new acoustic treatment material day

[Embenny]

I can absolutely see a large console being the only real "problem" in the room (if you can call the most essential piece of electrical equipment a problem - but you know what I mean). That's the reason mastering suites have always gravitated toward smaller desks - they only need some rack gear and a way to interface with a computer, so their rooms can be brought even closer to acoustically ideal, at least if they're a purpose-built suite and not pulling double duty as a control room or mixing room.

It makes a lot of sense acoustically to get a console/desk as small as possible, because the straight lines and proximity to the listening position are some of the hardest problems to mitigate - especially with the challenge of their positioning relative to nearfields.

I've always wondered if there would be a way to build consoles themselves in a more acoustically-ideal way, like the acoustic equivalent of a stealth fighter, through a combination of absorptive materials and diffusion/scattering. But diffusion requires much more space between the surface and ears to be effective at the majority of the relevant frequencies, and absorption requires materials and structures that would seem to be incompatible with the density of holes and slots required for all the buttons and faders.

The acoustically ideal solution seems to be the move to ITB workflows with minimally-sized physical interfaces similar in concept to mastering suites, but what is acoustically ideal vs what is sonically ideal to the engineer is a much different matter, as is the issue of workflow, especially while tracking. I can't imagine, for example, that most engineers would relish setting all their levels via digital controls while tracking.

I'm getting into the weeds here, though, in a thread about the excitement of finding a bunch of free felt boards and creating some acoustic treatment out of them. Thinking about those Northward rooms got me all hot and bothered. I am a mere hobbyist and will never get to work in one of Thomas's FTB rooms. The acoustics geek in me wishes I could commission one just so that I could watch and learn about all the NDA-protected proprietary shit he builds into them.

[DeathJag]

Not to be some TGP dad, but weren't thousands of brilliant sounding records mixes in rooms that were not ideal? Getting rid of the physical faders seems insane to me. If it was that much of an issue, couldn't you just put a foam dome over the board? Is a table allowed? Those rooms seem more academic than practical if you can't have a freakin mixer in there! But then again I guess nobody is doing anything on analog boards anymore, which makes me very sad.

[Embenny]

Not to be some TGP dad, but weren't thousands of brilliant sounding records mixes in rooms that were not ideal? Getting rid of the physical faders seems insane to me. If it was that much of an issue, couldn't you just put a foam dome over the board? Is a table allowed? Those rooms seem more academic than practical if you can't have a freakin mixer in there! But then again I guess nobody is doing anything on analog boards anymore, which makes me very sad.

Of course, lots of good music was made in rooms that weren't great.

But when you go back and listen to original recordings from the 50s and 60s, and 70s (and not modern remasters, which were done in nicer rooms, BTW), the sonics can be...rough, to say the least. Especially so if you're not listening with rose-tinted nostalgic earplugs in.

One of the reasons audiophiles geek out about Aja (1977) is how balanced the sonics are. The reason the album's balanced sonics became the stuff of legend was that, in 1977, it was not what people were accustomed to hearing.

In fact, pause for a moment and reflect on the sheer number of remixes and remasters the "greatest albums of all time" have seen, and how few people genuinely prefer the sound of the original releases based on their sonics as opposed to nostalgia (in which case they're mostly 70+ years old and have lost a portion of their hearing to presbycusis, making their assessment of sonics somewhat dubious).

People can't go back and re-record the original performances, but they keep going back and mixing and mastering them with higher-fidelity equipment in higher-quality rooms, and the general public reaction is, "wow, I can't believe how modern and clear they got that to sound."

Even the criticisms are often things like, "It's too modern and clear and balanced. The original had a charm that made it feel more of its era."

The "more of its era" impression means "lower quality sonics, but it was good enough back then and it's good enough now."

A portion of that change is from the fidelity of the gear itself, but plenty of studios still use vintage outboard gear for its sonics. The other differences are the rooms and the engineers who are getting to assess their work in a much more honest environment that translates better. I've never met an engineer who was anything other than thrilled at the difference a well-designed room made to the quality of their work and the ease of achieving an end result they were proud of.

There's a reason that both engineers and audiophiles will attest to the fact that spending money on a room typically makes a bigger audible difference than spending money on the gear inside that room. It's like upgrading your TV from 480p to 1080p to 4k when you need cataract surgery and your whole world looks hazy. The best equipment won't matter if you can't see it, just like how the best equipment won't matter if you can't hear it.

There's also the factor of simply making it easier and quicker and more enjoyable to get a given end result, vs struggling to do so. If you have to take your mix to multiple different acoustic environments on every revision just to check that it still sounds OK, vs being able to trust that 2-3 sets of monitors in your actual room are telling you what you need to know, that saves a ton of time and grief. Kinda like arguing that guitar factories don't need modern CNC because they build plenty of great guitars back in the day with nothing but a router, a bandsaw, and some sanding blocks. Speed and ease of work keep costs down by allowing more to get done in a single workday.

[DeathJag]

I am aghast at how digital everything is now. I do like original mixes, as long as they are from vinyl. Most remixes sound overproduced to me. I could never, ever, not in a million years, mix a single moment on a screen. I need faders! I guess another message I am sending, is that if that's what is needed to get a balanced room, then I am not interested in a balanced room! I'm also talking out of my ass because I have never been in one of these rooms. It just seems crazy for music, maybe for clinical studies and stuff.

In my line of work, production sound, many recorders and mixers have gone digital. Other sound mixers can use an iPad to mix, as well as keeping all their notes digital. Not me! I use a big analog mixer and paper notes! I guess I am just aghast at how digital (= screen and keyboard) everything is.

