The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Is a totally dead room useful for a small home studio?
Old 19th June 2009
  #31
Gear Nut
 
Bouldy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newpollution View Post
Hi,
I'm trying to set up a little home studio.
Old 19th June 2009
  #32
Gear Nut
 
Bouldy's Avatar
 

BTW Frank, as you are ex military, my money is on you for a hand to hand battle! LOL! heh
Old 19th June 2009
  #33
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bouldy View Post
BTW Frank, as you are ex military, my money is on you for a hand to hand battle! LOL! heh
That'd be a pretty safe bet.

Frank
Old 23rd June 2009
  #34
Lives for gear
 
wesarvin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfyr View Post

So, dare I ask, is anyone interested in the acoustical concepts???
Yes, we are interested in your explanations of acoustical concepts. However, I think that we "laypersons" would rather hear these concepts without an air of pretentious snobbery.
Old 23rd June 2009
  #35
Lives for gear
 
andrebrito's Avatar
 

Foxfyr:

I agree with you that using only absorption in a control room is nowadays something that is outdated. Still some acoustical engineers still do it. Look at Newell's studios (I have been in a couple of them where I live)...

More important for me is to discuss the philosophies and concepts behind each studio design.

The only thing I don't agree with you is saying that Cox's box is something perceptible for laymen, it is not. It is quite a complex study. Sure BEM stuff is not new in the academic world.
Old 24th June 2009
  #36
Lives for gear
 
audiothings's Avatar
 

foxfyr, welcome to the forum. i will buy you a great meal if you are ever in my city.

Quote:
But as far as this stuff being too advanced for the readers...while I find that insulting, I will let them decide that! The validity of the concepts nevertheless stands.
Quote:
I must admit to growing a bit tired of the attitude that the readers are too simple or incapable of understanding this stuff
Amen! while i agree with frank that the OP is probably looking for the most obvious solution, this forum would be much more useful if we explored other solutions, if slightly less complicated...

the obvious solutions have been made abundantly clear over and over and over again...

Quote:
Small room ambience always sounds bad, and is best killed with absorption.
that is a sweeping generalization if there ever was one!

Old 24th June 2009
  #37
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 

Yes it's a generalization...and it's true 95% of the time. We're not talking about small rooms that have benefited from good design. We're talking abotu 10x10x8 domestic rooms with sheet rock and carpet. If you can show me one single room like that (or close to it) that sounds good I'll gladly change my mind, but over 25 years of recording I've yet to see one.

Frank
Old 25th June 2009
  #38
Lives for gear
 
audiothings's Avatar
 

Quote:
We're not talking about small rooms that have benefited from good design.
sorry frank, i was under the assumption that we are attempting "good design" here. as i said, simple solutions have been covered abundantly and any further attempts to reiterate the facts are redundant (yes... the benefit of fiberglass absorption is a proven fact... your product is actually useful!).

Quote:
We're talking abotu 10x10x8 domestic rooms
make me a concession... how about a 12 x 11 x 10 room? (actually, my control room, almost exactly)... i want to know from you, if this is impossible to treat as discussed above, with a little knowledge , logic and common sense...

no... i am not talking about the double PhD types... i am talking about somebody as stupid as me, but someone who is willing to put some time into learning... someone who is not seeking the simplest possible solution...

personally (between you, me, the rest of the gearslutz, the WWW and any "intelligent" extra terrestrials) i am willing to bet that it IS possible, tho' I promise you, I cannot prove it... I am just a layman.

more power...
Old 25th June 2009
  #39
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiothings View Post
sorry frank, i was under the assumption that we are attempting "good design" here. as i said, simple solutions have been covered abundantly and any further attempts to reiterate the facts are redundant (yes... the benefit of fiberglass absorption is a proven fact... your product is actually useful!).

Let me be clear: I meant good structural design, not acoustic design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiothings View Post
make me a concession... how about a 12 x 11 x 10 room? (actually, my control room, almost exactly)... i want to know from you, if this is impossible to treat as discussed above, with a little knowledge , logic and common sense...

no... i am not talking about the double PhD types... i am talking about somebody as stupid as me, but someone who is willing to put some time into learning... someone who is not seeking the simplest possible solution...

personally (between you, me, the rest of the gearslutz, the WWW and any "intelligent" extra terrestrials) i am willing to bet that it IS possible, tho' I promise you, I cannot prove it... I am just a layman.
No concession necessary...that's another common room size (though the ceiling is higher than you'd typically find). As I stated in another post elsewhere, well thought out acoustic design should always be the goal. What I'm objecting to (as mildly as possible) is the technical language that's way over everybody's heads. It's just not very helpful, that's all. I'm sure there are other intelligent, industrious people just like you who are motivated to go out and study acoustics in this kind of depth, but I'd say you're the exception, not the rule. That doesn't make anyone stupid...it simply means that they have different priorities. We all have to decide how we're going to spend our time, and most people in these forums would rather spend it playing music, recording music or mixing music.

Frank
Old 25th June 2009
  #40
Gear Guru
Specify

Hi newpollution. Could you specify the size of your room(s) please?
The ratio of the rooms' dimensions could be the major deciding factor in your case. Pick the biggest room with the least related dimensions.
Most of us are confined by circumstances to small rooms. e.g. 14 x 10 x 7 feet or such
In such rooms we try to trap the dominant modal behaviour as much as possible. No amount of Bass Trapping will be too much! When all this Bass trapping is in place, the individual slaps and flutters off discrete surfaces become horribly apparent, we end up having to kill them. The result is inevitably a dead room. Many seem to have a big problem accepting this well known reality. Attempts are made to include liveness in some form. At the short distances involved I believe most attempts at diffusion or liveness are pretty futile. The BBC concluded that a pretty even soundfield can be achieved with absorption only. There appears to be a big taboo about deadness. I have grown used to it and actually like the peacefullness of it. In my dead 'White Room' Imaging is superb. Mixes translate to the outside world very well.
Recording is a different matter altogether. Vocals and Acoustic guitars need to be clear and free of colourations. Dead is good for this. On the other hand, Drums, Sax, Fiddle etc. sound godawful in a dead room. Even Altiverb cannot rescue them!
DD
Sound Sound - Homepage
Old 28th June 2009
  #41
LFO
Gear Nut
 
LFO's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfyr View Post
So cutting strips of 1/8" luan ply and routing small 1/2 width channels every so often (dependent upon the opening size), assembling the strips into a grid, and nesting the strips within a frame is too difficult?

OK. Then I guess this topic will exclude those who should not be handing a hammer, drill, or screwdriver as well (heck, to have a bit of fun with this, let's include tooth brushes as well!) - and including those who might chose to buy the ready made panels!

I just persist in the notion, howver unfounded it may be, that folks can sometimes do amazing things if made aware of options and concepts that can be readily learned if there is reason to pursue the appropriate use of such techniques.

(Edit: I am not representing ANY commercial entity!)
Foxfyr, what you don't seem to get is that you are diving into a bunch of gooblty gook that most of us don't want to deal with. People like me don't have time to dive into the world of acoustics and, *shocker* many of us don't want to! We just want practical, layman's terms advice on how to treat our rooms.

You finally give some practical advice by somewhat describing how to build your phase gratings, but you don't go far enough. How big should it be? What do you mean by channels? Should they go the full length of the wood or should there be lots of small channels? How many should be built? How much wall coverage? How deep should they be? Strips? What strips? How long? How wide?

Do you get my point? You've provided nothing that is practical or useful. All due respect, but it is obvious that you don't run an acoustic business, you would drive off many customers! Why do you think Glen and others are successful? They dumb down the gooblty gook, give us practical advice in terms we will understand, tell us what their recommendations are and then let us make a decision.

You are probably a really nice person and you certainly know your acoustics. However you are really coming off condescending and pretentious. I'm guessing that it is not your goal, so you might want to adjust the rudder a bit...perhaps by providing a practical guide to building phase grates. They sound like they would be a useful addition to a small home studio.

-Kevin
Old 28th June 2009
  #42
Lives for gear
 
audiothings's Avatar
 

i wish to unequivocally register my complete disagreement with the previous poster. i am respectful and grateful for foxfyr's contribution. What i need is pointers and food for thought because i am interested in acoustics. this is what foxfyr provides. (give a man a fish and...).

there is nothing more to discuss if we do not want to take things to the next level. anybody wanting a fiberglass or quadratic diffuser solution can do a search. it has been covered a million times here and elsewhere.

i resent attempts to thwart meaningful discussions because "most of us don't want to deal with" it... i call it middle class mentality... if you don't want to put any effort into figuring out the "gooblty gook", and you are brimming with wisdom from the advice you have already received here, why waste your time?

now, if foxfyr would kindly simplify his language and be more precise with his descriptions, the lazier amongst us might also benefit. the rest of us can simply use his words as fodder for our own research.
Old 28th June 2009
  #43
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 

+1!

Find it a bit strange that a "studio construction and acoustics" forum should be permanently stuck on a low information level. There are certainly quite a few people around that have read the FAQ's and want more!
Old 28th June 2009
  #44
LFO
Gear Nut
 
LFO's Avatar
 

I see where you are both coming from, I guess I was not clear enough in my previous post. I'm all for a deeper discussion of a topic and have no desire to `thwart meaningful discussions'. If people want to dive in deep, go for it and more power to you! However, there are those of us who don't want to dive deep not because we are `lazy' but because we simply don't have the time to dive deep. Hence, my comments.

If Foxfyr had posted all of his information with a good, practical guide along with it I would have not said a word. But he didn't. Instead he dove deep, even though it is obvious that the OP was not looking for something that deep.

To be clear, have the deep dive. Kudos to anyone who wants to do it. But if you are going to reply to the OP then also provide an answer in the context of what will be useful for the OP. It would also be helpful to not assume that people who don't want to dive deep on the subject are not lazy. There are so many hours in the day and for many people they just don't have the time. It's kind of like wearing a watch. You want one and you want it to work well, but you don't have the time to learn all the internal workings. That isn't laziness, that is just being practical.

Best,
Kevin
Old 28th June 2009
  #45
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LFO View Post
I see where you are both coming from, I guess I was not clear enough in my previous post. I'm all for a deeper discussion of a topic and have no desire to `thwart meaningful discussions'. If people want to dive in deep, go for it and more power to you! However, there are those of us who don't want to dive deep not because we are `lazy' but because we simply don't have the time to dive deep. Hence, my comments.

If Foxfyr had posted all of his information with a good, practical guide along with it I would have not said a word. But he didn't. Instead he dove deep, even though it is obvious that the OP was not looking for something that deep.

To be clear, have the deep dive. Kudos to anyone who wants to do it. But if you are going to reply to the OP then also provide an answer in the context of what will be useful for the OP. It would also be helpful to not assume that people who don't want to dive deep on the subject are not lazy. There are so many hours in the day and for many people they just don't have the time. It's kind of like wearing a watch. You want one and you want it to work well, but you don't have the time to learn all the internal workings. That isn't laziness, that is just being practical.
Exactly.

I thought I was very clear with Foxfyr and Audiothings, but maybe I wasn't. The fact that he was giving that depth of information was fine, but the fact that it was completely unhelpful was not. As correct as any information may be, it means *nothing* if it's not comprehensible. We're not debating the finer points of theoretical acoustics here. We're trying to solve problems...an impractical stream of theory does nothing to advance that objective.

Besides, if you look around you'll notice that there are several very well-known acousticians who frequent these forums and provide high-level information all the time: Andre Vare, Rod Gervais, Jeff Hedback and others. The difference is that they're focused on solutions.

Frank
Old 29th June 2009
  #46
Lives for gear
 
audiothings's Avatar
 

my apologies to frank and kevin... don't want to generate no bad vibes here...

lets keep the good work going...

Old 29th June 2009
  #47
LFO
Gear Nut
 
LFO's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiothings View Post
my apologies to frank and kevin... don't want to generate no bad vibes here...

lets keep the good work going...

No worries! I think we are all on the same page, we just had to figure out which paragraph.

It would be nice to get instructions on the phase gratings, my interest is peaked.

-Kevin
Old 29th June 2009
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiothings View Post
my apologies to frank and kevin... don't want to generate no bad vibes here...

lets keep the good work going...

Absolutely. No hard feelings here at all.

Frank
Old 29th June 2009
  #49
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LFO View Post
Foxfyr, what you don't seem to get is that you are diving into a bunch of gooblty gook that most of us don't want to deal with. People like me don't have time to dive into the world of acoustics and, *shocker* many of us don't want to! We just want practical, layman's terms advice on how to treat our rooms.
-Kevin
I'm sorry, I feel an urge to jump into the discussion at this point. Without a basic understanding of physics and mathematics, there is no way to simply "treat your room". Copy-and-paste from internet forums is not acoustic design. So my appeal to everyone who's looking for a simple solution, pay someone to do it. Or be prepared to dive deep.
Old 29th June 2009
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 

It's flower time!




Perusing a website called "google.com" gleamed the follow piece of easily absorbed information on phase gratings: http://www.resolutionmag.com/pdfs/SW...dsmallroom.pdf

Old 29th June 2009
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 

Question for Foxfyr: does phase gratings have the same approximate distance rule as diffusors?
Old 29th June 2009
  #52
Gear Guru
Phase Gratings

Phase Gratings do seem to be a genuine invention and somewhat fascinating. However I think it will be quite difficult to find a place to use them. When someone around here does, please do take Measurements before and aft, and photos. This talk of extra space, cupboards, space above and adjacent to rooms, seems very hypothetical. In fact even the mention of cupboards or other alcoves is a bit dangerous. Such spaces are generally small and nasty. In the vast majority of cases around here we are dealing with small rooms, SMALL PERIOD. Not small but conveniently surrounded by emply unused other rooms!
In our small rooms I can see no place to put Phase Gratings, and no distance long enough to allow Diffusors to work. I reckon such tangential suggestions can be quite confusing, particularly when couched in seemingly erudite verbiage.
Personally, whenever I get confused or frustrated in some acoustic matter, I go to Mr. Everest. His writing is clear, concise, simple with fallacy, deep enough to withstand any level of scrutiny. Respect.

DD
Old 29th June 2009
  #53
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 

Haven't thought about these construction before Foxfyr mentioned them. For that I'm grateful! Seems like they can be very useful for various applications. Not only for coupling to other spaces(which is probably, as duly noted, not an option for most people). The paper linked above says that phase gratings can be used in front of absorbers as a way to increase absorbtion. They increase in low end absorbtion is quite remarkable if that paper and the auralex sales blurb is worth its download bandwidth.

Hope Foxfyr can elucidate the subject!


As for diffusers in a small room, what's the problem? Going by the rule of five times wavelength of lower design frequency gives a minimum distance of (343/500)*5=3.5 meters (10 feet). That is a very conservative estimate. Normally, 3 times wavelength is quoted as minimum distance, giving a minimum listener distance of 2 meters (6 feet) for a typical <500Hz diffuser. That should be very possible to use in smaller rooms! AFAIK, these figures are for 1D diffusors with dividers between the wells. 2D diffusors needs less distance. Without dividers between the wells, even less so. So, 2 meters from a skyline should be a safe distance - putting diffusion well within the scope of small rooms. Or..? Am I being too naive?
Old 29th June 2009
  #54
Gear Nut
 

As a person who is learning acoustics, but still has a long way to go, I have found the expert advice from all sides to be very beneficial, and I thank you all for that! For me, I do want to know the more advanced strategies that are applicable, but I can see how that is not the norm, and could cause the eyes of many to glaze over as they scroll through long posts. Those people are probably better of hiring a consultant anyway. My choice has been to pick up F. Alton Everest's Acoustic Handbook, and Leo Beranek's Concert Halls and Opera Houses (though I'm not there yet ) and study. I have read many posts from Frank and Ethan, and they are clearly professionals - both in their knowledge of Acoustics, and their respectful approach to all here in GS. They are undoubtedly class-acts, and represent themselves and their companies extremely well. There are others that know a lot about Acoustics and/or Audio, but don't hold themselves up to the same standard. Its unfortunate when a detailed answer to a question becomes a rant, and even worse when it is mannered to be a personal attack.

