Sound Acoustics » Blog

Lynx Aurora vs Digi 192

James — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 11:19:18 +0000

There has been plenty of good things written about the Lynx Aurora DA AD converter, and how it beats the pants off the Digidesign 192. After much deliberation, I had to find out myself, particularly as the Aurora 8 is a fair bit cheaper than the 192. I’ve had the Lynx for a week, and yet to fully test the unit for a full tracking and mix.
My initial impressions are that the Lynx does sound a bit more laid back than the 192, high frequencies a little bit silkier and less forward. But I’m not sure that this is a positive, just different. Stereo imaging is a bit wider, but again, I’m not sure this is going to make or break a track. I’m tracking with the Lynx on the weekend, so this should be more revealing.

Bass traps in small rooms

James — Wed, 19 May 2010 01:15:35 +0000

Most home or project studios are located in smallish rectangular rooms, creating a real challenge in creating a relatively accurate listening space. Parallel walls reinforce and nullify harmonic frequencies, creating peaks and dips in the frequency response, particularly between 50 and 250Hz. A common mistake is the overuse of thin acoustic panels (50mm and less), which provide virtually no absorption of frequencies below 200Hz. This is not a balanced acoustic treatment, and makes recording and mixing music a nightmare.
Every small room requires bass trapping, but how much? There are many different bass traps on the market, the most common being semi rigid fibreglass traps, membrane traps and acoustic foam traps. Which is best? In reality, all well designed traps are effective. The real question is, how much trapping do you need?
Much of my work is acoustically measuring recording and listening rooms. Many of these rooms already have well regarded (and expensive) bass trapping in place, but still exhibit a very lumpy frequency response.
The problem is, there simply isn’t enough bass trapping in place to overcome the acoustic characteristics of the room. It’s often a matter of experimenting with as much bass trapping as practical and measuring the impact it has. In some cases, it’s just not possible to get a room within plus or minus 15 db, due to the dimensions and construction of the room.
A good place for bass trapping in small rooms is the ceiling. The RAM400-1000 traps are ideal for this application, as they can be easily installed with a staple gun.
The reality with bass trapping is that it’s often a case of experimentation, and small rooms generally require a substantial amount of trapping.

Vocal Booth on the cheap!

James — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:31:04 +0000

I get lots of questions about vocal booths, and the solutions are either expensive or a lot of work. If you need a quick and dirty vocal booth, this BT270-600 pressure zone trap configuration works great. The staple gun channels are what makes this possible.

Mick Wordley talks about Ribbon mics

James — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:15:00 +0000

Recently I’ve been mucking around with low end ribbon mics, which definitely offer a different sonic texture. I few years back I did some recording at Mick Wordley’s studio in Adelaide, and had the opportunity of using some great vintage mics and pres. I found this video on the Audio Technology site, and features Mick offering some great insights into classic gear.

Cheap Ribbon mics

James — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:37:17 +0000

I’ve been trying some of the cheaper ribbon mikes from China (Cascade Fathead, Apex 210) and I like them. Maybe not as accurate as a Royer but they do give you another useful flavor. The Apex 210 must have had a few knocks in transit as the ribbon had sagged a fair bit (think Sydney Opera House). I had a go at tightening it up and managed to do so without tearing it, but it’s pretty much pot luck in regards to the set up. It sounds much better than it did, but probably shy of factory spec! Just need a pre with lots of clean gain with ribbon mics.

Acoustic Foam vs Semi rigid fibreglass

James — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:19:14 +0000

Happy new year, my first post for 2010! I often read in forums (Gearslutz etc) ongoing arguments about polyurethane bass traps (such as ours) versus semi rigid fibreglass. The data below makes for interesting reading. This comparison was performed a few years ago at the Riverbank acoustic laboratory in the US. It compares a large Auralex trap (polyurethane foam) with a semi-rigid fibreglass trap of the same volume, and a flat fibreglass corner design. The polyurethane foam edges out the fibreglass in a close run race!
Cheers James

Acoustic foam made room harsher!

James — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:29:15 +0000

I had a client who installed a moderate acoustic treatment (8 x SA600-75, 4 x BT600-150) in a home theatre to improve his listening experience. The results were not what I expected. Normally the results are “improved imaging and clarity” or “tighter bottom end”. The client reported back that the system became very harsh in the 2-3 Khz range. I suggested a few changes to the layout but to no avail. I then suggested loading the room up with as much absorptive material as possible – pillows, doonas, blankets, old clothes, towels and spread them everywhere. The room became very dead, and the system remained harsh. More absorption certainly wasn’t going to improve the situation. What is going on here? This is the weird world of psychoacoustics. The panels can’t possibly be increasing the high frequency reverberation times, but they are changing the balance of the room by reducing low frequency reverberation times (generally still longer than mid-high frequencies). This can make mids and highs sound sound more present (and harsh in some cases). A great experiment is to place your speakers in an open outdoor area. This is like placing them in an anechoic chamber. They will generally sound lacking in low frequency warmth, compared to the indoor experience. And sometimes harsh. This is why we have a money back guarantee on our products, no questions asked. They don’t always sound better to the listener.

SoundBites now have the ‘Staple T’

James — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:06:24 +0000

Due to customer demand the “Staple T” hidden staple gun channel has been added to the popular BA300-90 “SoundBite” broadband acoustic panel. I must admit, when we first started to manufacture the BA300-90 a few months back, I was reminded how tedious it is to install panels which don’t have the staple channel. Putting up the panels for the promo shots wasn’t as easy as usual. Velcro tabs took paint off the walls, glue was messy and a bit too permanant! The “Staple T” was developed five years ago to solve the problem of installing thick section acoustic panels quickly and easily and is unique to SoundAcoustics products.

Drums and acoustic treatment

James — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:33:07 +0000

Controlling drums enough to satisfy neighbours is tough, as drums are loud and neighbours difficult!
Acoustic panels will reduce sound levels within the room, but will only marginally reduce transmitted
sound. Totally covering the windows always brings some improvement (with plywood and insulation),
as does insulation in the ceiling. If it’s a brick house, this may be enough. If it’s weatherboard, the whole
place will still resonate like a big drum.
The best solution is to build a drum booth within the room, which is expensive, but effective.

Acoustic Foam vs other acoustic treatments

James — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:24:22 +0000

It’s often interesting to read some of the forums on acoustics (Gearslutz etc.). Some of the comments are informed, and many seem to possibly have an undisclosed agenda. Marketers are well aware of the power of opinions expressed on forums. Acoustic foam (also Auralex, Primacoustic, etc) has it’s fair share of proponents, but also comes in for plenty of criticism. Many state that acoustic foam will not absorb low frequencies, which is not the case. I’m pretty sure this criticism mostly refers to thin acoustic foam like eggshell foam etc. An acoustic foam panel of the correct design, density, composition and thickness is very effective at absorbing low frequencies. Our own SA600-150, (which is 150mm thick) has an absorption co-efficient of .6 (60%) at 100hz and 100% absorption at 200Hz, as demonstrated in the test performed at the certified lab at RMIT. The main alternative to acoustic foam are home made panels using products such as semi-rigid fibreglass or dense polyester panels. The performance of these panels are similar to acoustic foam panels, but again, thickness of the panel is directly related to the low frequency absorption.