Advice Needed: Treating room, Tuning Room w/ Sketchup files

Hello again dear John Sayers’s community! I have used this great resource in the past with a friend of mine when we built a fairly extensive studio with all the bells and whistles in a relatively medium sized space. I've moved to another state since then and after years I have come across the need for a new control room/recording room which also serves other purposes. I run a branding and content creation firm with commercial photography, cinematography, audio production and other esoteric services. So naturally I need a "home base" or a mothership to work out of, thus the build of this room. SketchUp File HERE - https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=B ... file%2cskp Photos / screen grabs of Sketchup drawing HERE https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=B ... =folder%2c What have I done so far? - I've done a good 6 months of research, education, re-learning and new-learning of acoustic principles to really be armed enough for this build. - Extensive amounts of time were spent on Sketchup and visualizing/calculating the room layout, treatments, ideas and so for - so this isn't a fresh topic for me :D - I've done extensive REW simulations, measurements, comparisons and data mining to get a solid idea of what I am hearing + what is mathematically predictable in my room - With the traps I have built so far, extensive testing, moving, hearing and so on was done to “mess with” the sound of the room - I've gotten down to a design package that I think will be highly effective at treating the problems which I am hearing in the room. What is wrong with the room? • Currently in basic terms I have a 250-550 Hz bump/buildup that makes stuff sound too “heavy” and fatiguing – it sounds forced and unruly. • There is a massive resonance at 137.5 Hz that REALLY sticks out big time • Obviously the room has some major room nodes at several harmonics, which I feel would be treated with the targeted treatments I am planning, namely 58 Hz and 140 Hz. I think the harmonics of these would go away if the fundamental is worked out to some degree. What do I need help with? - Review of what I've done and constructive criticism on what is wrong, what can be improved and so on - I am at your mercy :) - Understanding the constraints I am working with, such as using already built treatments, and incorporating them as much as possible (try to avoid replacing things that cost already) Where am I currently? - I am at the half way point where about half the treatments have been built, they need to either be modified or finished, and mounted. Everything is floating currently and nothing is permanent. I have about 14 x 6" Roxul traps mostly places close to mix position at room boundaries. Treatment Devices Specs: ***Note these are all DIY with inspiration from commercially available devices*** - 8 Pcs (Primacoustic FullTrap Style) 6" Depth 24"x48" Limp Mass Absorbers with Roxul Safe-n-Sound & MLV (.5lb and 2lb) with tunings of (4x 60Hz, 4x 140Hz) - 2 Pcs 6" Depth 24"x48" Broadband Absorbers with 6" Roxul Safe-n-Sound and Open Back - 14 Pcs Tube Traps 12" Diameter 42" Tall (Roxul Enerwrap 80) - 4 Pcs Diaphragmatic Absorber (Dual Front Wall, Activated Carbon, 12" Depth, 5FT Tall) - 12 Pcs (Primeacoustic MaxTrap Style) MLV Limp Mass Corner Traps - 2 Pcs QRD 13 Slat Diffusers - 6 Pcs QRD 11 Stick Diffusers (mounted to some of the Limp Mass absorbers) - 6 Pcs QRD 3D Skyline Diffusers I know this is allot, but after playing with it all, and having the issues which I am having, I think it necessary to have such extensive bass trapping and diffusion / absorption. I am here for any friendly smacking if it is called for.  I hope I have provided enough information to give a basic concept of where I am and where I'd like to be. I sincerely appreciate your help, and value your time - really, I mean it! Cheers, Daniel Curtean

Hi Danny. Please read the forum rules for posting (click here). You seem to be missing a couple of things! :)

Photos / screen grabs of Sketchup drawing HERE

<--- That's one of them!

I have used this great resource in the past with a friend of mine when we built a fairly extensive studio with all the bells and whistles

What was your profile name back then? If you forgot your password I can re-activate that for you, as long as you still have access to the same e-mail address that you used back then.

- Review of what I've done and constructive criticism on what is wrong, what can be improved and so on - I am at your mercy

To be honest, to me it looks like you have over-treated and also under-treated the room at the same time! Over-treated minor things that didn't need it, and under-treated the big things that did need it. You didn't provide the acoustic data for the room, so it's really hard to say what is wrong with it right now, but my suggestion would be to start again. That might sound a bit harsh, but there's so much wrong with that room that it isn't realistic to try to tweak things here and there to make it work. It needs to be re-done with only the treatment that i actually needed, in the locations where it is needed. To start with, your model is upside down, sideways, and back to front! (You have your axes in SketchUp all messed up, which makes it really hard to navigate the model.) I fixed that in my version. Then there's the issue of room geometry and layout: 1. Your listening position is almost exactly at 25% of the room depth, which is the second worst location in the room. 2. Your listening position is way off-axis for your speakers (a whopiing 28° for the BM6's, and an even more whopping 33° for the unnamed "other" speakers. 3. The speakers are in the wrong locations, at the wrong angles, in the wrong orientations, and at the wrong heights! 4. You have massive video monitors in locations where they will be wreaking havoc with the speakers 5. You have a very large desk with shelves. that are causing reflections, comb-filtering, and likely the mid-range "bump" you mentioned. Then there's the treatment: 1. You have a ginormous tuned diffuser just 55" from your head, and directly in front of your face! 2. You have insufficient bass trapping on the rear wall, and too much at the front of the room. 3. You have a pair of huge audiophile speakers at locations where they are messing with your psycho-acosutic perception of sound. 4. You have bass traps half way up the side walls! 5. You have carpet on the floor! I could go on, but I think you get the picture... :)

- Understanding the constraints I am working with, such as using already built treatments, and incorporating them as much as possible

There's the problem. It seems to me you bought or built a bunch of stuff hoping it would work, and when it didn't you bought or built even more stuff that also doesn't work... so now you feel the obligation to use ALL of that stuff, instead of doing it right with maybe other stuff...

***Note these are all DIY with inspiration from commercially available devices***

Did you build them EXACTLY the same as the commercial products? Identical materials, dimensions, workmanship, and finish? Or did you just look at photos and sort-of more-or-less make something that kind-of looks similar?