[ThePearDream]

Great find! It's more likely to be PET felt, than wool felt. PET felt is made from recycled plastic bottles. It can be cut with normal tools and you can use heat to melt the edges or possibly even to shape it into a diy acoustic shell. You can screw through it into a wall (might need a fender washer) or use construction adhesive. Good luck!

It looks and feels like there’s some wool in it, but yeah no way it’s 100% wool.

This video shows a good technique for identifying unknown fiber materials using fire. Animal, vs plant, vs synthetic, etc. all burn different.

[Embenny]

I am aghast at how digital everything is now. I do like original mixes, as long as they are from vinyl. Most remixes sound overproduced to me. I could never, ever, not in a million years, mix a single moment on a screen. I need faders! I guess another message I am sending, is that if that's what is needed to get a balanced room, then I am not interested in a balanced room! I'm also talking out of my ass because I have never been in one of these rooms. It just seems crazy for music, maybe for clinical studies and stuff.

In my line of work, production sound, many recorders and mixers have gone digital. Other sound mixers can use an iPad to mix, as well as keeping all their notes digital. Not me! I use a big analog mixer and paper notes! I guess I am just aghast at how digital (= screen and keyboard) everything is.

Of course you don't need to eliminate analog gear to have a good sounding room, there just comes a point (in a really fucking expensive room) where the console becomes the biggest unsolved acoustic "problem," and reducing its size is the biggest upgrade you can make to the honesty of the sound coming from the monitors.

And this is totally another tangent at this point, but "digital" doesn't necessarily mean "mouse and keyboard."

Plenty of physical interfaces exist for ITB gear, like the Avid S series. And I'm not going to pretend that I make my living in audio like you or Brad, but for my needs, I am thrilled with my Softube Console 1 and Fader combo. 10 motorized faders easily moved up and down in banks and physical knobs for gain, pan, gate, filter, EQ, compression and drive plus all your usual solo/mute buttons and some transport controls. For most basic tasks, I don't even need to lay eyes on a computer screen at any point.

So it's a purely digital workflow, but one that doesn't involve a mouse (or in my case, trackball) or screen for any of the basic mixing functions you'd use an analog console for. I don't like the "click and drag" user experience for audio-related tasks, either.

[øøøøøøø]

Not to be some TGP dad, but weren't thousands of brilliant sounding records mixes in rooms that were not ideal? Getting rid of the physical faders seems insane to me. If it was that much of an issue, couldn't you just put a foam dome over the board? Is a table allowed? Those rooms seem more academic than practical if you can't have a freakin mixer in there! But then again I guess nobody is doing anything on analog boards anymore, which makes me very sad.

You can definitely make great-sounding records in a sub-optimal spaces, but great monitoring increases the chances of doing so every time.

We still have 16 motorized faders (two SSL UF8s). We like faders; we're used to them. But there's nothing objectively superior about them--many young producers don't have this attachment, and as a result... "thousands of brilliant-sounding records have been mixed without physical faders"

Emotionally, it was hard to let go of the SSL, but every single mix decision is based on what we hear. Examined rationally, I could find little justification for sacrificing monitoring even a little bit for the sake of a cool antique whose workflow advantages had largely been made redundant (controversial statement!)

The SSL had other disadvantages, too. There are reliability concerns with 40-year-old tech, of course, but it was also becoming incompatible with current professional demands/expectations.

To most clients under 35, it was unreasonable that we couldn't cost-effectively recall a mix for minor revisions. They probably thought "The bedroom mixer who did our last record could do this; why can't you?" I resisted this for awhile, but it's a perfectly-valid complaint in 2023.

Other concerns are wonkier, stemming from the fact that records are just not made the same was as they were in 1984. I don't want the mix's entire noise floor on every stem, but manually muting channels/returns to mitigate this is laborious, imperfect, and unreliable. I'm glad to not notice minor issues on alternates or stems when I get home due to intermittent bus assign switches

This is already TL;DR, but can/will answer any questions about the setup, advantages, disadvantages, etc. for anyone interested.

PS, we still have two 80-series Neve desks in our tracking rooms. Mixing is an entirely-different story from tracking. A great-sounding mic preamp has yet to be made redundant by tech.

[DeathJag]

I'm not going to pretend that I make my living in audio like you

Are kidding?!! You know WAY more about this awesome stuff than I could ever hope to (without going back to school [which would be a toss-up between electronics and acoustics!]). The OT in this thread is nothing short of stratospherically fascinating for me!

We still have 16 motorized faders

Ah! Okay now it all makes sense. I am so appreciative that you elaborated, thank you! Your post definitely sheds a different light on the whole digital workflow thing, and for professional applications I guess I must admit it is the best. It doesn't matter that no one is going to listen to these mixes in a perfect room, it matters that in whatever room they do listen to it in, it still sounds good. The story is about 80s metal bands taking their mastered mixes out to their car stereos before giving approval comes to mind.

I actually have a small studio dream, emphasis on small. The only bands that would be coming in would be surf or garage, so you can imagine what kind of gear should be used. I am still planning on having it be a digital recording, but I want to use as much analog crap as possible. Mid-fi is my highest fi, and low-fi will likely be the standard. I think I will be able to survive without having a perfect mix room, because I have been able to train my brain to transpose sound from the mix space to another. In other words if I know that my mixes sound fine in the mix stage, but then sound too bassy on a car stereo, I can change my ears to make "bass-light- mixes that sound balanced in both places. (My mix system has super nice and smooth bass so it's easy to get carried away. It also has a little less treble than most other systems so it's easy to get carried away there too!)

This has been one of the greatest off-topic veers!!