Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room

I'm about to finally have a 12x14 room for a dedicated studio space! So I'm starting to think about acoustic treatment. I'm thinking about this (the control room) package...http://www.hsfacoustics.com/soundproofing_foam_studio_packs.htm I may also get ARC2 either before or after. Thanks for your advice!

Thanks Bit. The ceiling is 8' tall. This was a bedroom so it has two windows and a closet door bi-fold or whatever you call it. I have been looking into the dyi approach. There are a lot of opinions out there on that. I certainly feel like I could built them, as long as I build the right thing. Is fiberglass better than rockwool? Are the bass traps made of the same materials?
  I did read an older thread where some of you guys were discussing the pros and cons of ARC2. It was actually a very interesting read. I came away thinking that ARC2 may help in correcting, improving or flattening the EQ of the monitors more than correcting the actual room. If that makes sense. I have a pair of Roland DS-8s. I really don't know how good they are, but they are the only monitors I've ever had so at least I'm used to them.

Rockwool is a brand name, and acoustically identical to Owens-Corning 703. There are some lesser-known brands (e.g. Roxul) that are just as good but a little cheaper. Here's a place that sells and compares different products: ATS Acoustics.
 
Absorptive bass traps are usually made from the same materials, although they can also use heavier materials (e.g. Owens-Corning 705) or they can be resonant types. If space allows, you can even use normal pink fluffy insulation stuffed behind a wood frame. (Some people just stack rolls of insulation in the corners in their original plastic sleeves, but that's only practical if you have a lot of room.)
 
And yes, ARC has been the subject of much debate. I have my opinion, Danny Danzi has a very different opinion. Danny wouldn't consider not having ARC and swears by it. I consider it to be only marginally effective because it's a square solution to a round problem.

I think I would like to keep it simple and build 2'X4' traps that I could stack diagonally in the corners (one corner has the door and closet so I guess it needs to be able to move) , so I would need 8 just for the corners. Will 4" thick be enough. Will 2" think be enough for the other panels if the back is exposed and I leave a 2" inch gap between the panel and wall? I think 10 of those would do it. So 18 panels with the ceiling still to go. Good news is...I have access to table saws and free marine quality plywood. My Mom is one hell of a seamstress, so fabric and the insulation is all I will have to buy. Hmmm...46 sheets of 703 or 705 owens and corning. (There is an Owens and Corning plant near by as well). 

Well this seems like a project worth doing. It may take me awhile, but I'm going to start saving pennies and designing frames. As far as the bass traps go, I may try to make a design where I can connect two together and eventually double up to make 8" in the corners. Thanks for the info.

audimute.
 
http://www.audimutesoundproofing.com/
 
i use the absorption sheets.
http://www.audimutesoundproofing.com/audimute-sound-absorption-sheets-materials-that-absorb-sound-soundproofing-blankets.aspx
 
 
 or
just use arc.

Starise I am curious Bill. Have you used ARC? If not I suggest taking it for a spin.

 
I have tried ARC and the Genelec system and a couple others that never made it to market... and in every case there were more problems created than solved. That's not to say that they did not provide an illusion of solving some problems, especially frequency dependent problems, but for time dependent problems (e.g. bad reflections) they were unable to solve the issue.
 
This is also not to say that the day won't come where these sorts of solutions won't work, for at least some well defined listening spot within a space. A transfer function is, in fact a transfer function, and one can look at it any number of ways.
 
The other issue that will have to be resolved is the location of the loudspeakers. Two loudspeakers can not generate enough information to correct these time based problems. There is a system available today (LARES) that can, but it uses a TON of loudspeakers, a TON of microphones, and a metric TON of DSP horsepower. It is priced accordingly<G>!
 

Starise Secondly, I must disagree with the statement that you can't correct a time based problem in the frequency domain.Why? because time and frequency are related and can be varied by a plug-in. This is one way ARC works...by adjusting the time perimeters of a wave so as to reduce or eliminate a standing wave. This isn't snake oil. It really works.

 
You are talking about one specific problem - standing waves - which result from a dimensional problem, not a geometrical problem, although even these are closely related. I have no doubt that a dimensional problem can be resolved using DSP voodoo... it isn't as simple as filtering out the offending frequency, since there are lots of offending frequencies, and the problems they create are positional, but yeah, ARC or a similar approach can probably do a decent job of mitigating these problems in a specific location within the space.
 
That is not the same thing as the marketing hyperbole would leave one to believe!

Oh yeah, and I'm probably a dolt but IMHO when I test mixes with ARC2 (and make adjustments accordingly) I seem to get better results, for my tastes, than when I skip the process.
 

This thread reminds me that way-back-when I put "doing some actual measurements of acoustic behavior both with and without ARC" on my to do list but never got around to it.

Starise If you tried it I and don't like it fair enough. I would be interested to hear what kind of problems you encountered,especially since you say " In every case". 
Something must have been off kilter big time.

 
I can understand that some people might not like it for one reason or another. If you simply don't like it then that settles it. But what I'm hearing you say ( ok not literally) is that ARC is somehow bogus. When you say that ARC only provides an " illusion" this does the plug a big disservice IMO. There's no illusion involved here, it really works.ARC is especially good at solving bad reflection issues.

 
Probably not the last time in this post where I'll come off as a bit of a jerk, but I'll risk it...
 
First, no, I do not like the results when using ARC, it sounds artificial to me, and I do not feel like I am hearing what I ought to be, what I'd expect to hear in a better (read well designed) room.
 
Second, I do think that it ls largely an illusion. Much the same way that a 4 inch driver in a 5 inch box can't create energy at 20 Hz, except that's exactly what seems to be happening with various home entertainment loudspeakers. (An exageration... but meant to make a point.) And much the same way that an MP3 does not sound as good as even a "standard CD qualty" track, there are artifacts that simply get in the way. So yes, I think ARC falls into that category of illusion - probably not the best word, but I don't have a better one (wish I did, it is unintentionally inflammatory!)
 

Starise
ARC2 is even better than  ARC was. <snip>

 
In fairness, I've not tried ARC2 - nor do I have any plans to do so... the science behind it does not make me wish to spend the time. (warned you I might come off as a jerk!)
 
I set up ARC last night because I moved my studio around. When you take the measurements it sends out chirps 10 left and 10 right  into a microphone which you move around in order to get multiple readings in the same general area of your listening position. The software determines time and frequency corrections needed by timing and measuring the chirps. This is all based on time of arrival to your listening position.

 
If you have only two loudspeakers it is physically impossible to correct for time errors (e.g. reflections that arrive at inconvenient times) except in a very small space. If I remember correctly, I could easily fool ARC by moving the measurement microphone three or four feet... to me that is a serious limitation.
 
And don't overlook the fact that some errors that appear to be in the frequency domain (too much energy in a given octave) are really the result of constructive or destructive interference caused by energy arriving at that inconvenient time.
 

Starise
Honestly you would not believe the difference it makes.

 
Well at least on this we agree<G>... 
 

Starise
I am seriously thinking about not needing so much acoustic room treatment. According to the EQ plot it corrected everything except a very small bump in the 1.5 khz range,maybe 1 or 2 db.

 
And that's great! Really... if you can create a mix that translates well to lots of other systems using ARC then you have found your solution. I can't do it! I've listened to tracks that I mixed under the influence of ARC and I was not at all happy with the results in other spaces. The frequency balance was noticeably skewed, and there was typically way too much reverb, even though it sounded quite natural in the mix space.
 

Starise
If you listen to material at my desk and toggle the correction on and off you notice a really big difference in clarity. Everything becomes sharper and more focused. The detail of the mix comes out. You hear what you were missing when you just had monitors.

 
The truth is, in the case of a treated room it has to  be balanced with EQ and this still doesn't address all the problems. If a newbee tries it chances are there will still be something lacking. 

 
Well that sort of makes my basic argument for me<G>... ARC is not the panacea that it is sold as.
 
I do not have an objection to someone using ARC and being perfectly happy with the results. I do have a problem with a developer claiming to be able to void basic laws of physics, and solve all my problems for just three easy payments<G>! 
 
