Acoustics of desk shape and size

How to use REW, What is a Bass Trap, a diffuser, the speed of sound, etc.

Moderators: Aaronw, sharward

Embenny
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:41 pm

Acoustics of desk shape and size

Post by Embenny »

I've tried searching the forum and haven't found much about this, so I was hoping to get a conversation going. I've been doing some research on a new desk for my hybrid analog/digital control room, and have found some potentially conflicting statements that I'm having trouble integrating.

The first statement I find repeated often is that you want to make the desk as small as possible to reduce desk bounce and comb filtering. This makes sense. I'm working ITB with a compact control surface and some analog outboard gear, so I don't need a giant, flat console providing a massive reflective surface.

I see many mastering suites in particular moving to very small desks only 2U or even 1U wide, like the Sterling Modular desks:

Image

Some mastering suites like Skylab go so far as to use only a pedestal for a monitor and control surface, moving all outboard to the back of the room:
Image

That's intuitive and makes sense to me. But here's where I start to get confused. Sterling goes on about how they intentionally make the desk as transparent as possible by using fabric-covered cutouts to reduce reflective surfaces on the sides and back. Meanwhile, I've also read that a larger and more solid desk can be beneficial by blocking floor bounce, and some very carefully-designed mastering suites seem to go all out with this approach.

Here's Berklee's mastering suite, with a desk and sidecar running the whole width of the room!
Image

And Bob Ludwig, who of course has the luxury of using any setup he could imagine:
Image

How do we reconcile these competing factors of exacerbating desk bounce vs obstructing floor bounce and vice versa? Is it silly to be worrying about getting the desk as small as possible when such high-end rooms seemingly add in as much large furniture as they desire in order to get all their gear into the spots they want to use it? Should I simply be choosing my studio furniture based on ergonomics rather than fretting over the acoustic impacts? Are there situations where prioritizing one over the other becomes more important?

I'd love to hear any thoughts on this before I drive myself mad analyzing and debating choices with my limited understanding of acoustics. I'm going in circles over here, trying to decide what workflow and ergonomic conveniences I could sacrifice in the name of using a smaller desk.
gullfo
Moderator
Posts: 5344
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:55 am
Location: Panama City Beach, FL USA
Contact:

Re: Acoustics of desk shape and size

Post by gullfo »

depends on what you're trying to do and your preferences. if you check out Bob Katz and a few other rooms, you'd find them using a small low-height coffee-table sized desk approach to reducing all obstructions between their listening position and the speakers. in other rooms, the mastering engineer feels that having their equipment handy(er) works for them, especially if they're also mastering for video sound tracks where they may need additional gear to sync, surround capable gear (multiples of eq, compressors etc). and have their ears adjusted to the workspace (which is likely a primary requirement regardless).

so you should base the configuration on your experience and working needs.
Glenn
DanDan
Senior Member
Posts: 637
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:31 am
Location: Cork Ireland
Contact:

Re: Acoustics of desk shape and size

Post by DanDan »

Bogic Petrovic has a nice design on his FB and Instagram pages. I would have them to my sides. But with such open designs one needs to chose outboard without fans. Or replace them with Noctua fans. The comb filtering effect of a desk so close to the listener is pretty horrible. So I go for the absolute minimum size. Floor Bounce can be eliminated by choosing a speaker with a ground level Driver, Grimm, or Sub/Sat arrangement. Or perhaps a blocking wall, with absorption to prevent any HF or MF bouncing around down there.
Desk Combover 2.jpg
Embenny
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:41 pm

Re: Acoustics of desk shape and size

Post by Embenny »

gullfo wrote:depends on what you're trying to do and your preferences. if you check out Bob Katz and a few other rooms, you'd find them using a small low-height coffee-table sized desk approach to reducing all obstructions between their listening position and the speakers. in other rooms, the mastering engineer feels that having their equipment handy(er) works for them, especially if they're also mastering for video sound tracks where they may need additional gear to sync, surround capable gear (multiples of eq, compressors etc). and have their ears adjusted to the workspace (which is likely a primary requirement regardless).

so you should base the configuration on your experience and working needs.
Yes, I notice that "the other legendary mastering Bob" Katz goes the minimalist route while Bob Ludwig appears to subscribe to "go big or go home." That's part of my confusion! Bob Ludwig's work in stereo is of course superlative, but that's an interesting point about the surround equipment. I know three of his Grammy wins were for surround albums, I didn't think about that.

Then again, Bob Katz developed the K-surround metering system, so clearly he must spend at least some time in 5.1. I don't know how often he actually works in 5.1, though.

It sounds like I should probably keep my setup as small as it needs to be while meeting workflow needs.
DanDan wrote:Bogic Petrovic has a nice design on his FB and Instagram pages. I would have them to my sides. But with such open designs one needs to chose outboard without fans. Or replace them with Noctua fans. The comb filtering effect of a desk so close to the listener is pretty horrible. So I go for the absolute minimum size. Floor Bounce can be eliminated by choosing a speaker with a ground level Driver, Grimm, or Sub/Sat arrangement. Or perhaps a blocking wall, with absorption to prevent any HF or MF bouncing around down there.
Are you talking about this one?

Image

That confuses me even more, because it appears as though you could eliminate 50-60% of the depth and surface area in the flat centre portion without losing room for the mouse, keyboard, and computer. It looks like maybe the severe angle of the side racks eliminates a reflection point, but only while it's open - wouldn't the desk bounce return once filled with gear?

When you say ground-level driver, do you mean up-firing like a Grimm, or do Bob Ludwig's Duntechs count, with one woofer at ground level and one...very much not?

That's interesting about introducing a wall or something deliberate to break up floor bounce. Never thought of that.
gullfo
Moderator
Posts: 5344
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:55 am
Location: Panama City Beach, FL USA
Contact:

Re: Acoustics of desk shape and size

Post by gullfo »

maybe you can get some tours of various mastering suites so you can "hear" them in action? or perhaps even reach out to the owners and get some insight into their design decisions?
Glenn
DanDan
Senior Member
Posts: 637
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:31 am
Location: Cork Ireland
Contact:

Re: Acoustics of desk shape and size

Post by DanDan »

The Grimm has the LF source near the floor, I don't know how the Duntec operates, that too may have LF only from one of the LF drivers. Yes that is the Boggy design I had in mind, but I was thinking only of the rack design. The front operating surface is very angled, so no bounce even when full of gear. We will have to guess that his flat central bit is not in the reflection zone. Another interesting notion, I have read of a hole in the floor containing absorption, for the floor bounce.
Post Reply