EXPERIMENTS! EEEERIIIIK, PLeaz DEESAAAART, pag 7 and 8

DON'T YOU TOUCH A THING!!! It does tell a story...maybe someone else will be able to understand the importance of slowing down and doing all the right steps in the right order to avoid such time consuming work.

xSpace wrote:

DON'T YOU TOUCH A THING!!! It does tell a story...maybe someone else will be able to understand the importance of slowing down and doing all the right steps in the right order to avoid such time consuming work.

Ok Xspace I just removed the funny part it's OK like that? Yes!!! Slowing down !!! I totally agree! I strongly suggest to avoid such time and MIND consuming work I did. :shock: don't ever GLUE!!! scraping walls and painting is very hard! The story continue... ...all the foam was out of the room, and all 4 inc panels inside.. but still... :? :cry: I made some more calls etc.. and then I built hundreds and hundreds of square feet of poly's .... :lol: more later

timogiodeson wrote:

:shock: don't ever GLUE!!! scraping walls and painting is very hard!

So bloody right! been through that myself, it's hell!!! probably the hardest, most tiring and frustrating part of a rebuild is to tear apart what was glued.. :evil: Best thing is have the acoustic stuff fit in place by themselves or hang them (removable). Second best is to screw :twisted: Third best is to nail Cheers, Jean

BIG8 wrote:

So bloody right! been through that myself, it's hell!!! probably the hardest, most tiring and frustrating part of a rebuild is to tear apart what was glued.. :evil: .... Cheers, Jean

Man...Bloody bloody bloody ! I did it 3 times! you know, the foami peoples told me try this, try this, try this ... continue I filled up all my room and storage with all the drummer foam, acoustic foam, 4 inc fiberglass , poly's , ceiling tiles, blankets, risers, paint, studs, etc..., not more space to walk. talk about systematic experiments inside a car garage... I have buried alive ! Every day a new hope. still hoping to :jammin: one day. more later

timogiodeson wrote:

Also I didn't want any war against any company or between you and gullfo...so I decided to quit right there!

funny is ok, incomprehensible is hard ;-) we don't allow wars here, only healthy passionate debate :-) and if Eric's belly says something, then we listen ;-)

gullfo wrote:

funny is ok, incomprehensible is hard ;-) we don't allow wars here, only healthy passionate debate :-) and if Eric's belly says something, then we listen ;-)

talking about incomprehensible.. I'm totally against wars, I don't like wars, wars are the worst things in the world. I want only the belly love, passion, organic food and....... :) the story continue...

I was soo tired.... Then my friend called me and said : let's move my piano there! I said : Wow that's fantastic!... And .. half of the room was gone for ever! :cry: :shock: moving pianos around the room, searching for sweet spots, scraping paint and talking to walls :? more later

I forgot ....I built my room inside a two cars garage, a (confused drummer) triple leaf design..with a wall in front of the garage door, and 100% coverage of mineral fiber acoustic tiles all over the walls and ceiling.. I should have stopped there... Isolation and acoustics were OK but instead I kept adding layers! :shock: more later

and The density of the rigid mineral fiber is 0.61 x sqf. (the formula is 0.61 x 12 divided 5/8" thickness. the vendor said)" rigid 5/8"acoustic tile material. glued , sealed and painted .

more later P.S. xSpace, you wanna see more stuff? :ahh:

Timo, Reading this stuff, and looking to all these pictures becomes chaotic. In fact there is no question in it, just some dispair of you. Hence do this more systematically, helping people to help you. Whether that isolation build-up is right or wrong does only matter if you still should have isolation problems. This build-up looks unhappy, but if the actual situation is good enough for your purpose there isn't a need to lose sleep over it. Hence: 1st question: Do you still have isolation (NOT treatment) problems bothering you? If so describe these problems. If not forget about isolation. 2nd question: These acoustic tiles you glued and caulcked all around against your boundaries, are that from these traditional Armstrong like ceiling tiles? Do you know a brand? Can you find them on the net (giving us a link)? Clear is that you confused isolation with treatment here (or vice versa). They will absorb somewhat, but very unpredictable. And you neutralized them for a big part by gluing and painting them. But that doesn't matter as well, they can stay where they are and you could start from what is to optimize further treatment. They will most likely not harm your project. Have you heard that room already in an empty state, because all your pictures now look more as a second-hand shop, with materials anywhere all over the place? Please describe your experience then, step by step. Is this room meanly for drumming? Just help a bit here to get your situation sorted out in a systematic manner. Your standard closing: "More later" becomes rather scary like this (:) but I gladly admit it has something fun also). That floor is OK, if something need to be done later on, that's easy to solve. Have you read about bass trapping in the corners already in the forum (and the books)? Forget about brands now. PS: :mrgreen: This picture is fun! That's something for a quiz ... I'm still testing my brain to see if it can figure out what I'm looking at. :) And well meant and a bit teasing. I think you should disconnect your phone during the rest of your project. That phone caused you a lot of trouble already. And take some time to go through these books you have. They are good.

You are very kind for doing this Eric.

Eric_Desart wrote:

Timo, Reading this stuff, and looking to all these pictures becomes chaotic. In fact there is no question in it, just some dispair of you. Hence do this more systematically, helping people to help you. Hence: 1st question: Do you still have isolation (NOT treatment) problems bothering you? If so describe these problems. If not forget about isolation. .

Isolation is not a problem, some how what I did works. So far not complaint from the neighbors. (probably the 3rd layer toward the room was not even necessary here. I still remember those sweet acoustic tiles on the walls :roll: probably the additional mass of the 3rd layer of drywall just worsen room modes and resonances ...Or maybe act as a membrane absorber ... I glued the layers, no screws...)

Eric_Desart wrote:

2nd question: These acoustic tiles you glued and caulked all around against your boundaries, are that from these traditional Armstrong like ceiling tiles? Do you know a brand? Can you find them on the net (giving us a link)? Clear is that you confused isolation with treatment here (or vice versa). They will absorb somewhat, but very unpredictable. And you neutralized them for a big part by gluing and painting them. But that doesn't matter as well, they can stay where they are and you could start from what is to optimize further treatment. They will most likely not harm your project. .

Home Depot Armstrong generic contractor ceiling panels 5/8" tick mineral fiber , the density of the raw board (they told me on the phone :) ) is: "0.61 x sqf. (the formula is 0.61 x 12 divided 5/8" thickness." See the two attachment with the test reports.

Eric_Desart wrote:

Have you heard that room already in an empty state, because all your pictures now look more as a second-hand shop, with materials anywhere all over the place? Please describe your experience then, step by step.

Yes I have heard the room in various state I just remember few things.. 1) ..(the original room before adding layers) was few inc bigger all around.. sounded normal just like a concrete /drywall room, a little more spacious. 2) (100% coverage of acoustic tile walls and ceiling) I started from the walls , I remember at one point the room sounded really good, I guess it was after covering 3 of the walls completely and some of the ceiling... Also the mass of the acoustic tiles reduced the drywall resonance and lowered the fundamental , probably a good think. Then I finished the rest of the room and caulked all . The acoustic was OK.., just a little weird. just like playing drums on the beach, very dry bass drum and floor toms wasn't too loud and I don't remember any bass build up! but I was worried for isolation and a week later I added more layers... 3) the empty room today sound almost right as far of rt60 ... but too much comb filtering, too much damaging reflection from the walls, too much coloration and generally too loud. bass build up gradually increase moving from the center toward the two small walls with nulls in between...

Eric_Desart wrote:

Is this room meanly for drumming?

meanly for drumming yes , I record and rehearse with bass , piano and horns too! also guitar, vocals etc . but yes meanly for drumming. :)

Eric_Desart wrote:

Just help a bit here to get your situation sorted out in a systematic manner. Your standard closing: "More later" becomes rather scary like this (:) but I gladly admit it has something fun also). Have you read about bass trapping in the corners already in the forum (and the books)? Forget about brands now.

That's what the more later is all about!!!!!!! Yes it is scary for me! ... You really want to see that? I was hoping to forget about those tragic bass trapping moments... :ahh:

Eric_Desart wrote:

PS: :mrgreen: This picture is fun! That's something for a quiz ... I'm still testing my brain to see if it can figure out what I'm looking at.

It is a little hole I made on the drywall.. so you can see the acoustic tiles behind.. :) I should make many holes and convert the walls in a big Helmholtz's resonator :P ? thanks for the questions. more later....

Where can I buy those great acosutic tiles ? :lol:

Ro wrote:

Where can I buy those great acosutic tiles ? :lol:

3 years ago I paid $23.00 for each box of 12..but 3 years ago. I'm not sure where in your country. Ask for armstrog cortegga acosutic tiles :finger: more later

the key part of the report is the e-400 mounting (16") which is why the tiles have such nice absorption in the low end...

gullfo wrote:

the key part of the report is the e-400 mounting (16") which is why the tiles have such nice absorption in the low end...

Perhaps is not so simple... If you glue up the acoustic tiles directly to the walls, the absorption in the low end diminishes but the absorption from 500hz-1000hz increase, maybe useful in a drywall/concrete room... ! Also, when you glue up and caulk, (just like I did) you muffling the drywall and it lowers the fundamental , a much better sounding wall for my ears, lower in pitch and much dryer. just like when you put a pillow inside the bass drum... maybe ...this type of wall, absorb better the low end of floor toms and bass drums? I trust my ears! Unfortunately was 3 years ago... but I still remember..! Here the infos about the glue up mounting and the 500-1000 things... NRC & Glue Up While our commercial ceiling products usually are installed in a suspended system, there are times when they are adhered directly to a hard surface such as concrete, plaster, or gypsum board. Since most acoustical ceilings in commercial buildings are suspended below a plenum, it has been our policy to only report in our literature the performance when installed in this fashion. This mounting is called the E-400 mounting and signifies that the installed distance from the face of the ceiling panel to the hard plenum backing is 400 mm or about 16". Sometimes we receive requests for documentation of the performance of some of our products when adhered with acoustical tile cement to a gypsum board surface. This installation is designated by ASTM as the "B" mounting. The limited demand for "B" mounting data makes it impractical to test all our tile product on this mounting. However, we have selected two 12"x12" products -- Cortega Tile, Item 745; and Cirrus Tile, Item 580 -- for a direct comparison of their sound absorbing performance when tested on both the E-400 and the B mountings. The identical tiles of each product were used for the two mountings to provide a more accurate and direct comparison of the effect of the mounting type on the sound absorption at each of the six standard test frequencies. These data are presented in Table I. It should be noted that although standard production material was used for these studies, the results shown may be higher than the values published for these items in our literature. This is not unusual since we tend to be conservative in our published performance values. In this study, the important points to consider are the differences in performance between the E-400 and the B mountings. The trends observed from these samples would be expected to exist for other samples of the same materials even though their average performance may vary somewhat from sample to sample. In conclusion, it can be stated that the glue-up mounting lowers the absorption in the lower two frequency bands (125 and 250 Hz), provides some improvement in the middle band (500 Hz), and has essentially no effect in the top three bands (1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz). Also, the absorption differences shown in Table I for the specific products tested can be used along with our published E-400 data to estimate the absorption coefficients of other similar products in our line when they are to be used in the B mounting. TABLE I Sound Absorption Coefficients @ Hz Product Mounting 125 [removed] 2000 4000 NRC Cortega Tile Item 745 E-400: .40 .29 .50 .61 .61 .64 NRC .50 B: .07 .28 .73 .63 .60 .58 NRC .55 Difference: B-E -.33 -.01 .23 .02 -.01 -.06 .05 Cirrus Tile Item 580 E-400: .42 .32 .54 .79 .89 .95 NRC .65 B: .09 .24 .67 .84 .88 .90 NRC .65 Difference: B-E -.33 -.08 .13 .05 -.01 -.05 -- Mounting E-400 - Suspended in grid Mounting B - Glue up to 1/2" gypsum board More later :)

I just found the password for my old threads ..was in my phone book :shock: , check it out..

