Why It’s Best Not To Master For Earbuds

I thought I would share this article on productionadvice.co.uk for today’s daily audiophile roundup. The article discusses the concept of catering to the modern music listener who typically is wearing a set of non sound insulated ear buds. This idea of actually mixing a commercially produced piece of music on low quality ear buds to match the user experiences has a major error. The fallacy of this is that poor quality aspect of the audio may not be revealed to the editor, but will make it to some end user.

Really good piece. Read it in full here:
Mastering for earbuds ? BAD Idea

Sound Proofing Windows – The Weakest Link

Windows in our home theaters, personal listening rooms, and professional recording studios are the weakest link in the whole acoustic soundproofing process. In order to examine how much of an issue they create in the total sound proofing process, we need to examine how weak they are in stopping outside noise from entering the environment we choose to soundproof. To show this weakness, we look at a number called a sound transmission class rating or STC.

Sound Transmission Class Rating

A sound transmission class rating is a number that tells us how much noise is held back or prohibited from transmitting through the particular structure. The STC scale is a special type of scale similar to the Richter Scale used to measure earthquakes. A existing sound transmission class rating of 28 is not satisfactory and is the STC rating for most single pane windows. If we increase the STC rating to 38 we have reduced the noise level by 90%. If we have an existing window that has an STC rating of 28 and we increase the STC rating to 43, we have reduced the noise levels by 95%. An increase from 90% to 95% means that 60% of the remaining noise has been reduced. There is also a difference between the measured STC rating and human perception. Typically, a 95% instrument measured STC, means that a human will perceive a 75% noise reduction. Small increases in the sound transmission class rating create a lot of noise reduction.

Current Misconceptions

It is common to hear people say that single pane windows do not do much for outside/inside or inside/outside sound reduction. This is a true statement. This comment is usually followed by stating that a double or even a triple pane window will work much better. Lets examine the STC ratings for both of these scenarios. A single pane glass window has a STC rating of 26 – 28. A dual pane window has a STC rating of 26 – 33. The average STC rating then becomes 27 for a single pane and 28 for a dual pane window. Our acoustic goal is to have at least a 75% reduction in noise levels and neither a single or double pane window meets this requirement. Neither a single or double pane window accomplishes this goal.

Build A Dam

What is the solution? Do we replace our windows with walls? Do we add more glass or thicker glass? The answer goes back to using multiple layers of materials to stop vibrations from moving through the window and into our rooms. Remember from past discussions, that we are dealing with sound energy and its associated vibrations. We need to stop these vibrations by creating individual vibration “dams” if you will, that hold back parts of the vibration in one layer of material and then as that remaining vibration transmits to the next material layer, it is reduced even further. We need to put a series of “dams” between us and the vibration.

Use Multiple Layers

Thicker glass is an option, but it is not just thickness we are concerned with. It is the nature or the thickness and how the thicker glass is used in combination with other layers of materials. One option is to use laminated glass. Laminated glass is two pieces of glass sandwiched together with an inner layer of plastic between each layer. This three layer system follows our example of using multiple layers of materials to stop vibrations. The vibration hits the first layer of glass and is reduced by an amount. The vibration then goes through the layer of plastic and is reduced further. Finally, the vibration hits the second layer of glass and is reduced even further. This series of constrained layers of mass damped materials produces a better barrier to stop noise. A good glass thickness for each layer of glass is 1/4″. Greater thicknesses can be used but 1/4″ is a good starting thickness depending on existing noise levels.

Leave Existing Window In Place

We can leave our existing window in place and use it as another layer or “dam” in our vibration reducing link. We can add our new laminated glass in front of the existing single or double pane window. Air is also a material that we can use to our benefit. We can place an air space between the existing window and our new laminated window. For best results, the air space should be at least 5″. We can even repeat the process and add the same laminated window to the other side of our existing window, leaving the 5″ of air space between the existing window and our new laminated window. Now, we have a laminated window on both sides with a 5″ air space on each side of our existing window.