Personally, I don't post my name because I don't feel I am credible enough to contribute here yet, and I can understand if others feel the same. We must all decide alone when we have enough scrupulous knowledge and character to represent ourselves in the public domain.
Old 30th June 2009
  #55
Lives for gear
 
Keith Moore's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 666666 View Post
Note: typically, the floor will always be reflecting. It's not very practical to cover the entire floor with 4"+ of rockwool or whatever. Carpeting only kills the highs and leaves the mud bouncing around, you're often better off just leaving the floor bare... or just using some area rugs here and there.

In sum, unless you wish to clutter your floor with thick bass traps, it will always be reflecting. This is why I personally like to trap the ceiling heavily to eliminate standing waves between floor and ceiling. A heavily trapped ceiling helps to tame whatever the floor is throwing into the room. (Still need to trap the walls too of course.)
What if you have a small room with concrete floors with thin carpet covering? How should you treat the ceiling?
Old 30th June 2009
  #56
Gear Guru
Indeed

Lupo, I also noticed that remarkable increase in the performance of corner absorbers etc. when PG's were placed in front. It makes sense, but it would increase the depth quite significantly. It is such an improvement that I have been tempted, but...
I do hope people will experiment with PG's and show us the results. This is not snake oil, just hard to accommodate, but so are most useful treatments.
Keith, simple question, hard answer. The BBC use to have a concept called 'Anti-Carpet'
A lot of Limp Membrane Modules mounted on the ceiling. These would typically have a vague absorption peak around 70 Hz or so to go with the typical UK ceiling of 8 ft. Lots of stuff up there, but you can bet they knew what they were doing. Search the BBC tech archives for LF Absorber Modules.
DD
Old 30th June 2009
  #57
Lives for gear
 
audiothings's Avatar
 

Quote:
I also noticed that remarkable increase in the performance of corner absorbers etc. when PG's were placed in front.
how about behind?
Old 30th June 2009
  #58
Gear Guru
Coincidence

Audiothings, intriguing similarity. However, in the case of the BBC module, the dividers are intended to diminish resonances in the air gap. This would be roughly similar to the acoustic batts used in stud partitions.
DD
Old 25th August 2009
  #59
Gear Addict
 
tedpenn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfyr View Post
Wow....Not sure where to wade into this one!

Is a "dead" room useful? Sure, if you are making anechoic measurements without gear sufficient to window out reflections!

As no one seems to have made any attempt to define the problem being addressed, nor the goals desired, we seem to have utterly confused destructive specular reflections and room modes with the sense of space a later arriving semi-diffuse soundfield imparts to a small acoustical space.

And "small room ambiance always sounds bad"???

Techniques do indeed exist to address BOTH issues without ending up with a claustrophobic anechoic chamber as if it were some kind of a panacea solution!

Adjacent rooms, storage areas, closets, hallways, attic space, area above a suspended ceiling, etc can be coupled to the main space by the use of phase gratings - similar to their LONG time use in light physics - only of larger size to accommodate the longer audio frequencies!

A simple example of a commercially available phase grating is the pArt Science space couple. And the use of a phase grating has myriad uses if one is simply aware of the behavior of sound (or light) waves through an appropriately sized phase grating.

And while the mathematical behavior of the phase grating is beyond the scope of this thread, suffice it to say that it allows sound at near normal incident to pass through unabated whereupon it bounces around in the coupled space, becoming more diffuse and losing energy and then re-emerges upon a later reflection where it is again near normal incidence to the phase grating.

At other than normal incidence (normal meaning perpendicular-> 90 degrees), the depth of the grating functions roughly the same as an absorptive medium where the effected wavelengths begin at ~4 times the grating depth (and adjusted for the appropriate angle of incidence).

Thus one is able to address specular reflection within the room proper and to also add a later arriving, lower intensity diffuse field to the room!

And all I can say regarding the proposed anechoic chambers so many are want to build is - aside from testing equipment - "get me out of there".heh
Hi- could you PM me with some contact info? Would love to run a project by you...

Thanks!
Old 25th August 2009
  #60
Gear Maniac
 

Gee, I missed this thread, but am very intrigued by some of the stuff foxyr mentioned.

hope he is still around?? if so, maybe he could start a thread, the title of his own choosing, and RUN with his ideas! I for one would be avidly reading it.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump