The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Amsterdam Mastering - construction thread Modular Synthesizers
Old 27th October 2013
  #451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
Yes, hides small surface irregularities + dust and:

- Give a nice slightly padded looks (looks much better)

- Makes sure when you take pictures (especially with a flash) you don't see the structure behind through the fabric.
Thanks for the reply, Thomas. I'll look into what it would take to add some Dacron to the install. I never use a flash for pictures though, that looks awful!

Craig
Old 7th November 2013
  #452
Gear Maniac
 

It's such a great read and yet so many questions remain!

For me that would be the front wall RFZ design: Surely that's all proprietary yet...

I'm trying to understand how a front wall like the AM one works for free standing speakers. Sure, it works perfectly for flush mounted main monitors because there's no sbir from the front wall to deal with but in this case the sweet spot gets exposed by the mirror images of the speakers as far as I can tell. Or...(most likely) my brain isn't up to the task :P

Cheers!
Old 7th November 2013
  #453
Gear Maniac
 

It's such a great read and yet so many questions remain!

For me the most topical question is the front wall RFZ design: Surely that's all proprietary yet...

I'm trying to understand how a front wall like the AM one works for free standing speakers. Sure, it works perfectly for flush mounted main monitors because there's no sbir from the front wall to deal with but in this case the sweet spot gets exposed by the mirror images of the speakers as far as I can tell. Or...(most likely) my brain isn't up to the task :P

Cheers!
Old 7th November 2013
  #454
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vank View Post
It's such a great read and yet so many questions remain!

For me the most topical question is the front wall RFZ design: Surely that's all proprietary yet...

I'm trying to understand how a front wall like the AM one works for free standing speakers. Sure, it works perfectly for flush mounted main monitors because there's no sbir from the front wall to deal with but in this case the sweet spot gets exposed by the mirror images of the speakers as far as I can tell. Or...(most likely) my brain isn't up to the task :P

Cheers!
That's because the front wall is not a RFZ structure...

It's a psycho-acoustic cue, responding to "self-noises", so the noise we emit while working in the room. It is not seen by the speakers.

It is transparent to LMF and LF. And whatever small % of energy is still reflected in the LF is in Quasi-minimum Phase - so the impact on the phase response is negligible. So we call this a "Quasi-Minimum Phase" mouting.

Minimum phase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's why the speakers have to be right up against the wall. Or it doesn't work. 20cm in front already doesn't work so well anymore.

When using free standing speakers that technique actually works a lot better than trapping the front wall in a conventional way or with a slat resonator etc.

Of course, flush mounting is the best option.

On GS you can have a look at the Matthew Gray Mastering build thread as well. Same technique.
Old 7th November 2013
  #455
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
That's because the front wall is not a RFZ structure...

It's a psycho-acoustic cue, responding to "self-noises", so the noise we emit while working in the room. It is not seen by the speakers.

It is transparent to LMF and LF. And whatever small % of energy is still reflected in the LF is in Quasi-minimum Phase - so the impact on the phase response is negligible. So we call this a "Quasi-Minimum Phase" mouting.

Minimum phase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's why the speakers have to be right up against the wall. Or it doesn't work. 20cm in front already doesn't work so well anymore.

When using free standing speakers that technique actually works a lot better than trapping the front wall in a conventional way or with a slat resonator etc.

Of course, flush mounting is the best option.

On GS you can have a look at the Matthew Gray Mastering build thread as well. Same technique.
But a too much deep speaker could cause some problems in the LMF because of the few reflection back of the false wall no? The 800´s or duntech seem to be pretty deep.

I presume that the thinner the speaker is, the better it works...
Old 7th November 2013
  #456
Gear Maniac
 

.
Old 7th November 2013
  #457
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by achaiss View Post
But a too much deep speaker could cause some problems in the LMF because of the few reflection back of the false wall no? The 800´s or duntech seem to be pretty deep.

I presume that the thinner the speaker is, the better it works...
So far only 2 types of speakers have been problematic - and of course, don't try Dipoles that way... though we made a studio upgrade in Norway few years back that uses Dipoles and made it work (Sonovo Mastering). Just had to work on it more and change a couple things during design phase - but nothing too difficult when I look back. The 800s in this studio and Duntechs are performing very well. So are ATCs, and a lot of others in this config.

