Post and discuss acoustic topics, Studio design, construction, and soundproofing here


Postby Eric.Desart » Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:21 am

WELCOME to all new Forum members.

  1. The FAQ

    A lot of first time questions related to OPTIMUM ROOM SIZES, ROOM RATIOS, TRANSMISSION LOSS, TREATMENT, FIBERGLASS, ROCKWOOL, FOAM, BASS TRAPS and so on are common for lots of people.

    1. Please help yourself and the numerous people contributing to help others, by first reading the Forum Acoustic FAQ, written by Scott Foster.
      This FAQ answers a lot of typical questions related to studio design. It includes the combined knowledge and experience of lots of Forum contributors, very well translated and summarized by Scott in readable language.

      Once you've read this it's much easier to formulate targeted questions, and it becomes easier for contributors to help you.
      It's also a matter of respect to prevent members to repeat answers to the same basic questions over and over again, while they are described in the FAQ itself.
      Please do not hesitate to ask any further question afterwards, targeted towards your personal circumstances or for more explanation of whatever isn't clear in the FAQ.

    2. Where is this FAQ?

      1. If you entered the Forum via the main link:
        you entered the main Acoustics Forum Index page
        In this page there are several subdivisions:
        One of them is called Acoustic FAQ
      2. A direct Link to the first sub section of the FAQ called "INTRODUCTION":
      3. A direct Link to the FAQ subdivision called Acoustic FAQ:
        Using this direct link will collapse all other subdivisions.
        You can restore the other subsections to their previous (expanded) state by just clicking them.
      Please take some time to read this to get a first insight.

    As you get more familiar with Studiotips you may want to upload your OWN pictures, then check point 2.
    Once you should start contributing to help others, you should want to link to other sites (other than your own), pictures, use quotes and so on, make sure you also read the rest of this page, at least point 6.
    By definition you're assumed to know the Forum rules. As with most Forum rules they do not contain anything else than common sense.
    Rules excist in the hope and expectation that they rarely should be referred to. They are meant to protect people rather than to order them.

  2. Uploading Attachments & Pictures
    1. Attachments:

      The following File formats can be uploaded via the "Add Attachment" button beneath the input box of your "Message body".
      At the moment the maximum number which can be uploaded per message = 10 attachments. (If needed this could be adjusted).

      • A general rule:
        If one enters MORE than 1 attachment in a message, they will appear in the order that the member uploaded the attachments.
        When uploading attachments the Forum will automatically show a new blank upload input box on top for a possible next attachment thereby shifting the already uploaded attachments downwards.
        This can give the false impression that this reverse sort order represents the order they will appear in the final post in the Forum: it isn't.
      • Tip:
        The Forum provides an option to upload a new version of an attachment (button: "Upload New Version").
        Be careful using this. In order to prevent overwriting stuff in the Directory where those attachments are stored, the Forum automatically changes the name of this attachment by adding a code to the original name.
        This can cause trouble with links.
        Generally one can say: it's safer just to delete such attachment and re-upload it as a new one.

      Allowed Extension Groups and their Sizes:
      Note that this are maxima. Common sense and courtesy dictates that one shrinks the bandwidth of files in as far as possible.
      This controls the bandwidth of the overall forum itself, you will less fast reach the upload limit which is set for members, but more importantly, it can significantly speed up browsing for users with analogue or low speed internet connections.
      It is a matter of courtesy to take people with lesser facilities into account.  A 1MB picture or file is hell for people with an analogue internet connection.  A jpg picture of max. 650 x 650 pixels of 1 MB will NOT or hardly look better on a standard screen than the same picture shrinked to a file size of 50 to 80 kB.
      • Archives
        Maximum Upload Size: 2 MB
        File types:  .ace  .gtar  .gz  .rar  .tar  .zip  
      • Documents
        Maximum Upload Size: 2 MB
        File types:  .doc  .dwg  .dxf  .pdf  .ppt  .ps  .xls  
      • Flash Files
        Maximum Upload Size: 2 MB
        File types:  swf  
      • Images
        Maximum Upload Size: 2 MB
        File types:  .gif  .jpeg  .jpg  .png  .tga  .tif  wmf
      • Plain Text
        Maximum Upload Size: 2 MB
        File types:  .txt  
      • Streams
        Maximum Upload Size: 2 MB
        File types:  .mov  .mpeg  .wma  