- 8 Pcs (Primacoustic FullTrap Style) 6" Depth 24"x48" Limp Mass Absorbers with Roxul Safe-n-Sound & MLV (.5lb and 2lb) with tunings of (4x 60Hz, 4x 140Hz)

Which ones are those in your model? Most of your components are not labeled, and nothing is on layers. There's no details inside the acoustic components either, so it is impossible to see which is which, or how you built them. How did you tune those devices to exactly 60Hz and exactly 140 Hz? Did you test them to make sure they really are tuned to that? Are you aware that very large membrane traps and panel trap can actually make modes appear to ring longer, due to the large inertia (mass) of the membrane or panel?

14 Pcs Tube Traps 12" Diameter 42" Tall (Roxul Enerwrap 80)

why? What is the intended purpose of those, and why are they in the wrong place in the room?

- 4 Pcs Diaphragmatic Absorber (Dual Front Wall, Activated Carbon, 12" Depth, 5FT Tall)

Ditto: What frequency are those tuned to?

- 12 Pcs (Primeacoustic MaxTrap Style) MLV Limp Mass Corner Traps

Ditto.

- 2 Pcs QRD 13 Slat Diffusers

Where? For what purpose? What tuning?

- 6 Pcs QRD 11 Stick Diffusers (mounted to some of the Limp Mass absorbers)

Ditto.

- 6 Pcs QRD 3D Skyline Diffusers

What are the upper and lower cutoff frequencies for those? Why are the arranged in that manner?

I know this is allot,

Yup: The term "overkill" comes to mind... :) Sort of like seeing a spider in your room, and blasting it with both barrels of a 12-gauge shotgun, sort of hoping that maybe one or two pellets will actually hit it... :shock:

but after playing with it all, and having the issues which I am having,

In what way did you "play with it"? Please post your MDAT files from each point in the process, starting with the empty room, so we can see what changed at each point, with each device that you added.

I think it necessary to have such extensive bass trapping and diffusion / absorption.

I don't! :) Yes, it does need extensive bass trapping, because it is a small room, but it needs to be in the right place. Yes it might be able to benefit from some diffusion, provided that it is used correctly. And yes it will need plenty of absorption, once a because it is a small room, but the absorption needs to be placed correctly. However, you also have other stuff in there, way beyond that, and who knows what it is doing!

I am here for any friendly smacking if it is called for.

Please consider yourself duly slapped, with plenty of friendship! :) 8) :lol:

I hope I have provided enough information

We'll also need some photos of the actual room, much greater detail of how each device was built, and the entire sequence of MDAT files from each point in the process, as mentioned above. But the basic way to fix this room is to take out everything and start again. There's so much busy-stuff going on in there all over, that it is pointless to try to fix it as it is. - Stuart - - Stuart -

I'll address the problems with your reply sequentially: I took your tone and replied in the same vein, just FYI! So if I read you wrong, sorry. 1. The screen grabs are available via the link I shared because the forum makes it damn near impossible to practically and easily upload files. 1b. I don't have measurements of the empty room, but REW Room Sim is bang on. I do have other measurements, however. Files are HERE https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=B ... =folder%2c 2. The old account was under the email [removed] which I still have but I never use, thus the new name 3. Just like I haven't provided enough data, neither have you. "You're doing it all wrong" is not constructive what so ever - its just empty words dude. Let's get specific about what is in the wrong place, and why, and where it would be placed better, and why. I understand that there is some ambiguity as to what is what in the drawings, but lets start with some simple suggestions not just blasting people! 4. I haven't seen a single piece of information that points to tweaking or improving anything. You're too busy saying "its all crap", which I know for a damn FACT it is not! 5. I am open to criticism, but I wont stand for being kicked around without reason, and this is exclusively what you're doing, whether intentionally or unintentionally. If you have something to specifically see changed, well then let's to hear it. It isnt wrong until you show me what IS right! I mean cmon, read the tone of your reply dude - its one kick after another without any explanation for it! If you're missing data, then how the heck can you make ANY judgements at to what is right or wrong?!? Now on to specifics: 1. The speakers are at 48 inch for the tweeter in the final design, they may not precisely reflect it in the drawing, I didn't do everything THAT precisely there. 2. The tuned diffuser is there to control any front to back reflections and deal with them. It's not a necessity, but I figured with the window there it may be a good idea as most people like diffusers front to back. 3. No they're not. They certainly are not in the ideal place, of course, but this isn't changing, period! I made this clear in the OP. Not because I'm a dick, but because I have constraints. And besides, I moved the speakers around front to back by as much as 3 feet and although different, there are only tradeoffs. 4. They're diffusers also (remember, tube traps) and happen to also be bass traps which mounted right on the boundary surfaces of the room. There's quite allot of slap back in the room without anything there so untreated is better?? Again, give suggestions not just punches! 5. Yeah, carpet on the floor - its staying. I built the first round for the room, trying to keep it minimal, and realized it wasn't cutting it. They're being converted to MLV traps which should. Built them exactly, even cosmetically?[b][/b] Why does it matter if I built them "cosmetically" as the commercial stuff?! Seriously?! And yes, I wouldn't spend dozens of hours building shit without calculating what the hell I'm building. What kind of question is this?! I was aware that a limp mass absorber can do that, but the alternative is......."crickets" Intended purpose of tube traps is as speaker stands, as diffusers on walls and as bass traps which they're damn good at. And none of them are placed in the wrong place. What does "the wrong place" mean anyways? I'd understand wrong place for a diffuser or even an broadband absorber, but there is hardly a "wrong place" for a bass trap man! What are they tuned to? All traps are tuned to 60Hz or 140 Hz What tuning? QRD 13 tuning. Frequency range? About 800 to 3K for Skyline diffusers It's overkill! If it's overkill, what about it is. SHIT, if I could build less stuff and spend less time and money, then GREAT! But again, specifics are MIA! Now before you get all self righteous on me, remember bud, YOU set this tone! Now lets talk specifics.

Well, I tried. Good luck! - Stuart -

No you haven't! And I'm not just letting you go like this. You clearly had a reason to say everything you said, else you wouldn't have bothered. There's knowledge in that noggin, and I want it! Now spill the beans and don't piss me off :D :D What is wrong about placement, about the traps, what questions do you have? I want the help, but I want the help not just broken bones. So go on, I'm listening.

Speaking of more data, here are photo-realistic renders of the final product as I see it. This should provide a bit more context. https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=B ... =folder%2c

Hey Danny, there's tons of resources on here for how the basic layout of a room should look, speaker placement, and typically what type of treatment should go where. Start simple with bass traps in the corners floor to ceiling, absorption at first reflections, and speakers in correct placement for the room and listening height. Those were all huge improvements for me! From there add back wall and ceiling treatment and add/remove pieces as needed. You can definitively utilize some of the treatment you have to make it better, but I'd say it's easier to start from scratch, one wall at a time, even with the constraints you have for the room. You have some very nice renders, however it would be easier to plan the room with nothing in it though honestly. Listen to what Stuart has to say, I don't think being so aggressive and ignoring his advice is going to help though!

Hi Matt, Thank you for the calm response, and perhaps I was a bit too aggressive in my first response. However I feel I responded in kind, maybe even a tad too much in kind. I was frustrated by the lack of actual "help" - all I got was "its all bad", instead of the approach you took which is constructively providing guidance - "start with a wall at a time". Simple suggestions which are logically coherent are ingest-able for my mind, everything else is frustrating and useless. I can reason that out and it makes sense. That is essentially, however, what I am doing and have done to some degree already. Nothing is bolted in as of yet, its all floor standing for that particular reason. I'll take your advise and tear everything out, and try adding one section at a time. That said, my end goal, budgets and overall plan is to create "that" room ultimately - so my question is, theoretically, instinctionally, experientially what if anything is grossly wrong with that design package from the members' perspective? Apart from testing, which is of course hugely important, the overall concept is either on the right track or not. I'm looking for the " it's not, and here's why" and the "here's how to fix it, or improve it" - makes sense? We can get into measurements, and a bunch of largely useless data, but if we cannot answer the basic question of whether this package makes sense, then the rest is kind of pointless, isn't it? We have to have some sort of basic plan of attack, and this is mine. Before we dial it in, is the overall concept kosher?

I've been working with some forum members and although only a few responses into our conversation, they gave me some great insight and ideas. The design has gone through many revisions and allot of failed ideas, like using limp mass absorbers and diaphragmatic absorbers using carbon technology. Really, this design package has simplified quite a bit! So I updated the SKP file, and did 3 photo-realistic renders for quick visual reference. Here's the basic rundown. Keep in mind this is probably not final, and will probably need some tweaking, but I think it's definitely at least semi final material and should be a good design package for my needs. Photo-Realistic Renders https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=B ... =folder%2c Objectives to new design: 1. Incorporate all 6” broadband absorbers (22 total pieces, 10 of which are rectangular boxes 6” deep, the rest being corner units) as they are - so no MLV traps! 2. Incorporate allot more diffusion on side walls – reason is simple! Those walls, although boundaries, are not best candidates for absorption. I don’t like dead rooms, and I got close already with only 12 traps in front and at rear of room, so that's not good! I only need flutter control there, so that’s why diffusers. I picked a particular one, being the fractal design because it can control down to 500Hz and well up from there, and its a very granular design which I prefer. Kind of like that ZR Acoustics stuff - I like precision :D 3. I am toying with the idea of VPR units – 2 in front, behind speakers, and 2 slightly larger ones behind, in that closet. My biggest standing wave is a front to back axial node around 58 Hz. So the idea is that I get relatively broadband LF absorption in a non resonant panel which also “cuts the head and tail off of” the standing wave (1/4 wavelength rule). So I get great SBIR control for rear of speakers, which I find REALLY beneficial, and I get absorption at the modal resonances of the room – win, win. This is still a “beta” idea, but I don’t think a better device for this purpose exists on our green rock! 4. I moved my Skyline 3D diffusers to the front, and I couldn’t believe the subtle, but undoubtable change in openness of sound stage, wideness of sound stage, clarity and this sense of ease in reproduction. Not sure if it is 100% these, but I haven’t heard “this” in the dozen or so configurations I’ve tried in this room thus far. And that was the only change, excluding the removal of 2 broadband absorbers. So yeah, testing must confirm this, but those are staying! I like what they’re doing! 5. I’ve doubled my “cloud” from 2 units to 4 in a 2x2 cluster, so that’s good! 6. I’ve gotten rid of more than half the tube traps. I only have 6 units in this design, 4 of which are the “will build, I don’t care who says WHAT” group, and two are as bass traps/poly diffusers at rear corners - mainly a space consideration, and they're damn fine devices! 7. I’ve moved some of the corner traps around (I have 12 already built units, 6” Roxul only, open back) to allow for 2 units right behind mix position, between wall and ceiling, right above that projector and closet opening. The idea that is to use as much LF absorption at the back as I can (that’s why VPRs also – I need heavy guns back there) There may be little things here and there, but otherwise any objections? I know allot of this is based on theoretical research and ideas, and that’s not ideal but we must have some sort of goal, right? And this is mine, based on what I've learned to be sound (no pun intended) acoustic principles. P.S: I’ve also taken the extra time to update the SKP file with layers. So everything major is on one of a dozen layers or so for easy navigation. So check that out! https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=B5657DFBBDC66526!5772&authkey=!AJJkXAMfCJiofGw&ithint=file%2cskp ALSO! Not everything in that Sketchup is 100% super duper precise down to MM accuracy! Some stuff is a placeholder for a specific design, while others are there for basic idea, like the VPRs. The diffusers are not exactly that design, but look similar and dimensionally are identical (LxW at least). But overall its pretty damn accurate within 6 inches I’d say! Lets hear the questions, objections and improvements, shall we?

There is an announcement at the top of the forum about what to do to assure getting as many responses as possible. The announcement leads to this post (click here). Actually, several people, who are experts on this forum, will most likely not reply if you don't do what is written in that post. Many others who are very helpful, will most likely not reply out of respect for the moderators' wishes. - Stuart -

Soundman, just read that sticky again It seems I have done a relatively good job of giving details, so that's good I guess. You don't know what you don't know, so I don't know what Im missing if I don't know :) Im updating my profile now. What other things do I need to do? I think I have plenty of empirical data for what I know so far - again, don't know what I don't know.

