You are here

DIY acoustic treatment.

Customising, building or repairing your own gear? Need help with acoustic treatment or soundproofing? Ask away…

Re: DIY acoustic treatment.

Postby Digipenguin » Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:48 pm

Max The Mac wrote: I'll have a half dozen for Christmas yeah??

Max The Mac50 apiece and they're yours! :D

Brownie points duly awarded for the health and safety warning.

I thought you might like that. I started feeling guilty about my earlier advice. Social responsibility....what a PITA!

CYa. 8-)
User avatar
Digipenguin
Regular
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:00 am
Location: St. Louis, Missouri USA
John D. Geisen Owner DPS

DIY acoustic treatment.

Postby thefruitfarmer » Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:10 pm

Here are the studio pictures -

I have added more panels to deaden the room further. There is now a total of ten 100mm panels and twelve 30mm panels. I have also put some packing foam on the ceiling, which reduces the flutter echo.

If I was doing this again I would maybe change the colour of the traps - the grey denim, blue denim and purple look okay but the black traps around the ceiling are a little oppressive.

The mirror type fittings on the 30mm panels work well. The fittings for the 100mm panels panels work but were tricky to put up. With two (or more) screw eyes in the wall and an eye bolt in each corner of the MDF backing of the bass trap the idea is to pull the cable tight and tension the trap into the corner. This worked easily when hanging the traps vertically across the corners behind the speakers at the floor/wall/wall tri corner because gravity pulled the trap down and “took up the slack” quite nicely. When hanging the traps at the ceiling/wall corners the job became more difficult though as the job became hindered by gravity rather than helped. Also, the heavy duty picture wire when cut to size leaves a razor sharp edge which can (and did) lacerate my hands. Still, if I ever need to move it would probably take about 4 hours to remove and pack all the panels and maybe a day to install them somewhere else.

The total cost has been about £400.

It took a bit of imagination to arrange the traps in such a limited space. The additional panels have made a considerable difference though - the music can now be played a lot louder before the room starts to resonate and exaggerate the notes at the nodal points.
User avatar
thefruitfarmer
Frequent Poster
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Kent UK

Re: DIY acoustic treatment.

Postby Scott R. Foster » Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:43 pm

Replying to various points from various folks:

1) Rockwool and fiberglass are both utterly inert materials [basically sand] - getting all worked up and pretending they are harzardous materilas is a waste of time... more fun to worry about Aluminium cookware IMO. The stuff is very scratchy, and long sleeves are definately reccomended... full hazmat suits are not a benefit to the process [unless you think they are sexy]. Paying attention to this advice may save you some discomfort, but it may also waste an absurd amount of time and trouble... use you common sense. If these materials were not safe, all construction sites would be hazardous waste zones, and all modern buildings would need to be unihabitable.

Avoided contact is a good idea but don't start pretendeing you are dealing with plutonium. Having working in the boat building trade I have more than a passing acquaintance mineral fiber [I have been covered head to toe in its dust from ginding hulls moer times than I can count]. The stuff will cover you in tiny cuts (it is like glass) and these take a couple days to heal and leave your skin and throat feeling raw and prickily. All in all it a great idea to keep it off your skin, but it aint that big a deal.. not near as bad as getting wet concrete all over yourself [now that will stuff will tear you up and leave you miserable] just because a material is abrasive doe snot mean it is hazardous.. don't confuse the two concepts. Also, once set in place the material will not bother you.. you could put a stack of 703 in the corner of your bnedroom and it would never cause irritation ['cept maybe your spouse' bitching].

2) Backing boards, fabric covers, sticky sprays, elaborate fittings and fixtures are all meaningless from an acoustic stand point... if not required to meet your aesthetics (or tin foil hat hazardoius material fantasies) then skip these parts as much as possible.. they just waste time and money.

3) In a very small room - such as the the subject room of this thread - the first logical step is an absorptive ceiling. Standard commercial grid and tile is one way to do this. The tiles can be made of thick mineral fiber - and these can be covered in cloth, or standard tiles can be topped by bulk mineral fiber panels/batts (laid above the tiles). This allows the installation of dozens and dozens of sf of treatment with zero frame building (and maybe zero cloth.. just lay them in above the standard tiles).

4 Thicker panels work much better than thin ones low in the band. In a very small room, I would suggest you need to use very thicker panels with as much air gap as is feasible [air gap enahances perfomance). The panels in the pics look fairly thin and most seem to be mounted flush to the wall.

