I believe in Acoustic Sciences Tube Traps.....

I agree with both points of view: egg crates will affect the sound of a room somewhat if you give 100% coverage. And, I agree that such treatment is nowhere near adequate for getting a good-sounding room. I also like the idea of moveable acoustic panels, such as the QSF. I have some DIY panels that I use this way, and lately I've been using a Portable Vocal Booth and some RealTraps stuff on stands. It makes a huge difference in the recordings. You can not only treat spots in the room, but you can also treat what the microphone hears. For me, part of microphone placement is finding the right spot for the performer, the microphones, AND the acoustic panels.

AVare wrote:

timogiodeson wrote:

So I'm asking to the scientists , what is today alternative for musicians garages? What we can glue to the entire walls to reduce just about 30% of the offending reflections of the usual concrete floor /drywall rehearsal space..?

Why are you focussing on something (egg crates) that has become obsolete? Cover 30% or 40% of the surfaces with absorbent material. Choose the thickness as per the low frequency absorption roll off you desire. Andre

Andre, also JWL, I'm not focusing , I'm trying to find the alternative.... simply because it's not enough, what about the 100000 reflections from the remaining 70% of the walls? No... not for musician rooms... doesn't work... for mixing where only one person seat at 38% of the room with 30% of the walls around him treated using the mirror ... maybe OK... but definitely not for small garage rehearsal rooms with real instruments like drums , guitars , horns etc.. 100% coverage is much safer! for sure you can't do that with foam or fiberglass ...to much absorption! but with polystyrene, egg cartons, and a curtains in front of the door you can . :lol: back in Europe the secret of the egg cartons was... : it works ! but you need to cover the entire walls and ceiling for the real deal! (JWL , for the recoding MIC or the Instrument maybe a sweet spot ok... but what about for who make the music the MUSICIANS.. ? a drums, a guitar, etc inside a small room can be very painful for the performer !! also every time is different we don't set up the same way every time , it depend .. we need the full room ...) so...Again, please, I agree with fire hazard! And because of that, I'm asking to the scientists , what is today alternative for musicians garages? What we can glue to the ENTIRE WALLS to reduce just about 30% of the offending reflections intensity of the usual concrete floor /drywall rehearsal space..?

chuck-lin wrote:

It sounded like a chicken!!! Audience: BOOO!!!!! throws eggs...and egg cartons!!! :lol: :lol: note to self..your not a comedian!! :twisted:

But at least yer not chicken!!! Oh boy, you really did LAY an egg that time ;)

timogiodeson wrote:

AVare wrote:

Cover 30% or 40% of the surfaces with absorbent material. Choose the thickness as per the low frequency absorption roll off you desire. Andre

Andre, also JWL, I'm not focusing , I'm trying to find the alternative.... simply because it's not enough, what about the 100000 reflections from the remaining 70% of the walls? No... not for musician rooms... doesn't work... for mixing where only one person seat at 38% of the room with 30% of the walls around him treated using the mirror ... maybe OK... but definitely not for small garage rehearsal rooms with real instruments like drums , guitars , horns etc.. 100% coverage is much safer! for sure you can't do that with foam or fiberglass ...to much absorption!

OC FRK 705 1" thick. Or study the absorption data on similar products and choose according to your taste. If want to keep to about .3 absorption coefficient do not cover the sections of walls near corners Studio acoustics has gone from an obscure science to an unintuitive engineering discipline. Keep asking! Andre

AVare wrote:

OC FRK 705 1" thick. Or study the absorption data on similar products and choose according to your taste.

Yeaa... something like that.. or a combination of 2 materials... that's why I'm asking to the scientist!! I'm broke... I don't want to make mistakes!

