i'm setting up a mix room in a temp space, i will stay there for 2-3 years max.
the way i want to set up my mixing position will face an all glass wall with a door to a balcony on it, i preferably do not want to loose the view, the entrance to the balcony and the natural light.
my mixing position will be about 12 feet from the glass wall.
theres gonna be broadband treatment on the sidewalls and above the mix position and bass trapping on the back wall/ceiling.
would hanging heavy theater drapes in front of the glass wall be effective from an acoustic POV?
mixing room glass front wall
Originally posted at johnlsayers.com, topic 10022.
Sure, though I never understood the common obsession with treating the front wall. Other than some types of hi-fi speakers, normal speakers send sound the other way, away from the glass. So it's much more important to treat the first reflection points on the side walls and ceiling, and often the rear wall behind you too. --Ethanwould hanging heavy theater drapes in front of the glass wall be effective from an acoustic POV?
This is generally a fine approach.theres gonna be broadband treatment on the sidewalls and above the mix position and bass trapping on the back wall/ceiling.
Despite what some people might believe, loudspeakers are not perfectly directional. Surprising to some is the fact that, not only does sound come out of the front of a loudspeaker (good), some sound - most typically sound in the less desirable low frequency range - is actually emitted from the back of a loudspeaker (not good). This makes sense if one simply considers the imperfections of the system (and if one has ever seen loudspeaker directivity plots). Nonetheless, the concept does escape some people completely. Not to worry, though. That's why these forums are great; different perspectives. :) To answer your question, the heavy theater curtains - combined with the fact that the "wall" in question largely consists of glass (which tends to be an OK LF absorber - better than wallboard or concrete for sure) - should help reduce the magnitude of any unwanted acoustical effects. What might help further is the use of acoustical blankets, which tend to be somewhat unattractive (IMO), or the use of stand-mounted broadband absorbers, manufacturers of which are in attendance here o-plenty! :D HTH. All the best,would hanging heavy theater drapes in front of the glass wall be effective from an acoustic POV?
thanks, i will go this route then.
@ ethan: i wanted to use the curtains to keep HF from bouncing back from the glass into my mixing position which would affect mix decisions. are you referring to the LEDE principle? i thought it was more or less abandoned nowadays..
No kidding - many more polar plots here: http://www.realtraps.com/art_front-wall.htm --EthanDespite what some people might believe, loudspeakers are not perfectly directional.
Yes, but mids and highs go mainly forward from loudspeakers. Around the same time I wrote the Front Wall Absorption article linked above, I had a friend visit so we could test if the 65 inch glass-front RPTV in my living room reflected sound. We took turns holding a large sheet of thick acoustic foam in front of the glass while the other person listened. Neither of us heard any difference at all when seated in the listening position. Now, my living room is well treated, and my Mackie 624 speakers are a few inches forward of the TV, so the absorption had little effect on overall decay times. Versus a totally untreated room where that much absorption would be more significant. But the point is that most speakers send mids and highs forward, so having glass in front is not a problem if the rest of the room is treated properly. --Ethani wanted to use the curtains to keep HF from bouncing back from the glass into my mixing position which would affect mix decisions.
Jaye,
Read the following to better understand SBIR and how treatment will help on the front wall.
http://www.gikacoustics.com/education_sbir.html
Glenn
RE:http://www.realtraps.com/rfz.htm What is that...5 remotes on the couch? ;) You gotta have help watching that TV!Now, my living room is well treated... --Ethan
A long time ago, I was of much the same opinion as Ethan regarding the need for acoustical treatments on the front wall; the loudspeakers aren't even pointed at that wall, so why treat it? Years of dealing with small rooms has taught me otherwise.
It all started once-upon-a-time when I was experimenting with different treatment techniques in a small studio control room. I noticed (measured and observed) a problem in the 200-300 Hz range that would not budge regardless of "traps," panels, etc., placed variously on the rooms walls and ceiling, with the exception of the front wall. The room was of a size that none of the fundamental room modes should not have been causing this. (Though, as I later learned, they are completely capable of exacerbating it!) The problem, as it turned out, was front wall SBI and it was clearly audible. Luckily, I was working for a treatment manufacturer at the time; some well-placed absorption on the front wall cleared things up almost completely.
