hairyjamie
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 947
- Joined: 2008/01/23 12:14:43
- Location: Scotland
- Status: offline
Acoustic Room Treatment
Howdy, So, I'm about ready to start treating my modest spare bedroom studio and i've been toying with a few ideas that will take me beyond my 'duvets and blankets' current setup. Does anyone have any experience of something like the following? http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/product/35736-auralex-d36-dst-roominator-charcoal-burgundy-.html I'm thinking of trapping the mids/highs at the reflection points either side of my mixing position and above me (the ceiling is quite low). If I can I'd also treat the wall behind my monitors. The room is quite small, maybe 3m by 5m , so I'm in desperate need of treatment. Also, instead of fixing the foam directly to the walls, I'd like to fix the tiles to an mdf sheet (or something similar) then hang this. Will this have any adverse affect on the sound? My other option is to make some cavity insulation panels in frames myself, although it looks like this would cost more. All advice gratefully received Cheers!
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/22 10:26:37
(permalink)
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/22 10:29:08
(permalink)
with a room that small, i'd go light on any high end treatment. make sure your low end situation is in check, that is way more important. you can probably spot-check certain wall locations with a little bit of foam here and there, odn't go overboard, or your room will be too dead, and you'll overcompensate with bright mixes. i've used foam factory foam, a/b'd it directly with auralex foam of the same size/pattern, and heard no difference.
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/22 10:30:15
(permalink)
|
hairyjamie
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 947
- Joined: 2008/01/23 12:14:43
- Location: Scotland
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/22 10:30:33
(permalink)
Thanks Bat , I am however located in the UK so I wouldn't be using any of the organisations linked to. Cheers for the advice on not making the room so 'dead' - I'm thinking that I can add the auralex tiles as I go and see how the acoustics are affected.
post edited by hairyjamie - 2010/04/22 10:33:01
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/22 10:37:14
(permalink)
yep, that's the way. get your bass traps working first... then, spot treat for high end. check out those links, in some of them, there are guidelines or links to info about optimum room setups.
|
Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16775
- Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/22 10:43:12
(permalink)
In my opinion, MDF would probably be a bit too heavy just for fixing foam mate - go for something a bit lighter. Those boys will stick to hardboard just as readily and will be easier to fix to the walls afterwards.
CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughoutCustom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
|
hairyjamie
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 947
- Joined: 2008/01/23 12:14:43
- Location: Scotland
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/22 11:01:03
(permalink)
|
hairyjamie
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 947
- Joined: 2008/01/23 12:14:43
- Location: Scotland
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/22 11:03:24
(permalink)
Bristol_Jonesey In my opinion, MDF would probably be a bit too heavy just for fixing foam mate - go for something a bit lighter. Those boys will stick to hardboard just as readily and will be easier to fix to the walls afterwards. Good call Jonesy, Thanks for the advice - I should be able to get my hands on some suitably sized hardboard panels for the job.
|
mattplaysguitar
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1992
- Joined: 2006/01/02 00:27:42
- Location: Gold Coast, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/22 19:09:59
(permalink)
Seriously don't waste your money on foam. DIY it. Rigid fibreglass or semi-rigid fibreglass it what you want to find. Go down to your local hardware store and ask them about it. If they don't have a clue, call up your main insulation companies and ask them about it. You are looking for a density of at least 48kg/m^3. This is the density of OC703. You can also use the 96kg/m^3 desnity if you want, that's equivalent to OC705. Anywhere in that density range will do it. Shop around, get a good price, find out what sizes you can get it in, then move on to the next stage.. So, bass traps are what you need first. Forget everything else for now. Bass traps. Bass traps. Bass traps. Tri-corners are the most effective points usually. If you have the money, treat every corner - wall to floor corner, wall to wall to floor corner, wall to wall corner, ceiling to wall corner, ceiling to wall to wall corner, etc. If you go that far, you're going to get some serious high freq attenuation. We'll discuss that one soon. Building. Very simple, work out the sizes you want to make your panels (make rectangle panels, forget making triangle panels) and make a simple wooden frame of that size, and reinforce it. How thick to layer your rigid fibreglass? Probabaly about 150mm thick IF and only if you have the money to treat all the corners at this thickness. If not, then make it 100mm thick and treat all the corners. The order of importance here is: treat all corners first, then make panels as thick a possible. Now get some nice cloth and staple it onto your frame, wrapping everything up nice a neat. Something breathable, but not too breathable so particles get out. Now, if you make a lot of these, high freq could be too attenuated. What can you do? One suggestion is to put a layer of aluminium foil on the outside of your panel, glue it to the fibreglass, then put your cloth over the top. Doesn't hurt the low freq, but gives it a little more livliness. Why not fill the corners completely with a triangled shapped trap? You can if you want to, and it will work better, BUT, it's a waste of money. Attenuation occurs when the sound wave particles are moving at maximum velocity THROUGH the panel. A standing wave has a particule velocity of ZERO directly on the wall. As you move away from the wall, velocity increases to a maximum, then it decreases again, then increases, etc. You can measure this if you want to get serious, but don't worry about it. Just space the panels a bit away from the wall and they'll get the waves at their max velocity near enough. Fill the air gap up if you want to, but it won't do much (will do something though). Better off spending your money on making the panel thicker, or more panels. So, we now have lots of panels in bass trap positions. Oh and don't waste your time putting a backing board on the panel (like the mdf you suggested). I mean, you could tune this board so that it resonates with the standing waves and then tries to dissipate the waves and blah blah, but for a diy job, forget it. It's going to potentially create small standing waves at other frequencies which might and might not be a bad thing (more standing waves at different frequencies can cancel each other out and give a flatter response, studios work on this principle with the angled walls). It just gets too tricky. So, bass is now sounding tighter? Good. Next, flutter echoes. Got any? Yes? Ok, two things you can do, diffuse or absorb. Put a diffuser on one of the reflecting walls, or an absorber. A bookcase will work well as a diffuser. All dealt with now? Good. So, how is the stereo image? Blurred? As has alread been mentioned, absorption at the reflection points. Imagine your room was a mirror and wherever you can see your monitors in that mirror (from the first reflection ONLY, not from two mirror reflections) place an obsorber there. This can very noticably tighen up your stereo image. But don't put too much or your room will get too dead in the high end, and we know what happens then. Idealy you want a decay that is quick, and even in all ffrequencies. Don't want the bass ringing out over 1000ms while the highs are gone in 50ms. We want them to be much closer together. And short, but not too short, cause then it's too unnatural. And that's it. Everywhere that doesn't have an absorber, put a diffuser. They are great. Well not everywhere, but break it up nicely.
|
BIABDude
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 676
- Joined: 2010/01/24 20:32:32
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/22 19:50:59
(permalink)
|
mattplaysguitar
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1992
- Joined: 2006/01/02 00:27:42
- Location: Gold Coast, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/22 21:31:42
(permalink)
|
Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16775
- Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/23 05:11:25
(permalink)
CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughoutCustom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
|
hairyjamie
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 947
- Joined: 2008/01/23 12:14:43
- Location: Scotland
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/23 07:14:21
(permalink)
Wow, thanks to all for their suggestions - if I go down the DIY route then I'll be sure and post some pictures. @ Matt - special thanks for taking the time to write such an informative post. @BIABDude - alas! US again some interesting products though. @Jonesy - helpful as ever mate!
|
edentowers
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1164
- Joined: 2007/09/20 17:12:23
- Location: North Nibley, Gloucestershire
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/23 10:29:21
(permalink)
Get some Rockwool rigid slabs from a local insulation supplier and follow these instructions... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyYUpkpL0gw Hang them in every corner of your room, put a few on the walls and a couple on the ceiling. You'll be staggered by the difference they make.