The 2 models (can't say which they are - let's stay polite) have an odd design to start with - which I would qualify as compromised towards HiFi. One of them seems to exhibit a form of interaction with the floor that is somehow enhanced when mounted this way. An organ pipe resonance that creates a very narrow Q deep notch around 150Hz. Still hard to tell today what was exactly going on.

So there is a speaker "black list" - not that I want that, but had to.
When asked to work with these, we either take another approach or simply ask the engineer to consider using something else - something proven to work well. Which is everything bar these 2 models.

This design approach simply doesn't tolerate any freak behaviour - it's like clockwork.

It's not about the depth of the speaker but rather how well the cabinet/speaker is designed. I see how you could come to that conclusion at first, but dig into it and you'll see that it is in fact not a problem at all. Moving the speaker away from the wall, now that's trouble. But mostly because the area that takes care of the rear energy is then not optimum in surface nor functioning at it's best potential.

Attached examples of responses. 2 different rooms, one with large speakers in wall, the other with large free standing speakers with 2 subs. Both Mastering rooms. They are both quite similar, even if the LF are better maintained in the wall mounted one (better very deep low end). Floor effect in the mid 100Hz is about similar, although a bit more pronounced in the wall mounted room.

Hope this helps.
Attached Thumbnails
Amsterdam Mastering - construction thread-example-gs.jpg  
Old 8th November 2013
  #458
Gear Maniac
 

It helps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
It's not about the depth of the speaker but rather how well the cabinet/speaker is designed. I see how you could come to that conclusion at first, but dig into it and you'll see that it is in fact not a problem at all. Moving the speaker away from the wall, now that's trouble. But mostly because the area that takes care of the rear energy is then not optimum in surface nor functioning at it's best potential.
crucial point, I see exactly what you talk about.

I tend to prefer (can't say that only with graphs but..) the freestanding response.
Less deep bottom (but not really disturbing), but better control of floor effect.
Old 8th November 2013
  #459
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by achaiss View Post
I tend to prefer (can't say that only with graphs but..) the freestanding response.
Less deep bottom (but not really disturbing), but better control of floor effect.
That is a very bold statement

Never think you know from a graph how it sounds. I've been to studios that measured very flat at sweet spot thanks to a Trinnov system inserted for example.

Reality: sounded horrible. Weird hollow bass, no depth, mediocre stereo.

In this case, the in-wall system is a single woofer speaker, the Quasi Flush Mount one a dual woofer speaker. Hence a different interaction with the floor due to 2 woofers at different heights - so a different graph. The phase response is better with the in-wall system, and always is.

Hence you think the floor effect is better, but it's not. The FR graph looks better, not the phase response.

But ETC are very similar.

Which is best now?

In my experience, if well executed, in-wall mounting is systematically superior to free standing. And it's not a subtle difference.

Between Quasi Flush Mount and proper in-wall, the difference is very much reduced but still exists.

So, all other things being equal (same speakers, same room) in-wall is always better.
Old 8th November 2013
  #460
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Outstanding comments, Thomas!
Old 8th November 2013
  #461
Gear Addict
 
WalterPPK's Avatar
 

Very interesting read! Wouldn't it be better to make the front wall surface a diffuser instead of a flat surface?
Old 8th November 2013
  #462
Lives for gear
 
studjo's Avatar
 

so I have to switch speakers I fear
Old 9th November 2013
  #463
Gear Maniac
 

Thank you Thomas! It's a privilege that you take the time to answer these question. Much appreciated!
Old 9th November 2013
  #464
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalterPPK View Post
Very interesting read! Wouldn't it be better to make the front wall surface a diffuser instead of a flat surface?
Well... no. It's in fact a pretty bad idea within this framework.

Let me put it that way: the membrane that is in the wall - well it is the wall in the area right behind the speakers and nearby surfaces - is engineered in a very different way from the rest of the wall which is highly dampened and thick - even if you can't see it in the pictures because the visual finish is usually coherent over the whole wall. Behind that wall is a large and rather complex LF and Sub frequencies trap, built between the inner shell and the outer shell.

You need to know how that is going to behave, precisely. So what it's natural resonant frequency is, so you know when it becomes "transparent", when it resonates and when it is "visible". You must have as much control as you can over this. This is not a shot in the dark, far from it. And it works with the speaker right up against it. Not 1m away. Not 30cm away.

A QRD or PRD diffusor is a very stiff wood construction whose mechanical behaviour is nearly and likely impossible to figure out precisely- if they even have one. So how am-I going to know what will happen? I can tell for sure that they are transparent to the very low frequencies, but around 100Hz and often lower, they are not. They already bounce back a lot energy.

This is why you shouldn't have large areas covered with these on your back wall btw - keep them relatively small (relative to the size of the room, distance, frequency at which you want them out of the way etc) so LF can mostly diffract around them. In many ways, in Mastering suites and Control Rooms (not true for Live rooms) we make sure their size is coherent with their cut-off frequency. Hope that makes sense?

(I should probably mention that we do not use them in a conventional way - not like in a RFZ/LEDE room. We want them invisible to speakers only visible to humans / self noises. Though the general idea stays valid in any control room - don't cover too large surface with these. Use slats instead if you are looking for more room 'liveliness' and you DIY).

A poly-like diffusor is equally problematic due to variables hard to predict such as the tension in the membrane, how it is mounted (bracing? no bracing? etc). The diffusor has 99% chances of actually messing up your LMF unless you know exactly how it will behave - a very tedious an long calculation. It also bears the question of the type of LF treatment behind it if it lets LF & LMF go through properly (which should be the case usually) - will it prevent LF bounce back from the structure behind? I can already tell you it is by no means a Quasi minimum phase scenario unless the trap is massive and efficient all the way down to the subs. Expect problems. How is it going to be coherent with the rest of the wall? The list of compromises is substantial.

It is in fact doable with diffusors if you have a lot of distance between the speaker and the front wall, which is not the case here - we want it close to keep the small % of energy that bounces off the membrane as close to minimum phase as possible - which means the small LF boost can easily be managed with a simple Tilt EQ or similar. If well designed you don't even need that.

At a distance, you won't be quasi minimum phase, so expect the whole usual train of dips and boosts.

One of many other questions is: why would you want a diffusor there anyway?

The frequencies that radiate in an omnidirectional or cardioïd pattern from the speaker are generally speaking in the lower frequencies spectrum - depending on cabinet design etc. Some speakers like the Geithan are directional even in the bass for example. So it's safe to say that very little MF and HF radiate from the back of the vast majority of speakers.

Which means that the frequency range where the diffusion will be efficient is very narrow, if even relevant. If you're lucky and your diffusor is efficient down to 500Hz (not many are under 800Hz) then you'll maybe have a 500Hz- 800Hz or 500Hz to 1KHz range available for diffusions?

Pretty much useless. And again, what's the use?

If not mounting QMF, then stick to a slat front wall with a serious bass trap behind - and I mean serious. So you don't get any feedback from the front wall in the LF and LMF but still avoid nasty perceived deadness from the room.

We used that in the past. Works ok. Though the current technique yields much better/solid results on all counts.

This is a brief and very general post, it is a lot more complicated and complex than that - and I sadly have little time for posting on forums. But I hope it clears up some areas.

My main point is: don't try this at home. Stick to easier processes.
Old 9th November 2013
  #465
Gear Head
 
TEEO's Avatar
Hi Thomas, i studied all the worldwide internet threads about your FTB design, i really think it's the best acoustic studio approach (with also the Boggy's Design) that i have ever seen and studied.

As you said make the front wall surface a diffusor doesn't work with FTB design, because of the negative interaction with the wall that must act as big membrane trap.
And with every other acoustic design put diffusors just behind speakers is pretty useless too.

I totally agree when you recommend:
"If not mounting QMF, then stick to a slat front wall with a serious bass trap behind - and I mean serious. So you don't get any feedback from the front wall in the LF and LMF but still avoid nasty perceived deadness from the room."
This is the method that the more often i employ and the most efficient that i have tested (after your FTB, but about FTB i am not enough qualified to manage it completly, like you do, hahaha).


When you ask "why would you want a diffusor there anyway?" and when you tell that with a efficiency only beetween 800hz and 1khz a diffusor is useless and that you would like to know the use.
Maybe i have some explanations, that i can share from some of my experiments.

I have re-built some home studio's friends and or helped them to have a better acoustics and some with very very little budget,and one thing that i experiment with 2D diffusion is that even with a very small bandwidth between 800 hz and 1khz and not very wide too, is that (in a room that is not very treated) if you place it on the front wall at the same height of the speakers and exactly between them (the center of the front wall), the phantom image becomes better and more focused.
Better than with nothing (drywall) and also better than just porous absorber.


(Ps: I'm french too, and if one day we can talk more about acoustics design it would be an honor, but it's already a privilege to read you on forums, thank you.)
Old 9th November 2013
  #466
Here for the gear
 

Relatively recent acoustical designs (from Reflection Rich Zone, later Early Sound Scattering, Ambient Anechoic ("Massenburg room"), MyRoom, FTB, FDRZ...) are evolving towards using diffusing elements even on first reflection areas and more.
There is another (similar) example with different type of diffusers:
AES E-Library
Old 9th November 2013
  #467
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltra View Post
Relatively recent acoustical designs (from Reflection Rich Zone, later Early Sound Scattering, Ambient Anechoic ("Massenburg room"), MyRoom, FTB, FDRZ...) are evolving towards using diffusing elements even on first reflection areas and more.
There is another (similar) example with different type of diffusers:
AES E-Library
MK,

FTB does not use Diffusion at early reflections points. They are meant to be invisible to speaker and only interact with our self-noises.
http://prorecordingworkshop.lefora.c...e#.Un6Ykvm9REY




Quote:
Originally Posted by TEEO
I have re-built some home studio's friends and or helped them to have a better acoustics and some with very very little budget,and one thing that i experiment with 2D diffusion is that even with a very small bandwidth between 800 hz and 1khz and not very wide too, is that (in a room that is not very treated) if you place it on the front wall at the same height of the speakers and exactly between them (the center of the front wall), the phantom image becomes better and more focused.
Better than with nothing (drywall) and also better than just porous absorber.
Well, in a room that is not very treated. And I assume with the speakers away from the walls and diffusors? This way you actually 'reduced' ER. (EDIT: if the diffusor is centered between the 2 speakers, it is also subject to more HF & MF than right behind, due to "facing" more the side of the speaker rather than the back)

In a FTB, this will be detrimental, or at best useless within the required speaker setup of the model. But in your case / scenario, I'm sure it helped.

A lot of all this is very much dependent on room model, the current state of the room response, what your objectives are etc.

Bonne soirée,
Old 9th November 2013
  #468
Here for the gear
 

Yes I know read between the lines:
"Relatively recent acoustical designs... are evolving towards using diffusing elements even on first reflection areas and more."



Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
MK,

FTB does not use Diffusion at early reflections points. They are meant to be invisible to speaker and only interact with our self-noises.
Front-To-Back Acoustic Technique in The Acoustics Forum Forum


...
Old 10th November 2013
  #469
Lives for gear
 
DirkB's Avatar
 

Oh, I love these threads where Thomas digs in and freely shares his wealth of acoustics knowledge. And every time I am proud to have my own FTB room designed by Thomas and very greatfull that he pushed the flush mounted design on me ;-).

Now, don't want to rob this great thread further. I was in Darius' studio last month and his room sounds awesome for sure.

Regards,
Dirk
Old 20th November 2013
  #470
Gear Addict
 
WalterPPK's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
Well... no. It's in fact a pretty bad idea within this framework.

............... My main point is: don't try this at home. Stick to easier processes.
You're totally right. Thanks for enlightening us more on the subject of the front wall treatment.
Old 26th November 2013
  #471
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
Well... no. It's in fact a pretty bad idea within this framework.

Let me put it that way: the membrane that is in the wall - well it is the wall in the area right behind the speakers and nearby surfaces - is engineered in a very different way from the rest of the wall which is highly dampened and thick - even if you can't see it in the pictures because the visual finish is usually coherent over the whole wall. Behind that wall is a large and rather complex LF and Sub frequencies trap, built between the inner shell and the outer shell.

You need to know how that is going to behave, precisely. So what it's natural resonant frequency is, so you know when it becomes "transparent", when it resonates and when it is "visible". You must have as much control as you can over this. This is not a shot in the dark, far from it. And it works with the speaker right up against it. Not 1m away. Not 30cm away.

A QRD or PRD diffusor is a very stiff wood construction whose mechanical behaviour is nearly and likely impossible to figure out precisely- if they even have one. So how am-I going to know what will happen? I can tell for sure that they are transparent to the very low frequencies, but around 100Hz and often lower, they are not. They already bounce back a lot energy.

This is why you shouldn't have large areas covered with these on your back wall btw - keep them relatively small (relative to the size of the room, distance, frequency at which you want them out of the way etc) so LF can mostly diffract around them. In many ways, in Mastering suites and Control Rooms (not true for Live rooms) we make sure their size is coherent with their cut-off frequency. Hope that makes sense?

