I am not an engineer

Thanks Peter for taking the time to answer those questions. Once again, you are very helpful.

Well, I ordered a pair of Yamaha monitors today.

And I took Peter's suggestions, drew them up on a diagram, and ordered some acoustic panels from GIK after consulting with one of their acoustic engineers about my room.

After I install all this new gear and test the room, I will let you guys know how it all has went.

Cheers
 
BTW, what do you mean by "soft" mic?

What makes a mic soft or hard?

Why is the TLM103 soft?

Is the SM7 soft?

Are there other mics around or below $1000 that are soft that I should consider?

Once my room is treated and my monitors installed, I may try to order 2-3 mics from somewhere and test them out and then return the ones I don't like (if they let me do this). So I'm trying to identify 2-3 mics to order. So far, I have the TLM103 and the SM7 on the list.
 
BTW, what do you mean by "soft" mic?
What makes a mic soft or hard?
Is the SM7 soft?
I learned the difference between hard and soft microphones from Mike Stavrou and the method works much better than throwing names and fuzzy descriptions. I can highly recommend his book:
http://www.mixingwithyourmind.com
The book deals more with recording than mixing, is fun to read and written in a human language, unlike many other books of it's kind. You can only order it directly from the author and it is worth every Penny.​
The hardness is not an absolute value and there is no scientific explanation. There is no way to tell the hardness of a mic in advance, just from datasheets or the electronics. There is a way to tell the hardness of sounds and mics: your ears and a little practice.

A scale of 1-10 is not practicable for most home studios. But if you compare mics, one thing is to speak a couple of words. Not sing, speak. Then compare the recordings and some mics will sound harder or softer because you know your voice very well. If you have many mics you would label them, with a few you can just remember what you found out. Of course the mics should sound good, hardness is not all.


Why is the TLM103 soft?
I guessed because I learned that a U87 is softer than a SM57 and the TLM103 has a U87 capsule. So, if the electronics are not very strange, the TLM103 should also be softer than the SM57. However, the examples I heard tell me that the TLM103 is not very hard.

When you get your test mics, together with your own you have a row of mics on the table. Speak the word "four" several times into each of them and listen carefully through your new monitors. I am sure that the SM57 will be on the hard side. It is good to have a choice and the hardness method makes it easy even with a few mics.

My collection changed always and I was never in the high-end range. I didn't know what to use on what until I discovered this hardness system. Here is my current list, #5 is the hardest:
5 - AKG 3000C (Not used at the moment. It was my first vocal mic, I am romantic ...)
4 - Røde K2 (Used for my soft deep voice.)
3 - Modified Oktava MK012 (Used for nylon guitar in stereo.)
2 - CAD Trion 8000 (Used as a close guitar mic)
1 - Cascade Fat Head Ribbon (Used for hard nylon guitar in stereo and soon for female vocals - with the woman you already heard, hard texture.)​
I sold some mics because they were doubled in my scale and I kept those where I liked the sound more.

Funny, the K2 was a recommendation for classical guitar but it did not work on my guitars, made them stiff. I realized that the mic is hard and sang into it. Hey, this is mine! And I continued searching for guitar mics :)

This system works always!


Is the SM7 soft?
I have no idea. Orren? I don't know your real voice, unfortunately.
 
Thanks for that mic info. I will be consulting this thread many times, over and over again, for a long time to come.

Regarding the acoustic panels:

I first took your basic suggestions, paired them up with GIK products I thought would match, and then forwarded the resulting design to GIK for validation.

Basically, I thought I would put two GIK 244 bass traps mounted vertically on the wall behind the monitors on my desk, and also install two GIK 242 acoustic panels so that one was on each closet side wall adjacent to each speaker. Basically, my little monitoring closet/cubby-hole would be filled with bass traps and acoustic panels. I also was thinking of putting one or two of their QRD diffusers on the opposite wall (behind me when I mix).

Their engineer looked at my drawing and begged me to rearrange my room to get my monitors out of the closet. I said I might do that after I first test the room the way it currently is, after I install their panels, so I can first determine how things would sound without rearranging everything.

In the end, he suggested I put two bass traps on the ceiling above my recording position (perhaps mounted a slight distance away from the monitors to help with mixing too), and use three acoustic panels in the closet so they surround the monitors on the back and sides (one horizontally mounted on the back wall and one vertically mounted on each side).

I also wanted to get some kind of an acoustic screen behind the mics while recording to help isolate them from the room, and he thought it would be wise to do that. You had mentioned a similar idea. I am getting two such screens to help create a portable vocal booth kind of thing going on. Hence, I will be sitting in my corner near my desk singing toward the room center with two acoustic screens behind the mic(s). He said during final mixing, I should then move those two screens to opposite room corners to help reduce bass buildup during mixing. He also said in my current small room configuration, it was better to forget the QRD diffusers and instead concentrate on bass buildup.

I did some research after talking with you guys and found that people liked GIK products, and since I am at this phase trying to get my studio prepared ASAP so I can finish my music goals, I went forward with the purchase instead of wasting time trying to build my own panels or by buying studio foam, which I sense is a waste of money (though maybe a little bit here and there might be good to trim things out a bit).

I think I will try testing my room with software like fuzzmeasure before and after installation of the GIK panels then maybe rearrange the room and the treatments as needed to get the best setup possible.

I am trying to be very serious with this recording project, hence my decision to take seriously the matter of room treatments and monitors. When I listen to my raw recordings right now, I don't think they are very good, though with the logic plugins I am able to doctor them up and get them sounding pretty good. So I am happy I posted this thread and happier still you guys have assisted me here.

As I said, the next step will be to find the perfect vocal mic for me. I will not blindly order a mic I can't return only to find it sounds no different than any other one I already have. If I need to, I will maybe go to a store and test them there (do store's allow testing on-site?). Or maybe drop some rental fees at a pro studio somewhere and test their mics. Hopefully sweetwater or some other online store will let me order a few mics and return the ones I don't like after a few days of testing. I'll gladly pay a reasonable restocking fee if it means I end up with something that really kicks my music into high gear.
 
The suggestions of the acoustics guys are good, I am happy that you contacted the right people. If their elements are also good you are settled for the start. The man is right, the side diffusors are not that important, the thing above you does more. You can always add side absorbers. You know, almost any piece of furniture or very rough or curved surface can act as a diffusor.

About Fuzzmeasure:

The makers of the program recommend the usage of a mic that is built for measurements. They do this because a mic that boosts or dampens somewhere in the usable range would distort the result. The software sends a sine sweep through one speaker into the room and you record it with a microphone. Then the software compares the sent sweep with the recording and draws curves on the screen. It is clear, that beside the preamp the mic is the weakest link and it should be linear, otherwise it would give the software wrong information.

Do you a favour and buy the cheap Behringer ECM8000 mic. It is a linear omni condenser built for measuring. You can even try it on your guitar, maybe as a second mic. Sometimes it sounds good.

1) Measure the room (of course with the Yamaha monitors) before you apply the acoustic panels, just to get a clue about the differences later.

2) Measure the room after the treatment.

3) Look at the curve, it will by no means be flat but you want it as flat as possible. Check the room control switches at the back of the monitors, they are basically a switchable Equalizer. Look if you have some settings that would make the curve better. Measure again. Repeat the process until you cannot do it better.

4) Save this curve or print it, you need it as a reference because it tells you where your room and boxes tend to lie.

When you got the final curve, please post it here in the forum. We will tell you what to do with this curve because it has more purposes than to look nice.

---

This is a very constructive discussion, interesting for everybody who wants to built the first home studio. You always ask the right questions. Thank you. And good luck for the first step!
 
Is the SM7 soft?
I have no idea. Orren? I don't know your real voice, unfortunately.

I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with the hard/soft measurement so I don't feel qualified to say. But I can say that I own both mics (SM57 & SM7) and I feel that the SM7 is both more natural in general and more "present" in the lower registers. The SM57 has a quality that I guess I'd define as a bit "notchy" like some specific lower mid frequencies seem de-emphasized in a particular way. I think that and it's imperviousness to huge blasts is why the. SM57 is such a guitar amp speaker cabinet staple.

Sorry if I just confused you more!

Orren
 
Is the SM7 soft?
I have no idea. Orren? I don't know your real voice, unfortunately.
I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with the hard/soft measurement so I don't feel qualified to say.
Maybe you can try what Lauren knows already? :)
... you have a row of mics on the table. Speak the word "four" several times into each of them and listen carefully through your monitors.
Speak not from too far away but clearly outside the proximity range. Same distance for all mics of course. If you are not used to this kind of test it doesn't make much sense with two mics for the first time unless they are very different. From three mics on it should be easy. Try a couple of sequences until you get the picture.

Just forget about frequency-specific behavior, if you imagine to listen to "some voice" you can tell if one is harder than the other. It's only about texture and a relative comparison. For recording it works because you compare the sound sources in the same way, by the same ears.

---

But it looks as if you don't know the book "Mixing with your mind"? There is also nice stuff about recording guitar amps. And as a writer it is interesting for you to see how a technical book can be written without much technical language, from a personal view. Quite similar to your own style but more direct, less room for interpretation.

When is your next birthday? Do you accept birthday presents?
 
Thanks Orren about the mic info. The SM7b seems to get a lot of rave reviews. It's definitely on my short list.

Peter, I've been trying to learn fuzzmeasure as I await my yamaha monitors and acoustic panels. I got the behringer mic, and I am now using it to learn. Right now, I am not confident I am using fuzzmeasure correctly. Very little newbie documentation as to how to set it up and get consistent results. Each time I try to us it, I get a different looking result. I sent an email to the author with questions and example graphs, so maybe he can help. One issue is it's not clear whether I have to do certain baseline tests (e.g. loopback, impedance, etc) before I can get meaningful and consistent results. My initial tests show a waterfall curve where decay seems to last forever (i.e. 500 ms) at most frequencies (though I have big low and high nulls with flat mids).
 
Peter, ... Right now, I am not confident I am using fuzzmeasure correctly. ... Each time I try to us it, I get a different looking result.
This is normal. The curve will never be exactly the same. You are not in an anechoic chamber, your room is alive, it has reflections. For now, without any acoustic treatment, the curves show you how wildly the sound bounces across your room. Very long impulse responses combined with high values in the lower frequencies show the existence of standing waves. Don't know if you see this with your current monitors. It is a good idea to measure now, then with the Yamahas and then with the Yamahas and acoustic treatment. Just for learning.

Btw, in Fuzzmeasure you can shift-click and cmd-click on more than one measurements (left column) to combine the curves and see the differences and imagine average values. So it is good to name and save the measurements for later comparison. And to find measurement failures which you or the software may have produced.

A couple of hints:

Use a mic stand, place the mic in your listening position. Additionally you can measure in different locations to get a clue about other spots in your room. The recording position is interesting for example because your recording mic will only hear this spot. For measuring set the sweep to start a couple of seconds after you hit the button and get out of the way. Don't hide in a corner, your body would work as an absober. Best is to be out of the room while the sweep runs. And use 1/6 or even 1/3 octave smoothing in Fuzzmeasure. Finer resolutions are just confusing, you cannot handle small frequency bands yourself anyway.


Look at the frequency response of my mixing room:
20100817-dk3qn57xifrtg6pu8kasfccj13.jpg

This doesn't look good, although it is almost within the tolerance I find acceptable for my work. I temporarily removed some bass traps because I need them in the recording room but the curve doesn't look much better with them in place. I would need broadband absorbers to even out the mid range.

Now comes the interesting part, the added value of such curves for recording, arranging and mixing:

  • I don't care a lot about too much 100 Hz from a guitar, the room delivers more than I actually have.
  • I can boost the female voice frequencies of 300-400 Hz because my room response goes down from 150 Hz on.
  • Around 700 Hz is a well known and rather unwanted range for an acoustic guitar, it gives this "honky" tone. I have a deep vally there, the room is too polite. I have to drop the EQ a little even if it sounds right.
  • I hear always too much at 1 kHz than there actually is; another lie of the room.
  • I am careful with boosting 3 kHz for female vocals because the room tries to hide them. I may boost to much and force this annoying 3 kHz "trumpet" some women produce when they go loud.
  • I can trust the range above 4 kHz. This is important to me because I am 58 years old and did never hear much in the high frequencies.

See? A lot of information. But don't worry, by just looking at the curve, preferably at 1/3 octave resolution, we can take our technician hat off. It boils down to simple rules:

  1. Peter, do not drop the bass and the 1k range!
  2. Peter, watch for the ranges below and above 1 kHz!
  3. Be relaxed and have fun.

I have an EQ in the Logic output channel. It is made according to a 1/3 octave resolution of Fuzzmeasure and does not follow every detail. It's just a little helper, makes life easier because of less brain-work while validating sounds.


Next, reveration time - a very important analysis from Fuzzmeasure:
20100817-xgugqnim634rkq5jdrb4febbsa.jpg


(The red cross means that this value is an illusion of Fuzzmeasure. I did not even measure there, started at 40 Hz because my monitors don't go that far down.
)
Here you can see what your absorbers do, this is valuable information. 300 ms means that a room is very dry. 400 ms is a comfortable reverberation time, 500 ms is a bit long. From that, my room is not bad. I can work for a long time and don't get tired. But I don't have too much reverb, which would smear the whole sound.

