I will NOT be considering all the advice that you have given me.
Seeing that you flat refuse to even bother obeying the forum rules, despite being instructed to do so multiple times, I can't say I'm surprised by your attitude!
And no, you CANNOT beat the laws of physics by wishful thinking, hoping, guessing, or chanting magical incantations. Small rooms will ALWAYS sound small, simply because they are small. This is not an opinion: it is simple fact. Just because you don't want to accept it will not change it.
I think sometimes it is users like you that might fall on the hairy edge of being too absolute and 'matter of fact'
Sorry, but this has nothing to do with me being a "user" (I'm not: I'm a studio designer), nor with "being too absolute" or "matter of fact": It has to do with actually understanding the laws of physics, as they apply to sound waves. You cannot make a small room sound non-small just by hoping or wanting it to be possible, any more than you can make yourself float off the planet by hoping or wishing that the force of gravity will stop acting on you. Being ignorant of the science of acoustics will not help you make a small room sound big. But learning about acoustics will certainly help you understand why it is not possible. I'm not using the word "ignorance" in a pejorative sense here: I merely use it in the sense of lacking specific and sufficient knowledge. I myself am "ignorant" of many things: for example, I know practically nothing about fishing, except what I see in pictures and videos. And since I recognize that ignorance, if I do want to go fishing for trout in my bathtub, I would ask experts about that, and learn how to do it right. And if the experts tell me that my planned method for trout fishing in a bathtub won't work, then I'll accept that they do know what they are talking about, and I wont' bother trying it. I will not try to convince them that you actually can fish for trout in a bathtub if you only use the right bait, and paint the tub the right color, and put the right water in it. Rather, I'd do some research on trout, on their habits, and their habitat, and on fishing, and I'd learn that in fact it really
IS impossible to catch trout in a bathtub. I'd learn that they don't survive in small bodies of stagnant water, and you can only catch them in large bodies of water, such as rivers and lakes. So I would solve my problem of ignorance by learning about it. I'd suggest that you do the same.
lead to others not perusing other options than the ones tried and tested in general soundproofing guidelines.
There is no point in perusing options that are blatantly impossible. The laws of physics, as they apply to sound, are known to be correct, through centuries of experiment and testing.
But since you seem to disagree with those laws, and are positive you can prove them wrong, here's one that you can play around with (as you fish for trout in your bathtub):
TL(dB)= 20log(M) + 20log(f) -47.2
M is surface density, and
f is frequency
It is the simplest, most basic, most fundamental law of physics regarding "soundproofing", and explains the real-world graphs I showed you yesterday, which you ignorantly discarded as being irrelevant, and not applying to you. This equation is often referred to as "Mass Law", since it accurately describes the amount of isolation that you WILL get from any single-leaf barrier. Please note: It does not describe my
opinion on how much isolation you will get, as you claim, nor does it describe your belief on how much isolation you think you can get: It describes the actual amount of isolation that you WILL get. Notice that it clearly predicts that isolation will ALWAYS be poor for low frequencies, and much better for high frequencies. Notice that it predicts a rise in isolation of 6 dB for every doubling of frequency for any given mass, and also a rise of 6 dB in isolation for every doubling of mass for any give frequency. This is obvious from the equation itself. Notice that the graphs I gave you reflect what is predicted by this equation. Those graphs were taken from real-world test of real walls, in a real laboratory. They are just two of several hundred such graphs form test performed on several hundred real walls, and all the graphs show the same thing, agreeing with this theoretical equation.
But considering that you apparently do not believe that this law is true, please go ahead and demonstrate what part of it is wrong. It's a simple equation, and can be tested simply, so I'd invite you to test a large number of possible single-leaf barriers, made from whatever materials you can think of, and show us the results of your tests, especially those results that significantly contradict this established, proven, law.
Good luck with that! I mean that sincerely, since all acousticians everywhere would absolutely LOVE to have a new magical material that defies Mass Law, and provides more isolation than it predicts. If you really can produce such a material, you'll be rich overnight, and praised by all studio builders everywhere. So sincerely, I do wish you luck with your experimentation! But I'm certainly not holding my breath, since I understand the principles of physics on which this equation is based, and why it works, every time. And why you will undoubtedly fail in your attempt to prove it wrong.