AVare wrote:

If want to keep to about .3 absorption coefficient do not cover the sections of walls near corners

this I don't understanA.....what the absorption coefficients has to do with the corners and a thin material and without airspace ???:roll: :shock:

i think if you do some searching around, you'll find a couple of reasonable solutions, but generally speaking: scattering the absorption around the room will give you a nice balance because the absorption is hit by the reflections and subsequently is significantly reduced. if you cover with lightweight materials 100% you're still not addressing significant modes which can be a much bigger problem than echoes... you can also use diffusion - polys, TubeTrap­s(tm), QRD(tm), Skyline(tm), etc. and then there is space coupling which can do some interesting things if you have the room for it. you can also build slat resonators across corners and angled on flat walls to change room angles, and add absorption and diffusion.

gullfo wrote:

i think if you do some searching around, you'll find a couple of reasonable solutions, but generally speaking: scattering the absorption around the room will give you a nice balance because the absorption is hit by the reflections and subsequently is significantly reduced. if you cover with lightweight materials 100% you're still not addressing significant modes which can be a much bigger problem than echoes... you can also use diffusion - polys, TubeTrap­s(tm), QRD(tm), Skyline(tm), etc. and then there is space coupling which can do some interesting things if you have the room for it. you can also build slat resonators across corners and angled on flat walls to change room angles, and add absorption and diffusion.

I remember somebody scientist telling that 100% coverage with flat lightweight material NRC .20 , will absorb more bass and also DIFFUSE more sound than 20% coverage of broadband absorption NRC 1.00 !! the scattering things OK for a big room or on the other side of the room..but I need to be safe... no scattering snare rim shoots or cymbals in my ears please! :) P.S. man I'm renting, I'm broke...forget about the real stuff...I need garage solutions! $100 for the couple of reasonable solutions!!!! check is in the mail... :lol: :D :) :? :x :cry: Please?

timogiodeson, using wool IS a cheap solution and works great! Compared to egg crates/cartons/chickens it's a Ferrari while the crates is nothing more than a rusty old bike...

I don't think you'd want to provide 100% coverage of fiberglass in a room, of any thickness. Using 1" fiberglass will completely kill the room, but will leave some low end comb filtering issues. The result will be a dead and boomy room. No Good. Far better is to stack the 1" panels across the corners of the room, making panels at least 4" thick, and using some remaining tiles evenly scattered throughout the room (as gullfo suggests) until you reach your desired RT60. Depending on the size and materials in the room this could be anywhere from 15-50% coverage for most rooms, usually around 25% (though again this is highly variable, there are equations to help figure out the precise amount of absorption a room needs to achieve the desired RT60).

AVare wrote:

timogiodeson wrote:

So I'm asking to the scientists , what is today alternative for musicians garages? What we can glue to the entire walls to reduce just about 30% of the offending reflections of the usual concrete floor /drywall rehearsal space..?

Why are you focussing on something (egg crates) that has become obsolete? Cover 30% or 40% of the surfaces with absorbent material. Choose the thickness as per the low frequency absorption roll off you desire. Andre

Andre and all...... You can't be so dumb as to not understand why we must know about the past.... For instance: You ask.... Why are you focussing on something (egg crates) that has become obsolete? My answer.... We need to study the history of recorded music before we can develop the future. In other words, I think it’s very important for each of us involved in the production of recorded music, to understand what happened in the past, in the studio, to be able to move forward today. I don't use egg cartons or crates or whatever..... (Wouldn't think of it!!)BUT.... I remember them well.... Are you so fantastic that you know it all and don't need to know about the past???? Did you come into this world knowing everything??? Bruce Swedien The Platinum Viking!!! :finger:

jwl wrote:

I don't think you'd want to provide 100% coverage of fiberglass in a room, of any thickness. Using 1" fiberglass will completely kill the room, but will leave some low end comb filtering issues. The result will be a dead and boomy room. No Good. Far better is to stack the 1" panels across the corners of the room, making panels at least 4" thick, and using some remaining tiles evenly scattered throughout the room (as gullfo suggests) until you reach your desired RT60. Depending on the size and materials in the room this could be anywhere from 15-50% coverage for most rooms, usually around 25% (though again this is highly variable, there are equations to help figure out the precise amount of absorption a room needs to achieve the desired RT60).