Just for the record, this Forum is ridiculously out of date. It took me 10 minutes to get an avatar updated - that's time I don't have to piss on stupid requests. It's one thing to ask for data, and have the system in place to deliver it with some sort of ease, and another to have high demands and damn near zero ability to provide it. With ALL DUE RESPECT IN THE WORLD, if you expect me to sit here and f*** with the sizes of all the images and MDAT files and spend ridiculous amounts of time JUST to make it 1980's compatible, you're under the wrong impressions of how much time I have to piss away unnecessarily. Sorry, but this is just completely idiotic and I am damn frustrated! The fact that this forum has such strict requests and makes it a complete and utter PITA to do simple data posts of graphs and images, makes it a very effective deterrent to actually posting anything other than text - just my two cents, but what the hell do I know? I only do this shit for a living! BTW, if you're reading this, it's not meant AT you just be clear, it's my own opinion and I'd like to hear yours. ---Rant Complete---

AntonMcmillan wrote:

Arent you just something else here, eh? Good luck with your studio build mate ;)

Well, I get your tone and Ill say this "prove that I'm wrong". Otherwise, thanks. I hope it works out, and it is so far. Any suggestions?

This Forum has been hosted for many years, for free. It might show it's age and be a little kludgy in requirements for posting pix and diagrams etc. Other forums I visit all have their own idiosyncrasies, and most users have to adapt. John L Sayers is not a major company or corporation and there's no corporate sponsorship to fund a new BBS system. I don't have stats, but believe there's been a decline in studios over the years. After looking at other Forums, I think this one provides more consistent "project" help, others might deal with issue by issue, sometimes from Pros, mostly by "enthusiasts" There is pretty well only one resident acoustic design professional on the board regularly to provide "guidance" and "analysis" of the many members needing help. This does depend on the amount of time he has available to spare from his Professional Work. I may not agree with with the methods used, whereby general hints are provided, but not detailed specifics, and then later criticism if the hints weren't developed properly. This can be an expensive way of doing a build.. eg I've seen wrong glazing criticised, but no prior specification given, but that info could have been found in earlier posts. It's a bit like saying run round the bend, then you trip over a hurdle, only to be picked up and roasted for not anticipating the hurdle. But, it's free. I'm personally not happy that answers to a thread I started just stopped, and even several PMs got zero response. He must have decided he could help no more, or that I was a lost cause, or there were bigger and better topics to deal with. Such is life on the free-way BBS. The easiest way to overcome your issues is to employ a designer, as I did. I've likely spent as many hours as you on research, scale drawings, computations etc. That didn't make me an expert, just still an amateur, not a Professional.. Refer your Web quote. I've been an Audio Mixer in TV for 45 years, but that doesn't qualify me to design acoustic rooms. Your own website quote re A Professional definition is a bit of a revelation... If you want the best results , and often a good designer can save money by only specifiying just what is needed, I consider employing one a worthwhile investment. Lastly, I note you refrain from aggressive chat on your own Website blogs to your clients. [quote] WHAT IS A PROFESSIONAL? And so, we can start our discussion with the relative definition of what a professional is. A professional is an individual who makes their craft their profession. A profession is a full time job under which the involved parties make a living under. Therefore a professional, by definition is an individual who has an occupation full time within their profession. One cannot profess that their part time occupation is an fully engaged occupation, as a professional, when they have a different career which sustains them. A mechanic which works in a garage an average of 40 hours a week is defined as a professional mechanic. If that same individual were to not work the 40 weekly hours as a mechanic, but rather as a desk clerk while doing mechanic work on the side, they would not in turn be a professional mechanic, but rather a professional office clerk. Although they would still be given the title of mechanic, it is as an amateur and not as a professional - make sense? DON'T LEAVE YOUR DAY JOB - GOOD ADVICE, THAT SAYS VOLUMES! So then based on this foundation lets make it clear what a professional photographer is and what an amateur is. I don't care how good you are with a camera, if you do not do it full time, as a profession you are not a professional - you're an amateur. So please, stop this nonsense of telling everyone and their dog that you're a "professional photographer" - its a lie! And Im sick of hearing Joe Blow with his little T2i saying he's a "professional photographer". Dude, you wouldn't be using a consumer grade camera with a kit lens if you were! Stop it! I can say I am a professional photographer, because this is my profession and it is what I do full time. The title of "professional" does not make me any better than anyone else by itself, and in itself is a useless title, however it defines something very clearly - If I'm still in business, it means I'm good at what I do and people are willing to pay for my work. The amateurs out there may get paid work, and they should, but the fact that they do not commit full time to this profession tells a story as well - they're probably not good enough to survive in business if they crossed over. What does that say about the quality of their work, the confidence in their own product? Would any of their photographs be good enough for a serious publication like Time, Life or National Geographic? Most probably not! Because if they were, a profession in this field would follow quite quickly. [quote]

tez wrote:

This Forum has been hosted for many years, for free. It might show it's age and be a little kludgy in requirements for posting pix and diagrams etc. Other forums I visit all have their own idiosyncrasies, and most users have to adapt. John L Sayers is not a major company or corporation and there's no corporate sponsorship to fund a new BBS system. I don't have stats, but believe there's been a decline in studios over the years. After looking at other Forums, I think this one provides more consistent "project" help, others might deal with issue by issue, sometimes from Pros, mostly by "enthusiasts" There is pretty well only one resident acoustic design professional on the board regularly to provide "guidance" and "analysis" of the many members needing help. This does depend on the amount of time he has available to spare from his Professional Work. I may not agree with with the methods used, whereby general hints are provided, but not detailed specifics, and then later criticism if the hints weren't developed properly. This can be an expensive way of doing a build.. eg I've seen wrong glazing criticised, but no prior specification given, but that info could have been found in earlier posts. It's a bit like saying run round the bend, then you trip over a hurdle, only to be picked up and roasted for not anticipating the hurdle. But, it's free. I'm personally not happy that answers to a thread I started just stopped, and even several PMs got zero response. He must have decided he could help no more, or that I was a lost cause, or there were bigger and better topics to deal with. Such is life on the free-way BBS. The easiest way to overcome your issues is to employ a designer, as I did. I've likely spent as many hours as you on research, scale drawings, computations etc. That didn't make me an expert, just still an amateur, not a Professional.. Refer your Web quote. I've been an Audio Mixer in TV for 45 years, but that doesn't qualify me to design acoustic rooms. Your own website quote re A Professional definition is a bit of a revelation... If you want the best results , and often a good designer can save money by only specifiying just what is needed, I consider employing one a worthwhile investment. Lastly, I note you refrain from aggressive chat on your own Website blogs to your clients.

WHAT IS A PROFESSIONAL? And so, we can start our discussion with the relative definition of what a professional is. A professional is an individual who makes their craft their profession. A profession is a full time job under which the involved parties make a living under. Therefore a professional, by definition is an individual who has an occupation full time within their profession. One cannot profess that their part time occupation is an fully engaged occupation, as a professional, when they have a different career which sustains them. A mechanic which works in a garage an average of 40 hours a week is defined as a professional mechanic. If that same individual were to not work the 40 weekly hours as a mechanic, but rather as a desk clerk while doing mechanic work on the side, they would not in turn be a professional mechanic, but rather a professional office clerk. Although they would still be given the title of mechanic, it is as an amateur and not as a professional - make sense? DON'T LEAVE YOUR DAY JOB - GOOD ADVICE, THAT SAYS VOLUMES! So then based on this foundation lets make it clear what a professional photographer is and what an amateur is. I don't care how good you are with a camera, if you do not do it full time, as a profession you are not a professional - you're an amateur. So please, stop this nonsense of telling everyone and their dog that you're a "professional photographer" - its a lie! And Im sick of hearing Joe Blow with his little T2i saying he's a "professional photographer". Dude, you wouldn't be using a consumer grade camera with a kit lens if you were! Stop it! I can say I am a professional photographer, because this is my profession and it is what I do full time. The title of "professional" does not make me any better than anyone else by itself, and in itself is a useless title, however it defines something very clearly - If I'm still in business, it means I'm good at what I do and people are willing to pay for my work. The amateurs out there may get paid work, and they should, but the fact that they do not commit full time to this profession tells a story as well - they're probably not good enough to survive in business if they crossed over. What does that say about the quality of their work, the confidence in their own product? Would any of their photographs be good enough for a serious publication like Time, Life or National Geographic? Most probably not! Because if they were, a profession in this field would follow quite quickly.

Wow, I must say that I am impressed! You're right, about everything!

I don't have measurements of the empty room, but REW Room Sim is bang on.

REW Sim is good for what it is: a simulator. It makes a lot of assumptions about the room, the speakers, and the treatment, and produces theoretical predictions of what the frequency response would be if all the assumptions happen to be totally correct. Sometimes it matches reality quite well. Most of the time, it does not. It also only predicts frequency response, which is just a small part of overall room acoustics, and not even the most important part. It tells you nothing at all about issues in the time domain, nor reflections, nor diffusion, nor diffraction, nor phasing. Those are rather important shortcomings. I use REW Sim sometimes in designing rooms to get a rough idea of what the response might be, and make some basic decisions about initial treatment, but I never use it as the sole tool for treating a room. Proper treatment can ONLY be determined from a correctly done acoustical analysis of the room once it is finished but before it is treated. That analysis can certainly be done using REW, which is a fantastic tool for doing that, but using the actual measurement tools in REW, not just the prediction tool.

I do have other measurements, however. Files are HERE

I only saw a few frequency response graphs there. They aren't very useful, because frequency is only one aspect of room acoustics, and not even the most important aspect, as I already mentioned above. Your graphs don't provide any useful information. I would need the actual MDAT files.

2. The old account was under the email [removed] which I still have but I never use, thus the new name

I just forced the reactivation of that account, so you should get an e-mail about that, and be able to log in again. However, it is not possible for two accounts to use the same e-mail address.

"You're doing it all wrong" is not constructive what so ever - its just empty words dude. Let's get specific about what is in the wrong place, and why, and where it would be placed better, and why.

Actually, that's not true, and that's not going to happen. Think of it this way: if you are sick, and go to your doctor, then he tells you that you have a "gastro bug" and need certain treatment, would you tell him that he was off base because he didn't explain all the micro-biology of your illness, the specific strain of the bacteria, the effect it has on your intestinal flora, the manner in which the medication he prescribed works on that specific bacteria, the chemical and biological processes involved, the details of why you should take it exactly that frequently, for exactly so many days, in exactly that dosage, etc.? Or would you just go out and buy the pills, and take them on schedule? Would knowing all the intricate details of the biochemical response make you better any sooner? That's the issue here. I simply do not have time to explain every last reason behind every recommendation I make to forum members, who are getting a lot of valuable advice absolutely free of charge. When one of my paying customers asks for a detailed explanation of why I did what I did for his room, I'll be more than happy to spend the time with him going through it. But I will not do that for free, for forum members who are just curious, and don't need to know WHY something works in full theoretical detail: they just need to know THAT it works. That said, occasionally I do have some spare time to do that, and some forum members "get lucky" if I happen to explain something in detail on their thread that will be useful to other people who find it later. But that doesn't happen all the time, for one basic reason: there's only one of me, and I simply do not have the time to be answering every single question posed by every one of the 20,000 members on this forum. I do my best, because I really enjoy helping out when I can, but I cannot possibly be on-line on the forum 24/7 as an automatic free acoustic consultation service.

4. I haven't seen a single piece of information that points to tweaking or improving anything. You're too busy saying "its all crap", which I know for a damn FACT it is not!

If you really did know that for a fact, you wouldn't be here asking for advice! I do this for a living. Designing studios is what I do. I look at yours, and I see what is wrong, and I see how to fix it, and I can pretty much tell by looking how it will work out, of you do it right. Just like a doctor can look at you, ask a few questions, and pretty much know what the prolbem is. Your place could be pretty darn good. Way better than what you are describing, and way better than what your graphs are showing. Here's an example of a room I did a couple of years ago, so you can see what can be accomplished. The RT-60 decay plot for the original untreated room: Based on the dimensions and use of the room, the target RT60 time I calculated at the above time was 290ms. Here's the final plot of the completed room: Here's the frequency response plot of the original untreated room, for the entire spectrum: And the final plot, for the treated room: Concentrating on only the low end of the spectrum, which is the most important part, here's the original frequency response, untreated: And the final plot, treated: And most important of all, of course, are the waterfall plots. First, the untreated room, for the full spectrum: And the treated room, full spectrum: And the cherry on top: The plot for just the lowest part of the spectrum, untreated room: And the final treated room: The customer wanted a 6 dB boost in the low end: he got it. He wanted some high frequency roll-off: he got it. I'm not going to go into all the details of every last bit of treatment I designed for that room, or how I did each part, any more then your doctor would go into the intricacies of how the active components of the medication he prescribed actually work at the cellular level: it's not necessary to know that. My customer never asked, and I never told him (although I would have, if he had asked, since he was a paying customer). He simply asked what he needed to do, I told him, he did it, and he got the results.

It isnt wrong until you show me what IS right!

Yes, it is wrong, regardless of whether I show you what is wrong with it, or how to fix it. Wrong is wrong, regardless of your opinion of it. There's no relativism here: It's wrong because it is wrong, not because I say so, or because you don't understand it. It's just wrong, period.

The speakers are at 48 inch for the tweeter in the final design,

... which is wrong. For perfect accuracy, that should be 47 1/4" for the acoustic axis, not the tweeter. The acoustic axis is the point from which the sound appears to emanate. For most speakers, oriented correctly, it is not at the tweeter. It is usually close to the tweeter, but not at the tweeter.

The tuned diffuser is there to control any front to back reflections and deal with them.

Diffusers do not control reflections: they diffuse part of the reflections, within a controlled frequency range. In doing so, they cause massive phasing and timing artifacts that are manifested as lobing patterns that greatly alter many aspects of the sound, within a distance of roughly 5 to 7 times the wavelength of the low cut-off frequency, and scattering artifacts for another octave below that. That's why diffusers are not recommended for small rooms, since it is not possible to keep them far enough away from all critical listening positions. They are only suitable for large control rooms. There should be a distance of at least ten feet between any tuned diffuser and the mix position or client couch position, and if the wavelength makes it necessary, then the distance should be even greater. Yours are only 55" away from your face, and they are tuned plenty low enough that they should not be used in that room at all. There is no location where they can be sufficiently far away from your head. There should also never by anything that substantially changes the spectral, phase, or timing characteristics of the sound field, in the front section of the room. Behind you, it is possible, but not in front of you. The reason is simple: you do not want ANYTHING that would change the direct sound coming from the speakers, between them and you, or even around them, where they could have a detrimental effect on the direct sound. My advice would be to ditch the diffuser: even though it looks very nice, it is doing you no favors at all, and I'd bet good money that the artifacts will be glaringly evident in your MDAT file, (assuming you took the measurements correctly).

It's not a necessity, but I figured with the window there it may be a good idea as most people like diffusers front to back.

Yes, many people do "like" them, but they use them inappropriately, where they are not only not needed, but are actually doing detrimental things. Many people "like" putting small boxy NS10-style speakers on their meter bridges too, but it doesn't mean they will ever sound good there! Which is the reason why the expert engineers do it: so they purposely do not sound good! But there's an awful lot of studios and engineers around who do it because it "looks cool" and "the big studios do it so I must too", without having any idea why they are really there... Just because you see something in photos of other studios does no mean that it makes sense for your studio. It does not even mean that it makes sense for the studio where you saw it! There's an awful lot of "Gee that looks great! I want one too!" among studio owners and sound engineers... There's a lot of studios that have diffusers on the rear wall, just inches from the client's ears. Go figure! Move your head a fraction left or right while seated on that couch, and you can hear the artifacts, clearly. I never figured out why people would do that... Probably they saw a photo of a properly designed studio with a diffuser on the rear wall, but never noticed that the client couch was several feet away from it... They just thought it looked cool and "since the world class XYZ studio has one, I must need one too!" But failed to notice that their room was much smaller, with no way to separate the couch, and probably needed very different tuning on the diffuser anyway...

3. No they're not.

Sorry, but they are. They are too close to the corners, where they will trigger modes and cause bass-build up unnecessarily, they are too far away from the front wall, and are therefore causing comb filtering and mid-range lift, as well as SBIR issues in the low end, and they are angled incorrectly, since your ears are not on axis to the speakers. Off-axis response is never smooth, even for the best of speakers. On axis-response is usually pretty darn good, even for mediocre speakers. If you listen off-axis, you are NOT hearing what the speakers are trying to tell you: you are hearing a version that is distorted in both frequency and phase, and also in intensity. I try to never have the key listening positions more than about 10° off axis, max. That's not always possible, but it's a good goal to shoot for. (That said, there are also some good reasons why being perfectly on axis can also be a mistake...).

They certainly are not in the ideal place, of course, but this isn't changing, period! I made this clear in the OP.

Then I'll make something equally clear: unless you put them in the right place, oriented the right way, and with the right treatment around them, you will not ever get smooth response. Period. It's that simple. Either you can move them to where they should be, or you can give up on ever getting usable response. Speaker placement is critical.

Not because I'm a dick,

Neither am I: I'm just telling you the plain truth. Because the laws of physics and psycho-acoustics prevent anything else from happening. I didn't make those laws: all I can do is tell you how they work. Ignoring them won't make them go away.

but because I have constraints.

Then remove the constraints! If you want your acoustic response to work well (which it could in that room), then fix whatever is preventing you from doing it right.

And besides, I moved the speakers around front to back by as much as 3 feet and although different, there are only tradeoffs.

I'm not talking about simply moving them a bit front to back: all you would accomplish with that is to move the SBIR artifacts and comb filtering artifacts to different frequencies. I'm talking about the holistic approach: setting them up with correct geometric relationship to the room and the listening position, in all aspects at once, including treatment. Hint: you CANNOT set up a room by ear. It would take you forever to try all the possible combinations, and human auditory memory does not last long enough to be able to compare them all intelligently anyway. Our brains only have the ability to accurately remember what another setup sounded like for a few seconds: hence the need for fast A-B switching when auditioning speakers. Human hearing also does not have the resolution to determine differences in level at each frequency accurately: it just "sounds wrong", but the ear and brain are not capable of calculating what the problem is. If you can't calculate it accurately, you can't fix it accurately. The ONLY way to set up a room optimally, is by using acoustic prediction principles, and acoustic measurement tools (such as REW) that can accurately graph a number of different responses visually, for easy comparison.

and happen to also be bass traps which mounted right on the boundary surfaces of the room.

... which is the least effective place for them to be! The main purpose of bass traps is to damp room modes. All room modes terminate in corners. The most effective place for bass traps is the tri-corners of the room (where 3 surfaces meet), because that's where ALL modes terminate. The second most effective place is in the corners where 2 surfaces meet. And a distant third place is the surfaces themselves. And that assumes that the correct treatment is placed on the correct wall: it is pointless treating a 0.0.x axial mode on the side walls, for example. Zero effect.

There's quite allot of slap back in the room

... which is best treated by using a "checkerboard" approach. You still have opposing surfaces that are untreated, and opposing surfaces that are treated. Not a smart way to deal with flutter, slap-back, or similar issues.

5. Yeah, carpet on the floor - its staying.

That's a pity. It messes up your psycho-acoustic perception of the speaker locations, as well as your ability to determine directionality, so you'll never get an accurate sense of the real sound-stage, and never have an accurate stereo image. Carpet is pretty good at destroying spatial perception. So since you are determined to keep the carpet, you'll be sacrificing all of that. Have you ever noticed that world-class control rooms practically never have carpet on the floors in the front half of the room? There's a reason for that. So as long as you are happy with your room never being able to provide the clues to your brain that it needs to correctly determine spatial locations, then that's fine: leave the carpet in. On the other hand, if you want your room to be the best it can be, do what the pros do, and take it out.

I built the first round for the room, trying to keep it minimal, and realized it wasn't cutting it.

Then something was wrong with the way the treatment was design, built, or located. The first round should show a major, marked difference. Subsequent rounds are just tweaks. If the first round didn't work, then there was something wrong with it. Adding more won't fix that.

They're being converted to MLV traps which should.

Membrane traps are notoriously hard to tune accurately, and have to be located at the pressure peak for the node in question. If that happens to be under your seat, what are you going to do? Once again, if the issue is a vertical axial mode, then putting a trap that is tuned for it on the rear wall is going to accomplish zilch: it would have to go on the ceiling pressure node, or the floor pressure node.

Why does it matter if I built them "cosmetically" as the commercial stuff?! Seriously?!

Yes, seriously. commercial treatment is designed very carefully for specific response. If you substitute anything, then it will not work the same way: the response will be different. If you did not use the exact same insulation, for example, then it will be tuned differently. I'm not worried about the cosmetic aspects: that's not what I was referring to. I was talking about building it the same, using the same materials, and the same finish. If they used 1" thick oak, and you used 5/8" MDF, then it won't work the same. If they used fluffy fiberglass with a GFR of 6,000 MKS rayls, and you used semi-rigid mineral wool with 60,000 MKS rayls, then the response will be very, very different. If they screwed and glued theirs together, but you only nailed yours, it won't work the same. You cannot just look at some photos of an acoustic treatment device, build something that looks similar, and expect it to perform the same. Unless you know every spec of what they used, then your knock-off will not work the same as their original.

And yes, I wouldn't spend dozens of hours building shit without calculating what the hell I'm building. What kind of question is this?!

It's a perfectly solid, reasonable, and sound question for anyone who understands acoustics.

I was aware that a limp mass absorber can do that, but the alternative is......."crickets"

Well, you could probably build a bass trap using crickets if you wanted, but I doubt it would be very effective! :) There are many alternatives. First, set up the room geometry to minimize SBIR, since it is practically impossible to fix with treatment. Second, test the room and place deep, thick broadband porous absorber traps at the most suitable location for each modal issue. Third, test the room again to see what worked, what didn't work, figure out why, and modify, remove, or add new treatment as needed.

Intended purpose of tube traps is as speaker stands,

Bad idea. Speakers stands need very large amounts of mass to be effective. Concrete blocks are often recommended, or sand-filled steel profiles. Tube traps have very little mass.

as diffusers on walls

Poly-cylindric traps need to be sized correctly for the wavelengths that are to be treated, and they need to be spaced correctly too. And positioned correctly. They need to go at the nodal points for the wave in question. There's no point at all in placing a poly at a modal null... It won't ever "see" the problem that it is suppose to treat.

And none of them are placed in the wrong place.

Sorry, but they are. that's evident from looking at the pics and the model.

but there is hardly a "wrong place" for a bass trap man!

Huh? You HAVE to be kidding! Bass traps treat room MODES. If you put one at the point where there is no mode, then it does NOTHING. That's just plain logic. if you place a velocity-based trap at a location in the room where the velocity component of the mode is zero, or close to zero, then you get zero effect. If you place a pressure-based device at a location in the room where the pressure component of the mode is zero, or close to zero, then you get zero effect. Modes are standing waves: they have peaks and nulls at specific locations in the room, and those do not change. You MUST place your device in the correct location for the mode you need to treat. If your number one issue is a first-order axial mode, then the absorption MUST go on the front or back wall. Putting it on the side walls or the ceiling would be pointless, because there are no nodes on the side walls or ceiling that are relate to x.0.0 modes. Correctly placing a bass trap of any kind is important, but if it is a tuned trap then it is imperative to place it at the peak pressure or velocity node for that specific mode. Any other location is pointless. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but clearly it is not a valid source of sound acoustic knowledge.

All traps are tuned to 60Hz or 140 Hz

That's not what I asked: I asked HOW they were tuned, not what frequencies they were tuned to. Also, how did you determine that you have modal issues at exactly 60 Hz and 140 Hz? Are you sure it isn't, for example, 57 Hz and 145 Hz? Or 63 Hz and 136 Hz? Are you aware that room modes are very narrow-band, just a couple of Hz wide, and that hitting them exactly with a tuned device is really, really hard to do? If you have a modal problem at 62 Hz, and your device is tuned to 55 Hz, it won't work. That's a huge difference: 13% difference. Two entire notes on the musical scale. If the mode really is at exactly 62 Hz, you'd need to ensure that your device is tuned to 62 Hz, +/- 1.2 Hz. If not, you won't hit it. And that's assuming that the problem really is a mode: if it is an SBIR issue, then no tuned trap can ever fix it, since it is not related to standing waves or resonance of any kind; it is related only to phase, time and distance. How did you determine that 60Hz and 140Hz are modal, not SBIR?

