IMPROVING STUDIO SOUND

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 2248 times.

STEELWIZ

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 7
IMPROVING STUDIO SOUND
« on: 31 Mar 2018, 03:20 pm »
HI Guys,
 Can you advise me accordingly? 
I have a with a new concrete mix/studio room of W14.2' X L21.8’ X H13’ and some GIK  products: 4 soffits, 10 tri traps, 4 monster traps.

However these products are not helping with my very boomy/muddy room. Mr Bryan Pape of GIK listed several more things that I needed to purchase, but having to import these products would be VERY expensive and I would still have  a lot of concrete areas untreated at the end of the day.
Someone recommended unfaced pink fluffy to get more bang for my buck for bass traps as opposed to roxul.

Is R-15 or R-13 better for bass trapping a back wall and sidewalls?
Thanks for taking the time to read.
Your advice or anyone else would be most appreciated.

mikeeastman

Re: IMPROVING STUDIO SOUND
« Reply #1 on: 31 Mar 2018, 05:17 pm »
I used this product for my bass traps, it worked well and is nicer to work with than fiberglass. Most building supply stores carry it.   http://www.bondedlogic.com/ultratouch-denim-insulation/

mresseguie

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4711
  • SW1X DAC+ D Sachs 300b + Daedalus Apollos = Heaven
Re: IMPROVING STUDIO SOUND
« Reply #2 on: 31 Mar 2018, 05:51 pm »
+1 on denim

In which country do you live? There must be alternative materials available.

Michael (currently in Taiwan)

STEELWIZ

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: IMPROVING STUDIO SOUND
« Reply #3 on: 31 Mar 2018, 07:04 pm »
In which country do you live? There must be alternative materials available[/shado

I live in Trinidad in the Caribbean. A lot of guys including me use 2"-4" mattress material for acoustics and I know this is a no no. I don't know of anything over here that is acoustically suitable thatI can use to fill my bass trap cavities.
Thanks for the responses
 

richidoo

Re: IMPROVING STUDIO SOUND
« Reply #4 on: 31 Mar 2018, 09:46 pm »
The thicker and denser the FG the better it will absorb sound. LF attenuation needs thick and dense fiber. Packaged home insulation rolls and wads are very dense and they make great absorbers but ugly. :)

Mattress foam is closed cell foam, so it can't do any attenuation because the air doesn't penetrate. But if you had cushions or bedding that air can flow through it will attenuate sound. But it has to be thick and dense to work on LF.

I would think you can get FG insulation in your tropical climate.

Place the treatment panels that you already have as near to the monitors as possible so that you will absorb as much LF energy as possible while it's still loudest, and before it gets loose into the wild where it is harder to locate and trap. You have a lot of panels, pack them closely around your monitors so that sound can only go toward you and less goes to the surrounding walls and start bouncing. Tritraps in floor/wall and wall/wall corners closest to speakers, with flat panels resting on the tritrap edge leaning against the wall. And panels making a "horn" around the speaker baffle to aim sound at you and minimize side and rear radiation, etc. Use your imagination to experiment with this concept, it works. But like any other acoustic treatment scheme requires a lot of fiddling and fine tuning to get it to sound the way you want. But it's not WAF friendly.
Good luck!

STEELWIZ

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: IMPROVING STUDIO SOUND
« Reply #5 on: 31 Mar 2018, 10:11 pm »
Thanks richidoo. Here are some images...


STEELWIZ

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: IMPROVING STUDIO SOUND
« Reply #6 on: 31 Mar 2018, 10:13 pm »
This is one pic but I now have the speakers closer to the front wall and the GIK monster traps closer to the soffits to the front. Just some experimentation to see if I can get a tighter low end mix.

JLM

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 10660
  • The elephant normally IS the room
Re: IMPROVING STUDIO SOUND
« Reply #7 on: 1 Apr 2018, 12:16 pm »
Yes, do experiment with placement of the GIK stuff.  I see that your room is nearly as tall as wide, which will reinforce echo (boominess) around 80 Hz. 

I have six GIK 244 panels, and while highly effective elsewhere, they're nearly useless in my 8ft x 13ft x 21ft room (Cardas Golden Cuboid) no matter how I try to set them up.  Note that I also use an almost near-field setup like you and also have my panels set up in a Live End - Dead End arrangement.  So I suggest you lower the ceiling in your room to match those ratios.  Getting the proper room shape/size is always the best first step to good room acoustics.  Treatments are the first bandaid to try.  DSP/EQ is the last bandaid to try (with discretion).

I'd avoid un-enclosed batt insulation due to the fibers getting into the lungs.  Foam is useless for acoustic absorption.  From a common sense observation it appears that you already have plenty of good quality treatment, any more would be ridiculous.  Focus on proper room shape.  Read Floyd Toole's "Sound Reproduction" to learn more about how sound behaves in-room. 

STEELWIZ

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: IMPROVING STUDIO SOUND
« Reply #8 on: 1 Apr 2018, 12:35 pm »
Thanks richidoo for the FG insulation info. I did look into it and it is available. I will have to make a price  as well as acoustic comparison.
Yes JLM there is roominess at loud volumes where I was seated before (38%). I am experimenting and even going against the rules to see what is relevant to my situation.

My monitors are now 6" form the wall and mix position is 6' as opposed to 8.3'. I am also mixing quietly and then checking loudly ever so often. the low end seems contained as opposed to booming now at loud levels but I am awaiting feedback from some friends whose studio sound better than mine.

Some one suggested I even move my monitors closer to the front wall saying I am still in the no fly zone. We'll see.
So I suggest you lower the ceiling in your room to match those ratios.

The true ceiling height is 13' but I built a tapered drop ceiling using 1/2" groove ply at 11' at the front up to 12' at the back. This cost me. Is there any other way to avoid tampering with the ceiling construction? Maybe treatment inside or panels hanging above the MP?


JLM

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 10660
  • The elephant normally IS the room
Re: IMPROVING STUDIO SOUND
« Reply #9 on: 2 Apr 2018, 10:33 am »
11 feet versus 12 feet versus 13 feet is more of a quibble than effective.  What does 'roominess' and 38% refer to?  Regardless concrete walls are highly reflective. 

To keep to the Cardas Golden Cuboid ratios I'd lower the entire ceiling to about 8.2 feet.  This can be done with a suspended ceiling (a DIY project using lightweight manufactured materials).  Most suspended ceilings offer vastly improved acoustic absorption versus concrete, so you may be able to eliminate the ceiling mounted bass traps.

Note that the ancient Greeks had come up with almost the exact same ratios (5:8) which seems to please the western eye (and minimized echo in their stone temples).

STEELWIZ

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: IMPROVING STUDIO SOUND
« Reply #10 on: 2 Apr 2018, 02:38 pm »
What does 'roominess' and 38% refer to? 

:D roominess was a typo. I meant I was having boominess or booming at the 38% suggested listening position at  louder volumes----around 70-80db

And yes I do understand what you are telling me about the room ratios and lowering the ceiling etc.