|
Post by rock on Sept 18, 2023 12:43:21 GMT
Hi Hex, done!
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by rock on Jun 28, 2023 14:08:10 GMT
So you know you have 2 different issues.
With transmission, make sure your machines are isolated from the floor and walls with isolation mounts. That can solve a lot of upstairs noise. Filling between ceiling joists with regular "fluffy" the full depth will help. If you leave the ceiling open (no dry wall), it will also work as an absorber for your work space but you won't have the mass to help reduce transmission. Try it without drywall first. Another way to add mass the the ceiling in to cut DW in strips and put it up between the joists before insulation.
In your workspace, since you find your noise in the 800 and up region (but if you have lower freqs, thicker is better), you really don't need thick absorption; 2" to 4" thick should be fine. More is better. You can add it incrementally if you want to see how it's working for you.
Be aware that in your workspace, absorption will only work on reflections of the sound from your machines bouncing around inside the room. The absorption cannot reduce the sound source of the machine itself. The only way I know of to do this is to enclose the machine in an air tight heavy enclosure.
|
|
|
Post by rock on Jun 28, 2023 4:38:42 GMT
Hi jerry,
Quickly, please take a look a recent thread "Heavy Velour curtains to reduce (not entirely block) sound".
It involves aspects of sound transmission attenuation as does your question. See if you can get anything out of that thread and please come back with more questions on what your "Soundproofing" needs are i.e. how much.
I think for room acoustic treatment, it's much easier to say the more, the better.
|
|
|
Post by rock on Jun 20, 2023 22:28:09 GMT
I'm no expert either but yes, I agree with Hexspa.
Here's another way to think about it: When you add absorption in the room, how much is actually absorbed and how much is still there? This is easy to measure with REW. Most of us have done this but we're usually looking at details like peaks, nulls and modal ringing and not the overall/average SPL ,which doesn't seem to change very much. Maybe you'll loose 6dB in the low end maybe 12???
So yeah bbb63, I think you're right that you'll get some transmission attenuation... but how much? That's the question! You could measure "before" and "after" to determine how much... but that would mean buying all those curtains and installing them etc. I wish I could tell you how much but if you ask around, I'll bet nobody can tell you because it's not enough to make enough difference and maybe nobody bothered to measure it. Sorry, my best guess.
|
|
|
Post by rock on Jun 17, 2023 18:40:53 GMT
That's right Hex, Yes, there is a significant loss in even a really thick, heavy wall with a small hole in it. I can't remember exactly how much but it's almost like if you didn't have the wall there! I just did a quick google search for "sound isolation mistakes" and found this stuff: www.soundproofcow.com/common-soundproofing-mistakes/ and I found this on youtube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et7xva8KZN0In Rod Gervais' book, he talks about caulking all drywall seams between multi-layer walls warning if this is not done, the room performance will be compromised. Additionally, he suggests if the work is being done by a contractor that he leave each layer open for inspection before the next layer is installed. He point's out general contractors don't necessarily understand acoustic isolation and may skip vital steps thinking it won't make any difference!
|
|
|
Post by rock on Jun 16, 2023 1:07:44 GMT
Hi bb,
Welcome to the form.
In general, acoustic treatment of the inside of a room and sound transmission attenuation ("sound proofing") between rooms or the inside to the outside are two completely different subjects.
Sound transmission attenuation techniques should be done in the planning and construction phase and not as an afterthought.
Even though "sound proof" and "sound proofing" are misnomers, it is a term you will find often used. I suggest you search threads here with "sound proof" etc. to see what others here have asked and tried.
One thing to understand is there is progressively more energy in low frequencies than high frequencies with the same apparent or perceived volume (your chart is an example of this) so standard home construction will work fine for blocking conversation from room to room but when you play music with bass content or a movie with explosive sound effects, the low end will go right through the walls not to mention poorly fitted doors, gaps in drywall near the floor which is hidden behind baseboard and a multitude of other things.
You can knock the sound level down a bit with room sound absorption treatment but Ethan is right, it's not "soundproofing".
|
|
|
Post by rock on May 19, 2023 13:52:27 GMT
I don't know if this is the "Best Way" but using "L" brackets mounted to the wall will work. This example will get you a 4" gap. For a 2' x 4' by 4" thick, use 2 of these 8" brackets on the bottom. 2 more on the top can help support the weight. If you design your panel frames so you can slide the top brackets between the bottom the the frame and above the absorber material. You can hide the brackets by attaching the wall side so it's behind the panel. www.menards.com/main/hardware/utility-hardware/corner-flat-braces/national-hardware-reg-zinc-corner-brace/n220-178/p-1444448903811-c-9700.htmYou can only go so far with this method and it obviously depends on the size of bracket you can find. For really big/deep panels, it might be better to make them free standing on the floor. BTW, Did you see Jesco's email where he has photos of a couple of professional studios under construction? ALL surfaces are 100% covered with absorption (how thick??? IDK) but the point, virtually complete absorption. After that, the "finishing" interior is either wood slats and acoustically transparent fabric etc. to give some "life" back to the design. He didn't go into design details but I think the point was that we amateurs don't have the luxury or resources to build from scratch and that we have go jump through all kinds of hoops to try to turn a "regular" room into a studio.
|
|
|
Post by rock on May 13, 2023 20:36:30 GMT
About carpet, F. Alton Everest has pointed out the argument against carpet in that it's limited to HF and that then the ceiling absorption should complement the carpet's absorption. The simpler solution is to use total wide-band absorption for the entire ceiling and no absorption on the floor; i.e. no carpet. I believe Ethan has suggested using area or throw rugs where and when required or desired etc.
Your question about f response VS decay time: Good point! As far as f response, you're not going to get it flat I'll quote Ethan from another thread:
"All rooms have peaks and nulls. The best you can do is aim to make them as small as possible using bass traps and by varying your speaker placement and listening position. If you can get the span between the highest peak and deepest null to within a 10 dB window, you're doing very well!"
Controlling decay time is a big one and it will only get better (less) with more absorption.
I like Hexspa's advice above: Keep it simple! (but having some idea of what and why you're doing it is not bad either;)
|
|
|
Post by rock on May 10, 2023 12:51:03 GMT
Regarding placing bales VS purpose built basstraps: Even though I recommended building bass traps, it would be much easier and faster to just stack bales or rolls of insulation. If you're inclined to go the stacking route, I suggest you at least make and record acoustic measurements (with REW). This way you'll have data you can refer to in the event you want to make changes or improvements. Taking baseline measurements before treatment can be useful too. Once you get started treating your room, you're much less inclined to empty the room for baseline measurements, so do it first.
|
|
|
Post by rock on May 10, 2023 4:12:04 GMT
Welcome to the forum.
A larger room is generally better because A. The greater dimensions have lower frequency 1st room modes and B. The direct to reflective sound to the Listening Position will be greater, so for those reasons moving to the larger room will be an improvement.
I suggest the L.P. should face the 12'4"wall. Your dimensions indicate the front section (top of the drawing) is larger than the bottom so your speakers and L P will be in the front of the room. That's good. Don't worry that the back of the room is narrower but fully treat the 2' 11" section with absorption to compensate for the shorter front to back distance in that section. Treating the back of the room (the 9' 5" wall) is a good idea too.
You can stack bales but better, you'll get more volume and distribution from the same amount by using fiberglass uncompressed. "Fluffy" fiberglass absorbers should be 8" or thicker. Spacing absorbers up to equal the panel thickness from walls and ceilings increases low freq efficacy for both dense or lower density absorbers.
Yes, treat first reflection areas including the ceiling.
Using acoustic measurements can help you confirm your choices and help track your progress. REW is free software.
I think you're on the right track but just about everything in this post can be found in many other threads on this forum so if you search, you'll find many questions about rooms similar to yours but if you don't find what you're looking for, feel free to ask.
|
|
|
Post by rock on May 6, 2023 12:54:25 GMT
"Old School Approach" Yeah, well it was the '70's...that's almost prehistoric LOL
|
|
|
Post by rock on May 3, 2023 20:36:50 GMT
Thanks for adding to this thread. Many of us know the answer but waiting for your reply was worth any reasonable amount of time.
The idea of massive and rigid speaker enclosures is not new. I learned the basics long ago.
Massive and rigid enclosures make me remember a story my electronics instructor told in class back in about 1975 about his color TV gaussing.
It starts with him digging a rectangular hole in his back yard. Then mixing up some concrete and pouring it into the hole he dug as a form for his DIY concrete speaker enclosure. I think the sides were about 2" thick. He also dug a shallower hole for the front (or back). FWIW, I remember he was into Wharfedale drivers. Anyway, after he was finished and set them up in his living room, for some reason he wanted to move the enclosure across the room to the other side of the TV. As the story goes, the path of shortest distance passed right in front of the TV so, not being able to pick up the enclosure, he pushed the concrete speaker enclosure across the floor, directly in front of the TV to it's new location on the other side of the room. Needless to say, he was not concerned about loudspeaker isolation.
This was my instructors way of telling us A. Massive speaker enclosures=Good. B. So massive they're not easily moved=Not so Good. C. Putting strong magnetic fields near a color CRT = Not so Good either.
So, back in the '70's when we degaussed TV, we'd turn on the TV, light up some incense and/or your choice of smoking material, click on the degaussing coil and enjoy the show!
|
|
|
Post by rock on Mar 12, 2023 16:14:30 GMT
I'm finding this tread interesting. When I first joined this site, I had a similar question asking if insulation in a closet would affect the acoustics in the room on the other side of the wall or closed closet door. It seems obvious now but it didn't before. Thanks to Ethan, his forum and all the other contributors, I think I now have a pretty good basic idea of what's going on with sound in "small" rooms. (seems to me, priorities seem to change in "medium" and "large" rooms so I'll have to leave that for another day...most of us don't have those size rooms anyway. But now that I think about it, stano's room is on the big side for a "Small Room" and may be entering the "Medium Room" territory. IDK) So, the OP, stanodx5, asks: "Can I use room boundaries as a bass trap?" Well, the answer is no. A solid, rigid, reflective room boundary will not absorb and reduce room modes (to any significant degree if at all). One suggestion is that if the OP wants or needs low freq bass trapping on the rear wall, fill the space with insulation (2,5m is pretty deep so that would be a very effective bass trap). The fill need only be low density fiberglass since the space is so deep. Let's use the idea of 1/4 wave length as theory of the depth to frequency relationship even though actual acoustic measurements may give us even better results. We can calculate freq of 2,5m quarter wavelength to be 34.4 HZ. So if you build a wood stud wall, (or steel stud for fire safety) and fill the 2,5m space behind it, then cover the stud wall with acoustically transparent material, there you go! Now, in addition, Ethan has mentioned the rear wall being a good candidate for diffusion too. Ethan builds combination absorber/diffusors. I think the idea is that the low freqs go "through" the diffusor into the bass trap. So the question is "What are the properties of the diffusor material that will work for this purpose?" If you are going to build DIY diffusors, hopefully Ethan can share or suggest a material for this purpose... if of course it's not proprietary info. (sorry, Ethan may have mentioned this already in a post but IDK or just forgot:( "Just one more thing..." (no this is not a Columbo episode:) I notice the dimensions before and after are both well outside of the "Bolt-area" amcoustics.com/tools/amroc?l=953&w=730&h=350&r60=0.6 but even with that, the node distribution looks pretty good and the size of your room pushes the fundamental mode frequencies quite low. The ceiling/floor is, as usual, the highest first node (47Hz) and the idea of a well treated fully transparent ceiling trap is also as usual a good idea too.
|
|
|
Post by rock on Feb 11, 2023 15:03:58 GMT
It looks like your piano is a digital on a stand. It really does not have a large "acoustical footprint" i.e. influence reflections/absorption etc. so leave it there if it's not in your way. If you want, you can run a couple REW sweep with it in and out of the room an see if a difference shows up but if anything it will be minimal and probably only in the HF. BTW, I don't think measurement (REW etc.) has been mentioned here; you can use it is as much or as little as you want but it can help identify or confirm issues you may (or may not) be hearing.
Looks like the desk will be behind the LP so it's my guess it's not a problem where it is either.
I like Hexspa's suggestion "in another room" but for the cupboard, yeah, I agree, I'd keep that wall clear for full absorption which will help to make the wall "disappear" acoustically. If you can't move it, so be it, like you mentioned, compromises need to be made...I think that's an issue for all of us. Again, measurements may help you make some decisions.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by rock on Feb 6, 2023 19:11:19 GMT
First, one question: What's that thing across from the desk? Can it be moved? I'm mostly just wondering.
I think the most obvious answer is the speaker /listening position etc. Set up the speakers on the north wall. Exact positions need to be determined experimentally. I'm pretty sure Hexspa has a procedure in a post somewhere or in a youtube. Either search or he'll probably get back soon. Best way to minimize mix desk reflections is speakers on stands and a small desk.
Deep wide-band absorption on the 4 ft south wall. Absorption on the 8ft south wall too. Actually you know you need absorption everywhere, it's just where do you need it the most?
I like your idea of a complete ceiling frame. It takes care of LF floor/ceiling modes and reflections at the same time.
Squeeze in as many of your bass traps in the corners as you can fit.
Cheers
|
|