I agree JWL, fiberglass can't be used like egg cartons , to much absorption . We need a material with reduced absorption let's say NRC 0.30 I like more the Idea of 100% coverage of reduced absorption for a rehearsal room as a starting point, so... I'm asking to the scientist again :lol: , considering the fire hazard egg cartons limitations, Today, what the musicians can glue to their garage entire walls and ceilings instead egg cartons? Pleeaase?

Hi Tim, In answer to your last question I would say that the issue is not egg cartons, but rather the necessity of treating 100% of a room uniformly. I just don't think it's a good idea. Different areas of the room have different sounds, and you can apply acoustic treatment to these differences to either minimize or accentuate the different tones. It gives you much more flexibility when recording, even more so if your acoustic treatments are moveable, which is what this thread is about.

jwl wrote:

Hi Tim, In answer to your last question I would say that the issue is not egg cartons, but rather the necessity of treating 100% of a room uniformly. I just don't think it's a good idea. Different areas of the room have different sounds, and you can apply acoustic treatment to these differences to either minimize or accentuate the different tones. It gives you much more flexibility when recording, even more so if your acoustic treatments are movable, which is what this thread is about.

my point here is not the recording ... mr Swedien also told us about the eggs cartons of the past , if you love music , you'll find the way to record in any kind of room. The point is, me, ears pain and fatigue! second point is the fire hazard ... and last point , I'm broke, pleeease?

is this what they call a hi-jacking? cause it looks like one... it drifts like one... yep... Officer can I get my luggage, I want to get off of this wayward ride.

timogiodeson wrote:

jwl wrote:

Hi Tim, if you love music, you'll find the way to record in any kind of room. so... can we help for a moment who make the music, the musicians? without musicians there is not recording no studios no business no Nada! pleeease?

timogiodeson.... "if you love music, you'll find the way to record in any kind of room." Now you have said something worthwhile.... Bruce Swedien :inn:

Bruce Swedien wrote:

timogiodeson wrote:

jwl wrote:

Hi Tim, if you love music, you'll find the way to record in any kind of room. so... can we help for a moment who make the music, the musicians? without musicians there is not recording no studios no business no Nada! pleeease?

timogiodeson.... "if you love music, you'll find the way to record in any kind of room." Now you have said something worthwhile.... Bruce Swedien :inn:

thanks mr Swedien ... but the way you quoted on your replay to me is confusing , it look like JWL said that to me...that's not fare!! :)

timogiodeson wrote:

Bruce Swedien wrote:

timogiodeson wrote:

jwl wrote:

Hi Tim, if you love music, you'll find the way to record in any kind of room. so... can we help for a moment who make the music, the musicians? without musicians there is not recording no studios no business no Nada! pleeease?

timogiodeson.... "if you love music, you'll find the way to record in any kind of room." Now you have said something worthwhile.... Bruce Swedien :inn:

thanks mr Swedien ... but the way you quoted on your replay to me is confusing , it look like JWL said that to me...that's not fare!! :)

timogiodeson... You are absolutely right. We both said it to you. Now you know how important it is!!! And it is fair!!! Bruce :inn:

jwl wrote:

Hi Tim, Different areas of the room have different sounds, and you can apply acoustic treatment to these differences to either minimize or accentuate the different tones. .

but axially the above you said JWL is very important, axially yes this is a real good point . toward the corners it's even more painful !!! and now the room cannot be treated evenly because each area of the room is different .. good point , :x please heeeelppp

Bruce Swedien wrote:

timogiodeson wrote:

Bruce Swedien wrote:

timogiodeson wrote:

jwl wrote:

Hi Tim, if you love music, you'll find the way to record in any kind of room. so... can we help for a moment who make the music, the musicians? without musicians there is not recording no studios no business no Nada! pleeease?