An analogy, if you'll spare me... I have an AKG C1000 in my locker. This is, without a doubt, the worst microphone I own. I have yet to put anything in front of it and get any kind of acceptable result. My locker is not extravagant, but I can ALWAYS find a better choice for a microphone. And yet I have friends that love the thing, and create great recordings with it. Unless you are recording a solo instrument in mono there is no way that a single microphone is going to destroy your project! I think the monitoring system is a lot like a given microphone... it may make you work harder to get a great result, but it is unlikely that it will prevent same. Me? I don't like to work harder<G>
 
We have been around the ARC wagon on this forum here before and some folks just don't like it.

 
Yup, which is why I hesitated to post at all...
 
I think in some cases the measurements weren't taken correctly, and if you don't do it right nothing will work like it should.

 
Absolutely. Give someone a TEF rig or something similar and they'll almost certainly make a mess if you do not also provide training. TEF, and SMAART, and EASE and all the other high end tools are very complex, and require a lot of training. ARC is supposed to be so simple even I can use it, and use it well... and thus far that has not been the case.
 
In other cases I think the listeners convinced themselves that what they were hearing wasn't a good mix and was the fault of ARC.

 
Absolutely... we can fool ourselves quite easily. I bought this really awful microphone preamplifier years ago. It sounded pretty good in the music store (I did say years ago<G>) but when I got it home it sounded awful. I really wanted the darned thing to sound good because I really needed it for a session. Sadly it didn't work out. Happily the store took it back. (Again, it was a long time ago<G>!)
 
In reality what they were hearing was the truth and they wanted a lie.



This is where we will have to agree to disagree... I don't believe that ARC can deliver the truth except in a very small set of circumstances, and only for a very small sweet spot.
 
So if I haven't demonstrated my jerk nature yet here goes...
 
I've been at this sort of thing since the mid 1970s. I've worked in some really remarkably bad rooms, many of which were designed long before we'd given any thought to how a critical listening space ought to behave. Then I worked in some really great rooms, where I could hear every little detail, and where the balance of the mix translated beautifully to a really nice listening room, but not so much in a car. This was not the fault of the room, it was the fault of the engineer (that would be me) not understanding the space I was working in, and how it translated to the real world.
 
I've mentioned before that I once mixed a demo reel for a friend in my office, on a pair of Polk Model 5s driven by an old Heathkit tube amp. The office was tiny, not at all symmetrical about any axis, and cluttered with junk. It was also relatively noisy. I only did this project because he was a really good friend, and he needed something, anything, in a hurry.
 
The result was really quite good. Better than I had any reason to expect. And I could not understand how. Luck? A guardian angel? Then I realized that I had spent hours a day in that office, and I always had music playing while I worked. So I knew that system better than I knew the back of my hand... I just didn't know what I knew.
 
Some truly amazing records were made in places that were just acoustically awful. And some really bad recordings have been made in well designed facilities. It is not all about the room or the monitoring environment.
 
BUT, one person's opinion only, if the room is well behaved and you can hear things accurately then tracking and mixing are a lot easier. I like easier!
 
I also think that my good fortune to have worked in some really good rooms prepared me to be a bit pickier about my monitoring environment. That does not mean I always succeed... we moved several years ago, and a variety of events have prevented me from building the studio I wanted to build. So right now I work in a real nightmare of a space... it is embarrassing how bad... and I would not try to mix a real project here! It is good enough for composition, that's it. And yes, this was one of the places where I tried both ARC and Auto-Cal, and this room ate their lunches<G>!
 
Hopefully I've explained myself... in any case, I'll shut up now...

Thanks for that.
 
:-)
 
 
 
BTW, I still have Dad's slide rule. We were the first family on the block with a T.I. hand held (and later a microwave oven too) but Dad used his slide rule til his last day of work.
 
:-)

I'm willing to entertain that ARC might be able address certain acoustics problems (at a given listening position) while failing to solve or exacerbating other problems.

Fixed. 

Some great discussions here. Starise, your experience has been of course....VERY similar to mine. Maybe we're lucky? Maybe Jesus loves us? Maybe we did the correction correctly? Maybe we did the correction INCORRECTLY? Whatever the case, guys like you and I could care less what's under the hood as long as it makes a difference in our world for the better. That's how I pretty much do everything. The more I get involved with science, the more it takes me out of my "raw, use your ears" realm. Granted, there are times when the science part needs to be looked at for severe problem areas....but until I get faced with that, illusions, trickery, fake, whatever ya wanna call it.....if it works, I'm a believer. :)
 
Bill: I don't know where to start with my comments in response to you other than, it's quite apparent you know your stuff and I can completely respect the opinion and experience you've shared with us. I would never even attempt to try and sway a guy like you into trying ARC 2 nor will I waste much of your time here reading this (well maybe 8-10 minutes worth lol)....but I would like to say a few things if I may?
 