Please note:
The reverberation time is important because it tells about the time domain. You cannot change this by an EQ and this is part of the problem. Many people try to equalize their room or turn the lows far too much down. But this doesn't change the timing of the sound. The room modes are a physical fact and if a sound wave remains for a second, turning the lows far down just ruins the overall sound. This is the world of bass traps, low frequency absorbers. They swallow the energy and reduce reverberation.

it's not clear whether I have to do certain baseline tests (e.g. loopback, impedance, etc) before I can get meaningful and consistent results.
Nothing necessary. Just get a good mic signal, don't overload your preamp or the curve will be wrong. No problem if it goes just up to -15 or -10 dB. For easier exploration you can shift the curve in Fuzzmeasure until a thick line goes where your average values are. This is not an absolute measurement, you just want to learn about the difference in frequencies and reverberation time.

---

Again a long post, I hope you don't mind. But it seems that we get a useful little "manual" for many people working on their recording- and mixing environment.
 
Thanks Peter

Much to "absorb" there, no pun intended. :)

Very helpful, as usual.

Will be trying more tests today.

Have you ever heard the idea of using old tennis balls as a material to use in a bass trap (or diffuser)? I have a bunch of them I could string up like pearls and hang them on my wall somewhere. Seems like the fuzzy rubber would serve beneficially in some way. Later on, after the GIK panels arrive and are installed and tested, I may try this and see if it improves my room.
 
I haven't heard that one, but I suspect you would need a lot of Tennis Balls to make an effective Bass Absorber. Maybe all the used balls after wimbledon would be enough?

I have heard of people mounting speakers,, speaker stands or even drum podests on halved tennis balls, in order to provide some isolation and reduction in flanking noise going directly through the floor. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of?

kind regards

Mark
 
Hi Mark

Believe it or not I was planning to use tennis balls under my monitors (as soon as they arrive in a few days). I didn't want to buy those expensive monitor pads that I've read somewhere were questionable as to their effectiveness.

But that idea made me wonder if such balls could also serve as a bass absorber in general. Maybe not, eh? Still, I may give it a try later to see if fuzzmeasure shows any difference using them.
 
I doubt that tennis balls make good low frequency absorbers unless you fill the whole room. Deep frequencies have very long waves, here is a comment from the SAE website about absorbers:
Low frequencies are big waves, consider that a 50Hz wave is 6.6m (21' 8'') and a 30Hz wave is 11m (36ft) long! That's 11m peak to peak -There's a lot of guys around here who would love to surf a wave like that! So to stop it requires special techniques.
Do you think that a couple of tennis balls can stop a 10 meter sound wave? It would just laugh at you, go through and around the balls as if they were not here. You could put many balls in some enclosure and they may have an effect. But for long waves you need mass, hollow spheres are not very effective. That's why rockwool and similar material is used. Sound is nothing else than moving air. A thick layer of stuff that lets the air go in but makes it hard for the air to go out again is perfect for a low frequency absorber. It doesn't work well for higher frequencies because those have short waves and not enough power to go into the material.

Otherwise, without this "slowing-down trick", you need for example 6 m of concrete to completely block a 6 m wave.

---

If you have many tennis balls and like their appearance, they are supposed to do a good job as diffusors. And the fibrous surface destroys some higher frequencies too. Overall they should work better than foam because they offer far better diffusion.

But just a few chains won't do much. You need many of them, maybe a curtain on the wall or a couple of panels, something like that:

20100818-kj83ak4tqapxcms5wery1gapxh.jpg


But remember, this is not a low frequency absorber. It is a diffusor that additionally dampens high mid frequencies.
 
I'm a scorpio. I am never at peace.

BTW, you are lucky to live in Vienna. The closest I ever got was Salzburg. So beautiful.
 
I'm a scorpio. I am never at peace.
Oh. I was married to a Scorpio for many years. And my girl friend is a Scorpio. Geminis are not always compatible to them. Air and water move differently.

BTW, you are lucky to live in Vienna. The closest I ever got was Salzburg. So beautiful.
Yes it's nice here but I don't like the winter very much. Would prefer something more to the south. Canarian Islands for example, if they weren't islands :)
 
Hi Peter. I am new here Why are you not a fan of sub-woofers? I am curious as I use a sub-woofer with with a pair of 5 Rokits. My bottom .... Bass guitar and drums especially never seem to come out right, either too loud or too low. Is there a way to balance the woofer with the speakers? The sub is a Rokit by the way. I wonder if you were having the same problem and also wondering if I should do away with the subs for now. I did a recording when I didn't have the sub and the bottom didn't sound too bad compared to the mixes I get now. I am just a musician with a small home studio.Very frustrating..Sorry if I sound stupid I am still in the learning process. Thanks Nat2000.
 
Back
Top