Re: [ARSCLIST] Studio Acoustics (was Cedar)

[Don Cox <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 24/05/07, Richard L. Hess wrote:

> In commenting on Tom Fine's and my exchange about the audibility of
> Cedar artifacts in commercial releases, At 06:52 AM 2007-05-22, Don
> Cox wrote:
> 
>> Most computers have fan noise which would make it hard to hear the
>> ambience on a record.
>> 
>> And there is the question of what monitors are being used.
> 
> This raises an issue which has only been marginally touched on in 
> this list and I fear with all the other cost and time pressures 
> perhaps does not receive proper attention.
> 
> Good room acoustics (as well as audio monitor selection) are crucial 
> in doing a good job of restoration and mastering. They are less 
> important for doing preservation copies where no processing involving 
> operator judgment is performed, but they are still important so you 
> can hear if you have optimum playback.
> 
> While all of us may have our favourite monitor speakers, a recent 
> series of tests about the Studer A80/A810 and Sony APR-5000 tested 
> more than the audibility of differences among these three machines. 
> It also showed that audibility of subtle differences can be discerned 
> on three good monitor systems of VERY different design/implementation.
> 
> I have a 5.1 arrangement with Mackie HR-824s and an Energy subwoofer 
> with a Blue Sky Bass Management Controller. My room was designed with 
> the help of a major-league acoustician (but many compromises were 
> made from the design, so I don't credit him). I have never owned a 
> room/monitoring chain with better imaging. It matches the ITU/Dolby 
> published geometry for 5.1 surround.
> 
> My friend Don has a Blue Sky 2.1 personal system in an average home 
> bedroom (I think there is carpet on the floor).
> 
> Steve Puntolillo has a nice Tannoy monitor system in an acoustically 
> designed control room.
> 
> All three systems were useable - Don doesn't use the Blue Sky 2.1 
> system for post production (he doesn't do anything but edit and has 
> other systems for that) - even though they were very different.
> 
> Part of this shows how we adapt to our own monitoring environment(s),
> I think. Last fall, Don and I spent a good day listening to stuff on
> his Blue Sky personal monitor and it was wonderful -- partially
> because we were using it very near field, shutting out the rest of the
> room.
> 
> Since I've built my studio, I've found I haven't used my AKG K-240DF 
> headphones at all. I can hear more over the Mackies in the new room 
> than the headphones -- this was not the case in my old room in 
> Southern California.
> 
> As to computer ambient noise, I have solved my challenge in that 
> regard by having the fans "speak" to a foot-thick high-density 
> mineral wool wall. Nothing reflects back from that. With both 
> computers on, the room meets (or exceeds) NC-25. Depending on how 
> much gear is on, and how fast I run the supply/exhaust fans, this 
> number is degraded slightly.
> 
> The worst offenders are the Sony APR-5000 tape recorders which have 
> noisy fans. I looked for the "Pratt and Whitney" label on them, but 
> couldn't find one -- I do have some allegedly quieter Pabst fans 
> awating installation...but they are a BEAR to swap.
> 
> If you meant "monitors" in the computer monitor sense, yes CRTs can 
> emit noises that are annoying. I don't find that with my LCD 
> monitors, though I presume some could emit noises. Most CRTs for 
> computer use don't have that annoying 15,734 Hz tone that TV monitors 
> have. I think I have a permanent notch at that frequency!
> 
I was thinking of monitor speakers - and the whole listening
environment, as you point out.

Regards
-- 
Don Cox
doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx