Thomas Jouanjean wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 15:15 |
Most Mastering engineers I've worked with wanted a very analytical environment. It usually resulted in rooms on the dead side, with very tight bass and slightly 'enhanced' stereo image. IMHO, I'd say Mastering rooms, while still needing to be balanced, are usually very controlled environments in which the engineer can make quick decisions without ever doubting what he hears. |
antonio wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 15:32 |
ok, but in terms of numbers? 0,2 s 0,4 s or what? And, from your point of view, which is an optimal value? |
Thomas Jouanjean wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 15:56 |
Not surprisingly, this comes 'naturally' if the room is well designed. (read: RT is not in my top priorities when designing) |
Thomas Jouanjean wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 15:56 |
You should make sure the reverb is as diffused as it can be and that the decay is linear and homogenous (as little variations as possible between octaves). |
Thomas Jouanjean wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 15:56 |
The optimal value varies with the room (volume, etc). |
antonio wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 18:18 |
Yes ok , but anyway you must consider it so it’s better if you have a target. If you don’t have a particular target o recipe haw you decide which type and how much absorbing material you put in a room? This affect your RT60? right? |
antonio wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 18:18 |
Sorry if I insist but my question was simple : RT 60 more close to a control room or to a living room? And if it’s more close to a control room or a living room we should quantify this value otherwise it’s just an useless discussion |
franman wrote on Sat, 09 May 2009 00:12 |
.... you really need to avoid early reflection back to the listening position shorter than 19-22msec (open for discussion) and louder the -15 compared to direct signal (also open for discussion)... |
franman wrote on Sat, 09 May 2009 01:12 |
you really need to avoid early reflection back to the listening position shorter than 19-22msec (open for discussion) and louder the -15 compared to direct signal. |
Ethan Winer wrote on Sat, 09 May 2009 15:39 |
You're probably aware of Floyd Toole of Harmon fame, and his new audio book where he says leaving early reflections intact sounds "better" than absorbing (or diffusing) them. I've never had that experience, not once, not ever. Yet more and more I see people parroting Toole and arguing that early reflection are good and absorbing them is bad. What the hell is up with that? |
avare wrote on Mon, 11 May 2009 13:38 |
Toole is writing about what sounds pleasing. |
Greg Reierson wrote on Mon, 11 May 2009 13:48 |
Dave Moulton is into early lateral reflections as well. He's a sharp guy but this seems strange to everyone I've talked to. |
franman wrote on Sat, 09 May 2009 00:12 |
you really need to avoid early reflection back to the listening position shorter than 19-22msec (open for discussion) and louder the -15 compared to direct signal (also open for discussion)... |
Thomas Jouanjean wrote on Wed, 13 May 2009 18:30 |
I remember someone using the word "Ambechoic" to describe the room (RPG engineer I think). It is an excellent way of describing it. |
antonio wrote on Sat, 09 May 2009 05:44 |
Francis this are very interesting point of discussion especially if it’s possible to connect this numbers to what happens from a listening point of view. |
Thomas Jouanjean wrote on Wed, 13 May 2009 09:30 |
One important point: I suspect the very deep diffusors he uses (that go really low, like 100Hz (?) for the walls and 60Hz (?) for the ceiling IIRC) actually do mechanically absorb a LOT of energy in the LF, and a very healthy amount in the MF and HF range. So while they are primarily diffusors, they are certainly used as absorbers too. |
Thomas Jouanjean wrote on Wed, 13 May 2009 09:30 |
They obviously bring a new concept on the table. It sure is amazing. |
Thomas Jouanjean wrote on Wed, 13 May 2009 09:30 |
But unfortunaytely, for 99,99% of the studios out there this is not a viable option/model. Technically and cost wise. And this is clearely very far away from the average living room. |
Thomas Jouanjean wrote on Wed, 13 May 2009 09:30 |
As an extreme design, it stresses the importance of proper diffusion in a room. |
L_Tofastrud wrote on Mon, 25 May 2009 13:29 |
The diffusers certainly reduce the apparent energy in the room but they don't actually absorb the energy as much as redirecting it. Instead of normal "mirror reflections" the incoming sound is spread out in all other directions (hemisphere) an even though the total energy is the same, the energy that reaches the listener is smeared out in time. |
L_Tofastrud wrote on Mon, 25 May 2009 13:29 |
I designed a recording room in Norway (mid 90's) ago that had diffusers all over. They were regular 1-D type of diffusers but the room definetly had that feeling where it is impossible to determine its size from listening to it. The studio was used for voice-overs and vocals for music and the engineer claimed it was much easier to add reverb to the recordings than what he was used to. Most people can imagine what the sound of a hand clap is in an untreated and a heavily treated room: this diffused room sounded completely different - it had a certain punch that I can only contribute to the incredibly dense return. I used to have TEF ETC measurements of this room but I can't find them now. The "early refelction" was a huge number of densely spaced returns and the "peak return" was rounded off. |
L_Tofastrud wrote on Mon, 25 May 2009 13:29 |
I agree with the technical/cost issues. I'm not worried about it being different than living rooms though: if the engineer has control it's all good. |
L_Tofastrud wrote on Mon, 25 May 2009 13:29 |
It is unfortunate that it is costly and space consuming... Real diffusion should not be underestimated as a treatment tool. |