I also took advantage of that experience and started reading up on the work of Allison, Waterhouse, Berger, et al. Eye-opening stuff.
Just to make sure the issue does not get clouded, the problems I'm referring to are purely in the low frequency range, where (most) loudspeakers are, for all intents and purposes, omnidirectional. I am no more a proponent of wall-wall / ceiling-floor front wall treatment than Ethan is. But I have yet to come across a small room that didn't need some well-placed treatments on the front wall. The only exception is when the monitoring system has been (properly designed and) flush-mounted in the front wall. That's about the only case I can think of where (surface) wall treatments are going to have a negative impact to the sound.
It is also worth noting that the 100% front wall treatment approach mentioned on the Ethan webpage given above isn't going to make the room sound bad. Quite the contrary, in fact. The people who subscribe to and promote that approach have their reasons for doing so. They are not wrong for doing so any more or less than people who treat their living room with 40-some "bass traps" are wrong. :)
Finally, to fine-tune the response to jaye's original question, you may not need that curtain to span the entire width of the front wall. I would suggest starting with a decent width of curtain smack between the loudspeakers and move / add / subtract from there. That is, of course, unless you need the absorption in the room from a more general standpoint. You may also find that a full-width curtain that is "bunched up" in the middle of the room until it's, say, 1/3 to 1/2 the width of the wall may work best.
HTH.
All the best,
I've had universal remotes and found them little advantage. I use the TV remote only once to turn it on and make sure my wife didn't leave it in Expand mode. :) Really, it's no big deal. I can find any button on any remote in the dark instantly. --EthanWhat is that...5 remotes on the couch? ;)
Kidding boss:)
We run about three over here with another one I have no idea what it does!
But I am working on our living room entertainment area so I do need information like what you have.
Thanks.
Sure, but that's bass trapping, as opposed to using 1- or maybe 2-inch thick material as is commonly done and explained in my article. Again, the point of my Front Wall article addresses absorption to improve imaging and mid/high frequencies. That's what I tested (twice) in my own living room, where I found no change at all.a problem in the 200-300 Hz range ... some well-placed absorption on the front wall cleared things up almost completely.
Heh, I'm now up to 43 traps plus four diffusors. --EthanThey are not wrong for doing so any more or less than people who treat their living room with 40-some "bass traps" are wrong. :)
I used 4" thick acoustical foam; not "bass traps."Sure, but that's bass trapping, as opposed to using 1- or maybe 2-inch thick material as is commonly done and explained in my article.a problem in the 200-300 Hz range ... some well-placed absorption on the front wall cleared things up almost completely.
Yes, but just because it didn't improve imaging in your living room doesn't mean there aren't other applications where imaging would improve. Again, I generally agree that 100% coverage of the front wall with absorption is generally not going to be necessary. And I would also say that there could be cases where improved imaging would result from placing treatment on the front wall. Philosophically, jaye asked earlier whether the concept was based on the LEDE control room design principle. It seems to me that it is somewhat based on LEDE. This is, of course, where the RFZ concept mentioned in your article came from. Covering 100% of the front portion of a room with 1" 703 creates an RFZ...just possibly not the RFZ that's appropriate for each and every application. However, IMO it cannot be ruled out as a design approach based on a listening test in one man's already heavily treated living room. :wink: It might also be worth noting that the designers who implement heavy front-of-the-room coverage are typically augmenting it with low frequency control measures appropriate for the room.Again, the point of my Front Wall article addresses absorption to improve imaging and mid/high frequencies.
I don't disagree with any of that Jeff.
BTW, may I quote you that 4-inch thick Auralex foam is not a bass trap?
No, you may not.BTW, may I quote you that 4-inch thick Auralex foam is not a bass trap?
:)No, you may not.