|
Post by Hexspa on Mar 9, 2019 8:33:06 GMT
6" of rigid is substantial and heavy on its own. Maybe just forego the barrier and make them 8". That's the maximum thickness experts recommend for rigid panels and I can assure you that it will absorb a lot of sound.
|
|
|
Post by highanddry on Mar 11, 2019 17:55:01 GMT
6" of rigid is substantial and heavy on its own. Maybe just forego the barrier and make them 8". That's the maximum thickness experts recommend for rigid panels and I can assure you that it will absorb a lot of sound. Yes. I am giving that serious consideration. thanks again for all your insight !
|
|
|
Post by pingpangpong on Mar 21, 2019 8:06:10 GMT
I am about to build some 4' x 8' gobos. I have seen some beautiful builds that used 4 inch OC 703 per side. Would 2" per side be adequate for most applications? I don't expect these to be bass traps. Nor do I expect them to achieve total isolation. I plan on putting a 3/4 piece of mdf in the middle. any feedback would be greatly appreciated Great stuff, this is the question i was trying to ask, but never heard the word gobos before? So thats usefull, always good to have the name!....im going to do pretty much the same, but what i was intending to do was build four that were stackable about a foot wide to fill a alcove i have, as the super chunks i was going to build seamed like a waist of time with the small width space i have to fill, so was going to make them removable for use when recording as instrument dividers just to give a little more control with live recording then stack them back when mixing, but was getting confused as what to fill them with as would need them to do too seperate jobs, but decided to just go with the same fill im useing for all......thinking of a possible collapsing drum room also but not sure how much sound leakage i can afford, but also thinking of some taller gobos with a viewing window like some ive just seen on google images but make roof sections also?....just playing with ideas atm, might just build a permanent drum room?..... Anyway good luck, and thanks for introducing the word gobos to my vocabulary!....also, if any one has any ideas for me, please share!
|
|
|
Post by pingpangpong on Mar 21, 2019 8:22:44 GMT
Also forgot to add, ive heard normal office dividers doing a good job of stopping mike spillage, so just from that im sure what your planning without the middle mdf sheet will be fine less, your aiming guitar stacks at each other!....thats something else im intending is a speaker isolation box to fit a 4x12 cab......can keep the head in the control room then crank it up and have the freedom of twiddling without the ears bleeding! Anyway im straying from the point! Go Go Gobos!
|
|
Trdat
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Trdat on Mar 21, 2019 11:30:27 GMT
Hexpa,
I thought Ill write here instead of starting a new post.
You mentioned above that 2 inch thick panel is enough for speech intelligibility. Would a 50kg m3 density be enough, or work okay?
I am helping a friend out with a restaurant and am using the same principals such as, RFZ, panels at ear height, cover 15 to 25 % of surface area etc...
Also, if I put cotton in front of the mineral wool will that help a little more with the higher frequencies or general speech in a very loud echoing restaurant?
Regards
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Mar 23, 2019 9:35:11 GMT
What's that, about 3lb/ft3? As far as I know, speech intelligibility is primarily governed by one's ability to distinguish the higher frequency component from a person's voice who you want to understand. That means minimizing masking and comb filtering in that upper range caused by reflected and persistent sound. Luckily, high frequencies are easier to manage than lower ones - you can verify this with any comparative absorption coefficient chart.
With that in mind, your chosen density of mineral wool should be fine. But, again, since high frequencies are so easily absorbed, placing an additional absorbent layer on top of the panel will probably help some but isn't required.
Hopefully this is accurate and helpful.
Thanks.
|
|
Trdat
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Trdat on Apr 1, 2019 7:04:53 GMT
Hey Hexpa,
Apologize for late reply, I always see messages late. But always appreciated. I am trying not to start new topics but sometimes I don't get replies in the middle of a thread.
Appreciate your response. Yes, 3lb/ft3 is 50kg/3 and I will check the coefficients but I was more curious from a practical perspective if the 50kg/3 would be a good option or perhaps even a little less dense would be better. I think 50kg/3 is probably the best option that way you get some low frequency absorption as well.
But, I am thinking that I will add some soft cotton to the front to help with high frequency absorption.
Following from the guidelines mentioned in my first post is there anything else I might need to take in consideration for effectively fitting out a restaurant? I am presuming same principles as 2 channel listening room then placing panels at ear height, covering 10% to 20%, covering large open spaces....
My only worry is if 10% coverage would have enough effect if that's the limited space we have to work with to cover the surface area?
And is there any point in REW or some form of testing in a restaurant?
Sorry for so many question but I need to be confident before I take this step in helping my friend. Its a pretty high end restaurant. My only hope is this forum.
If any one can provide any extra advice it would be greatly appreciated.
Kindest Regards
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Apr 1, 2019 8:30:30 GMT
You get the majority of benefit from a fundamental layout. As far as I can tell, acoustic treatment has diminishing returns. You don't get twice as fast decay from twice as much treatment - at least I haven't observed that. In other words, anything will help - particularly if the room is totally reflective. This case is clearly one where visual aesthetic matters so just proceed tastefully and deploy as much coverage as you can without overwhelming the ambience.
As far as REW goes, you can probably observe improved decay in the ranges you're targeting. It looks like the software also offers an impulse response workflow so that's another way of visualizing your results. Please post before and after measurements so we can all see.
Thanks.
|
|