plans for acoustic computer enclosure?

Page 3 of 6  

a lot. Little of which was worth reading.
Have a nice day Swingman... you're a legend in your own mind.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Edelenbos wrote:

LOL ... yeah right, Bubba! You're wise getting out of that particular kitchen.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

LOL... is right. I see no reason to talk to a dreamer. Very few clients, I take it. That's why you fantasize about recording on a woodworking group? That's why you can't even use a real name?
Rather comical if you ask me.
Best of luck to you.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If you could read "Ed", you see that his name is given at the bottom of every post he makes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's sort of difficult taking anonymous posters (yeah, like you too) seriously.
Ed (Yes, that's my real name. I have a hard time believing yours is upscale)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They're just email addresses Ed. Considering how many "John Smith" people there are in the US, what would you suggest to all those people who find their name is already in use for an email address and have to choose to "hide" under an alias as you're suggesting?
And since you're choosing to argue this inane subject instead of manning up and admitting that you didn't see Karl's name at the bottom of his email, feel free to continue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Edelenbos wrote:

That's not really very loud. Normal conversation is well over 60. Instruments you'd never consider loud, like an alto sax, can get well over 80db in a small room. Classical music being played on a grand piano is at the upper end of that scale. Most of those players and very good with the dynamics. :-)
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What he said was, "considering most recording is done at an SPL of 60 to 80 db, and mixing an average of 90-105 db, ". If this is his considered opinion, I think he would do well to learn about dynamics. While those classical piano pieces can reach the upper end, parts are well below that 60db mark also. Not everything is that Phil Spector "Wall Of Sound". (grin)
Ed
The point I was trying to make is that
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Edelenbos wrote:

Gotcha.
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Edelenbos wrote:

You don't understand the word "average"?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

I agree with everything you said, but just want to add that more and more recordings, even stuff you hear on the radio and TV, are being done in more of a home environment, in which you do have quite a few tracks being laid down in the control room.
A lot of acoustic guitar and vocals are done in the control room, out in the open. It just seems to free up the creative process to be there, right next to one another, instead of locked in a little booth and communicating through headphones.
But it is mostly that "critical listening" thing.
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
-MIKE- wrote:

You got it ...
In my 30+ years in the business, that type of problem is generally used as a convenient excuse by the perceiver for his inability/failure to get the job done.
The idea that the average professional recording studio is somehow the epitome of "sound proof" quiteness and a miracle of acoustic engineering is nonsense.
I've worked in many well known studios in this country (in which you've most assuredly have heard their product on the radio/bought the CD), both in front of and behind the glass, where we routinely waited for the subway to go by to start a take, or stop an otherwise good take for the same reason (or decide to keep it anyway and use a filter during mixing). Same with traffic going by on the street outside, bleed from the next studio over, or a myriad of other noises, not part of the music that may be in a recording, but are not heard by the average listener for a myriad of reasons ... masking, muting, gating, filtering, et al. As you know, you rarely hear the hiss of a mic'ed guitar amp when not playing, or the room noise from the drum overheads when the drums quit, because they're either gated during the take, or these days, muted/erased on the audio work station software during mixdown.
Indeed, a large part of the job of mixing is attempting to remove noise and artifacts that were not intended to be part of the music ... I say attempt, because many can't be removed ... example: many instrumentalists unconsciously "vocalize" (often out of tune) ... when playing (Pablo Casals was well known for audibly grunting while playing) ... you want their playing, you deal with the artifacts, or leave them in and justify in some way, ie, as part of the charm.
All said and done, and in actual practice, _most_ of the studios built with heavy investment in pursuit of the acoustic holy grail of "sound proofing" are the result of rich men's investments and rarely, if ever, have had a hit cut in them ... here today, gone tomorrow.
IOW, and as the sign says: "Just STFU and play!". ALL the best music ever recorded transcended the available technology, and ALL the worst was recorded in spite of the technology.
:)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

I knew it had gone full circle when I started seeing "record scratch" and "amp hum" plug-ins to add to fake loops.
You just spent 20 grand to get rid off all that, now you're spending (stealing) 300 bucks to put it back in! :-)
BTW, if you haven't seen "Standing in the Shadows of Motown," yet, go get it, today. To see and hear what those guys did, in a two car garage in Detroit is utterly amazing.
A friend of mine sings BGV's for those guys (Funk Brothers).
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
-MIKE- wrote:

Saw ... ditto sentiments. James Jamerson is one of my heros!
Now, if we just figure out a way to outlaw AutoTune! Both live and in the studio. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Swingman" wrote

I remember a well known recording studio in Seattle that was located right next to a turn around of an old eletcric trolley system. It was a huge mechanical device that rotated the big bus around and pointed in in the opposite direction. It induced shock waves (and lots of low frequency noise) for a 2 or 3 block radius.
I was there during a recording session one day. Everything was scheduled around that bus run. There was big posters on the wall with the bus schedule. And the whole studio shook when it turned around. It was nerve wracking. I thought it was a lousy location, but they did well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lee Michaels wrote:

Yes ... historically these are the studios the _memorable_ hits were cut in. As Mike mentioned Motown, so high tech it had a dirt floor! :)
The mega-buck studios are historically out of business in less time than it took to build them.
It makes no difference, the state of the art of the technology, "The Song"(or "The Tune"), is the coin of the realm, and may it ever be.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[ snipped a bunch of cool stuff for brevity]

Or Erroll Garner grunting while he played...
One of the niftiest recording I have listened to was a choir of monks recorded in the courtyard of a monastery in Spain. A simple pair of Bruel & Kjaer 4133 microphones straight into a Nagra (analogue) then tape straight to cutter. As the B&K's were measuring mics, the noise floor was a bit of an issue, but flat as flat can be. Anyway, the publishing house that issued the record (France) printed an apology on the LP's jacket about the rustling of the trees, and the birds chirping away with the choir. It was delightful.... IOW real life can be a bit noisy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote:

A name from my distant past.
Back in the early days of the space program, vibration testing was an integral part of the process of proving parts were capable of space flight.
A "Shaker" was a standard piece of test equipment to run these tests.
The "Shaker" was essentially a speaker capable of delivering thousands of pounds of force, driven by an amplifier and controlled by a variable frequency oscillator which delivered either a constant displacement and/or a constant acceleration signal to the amplifier.
B&K was the industry standard, in fact the only supplier, for the oscillator.
Back in those days I was up to my eyeballs in vibration research as it applied to the automotive, not the space industry, but the principles were the same.
BTW, B&K could supply a lot of neat toys if you needed to build an anechoic chamber which had a base price of about $250K for a 10x10x10 room in 1963-1965 time frame.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I used a 4133 in their handheld meter. The unit had a pre-amp out for their chart recorder which in turn, via a mechanical (speedometer- style drive), would turn a giant knob on a signal generator. Crude but deadly accurate. That kit was hooked up to a B&K style anechoic chamber that The National Research Council in Ottawa where I did my research under Dr, Floyd Toole. His name makes for some interesting Googling. He recently retired out of Harman Int'l.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.