Where to ...

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

Where to ...

Postby ceb » Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:21 pm

Hi All,
After reading about the broad band corner treatment posts on this site, I've ordered Roxul RXL -40 and I'm going to make corner traps for my main studio room and the control room. Presently I have Auralex corner bass traps in these two rooms. I will take the Auralex corner traps out and put them in my second studio room.

Okay, my question has to do with the AuralexT-fusers. I now have them on the back walls of the main studio and the control room just where the walls meet the ceiling. Since I will be putting DIY broad band treatment there as well, where should I put the T-fusers? I think I need ceiling treatment since my studio and control rooms are roughly 12 feet 4 inches feet wide, 17 feet 2 inches long and 7 feet 2 inches high. Would it be a good idea to put the T-fusers on the ceiling? The ceilings are gyprock with stipple paint -above the ceiling in between the joists, I have 3 layers of pink insulation. I don't want to make DIY broad band panels to cover the ceiling because with corner (vertical and horizontal) treatment in the rooms, the rooms might be too dead if I also put this treatment on the ceilings. I also want to use the Auralex products I have - too good to waste. Where on the ceiling should these 2 foot by 4 foot diffusers go? (I've filled them with insulation to make them more efficient as well) I also have a few Auralex mini fusers - could go on the ceiling too??? Thanks
carl
ceb
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 2:03 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Savant » Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:58 pm

Carl,

Well...if you don't mind a response from the horse's mouth...

I usually discourage the use of T'Fusors and MiniFusors on ceilings less than 8' high. IMO, they're not a good idea on ceilings in control rooms at all, but I have found that that sort of application comes down to taste.

For your control room, I would suggest you keep the T'Fusors in the center of the rear wall. The room length implies that you should get good diffusive benefits with that placement.

For the studio room, you can mix the T'Fusors (and MiniFusors) around on the walls with your absorbers. Spread things out, create cool looking patterns, etc. Keep the diffusion more towards the center of the walls and the absorption - especially the "traps" - toward the corners. And try to minimize parallel flat surfaces. This should give you a very good sounding recording space.

My $0.02. Hope it helps!
---Σοφός---

10*bLog(P²)

"That buzzing noise means something." - Winnie the Pooh
Savant
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Kansas

Postby ceb » Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:16 am

Thanks, Jeff.

Jeff said,
For your control room, I would suggest you keep the T'Fusors in the center of the rear wall. The room length implies that you should get good diffusive benefits with that placement.

Actually the speakers shoot across the 12 foot dimension of the control room not down the 17 foot dimension. So the T-fusers are on the 17 foot wall behind the mix position. One other thing - they are side by side behind the mix position in a row where the wall meets the ceiling. Should I put them in a group of four like a block behind the mix position (my head) still up where the wall meets the ceiling or leave things as they are?

Okay, no diffusers on the ceiling. I guess I will have 703 panels on the ceiling in the centre of the studio ceiling - not totally covering the ceiling. Sound good? - anyone?

I read that if you use panels to completely cover the ceiling in a small room like mine, it basically eliminates the ceiling (acoustically), but I think it will make it too dead, so maybe just centre of the ceiling treatment will do - I usually have a singer stand in the centre of the room so that would help stop nasties from coming back into the mics from the ceiling right? Thanks.
carl
ceb
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 2:03 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Savant » Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:18 pm

Carl,

Re the 12' throw:
This is not usually as good as throwing sound in the other - longer - dimension. However, it should still work out for you. The "rule of thumb" on distance and diffusors - just so you know - is to be no closer than about 10' from them. This is debatable. I have helped plenty of folks using T'Fusors at shorter distances like your setup. I haven't had any complaints yet! :-)

Re the ceiling:
I would discourage covering 100% of any surface. For your control room, focus on the early reflection area of the ceiling. I.e., the area between you and the loudspeakers on the ceiling.
For your recording room, spread the absorption out on the ceiling, covering no more than 25 to 50%. If you need a particular area for a vocalist, do like you're thinking - one focused area of treatment above that area. Then do "spot" coverage around the rest of the ceiling.

Again, my $0.02. Others may have more ideas...
---Σοφός---

10*bLog(P²)

"That buzzing noise means something." - Winnie the Pooh
Savant
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Kansas

Postby jcgriggs23 » Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:31 pm

Jeff said:

Re the ceiling:
I would discourage covering 100% of any surface. For your control room, focus on the early reflection area of the ceiling. I.e., the area between you and the loudspeakers on the ceiling.

and I sez:

I'm 90% of the way through Phillip Newell's latest book (Recording Studio Design) and I think he'd recommend covering 100% of all surfaces except the floor and front (monitor) wall with broadband absorption (the famous "Zero Environment" concept.)

He seems to know what he is talking about, but I've never heard a proper Zero Environment room - can anyone with direct experience of a proper ZE room (i.e. one designed by a professional exponent of the concept like Newell or Tom Hidley) comment?

Just wondering,
John
jcgriggs23
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:53 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby ceb » Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:25 pm

Hi John,
I would think that to cover that much of the room with bb absorption is to create a room that is uncomfortable to work in. When I made panels before, I overdid the coverage and every time I walked into the room I thought my ears would implode.

Anyway, I've ordered the RXL-40 and yesterday I went to a fabric shop to price polyester batten and black burlap. Each panel will cost about $10.00 in burlap and about $8.00 in polyester - getting expensive.

After hearing what Jeff has to say, I think I will move my t-fusers down a little (they are in a row behind the mix position just where the wall meets the ceiling) and cluster them in a block behind my head. I will put another bb panel or two on the ceiling between the mix position and the speakers. I wonder if there should be much bare wall showing in a small room? I think I'll have most of it covered in one way or another with either bb absorption (DIY) or t-fusers, one and two inch foam, mini fusers, and Venus bass traps (Auralex).
carl
ceb
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 2:03 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Savant » Fri Feb 20, 2004 1:13 pm

John,

My loose interpretation of Philip Newell's (actually, Tom Hidley's) "neutral environment" rooms:

1. Very wide band absorption for the ceiling, rear wall and side walls.
2. A highly reflective front wall with soffit-mounted (usually large) reference loudspeakers. (Not yo' momma's "nearfields," to be sure! :-)
3. A reflective floor.

For #3, I agree 100%, regardless of the rest of the room. Hard floors just "feel right," if nothing else.
For #2, it's a great idea if you can afford the types of loudspeakers Mr. Newell typically writes about.
For #1, again, if you can afford the space this requires, is a very good design. The results rooms are usually quite, well, "neutral" sounding.

BUT...

If the ceiling is 7 or 8 feet high, the room is starting out as quite a bit different from Mr. Newell's typical installation. The ability to include anything that wideband is pretty much nixed. Therefore, it's much more a case of treating the ceiling like any other early reflection surface. Hence the reason I think 100% of anything is a bad idea. Mix it up for the best results. And treat those darned early reflection points as well as you can!!! :-D
---Σοφός---

10*bLog(P²)

"That buzzing noise means something." - Winnie the Pooh
Savant
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Kansas

Postby jcgriggs23 » Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:33 am

Carl,

The theory of non-environment rooms is to present a (near) anechoic environment to the monitor speakers (which are flush mounted into the only reflective wall) while providing enough relfection of the hard front wall, floor and furniture to maintain life for sounds that come from sources elsewhere in the room (so you don't get the "head imploding" effect when you talk, etc.) As Jeff points out, the amount of space required for the necessary broadband absorbtion pretty much rules out this approach in your case.

But it is interesting that all the established theories of control room design for stereo are bi-directional and present a different acoustic environment to sounds coming from one end of the room than to sounds coming from the other end. LEDE. RFZ, CID and ESS all assume that the sound sources are firing down one dimension of the room in one direction and apply different approaches to dealing with reflections, etc. that occur after the direct sound has made a "clean first pass" past the monitor position in this specific direction. However you decide to deal with reflections from various surfaces, I think this basic idea of as "clean" a first pass as possible is important to keep in mind.

Jeff,

Newell new book has examples of NE rooms using production model Quested monitors - not cheap, but certainly more affordable than the $50,000+ (each) custom Kinoshita "28Hz" monitors that he's used in the past. He also makes a case for the useability of "near field" monitors in NE rooms.

But I really wasn't suggesting that Carl apply NE theory to his room ( lack of room, the fact that it'd be a total redesign and I know Carl already has some significant money invested in his existing treatments, etc.), but hoping for comments from people who have had experience in NE rooms (which seem to be rare up here in the Great White North)

If anyone has any experience with how hard it is to build an NE room, I'd be interested in that too (I'm thinking of all those awful LEDE-like rooms that got some part or other of the entire system wrong and ended up sucking)

Regards,
John
jcgriggs23
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:53 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada


Return to Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest