Microphone shootout: Aston Origin vs. Aston Spirit

Lewguitar

Old Know It All
Joined
Dec 30, 2012
Messages
3,539
Location
Paonia Colorado
If you're a home recording enthusiast you'll like this video comparing these two excellent UK made mics.

For well under $300 the Origin is a steal. But for $100 more the Spirit is totally worth it and has more features and a slightly different (more modern?) tone.

Stephanie Forryan does a great job of singing, playing and comparing these two UK made microphones,

Which do you like better?


 
Last edited:
If you're a home recording enthusiast you'll like this video comparing these two excellent UK made mics.

For well under $300 the Origin is a steal. But for $100 more the Spirit is totally worth it and has more features and a slightly different (more modern?) tone.

Stephanie Forryan does a great job of singing, playing and comparing these two UK made microphones,

Which do you like better?

Tough call considering it is two different songs. Simultaneous recording of same song with the different mics would have been the best test IMO. Based on what we have though, I like the origin better. Can't say why, but that is my vote ;~))
 
Tough call considering it is two different songs. Simultaneous recording of same song with the different mics would have been the best test IMO. Based on what we have though, I like the origin better. Can't say why, but that is my vote ;~))

I bought one of each. For female vocals and acoustic guitar primarily.

My own voice sounds pretty good through the Astons but I'm liking the Shure SM7b too. Between the Astons and the Shure I have my vocal mics covered for now.

The Shure SM7b is a classic but it doesn't make me sound like Michael Jackson. He used it on Thriller.

More like Jackson Browne!

I like the Origin. Has a certain "character". Sounds a little less refined and seems to get a woodier, rootsier acoustic guitar tone.

But I like the Spirit too. It has a slightly fuller tone and seems cleaner and more refined. Both are bright/transparent/airy but very smooth.

Either one can capture that "whisper" in a woman's voice if her voice has that airy quality to begin with.

The Spirit has a transformer built in and has switches to allow Figure 8, Omni and Cardioid.

The Origin does not use a transformer and is Cardioid only. But it's less money and seems to sound just as good in its own way.
 
Last edited:
Tough call considering it is two different songs. Simultaneous recording of same song with the different mics would have been the best test IMO. Based on what we have though, I like the origin better. Can't say why, but that is my vote ;~))
I'm thinking of the Origin the way I think of what a U-47 does, it's very natural sounding. I'd use the Spirit more in the...er...spirit of a 251, breathier and sparklier.

Not that I think either mic sounds like a U47 or 251. Just talking about my own thought process as I listened.

They're both excellent mics. I'd use either one without hesitation. Clearly they put the production budget into audio performance, and didn't waste a nickel on finish or appearance. I respect that!

I'm willing to bet that the Origin would be a great match for the right amp and cab, too.
 
I'm thinking of the Origin the way I think of what a U-47 does, it's very natural sounding. I'd use the Spirit more in the...er...spirit of a 251, breathier and sparklier.

Not that I think either mic sounds like a U47 or 251. Just talking about my own thought process as I listened.
Glad you chimed in Les. Wily too. Where's Prina and the other recording enthusiasts?

That's how I'm hearing the Astons and planning on using them.

Although I don't own a U-47.

These Astons are wonderful under $300 and $400 mics. A Neumann U47 or 87 is like...what? $4000?

I did look at the Rode NT1 and NT1-A, and also the warm Audio 47 and 87 clones.

Went with my gut feeling about the Astons and bought them instead.

Very pleased so far!
They're both excellent mics. I'd use either one without hesitation. Clearly they put the production budget into audio performance, and didn't waste a nickel on finish or appearance. I respect that!

I'm willing to bet that the Origin would be a great match for the right amp and cab, too.
I haven't recorded any electric guitar yet but I've listened to Aston's own demos on their website and they're well done.

More open and not so much honk and buzzy midrange grind as I usually hear from the electric guitar tones on YouTube.

Again, more natural.

But i bought them for acoustic guitar and vocals. Especially female vocals.

My voice sounds better through the SM7b.

I read that a pair of the Origins make for excellent overhead mics. As do the Spirits.

I only have one of each tho.

Guess I'll use my Oktava condensers for overheads when I need them.
 
Last edited:
These Astons are wonderful under $300 and $400 mics. A Neumann U47 or 87 is like...what? $4000?

I did look at the Rode NT1 and NT1-A, and also the warm Audio 47 and 87 clones.

Went with my gut feeling about the Astons and bought them instead.

Very pleased so far!

How's this for a take on it: I think the Astons are great mics that stand on their own, regardless of price.

I'm a Neumann guy for a subtle thing they do in the mids that I can't describe in words. Have had quite a few over the years, including the expensive models, and my favorite is the very reasonably priced TLM 103. Go figure! I can get a great sound with a 103 fast, and it's not too 'chesty'.

I'm also a big fan of Juris Zarin's JZ mics out of Latvia. He designed the original Blue mics, but had a falling out with them (Blue mics are mostly made in China now). So he started JZ.

JZ mics are relative bargains - it's less expensive to make stuff in Latvia than Germany.

All of these mics stand on their own, and there are others that do as well. Not so with many other low or mid-priced mics on the market.

I read that a pair of the Origins make for excellent overhead mics. As do the Spirits.

I only have one of each tho.

Lots of engineers record in stereo with two different mics because they think it sounds more interesting, and that left and right should not be identical. There are no rules.

Guess I'll use my Oktava condensers for overheads when I need them.
Oktava condensers are excellent overhead mics. That's what I used mine for.

Over the years I've had the very good fortune of having some ear-opening conversations with folks who've made major label records.

These conversations include many with my son, who's engineered for producers Flood (google his amazing credits including U2), and Steve Lillywhite (google his mind blowing credits that include everyone).

I've learned a lot from all this, and I'm thankful for it! I've tried to pass it on, including guest lecturing on recording at U of Michigan's music school, because of all the broadcast work I've been lucky enough to do.

If you want to know more about recording a kit and overheads, you need only listen to a batch of major label records and concentrate on the cymbals. You'll find they usually have the high frequencies rolled off quite a bit.

That way the cymbals don't dominate the high frequencies and obscure other details. You still hear them, they just seem to recede a little.

What I like overhead mics to do is a nice job with the cymbals - even though I'm going to roll them off I still want dimension to them - and do a great job in the midrange to help pick up the woody tone of the drums. I don't need mics that are flat from DC to light. I certainly don't want overly bright mics. YMMV and all that!
 
Last edited:
Reviews I've read by engineers who favor Neumanns (doesn't every one?) say that the mics like the Rode NT1 and Warm Audio 47 and 87 sound a lot like Neumanns, but lack a certain thickness and texture.

I've even read it described as a furry warmth. That might be getting carried away!

But apparently no other mic can get that quality to the tone.
 
Reviews I've read by engineers who favor Neumanns (doesn't every one?) say that the mics like the Rode NT1 and Warm Audio 47 and 87 sound a lot like Neumanns, but lack a certain thickness and texture.

I've even read it described as a furry warmth. That might be getting carried away!

But apparently no other mic can get that quality to the tone.
Yeah, Neumann does a thing. I like them and have owned quite a few. They're made a certain way, and maybe that's the secret sauce, not only the parts they choosse.

But they're not the only interesting mics out there.
 
Where's Prina
Been lurking on this thread because while I have some moderate experience with interfaces & DAWs my knowledge of mics is limited to my pedestrian collection of SM57, SM58, AT2035 mics along with a shotgun for video.

Prior to joining this forum, I'd already thought seriously about the TLM 103 since besides acoustic guitar the main usage would be for recording my daughter and I figured that if the 103 was good enough for Billie Eilish it would work OK with her since their styles aren't too different.
 
Been lurking on this thread because while I have some moderate experience with interfaces & DAWs my knowledge of mics is limited to my pedestrian collection of SM57, SM58, AT2035 mics along with a shotgun for video.

Prior to joining this forum, I'd already thought seriously about the TLM 103 since besides acoustic guitar the main usage would be for recording my daughter and I figured that if the 103 was good enough for Billie Eilish it would work OK with her since their styles aren't too different.
Well glad to have ya aboard.

The TLM103 is a Neumann right? Supposed to sound a lot like a U87.

Billie Eilish. What a breathy sound. Beautiful performance too.

 
Last edited:
Been lurking on this thread because while I have some moderate experience with interfaces & DAWs my knowledge of mics is limited to my pedestrian collection of SM57, SM58, AT2035 mics along with a shotgun for video.