Like you, I've been doing this a long time also. I've worked in some of the crappiest rooms of all time. I've even worked in studio's worth millions that had over-booked clients to where they threw me in a storage room, warehouse, closet or whatever else they had available. I hated working under those conditions. However, as you know from doing stuff like that yourself, it pushes you really hard to get the best out of everything you have at the time, right? I know you can so relate there. :)
 
Well, keeping along with that particular subject, just about every time I've been in a position like that, the monitors I've used were not even corrected nor did I have a sub at all times. This put me at such a huge disadvantage, it really ruined the enjoyment factor for me in ways I can't even tell you. That said...
 
One day, that ARC thing came into my world. I know it doesn't line up with science....I know some of the hype people have read doesn't make sense and we can go on and on about how it may not be a total fix for everything and everyone. BUT....huge BUT at that.....one of the most important aspects of this field for me, is having monitors at least tuned as flat as possible. I can mix in any room you want to put me in as long as the monitors are not totally out of whack with what they are giving me. If I can't trust an ounce of what I'm hearing, there's no way I can do a good job.
 
I've mixed on incredible systems in great rooms and while sometimes not liking the outcome but the client did. I've mixed on scaled down systems in bad rooms with ARC and have come out in great shape every time. It's truly amazing as to how this thing has worked for me in so many different rooms, I'd bore you if I told about the experiences.
 
In my humble opinion, I sincerely think the monitors used makes a difference as well as how anal you are with the procedure and if you use a sub. I also do not feel ARC is easy to use at all. I absolutely HATE doing the corrections. There are too many things you can forget...and if you forget just one thing, you've wasted an hour of time. Honest when I tell you, you have to be so precise, it no longer makes it easy.
 
Taping your floor, measuring, use the right mic model number, proper height, mic position at the nose, keeping things totally symmetrical and measured to the numbers, make sure input monitor is turned off, make sure proper levels were achieved, make sure lowest latency possible was used.....forgetting just one of those things changes the entire way it works.
 
Again, I'm honestly not trying to sell you on it. You tried it, you didn't like it, you didn't think your material improved, you have every right to share how you feel. But if by chance there was a possibility that you may have forgotten something....if you still have ARC, I'd be willing to share a pdf that I've written up that will take you through all the steps I use to be successful with it every time. At least you could see if any of it made a difference.
 
A friend of mine tried ARC. He's one of my mentors. He laughed at it and called me and told me it was junk. I went to his studio and re-did the corrections MY way. Needless to say, the outcome was better than the Rane eq he had which was set by a professional that tuned his monitors. He missed a few steps at the time. He still uses it today and loves it.
 
Whatever it does, it's been all good for me. I really don't mind people bashing on it at all...as long as they've tried it. What bothers me the most (now I'm going to sound a bit like a jerk, but honest this is not directed at you or anyone....it's just in general but needs to be said) is when people use the science of what they read or hear against the thing and bash it for no reason other than to sound important. And, the fact that they never even tried it. 
 
It's like the mechanic that went to school that really knows a lot about cars saying "the new Camaro is not what you think. We studied that system and it doesn't do this that and this" then you ask the guy "yes, but did you drive the car?" He answers "well no, but I don't have to because the science in my school tells me what it's about."
 
I don't think that's fair. It's an opinion and until you can drive the car, it's pointless to make a stink about something if you've never experienced it. What if the thing in the car isn't all that, but when you drive that Camaro, it makes it an incredible driving experience even if by chance some of it may have been an illusion or maybe it helped you to enjoy the car by 15%? To totally discount it is just ludicrous in my opinion.
 
My other argument is (and here's where the jerk in me comes out and where this is not directed at you or anyone else) the "scientist" types are always the ones that seem to ruin the arc debate. There is no reason for someone that hasn't tried it to come in to the discussion and bash it if they haven't tried it, seriously. And what else gets me is, these dudes that talk this crap can use all the help they can get because their mixes sound terrible! I have either heard some of the worst material by supposed scientists that are the first to share internet links about stuff or share how smart they are with people to intimidate them, or have heard nothing from them at all that would make me want to listen to them.
 
Not one has made my "I would love to pick your brain and am willing to pay for it" list. This bothers me immensely! If a person can't lead and teach by and with example, it's harder for me to see them as credible. That said, I'm not saying every person that posts an opinion needs to share a great mix to be valid. I'm saying it's the same ones bashing it all the time...and they have no real credibility to be so "voice for the sake of a voice". At the end of the day, you have scientists with crap for audio trying to show people that are trying to improve that ARC is a bunch of horsesh!t and hype. It may be that....but for quite a few people, it has worked wonders.
 
It's like the guitar teacher I had that went to Berklee that was a theory guru.....yet was NOT a great player. He could show me theory, but he couldn't show me how to use the stuff nor could he lead as a "playing" example. My idea of a good theory teacher is one that shows you theory and then 5 examples on how to use what you just learned so you have a clue as to what it means as well as how it can be used.
 
The guy 2 towns away from me knew a little more than basic theory, but could play like a lunatic showcasing the styles I liked plus some other really cool styles. Who do you take lessons from? See my point? So that's my problem with science. The majority of those who use it in the audio field haven't shown me anything other than words. I'm not an excellent engineer by any means and learn every day. But I've also done my best to post up examples of things when I've been called on stuff as well as offering things freely to bring a point home. Even though I have no awards, I have a pretty good track record as someone you can trust and at least have enough credibility to where advice I'd offer or speak about it worth investigating. I can't say the same for the scientist types. They could possibly benefit from ARC if they tried it...or heck, tried something other than running their mouths. Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine on forums. They ruin more debates than people that just have differing opinions.
 
Could it be a fluke that me and many others have had luck with this thing? Most definitely. Is it the be all end all of plugs to help with room problems? Absolutely not...but I'll tell ya, it sure does a wonderful job flattening monitors for me. I don't even need to use a sub on my Events, Adam A-7's or Genelecs. I did the correction with and without sub....no difference at all other than you don't quite feel the lows as much, but you sure do hear them the same as the sub. But I do like to use the sub because it adds that little extra "feeling" to the lows.
 
Anyway, I wasted your time on this and didn't want to, but that's my take on things being a happy ARC customer. I totally respect your opinion and again thank you for sharing what you've shared. Science from someone that has a clue is one thing.....and completely commendable. Science from a link poster that shares crap mixes or no mixes while bashing on something they have never tried....totally unacceptable in my opinion. 
 
-Danny 

I think you hit the nail on the head, Mike.  It is how we listen as much as what we listen to.  Like Bill, if you've listened to a million songs in one room, you are likely to know the room and system well enough for how it translates.  Mixing is no problem in that case - you know what a good mix sounds like in that room.
 
Sure is nice to have a tuned room (even more for the tracking!) and full range speakers and all the other eminities.  As Bill sez, it makes everything easier.  It doesn't mean you can't get a good mix in a bad room on 5-inch woofers (well, maybe check your bass for problems on bigger speakers).  But if a mix sounds good on these computer speakers right here facing me, I can be sure I have a decent mix.  It might not sound as deep and some of the detail is missing that I hear on my mains, but if the separation holds and the vocal floats ...
 
Interesting thread and glad to see a grown up conversation about music production and how we work.  Makes me remember why I like coming here.
 
@

Well said Drew...as always. :) I'm interested in seeing how the testing goes if you decide to take it on. At the end of the day though....what exactly would the results mean? Like, say you test and you come up with the final line as "with all due respect, this whole plug as well as the concept is bogus" and you have total proof of this....how would something like that come into play for those that have really been successful with it?
 
I can totally see where the testing would be beneficial to all of us....at least the "in the know" part. But even if the thing is working by "illusion" like Bill said, does any of it really matter if it works? I would *think* it may show why it may not work for some people...but how can we figure out "it's flawed but still works for a majority" know what I mean? :)
 
I like when you hang out with us in techniques man....try to stop by more often.
 
-Danny