(I should probably mention that we do not use them in a conventional way - not like in a RFZ/LEDE room. We want them invisible to speakers only visible to humans / self noises. Though the general idea stays valid in any control room - don't cover too large surface with these. Use slats instead if you are looking for more room 'liveliness' and you DIY).

A poly-like diffusor is equally problematic due to variables hard to predict such as the tension in the membrane, how it is mounted (bracing? no bracing? etc). The diffusor has 99% chances of actually messing up your LMF unless you know exactly how it will behave - a very tedious an long calculation. It also bears the question of the type of LF treatment behind it if it lets LF & LMF go through properly (which should be the case usually) - will it prevent LF bounce back from the structure behind? I can already tell you it is by no means a Quasi minimum phase scenario unless the trap is massive and efficient all the way down to the subs. Expect problems. How is it going to be coherent with the rest of the wall? The list of compromises is substantial.

It is in fact doable with diffusors if you have a lot of distance between the speaker and the front wall, which is not the case here - we want it close to keep the small % of energy that bounces off the membrane as close to minimum phase as possible - which means the small LF boost can easily be managed with a simple Tilt EQ or similar. If well designed you don't even need that.

At a distance, you won't be quasi minimum phase, so expect the whole usual train of dips and boosts.

One of many other questions is: why would you want a diffusor there anyway?

The frequencies that radiate in an omnidirectional or cardioïd pattern from the speaker are generally speaking in the lower frequencies spectrum - depending on cabinet design etc. Some speakers like the Geithan are directional even in the bass for example. So it's safe to say that very little MF and HF radiate from the back of the vast majority of speakers.

Which means that the frequency range where the diffusion will be efficient is very narrow, if even relevant. If you're lucky and your diffusor is efficient down to 500Hz (not many are under 800Hz) then you'll maybe have a 500Hz- 800Hz or 500Hz to 1KHz range available for diffusions?

Pretty much useless. And again, what's the use?

If not mounting QMF, then stick to a slat front wall with a serious bass trap behind - and I mean serious. So you don't get any feedback from the front wall in the LF and LMF but still avoid nasty perceived deadness from the room.

We used that in the past. Works ok. Though the current technique yields much better/solid results on all counts.

This is a brief and very general post, it is a lot more complicated and complex than that - and I sadly have little time for posting on forums. But I hope it clears up some areas.

My main point is: don't try this at home. Stick to easier processes.
So don't you recommand this kind of mounting too?

Soft flush mounting with big BAD panels and serious bass trapping behind

EDIT: asking that because of the facility of a "false" absorptive front wall in some cases when a solid non resonant flush mounting hard front wall is not possible. So the energy that can't go through the BAD false front wall should be reflected / diffused in minimum phase in this case. And the hard surface of these diffusers could help the room not being too dead.
I just don't think that minimum phase is a compatible term with "diffusive"
Old 26th November 2013
  #472
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by achaiss View Post
So don't you recommand this kind of mounting too?

Soft flush mounting with big BAD panels and serious bass trapping behind
I have no experience with this particular type of mounting, but at first glance it does feel risky (to me).
I've seen something similar in a L.A. studio recently though. I do not see the benefits of in-wall mounting in soft materials such as rockwool etc.

I wouldn't call this flush/in-wall mouting or QFM mounting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by achaiss View Post
EDIT: asking that because of the facility of a "false" absorptive front wall in some cases when a solid non resonant flush mounting hard front wall is not possible. So the energy that can't go through the BAD false front wall should be reflected / diffused in minimum phase in this case. And the hard surface of these diffusers could help the room not being too dead.
I just don't think that minimum phase is a compatible term with "diffusive"
I don't follow you... This bears no similarity with proper in-wall or QFM / quasi minimum phase scenario - there seems to be a bit of confusion as to where this particular aspect of the interaction happens and within which (strict) boundaries. There is indeed no such thing as "diffused in (quasi) minimum phase" - it's an oxymoron.
Do not forget that the "quasi minimum phase" mounting can only happen within and is only beneficial to long wavelength, ie. Low Frequencies. It can't work in higher frequencies. It can't work if you have too much feedback from your front wall membrane well. . Only a small % of energy feedback is acceptable, it's a fine line.

