Help with which panels to build please.

[skycutter]

Hi

im new to building acoustic panels but in the past just put foam up in
my studio and was amazed at how much better mixing got for me..

ive now moved into a new flat and have a studio room... only problem is it has the worst reflection/reverb problems ive ever heard! everyone who comes in here notices it straight away. its a square room roughly 10ft by 10ft.

so i was gonna build 3 (as thats all i can afford right now) of thesetraps -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=***********

which are 4 inch thick

but then i goto order the owens 703 and see that the packs are 2x 2inch panels and that got me thinking why not build 6 panels at 2 inch thick?
it would cover more wall space and effectively have the same amount of sound absorbtion in 1 room?

i know im probably wrong... but in my situation with little money maybe it does work out better to have more panels rather than not enough thicker panels?

any help would be greatly received as ive given up my job to give music ago ive got 1 year in this room so really should get it sounding as best i can!

thanks

[RLD]

4" panels work better, and you want them straddling the corners, then your 2" panels on the walls and/or ceiling at reflection points.
I built 4 4" corner and one 2" cloud using the same plans you have.
Works great and very inexpensive if you have the chops to build them.

[skycutter]

Originally Posted by RLD

4" panels work better, and you want them straddling the corners, then your 2" panels on the walls and/or ceiling at reflection points.
I built 4 4" corner and one 2" cloud using the same plans you have.
Works great and very inexpensive if you have the chops to build them.

thanks for the response..

Did you do your corner panels from celling to floor?

[RLD]

Originally Posted by skycutter

thanks for the response..

Did you do your corner panels from celling to floor?

No...I have some desks in the way...small room, so I have 1 panel each in the middle of the front corners.
Remember, you also have wall/ceiling corners that can use 4" panels as well.

[Xander]

Actually, a greater number of thinner panels (to a certain extent) will be more beneficial:

Rigid fiberglass density tests

"So what can we learn from these graphs? First, it's evident that for all of the fiberglass types it's better to have twelve thinner panels spread more completely around the room than only six thicker panels covering less total surface area. All of the tests with 12 panels show the ringing decaying faster, and the bandwidth of the modes being wider, when compared to only six panels twice as thick."

[skycutter]

thanks for the help guys... im really starting to think u may just do 6x 2" thick panels

1 more thing tho...

if i was to cut down the width of the corner panels i again could maybe achieve
more panels this way...

what kinda width on the corner panels can i get away with?

[SAC]

Just a few comments. This is not meant to confuse, but simply to address a few conditional factors that may influence the decision regarding which panel design is most appropriate considered in reference to the use and desired result.

The panel design (and size) is determined primarily by its intended use - the two fundamental common distinctions being that of a bass trap for modal issues, and a broadband absorber for specular reflections.

People are referring to the absorptive panels reducing 'ringing'.

Resonance is a modal function, and 2 inch absorptive panels are only appropriate for specular issues. If there is a high frequency 'ringing', the solution is for the source to be damped.

Additionally, for specular energy ('reflection') control, we must examine the intended context for their use - for example, a critical listening environment such as control/mix room, or a live recording space where we desire to 'create' an atmosphere or effect.

In a control/mix space we will want to create an Initial signal delay gap (ISD or RFZ) of which the performance requirements are objectively defined physics necessary to create the desired psycho-acoustical effects. The must be effective enough to reduce the gain of any energy arrival by a minimum of 20 dB SPL below the level of the direct signal. Thus, these requirements of the absorption might be further modified slightly based upon the circumstance (which is identifiable and verifiable via the ETC response measurement).

Thus, if this is for the creation of an ISD/RFZ gap, note that partial removal of the reflections will not effect the benefit associated with a properly designed ISD/RFZ. which requires ALL energy directed to the listening position within the defined interval to be a minimum of 20 dB (and ideally 30 dB SPL) down from he direct source level. **

2 inch panels may be sufficient (and this may be position dependent), but I would want verification that ETC measurements provide.

Remember. ALL reflections in the ISD/RFZ gap must be reduced by at least 20 dB or more. This includes, speaker mounting, work surface, ceiling, and any other incident sources of diffraction or reflections - not just wall surfaces as are so often focused upon.

The additional aspect of a properly designed and effective ISD/RFZ gap is that it requires requires termination of reflected (ideally diffuse and laterally arriving) energy of no more than 10-12 dB down from the direct source - thus requiring rather extreme damping followed by a significant energy return - one not possible if the absorption is randomly and excessively used - thus requiring rather judicious placement to control only what is absolutely needed while retaining the remainder and redirecting it spatially and temporally as necessary.

This is only achievable with measurements.

The larger point being, that an 'incomplete' ISD/RFZ gap does not provide the necessary satisfaction of the requirements for the Henry precedence Effect and the Haas corollary. And any compromise to this is like the flanking paths in sound isolation. It invalidates the purpose and effectiveness of the design.


** Additionally, (another oft overlooked aspect of ISD/RFZ gap design...), if the ISD is for a control room, one MUST know the ISD of the tracking/live room as well in order to design an effective ISD/RFZ gap for the control room!

[Glenn Kuras]

what kinda width on the corner panels can i get away with?

24" which is the standard size.

[damien907]

i cant see that youtube link for some reason the last half of it is ************ all stars

[RLD]

Here's the same thing in pdf.
http://www.basstraps.net/DIY-BASS-TRAPS-MADE-EASY.pdf

[SAC]

Oh, I think I now better understand why the description seemed confusing between bass traps and broadband panels!

I might suggest that those would make great broadband specular absorbers - but not so great bass traps - even with ~4 inch spacing - as for about the same cost and effort, more effective methods exist.

If porous bass traps are desired, I might suggest either going with straddled corner mounted panels would be much more effective and superchunk style absorbers even more effective instead of wall mounted panels - if for no other reason than the corner placement moves the absorbent material further out from the wall and closer to the optimal maximum velocity quarter wave point for lower frequencies than does simple spaced wall placement.

(And superchunks made with the lower density commodity pink stuff may even be less expensive to make.)