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
3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 2 weeks ago
  #91
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundman2020 View Post
Nice try! Look who's talking. I'm not the one picking a fight: I'm simply responding to the fight you picked with me, with your accusation that I don't know what I'm talking about when I say that putting higher density insulation at the back and lower at the front is wrong. You supported that claim, and insinuated that I was wrong for having made it, and that the porous absorber calculator could be used to prove that the original claim was right, saying that I could use it to learn that I was wrong. That was your claim. You decided to pick a fight without even knowing who you are fighting with, or what the fight is even about. Probably not a smart move.

You might need a mirror to figure that out. Here's where you made the accusation, while addressing the poster who made the false claim:

"Soundman2020 commmented just below against your comment:

Porous Absorber Calculator

Here is a nice calculator so he can check what you said is true
."

Not only is that an accusation, it's a rather condescending accusation too: "here's a NICE calculator..."... as though you were trying to teach someone ignorant of acoustics, and insult him at the same time.

Implication: since I said that he was wrong, and you say that he is right, therefore you accuse me of being wrong, and you offer the calculator as your proof.

Accusation identified. Thanks.

Ummm.... yes you did, because that's exactly what we are talking about here: that's the original claim: that the correct way to build treatment is ""100kg/m3 in the back and 60kg/m3 in the front of panels (higher density in the back to absorb lower frequency and lower density in the front to absorb mid-high)"". That's what I commented on, and that's when you responded saying I was wrong. So yes, that is what we are talking about here. Mixing densities in panels.

I didn't make that claim: you did.... I said the opposite, actually. And I stand by it: in general, low density is better for low frequencies, high density is better for high frequencies, plus the rest of what I said: "...within the usual ranges. And it depends greatly on the type of absorption as well: mineral wool, fiberglass, acoustic foam, synthetic fibers, recycles fabrics, cellulose, wool, cotton... all have very different characteristics, as do similar products from different manufacturers. It's not nearly as simply as saying "use 100kg/m3 in the back and 60kg/m3". That's the comment you took issue with, saying that it was wrong, the original claim was right, and the calculator would prove it. Except, of course, the you now figured out that the calculator actually disproves it, and shows that my original comment was correct.

Yes you did. Go back and take a look. The original post said that the high density must go at the back, because it absorbs lows better, and the low density at the front, because it absorbs highs better. I commented on that saying that the claim is backwards. Then you jumped in, saying the original claim was right and that the porous absorber calculator would prove it to me... except of course that it didn't...


Not true. I really hope you are not going to present your graphs again that show an absorption coefficient of less than 0.2 at the target frequencies... please don't embarrass yourself by bringing out that again.....

Wrong again. Your reading comprehension skills need a little brushing up, it would seem. He presented two very different scenarios, and even made it clear that they were not the same thing, by placing the word "or" conspicuously on a line by itself, in between the first one and the second one. Two different cases: one OR the other. They are not the same case. The FIRST claim makes no mention of any material types. Here's what it actually says, quoted in full:

End of quote. No mention of material, just an unsupported claim with no details at all. And it is wrong. That's the first scenario he mentioned, and that's the one I responded to, saying that he has it backwards. Which you then responded to, saying I was wrong, he was rght: you said that the calculator would prove him right. (Except, of course, that it didn't....)

The SECOND scenario mentions fiberglass, and very different densities, and different claims too... You really should read it over again.... slowly, this time.

It's funny that you would try to teach me physics, but thanks for the laugh! And you are wrong again, of course. It is quite possible to compress an insulation panel in such a way that the density increases overall, but that the GFR does not change when measured along one of the three axes. I can even think of a simple scenario where you could end up with a LOWER GFR in one direction after compressing the panel to get a higher density overall.... So, depending on which way you orient the insulation with respect to the sound field, you would get different results.... You DO realize that insulation panels can have different characteristics when placed in different orientations, right?

But you seem to know more about this than I do, so please explain why that actually isn't possible, and why compressing insulation will always increase the GFR in all directions equally, and why orientation doesn't matter...

