mixed live in thousands of environments. . . so many variables between the various clubs, gymnasiums, arenas, outdoors, mosques, between buildings in corporate parks, and my all time favorite (not) a cinder block closet with a hollow core concrete ceiling that was 16x8x12 (back in the early 90's I mixed about 200 live to air radio shows with various local and national acts from a club and that was the only place they had for the console). . . I guess I have a sense of what decisions I can and can not make based on the environment i'm in, I believe faders are the most important things, at this point it is instinct and not something I even think of anymore.

I will think a bit about what space I can give up in the present room. . . Yes one of my thoughts is building traps that will be useful for the next space. . . the next space is an entirely different topic. . . I plan to do something very different, you may not like the concept I am hatching, but I think it will be better for me in the long haul for various reasons. Would be great to have a Skype chat with you on things at some point, not sure if you are game for that sort of thing. . . give it some thought. . . let me know.

Thanks. . .

I presume you missed the word "not".

Right! That should have read "so I'm not sure it is worth trying".

. . . the next space is an entirely different topic. . . I plan to do something very different, you may not like the concept I am hatching,

I'd love to see it! It's not a matter of whether or not I like it, but rather a matter of whether or not it will work acoustically. If you'd like to share the design, that would be great.

Sure, we can do Skype at some point, if you'd like. PM me.

- Stuart -