I was watching this video, which is ALL about acoustics and building a home studio. But then this guy chose to have carpet!?!?!

I have been reading as much as I can about building home studios as I am set to build my own in a month from now, and everything I read people say NOT to have carpet in the room (other than area rugs here and there).

So basically, this guy who has written a book on acoustics has carpet in his personal home studio and it's no big deal.

What do the pros here thing?


Case Study: Project Studio Design & Build with Mitch Gallagher - Sweetwater Sound - YouTube

There is no only carpet as a mistake... e.g. there are (too) many string instruments in the control room too close to the listener, also loudspeakers are placed on the desk, not on stands... etc...
Small room acoustics constitute always compromises, but it can be done better than usual... if someone follows some basic rules.

(many videos and books exists because there are people who is curious to watch or read it)
It is always hardwood floor or parquet (ash, oak, bamboo), glued directly to the concrete slab without soft layer between (floor can resonate because this)

A way to better mix translation is an excellent LF treatment below 200Hz and controlled (diffuse) reflection energy from 500-1000Hz and above. This way we have no other choice but to make hardfloor... killing only HF reflections by carpet is always bad for the mix translation.


good luck!

Carpet was used widely by the BBC for decades. But it was accompanied by what they called 'Anti-carpet'. Really. This was extensive bass and other trapping mounted on the ceiling. You will find carpet in quite a few mastering studios even these days.
It is no big deal. If you have decent ceiling treatment, lose the carpet, it's is a nuisance in practical and possibly health terms. If the ceiling cannot be adequately treated, use carpet, it prevents flutter echo between floor and ceiling.

DD

Hmm, interesting. Also, for the record, I AM convinced not to use carpet, just thought it was interesting to hear about the length this guy went to to design this studio, but then decided to have carpet. Seemed ridiculous.

Ridiculous? Why?
Staff & Studios - Digital Domain: CD Mastering | Mastered for iTunes | Audio Mastering | Blu-Ray Mastering
DD

For reasons I've been reading in past threads on the subject. Also, see post #2.

I don't have the time and resources to validate every conceivable option. i can only go by what the general consensus is from the people who post here and articles on the subject...

Acoustics by X Factor....;-)

Bob Katz, the BBC, my CR, all use carpet at will. There is nothing wrong with it.

Have you ever noticed the contradictions. Nice hardwood floors, but with carpet/rugs installed under the actual elements being recorded.
I have never seen a drum kit without. Even acoustic guitar recording almost inevitably includes the carpet to soften foot noise and perhaps to absorb the HF off the very near floor bounce.

I respect your choice to use or not use carpet. It is pretty unhygienic. But ridiculous, absolutely not.

DD

Hey Dan, thank you for posting. I'm really interested by what you're saying! You have me thinking!

The room in which I plan to build my studio in has carpet already, and what I will be using the room as a creative space and for tracking, mixing and mastering.

Up until you replied, my plan was to rip up this carpet, and have area rugs by the couch in the back of the room, and under the desk area. I've been trying to figure out how big the rugs in order for it to be comfortable and still provide a hard floor surface.

What is your thought on this?

If the existing carpet looks good and is comfortable I wouldn't rip it up. This is like playing cards, make an arbitrary call without evidence or logic and you will lose out.....LOL.
A hard floor WILL create a flutter problem unless your ceiling is extensively treated. If you ever want a hard area for acoustically creative purposes, e.g. under drums or acoustic instruments to create a woody bounce, then plywood sheets can be used temporarily on top of your carpet.
I have noticed that Drums sound pretty miserable with thick carpet and underlay beneath them. But it helps the sound of speakers by taking some energy out of the floor reflection. That is very likely why quite a few Mastering CR's have carpet. Personally I was in your position. A very good quality carpet and underlay in situ. In a Mix and Mastering Room. Would have been daft to remove it.

DD

+1

OP: Flooring question

Jens, I just read that thread. Still confused... There doesn't seem to be any straight answers.

So here are more details:

- 19' x 11' x 8' room. drywalled on four sides plus ceiling. Carpet on floor.
- Will be tracking these and only ever these things: Vocals, clean electric guitar and acoustic guitar (rarely)
- will be tracking a lot of bass and distorted guitars DI.
- 90% of the time the room will be used for writing music and mixing.
- I am willing do do as much acoustic treatment as is necessary to obtain reasonable results.

Given these, would having a concrete floor and treating the ceiling be a better option over keeping the carpet?