It is also a method used to meet the FTB criteria. If not going for FTB, there are other options which may be easier & safer to implement, especially if DIY.
Old 27th November 2013
  #473
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
I wouldn't call this flush/in-wall mouting or QFM mounting.
I wouldn't too, some call it a "soft soffit"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post

I don't follow you... This bears no similarity with proper in-wall or QFM / quasi minimum phase scenario
You don't have to follow anything I am not explaining how this case works but trying to understand the statement, because I've just seen that case.
That's why I said "I just don't think that minimum phase is a compatible term with "diffusive"" with a smiley.

It was just to rebound on this sentence: "I do prefer to simulate an infinite baffle with the scm150s wherever possible. I do this by employing an 8-foot-high RPG B.A.D. Panel "wall" with the ATCs set within and flush with the "wall.""

I did not understood how could it be possible to "simulate an infinite baffle" traducing REAL flush mounted hard wall (high impedance), with a BAD panel surrounded the speakers, traducing a diffusive 4'' thick MDF board (simplified).
that's a bit strange... low frequencies should go through it for the major part of them.

And I was so curious about the diffusive effect of it just around the speakers drivers. Seems to be compromising for the image to me. But I don't know... so I asked the question. That's all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northward View Post
I do not see the benefits of in-wall mounting in soft materials such as rockwool etc
Boggy from my room acoustics for example uses this a lot ("""soft soffit""").
To him it has a benefice, I presume when the speaker is too close to the front wall..?
But he never said that it is for simulate an infinite baffle.
And he uses binary diffuser on it too (but not like a BAD panel).
Old 23rd December 2013
  #474
Gear Maniac
 

Just wondering, what are the considerations for the floating ceiling being made out of metal instead of wood?

Cheers!
Old 24th December 2013
  #475
Moderator
 
Northward's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vank View Post
Just wondering, what are the considerations for the floating ceiling being made out of metal instead of wood?

Cheers!
-Load bearing capacity and other structural considerations of the building
-Costs vs targeted Natural frequency of the Sylomer or Regufoam
-Ceiling height etc

Only a handful of of Mastering suites or smaller scale Control Rooms we have designed used a wood form-work because it is not an issue if the floor is slightly bouncy if you jump on it (hardly noticeable in fact).

In some of these cases the ceiling height was also limited so we tried and gain usable height that way.

All Live Rooms we have designed (with the exception of 1) have a steel deck sub-structure. It is difficult to make it work with wood: in a Live Room, a drummer would trigger too much acceleration in the floor and the mic stands would start to move a tiny bit - which is not acceptable so we use Steel (unless there is no way around wood and we can pour a lot of concrete & the room is small enough which was the case of our "exception").

It is not possible to use wood at all when the system is based around springs.

There is a minimum amount of concrete needed for structural stability issues, but that number will also vary with how much we need to load the decoupling device to get the lowest natural frequency possible.

Bear in mind the type and quantity and exact type, size and location of Sylomer / Regufoam / Springs is to be calculated for every area of the floor - the calculation being pretty different depending on the type of form-work (steel or wood) as they spread the load differently.

The type of concrete varies a lot too. Over wood it's seldom structural concrete but rather a type of reinforced mortar that is used to "load" the floor (whose elasticity modulus is being enhanced with additives). With steel decks and similar systems it is structural concrete with all needed steel reinforcement and topping.

Also bear in mind that the lighter floors in particular need proper ventilation to avoid air resistance within the floor cavity.
Old 9th April 2015
  #476
Here for the gear
Just registered and found this sweet thread.. Every pic from this place is killer, does it changed somehow since it was built?
Much respects goes to the owner and working crew, looks awesome, and i'm sure it sounds pretty amazing too.
Old 4th July 2018
  #477
Hey darius....is everything alright? Your website is offline for more than two weeks now
Old 4th July 2018
  #478
Lives for gear
 
Darius van H's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by housegezeichnet View Post
Hey darius....is everything alright? Your website is offline for more than two weeks now
Thanks for pointing that out, there was a problem at my web hosters end, i just got on to them and it's already fixed!

cheers! ..... D
Old 4th July 2018
  #479
Glad to hear that and realizing the fact that you seem to be so busy that you didn’t realize it so far
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Clueless / Photo diaries of recording studio construction projects
1772
vocomotion / Photo diaries of recording studio construction projects
126
Jules / So much gear, so little time
60
mischa janisch / Mastering forum
0
Herman Munster / Studio building / acoustics
16

Forum Jump
Forum Jump