No Leaks In Our Dam

We must also make sure the window is sealed correctly with the existing structure. Using our example of a dam to hold back noise, we must not have a leak or hole in our “dam”. Even the smallest hole will let in noise and negate all the work we have gone through building our laminated window. We must make sure the window is sealed within the existing frame and that no air leaks are present. Another detail we can attend to making sure the window does not vibrate under any circumstances. Remember, vibration produces noise and that is not our goal. We can use a spring loaded seal to accomplish this.

Windows let the most noise through into our rooms. We do not need to replace our existing windows, we can simply add different materials to our existing windows and create a series of layers of materials with different densities to minimize noise transmission. Additional glass sections can be added with an air space between or we can opt for thicker laminated glass. Whatever the direction, all construction tasks must be taken seriously from beginning to end.

Music And Memory Project Goes Viral

For today’s daily audiophile roundup I want to share this article from filmscoring.info by Jeff Tolbert which is a video from the Music & Memory project has gone viral in recent days showing up on both Facebook and Youtube in full force. The video shows the dramatic effect and influence that music can have in the lives of elderly or otherwise incapacitated people. This video showcases the power of music to improve lives that are otherwise diminished.

Well worth a view if you’ve not yet seen it:
Music and Memory

Scaena Speakers Looking Good

Check out this post from stereophile.com by John Atkinson for today’s daily audiophile roundup about Scaena Spiritus 3.4 speakers which have tubular subwoofer modules that reinforce its midrange units and ribbon tweeters. This is an improvement over earlier models. It is pictured with amplifiers described elsewhere on the page, a Kronos turntable fitted with an SME V-12 tone arm, and AMR preamp and a Scarlatti digital front end.

Nice Work Audio Dr:
Audio Doctor presents Scaena speakers

How to Sound Proof a Control Room – Part I

Soundproofing a control room involves many different variables and many different options to deal with those acoustic anomalies. It is too complex of a subject to deal with in one sitting. This is the first of a three part series on how to soundproof your control room. We will cover room size, room cut off frequency, parallel walls, and low frequency resonances and how to deal with these issues.

Room Size

Lets begin with the room size. Room size determines what kind, how large, and where the resonances we will face are located. These are low frequency resonances which cause signal exaggeration or loss at our microphone or listening/monitoring position. They are in all of our rooms in some amount or another. We can’t get away from resonances, so we need a room size ratio that spreads them out inside the room. We need to spread them out, so they don’t get together and party at our acoustical expense. If they are spread out within the room, we can use smaller sized acoustical treatments to deal with them.

Finding the least offensive height to width to length ratio is critical from the beginning. A good room size and volume ratio in the beginning will keep our costs down in the future as we move forward through the complete project. Some recommended height,length, and width room ratios are 1:1.14:1.39 for a small control room of around 1,600 cu. ft. Do not go any smaller than this ratio. A large control room would be 1:1.50:2.10 which would have a total volume of 3,150 cubic feet.

Cut Off Frequency

Our next issue is the room cutoff frequency. Every room size has a frequency that stands for where modal frequencies are close enough together that they all merge together and give us a baseline to work with. Frequencies above this resonant frequency will not be as much as an issue as frequencies below this number. At frequencies above the cut off frequency, the room will treat them fairly uniform and predictable. Below the cut off frequency, resonances will predominate. The room’s resonant frequency can be computed using a formula which involves reverberation time and room volume. The higher the cut off frequency the better. Higher cut off frequencies go with larger rooms.

Parallel Surfaces – Bad

Parallel surfaces with our walls is another concern. If we can’t splay or angle our walls with at least an eight degree splay, 10 degrees is preferable, we must make the existing parallel surfaces uneven and irregular. To accomplish this, we can use the industry accepted live end/dead end room treatment protocol. First, we make the area in front of our monitoring position directly between our monitors absorptive. We use absorption techniques on the ceiling and also on the side walls to minimize reflections from the ceiling, front, and side walls. We want to hear the direct sound from our monitors which includes, hopefully, just the sound on the recording. Any sound that has reflections in it is room sound. This is our dead/end part of the room set up equation. We have treated the front wall, side walls, and ceiling with absorption. Our rear wall will be diffusion to minimize any delayed time signature that could be thrown at us from the rear wall at our monitoring position. The rear part of the control room will be our live/end of our control room.

Low Frequency

Low frequency issues are our next issue. We will need two types of low frequency absorbers. We will need a frequency specific absorber and a broadband absorber. Diaphragmatic absorbers can handle the frequencies below 80 Hz. and poly cylindrical absorbers can handle the frequencies above 80 Hz. and also it can use sound re direction on those frequencies above 125 Hz. due to its curved shape. Both diaphragmatic and poly cylindrical absorbers can be built by anyone with basic carpentry skills. When building diaphragmatic absorbers careful attention must be paid to the absorbers depth for the depth of the unit determines the lowest frequency at which the unit will absorb. Poly cylindrical absorbers require more skill level to build because of their curved face surface.

Make sure you calculate the correct room size from the beginning. Follow the ratios given. If you have to build another wall in your room to make it conform to the correct ratios of width, height, length, and room volume, do so. It will be worth it in the end. Find the room’s resonance frequency and make sure it is high enough to not cause issues. Anything above 200 cycles is a good start. No parallel surfaces for our sound energy to rattle back and forth between. Bass energy must be controlled through the use of absorbers both frequency specific and broadband. More next time on speaker placement and specific room treatments.

Audiophiles Beware The Killer Editing Robots

I want to share this article which I came across on homestudiocorner.com by Joe Gilder. For those that are concerned about the quality of their recording they should be aware that with the over use of their editing tools they can be compromising the quality of their recordings, not enhancing it. Joe Gilden and Graham Cochrane have created a site that has tools and tutorials that can show you how to enhance your work without destroying the quality.

Worth a read my audiophile friends:
Beware the Killer Editing Robots

The New Digital Music Mechanical Royalties Revealed

I thought I would share this article by Bobby Owsinski for my daily audiophile roundup. He wrote about how a brand new mechanical royalty rate has all but been agreed between the (RIAA), the (NMPA), and the (DiMA). The three associations are waiting for the new agreement to be verified by the US Copyright Royalty Board, which will compensate digital media creators and their representatives through the year 2017. The agreement will keep a status quo of paying royalties of 9 cents per song download and 24 cents per ringtone to the respective writers and publishers. The complex system insures that writers and publishers are being compensated fairly for years to come.

A good read for all music makers:
The New Digital Music Mechanical Royalties

Refurbished Quad Speakers Steal The Show

I want to share this article from stereophile.com by Art Dudley for today’s daily audiophile roundup. At a recent major audio show, Robyatt Audio representative Robin Wyatt showed off two Quad ESL loudspeakers, which have not been seen in years. They were refurbished by Quad expert Wayne Picquet with $10,000 Miyajima OTL 2010 amplifiers, with a custom preamp by Charles King. The sound was perhaps the best of the night, except the room size made it seem like the bass of the Quads was too much.

I love a proper restoration project so this story took my fancy. I hope you enjoy too:
Sweet merciful Quad

How To Get That “Vintage” Recording Sound

I would like to share this article from homestudiocorner.com by Joe Gilder for my daily audiophile roundup. He writes about how the great vintage recordings of yesteryear did not have the technological tools and advantages that we have today. Using tubes and transformers the artists made great and lasting music, not despite the technical limitations but rather in part because of them. The imperfections added to that characteristic sound which we value today.

Today we have the best of both worlds, with advanced technological tools which also provide access to emulation of that old school sound.

Still there’s nothing like recording in an old studio if nothing else but for the challenge:
Stuck in the Past – Going for that “Vintage” Sound

World’s First In-Ear Micro Monitor Revealed

I want to share this article from livescience.com by Monica Kanojia for today’s daily audiophile roundup. She writes about audio pioneer Stephen Ambrose who has developed a micro monitor, the world’s first in-ear monitor, that alleviates pressure and listener fatigue. The micro monitor is custom made for each ear, and its circuitry makes the micro monitor adapt to the listener’s environment. Though this device would cause discomfort over prolonged use, Stephen Ambrose has managed to create several fixes, such as the use of Gore-Tex material to alleviate pressure.

Sounds like a great solution to a common problem. Read up more about it here:
A Safer Way to Listen to Music – LiveScience.com