|
Post by pope on Mar 7, 2017 13:30:40 GMT -6
The Argosy desk I have here has been great. In the middle I have a Mackie control and computer keyboard. And two additional Argosy rack units to the left and right of the main desk house additional gear and my patchbay Why upside down the 824s?
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 7, 2017 13:31:49 GMT -6
I'm shocked Svart... must be like mechanics driving vehicles that are in a constant state of repair... LOL, I'm always doing upgrades and changes to better suit whatever it is I'm doing. This time around I replaced all the AC wiring and conduit to the studio to increase the power capacity. I also changed the wiring in the racks and behind the gear to make things easier to patch and add more tie lines.
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Mar 7, 2017 13:45:03 GMT -6
hehe... (((ahem))) I won't be posting car pics.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Mar 7, 2017 14:10:46 GMT -6
I snapped a shot, and there is so much chaos in my room right now, the pic is going to have to wait another week or two until I sort out this mad mess.
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Mar 7, 2017 14:11:41 GMT -6
The Argosy desk I have here has been great. In the middle I have a Mackie control and computer keyboard. And two additional Argosy rack units to the left and right of the main desk house additional gear and my patchbay Why upside down the 824s? The desk is high enough that with the speakers right side up, the treble goes right over my head... sounds wrong and translates very poorly. With both sets of monitors upside down, it places the tweeter and treble right at ear level. Perfect. I can hear what I'm doing, it's accurate, and the mixes translate superbly.
|
|
|
Post by pope on Mar 7, 2017 14:47:44 GMT -6
Why upside down the 824s? The desk is high enough that with the speakers right side up, the treble goes right over my head... sounds wrong and translates very poorly. With both sets of monitors upside down, it places the tweeter and treble right at ear level. Perfect. I can hear what I'm doing, it's accurate, and the mixes translate superbly. OK, if it sounds good, fair enough..
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Mar 7, 2017 14:56:52 GMT -6
</attachment>
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 7, 2017 15:27:27 GMT -6
I need new pictures... It's a Sterling Modular (D...?)
|
|
|
Post by stratboy on Mar 7, 2017 16:37:37 GMT -6
I need new pictures... It's a Sterling Modular (D...?) Looks great! What are those speakers?
|
|
|
Post by subspace on Mar 7, 2017 17:27:01 GMT -6
When I decided to make my console a side car, I took an old cabinet door and made some cuts in it to see what arrangement felt most comfortable for me. Ended up with the laptop under my right hand, DAW controller under my left hand and 4 stock IKEA legs kept them at just the right height. It made such a good template I never got around to building anything.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on Mar 7, 2017 18:25:33 GMT -6
Love the SoundCity tapestry!
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 7, 2017 19:09:52 GMT -6
I am attachment adverse, I must admit. Helps preserve what little sanity I have left.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 8, 2017 9:56:32 GMT -6
Tyler Acoustics (Decade Series) -- The big guys are D1's and the wee lil' muffins are D4M's
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 8, 2017 10:01:57 GMT -6
Tyler Acoustics (Decade Series) -- The big guys are D1's and the wee lil' muffins are D4M's Couldn't afford the Mackies?
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 8, 2017 23:00:26 GMT -6
A long time ago, I saw a colorblind gentleman's art exhibit. It was then that it hit me -- my own personal "Two Rules" of audio (everyone says there are no rules, but I'm convinced there are two). (1) No matter tens of thousands in gear, no matter decades of experience, no matter years and years of intense, immersive listening study -- You will only ever hear as accurately and consistently as your monitoring chain allows you to hear. (2) No matter tens of thousands in that monitoring chain -- The most accurate and consistent speakers, the most transparent conversion, the most accurate amplification available -- Your monitors will only ever be as accurate and consistent as the room they're in allows them to be. I'd give up every piece of gear in the racks and use stock plugins for everything before I'd give up those boxes. Or the broadband trapping --
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 9, 2017 9:17:00 GMT -6
A long time ago, I saw a colorblind gentleman's art exhibit. It was then that it hit me -- my own personal "Two Rules" of audio (everyone says there are no rules, but I'm convinced there are two). (1) No matter tens of thousands in gear, no matter decades of experience, no matter years and years of intense, immersive listening study -- You will only ever hear as accurately and consistently as your monitoring chain allows you to hear. (2) No matter tens of thousands in that monitoring chain -- The most accurate and consistent speakers, the most transparent conversion, the most accurate amplification available -- Your monitors will only ever be as accurate and consistent as the room they're in allows them to be. I'd give up every piece of gear in the racks and use stock plugins for everything before I'd give up those boxes. Or the broadband trapping -- I'm going to stand on the soapbox with you a minute.. Ever since I made my own realization a decade ago, I've said that monitors should be priority over mics and preamps and other cool/fun gear.. If you can't hear what you're doing, you can't possibly choose/position mics, set amp tones, mix, etc.. But folks have always ignored me, and some have told me that I was flat out wrong.. But I still know that finding the right, higher end, monitor that suits the ear of the listener should be the #1 priority for anyone who's serious..
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 9, 2017 10:35:11 GMT -6
Totally agree. I know people who have been at this literally for decades that make - I'll say it - pretty bad recordings. And I know people who have been at this for hardly any time at all making quite "pro" sounding recordings. The difference is usually the monitoring.
Certainly - There's a level of experience that can overcome that to some extent -- A guy who has been putting [this] mic on [that] instrument and knows exactly what it's going to sound like later because he's done it before -- or the guy who can take those same tracks and mix them on [limited range] monitors because he has a good idea of how it's going to translate to other systems.
Still, there is a certain amount of guesswork and luck (for lack of better terminology) if the speakers can't faithfully recreate the "whole" sound... Just as there would be picking color chips with tinted lenses on trying to sniff out the spices in the soup in a coffee shop.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on Mar 9, 2017 11:09:50 GMT -6
Rule 5 of Audio all speakers suck, it's knowing how and when your speakers are laying that's the trick! Enough time and patience and you can learn any speaker, it is easier on better speakers but even then its about understanding what makes a speaker "better", exhibit Vandersteen 2ci's , these are an old fave and live in the kids room now. The first order cross makes them inappropriate for studio use unless you like replacing tweeters, they are one of the most colored speakers ever. So what makes them great, they are one of the most costiant speakers top to bottom, easy to learn play well with any amp they shine with an old Hafler and sparkle with mega bucks krell and Jeff Rowland, they can be upgraded but I never will because of how consistent they are. We listen through speakers not to them !
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Mar 9, 2017 12:59:22 GMT -6
Great discussion. One tip that I've learned, is to have multiple pairs on a switch that "do different things" in a complementary way. You can really narrow down some of your issues like this. Also, I don't think good speakers need to necessarily be expensive. The room acoustic is a critical factor that should never be ignored. And there's always going to be that wild card producer that breaks all the rules and makes incredibly compelling music that stands apart just by the merit of creativity and vision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 13:06:22 GMT -6
Is it the case that if your room is the wrong dimensions i.e. too small then it will never be right no matter the speakers / treatment?
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on Mar 9, 2017 18:00:13 GMT -6
Is it the case that if your room is the wrong dimensions i.e. too small then it will never be right no matter the speakers / treatment? In the lowend yes you can tame the hF and mids but no amount of treatment and or DSP will give you real lowend in closet!
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Mar 9, 2017 23:31:30 GMT -6
Is it the case that if your room is the wrong dimensions i.e. too small then it will never be right no matter the speakers / treatment? I've always tried to explain it like water and sponges. If you're in (for example, not idea by any means) a 10x10x10 (1000 cubic ft.) room and you have 800 cubic feet (8' high) of water, you'll likely drown eventually. If you're in a 10x20x10 (2000 cubic ft.), the water will only be 4' high and you'll be moist and uncomfortable. The sound energy (mostly low end, as the low end is far more energy than the high) is the water - Broadband / bass traps are the sponges. If you have enough sponges to soak up a good amount of that water, you're in good shape in the larger room. The problem is that the small room doesn't have enough room for the sponges. *That said* -- Nearfields = less energy = less sponges. But a sacrifice of range and sheer power. Personal note -- While this room was being constructed, I had to spend a couple absolutely terrifying months in a 10x11x8' room (with a dozen 2'x2'x4" traps and a bunch of worthless foam corners in the front). At (somewhere around 110Hz), there was a 7-8dB peak and a 35-ish dB null point less than one foot away from each other, front to back, basically right where my head was. I can't even tell you what it took to do decent quality work in that room. I'm not a fan of "multi-monitors" -- Find a set that works and go - don't try to hit a moving target (the small speakers in here are totally client-side. I never turn them on unless a client wants to hear on a "little" system). But in that room, I had a set of -- Geez (sorry, I type as I think...) -- Uh... Diamond 8.2 uh - WHARFEDALE!!! Wharfedale Diamond 8.2's. GREAT little speakers -- Not "nearfields" per se, but small, wannabe big speakers. Those things saved my a$$ more times than I can count. My mains at the time were B&W 800 series Matrix 802's (the predecessor to the Nautilus 802's that came in a month before my room was done). There's a photo somewhere... Those are the Wharfies "overhead" Heh - More interesting photo of the desk before the current one came in -- EQ Magazine - long before I actually deserved to grace those pages. The desk was a hack-job on a $200 Office Max desk (as long as the thread is about desks) and a (Mid Atlantic?) rack that I cut to a pair of 30/60/90's - it was actually quite effective... But anyway - The Wharfedales, in that postition, had a totally different peak and null point in relation to my head (it was about 8" forward of the rail due to the height). So I could flip to those and sort of interpret what was going on at 110. Which I did. A lot. Blah, blah, blah, I'm getting long here -- It was a reasonably effective band-aid for a broken leg. It wasn't accurate, nor consistent at differing volumes or different points in space. It was a friggin' audio nightmare on a scale I hope to never have to experience again. There are rooms that just plain suck -- That was one of them. I literally didn't have enough space for all the trapping that it would take to make it reasonably decent.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Mar 9, 2017 23:43:06 GMT -6
Control Room rule of thumb to remember. The 'ideal' control room dimensions are 17' wide (at the widest point) 23' long and 10' high (at highest point, which allows for baffles, diffusors, clouds etc to be lower.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 5:50:35 GMT -6
Nightmare! One for the amateurs - (readers wives?) Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 10, 2017 7:47:45 GMT -6
Is it the case that if your room is the wrong dimensions i.e. too small then it will never be right no matter the speakers / treatment? I've always tried to explain it like water and sponges. If you're in (for example, not idea by any means) a 10x10x10 (1000 cubic ft.) room and you have 800 cubic feet (8' high) of water, you'll likely drown eventually. If you're in a 10x20x10 (2000 cubic ft.), the water will only be 4' high and you'll be moist and uncomfortable. The sound energy (mostly low end, as the low end is far more energy than the high) is the water - Broadband / bass traps are the sponges. If you have enough sponges to soak up a good amount of that water, you're in good shape in the larger room. The problem is that the small room doesn't have enough room for the sponges. *That said* -- Nearfields = less energy = less sponges. But a sacrifice of range and sheer power. Personal note -- While this room was being constructed, I had to spend a couple absolutely terrifying months in a 10x11x8' room (with a dozen 2'x2'x4" traps and a bunch of worthless foam corners in the front). At (somewhere around 110Hz), there was a 7-8dB peak and a 35-ish dB null point less than one foot away from each other, front to back, basically right where my head was. I can't even tell you what it took to do decent quality work in that room. I'm not a fan of "multi-monitors" -- Find a set that works and go - don't try to hit a moving target (the small speakers in here are totally client-side. I never turn them on unless a client wants to hear on a "little" system). But in that room, I had a set of -- Geez (sorry, I type as I think...) -- Uh... Diamond 8.2 uh - WHARFEDALE!!! Wharfedale Diamond 8.2's. GREAT little speakers -- Not "nearfields" per se, but small, wannabe big speakers. Those things saved my a$$ more times than I can count. My mains at the time were B&W 800 series Matrix 802's (the predecessor to the Nautilus 802's that came in a month before my room was done). There's a photo somewhere... Those are the Wharfies "overhead" Heh - More interesting photo of the desk before the current one came in -- EQ Magazine - long before I actually deserved to grace those pages. The desk was a hack-job on a $200 Office Max desk (as long as the thread is about desks) and a (Mid Atlantic?) rack that I cut to a pair of 30/60/90's - it was actually quite effective... But anyway - The Wharfedales, in that postition, had a totally different peak and null point in relation to my head (it was about 8" forward of the rail due to the height). So I could flip to those and sort of interpret what was going on at 110. Which I did. A lot. Blah, blah, blah, I'm getting long here -- It was a reasonably effective band-aid for a broken leg. It wasn't accurate, nor consistent at differing volumes or different points in space. It was a friggin' audio nightmare on a scale I hope to never have to experience again. There are rooms that just plain suck -- That was one of them. I literally didn't have enough space for all the trapping that it would take to make it reasonably decent. I get the occasional "hey come help me with this mix" thing from friends and people that am willing to help.. Invariably it's a tiny "bonus room" with KRK speakers or other low-end monitors with plenty of top-end hype and boomy muddy bottom... But what I've found that helps considerably is to leave the room and listen out in the hallway or something. It gives you a more balanced picture of what the audio sounds like *in general*, without the strange nodes floating right around your head. It's not the best for getting the image right, but it certainly helps with overall balance that you can't get from a node-filled room.
|
|