from what i understand getting the EQ curve flat for a room is one thing...

but aiming to keep it also kinda reverby for a better listening experience/pleasure is another.


can you explain me how do you find the balance between the two, what are the considerations, etc

 

This is very complex and there is a lot to read about this.
But in general one can say that for a recording studio a reverb time of max 0.5ms if you gonna do percussive instrumental recordings as well, but rather <0.3ms is recommended.

It really just depends on what you gonna do in there. But to know whats more or less senseful, there is a lot to read about acoustics and normally you gonna ask your acoustician.

Btw. I don't know how you want to influence your eq curve by itself. There is a direct correlation between these two factors. You can not influence one but not the other for your room by its construction alone. As "Beat16" said, room corrections via eq do not make any sense.

 

Last edited: Mar 17, 2022

CHAPTER 3: The Ultimate Guide to Acoustic Treatment for Home Studios
https://ehomerecordingstudio.com/acoustic-treatment-101/

 

Last edited: Mar 17, 2022

1. Sound waves are way too complex to achieve a flat response just with an EQ.
2. You don't need to fear to make your room anechoic by accident. This requires a completely different approach. I'd say whatever you do to reduce the most obvious reflections and standing waves step by step is a good thing.

 

Using an equalizer With an equalizer on REV, you can shape the sound of the reverb yourself. First you have to decide whether the equalizer should work BEFORE or AFTER your reverb plugin: EQ before reverb: The source signal for the reverberated sound is processed EQ after reverb:

The reverberated sound is processed If the EQ works before the reverb, the character of the reverbs/plugins preserved. You determine what actually gets into the reverb effect, so you can let certain frequencies fade away more weakly from the outset or, with strong filtering, “block” them completely from the reverb. This more closely preserves the character of the reverb device or plugin.

If the EQ works after the reverberation, the original signal is fed into the reverberation unprocessed and decays, after which you edit the reverberation that has already been created. Of course, the use of two EQs is also conceivable (one before and one after the reverb) - on the one hand you can leave out problematic or unwanted frequencies in the reverb generation and finally taste the character of the end result.

With the latter, a subtle use of EQ is recommended so that the main advantage mentioned above – the preservation of the reverb character – is retained as far as possible.

Mixing EQ tips for reverb The following tips are mainly recommended for EQs that act BEFORE the reverb. In addition, the frequency information is only a typical approximation - depending on the source signal and the other sounds in your mix, you may have to adjust the parameter values by ear.

- Set low cut (24 dB/oct.) at at least 80 Hz - tidier bass range For vocals, lowering between 300 and 700 Hz - less "mud" and "muff" Lowering between 1 and 5 kHz - more present voice
- For acoustic guitars - resonances not with reverb Provide Low Cut (24 dB/oct.) at at least 50 Hz Set cuts at 170, 290, 530 and 1,200 Hz High Cut or High Shelf at 9 kHz Finding resonances

The frequency ranges that lead to resonances in a microphone recording can be like follows: Use an EQ band in peak filter mode and initially set it to an increase of a few decibels (e.g. +6 dB). Now slowly shift the frequency to a point where the sound sounds particularly unpleasantly dull, boomy or sharp.

This is exactly where you turn the increase into a decrease. Repeat this process to find and mitigate other resonances. There's usually a handful of annoying resonances, so an equalizer with at least four bands (in addition to the high- and low-cut filters) is recommended. If necessary, you can fine-tune all bands with their Q controls.

More Reverb Mixing Tips & Suggestions Too little reverb is better than too much reverb Reverb effects are usually best for your mix when they're subtle. It's often enough if you don't hear a reverb clearly, but miss it because it's deactivated. If you deliberately use a very strong reverb artistically, the use of the EQ (see above) is all the more important so that the mix remains tidy and the reverb tail does not drown the other elements of your mix in a sound soup. Own reverb for each track/group track

Source: www.delamar.de

 

I know one engineer who is also an electronics genius who spent over a decade making a pair of as close to possible, completely flat and uncoloured stereo speakers. He achieved it. I asked him how he felt about it. He said: "I am glad I could actually do it in practice. It's a shame they sound like shit."

 

It's not about flattening the frequency curve of a room. The point is to linearize the reverberation time over the frequency spectrum in the room.

 

Well, they are different things. What people usually (and mistakenly) refer to as "room EQ" is just the frequency response on an instant, which doesn't really tell you how that beheaves in time. You could have a "flat EQ" room with long or short reverb times depending on what you're trying to accomplish.

