timc
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by timc on Sept 22, 2022 14:08:58 GMT
Hi everyone! First of all I'd like to thank all the contributors to this forum and Ethan, I've learnt so much from everything you share. I recently moved out of a rental apartment and into my own place. Fortunately my wife let me dedicate one bedroom to listening to music (and accomodating her parents when they visit). I'd like to DIY corner bass traps and would really appreciate constructive feedback on my plans layed out below. I've measured the room at the listening position and below is the frequency response. I've a peak at 45Hz and theoretically, the ideal bass trap for me would be 1.9m/ 75" deep (this is equal to 1/4 the wavelength of 45Hz which is 7.64m/ 301"). This is not feasible. . The next best alternative I can think of is to build a quarter circle cross section soffit bass trap that has a 50cm/ 19.6" radius, which is a little over 1/16th the wavelength of 45Hz. I do not have space for an ideal square cross section soffit and I predict that a quarter circle would be better than a triangular cross section because no matter the angle of incidence of the soundwave, it would pass through 50cm of porous material before hitting the wall. Based on the acousticmodelling.com calculator, it would perform better if I fill it only with R30 instead of using a mix of 705 and R30. If possible, I will source for FRK to sandwich between the wood frame and the pink fluffy because according to the calculator, this will help reduce mid-high frequency absorption. If I can't find FRK, I will use cellophane instead. Please let me know if my plans make sense and if not, what recommendations you would have
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Sept 23, 2022 9:29:01 GMT
You can use a resonant absorber. I don't know precisely how to make them but that's the only practical solution. Plus, it depends how egregious of a resonance this is. Often, I reference an EBU whitepaper which really only specifies decay times above 63Hz. In other words, focus on your broadband treatment (8" rigid should fully absorb down to 63Hz) and see how that lowest resonance is doing after you notch it down with some EQ.
|
|
timc
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by timc on Sept 24, 2022 8:30:13 GMT
Thanks Hexspa! Can you please help me understand why a helmholtz resonator would be better? And perhaps add some links to DIY instructions if possible? 🙏🏼
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Sept 25, 2022 9:39:42 GMT
A resonator is better for that range because, as you observed, regular frictional absorbers need to be so thick. I'm about to build some safe n sound panels and at 12" thick they should only go down to 63Hz. In my experience, that resonance is kind of standing alone by itself so it makes no sense to use a broadband absorber on it; unlike higher modes which tend to be more closely spaced. BBC Guide to Acoustic Practice 1990 is all the knowledge I have. They specify one called the D2 absorber which functions at and below 63Hz. Section 3 is the one about room acoustics. Page 117 shows the absorption coefficients of their various modular absorbers. Page 116 shows you how to build it. They didn't make regular broadband absorbers like you see in home studios these days a la real traps et al. They made these modular absorbers, typically A2 and A3 that incorporated Helmholtz resonation. Later, they realized that this particular combination was over absorbing 400Hz so they made the A9. Somewhere along the line they developed the D2 "double sized" one for bass, typically used for music. downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive/pdffiles/architectural-acoustics/bbc_guideacousticpractice.pdfand another related one: downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1992-10.pdfStrangely, they give differing absorption coefficients in the two documents. Though they specify hole size in the BBC documents, here's a calculator for doing so: www.perforated-sheet.com/calculation/how-to-calculate-open-area.htmlHere's a perforated helmholtz calculator (haven't tested it): www.mh-audio.nl/Acoustics/HelmholzPanelResonator.htmlHere's some software which claims to do the calculation (paid, non-affiliated): strutt.arup.com/help/Building_Acoustics/HelmholtzAbsorber.htmLastly, a research paper (which I haven't read) about perforated resonant absorbers: www.researchgate.net/publication/353970735_Optimized_method_for_Helmholtz_resonator_design_formed_by_perforated_boardsThat should be all you need to know!
|
|
timc
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by timc on Sept 26, 2022 1:57:21 GMT
thank you so much Hexspa! I'll pore over the materials you shared and determine feasibility of DIY-ing it =]
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Sept 26, 2022 8:04:33 GMT
thank you so much Hexspa! I'll pore over the materials you shared and determine feasibility of DIY-ing it =] Not sure if I mentioned it but try to notch down that frequency first then see how much decay is outside your tolerance. Remember, you're going outside the guidance of the EBU - depending how much that mode is masking, you might be fine with the effect given by normal broadband absorbers since they will bring 40Hz down a bit.
|
|