Prior to joining this forum, I'd already thought seriously about the TLM 103 since besides acoustic guitar the main usage would be for recording my daughter and I figured that if the 103 was good enough for Billie Eilish it would work OK with her since their styles aren't too different.
The TLM 103 is a transformerless single capsule version of the U87, which has a dual capsule and a transformer. However, I like the 103 more, maybe it's the transformerless thing, that makes it very present and transparent.. Works on a lot of things as long as you don't need more polar patterns.

Neumann makes another very fine mic that's small but still an excellent large diaphragm condenser, called the TLM 102. It's very good, about $500 less than the 103. The capsule is a bit different, in that it's edge-terminated instead of center terminated. Punches above its weight class. I bought one and really liked it, but sold it in one of my many gear purges a while back. Turns out that was a mistake, though at least I had the presence of mind to save my 103!

My 102 did a great job on lots of sources, including female vocals, acoustic and electric guitar, and it would have been nice to have around for the sessions I plan to do for some of my orchestral pieces, because it can handle a lot of SPL cleanly,

Neumann also have another fairly recent mic called the TLM 107 that shares some of the 102's design, but it's multi pattern. It got rave reviews when it came out, and I may pick one up for orchestral sessions I have planned for the long term. The mic is supposed to be extremely neutral, with very low distortion and without the usual presence peaks, etc. It should be wonderful as a spot mic for orchestral instruments.

By coincidence, Billie Eilish is managed by my son's friend and high school band drummer. She's a very gifted writer and singer.
 
The TLM 103 is a transformerless single capsule version of the U87, which has a dual capsule and a transformer. However, I like the 103 more, maybe it's the transformerless thing, that makes it very present and transparent.. Works on a lot of things as long as you don't need more polar patterns.
Like the Aston Origin vs. the Aston Spirit. The Spirit has a dual capsule, multi patterns and a transformer. But I kind of like the simpler Origin. It's nice to have a choice and I like them both.
By coincidence, Billie Eilish is managed by my son's friend and high school band drummer. She's a very gifted writer and singer.
Heard of her but never heard her.

I liked it. Super breathy at times. Intentional no doubt.

My girlfriend, unlike me, is super out going and knows all the musicians around here.

We have a group of four women who sing beautifully together I think we can tap for this project.

Young voices but talented. Multi acoustic musicians too.

I have a million songs...my problem is writing meaningful lyrics that aren't too heavy.

Do you use these Les? Neve?

 
Last edited:
We have a group of four women who sing beautifully together I think we can tap for this project.

Young voices but talented. Multi acoustic musicians too.

I have a million songs...my problem is writing meaningful lyrics that aren't too heavy.

Do you use these Les? Neve?

Sounds like a good project with the vocal group and a great plan!

I can't write a lyric to save my life (once you go to law school all the writing sounds like a legal brief, it's a lyric killing machine!), but one of my closest friends is an amazing lyricist and songwriter with hits under his belt, and sometimes we write together.

My main mic preamp is the BAE 1073 desktop model linked below. It's portable. I got the flight case for it that they offer, so I can take it to other studios. For the orchestral work I'm planning to record, I'll get another to match, so I have a pair for stereo. It's also a wonderful DI for instruments and bass. I like having extra DIs on hand, though my main DI is the Avalon U5. But the Avalon is clean and clear, where the 1073 is vintage and can get gnarly - sometimes a good thing.

The BAE is actually a more accurate replica of the 1073 than the current Neve reissue, because it uses the original Carnhill transformers. I'm told that the Rupert Neve 500 series module you mention is also excellent, though it doesn't try to be a 1073.

BAE stands for British Audio Engineering, who got their start restoring the old 1073 consoles. They're a US company run by a musician who moved here from the UK.


I also use and love the Focusrite ISA 110 preamps that are also a Rupert Neve design, and I like their desktop model so I can transport it. I don't always record here at my place. It's got a nice DI and a feature that lets the musician control a set of headphones and use both the mic preamp and DI together. Good for a singer-songwriter.

Rupert Neve was one of the founders of Focusrite in the UK. The sound is a little cleaner and more modern than the 1073. I like both, and have used the ISA 110 variants since the early '90s.

When Rupert left Focusrite, he moved to the US and started Rupert Neve (he couldn't just use 'Neve' for trademark reasons).

If you get into the 500 series ecosystem with the 511, you'll need an enclosure that also provides the power supply, because they aren't stand-alone modules. Tons of folks love the 500 series stuff. The enclosures are portable, and offer good I/O flexibility, depending on the model.