The best (and cheapest) approach really is to work with the room before you put any acoustic treatment on it. Designing the room from scratch (if possible) or figuring out where the listening and speakers positions should be so any un-flatness you may have has the least impact on your activities. Once that's done and you get a better idea of how much space you actually have and what other practical limitations you may encounter, then you can start to worry about everything else.

For limited resources projects (low budget, small space), chances are you won't reach the flattest response ever AND the perfect reverb time, so that's how you get your ballance, you just priorize depending on what's getting in your way. For fancy ones where you can actually solve a lot of problems, optimal reverb time is rather short (if it's a small room at least), but how short is really subjective, there are plenty of approaches to that.

It's recommended that you keep the reverb times about the same across the whole spectrum, with a "permissible" increase of 20-25% below 200Hz. With that in mind, consider that most absorbers out there do absorb a lot of enery in the high/high mids but very little in the low lows, so be careful. That said, you should really priorize the most obvious problems first, even if your reverb curve ends up a mess.

 

is this easy to do...any specific process
thanks

 

There is a secret golden law!
the mix has to sound good on studio monitors, cheap headphones and an UHF-Kitchen Radio!

 

https://audiosex.pro/threads/room-acoustic-thread-how-to-treat-your-room.50138/

 

This.

the idea of 'linearity' in relation to audio production is an overrated and highly misunderstood concept in the (semi)pro audio world.

 

What is realistic then?

 

Related to what?

If this were so overrated, poorly chosen crossover points and filter circuits would not be a problem. 30dB dip at 120 Hz and 5kHz? Hey, no problem. These speakers are certainly very very trustworthy. If the room then additionally moves mountains and valleys, nothing is in phase and the bass resonates for 1.5 seconds, the way to the #1-hit mix/production is virtually a piece of cake.

 

Hmmm... thats a good question.

I think short answer is: its subjective due to the biometric diversity and of all plants and animals lol.

But all jokes aside... what I mean is, given that each human ear, head shape, and internal structure is different, when it comes to sound reproduction what sounds more "real" to one person may actually be slightly or significantly different another person. This is because the human ear hears in a non-linear fashion, and on top of that brain also calibrates and adjust to sensory input in attempt to normalize it.

Audio that is captured using the most linear analog equipment available, (in a non anechoic space), will in many cases will still not sound like the audio you heard in same the room with your own ears. At best it will sound "neutral", but one man's 'neutral' is another man's dull, boring, dark, lifeless. Most linear recordings will have you reaching for the EQ or other mixing tools to make it sound more 'present'; unless you're doing something like opera houses, jazz, or some other stylistically conservative audio work.

To be completely honest most recorded audio recorded in using linear capture methods sounds extremely boring and dull when people really hear what "linear" sounds like. This is why we equalize, distort, and manipulate sound to achieve a more real life, or larger than life representation in audio production. Its like applying make up to the audio to make it seem more life like again. The place where linear audio is most useful at the moment is technical fields like physics, science, forensics, etc, but not as much in creative fields like music.

The whole idea behind linear capture devices is to minimize or remove as many environmental factors and artifacts cause by the nature of analog capture. In contrast, in professional audio (especially music) the idea is usually to reproduce or "represent the sound" as it IF were to be heard in real life, or creatively change the sound in a way that is different than real life.

As @Sinus Well already stated the most important thing to address from a 'technical' standpoint is to reduce reverberation in the room as evenly as you can across the frequency, with regards to the sounds being captured or captured in that space (IE: a mixing room and vocal room might have different needs for treatment).

After the reverberation time is controlled, you would be surprised at how much more clarity you can hear in a room. From there you can eq the output of your monitors to personal taste if you like.

 

Last edited: Mar 17, 2022

Lol, I get what you mean when it comes to audio manufactures.

I didn't mean concept of linearity itself overrated, (especially when understood in its proper context). I meant 'overrated', as in being used by companies pro-audio manufactures as a buzz word, and people having no idea what it actually means, or how it applies, OR doesn't apply to their craft.

A lot of novice, or semi pro musicians, engineers hear the word 'linear' that it inherently means things will sound "better" and they think a more 'linear' device will help them in their creative or professional projects, but this is usually a misnomer, and its other issues like acoustics, technical skill level, and other subjective choices (like using gear that suits your desired sonic aesthetic) are what should be addressed to achieve the outcome they are looking for.

 

I kind of figured because he is well over 50 years old and repairs Manleys, rebuilds Neve Desks, Luxman etc amps, NAD etc preamps, Gale and every other audiophile speaker and has been doing it for a long time that he kind of knows what he is doing. Especially because he has been doing it since he was a teenager.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 17, 2022