timogiodeson.... "if you love music, you'll find the way to record in any kind of room." Now you have said something worthwhile.... Bruce Swedien :inn:

thanks mr Swedien ... but the way you quoted on your replay to me is confusing , it look like JWL said that to me...that's not fare!! :)

timogiodeson... You are absolutely right. We both said it to you. Now you know how important it is!!! And it is fair!!! Bruce :inn:

Noooo !!Bruce!!!, :) I said that !!! your quote ... you need to edit your quote!!!, :) it look like JWL said to me that if I love music I will be able to record in any room , instead I said that to JWL... I , I'm the one, please please! is not fare! I'm the one that said that! :cry:

Bruce Swedien wrote:

Andre and all...... You can't be so dumb as to not understand why we must know about the past.... For instance: You ask.... Why are you focussing on something (egg crates) that has become obsolete? My answer.... We need to study the history of recorded music before we can develop the future. In other words, I think it’s very important for each of us involved in the production of recorded music, to understand what happened in the past, in the studio, to be able to move forward today.

I agree with totally on studying the past. I went through an egg crate phase myself.

I don't use egg cartons or crates or whatever..... (Wouldn't think of it!!)BUT.... I remember them well....

Agreed again.

Are you so fantastic that you know it all and don't need to know about the past????

I study the past constantly, to improve the future. As a matter of fact, the more I study the more I realize how much I really don't know. As a slight side note, I just read Beranek's autobiographical interview from IEEE, I also study regularly the BBC RD reports back to the sixties, and Engineering monographs back to the 50s. There was no disrespect meant to the past. What was meant is that the past and we have learned much. As was written by acoustician, fifty years ago the preferred acoustic materials were asbestos and horsehair.

Did you come into this world knowing everything???

No, and you are one of the people I learn from now. Humbly, Andre

[quote="timogiodeson" I agree JWL, fiberglass can't be used like egg cartons , to much absorption for the 100% coverage approach. We need a material with reduced absorption let's say NRC 0.30 evenly from about 125hz and up, because below that , drywall on studs hopefully already absorb about 30% of the sound...also we need to consider the extra absorption/diffusion/reflection... from peoples , couches, cabinets, instruments etc... [/quote] How do feel about this material's performance? Freq Absorption 125 Hz 0.27 250 Hz 0.66 500 Hz 0.33 1 kHz 0.66 2 kHz 0.51 4kHz 0.41

I agree with totally on studying the past. I went through an egg crate phase myself.

thank god, i never used this kind of dangerous treatment. When i started to look for acoustik solutions, i found a lot of information about basstrapping and helmholz resonators. but i'm just a jung man in the sweet age of 27 :oops: cheers mika

AVare wrote:

... How do feel about this material's performance? Freq Absorption 125 Hz 0.27 250 Hz 0.66 500 Hz 0.33 1 kHz 0.66 2 kHz 0.51 4kHz 0.41

I don't know man... thanks , it's not easy really... thats why I asked ... the absorption curve look OK because on a concrete floor drywall garage size room usually the RT60 is shortest at 125 Hz , longest at 1khz, and medium at 4khz... so the curve in theory should be OK ... that 500hz there also is strange, who know what it is... but for 100% coverage maybe to much ?... 1/2 sec. RT60 is the goal. better to keep it live so eventually I can still trow some stuff in the corners... thanks ...

Andre..... Your humility is noted. And appreciated.... Thank you. You are a bonafide gasser to the first water.... Bruce Swedien :inn:

but for 100% coverage maybe to much ?... 1/2 sec. RT60 is the goal. better to keep it live so eventually I can still trow some stuff in the corners..

Yes it is. People have been writing here continually that it is too much, and provide little diffusion. You are moving from the general to the specifics of your room. What are dimensions, construction? The more detail, the better we can answer your questions. Andre