Now, since you also feel that Schroeder, Bonello and others are totally wrong in their extensive work on modal distribution and the manner in which that effects the overall sound of a room across the entire spectrum (acoustic response and psycho-acoustic response), please do go also ahead and show where they went wrong, and the manner in which you think their equations and deductions should be modified to reflect your new findings.
Most importantly, please show how it is possible to achieve close modal spacing and a high number of modes below 50 Hz, in a room whose largest dimension is less than 10 feet or so.
Since it is well recognized that this is the key factor in defining how a room sounds, I'd be fascinated to see how you plan on creating low frequency standing waves between walls that are too close together to fit in a full wavelength between them for that frequency. Since this will likely require an act of God to produce, please instruct us on how you intend to convince God to suspend the laws of physics, so that this can work. That would be great, actually, as it would also allow me to put 500 gallons of fuel in my car, even though the tank only holds 15 gallons.... I'd also be able to put 50 people inside my car, even though it can only hold seven, and I'd be able to park my car inside my letter box, even though it is way too big to fit. So convincing God to suspend the laws that prevent things from fitting into spaces that are smaller than their dimensions (such as large sound waves in a small room) would be wonderful all around! Since you are convinced that this is possible, I'd LOVE to see you accomplish it! Or if you can't convince God to do this, then perhaps you can call Dr. Who, since he seems to have solved the problem of fitting large things inside impossibly small spaces, with his Tardis.
Moving on: since your basic issue is that you seem to think that small rooms can in fact be made to sound like large ones, you will probably want to go all the way back to the work done by Sabine, and show why his equation is not actually valid any more:
RT60 = 0.16 x V / A
Where:
RT60 = the time taken for a sound in the room to decay by 60 dB (to one millionth of its original intensity)
V = the cubic volume of the room in cubic meters,
A = the amount of perfect absorption in the room, in sabins (where 1 sabin = one square meter of "open hole in the wall")
This is the equation that you must prove wrong. You MUST reject it, totally and completely, since it is the
only thing preventing you from making your small room sound big! This equation is the barrier to you being able to build a small room that sounds large, so you will have to find a way to negate it.
You'll note that the equation is stunningly simple, so it should be dead easy to prove it wrong. All you have to do is to build a room where V is small (the volume of the room), and A is large (plenty of absorption to make the room dead, as you say), yet the RT60 time is also large, in the range of 2 to 3 seconds, perhaps.
Go ahead. Please do plug in the values for your room, and show how your room breaks this equation, and proves it wrong.
When you are done proving all those laws wrong (and convincing God that you are right), then there's plenty more to keep you busy.
I feel like this is always the downfall of these forums. We probably have completely different expectations of the design.
That's true, actually! I agree with you 100%. My expectation are based on facts, science, physics, experiment, and how things really work. Your expectations are based on fantasy, wishing, hoping, dreaming, and ignorance. But that won't be the downfall of this forum. It will be the downfall of your success in making a small room sound like a large one.
I know for a fact that drums for the latest album by 'Father John Misty' called 'Pure Comedy' were recorded in this small room (around 60 square feet floor plan). You can see this behind the scenes if you watch their short film documentary they did for 'Pure Comedy'. There is a very short clip of the drums in the iso-booth
You "know this for a fact" because you were there? You were the recording engineer? You set up the drums and mics yourself, then recorded, mixed, and mastered them, personally? Or you "know" this because you saw a music video clip of drums in that booth, and assumed that's how they actually recorded the drums? Please clarify.
Because if it's based on the video, then you should also be attempting to convince us that the soundtrack was recorded to cassette, since that's what the video shows:
father.misty--pure.comedy-1..44.jpg
The video also shows several houses and cars on fire in and around Los Angeles (apparently), so I guess that must have happened for real too?
father.misty--pure.comedy-3..38.jpg
Not only that, but the grand piano was obviously recorded with a single SM-57 placed over the keyboard! Because that's what the video shows...
father.misty--pure.comedy-5..23.jpg
And they even used the same mic setup for the bass guitar! (with appropriate lyrics...):
father.misty--pure.comedy-5..29.jpg
Amazing! I never realized an SM-57 would work so well on bass...
But help me out here: throughout the video, they show the lead singer playing guitar and singing in that tiny booth, yet you say they also have the
drums in there at the same time? How come we can't see the drums in that clip where he's singing and playing guitar? How did they keep the drum bleed out of the vocal mic?
Yet at 9:36, the drummer is actually drumming in the
control room, while the lead singer is playing the guitar in there too!
father.misty--pure.comedy-9..36.jpg
While at the same time as all that, the sax, trombone, and french horn at around 13:10 make no sound at all, even though they are clearly being played hard in the video!
And at 13:22, the very "clip of the drums in the small booth" that you are referring to, the drum hits are not even synchronized with the sound!
Ooops!
Not to mention the clip at 20 minutes in, which clearly shows the shattered window of the control room... So since it's in the video, I'm certain the studio allowed them to do that too, right? They just said "Sure! go ahead and smash our carefully designed and engineered, very expensive thick laminated glass windows for your video! We don't care! No problem!". Yup. That happened. It must have, because it's in the video:
father.misty--pure.comedy-20..03.jpg
Listen to the album and hear the 70's dry drums in action.
Which I'm pretty darn sure were NOT tracked in that room! If I had to guess, I would say that the drums were actually tracked in this room:
Studio_B_TOP.jpg
... which features "23’ high ceilings" and "is large enough to hold a 40 piece orchestra". That's what it sounds like to me.
It is also billed this way: "the live room in Studio B is incredibly flexible and is known as one of the best drum tracking rooms in the world".
I'm just wondering why a large production for an important album would spend big bucks to rent the studio that has "the best drum tracking room in the world", then track the drums in the vocal booth instead... That's a bit hard to understand.... Maybe you can explain that?
This is what I am going for and would hope to at least achieve.
You can hope all you want, but you wont achieve that in a small room with a low ceiling, unless you close mic everything, kill the room acoustics entirely, and fake the ambience in the mix.
I understand the ceiling is probably pretty high ... but can I approximate/simulate that with 12 inches of insulation in the ceiling, would be a question?
Like I said, you certainly can kill the natural room acoustics with thick, abundant treatment, then close mic your drums and fake the ambient room sound in the mix, with reverb, effects, plug-ins, dynamics, EQ, and all the usual tricks that engineers use when they don't like the natural sound that was picked up by the mics, and have to change it to make it sound good. So yes, you can do that if you want to get big-room drum sounds out of a small room. But it won't be a natural, real big-room drum sound: it will be fake.
what would be the way to achieve this room sound? (Basically dead, yet not boxy)
I've already explained that a few times: the way to achieve that sound is to record the drums in a large room that is suitably treated, such as the "best tracking room in the world" shown on the website for the studio where the drums were recorded. You CANNOT get rid of the boxy sound of a small room with acoustic treatment, in the same way that you CANNOT make spam in a can taste like best fillet steak. If you want the taste of best fillet steak, then you have to actually buy best fillet steak, and cook it suitably to bring out the flavor of best fillet steak. If all you have is spam in a can, then it's only ever going to test like spam in a can! You might be able to improve the flavor a bit by adding abundant condiments, but it would still be fake. Just like you can make close-mic'd drums sound like they are in a big room with abundant plugins... but it would still be fake.
So if you want that sound, you have two options: You can either build a bigger room, or you can kill the small room totally, close mic the kit, and fake it in the mix. There are no other choices.
But I do appreciate the drums sounds. They sound fine to me.
They sound fine to me too, but they clearly and obviously were not recorded in that room. It's not a "making of" video, nor is it a documetary: it's a
music video, with a whole bunch of other fake scenes that did not happen in real life. CGI is a wonderful thing, but is no more real than the "room" created by an effects box, or this six foot rainbow trout that I fished out of my bathtub yesterday...
large-rainbow-trout-2-SML.jpg
- Stuart -