    2. Pictures

      More about this topic:
      • Uploading pictures via the attachment procedure
        1. You want the pictures to be visible in the message itself:
          In order to prevent scrambling the Forum Layout please limit pictures to a maximum size:
          Width: 660 pixels (Landscape view)
          Height: 660 pixels (portrait view).
          Using a width BETWEEN 660 and 800 pixels included is only allowed when the content of the picture (e.g. data tables, etc.) prevails over readability of the messages and layout of the forum.
          Pictures exceeding 660 px and smaller then 800 px will still show as pictures in the thread, but will scramble the forum layout of the page they are integrated in, making readability of the thread difficult for anyone.
          This data is based on the assumption of a user's screen resolution of 1024 x 780.  While for people using higher screen resolution those picture sizes may seem small, the same basic rule applies: take people with lesser facilities into account.
        2. You need larger pictures (exceeding 660 x 660 px) in order to show finer details:
          Make the pictures 810 px or more pixels wide. In this case the pictures will be shown as a download.
          When pressing the related download link in the attachment frame, the picture will be shown in a newly opened window. (It is still useful/gentle to take users of a 1024 x 768 screen resolution, minus spare for edges, into account)
        • Showing pictures via a link to a site.
            For pictures linked from a site a maximum of 680 x 680 is allowed (gives 20 pixels spare)
            If such pictures are own by the member uploading them, no additional references are needed.
            However when such pictures resort on another site, VERY strict Copyright respect rules will be practiced (SEE RULES).
            When possible preference is given to link directly to the page containing this picture.
            If not, CLEAR reference MUST be given to the source.

      If you need software to resize your pictures here is a link to a free program:

      It will do batch editing so you can re-size all you pics in a folder at once if need be.

    3. The Rules

        Please read the rules:
        Studiotips is very sensitive in view of respect for Copyright and Science, is strict non-commercial and intents to keep it that way.
        The music world rightfully complains about illegal copying/downloading of their work and mental/creative property.
        However such a complaint only stands when the music world shows the same courtesy for the mental/intellectual and physical property of others. Otherwise such a complaint hardly relates to honorable principles and ethics but to cheap self-interest.

    4. Copyright

      Additional to the related comments in the "Forum Rules".
      Discleamer: this is not meant as an analysis of very complex Copyright laws, but some thoughts about the basic intent.
      If you're not interested in details, but general rules of conduct at Studiotips scroll directly down to 6.

      • Copyright
        It's rather painful to notice that the notion "Copyright" is often misinterpreted as the "Right to Copy" or to use.
        Using work, quotes, graphs, wathever, of others without proper reference in order to look clever or good, is not a strength but a weakness.
        You (rightfully) like and/or expect people to respect your work, it's nothing more than simple common sense to show the same courtesy towards others.
        One will often notice that respect for Copyright is more abused by people with less related background, while respected by people having thorough knowledge of the subject.
      • Copyright notice, registered Copyright
        Copyright is NOT exclusively valid for work "in the broadest sence" which is clearly noted by a Copyright notice or by registered Copyright.  
        Intelectual/creative property which is subject to Copyright is ALWAYS Copyright protected, with or without such Copyright notice or registration, unless clearly or implied brought in the Public Domain by the Copyright owner.
        Such notices or registration are used "to point to, or emphasize the obvious" and to "simplify procedures" in function of proof, laws and regulations.
        The assumption that the lack of such notice implies that the work or web data is in the public domain is PLAIN FALSE.
        The argument: I can freely use it because I couldn't find a Copyright notice, is a WRONGFUL argument.
        A right is and remains a right, whether it is emphasized by a notice (reminder) or even officially registered as such, or not.

          Some simple analogies:
        1. There are countries which register bycicles to easier identify them and proof ownership.
          This really does not mean that people who don't let their bycicle register, brought it in the Public Domain, free to steal.
        2. A verbal agreement without any written document is in most western countries legally AS valid and binding for parties as a written contract.
          The problem only is to proof the existance of such a binding agreement if one party chooses to ignore it.
        Some extracts/quotes of "copyright": ... tml#areyou