Do you even know how to measure the GFR? Do you even know what it means, or what physical property it actually represents? Or what acousticians normally call that? You probably need to google that a bit more...

There's no need to shout: I heard you the first time. And you were wrong both times. As I said, it is possible to compress a panel of insulation in such a way that the total density rises, but the GFR in one axis does not.

Give it a break will ya? Rockwool we buy is not "that ideal case or way" you thought of or a technique how to not make it more resistant to gas flow in ONE axis. Okay? I doubt you're referring to a regular stuff sonorock or rockwool RW2 and RW3 stuff that is ALREADY compressed in the factory. Most people here just buy stuff at density and GFR they want and use it.

Please I am not willing to engage in this conversation anymore. You were wrong plain and simple. Whether dense or soft depends on a situation and no there is no "general" rule as you tried to argue the point with him. I'm done with this.

Being wrong or making accidentally an exaggerated statement is not something to be "accused of", it's not a crime to be wrong. Unless you have some creepy ego thing. You're not accused so you can stop now arguing about this topic. Good evening.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #92
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundman2020 View Post
... which is what I said originally, and you said I was wrong.... and that the calculator proved I am wrong....

But we are not even talking about building a trap that does what you want, so far: You said you wanted a good bass trap that targets 80 Hz and 100 Hz mostly, while not damaging the mids and highs. A pure absorber won't do that. If you take my "red curve trap" above, and add an air gap, things start getting interesting...

(see first graph below, with one blue curve...)

Roughly the same total depth as before, but with a lot LESS insulation in it.... Same higher density panel at the front with the same thickness, same low density stuff at the back... but MUCH thinner, and a large air gap between.... and what do we get?

Well, gee, that certainly does seem to be targeting 80 to 10 Hz quite effectively! And it seems to be doing a lot better in the mid range as well...

But maybe I am wrong here too, and the original claim is right: maybe we should flip the layers again, to comply with the claim that the heavy stuff must go at the back... see second graph: blue curve is my version, green curve is original claim... Hmmmm..... the coefficient of abortion is lower, and the frequency is too high, and the mid range looks pretty lousy...

hahaha look at you keep on going about proving what should be in front and what in the back when I never even mentioned that in one single freaking sentence. R e a d ..., okay? r e a d what i wrote.

and look at that 600 mm air gap you put there to push the panel all the way to the wall to "prove your point" Man just give it a break will ya? Putting 600 mm airgap INFRONT of the absorber for the low frequencies and tries to argue the point. Who said that? Literally who said to do that? hahaha what the hell? When did I say anything about this? Whoever reads this thread please scroll up and try to find 600 airgap if you can anywhere please. Further more try to find if I ever mentioned anything about which panel should be infront and which one in the back. That will tell you how much this guys posts are hurt ego driven. He is clearly smart enough to play with facts and tries to ignore what I wrote.


So I will write it one more time. He was wrong.
Whether you use dense or less dens stuff depends on a situation and the way you use it you can absorb low frequencies. Important GFR and thickness as well as placement. Depends how it is used. Period.



I'll repeat one more time, both can be good in their own ways depending how it was used. There is no "generally better" fluffy than dense rule as he tried to argue the point against the original commentator. Depends what you want to do.

Auf wiedersehen.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #93
Gear Maniac
 

I wonder if noob is high or drunk, or both?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #94
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bert stoltenborg View Post
I wonder if noob is high or drunk, or both?
Prove me that a thin fluffy rockwool you buy will absorb bass better than a thin dense of the SAME MATERIAL one and I'll roll on the floor and act as if I am high and drunk, both. I'll take that as a "normal" "general" rule as well as well as that we should use fluffy stuff for bass always and that I'm high and drunk. All "generally" accepted rules. Otherwise move on, please...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #95
Lives for gear
 
Jason Foi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bert stoltenborg View Post
I wonder if noob is high or drunk, or both?
He's certainly..... passionate.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #96
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Foi View Post
He's certainly..... passionate.
Jason I actually did what you were saying is possible with fluffy bass traps of big dimensions. I made giant bass traps in corners with low density rockwool. Of course this doesn't address the modes appropriately, however inside of them they were separated in many panels so extracting panels I was modifying absorbtion and I got "somewhat" nice results so far considering I have no resonating panels. I did tackle those modes significantly once I started playing with the insides of those absorbers. I will do few more tweaks and I'll post the results tomorrow.