I also have four Universal Audio Apollo preamps, but I like a little more character, and the UAD emulations aren't quite as authentic as the hardware.
 
Sounds like a good project with the vocal group and a great plan!

I can't write a lyric to save my life (once you go to law school all the writing sounds like a legal brief, it's a lyric killing machine!), but one of my closest friends is an amazing lyricist and songwriter with hits under his belt, and sometimes we write together.

My main mic preamp is the BAE 1073 desktop model linked below. It's portable. I got the flight case for it that they offer, so I can take it to other studios. For the orchestral work I'm planning to record, I'll get another to match, so I have a pair for stereo. It's also a wonderful DI for instruments and bass. I like having extra DIs on hand, though my main DI is the Avalon U5. But the Avalon is clean and clear, where the 1073 is vintage and can get gnarly - sometimes a good thing.

The BAE is actually a more accurate replica of the 1073 than the current Neve reissue, because it uses the original Carnhill transformers. I'm told that the Rupert Neve 500 series module you mention is also excellent, though it doesn't try to be a 1073.

BAE stands for British Audio Engineering, who got their start restoring the old 1073 consoles. They're a US company run by a musician who moved here from the UK.


I also use and love the Focusrite ISA 110 preamps that are also a Rupert Neve design, and I like their desktop model so I can transport it. I don't always record here at my place. It's got a nice DI and a feature that lets the musician control a set of headphones and use both the mic preamp and DI together. Good for a singer-songwriter.

Rupert Neve was one of the founders of Focusrite in the UK. The sound is a little cleaner and more modern than the 1073. I like both, and have used the ISA 110 variants since the early '90s.

When Rupert left Focusrite, he moved to the US and started Rupert Neve (he couldn't just use 'Neve' for trademark reasons).

If you get into the 500 series ecosystem with the 511, you'll need an enclosure that also provides the power supply, because they aren't stand-alone modules. Tons of folks love the 500 series stuff. The enclosures are portable, and offer good I/O flexibility, depending on the model.

I also have four Universal Audio Apollo preamps, but I like a little more character, and the UAD emulations aren't quite as authentic as the hardware.
I was reading about Joni Mitchell and how her guitar was recorded in the 70's. I love her sound.

"Joni's main recording guitar has been a Martin D28, which she records using an AKG C12 mike. The mike's output is routed through a Neve 1073 preamp and Urei 1176 compressor on its way to her Trident 70 mixer."

I can't get too carried away tho. Can't afford to fall down the rabbit hole.

Going keep it simple and just get some songs recorded with what I have.

My desk will be in a carpeted room. It's pretty dead. Might be good for vocals.

But that room is adjacent to a hardwood floored hallway, hardwood floored music room, hardwood floored living room and tiled bathroom. I can record anywhere.

So all within reach of a mic cable for the sounds of different rooms.

I do need to do some sound proofing and dampening tho.
 
Last edited:
I was reading about Joni Mitchell and how her guitar was recorded in the 70's. I love her sound.

"Joni's main recording guitar has been a Martin D28, which she records using an AKG C12 mike. The mike's output is routed through a Neve 1073 preamp and Urei 1176 compressor on its way to her Trident 70 mixer."
An original C12 will run well over ten grand. But there are some excellent reproductions on the market. With the Spirit, I doubt you'll need one.

Joni is an all time great!

The 1073 is a characterful preamp with a distinctive sonic signature used on ten zillion records we all know and love, and plenty we've never heard of!

You can still buy an 1176 from Universal Audio (who owned Urei back in the day). There are also clones on the market if that's your sonic flavor, and of course, there are some good sounding plugins, one being made by Universal Audio that sounds quite like the hardware.

The first studio I ever booked for sessions had a Trident 70. It sounded great, but I had no idea back then why it sounded great! If you want the Trident EQ sound - the main reason the console was popular - there's a very good emulation of it as a plugin by Softube that runs around $200. I have it, but the slider EQ (as opposed to knobs) drives me a little nuts.
I do need to do some sound proofing and dampening tho.
I'll give you the acoustical bad news first:

Soundproofing is hella expensive.

It requires special windows, double wall construction, special HVAC, floated floors, etc. Think many thousands of dollars. Unless you feel like spending months doing it yourself, which is still expensive just for materials, you'll spend upwards of 30 grand doing it.

Here's the good news:

You don't need a soundproof room!

A little attenuation is fine, for example, you can create a heavy foam and wood insert to reduce (but not fully block) sound coming in from your windows, or you can simply record at times of day when outside noise is lower, and/or you can use a gobo to surround the singer.

There's a reason cardioid mics were invented. They work to concentrate the mic on what's in front of it and reject noise coming from behind.

There are noise reducing plugins that work extremely well if something happens during a great take that's out of your control, for example iZotope RX 10. That's what I use, and I have no soundproofing.

On to what you're referring to as dampening...

What you're talking about is control of reflections, bass trapping and other methods that will help you control standing waves, phase problems, etc. One thing to know is that unless you're prepared to have an acoustical designer create the room dimensions, angles, and so on, you cannot achieve a room without these problems.

You can, however, reduce them.

Foam does not have sufficient density to control lower mid and bass sound waves. Thinner foam typically glued to walls will absorb only the highest frequency reflections. I say this with 32 years of experience running a studio in my home. If foam is thick enough to get you down into the lower mids and mids, it deadens a room too much and STILL will not solve your bass frequency problems.

Unfortunately, the vocal range is the midrange, and it's the same for guitar amps, and the fundamental frequencies of acoustic guitars. Foam doesn't solve these problems, and the thicker stuff just makes a room sound dead, which isn't a great thing.

There are effective solutions, using limp mass absorbers for both high frequency reflections and low and mid frequency reflections. Certain ones also have diffusion.

Diffusion is important, because it keeps a room sounding natural. Mics pick up natural and it sounds good. There are ways to achieve diffusion that lots of producers, mixers etc. use at home: bookshelves and furniture among them. Hans Zimmer's studio is a good example of excellent acoustical design and treatment, bookshelves, and furniture placement to have a natural sounding room.

Bookshelves aren't ideal - true quadratic diffusers are ideal, but very expensive. But bookshelves do help to scatter the sound and create needed diffusion. And scattering the sound helps reduce standing waves and other problems.

I use a combination of moderately expensive limp mass acoustical treatment with built in diffusion on all surfaces, and on the rear wall, I've got both this limp mass bass trap/acoustical treatment and a bookshelf that has helped with diffusion even with the acoustical treatment on the same wall. The ceiling is Armstrong's acoustical tile, but it isn't soundproofing, it just attenuates noise.

However, it's a great sounding recording room. It’s not soundproof, but it's accurate, without exaggerated standing waves or phase-causing reflections. Just as much noise comes into it and leaks out of it as any other room.
Here’s a shot of the rear wall of my studio. There’s also acoustical treatment (bass traps with diffusion) on the wall behind the amps on the left that isn’t showing up well in the pic. I have cut oodles of tracks here for my national ad recording projects.

YMTBYbx.jpg


[Edit] One thing I forgot to mention is that size matters - room size, that is!

The smaller the room, the more acoustical problems, because bass wavelengths are very long. A 100 Hz wavelength is about 11.3 feet long. My room is 34 feet long. It will handle a 40 Hz wavelength, and that means the wavelength can fully develop, which reduces some problems, BUT you can still have standing waves from bass bouncing off the rear wall back to my monitoring area that isn't in the pic.

A female voice's range is 350 Hz to harmonics up to 17 kHz. A male voice is 100 Hz to 8 kHz. As you can see, you need at least 11.3 feet to reproduce a male vocal without creating serious issues in its low frequency range.

This is why I have my studio monitors facing the wall that's farthest away from the mix position, but these are distances to keep in mind in a vocal room as wellL.
 
Last edited:
An original C12 will run well over ten grand. But there are some excellent reproductions on the market. With the Spirit, I doubt you'll need one.

Joni is an all time great!

The 1073 is a characterful preamp with a distinctive sonic signature used on ten zillion records we all know and love, and plenty we've never heard of!

You can still buy an 1176 from Universal Audio (who owned Urei back in the day). There are also clones on the market if that's your sonic flavor, and of course, there are some good sounding plugins, one being made by Universal Audio that sounds quite like the hardware.

The first studio I ever booked for sessions had a Trident 70. It sounded great, but I had no idea back then why it sounded great! If you want the Trident EQ sound - the main reason the console was popular - there's a very good emulation of it as a plugin by Softube that runs around $200. I have it, but the slider EQ (as opposed to knobs) drives me a little nuts.

I'll give you the acoustical bad news first:

Soundproofing is hella expensive.

It requires special windows, double wall construction, special HVAC, floated floors, etc. Think many thousands of dollars. Unless you feel like spending months doing it yourself, which is still expensive just for materials, you'll spend upwards of 30 grand doing it.

Here's the good news:

You don't need a soundproof room!

A little attenuation is fine, for example, you can create a heavy foam and wood insert to reduce (but not fully block) sound coming in from your windows, or you can simply record at times of day when outside noise is lower, and/or you can use a gobo to surround the singer.

There's a reason cardioid mics were invented. They work to concentrate the mic on what's in front of it and reject noise coming from behind.

There are noise reducing plugins that work extremely well if something happens during a great take that's out of your control, for example iZotope RX 10. That's what I use, and I have no soundproofing.

On to what you're referring to as dampening...

What you're talking about is control of reflections, bass trapping and other methods that will help you control standing waves, phase problems, etc. One thing to know is that unless you're prepared to have an acoustical designer create the room dimensions, angles, and so on, you cannot achieve a room without these problems.

You can, however, reduce them.

Foam does not have sufficient density to control lower mid and bass sound waves. Thinner foam typically glued to walls will absorb only the highest frequency reflections. I say this with 32 years of experience running a studio in my home. If foam is thick enough to get you down into the lower mids and mids, it deadens a room too much and STILL will not solve your bass frequency problems.

Unfortunately, the vocal range is the midrange, and it's the same for guitar amps, and the fundamental frequencies of acoustic guitars. Foam doesn't solve these problems, and the thicker stuff just makes a room sound dead, which isn't a great thing.

There are effective solutions, using limp mass absorbers for both high frequency reflections and low and mid frequency reflections. Certain ones also have diffusion.

Diffusion is important, because it keeps a room sounding natural. Mics pick up natural and it sounds good. There are ways to achieve diffusion that lots of producers, mixers etc. use at home: bookshelves and furniture among them.

Bookshelves aren't ideal - true quadratic diffusers are ideal, but very expensive. But bookshelves do help to scatter the sound and create needed diffusion. And scattering the sound helps reduce standing waves and other problems.

I use a combination of moderately expensive limp mass acoustical treatment with built in diffusion on all surfaces, and on the rear wall, I've got both this limp mass bass trap/acoustical treatment and a bookshelf that has helped with diffusion even with the acoustical treatment on the same wall. The ceiling is Armstrong's acoustical tile, but it isn't soundproofing, it just attenuates noise.

However, it's a great sounding recording room. It’s not soundproof, but it's accurate, without exaggerated standing waves or phase-causing reflections. Just as much noise comes into it and leaks out of it as any other room.
Here’s a shot of the rear wall of my studio. There’s also acoustical treatment (bass traps with diffusion) on the wall behind the amps on the left that isn’t showing up well in the pic. I have cut oodles of tracks here for my national ad recording projects.


4QdVFq2.jpg
Wow! Thanks!

That's a lot of information.

One whole wall of the room my desk is in is bookshelves. It's the longest wall and to the right of the desk.

They're not attached and I could move them. Or not. Maybe they'd be good to leave in there.
 
Wow! Thanks!

That's a lot of information.

One whole wall of the room my desk is in is bookshelves. It's the longest wall and to the right of the desk.

They're not attached and I could move them. Or not. Maybe they'd be good to leave in there.
Well, might as well get your room set up the best way, if you can manage it.

If the room is a rectangle, you usually want your desk set up facing a short wall, have the long walls to the sides, and any diffusion (like bookshelves) on the back wall (the other short wall). This way your studio monitors have the ability to take advantage of the longest wavelengths the room can accommodate a little better.

You absolutely want each monitor to be the same distance to its nearest side wall to maintain a stereo image. I found the best way to do this is to get out the measuring tape and make sure that happens.

Depending on the size of the room, it can be advantageous to have your monitoring setup about 1/3 of the way into the room. This is how I have mine set up, but there isn't always room for it. Why away from the front wall? The closer your monitors are to the front wall, the more the bass builds up and can fool the ear. However, lots of monitors can be adjusted for this, and there is also software that can help from companies like Sonarworks.

You don't want the workstation in the middle of the room (measuring lengthwise, not width) where the standing waves tend to be worst, though.

Monitors should be set up a foot or so behind the desk, on stands, to minimize boundary reflections coming off the desk; these reflections cause phase and comb filtering problems, dropouts at various frequencies, etc. Wooden surfaces also vibrate from studio monitors, just like a speaker cabinet for an amp vibrates from its speakers, and you can hear it.

Getting them decoupled helps reduce this problem.

You want the monitors and your mix position placed so that the distance between each tweeter and your head is exactly the same, and the distance between tweeters is close to the same, maybe a little tiny bit wider. The ideal thing is an equilateral triangle, with your head at one corner and the monitors at the other two corners, toed in about 30 degrees with the height adjusted so that ear level is approximately in the middle between the woofer and the tweeter.

Positioning monitors on a desk surface on either side of the computer screen is possible IF, and only if, you put them on decoupling stands that raise them off the surface. Having tried every brand, the best ones I've found are IsoAcoustics, who have several different models. I use these on my speaker stands between the monitors and the stand, and they're essential to keep the stands from artificially reinforcing their resonant frequency.

The most important acoustical treatment is placed on the side walls near the speakers. This is because those are 'first reflection' points, and they will interfere the most with what you're hearing, causing phase and comb filtering problems. There are mathematical formulas for placement, or you can just have someone walk along the side wall holding a mirror. When you can see the OPPOSITE tweeter, that's where to put the absorption.

Next most important are bass traps for the four corners of the room, but that's a separate, and more expensive, proposition.

Whatever you do, get good limp mass membrane absorbers, and avoid foam like the plague. I base this advice on lots of experience.
 
Last edited:
XVs68Aq.jpg


Lew, this is how I have my workstation area set up. It's at the other end of the same room as the previous pic. It's hard to tell from the pic because of the camera angle, but the monitors are equidistant from the side walls, angled 30 degrees, about 6' apart, and each tweeter is 6' from my head. My mix position is in the sweet spot about 1/3 of the way into the room. The monitors are several feet from the front wall (I forgot the measurement), As you can see, the front wall behind the monitors has a small nook.

This absolutely bedeviled me, but it was this relatively shallow nook, or the nook where the amps are sitting which is deeper and would have caused more trouble with monitor reflections, so I took the path of least resistance and set things up where they are now.

It took me a long time - years - to get this right, and eliminate the problem of the uneven front wall. I was finally able to even the response out in the audible range with acoustical materials, after consulting with the owner of RealTraps, who made the panels. It's hard to see the additional treatment in this pic, but it's there.

The monitors are on stands. Between the speakers and the stands, there are IsoAcoustics decoupling pucks. The speakers are set at a height where my ears are at the height between the tweeter and the woofer.

You can see bass traps/diffusors along the front wall, with bass traps in the corners where having them straddling the corner has additional benefits. Along the side wall, the thinner side panels you see were put in place using laborious measurements and math calculations. But when I used the old mirror trick mentioned above, it would have placed the panels in the exact same spots!!

Everything else you see is pretty standard with the furniture, gear and other junk.
 
XVs68Aq.jpg


Lew, this is how I have my workstation area set up. It's at the other end of the same room as the previous pic. It's hard to tell from the pic because of the camera angle, but the monitors are equidistant from the side walls, angled 30 degrees, about 6' apart, and each tweeter is 6' from my head. My mix position is in the sweet spot about 1/3 of the way into the room. The monitors are several feet from the front wall (I forgot the measurement), As you can see, the front wall behind the monitors has a small nook.

This absolutely bedeviled me, but it was this nook, or the nook where the amps are sitting which is deeper and would have caused more trouble with monitor reflections, so I took the path of least resistance and set things up where they are now.

It took me a long time - years - to get this right, and eliminate the problem of the uneven front wall. I was finally able to even the response out in the audible range with acoustical materials, after consulting with the owner of RealTraps, who made the panels. It's hard to see the additional treatment in this pic, but it's there.

The monitors are on stands. Between the speakers and the stands, there are IsoAcoustics decoupling pucks. The speakers are set at a height where my ears are at the height between the tweeter and the woofer.

You can see bass traps/diffusors along the front wall, with bass traps in the corners where having them straddling the corner has additional benefits. Along the side wall, the thinner side panels you see were put in place using laborious measurements and math calculations. But when I used the old mirror trick mentioned above, it would have placed the panels in the exact same spots!!

Everything else you see is pretty standard with the furniture, gear and other junk.
In my dreams...
 
Back
Top