In acoustics, there are no easy answers, especially without measurements. But on the other hand, I've never ever seen a measurement indicating the need for absorption only in the high frequency range. The opposite on the other hand is almost always the case. So no; a carpet (assuming wall-to-wall carpet or at least large compared to total area) is in my opinion (and as you've seen in the other thread; shared by many other acousticians) seldom a good thing.

ok Jens, that's straight forward enough for me.

Also, for what it's worth, I did read every post in that thread.

and Dan, I guess your argument is that the flutter echos are a bigger problem than the high frequency filtering that I would get from the carpet. am I understanding you correctly?

If you use very thin absorbers in you room, then you will hear the big problem - the base problem clearer and the room is even worse than before.
And the outer part of a thick absorber is a thin absorber, so to much high frequency absorption should be prevented on absorbent surface(with wood slats and diffusion).

when it comes to carpet, a room should have good ceiling treatment and things fluter echo should be tackled by absorption and geometry of the reflective parts the ceiling treatment. So the Floor should be hard and reflective.

+1 (Although not quite sure I understand your phrasing ...)

Actually running into this problem/challenge with a local room now. The room has carpet so we are forced to build everything to pretty much cut off around 300-400hz (for the most part) and diffuse/scatter from there. His room would have had much more "room to play" without the carpet. Note this guy is super anal about it but he can't change the floor, but still wants it perfect.

Googel translate hehehe

Floor/ceiling flutter echoes can't exist, even with hard and reflective floor, if you treat the ceiling with absorber thick enough to work below 100Hz.
Treating only floor with carpet is absorbing reflection from 1kHz and up, what is the pure waste, and without proper ceiling treatment, is a way to make boring, non-motivating and dead room with LF problems even more revealed (as adrumdrum said) than in non treated room. So, because we have not many (good) ways to treat rooms, treating the floor with "wall to wall carpet" is always a mistake, or better... A loss that cannot be recovered later.

More about recommended liveliness in the room for critical listening you can find here:
1. "Multichannel surround sound systems and operations", AES Technical Council, Document AESTD1001.1.01-10, New York.
2. “Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems including multichannel sound systems”, ITU-R Recommendation BS.1116 (rev. 1), ITU, Geneva, 1997.
3. W. Hoeg, L. Christensen, R. Walker, “Subjective assessment of audio quality– the means and methods within the EBU”, EBU Technical Review Winter 1997, pp. 40-43.
4. "Listening conditions for the assessment of sound programme material: monophonic and two–channel stereophonic", EBU Tech. 3276 – 2nd edition May 1998, European Broadcasting Union, Geneva, Switzerland


And if you do a basic calculations you will find that you actually need at least one surface fully reflective to practically get recommended values, by adjusting reflectiveness of other boundaries...

Also, nobody will "die" because bad or wrongly treated room (on the contrary! ) I'm fully aware of that, so there still may be a different approaches to the control room acoustic design... "democracy" is possible

If there is extensive ceiling treatment, there will be no flutter between floor and ceiling. Thus no advantage in carpet over bare or hard floor. But like any other untreated boundary within the listening zone, a hard floor will deliver unwelcome very early reflections.

So the question is stiman do you or will you have such extensive ceiling treatment?
BTW note that extensive ceiling treatment should really be full range as boggy suggests. I have only ever seen this done in fully pro ground up builds. If not, if you are doing the usual seen around here of say 4 hanging traps, absolutely keep the carpet. Flutter will absolutely happen in any area where there is hard facing hard. Plus there will be HF destructive reflections from a hard floor.

There is much confusion regarding room tone vs speaker to ear transmission.
Flutter removal be it on the ceiling or floor will diminish HF decay. Similarly side reflection absorption will do exactly the same.
BUT the accompanying removal of HF destructive early reflections in this Zone Without Reflections, creates almost perfect transmission from tweeter to ear, resulting in extreme clarity.
This often requires the HF to be rolled off in order to hear a tonally balanced spectrum. Room tone is not that obvious or significant when you are less than two metres away and bathed in the pure direct field of 100dB capable speakers. Note also that room tone will be generally later than the clear information the ear has already heard.

Mix translation is mostly a brain exercise. The room or equipment elements needed to help are not at all obvious or intuitive. In my experience and it is on display here, they are frequently not understood by acousticians who do not practice the rest of the art. This is why we have had large and contradictory shifts of practice in studio design. Engineers bringing in their own speakers rather than using the mains and so on. The results of that misunderstanding have been suffered by those of us attempting to actually do the activity these rooms should help with. i.e. Mix or Master.

Bob Katz, I, the BBC for decades, all people who actually use these facilities, with carpet, know exactly what we are doing and why.

If you do not have a VERY extensively treated ceiling, carpet is beneficial. Even where there IS an extensively treated ceiling some people chose to include carpet to diminish the floor reflections. And, most people put rugs under instruments or voices being recorded.

DD

Without having done enough reading __yet___, I was thinking of building 4 - 2' x 4' ceiling clouds made of 6" Roxul safe and sound insulation inside wooden frames. I would place these above the monitors and listening position.

I'm also thinking of having 2' x 4' panels as described above, on either side of the listening position and on the wall behind the monitors. And then also 4 floor to ceilnig bass traps (one in each corner).

On top of all of this, I was going to have a few more panels along the side walls and maybe a diffuser on the back wall. Again, pending more research on my part in the coming weeks.

No matter what, I will have ___some___ carpeting because I find it more comfortable as I like to sit on the floor when writing music or jamming.

I suppose I might as well put up some sketches I have made for room layout. These are still drafts btw.


http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/i...0/PlanView.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/i...eilingPlan.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/i...Elevations.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/i...tElevation.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/i...tElevation.jpg

If you record at your treated mix position, you will have four regular traps overhead. This plus your body will ensure no flutter. Plus no early reflections. A great place to get clear vocal and other sounds. However some percussive sounds, even plectrum stokes on rhythm electric, would stimulate flutter in other areas of the room if they have bare facing bare. Of little consequence if you are close mixing but would prevent a clean room mic.

Again, most people place rugs on hard floors when recording.
And again, a hard floor causes a stronger floor bounce. It deteriorates the clarity of the transmission from speaker to ear.
The translation rhetoric seen here and abundantly else where is a misunderstanding of the actuality of direct vs room tone at the mix position. Conversely all of it is completely correct in spaces where one hears the room tone at significant level. e.g. Home theatre or other recreational listening environments.
Keep the carpet until you get fed up with it cosmetically. Then choose to replace it with similar or the alternative mixture of hard floor, rubs, and more overhead treatment.

EDIT, quick look at your sketches. Despite the common advice to keep speakers a distance from the front wall, both theory and tests show the opposite is often best. i.e. place (particularly smaller) speakers as close to the FW as possible. Almost touching, or it is also worth trying with a 100mm trap between speaker and wall. This doesn't always hold true, occasionally a little distance helps. It is a complex scenario and unique per room. Testing will show the better option immediately, but my beginning spot for measuring would be kissing the FW.

EDIT EDIT I would double the amount of side reflection absorption, at least two a side. I would also double the corner action. Go floor to ceiling. The fronts of those can be fully reflective or slatted. Decent cloud plan. Include an air gap behind all panels.

DD

Always build one large panel/cloud and and cover the entire problem area.
why the commercial absorbers is 2'x4 'is because it would cost too much to ship the larger panel panels. As well that around 2'x4 'is the standard for the insulation materials used in absorbers.
You're not going to ship the panels so you don't have to compromise with the size.

+1

+1

ok awesome, large panels. No problem. I can make them any size really.

I'll probably add a small cloud closer to the middle of the room to track vocals...

Generally the highly treated listening area is devoid of very early reflections. An ideal spot to record vocals.

The almost 'hatred' of carpets is irrational IMO. It has undisputed benefits as stated, the only downside being the possible imbalance of room tone. As this unbalance is really due to lack of LF absorption, I find the arguments fairly weak and given the stated intent to use areas of rug/carpet in any case, irrelevant.
Regarding consensus or big names here are two of the worlds top rooms.











DD

images of already designed studios, as example how someone use carpet on floor, is not an argument if we don't know what is the reason, why they use it... and we also don't know design details of other parts of the construction....


if studio owner wan't to hang large mixing desk on the ceiling and if he plan to use it upside down, I will not stop him, but I must explain him about influences to his studio acoustics...

I was referring to the presumed 'consensus' boggy. Many people use carpet in studios. Almost everyone does when recording instruments. I have presented reasoned arguments as to the benefits of carpet which remain undisputed. But, I cannot let stand a claim that carpets will diminish mix translation, or that hard floors would enhance it in any way. In fact presence of carpet would self evidently enhance mix translation to carpeted listening rooms.
DD

If you feel this is a fact, please show us the proof. Or why not show me a measurement that indicates the need to absorb only the high frequency range ( that a wall-to-wall carpet would).

One could argue that a rug (or a small section of carpet) might in some situation be better than nothing, but in a well designed space (but possibly with the exception of NE-style rooms, since the speaker response is close to anechoic anyway, so a rug might not do any acoustical damage), it' s extremely hard to find any argument that can justify the addition of a large absorber that only absorbs the highest frequency range.