View Single Post
#129
30th October 2009
Old 30th October 2009
  #129
Gear nut
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
Posts: 116

Millo 3.1 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonemeister View Post
===================


Good point!

We always suggest balance in room designs. This means balancing several aspects:

1. Left & right balance
Look at you room, try to figure out where you can sit so that when you are facing your nearfield monitors, you will be equidistant from the side walls and be able to treat the walls equally. Avoid positioning the sweet spot (sit place) in the middle of the room.

2. Front & back balance
We suggest variants of the LEDE (live-end / dead-end) design with 60% to 70% absorption at the source end, and the rest behind the listening space. Your bass traps will also absorb mids and highs so placing them where they can work along with your other acoustic panels saves money.

3. Wet & dry balance
Using natural room structures to create diffusion saves a on of money. For instance, in a square (ish) room, instead of placing your mix position facing a flat wall, maybe consider facing a corner with corner traps in front of you to create angles behind.

4. Frequency balance
If you are going to suck out all of the mids and highs, you room will be bass heavy. this is a common problem with small rooms that do not employ bass traps. This is also common in voice-over booths. Folks put 2" foam on the walls and wonder why their rooms sound bad. To fix, try using tri-corner traps like the Cumulus. These suck out low mids and do not take any valuable wall space.

I just saw U2 the other day. The spectacle was amazing... the sound was terrible. They had 150 or so loudspeakers, line arrays, digital everything. I went under the stage, FOH... everywhere. They had 4 digital monitor consoles, one for each band member. I heard that they are traveling with 90 trucks full of staging, lights and audio. Bad sound.... why? No acoustic treatment in the room. Fix the acoustic environment, the rest gets easier.

Peter
Well, the question was because most likely I was going to end up in a medium-size space (fairly large for the usual "subdivision" home studio) with wall-to-wall carpet, although it seems soon my "future space" will change--sellers were being hard-ass bitches and a deal is on the verge of falling through. So I might end up w/ a smaller-than-previously-anticipated space, not sure if carpet or reflective floor, we'll see; checking out the market today.

Anyway, I guess balance is the key... at least that's what the term "flat frequency response" suggests. I might not want any ultra-powerful traps sucking up everything. Of course, if balance is the goal, since HF are so much easier to control than LF, then I guess LF absorption/control of utmost importance. I already have a list of possible materials/plans for some basic broadband absorbers, plans (in crude drawings) for RFZ panels, and I am sorta trying to make mental plans for what might be the key ingredient: LF attenuation. I guess designing/making this last group of absorbers is a more delicate affair than the others, so as to make sure not to suck up too much mid/high contents. So early next month I might start gathering materials I will need anyway, like the panels themselves, spray glue, some fabric, etc.

Thanks!