|
Post by starliner on Aug 26, 2018 3:00:37 GMT
Hello everyone!
I have a few questions I've never seen addressed elsewhere. Hopefully, I can phrase it correctly to make sense.
"Conventional wisdom" has us putting a cloud on the ceiling over the mix position, and recommends a hard surface floor below, oftentimes with a "variable" size / position piece of carpeting near the mix position. I've also seen recommendations to remove any existing wall-to-wall carpet, or put a plywood sheet over it.
From an acoustics standpoint, what is the difference between a cloud on a ceiling with a hard floor, and a carpeted floor with a hard (no cloud) ceiling? Do sound waves act differently on the ceiling as opposed to the floor (maybe due to equipment / people being present)? Or, does the conventional wisdom offer the easiest / cheapest way to adjust the room?
Thanks!
Starliner
|
|
|
Post by rock on Aug 26, 2018 3:29:17 GMT
The difference is that a ceiling cloud can be typically an effective 8" thick (or more) and absorb wideband, carpet on the floor is about 1/2" thick and can only absorb the highest band of frequencies. So, it's not ceiling VS floor, it's how much thickness on the floor can you employ... which is not so much. So the answer is ... put your absorption on the ceiling, where you're not walking so much.
You are welcome, Rock
|
|
|
Post by starliner on Aug 26, 2018 3:42:08 GMT
OK, that makes perfect sense. I failed to consider the thickness factor. Although I do not have a very high ceiling, I believe I still have enough space without removing the two ceiling fans. Thank you.
Starliner
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 10:33:13 GMT
First, to do an absorptive floor, its pretty hard. As rock said, carpets only absorb highest high's. I found carpets to do more harm than good.
When it comes to live/recording rooms, where ever you go YOU will be always be the same height from floor, no matter what ceiling height. So you will perceive those reflections mostly the same.
|
|