Timo, I'll check later on (time), but the others can help you as well.

timogiodeson wrote:

but at this point after spending all this time and energies it's important for me to win this little battle. best regards

So you had all these acoustic brains working over here: http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... mogiodeson and came back under a different user name? This has been going on since Sep 09, 2007, and now under a new user name, it is April 18, 2008? If you cannot get a solution from your books WITH the help of these talented and generous folks over the period of 7(seven) months, then you need to consider hiring someone. Not everyone is capable of DIY. Personally I feel a little cheated. I thought you were just some scatter-brain that could not focus and accept the limitations that existed. While persistance is admirable, this behaviour borders on obsession, which is never good. Hire a professional and get on with the business of living and playing music. Feeling a little burned in 'Bama, Brien

xSpace wrote:

.......................... ...Not everyone is capable of DIY....... ... I feel a little cheated..... ....this behaviour borders on obsession, ...... ...hire a professional...... ...get on with the business of living and playing music...... ... 'Bama,

What cheated are you talking about? :roll: After all your compliments I feel this should be my new signature from now on! "timogiodeson- the obsessed cheater user names switcher desperate illiterate in need for urgent professional help" :horse:

OK :cry: , Let's continue the story.... IMPORTANT QUESTION #1 Can this be a resonance of the last layer of drywall toward the room on the walls? My bad, I only glue up , no screws and bad caulking was my first wall I ever made... :oops: Like you see in the images below , .... measurements show this scary figure, About 60db difference between 70hz and 120hz..! Acoustic treatment for this measurements was:, Auralex lenrds bass traps floor to ceiling in all 4 corners plus 2'x6'x6" and 2'x2'x6" poly's diffusers all over the room and ceiling

Timo, First I can understand Brien a bit, since indeed the whole history feels a bit chaotic to me as well. If I see these sketches and pictures, I do have the feeling some basics can't be based on advice you got here or read in your books. I find it difficult to solve like this. It's not easy to say what the impact of all this different things can be. As per your sketches you nowhere used mineral wool in the cavities or your walls and ceiling. Is that correct? Basically you NEVER build double leaf walls like that (when related to sound isolation) without mineral wool or whatever absorption material in them. Any double leaf wall system will show a resonance (which you described yourself already, since you heard it shift after you glued whatever to it.) Having no absorption in that cavity enhances the resonances in that wall (that absorption acts as a demper). Therefore you probably will faster hear differences by adding something as damper (gluing the tiles against these walls). The worse something is the faster you will hear improvements. You used these tiles wrongly by gluing them and additionally painting them. Caulking them you either did for the visible effect, or you misunderstood entirely why you mounted them there. If only open cell absorption was involved, I should think you neutralized their functionality in a significant manner, which also means that they can't harm your project, which is the good side of it. But depending of how you glued them it's possible they can still resonate as a membrane. These tiles are also not meant to create a sandwich panel between drywall (I wonder where you got that idea) but i think it doesn't matter that much. In order to judge these Armstrong measurements (that second one glued against the hard backing) I should need to feel and see these boards and know exactly how they were glued and mounted. For now I have the feel that other factors are involved than just gluing these boards against a rigid heavy backing. But this doesn't matter that much anymore, since you have what you have, and mounted and painted them as you did. If you use corner absorption it's certainly useful to use better absorbers than the LENRDs since they are rather small and therefore more limited in the low frequency absorption. This is not mainly related with the fact that they are foam but that they are that small. I saw that you also experimented with fibreglass or rockwool absorbers? Did they gave the same effect? Normally, if they're OK they should go lower in frequency than the LENRDs. You don't need to loose the LENRDs since you can use them as cavity filling behind these DIY absorbers stradling the corner. These polys you made will also show a resonant behavior. Have you tried filling the back with wool? I find your project a bit overwhelming, and find it hard to analyze all possible influences like this. Have you calculated room modes to see if you find some relationship with your measurements? At a certain moment, as Brien said, it can be more efficient to involve a local expert/acoustician, not via the phone for a detail here, then there, but directly on the spot, and let him check this whole thing. To be honest I get the feel that this is a typical story where trying to do everything yourself wasn't the most cost, time and energy effective approach. DIY is cost efficient if from the start you follow known, described and proven methods, and limit experiments (which can be fun, useful and educational) to very specific things in a controlled manner. However if you want to continue then just forget a lot of things and treat your room by adding good bass traps in the corners (enough of them) based on your DIY absorbers and use your LENRDs as cavity filling, hang such absorbers on the reflection points and so on. To get an idea look at the related layouts (which are all about the same) of different suppliers at their respective sites:

• Ready Acoustics
• GIK Acoustics
• RPG
• RealTraps
• Others?

And start from there. Further: Your earlier question of drilling or making holes in these walls to let them act as Helmholtz resonators. Indeed they should act as resonators causing narrow band absorption (even more so since there is no wool in these walls). Simultaniouly they will significantly diminish the transmission loss of these wall at these very same frequencies. With the uncertainties involved (also in tuning them) and the fact that you permanently damage your walls it's almost a disaster in the making. For your own sake: don't. I can't judge from here if it's sensible trying to fill these wall cavities with blow-in wool or whatever. Success

Eric_Desart wrote:

Timo, As per your sketches you nowhere used mineral wool in the cavities or your walls and ceiling. Is that correct?

yes correct

Eric_Desart wrote:

These tiles are also not meant to create a sandwich panel between drywall (I wonder where you got that idea) but i think it doesn't matter that much.

Same phone call :lol:

Eric_Desart wrote:

In order to judge these Armstrong measurements (that second one glued against the hard backing) I should need to feel and see these boards and know exactly how they were glued and mounted.

I can ship to you if you like...

Eric_Desart wrote:

If you use corner absorption it's certainly useful to use better absorbers than the LENRDs since they are rather small and therefore more limited in the low frequency absorption. This is not mainly related with the fact that they are foam but that they are that small. I saw that you also experimented with fibreglass or rockwool absorbers? Did they gave the same effect? Normally, if they're OK they should go lower in frequency than the LENRDs. You don't need to loose the LENRDs since you can use them as cavity filling behind these DIY absorbers straddling the corner.

Yes I have experimented a lot with rock wool 8 and 2.5 pounds absorbers, cavity filling etc.. In my room porous absorbers to be effective below 120hz they need to be 4'x8' or larger which is too much space for my room and also too much high freq absorption, I never experimented with the corner poly or similar corner panel traps suggested by gulfo because you said that it is sketch up magic and not predictable.... So... only one way to stop bass build up below 120hz in a room? what else?

Eric_Desart wrote:

These polys you made will also show a resonant behavior. Have you tried filling the back with wool?

No

Eric_Desart wrote:

Have you calculated room modes to see if you find some relationship with your measurements?

yes

Eric_Desart wrote:

At a certain moment, as Brien said.....

:D I am an obsessed cheater, user names switcher, desperate illiterate, in need for urgent professional help ...?? :horse:

timogiodeson wrote:

Eric_Desart wrote:

At a certain moment, as Brien said..... DIY is cost efficient if from the start you follow known, described and proven methods, and limit experiments (which can be fun) to very specific things.

no.. brien didn't said that...

Please don't do that. This was my sentence ......

At a certain moment, as Brien said, it can be more efficient to involve a local expert/acoustician, not via the phone for a detail here, then there, but directly on the spot, and let him check this whole thing.

You knew exactly what I was saying en referring to. I did not quote Brien (there are tags for that), but referred to the spirit of his words checkable only couple of posts higher up. If you like to puzzle with my words, then to tell that they are incorrect that's up to you. In fact my post was meant to be constructive. I put things in some perspective as I felt it. From here you have to make decisions how to proceed. With corner absorption you can go below 120 Hz without needing 4' width (your 4' x 8' description). See absorption curves on the commercial sites I mentioned and at Studiotips in the FAQ for DIY solutions. Physics doesn't adjust to budgets or space. You could try membrane like absorbers in the corners, but that's testing and tuning. Glenn told me once about his corner solution, but back then Glenn told it was a succes but had no measurements if remembering correct. If I'm wrong Glenn will correct me. I'm always interested in learning.