|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Sept 2, 2015 8:03:52 GMT -6
So I found an old hard drive and dusted it off. Started listening to some old mixes as sessions. Most of these mixes sucked bad. But it wasn't the tracks fault. Here's why. Once I started wiping off the processing I had originally applied, the tracks themselves sounded pretty great. Most of these tracks were recorded using Echo Audiofire 12s. Less than stellar conversion by any standards but they still sounded great. The problem was the crappy room I was trying to mix in. I did the best I could and knew probably as much them as I do now but I couldn't hear a true representation of the mix.
A few years back I basically took over the entire basement and tuned the whole thing with some help. Long story short I reran a couple of mixes and the difference in the old and the new is night and day.
I think we all know it's true how important a listening environment is, but this was a real eye opener to me. Same equipment basically, different room.
|
|
|
|
Post by tasteliketape on Sept 2, 2015 8:29:03 GMT -6
Same here moved to new room only took about half of my absorption with me and wow
my old mixes just opened up in the new place
moral :way to much absorption in old place
treatment and tuning of room you can do without it but man just makes it much easier to get where your going in a mix if you get the room right
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Sept 2, 2015 9:04:32 GMT -6
Back to basics.
I just downloaded Room eq Wizard and will be running it and I also just received the Sonarworks monitor correction software.
I am curious to compare and contrast old school ( do room eq analysis) and new school, the Sonarworks correction software.
The sonarworks package comes with a calibration sdc microphone , you use in its room mapping analysis process but then you also have a very flat and accurate mike for other purposes. I will use the same mike with the REW software's mapping/analysis process so I am interested to see the graphs the two processes generate.
I did some rt60 analysis using some tools from pro tools expert the other day and if that is correct I have too much absorption in my room.
Live and learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Sept 2, 2015 9:16:14 GMT -6
It's true, but so is another phenomenon..
In my same room I can pull up mixes that were done months to years ago and listen and remix them to sound so much better, with the same equipment, in the same room, with the same treatment.
It's just having a clear picture, a fresh perspective and more instinctual knowledge in mixing that seems to be a large contributor in this.
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Sept 2, 2015 9:45:59 GMT -6
Control Room acoustics is one of the most mysterious things to me. Short of getting a world class person to set up a room, how do you really know?
I've done REW measurements and my frequency curve/line and decay times are good, but I still wonder. I've spent a lot of time and money on first reflections, bass traps, panels etc., but I suspect to get where I really want to get I'd have to spend a helluva lot more. And I wouldn't do that without hiring somebody who really knows what they're doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Sept 2, 2015 11:39:31 GMT -6
It's diminishing returns, sadly.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Sept 2, 2015 12:24:43 GMT -6
It's diminishing returns, sadly. How so? Genuinely curious of your view on this. |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Sept 2, 2015 12:28:12 GMT -6
I think he meant that humorously , as a pun  the more you do , the less the return ? |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Sept 2, 2015 12:41:38 GMT -6
Control Room acoustics is one of the most mysterious things to me. Short of getting a world class person to set up a room, how do you really know? I've done REW measurements and my frequency curve/line and decay times are good, but I still wonder. I've spent a lot of time and money on first reflections, bass traps, panels etc., but I suspect to get where I really want to get I'd have to spend a helluva lot more. And I wouldn't do that without hiring somebody who really knows what they're doing. I wouldn't over think it, a lot of "acoustics experts" want you to believe it's extremely complicated so they can sell you things (why is it that certain acoustic co's sell one diffusor model, and 1 or 2 absorber models?), I believe once you get any bass and first reflection problems under control (which is REALLY easy considering you can't over trap bass, and first reflections can be found with a flashlight and mirror) It's all about taste and translation, you can cheaply experiment with different acoustic's ideas, and materials to define a level of RT60 (ambience decay) and sound character that you're comfortable with. The advantages of doing this are reliability in translation, and a better, more confident listening experience, not to mention you'll be able to listen at ease and longer when your brain doesn't have to decipher confusion between ROOM and the mix. |
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Sept 2, 2015 13:21:23 GMT -6
It's diminishing returns, sadly. How so? Genuinely curious of your view on this. Sorry, nothing profound meant. As in the first 1,000 you spend will get you quite a bit, the next 1,000 a little less and so on and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Sept 2, 2015 13:37:35 GMT -6
How so? Genuinely curious of your view on this. Sorry, nothing profound meant. As in the first 1,000 you spend will get you quite a bit, the next 1,000 a little less and so on and so on. Ahh. True. |
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Sept 2, 2015 14:07:28 GMT -6
Don't discount some of that on you have better chops either!
I know when I got into this new place here in Nashville it made things a lot more fun and easier to mix. The place was built in 25', so there is something about the way the walls let the sound escape, hard to describe really. I know one thing, I can open the back door of the room and it only gets even better. I use the Dirac software and I'll swear by that until someone comes out with something that I guess could be better.... but that software is worth every penny they ask for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdc on Sept 3, 2015 8:19:03 GMT -6
I believe once you get any bass and first reflection problems under control (which is REALLY easy considering you can't over trap bass, and first reflections can be found with a flashlight and mirror)I like that, I've never thought to implement light to determine early reflections. That's very handy |
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Sept 3, 2015 9:27:38 GMT -6
I believe once you get any bass and first reflection problems under control (which is REALLY easy considering you can't over trap bass, and first reflections can be found with a flashlight and mirror)I like that, I've never thought to implement light to determine early reflections. That's very handy What's the strategy there? I know the mirror trick. What ya doing with the light? |
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 3, 2015 14:40:04 GMT -6
True you cant overtrap base but it can get hard to find the right spots for helmholtz resonators to kill a very low mode. We had one abot 30 Hz that was intresting and anoying because you cant get there with rockwool.... it would take to much space. we followed LEDE we have on the live end difusion or absorption, you can turn it around. www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul98/articles/acoustics1.html |
|
|
|
Post by jdc on Sept 3, 2015 18:29:13 GMT -6
I like that, I've never thought to implement light to determine early reflections. That's very handy What's the strategy there? I know the mirror trick. What ya doing with the light? The light I was referencing was Tony's flashlight in his example |
|
the more you do , the less the return ?