        1. Copyright is the ownership of an intellectual property within the limits prescribed by a particular nation's or international law. In the United States, for example, the copyright law provides that the owner of a property has the exclusive right to print, distribute, and copy the work, and permission must be obtained by anyone else to reuse the work in these ways. Copyright is provided automatically to the author of any original work covered by the law as soon as the work is created. The author does not have to formally register the work, although registration makes the copyright more visible. (See Circular 66, "Copyright Registration for Online Works," from the U.S Copyright Office.) Copyright extends to unpublished as well as published works. The U.S. law extends copyright for 50 years beyond the life of the author. For reviews and certain other purposes, the "fair use" of a work, typically a quotation or paragraph, is allowed without permission of the author.
          Note from Eric:
          Such a quote STILL requires a clear reference and/or to source and used within the context it's meant for. A reader should NOT have to search for the source, but be told and directed, allowing the reader to check the context of the quote or intellectual property in whatever form.
          This is not only courtesy towards the reader him/herself, but respect to the Author or Copyright owner of the work, he is even legally entitled to.

        2. Are You Violating Copyright on the Internet?
          The Internet, inarguably one of the most remarkable developments in international communication and information access, is fast becoming a lair of copyright abuse. The notion of freedom of information and the ease of posting, copying and distributing messages on the Internet may have created a false impression that text and graphic materials on World Wide Web sites, postings in "usenet" news groups, and messages distributed through e-mail lists and other electronic channels are exempt from copyright statutes.
          Note from Eric:
          This clearly means that ideas, original knowledge and intellectual property entered in public media as news groups, forums, email-lists etc. ARE STILL SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT EVEN WHEN THE POSTER DOESN'T STATE ANY COPYRIGHT NOTICE.

        3. Copyright protection encompasses Web page textual content, graphics, design elements, as well as postings on discussion groups.
          Generally speaking, facts may not be copyrighted; but content related to presentation, organization and conclusions derived from facts certainly can be.
          Never assume that anything is in the "public domain" without a statement to that effect.
          Note from Eric:
          When in doubt whether something is in the "Public Domain" or not, that's VERY simple to solve: Rather than starting discussions about it, just give a proper reference to the source as if it is subject to Copyright. It will cost you an additional 30 seconds.  
          The forum is not meant to discuss extremely complicated Copyright laws, regulations and practices, which can and will even differ per country, and even can vary in function of the court and the individual cases.

        4. Pictures, Graphs and other Graphical documents (not quoted, but entered by Eric)
          Be careful with Pictures, Graphs and whatever other graphical documents.
          The assumption that giving a proper reference to the source constitutes "Fair Use" is PLAIN FALSE
          Mostly it is not considered Fair Use.
          Wherever and whenever reasonable possible, give priority to linking to the page and leave pictures, graphs, or whatever other graphics where they are.
          A strict non-commercial educational group as Studiotips will easier be considered Fair Use, but graphical data is at the edge and should be limited to a minimum.
          If the content of this graphical data is an essential part of the copyrighted work (and the latter is 99% the case whether stated or not) assume that a proper reference WILL NOT constitute "Fair Use".
          In that case ONLY linking to the related page is allowed.
      • Fair Use of Copyright
        A very good read is the article:
        10 Big Myths about copyright explained, by Brad Templeton

          Let's first emphasize and/or remind some points:
        • Copyright is the right of the Copyright owner, not the right to Copy, which became almost a sickness on the net, from which the Audio and Studio world and related Web pages, Forums, email lists and the likes are certainly not free, putting there own claims and credibility towards others in function of illegal downloading of music between question marks.  A very typical example can be found here:
          It's because of this very, almost painful fact that huge part of this page is assigned TO POINT TO THE OBVIOUS namely the simple concept of RESPECT FOR OTHER's WORK and respect for the readers having the right to know the original Author and check the intellectual property in the context it was created for.
        • Copyright exists from the moment the work is created, EVEN when not published yet (it's only a difficult matter of proving the existence).
        • A Copyright owner DOES NOT loose his Copyright by not defending it. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away.
        • The absence of whatever Copyright notice DOES NOT constitute that the intellectual property is in the Public Domain. This is AS WELL valid for whatever text or graphics is entered in Newsgroups, Forums and the likes.
        • Using the work of others without their permission, can be done within strict limitations, covered by the notion "Fair Use of Copyright".
        • Even proper reference to the source does NOT necessarily constitutes "Fair Use", but should be seen as a strict MINIMUM, for whatever intellectual property from others is used, within the intent of the concept "Fair Use".
          The fact that entering a picture as an image linked to the source, makes the source traceable (if knowing how) for a reader DOES NOT constitute PROPER REFERENCE. Nobody had to search for a possible, or not, external source. If somebody sees a picture it should be CRISTAL CLEAR, that a picture subject to Copyright is used, with PROPER reference to the source.

        What constitutes "Fair use of Copyright"
        The following is not an in-depth legal analysis as stated before:
        Fair use isn't an exact described notion, but common and agreed practices can be seen as guide lines.
        Fair use is a valid concept necessary to allow the criticism of copyrighted works and their creators through examples.
        The concept of "Fair Use" can differ between Countries.
        • US for instance allows for advertisements comparisons between identified competitive products. Therefore they use the published data of their competitors, or base this data on own investigations.
        • Belgium for instance, product advertisements can NOT use the data of exact identified competitive brands.
          However in function of consumer organizations, scientific research, educational purposes such data is covered by "Fair Use"
        + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
        The Fair-Use Statute
        The following is the full text of the fair-use statute from the U.S. Copyright Act.
        Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

        In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
        1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
        2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
        3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
        4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
        The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
        + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

        While fair use is intended to apply to teaching, research, and other such activities, a crucial point is that an educational purpose alone does not make a use fair.
        The purpose of the use is, in fact, only one of four factors that users must analyze in order to conclude whether or not an activity is lawful.
        Short notes Eric:
        1. The purpose:
          Nonprofit educational uses score higher as "fair use" than commercial uses.
          Transformative uses are favored over mere reproductions. This means that data integrated in something else in order to make it more educational, more clarifying or enhancing score higher as "fair use" than just copying data.
          Pictures, photos, graphs often generate serious controversies, because they are is a complete entity (No transformation with added value but plain copying). Scanning pictures and CERTAINLY whole or big portions of pages from books and uploading them on the net is VERY questionable and mostly just infringement of Copyright..
        2. The nature:
          Factual data will score higher as "fair use" than fiction.
          Textual data will score higher as "fair use" than Audio Visual or Graphical (art-creative) didactic material.
          Non-profit scientific use scores higher as "fair use" then direct or indirect commercially used data.
        3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work
          The amount is to be weighed both quantitatively and qualitatively .
          Quantity must be evaluated relative to the length of the entire original and the amount needed to serve a proper objective.
          In other words: limit quotes to the portion needed to make a point. Copying an entire work or unreasonable portion is NO "fair use" anymore.
          If one only reproduces only a small portion, but which goes to the core of the work (representing intellectual a big portion), this weighs AGAINST fair use. The "substantiality" concept is a qualitative measure.
        4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
          This is the most complicated and broad factor of the four to be weighed factors.
          "Effect" is closely linked to "purpose." If one's purpose is research, market effect may be difficult to prove.
          If one's purpose is commercial, then the effect is presumed. Occasional quotations or photocopies may have little market effects, but reproductions of software and videotapes will.
      • Copyright, what does it means for Studiotips members?

        1. Breach of Copyright and lack of respect for sources seems more than once a chronical disease in newsgroups, forums and the likes.
          It's that common that hardly anyone seems to care anymore.  Such discussion media often have it somewhere in their rules (rarely read by people), more meant to protect themselves against possible claims.  
          But rarely a moderator will intervene when there is breach of Copyright (and some are sometimes guilty themselves).
          This is the reverse world.  One should be ashamed to respect other's rights.  If this doesn't change, it will cause important data and thoughts NOT to be shared anymore (and one can be really sure it does already).
        2. Try to imagine you're the Copyright owner and you like your work and efforts to be respected.
          Imagine you don't like others to play the clever guy with your intellectual and/or creative property (and messages in forums apply as well).
          Now you become the user again wanting to use this data.
          Does Fair Use, as described above, covers your needs, or do you better ask for permission to the Copyright owner?
          If you should have got permission please add this fact and name permission giver to the reference.
          If one can reasonably assume permission, THEN DON'T SELL IT AS YOUR KNOWLEDGE, BUT REFER TO THE AUTHOR YOU GOT THE KNOWLEDGE FROM. It's the only courtesy you have to return to those spending energy in helping others.
        3. Don't quote more than needed to support your point. If you need more link to the message.
        4. Try to limit the use of other's pictures, graphs, drawings etc. . The more valuable they become in function of technical/mathematical/graphical content or creative art, the more likely you infringe the Copyright.  Link to pages containing pictures as much as possible. For graphs representing calculations and drawings and art pictures you can easily state that they almost NEVER are in the Public Domain. Even a proper reference does not necessarily constitute "Fair Use".
          This also relates to the transformation rule. When a picture must be integrated in a text (within the context of an argument) and the picture is somewhere on a page where this picture must be searched between lots of other stuff, then the argument becomes unreadable and the transformation rule will easier constitute "Fair Use".
        5. Never just assume something is in the Public Domain because you can't find a Copyright notice. In most cases you're plain wrong.
          From the moment anything subject to Copyright is made, it is Copyrighted, whether this is stated as such or not.
          Only things clearly stated or undoubtful implied that they are given free in the Public Domain are. NOT THE REVERSE.
          Even plain messages in newsgroups, usenet, email-lists, forums etc. are protected by Copyright
        6. ALWAYS give proper reference to whatever Copyrighted material  you use.
          This also, but not exlusive, includes quotes and/or the intellectual core of messages/sites/books.
          If we still should infringe Copyright, we show good intent, and can correct unwittingly mistakes afterwards.
          But not mainly the legal argument is important, the basic rules of Copyright refer to the rights of others and are just a matter of common respect to the authors and one's readers (but which they are also legally entitled to).
        7. You also don't have automatically to accept the existence of Copyright, or the fact that the one who CLAIMS Copyright is the rightfull owner of this Copyright he claims.
          Some Commercial company's and/or other sites, just collect data from somewhere else, and then write Copyright notices covering their whole site or all pages, wrongly assuming that Copyright law is written for others and to protect their abuse.  Strange enough it are such companies crying out the loudest if they assume their rights being infringed.
          Clear should be:
          One can't claim Copyright on intellectual property one does not own, nor on intellectual property brought in the Public Domain.  

          The other side:  
          If one wants to make objective reviews and comparisons in the interest of many, using published data and quotes within the context, without which the review, study, work or comparison is not or almost not possible, and one respects proper reference, then "Fair Use" most likely constitutes.
          It can not be that commercial companies should allow their published data to be used at their commercial benifit, but can block any other kind of review, comparison and/or critical analysis.
          This should make the work of reviewers, consumer organisations, scientific and educational related purposes plain impossible.

            As such the Author of this topic is confronted with a rather cynical situation.  
            A company called X (known by all regulars here) enhances their turnover by using scientific wrong and/or misleading comparisons on their site with (at least questionable selected) competing brands of their products.
            However when their material data is integrated in other external comparisons, where their solutions don't beat other competing solutions they call out: STOP Copyright breach.
            It's clear that this is nonsense. The fact that they collected themselves comparable data from other sites for exlusively commercial goals makes such a claim worthless. The rules for Fair Use favor non-commercial educational scientific purposes clearly over commercial goals (even when disguished as science).
            The existance or non-existance of the notion Copyright on whichever site does not make one drop of difference in this case.
        8. Special Cases:
          Sometimes one can extend Fair Use somewhat, when it relates to keeping an overview over a question/discussion/explenation calling for different sources, within an exchange of thoughts..
          This relates to the scientific educational use of the transformation rule which prevails over mere copying data.
          And this by definition also means that one can VERY reasonable assume agreement by the Copyright owner within the context of the transformation.  Possible doubt calls for asking permission (not for unasked use) to the Copyright owner.
          However don't interpret this as a free pass.  In case of discussion the moderators decide.
Copyright and Fair Use Resources:  There are an enormous amount of them.
The reason is simple: Copyright law, fair use, it's interpretation represents billions and billions of dollars.
Discleamer: This page does not pretend to have any legal value
For more and better in-depth information research available resources (some valuable links below).

  1. 10 Big Myths about copyright explained
    Easy to read very valuable article by Brad Templeton
  2. Copyright & Fair Use
    Stanford University  Libraries
    A compilation of valuable links of Stanford University itself and other documents.
    Includes the complete US Copyright law.
  3. Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Fair Use Resources
    A compilation of valuable related links

Suggestions for improvement of this page are welcome. If there are errors or wrong data on this page, we gladly will adjust it.
Just PM Eric for whatever suggestions or comments you have related to this page.
Last edited by Eric.Desart on Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:40 am, edited 3 times in total.
Posts: 2461
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:29 am
Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Return to Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests