51m0n

Damn, run out of tissues again!

[quote name='WHUFC BASS' timestamp='1374136886' post='2145591'] YES! I use DT880s for mixing and can only say good things about them. However, I would strongly advise against just mixing on headphones alone. You should at least use some sort of reference monitors to check your mixes. [/quote] Big plus one, you can do some things really well on cans (compressor settings esp multi band and around transient control, surgical eqing - if they are excellent cans) but some parts of a mix sound totally different on cans, panning, reverb/ambience levels etc. A mix on cans alone will feel very dry on speakers IME, and tend towards less overt panning, which is not a good thing for seperation.

Hmmm interesting, some very obvious drum replacement going on in some of these, often at the expense of the cymbals/OH, which kind of neuters the kit to my ear (noone said drum replacement was easy!) Down to a choice between 3 quite quickly....

Would love a go on a 3Leaf GR, between my AF9 and MXR Auto-Q I have a lot of nice and very different filter tones, but the Meatball always seemed like the modern daddy of all filters. Just never got a chance to actually find out!

In reality frequencies around 50Hz (or indeed much below 80 to 100Hz that is causing a significant issue) are far better dealt with with tuned bass traps (limp mass absorption being a favourite) since they take up hugely less space.

It depends on the flow resistivity of the materials. However at its most simple people make superchunk style bass traps, and they are made from triangles of rockwool (RW30 or RW45 depending on what frequency they need to control the most) stacked on top of each other (uses a lot of materials, extends quite low in frequency terms), to do this they cut a sheet of rockwool in half, and then each half diagonally in half to get 4 triangles per sheet. Each triangle then is about 2 foot across IIRC. Those triangles are then positioned between 2 and 4 inches off the walls in the corner, the air gap increases the efficiency of the trap significantly. However if you make a different design you can use less material and have two different densities of rock wool, the outer one (typically RW30) 4" thich (two layers) across the corner the full width of an uncut rockwool sheet, and the inner one behind it 2" further into the corner and made of a single layer of RW45 cut into a strip half width. The trick with this design is building the frame to put the rockwool in and keep it pretty sturdy, but block as little of the rockwool edges as possible and have a nice fabric front. There are examples of this construction on the web (possible in the BBC whitepapers but I cant be sure that I'm remembering wher I got it from right). It uses a lot less rockwool, and goes very nearly as deep as superchunks. However the framing is significantly more complex to get right. The there are helmholtz resonators and limp mass absorbers which can be tuned very very deep and take up less space, but are again complex to make and less broadband in nature, making them good at dealling with a final problem area after the worst excesses of bass energy have been solved across a wider area. In fact one of the best broadband bass trap absorber designs is often sited as an 18" thick 6 to 8" off the wall absorber across an entire wall of the room made of uncompressed fluffy insulation, but that takes too much of the space in most rooms! And its difficult to stop the fluffy pink insulation getting compressed too....

Remember there are two sides to this coin, music theroy is just that, how the language of music is constructed and what it means, how scales are constructed, what chords are, how chords and scales relate to each other, what modes are. You dont [i]need[/i] an instrument to get this stuff in good order in your head. It truly is simple maths, and some genuinely simple rules to learn and you can construct with absolute accuracy the notes for any chord or scale in any key, which sharps or flats are related to which key, and why. This is not nearly as daunting a task as it might appear. I can say this honestly because I can do it (or at least enough to figure keys and harmony and scales and modes out). And I dont need a bass or to even visualise a bass neck at all, its just simple maths. In other words it is unrelated to the notes on the neck of your instrument, it truly is theoretical. However, learning how to apply all this information, this theory, in a controlled way, absolutely requires you to learn exactly where those notes are, and also (in order to apply theory fluently and without pause in a real musical situation) most people learn the patterns that the notes in certain chords and scales make in various areas of the neck,. In fact Scot Devine has a couple of interesting tutorials about this. I am not suggesting you become a fully pattern based player (normally that can become stiffling, although Gary Willis swears that this is how he does it), but that there isnt a need to necessarily be processing every note theoretically at all times. I hope that makes some sense!

Sounds like a great plan

[quote name='Ian Savage' timestamp='1374054462' post='2144647'] I'm lucky enough that in living on my own my recording setup IS my home entertainment setup, so the speakers I listen to far and away more often than any others are my monitors. I rent my flat so haven't been able to do much in terms of room treatment, but from getting to know my system inside-out I tend to be able to get decent mixes relatively easily. [/quote] You can always DIY some gobos and use them around your space; since they are free standing they can be positioned across corners as bass traps and just off walls as broadband absorption, and if you are tracking you can use them to mask the room from the thing you are recording....

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1374007238' post='2144238'] Cool, so I guess that listening to good songs, that I think sound well produced and are typical of the sound I'm aiming for, on my headphones and monitors is a good thing (I've just started to do this critically). So once I get used to what that's showing me I can start to aim for that with my mixes. [/quote] There is no other way. If we put you in a tip top studio mix room with awesome monitors there is every chance that your first couple or three mixes would get better and better as youstarted to be able to make the most of the facility, since you wouldnt be used to hearing that much accurate information about your mix. And no room, however expensive is a perfect room for everyone! The only way to get your head around your set up is to listen to everthing on it, good anbd bad. it is not unusual to find some music you like on a hifi sounds awful in the first instance on monitors. Is that a bad mix, or are your hifi speakers too flattering?

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1374015047' post='2144368'] Finally watched this. Thought it was one of the best live performances from a "pop" band that I've ever seen. Brilliant. Kimberly Davis deserves to be a star in her own right---"I Want Your Love" in particular was incredible. [/quote] Seeing them live at the LoveSuprememFestival the following weekend I consider the best performance I have ever seen by any band live or televised, it was utterly sublime, and yes KD was unbelievably excellent,,,,

[quote name='jakenewmanbass' timestamp='1374004853' post='2144205'] It's as simple as the alphabet up to G and the numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 and 13 realise from scales what notes you are playing then learn how chords are made. Then you have the ingredients to understanding what you are doing. It's pretty simple but it does seem to take some people a bit of time to make the connections with sounds... [/quote] Music theory in a nutshell. 2 minutes for Jake to write down what takes most people a lifetime to assimilate

You don't need to do anything. If you know your monitors and room inside out from a critiCal listening perspective and have several other spaces and systems to cross reference your mix on that you can also say hand on heart you know inside out as critical listening spaces. What you are doing is beginning to give yourself a chance to get a higher average of your mixes right first time since you are giving yourself a better chance at hearing accurately. Which is the best you can hope to do for a few pounds in a front room.

Enjoy that process old bean

Nice one, cheers!

[quote name='toneknob' timestamp='1373903999' post='2142930'] There was a bit of a delay getting Chic going at Love Supreme - can't remember exactly what the problem was though. But otherwise as you say, it was a fantastic performance. Best set of the day. [/quote] Yeah the delay was them line checking and getting decent monitor sends set up ( both Niles and the bassist found their monitors lacking in top end). This soundcheck took about 15 or 20 minutes. Well worth the wait for a subsequently perfect set IMO....

I saw them at Glynde a couple of weeks ago. It was a [b][i]baking[/i][/b] hot day, I was maybe 5 or 6 rows off the front. The sound was, stella, unreal, awesome, perfect even, a perfect match fo rthe band. Well chuffed to have been able to see them when the crew and the kit was all working like one beautiffuly well oiled machine. Cant believe the stories of Hyde Park, how rubbish is that, I'd have demanded my money back....

Thing is, if you are a full time composer/mmixer/jingle creator of whatever it amy be, having a room in the house that is that focised in intent and that cool to be in is only ever going to help yuou make better work. If like the rest of us its a hobby that you take pretty seriously, then you can at least see that you can make a better job of it than just some tubes of rockwool in the corners

His urn is....

If you want an idea of how far you can take a home studio room, this thread off gearslutz is just about the most pimped out looking home room I think I've seen, and yet its [b][i]all[/i][/b] about the audio:- [url="http://www.gearslutz.com/board/photo-diaries-recording-studio-construction-projects/630763-my-new-boise-idaho-home-studio-build.html"]http://www.gearslutz...udio-build.html[/url] So no you can get the lady of the house well and truly involved in choosing a super cool look and feel for your studio room! BTW the wood slats are there to reflect some top/mid pack into the room in a diffuse way, other wise all that absorption just leaves you with a very dead room, and that is rubbish to work in!

I went missing too

Fat doobiage cant hurt....

Grado's are nice very detailed not entirely flat but no cans (or speakers) are. On a tight budget a pair of Studiospares H1000 are a very decent pair of cans IME.

You cant cover them with anything not acoustically transparent. 'Proper' bass traps and absorption in corners and soffits and suspended off the walls are typically framed and covered in a nice material that is acoustically transparent. The plastic will reflect frequencies over a KHz or so but thats not so bad since a couple of 2" thick absorbets elsewhere can reign that in. Or a nice bit of soft furnishing in a standard room.

They will definitely help to deal with issues in the low mid and upper bass. You will hear the difference everywhere in the room They wont be as good as more 'engineered' solutions and they won't look as nice. Leave them in the plastic packaging and stack then floor to ceiling A broomstick right down the middle can help them stay together....