Asking for help on home studio measurement analysis

[xbenderx]

Hello , I´ve finally made my home studio (3,3m width x 3,3 m long x 2,42 m height)and I´ve put on it a celiling cloud (1,8 m width x 1, 8 m long) and 6 (1,2 m x 0,6 m) frames on the walls , all of them with 2 inch 50kg/m3 rockwool .
The with REW and the Bheringer ECM8000 I´ve made 8 measurements, and aplied EQ to the average and then I´ve measured it again.
I´m trying to analyze the graphics of the last one, but I´m not so sure. I think that the results are too good for such a small room. (or maybe I´m misinterpreting it all)
Could anyone please look at the data and confirm it or deny it?
If i´m not worng it looks like that I could use some diffusion for the higher frequencies in order to make the RT60 more consistent with the average 300 ms of the lower frequencies. , What more can I do? (considering that I don´t have any more room for bulky bass traps )
Thankssss

 

[DanDan]

You have very little LF. You should be aiming for something like the classic B&K curve. https://www.bksv.com/media/doc/17-197.pdf

 

[xbenderx]

hello DanDan, and thanks for your response. I´ve read all of the material, but I´m an absolut noob in the matter. When you say that I´ve very little LF, are you saying that I need more Low Frequencies ?or that I need more Low Filters?
This is the spectrogram ot my measurement

It´s precisely on the lows, that I have the highers RT60 values. I see what appears to be modal frequencies on 53 hz, 100,1 hz, 115,5 hz, and 138,7 hz. , but none of their RT60 values are above of (500 ms).
For what I´ve read, considering the small size of the room, and that it´s going to be used for mixing and tracking, I think that an RT60 goal value between 300 and 500 ms will be ok.
Viewing the values , I suspected, that the thing that I could improve is increase the RT60 values on the mid high and high frequencies (actually they are on the order of (120 to 160 ms) using difussion, in order to have a more even RT60 value across the spectrum.
But how I said earlier I don´t know if my analysis is correct.

 

[DanDan]

There has been a lot of encouragement to consider Decay, Time, issues. I guess this is an attempt to expand on the ubiquitous practice of using Frequency Response.
But like any positive discrimination, it can go too far IMO. Frequency Response shows Tonal Balance very well. The Blue line here would be a desirable Listening Curve.

 

[xbenderx]

now I understand what you said... !!!
But (if it´s not too much) I´ve two doubts
1) the listening curve, that are you drawing it´good for music consumption. But for music production it´s not better a flatter response across the frequency range??
2)What can I do to improve my LF response? I´m only using a pair of yamaha´s ns-10m studio as speakers (7" woofer, 1 3/8" tweeter). A subwoofer will improve my bass response ?or due to the room dimentions it has no meaning to use it ?

Thanks for your time (and knowledge)

 

[DanDan]

There are differing opinions on that. As a freelance Recording Engineer, I worked in many studios over the years. In many cases the monitoring sounds almost overwhelmingly good.
There was a commonly recurring problem though. Mixes sounded fabulous in the CR but dull out in the real world. Many engineers reacted to this by bringing in their own speakers, often small and domestic.
They were placed on top of the meter bridge, coincidentally experiencing an LF boost due to this big extensive of the baffle. Many studios on your side hired Bob Hodas to tweak the FR to achieve enhanced translation to the real word. I guess many engineers adapted to the very bright but very articulate 'flat' response favoured by many studio designers.
I simply could not do that. The crystalline clarity of the HF due to absence of Early Reflections sounds unnaturally bright to me. Like drums outdoors. I have the luxury or pain of living in my current studio. Over a couple of years I experimented extensively with Listening curves from Harmon to B&K and everywhere else too. I was able to immediately hear the results in several other rooms on several different systems.
Eventually I found B&K works best. I think it worth noting that people who hear music in Anechoic Chambers find it unnatural and even disturbing. I note also that nobody busy Sennheiser Audiometric Headphones, Laboratory Flat, while a great number of us favour the HD650. I find little tonal change when moving from HD650 to Dirac Live controlled Neumann HK310 speakers here.
Bob Clearmountain popularised the NS10. But it was an early version, low powered and with a nicely balanced HF roll off to complement the limited LF. A sweet sounding thing. But in his reflection free CR, he found it worked better if he dulled the tweeter using tissue paper. Many many people still like to mix on the later NS10. There is a notion that if you make something sound good on these quite harsh speakers, it will sound huge and lush in the real world. There is a point in that. But it does have very good aspects. The sealed woofer does not roll off suddenly. Try a 30Hz sine, that speaker will deliver it cleanly, albeit quietly. If you place it very close to a boundary it will seriously grow a pair. Decent LF levels but still tight due to the sealed box. Remember it was originally a bookshelf design. Two subs can be placed strategically in an attempt to get some bass with less variation over an area of the room. There is a notion out there that small spaces can't transmit LF. Tell that to any Headphone..... I happily used, still have Celestion Ditton 66 Studio Monitors. They are enormous and they work fine anywhere and everywhere. Go three way, it's a different world. A friend Mastering Engineer compared the little KH310 with a huge ATC rig in an ultimate room recently. Those present all found it quite difficult to tell which speakers were playing, until it got into seriously high SPL.

 

[xbenderx]

OK.. Thanks for your time,... I see that having some basic principles established the topic also has a fundamental component of personal taste on it .

 

[pklose]

Hi xbenderx,

I have had a look at your measurements.

I see two problems here:
1.) Your room is massively damped. Your average RT60 is below 200ms.A RT60 so short is only suitable for use for wave field synthesis or multi-channel mixing (e.g. dolby atmos 7.1.4.) With a two speaker system, i think it is good to aim for 300ms average between 250 Hz and 8kHz.
2.) Your playback system has a 12dB/Oct roll off starting at 100 Hz. So your speakers need crank out more bass. What kind of speakers are you using?

 

[DanDan]

pilose, where are you getting this stuff from? Studio Control Rooms have been and are virtually anechoic in regarding the path from speaker to listener.
The EBU researched to find a more comfortable long hours, perhaps less intense attention. for Broadcast CRs. 200mS rising to 400mS at LF. https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3276.pdf