You are absolutely right about what you wrote. I took it to extremes I made them really really really big and inside detachable and changeable it was fun watching how it was influencing the frequency response.

I just agreed with puukij the original poster on one point, dense rockwool CAN sometimes absorb better low frequencies and it depends on a situation. That is all I stated
Old 2 weeks ago
  #97
Lives for gear
 
Jason Foi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoobInAudio View Post
Prove me that a thin fluffy rockwool you buy will absorb bass better than a thin dense of the SAME MATERIAL one and I'll roll on the floor and act as if I am high and drunk, both. I'll take that as a "normal" "general" rule as well as well as that we should use fluffy stuff for bass always and that I'm high and drunk. All "generally" accepted rules. Otherwise move on, please...
Gfr/density would change dramatically and this calc doesnt factor in density, but whatever, i'll play.

Fluffy fiberglass 150mm @ 5000
Oc703 150mm @ 23000
Attached Thumbnails
3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-screenshot_20190308-133923_firefox.jpg  
Old 2 weeks ago
  #98
Lives for gear
 
Jason Foi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoobInAudio View Post
Jason I actually did what you were saying is possible with fluffy bass traps of big dimensions. I made giant bass traps in corners with low density rockwool. Of course this doesn't address the modes appropriately, however inside of them they were separated in many panels so extracting panels I was modifying absorbtion and I got "somewhat" nice results so far considering I have no resonating panels. I did tackle those modes significantly once I started playing with the insides of those absorbers. I will do few more tweaks and I'll post the results tomorrow.


You are absolutely right about what you wrote. I took it to extremes I made them really really really big and inside detachable and changeable it was fun watching how it was influencing the frequency response.

I just agreed with puukij the original poster on one point, dense rockwool CAN sometimes absorb better low frequencies and it depends on a situation. That is all I stated
I cant wait till you learn about the "membrane effect" from rigid panels over a sealed gap
Old 2 weeks ago
  #99
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Foi View Post
Gfr/density would change dramatically and this calc doesnt factor in density, but whatever, i'll play.

Fluffy fiberglass 150mm @ 5000
Oc703 150mm @ 23000

Jason high dense still performs better at low Hz... The other one takes over only around 200 HZ

plus 150mm is way more than what OP was talking about. Look at his thicknesses in what he has posted when he said that he would use more dense for low Hz...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #100
Gear Maniac
 

This is where all the wise guys got their knowledge from.
Acoustics Forum • View forum - II. TREATMENT
Old 2 weeks ago
  #101
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bert stoltenborg View Post
This is where all the wise guys got their knowledge from.
Acoustics Forum • View forum - II. TREATMENT

Thanks I will check it out...

I am not saying I'm a smart guy or not. But it was really dumb to pick on the original poster for saying he would use high dense rockwool for bass in his designs. He was actually very helpful in contribution... I mean... There really is no general "rule" and it depends on a situation and the way panels were to be utilized.


Someone just had his ego hurt...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #102
Lives for gear
 
Jason Foi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoobInAudio View Post
Jason high dense still performs better at low Hz... The other one takes over only around 200 HZ

plus 150mm is way more than what OP was talking about. Look at his thicknesses in what he has posted when he said that he would use more dense for low Hz...
Lol neither one shows any LF absorbtion
Old 2 weeks ago
  #103
Lives for gear
 
Jason Foi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bert stoltenborg View Post
This is where all the wise guys got their knowledge from.
Acoustics Forum • View forum - II. TREATMENT
but ive never been to studio tips..
Old 2 weeks ago
  #104
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoobInAudio View Post
Thanks I will check it out...

I am not saying I'm a smart guy or not. But it was really dumb to pick on the original poster for saying he would use high dense rockwool for bass in his designs. He was actually very helpful in contribution... I mean... There really is no general "rule" and it depends on a situation and the way panels were to be utilized.


Someone just had his ego hurt...
Everybody tries to help everybody here, so let's try to be gentlemen.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #105
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Bert and Soundman are two of the great studio acoustics experts who help. Bert is one of the people at Studiotips when the Studiotips Super Chunks (AKA SSC) were designed.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #106
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

It is frustrating trying to help you. Eithr follow directions or study acoustics for several months. I wrote this once before, and here it is in short words:

Add mass to your walls and ceiling to make the MAM resonance equals the fundamental modes.mineral wool.

Fill the boxes you bought with light


With the boxes you described you will get approximately 1/3 octave lower cutoff than shown for A10 prototype in fig 15 of RD 1992/11 which I sent here. This covers both frequencies that you say are modal.

Where did you get the idea that you need SSCs?

We are trying to help you. Do not disregard us.

Andre
Old 1 week ago
  #107
Lives for gear
Looks like "Noob" needs to change his user name to "Acoustic Expert", and all in a matter of 3 weeks !!!
Old 1 week ago
  #108
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Andre and JAson I would never diss you... I am forever thankful to you...

This is what I got so far

The reverb time for some frequencies is much lower...

I have a drop later around 2k and have no clue why.. When I move my display around, it changes.. lol I move my display around the table or put it behind microphone or something and this dip goes lower or higher. Weird...

Other than that, those lower frequencies are still stronger in amplitude but their reverb time is lower I think

Wonder what could do to bring up that 2k little bit up..
Attached Thumbnails
3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-waterfall-after.jpg   3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-waterfall-before.jpg   3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-waterfall-after-dip-sweep.jpg  
Old 1 week ago
  #109
Lives for gear
 
Jason Foi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoobInAudio View Post
Andre and JAson I would never diss you... I am forever thankful to you...

This is what I got so far

The reverb time for some frequencies is much lower...

I have a drop later around 2k and have no clue why.. When I move my display around, it changes.. lol I move my display around the table or put it behind microphone or something and this dip goes lower or higher. Weird...

Other than that, those lower frequencies are still stronger in amplitude but their reverb time is lower I think

Wonder what could do to bring up that 2k little bit up..
I cant really read anything clearly on your waterfall, but you are getting phase cancellations from your monitor. Move it back farther and/or angle the screen up about 12 degrees or more. Test that and see if it help.
Old 1 week ago
  #110
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoobInAudio View Post
Andre and JAson I would never diss you... I am forever thankful to you...

This is what I got so far

The reverb time for some frequencies is much lower...

I have a drop later around 2k and have no clue why.. When I move my display around, it changes.. lol I move my display around the table or put it behind microphone or something and this dip goes lower or higher. Weird...

Other than that, those lower frequencies are still stronger in amplitude but their reverb time is lower I think

Wonder what could do to bring up that 2k little bit up..
waow I have managed to flatten out the sweep test around 2k and higher frequencies simply by covering some portions of my walls with thin wood panels... amazing
Old 1 week ago
  #111
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Foi View Post
I cant really read anything clearly on your waterfall, but you are getting phase cancellations from your monitor. Move it back farther and/or angle the screen up about 12 degrees or more. Test that and see if it help.
Ohh hello Jason !! What's upp?

Thank you for writing ... Yes I will move monitor..

Also I think I over did it with absorbtion... I placed some decorative foam sound absorbing panels over my absorbing walls... and it appears to me<< that they absorb too much at highs ...

I just put some thin wood sheets over some of my walls to reflect some and frequency at 2k flattened out, sounds very nice

here is a picture of my work


about waterfall, the problem is gearlutz somehow reduces resolution hmmm I will think how to fix this...
Attached Thumbnails
3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-studio-corner-look.jpg  
Old 1 week ago
  #112
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Foi View Post
I cant really read anything clearly on your waterfall, but you are getting phase cancellations from your monitor. Move it back farther and/or angle the screen up about 12 degrees or more. Test that and see if it help.
Those are the frequency waterfall tests I had before and after...

I hope lower resolution works better for gearlutz...


Also I am testing again with adjusting and covering some of the wall absorbtion, I can effectively flatten it out hmm
Attached Thumbnails
3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-before.jpg   3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-after.jpg  
Old 1 week ago
  #113
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Foi View Post
I cant really read anything clearly on your waterfall, but you are getting phase cancellations from your monitor. Move it back farther and/or angle the screen up about 12 degrees or more. Test that and see if it help.
Here are the changes in that dip after I covered some of the panels with wood plates...

Looks better hmmm
Attached Thumbnails
3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-dip-2.jpg   3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-dip-1.jpg  
Old 1 week ago
  #114
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Foi View Post
I cant really read anything clearly on your waterfall, but you are getting phase cancellations from your monitor. Move it back farther and/or angle the screen up about 12 degrees or more. Test that and see if it help.
hmmm wonder if i could make some wood decorations on the walls to reflect even more of those highs to even it more out
Old 1 week ago
  #115
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Foi View Post
I cant really read anything clearly on your waterfall, but you are getting phase cancellations from your monitor. Move it back farther and/or angle the screen up about 12 degrees or more. Test that and see if it help.
Here before and after overlay... I have covered like 30% of the absorbing walls with very thin 1-2 mm wooden panels... they are from ikea look very nice...

The dip is completely gone

I probably could add more of them to bring the higher frequencies up and even it with bass even more.. but is there need for that hmm.. i doubt my voice is soo deep anyway, i prefer it to sound somewhat deeper...
Attached Thumbnails
3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-fixed-3.jpg  
Old 1 week ago
  #116
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

OKay having realized that adding a little bit of cover to my absorbtion did bring some life to the room... I still was getting weird peaks and dips so i removed some of them and instead just lifted my monitors up slightly...

I got this, i tested at slightly higher db than 75
Attached Thumbnails
3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-final-test-4.jpg   3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-final-test-3.jpg  
Old 1 week ago
  #117
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

Alright I lifted the monitor even more, removed all the covers from the absorbing panels and I got the following
Attached Thumbnails
3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-sweep-final-waterfall.png   3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-sweep-final-impuls.jpg   3D studio design, is it any good? Suggestions?-sweep-final.jpg  
Old 1 week ago
  #118
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Bert and Soundman are two of the great studio acoustics experts who help. Bert is one of the people at Studiotips when the Studiotips Super Chunks (AKA SSC) were designed.
Wow. Thanks for the very kind words, Andre. Not quite sure what to say to that... Very much appreciated.

Sorry I didn't reply to that before, but I was getting a bit tired of beating my head against a brick wall...

- Stuart -
Old 1 week ago
  #119
Gear Nut
 
NoobInAudio's Avatar
 

WAow I added one more corner bass trap because one corner had no bass trap and brought those bass frequencies even lower... now I have like +- 3 dB variations ho ho ho

huge difference compared to +-20 dB I had earlier

I mean... this is amazing :O Andre and Jason THANK YOU GUYS SOO MUCH THANK YOU SOO SOO SO MUCH <3 <3
I will not forget what you guys did for me...

Especially Jason when he told me to wait it out a little bit. I was so close to buying wrong rockwool, very dense one or doing some dumb stuff similar to that. I actually just wanted to get 15 cm thick rockwool and insulate the entire room... that was my plan lol...


Andre and Jason you guys are a m a z i n g! I am so thankful... if you ever need some 3d designs or something let me know, i'll design couple of panels for you guys for off charge


Here in the attachment is the 3d design of the studio. Blender file.... and couple of instructive screenshots on how to open it.

Hmm gearlutz won't allow me to post .rar files... I will see if I can post it somewhere else and then paste the link here...
Old 1 week ago
  #120
Gear Addict
 

Nice to see this thread have a happy conclusion.

Now go and re-connect your mains socket ground wires. It'd be a shame to see all this hard work go up in smoke!

(I'm not kidding... please go and re-connect those ground wires).
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
theEmbark / Studio building / acoustics
7
radiosound / Studio building / acoustics
2
spencerc / Studio building / acoustics
15
chamfer / Studio building / acoustics
2
Skai_Penalva / Low End Theory
11

Forum Jump
Forum Jump