5. Use lighter weight materials many of the descriptions and pictures linked to this thread show framework that is much heavier than required.

6. Rockwool is to fiberglass as basalt is to sand... and density variesaccordingly. The density of the two flavors of mineral wool should also vary for acoustic purposes. Corning 703 = 45 kg/m3 or 2.8/lbs/cu.ft., Rockwool board which is 60 to 65kg per m3 is pretty much acoustically equivalent to a 45kg/m3 fiberglass products like 703. See Bob Gold's site for more details. Different flavors of mineral wool have different structural properties as well as acoustic ones.. pick the right flavor to balance your acoustic needs with the least difficult means of installation and you will save a lot of time and trouble.

Good Luck!
User avatar
Scott R. Foster
Regular
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:00 am

Re: DIY acoustic treatment.

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:28 am

Foz wrote:1) Rockwool and fiberglass are both utterly inert materials [basically sand] - getting all worked up and pretending they are harzardous materilas is a waste of time... more fun to worry about Aluminium cookware IMO. The stuff is very scratchy, and long sleeves are definately reccomended... full hazmat suits are not a benefit to the process [unless you think they are sexy]. Paying attention to this advice may save you some discomfort, but it may also waste an absurd amount of time and trouble... use you common sense. If these materials were not safe, all construction sites would be hazardous waste zones, and all modern buildings would need to be unihabitable.

I would agree that in itself, Rockwool (and fibreglass) is an 'inert material' that presents no long term threat if left undisturbed.

However, while handling this material there can be no doubt that very small fibres are released into the air, and if breathed in they can enter and settle in the lungs. It is the body's reaction in efforts to remove these 'alien' fibres where the problem starts -- but often not until years afterwards.

When working with any dusty material, common sense decrees that wearing a face mask is a sensible precaution. The earlier suggestion to help reduce the volatility of fibres by spraying a light glue mix on the panels may also help, and certainly can't harm.

Yes, it adds marginally to the overall time and expense, but it's not significant to the overall project of constructing panels, and the peace of mind justifies it as far as I'm concerned.

And likewise, if you find the dust irritates the skin, a disposable paper boiler suit will save many hours of discomfort and scratching for anyone susceptible, and costs only a few pence.

hugh
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 26331
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: DIY acoustic treatment.

Postby crunchie1967 » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:31 pm

Max The Mac wrote:
3) The Corner traps would almost certainly be more effectively used diagonally across the corners rather than directly in the corner. The air gap will lower the bottom of the effective frequency band and increase efficiency. Mount One on top of another giving 2 meters of diagonal corner trapping rather than in front of each other.

5) Fixing the 100mm stuff to a board is also advisable, as they will sag in the long term without some support.
Also, this would enable use of these in the wall to ceiling vertices as well as wall to wall.

Firstly, thanks for the good advice for covering and sealing the nasty fibres away. I am a novice just starting on a modest home project.
Can someone clarify something for me. I have seen many postings about leaving an air gap between absorbers and walls to help the process (see quote above), but if you mount your rockwall to a board, won't that give the same effect as placing it flat against the wall? Hence, if it is board mounted there is no point in positioning it away from the wall? Or am I just missing the point here? Thanks.
crunchie1967
Poster
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:00 am

Re: DIY acoustic treatment.

Postby Scott R. Foster » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:38 pm

Can someone clarify something for me. I have seen many postings about leaving an air gap between absorbers and walls to help the process (see quote above), but if you mount your rockwall to a board, won't that give the same effect as placing it flat against the wall? Hence, if it is board mounted there is no point in positioning it away from the wall? Or am I just missing the point here? Thanks.


Bingo!

A mineral fiber panel mounted to a board spaced off the wall aint exactly the same as flush to wall, but it aint near as good as gapped off the wall "naked". As to how to do it, there are many baths to Buddha. If we are talking about a wall unit, you can use a board wider than the panel thickness...like a 1x6, or even a 1x8 for a 4" panel, and have the gap inherent to the frame... or you could just add cleats [little feet] to the frame to gap it off the wall. If you use a French cleat this can be arranged so as to create a gap.

More to the point, all these added elements are meaningless acoustically save to the extent they serve to mount the mineral fiber where you want it. Example, suppose I took a fitted baby crib sheet [with elastic all the way around the hem] and added grommets to the backside edge... now imagine I put the sheet on a panel of 4" 703 and I threaded bungee cords through pool noodles and clipped em to the grommets.

Image
Image

Image

and then hung the whole thing on the wall. The sheet holds onto the panel, the hangers hold the sheet to the wall, and the noodles create a 2-3" air gap. Bob's your ankle.

In the corner just running across the diagonal leaves a gap.

In a drop ceiling, the gap will well neigh unavoidable as you'll have to set the grid low enough to so you have enough room to install tiles with a bulk mineral fiber topper.

This doesn't mean that a gap is better than a full thickness of mineral fiber of the proper density, rather that whatever thickness you have, a gap helps. Example, 3" of 703 gapped 3" off the wall is better than 3" flush to the wall but not as good as 6" flush to the wall.

Good Luck
User avatar
Scott R. Foster
Regular
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:00 am

Re: DIY acoustic treatment.

Postby thefruitfarmer » Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:48 pm

Foz wrote:

4 Thicker panels work much better than thin ones low in the band. In a very small room, I would suggest you need to use very thicker panels with as much air gap as is feasible [air gap enahances perfomance). The panels in the pics look fairly thin and most seem to be mounted flush to the wall.


Hi Foz....

The twelve blue and purple panels are 30mm thick RW6 (140kg/m3) and the ten black and grey panels are 100mm thick RW6.

The 100mm panels are all across corners whilst the 30mm panels are fitted to MDF and are just hung on the wall like big heavy pictures.

How much more absorbsion do you expect I would get if I used some spacers and set the 30mm panels away from the wall?

I did consider this when planning the project and I decided that I could not lose the space in such a small room. Now everything is arranged though I possibly could set the panels slightly in from the wall. However, going with my original plan I decided to just add more panels which achieves the same result as with less panels spaced away from the wall but takes up less total space in the room.

Regards

FF
User avatar
thefruitfarmer
Frequent Poster
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Kent UK

Re: DIY acoustic treatment.

Postby olivier » Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:33 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:

Rockwool (and fibreglass) is an 'inert material' that presents no long term threat if left undisturbed.



I would be quite careful with such statements especially at a time where dozens of contradictory reports have been made about fiberglass and all.

may I just remind you what governments and so-called experts said about asbestos in the sixties and seventies?

they said that basically it was not hazardous as soon as you were protection to handle it. the fact is they were wrong and apart from the Quebec province in canada (with brasil, the world's biggest producer of asbestos), no one today even dare thinking about using asbestos in buildings.

after bans in the nineties, replacements for asbestos were to be found. compressed rockwool is one. the fact is rockwool and glasswool both produce tiny fibers that can potentially be carcinogenic as they ARE comparable in size and shape to asbestos. Meaning once they're in your lungs they can stay there for months if not years.

The fact is that rockwool and fiberglass are usually sitting in the "2B" class, ie "might be carcinogenic".
class 1 is tobacco, etc.
Rockwool (the company) products have been classified as "3" which puts them in the "non carcinogenic" class.

but not ALL glasswool and rockwool are , so do your homework and search around.

Besides that, official classifications like this one is not fixed once for all, and I'm sure one can find times where asbestos was classified as "non hazardous" .

asbestos has long term effects (ie 30 years horizon) on health and nobody knows about rockwool and glasswool effects on humans (yet). they've done extensive clinical (ie tests by inoculation) research on rats, not humans. The only research on humans was epidemiologic and no evidence showns yet about a link between rockwool/fiberglass exposure and cancer.

so, the message is clear :
if, like me, you smoke , drink and live in the city (gasoil exhaust fumes are carcinogenic too !) then just don't worry about handling rockwool.

if you're in the other camp, then
1/ stop using acoustic panels
2/ don't handle rockwool/fiberglass
3/ buy foam instead.
olivier
Poster
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 12:00 am

Re: DIY acoustic treatment.

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:34 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:Rockwool (and fibreglass) is an 'inert material' that presents no long term threat if left undisturbed.

olivier wrote:I would be quite careful with such statements especially at a time where dozens of contradictory reports have been made about fiberglass and all.

I share your concern Olivier, which is why I posted my note of caution in response to Foz's rather more casual approach to the issue.

However, like Asbestos, I think it fairly safe to assume that Rockwool and Fibreglass are essntially 'inert' *provided* they are left undisturbed. It is the dust released when these products (like asbestos) are disturbed, handled or broken up that represents the hazard. And the obvious precautions against dust inhalation are thus sensible in my opinion.

Like you, I'd rather be safe than sorry when handling these kinds of materials and unlike Foz, I don't see the additional modest expense or time involved in taking such precautions to be wasted in any way.

Only time will tell whether those of us who wear face masks are over-reacting or not, but by then it will be too late, won't it!

hugh
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 26331
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: DIY acoustic treatment.

Postby Scott R. Foster » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:21 am

Fruit:

I don't have any 1.25" thickness RW6 data but Bob Gold's absorption data sheet

http://www.bobgolds.com/AbsorptionCoefficients.htm

shows 2" RW6 flat to the wall as dropping off a cliff between 250 Hz and 125 Hz... so I reckon 1.25" flat on the wall don't do much at all on your LF resonances.

OTOH 2" RW6 with a 12" gap aint too shabby for LF.... so I would surmise that air gap can significantly improve LF performance in this material.

Given your space constraints, I'd consider getting rid of the backer boards, and making a light weight frame that will hold the 1.25" finished panels you have and allow you to add another mineral fiber panel behind [no additional cloth covering required].

Maybe something like a 1x6 frame with one of your finished panels in front, about 3" of medium density rockwool [60 to 65kg per m3 range] behind that and then cleat the frame to wall so that between the cleats and the the extra depth at the back of the frame you get at least a couple of inches of air gap... I bet that would work noticably better low in the band than the thin panels as installed.

Also, as described previously in this thread, if you could get a full ceiling treatment system of some kind, that would really help. In a room this small, that is the first thing I would have done... getting a small room to work at high SPL aint trivial. I am given to understand from Paul [who's ears I probably trust more than my own] that Mark did it, but twern't easily done.

My $0.02
User avatar
Scott R. Foster
Regular
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:00 am

Re: DIY acoustic treatment.

Postby thefruitfarmer » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:09 pm




“I don't have any 1.25" thickness RW6 data but Bob Gold's absorption data sheet
bobgolds.com
shows 2" RW6 flat to the wall as dropping off a cliff between 250 Hz and 125 Hz... so I reckon 1.25" flat on the wall don't do much at all on your LF resonances.”


These 30mm panels were never intended to treat the LF……and like you say they don't.

Incidently, Rockwool are selling something rather similar…… Rockwool (click on the “reverberation” link for the pdf)…

“OTOH 2" RW6 with a 12" gap aint too shabby for LF.... so I would surmise that air gap can significantly improve LF performance in this material.”

The 100mm traps across 6 tri-corners, 2 wall/ceiling corners and 2 wall/wall corners has a gap of 13” at the maximum point. These eat up the bass.


“Also, as described previously in this thread, if you could get a full ceiling treatment system of some kind, that would really help. In a room this small, that is the first thing I would have done... getting a small room to work at high SPL aint trivial. I am given to understand from Paul [who's ears I probably trust more than my own] that Mark did it, but twern't easily done.”

Interesting that, the more I think about it the less of a PITA a ceiling job seems to be and it would have the advantage of keeping more floor space too. The ceiling could come down a little (only a 6” gap between ceiling and top of window though) and this would also have the advantage of making the room not a 8’6” cube. I would expect that less bass trapping would therefore be necessary after installing a lowered ceiling. However, there would be less room for the bass traps so the whole plan could backfire if the amount of trapping required exceeded the now reduced space to put it in.

I would n’t like to predict the results, despite liking the idea with its potential to create a more ergonomic room…..

…….and that rockwool is nasty and itchy stuff to work with so I think I’ll stay with what I have for now.
User avatar
thefruitfarmer
Frequent Poster
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Kent UK

Re: DIY acoustic treatment.

Postby Studio Support Gnome » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:05 pm

Foz wrote:Replying to various points from various folks:

1) Rockwool and fiberglass are both utterly inert materials [basically sand] - getting all worked up and pretending they are harzardous materilas is a waste of time... more fun to worry about Aluminium cookware IMO. The stuff is very scratchy, and long sleeves are definately reccomended... full hazmat suits are not a benefit to the process [unless you think they are sexy]. Paying attention to this advice may save you some discomfort, but it may also waste an absurd amount of time and trouble... use you common sense. If these materials were not safe, all construction sites would be hazardous waste zones, and all modern buildings would need to be unihabitable.

Avoided contact is a good idea but don't start pretendeing you are dealing with plutonium. Having working in the boat building trade I have more than a passing acquaintance mineral fiber [I have been covered head to toe in its dust from ginding hulls moer times than I can count]. The stuff will cover you in tiny cuts (it is like glass) and these take a couple days to heal and leave your skin and throat feeling raw and prickily. All in all it a great idea to keep it off your skin, but it aint that big a deal.. not near as bad as getting wet concrete all over yourself [now that will stuff will tear you up and leave you miserable] just because a material is abrasive doe snot mean it is hazardous.. don't confuse the two concepts. Also, once set in place the material will not bother you.. you could put a stack of 703 in the corner of your bnedroom and it would never cause irritation ['cept maybe your spouse' bitching].

2) Backing boards, fabric covers, sticky sprays, elaborate fittings and fixtures are all meaningless from an acoustic stand point... if not required to meet your aesthetics (or tin foil hat hazardoius material fantasies) then skip these parts as much as possible.. they just waste time and money.

Good Luck!


Foz.

The irritation and tissue damage that can be caused by inhaling the small fibres, is not to be taken lightly.

Advising some otherwise is [irresponsible]. ***Edited for argumentative tone***

The stuff is not of itself carcinogenic or toxic, BUT the damage it can cause to soft tissue in the lungs can increase the likelihood of all sorts of unpleasant and often fatal illnesses. They can also trigger asthma attacks and other respiratory trauma.

I suggest you check your health and life insurance policies very carefully.... because self inflicted harm may not be covered, and it's possible that they may refuse to pay on that basis.

Insurance companies have used thinner excuses to renege on payment expectations ...
*** edited out pointless and argumentative bits ***

To quote Linus "Oh I love mankind alright, it's people I can't stand ! "
Max


***OI!, Max, Bloody well behave yourself and stop winding up the residents! You're making a fair and important point which, for the record, I completely agree with, but you're not making it like the polite, friendly and considerate chap I know you are. I know it's important and we share some very strong feelings on health and safety matters but you still need to make the point properly or you undermine it's validity.
Now be a good boy or Santa won't be bringing you a nice new PC to replace all those dodgy old Macs ;) :bouncy: 0VU :) ***
User avatar
Studio Support Gnome
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2883
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:00 am
Location: UK
Now available for consultations and audio engineering jobs .  Also guitar tech work , and “rent-a-shredder” sessions .  Oxfordshire based but can and will travel .  Email maxtech.audio@me.com

Re: DIY acoustic treatment.

Postby thefruitfarmer » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:54 am

c'mon OVU....... :roll:

What Max wrote (I read the "raw" version and it is n't that bad IMO) does n't need removing unless someone actually complains about it.

For the record I reckon Foz is right when he says we are not dealing with plutonium here. I made the panels and traps without a space suit, mask or gloves and I feel fine. The risks are not clearly established and I don't feel we need to panic quite yet. However, people used to inhale asbestos dust and work with it daily until the link with cancer was established in the 70's.

Thing is, I have done the work without taking precautions and at this point in the game I don't appreciate people hyping up the potential risk. If I was doing this again I would use a mask, gloves and hazmat suit. The fibres are itchy and burrow into the skin, stay on your clothes and get in your lungs. Although no sinister risk has been established I reckon it's worth using the safety clothing anyway to avoid the itching and extra individual washing of your regular clothes - especially if you are working with the stuff on a regular basis.

I am still waiting for Foz to reply with an alternative plan for an 8'6" cube room. So far he has posted the suggestion that I set the 30mm panels away from the wall (which is not really practical) and I reckon three panels on the wall absorbs as much as two panels set away from the wall, whilst taking up less space. I don't really know if the theory supports this assertion but I would like to find out. I would also like to know if ceiling treatment would be practical and whether the resulting reduced space in the room would be sufficient for adequate bass trapping.

I started this thread so anyone wishing to make their own DIY treatment would have a template they could use as a basis for their own treatment. I have taken a "suck it and see" approach and taken ideas from what people have used with success rather than calculating in theory what should work and then building to that specification. I don't reckon that theory can always be translated into the real world with complete accuracy either - as soon as you put a person and furniture in the room you affect the acoustics.

The system I have allowed me to install several panels and easily move them around and add more once I had listened to the room and decided on a second tweak. Treatment to the ceiling or stacking triangles of Rockwool in the corners would be somewhat more permanent and consequently more difficult to adjust. The fitting method I used means I don't have to count on my theoretical calculations making an accurate prediction (my physics and maths is okay but not up to graduate or professional level) for the real world.

At the moment there seems to be a great deal of people quoting figures and pretty graphs at each other and trying to decide whether data is valid or whether we have reached the boundary of physics . This is all very interesting in a way (I am following the infamous real traps thread as it goes) but this is not much use to people who want to treat their room without getting the calculator out.

I just want people with a working, practical or theoretical knowledge of acoustics to apply it to the real world situations, like my box room. This would helpful to those of us lacking that particular education when we want to make our own acoustic treatment without heading for disaster or expensive mistakes.

:angel:
User avatar
thefruitfarmer
Frequent Poster
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Kent UK

Re: DIY acoustic treatment.

Postby Paul Woodlock » Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:25 pm

thefruitfarmer wrote:......

I am still waiting for Foz to reply with an alternative plan for an 8'6" cube room. So far he has posted the suggestion that I set the 30mm panels away from the wall (which is not really practical) and I reckon three panels on the wall absorbs as much as two panels set away from the wall, whilst taking up less space. I don't really know if the theory supports this assertion but I would like to find out. I would also like to know if ceiling treatment would be practical and whether the resulting reduced space in the room would be sufficient for adequate bass trapping.

Greetings Grower and Harvester of Fruit :)

You could do worse than have a look at Mark Edmonds Studio Build Diary http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=456

It sound absolutely great in there.




I started this thread so anyone wishing to make their own DIY treatment would have a template they could use as a basis for their own treatment. I have taken a "suck it and see" approach and taken ideas from what people have used with success rather than calculating in theory what should work and then building to that specification. I don't reckon that theory can always be translated into the real world with complete accuracy either - as soon as you put a person and furniture in the room you affect the acoustics.

The system I have allowed me to install several panels and easily move them around and add more once I had listened to the room and decided on a second tweak. Treatment to the ceiling or stacking triangles of Rockwool in the corners would be somewhat more permanent and consequently more difficult to adjust. The fitting method I used means I don't have to count on my theoretical calculations making an accurate prediction (my physics and maths is okay but not up to graduate or professional level) for the real world.

At the moment there seems to be a great deal of people quoting figures and pretty graphs at each other and trying to decide whether data is valid or whether we have reached the boundary of physics . This is all very interesting in a way (I am following the infamous real traps thread as it goes) but this is not much use to people who want to treat their room without getting the calculator out.

I just want people with a working, practical or theoretical knowledge of acoustics to apply it to the real world situations, like my box room. This would helpful to those of us lacking that particular education when we want to make our own acoustic treatment without heading for disaster or expensive mistakes.

:angel:

I disgagree the StudioTips 4 Devices Test Data isn't valid for real world use. You don't need a calculator. The data shows a valid comparison of two commercial devices and 2 DIY designs. Of course their are OTHER factors, than sheer acoustic absorption performance, when choosing a method, but absoprtion performance is important none the less.

Regarding practical applications. Corner wedge DIY broadband absorption, along with absoprtive panels on the walls/ceiling to diminish early reflections has bee shown to work in practise many times.

I would also like to know if ceiling treatment would be practical and whether the resulting reduced space in the room would be sufficient for adequate bass trapping.


Ceiling treatment ( assuming enough available height ) is great!

In fact in my studio build I don't have much height at all, so I am taking this approach......


From the listening position I am building a false ceiling that slopes downwards towards the front wall. No one can stand up in this area anyway, due to it being full of furniture ( DAW Workstaion to be exact ;) ), so the reduced height doesn't matter. This false ceiling will be full of rockwool. It will serve TWO purposes. The thicker rockwool above the false ceiling where the front wall meets the ceiling will be broadband standing wave trapping, and as the sloping ceiling gets higher towards the listening position, the rockwool here will serve as an early reflection absorber 'panel'


So to answer your above question, I would say that the ceiling treatment can be a part of the 'standing wave trapping treatment', and not something that leaves less room for trapping ( as I think? you were asking/indicating. I hesitate to use the word 'bass trapping' as standing waves can affect lo-mid performance as well. :)


Also it's a shame you can't put the Early reflection absorbing panels away from the wall a bit. Is space too tight to even put the 30mm panels so there's a 30mm airgap behind them. You'll lower the freqeuncy of efective absoprtion, plus incrasing absorption performance overall.

Bear in mind that when sound reflects off a wall, the velocity of the air particles is zero at the wall. So that absorption right at the walls surface for reflections is ineffective.

Just some thoughts :)


Paul
Paul Woodlock
Regular
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Re: DIY acoustic treatment. *DELETED*

Postby Ethan Winer » Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:42 pm

***Content moved to new thread on standing waves here 0VU :)***
User avatar
Ethan Winer
Regular
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 1:00 am
Location: New Milford, CT USA

PreviousNext