S8PE, Dell XPS 720 (Q6600), XP Pro SP2, Edirol UA-101
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/23 11:36:42
(permalink)
yeah, rockwool for bass control.... 2" angled foam for high mid-high end control, and then, only spots. you probably don't really need a whole lot, the bass traps will be the most important part of the process. those ready acoustics chameleon frames look really nice, for that professional finished look. i agree with matt, if it's not a commercial venture, you could probably build nice frames with nice wood yourself, and finish them with a nice tinted finish, and call it good. lots of good posts here, you gotta eat it all, puke it back, and see what it looks like.
|
hairyjamie
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 947
- Joined: 2008/01/23 12:14:43
- Location: Scotland
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/24 02:02:49
(permalink)
I think I'm going to go down the DIY route - my room is slightly unusually shaped and I don't have the space to hang large traps up. What do you guys think of 500mm square frames in each corner with a larger one above the mixing position? Also, what am I looking for in the insulation? I've seen several cheaper and easier to handle alternatives to the heavy density one mentioned by Jonesy ( http://www.wickes.co.uk/invt/161206?WT.ac=SP010002) Cheers
|
zippsinc
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 456
- Joined: 2008/04/15 10:24:10
- Location: Scotland
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/24 10:34:14
(permalink)
|
tcm123
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 92
- Joined: 2008/11/20 11:34:18
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/24 11:04:30
(permalink)
can you not get oc703 and oc705 on the east side of the atlantic?
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/24 12:04:18
(permalink)
I've seen several cheaper and easier to handle alternatives to the heavy density one mentioned by Jonesy For sidewall absorbers and ceiling clouds, high-density is not as important. But for bass traps, the heavier the better. When considering a product, look at the pounds-per-square-inch value. 703 is fine for clouds at 3lb, but 705 is better for corner traps at 6lb. There are even 7lb and 8lb versions. If you can't find the heavy stuff, just double up the lighter products - 4 inches of 703 is equivalent to 2 inches of 705 for example. And you don't have to have 4" thicknesses, either. If 1" material is all you can find, just use 4 layers of it. Just remember, it's the total mass (volume * weight) that determines how much sound energy will be absorbed. In the UK you have home-improvement store chains like we have here in the US (e.g. Home Depot). Although they are geared toward the handy homeowner and probably don't stock exotic insulation products, my experience is that they can special-order pretty much anything. Of course, they won't have a clue what you are talking about, but if you give them a specific manufacturer and product model number they shouldn't have any problem ordering it for you.
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
mattplaysguitar
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1992
- Joined: 2006/01/02 00:27:42
- Location: Gold Coast, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/24 20:33:13
(permalink)
bitflipper double up the lighter products - 4 inches of 703 is equivalent to 2 inches of 705 Are you certain about this? I know 705 is exactly twice the density of 703, so in terms of the total mass of insulation, it will be exactly the same if you use double the 703. However, the 703 is going to be more broadband as it will grab a larger number of frequencies when their waves are in the high particle velocity region. I would imagine that 4" thick 703 would work a fair bit better than than 2" thick 705 because the 705 would be much more prone to missing certain standing waves at their maximum particle velocity (as insulation will do nothing if the standing wave is at a zero velocity region). The positioning of the 705 would have to be more precise at least - I believe. I would love to hear if any tests of this have been done. Ethan Winer's don't really cover this.
|
Middleman
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4397
- Joined: 2003/12/04 00:58:50
- Location: Orange County, CA
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/24 23:26:07
(permalink)
GIK was the way I went for bass traps. Inexpensive and you can just hang them on the wall as they come out of the box. Great people to deal with as well.
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/25 09:14:08
(permalink)
mattplaysguitar bitflipper double up the lighter products - 4 inches of 703 is equivalent to 2 inches of 705 Are you certain about this? I know 705 is exactly twice the density of 703, so in terms of the total mass of insulation, it will be exactly the same if you use double the 703. However, the 703 is going to be more broadband as it will grab a larger number of frequencies when their waves are in the high particle velocity region. I would imagine that 4" thick 703 would work a fair bit better than than 2" thick 705 because the 705 would be much more prone to missing certain standing waves at their maximum particle velocity (as insulation will do nothing if the standing wave is at a zero velocity region). The positioning of the 705 would have to be more precise at least - I believe. I would love to hear if any tests of this have been done. Ethan Winer's don't really cover this. I think you are on the right track with this Matt. The thicker material will effect more range of frequency while the denser material will be more effective at diminishing the energy it encounters. With the exception that at the highest frequencies the higher density may actually create reflections. I suspect that this discussion was avoided because it gets complicated quickly. I often times drop hints about 1/4 wave in the hope that someone will go read about it thoroughly at Ethan's site. I understand the 1/4 wave idea... but in practice I try not to think about too much... because I would end up with 8' think absorbers and no place to sit if I kept thinking about it too much. :-) best regards, mike
|
zippsinc
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 456
- Joined: 2008/04/15 10:24:10
- Location: Scotland
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/25 09:45:12
(permalink)
tcm123 can you not get oc703 and oc705 on the east side of the atlantic? Hi tcm123 Oh yeah...we can get oc703 over here in the UK. I live very close to the stockist Bristol_Jonesey gave for the high density stuff. If this stuff is 703 then this would save me having to wait for a delivery and allow me to have a 5 minute drive to buy it. Zipps
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/25 11:37:20
(permalink)
Are you certain about this? I know 705 is exactly twice the density of 703, so in terms of the total mass of insulation, it will be exactly the same if you use double the 703. However, the 703 is going to be more broadband as it will grab a larger number of frequencies when their waves are in the high particle velocity region. I would imagine that 4" thick 703 would work a fair bit better than than 2" thick 705 because the 705 would be much more prone to missing certain standing waves at their maximum particle velocity (as insulation will do nothing if the standing wave is at a zero velocity region). The positioning of the 705 would have to be more precise at least - I believe. I would love to hear if any tests of this have been done. Ethan Winer's don't really cover this. You're right: there are benefits to greater thicknesses because you catch a broader range of frequencies at their peak pressure levels. However, the difference is miniscule when talking about 2" versus 4". Now, if you want to make your traps 24" deep or more, then you'll see significant improvement.
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
hairyjamie
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 947
- Joined: 2008/01/23 12:14:43
- Location: Scotland
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/25 12:53:27
(permalink)
bitflipper Now, if you want to make your traps 24" deep or more, then you'll see significant improvement. I still want to be able to get in the room Bit
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/25 15:47:18
(permalink)
This doesn't account for reflective waves that just happen to peak at the same distance as the placement of the absorber... nor does it account for the wave that precedes the reflection. It simply illustrates the idea that there is more energy to be absorbed at the 1/4 wavelength of an audio frequency and there fore the most noticeable change will occur at that frequency if the absorber is more or less effective across a broad band. You can tune the placement with a space or stack the stuff up. If you start in the corners you'll suck up the last of the reflections that really mud stuff up. Once you get rid of that basic mud you can start thinking about the axial modes and if any special placement wall absorbers is especially useful. best regards, mike
|
Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16775
- Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/26 06:22:28
(permalink)
zippsinc Bristol_Jonesey This stuff is pretty good Jamie: http://www.wickes.co.uk/Heavy-Density-Insulation/invt/161189 Bristol_Jonesey...I was considering this. Can I ask what this material actually is? Thanks Zipps It's a rigid fibre glass, similar I believe to what our American cousins call 703 If you do plan on using it, once it's in your frame, spray the front & back with a can of hairspray (1 large can per panel) to seal in the fibres, then cover with material.
CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughoutCustom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
|
Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16775
- Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/26 06:26:31
(permalink)
In the UK you have home-improvement store chains like we have here in the US (e.g. Home Depot). Yes, Bit, we've got Wickes, B&Q, Homebase, Focus etc. In my opinion, Wickes offer the best value for money (B&Q are always hopelessly overpriced). They also sell the high density stuff, so I bought all of my slabs from them.
CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughoutCustom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
|
zippsinc
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 456
- Joined: 2008/04/15 10:24:10
- Location: Scotland
- Status: offline
Re:Acoustic Room Treatment
2010/04/26 17:42:17
(permalink)
Bristol_Jonesey It's a rigid fibre glass, similar I believe to what our American cousins call 703 If you do plan on using it, once it's in your frame, spray the front & back with a can of hairspray (1 large can per panel) to seal in the fibres, then cover with material. Cheers Bristol_Jonesey. I didn't expect hair spray to be in the equation...lol. Is this sealing of the fibers something generally considered wise from a safety point of view? Inhalation etc. I think I read somewhere on another forum that rigid fiberglass is tomorrow's asbestos - in relation to harmful breathable substances. Anyone else heard this? Regards Zipps
|