QRD 13 tuning.

That isn't tuning: that's the period number (prime sequence). That only tells you how many wells you have, not the tuning of the device. I was asking for the tuning: the tuned center frequency, the lower cut-off, the upper cut-off, and the scatter cut-off.

If it's overkill, what about it is.

Pretty much all of it. There's very little in there that is in the correct location, correctly tuned, correctly dimensioned, or even using the correct concept. It looks like a "let's throw in everything but the kitchen sink and hope something works" approach. The reason why you put in one round and got no results is because you put the wrong things in the wrong place, with the room set up wrongly to start with.

You clearly had a reason to say everything you said, else you wouldn't have bothered.

Right. But I do not plan on trying to explain every last detail of every last recommendation I make: I just do not have the time for that. Just like your doctor telling you to take 21 pills of 50 mg, 3 times per day after meals for 7 days without question, you can either trust that I know what I'm talking about and do it, or you can ignore it and stay sick. I already spent far more time on you than I do with the vast majority of forum members, and I don't plan to spend any more. That's a whole bunch of rather expensive advice that you got for absolutely nothing. Free. Gratis. If you don't like it, don't take it. If you don't trust the doctor, don't take his pills. But don't pester him to explain the intricacies of biochemistry and pharmacological action, just to please your ego. --

Listen to what Stuart has to say, I don't think being so aggressive and ignoring his advice is going to help though!

Matt knows what he is talking about. I've walked him through a number of REW tests until he got his bugs worked out, and now he is working on his treatment, based on what I saw in his REW data. He's not interested in understanding the particle velocities at the boundary faces of the bass traps, nor the minimum phase slope at the critical frequencies: he just wants to know what size trap to put where, and how to build it most effectively. He just wants the prescription and the results, not a master's thesis on how it works.

I'll take your advise and tear everything out, and try adding one section at a time.

That will work, but only if you get the geometry correct first. Until you locate, orient and angle your speakers and mix position correctly, there isn't much point in placing treatment correctly.

That said, my end goal, budgets and overall plan is to create "that" room ultimately -

Sorry if this comes over the wrong way, but to me it sounds like you have already decided what you want the room to look like, and to hell with the way it sounds! In other words, it seems to me from what you have said that aesthetics come first, and acoustics a distant second. If some acoustic issue forced a change in the appearance of the room, you'd rather live with the acoustic problem and keep the appearance. Maybe I'm wrong about that. but that's what it sounds like. When I design a room, I take the exact opposite approach: I design whatever is needed to make the room sound the best it can, then I figure out how to make all of that look nice, and work aesthetically, as a secondary goal. It's a studio, after all, so the primary goal is that it must sound good. A studio that looks good but sounds like crap, is not a studio at all: it's just an exercise in interior decoration.

We can get into measurements, and a bunch of largely useless data,

If you think the data from measurements is largely useless, then there's not much I can do to help you. In reality, the data from measurements is the key to understanding the room, and treating it right. In order to tune the room that I posted the data for above, I have 112 MDAT files that were created by the customer, totaling well over 2500 megabytes. Some of those files have 5, 10, 15 or more measurements in them. There's probably over 500 individual measurements in there, that we took to get the room right. In some cases he took a series of dozens of readings, moving the mic a specified number of inches in a specified direction from one reading to the next. It took several weeks. And every single test was pertinent. The customer wanted the room to be as good as we could possibly make it, so we went through the effort that was necessary to make it so. The results speak for themselves. And now we are about to do it all again, a couple of years later, because he decided to upgrade his speakers to something even better, which changes everything. So we'll be re-tuning his room for the new speakers in a couple of weeks. He doesn't mind spending the time and money to do that, because he has already seen that it works. And he doesn't give a damn about why there's a dip at the beginning of the impulse response graph, or why the perf-panel holes need to be spaced 3-7/16" apart and have a diameter of 5mm: he just does it, because he trusts the doc, because the doc already fixed his illness a couple of times before. He took the pills, got perfectly healthy again, and now wants another set of pills to fix him even better. He'll get it.

So I updated the SKP file, and did 3 photo-realistic renders for quick visual reference.

They look very pretty, and there's some great SKP skills there, obviously, but pretty renders and good modeling skills wont make the room sound good unless you first get the geometry correct.

2. Incorporate allot more diffusion on side walls – reason is simple!

The room is too small to be able to use diffusion. Bad idea. Don't

Those walls, although boundaries, are not best candidates for absorption.

Actually, they are great candidates for porous absorption, correctly placed and dimensioned.

I don’t like dead rooms,

Good, because control rooms should NEVER be dead. Nor should they be live. They should be neutral. The decay times should perfectly match the calculated times for that room volume. Not more, not less.

I only need flutter control there, so that’s why diffusers.

That's not correct. You need far more than flutter echo control on your side walls, and you do not need diffusers. Absorption works well for flutter echo too...

My biggest standing wave is a front to back axial node around 58 Hz. So the idea is that I get relatively broadband LF absorption in a non resonant panel which also “cuts the head and tail off of” the standing wave (1/4 wavelength rule).

Don't look know, but the 1/4 wavelength of 58 Hz is 4'10-1/2". You would have to make your traps nearly five feet thick, if you believe that is the way to do it...

So I get great SBIR control for rear of speakers,

I doubt it.... What SBIR frequency are we talking about here?

There may be little things here and there, but otherwise any objections?

My objection is that you are still going with the "Let's throw it all up in the air and hope something sticks to the ceiling" approach. That's not the right way to go about it. The correct way to go about it is to FIRST get the geometry correct, then measure, then place initial treatment, then measure, then place additional treatment, then measure, then place final tweaks treatment.

I know allot of this is based on theoretical research and ideas, and that’s not ideal but we must have some sort of goal, right? And this is mine, based on what I've learned to be sound (no pun intended) acoustic principles.

Sorry, but the acoustic principles that you are using are NOT sound. If they were, then it would have worked at the first try. ...

Im updating my profile now.

Yup, that was it.

Well, I get your tone and Ill say this "prove that I'm wrong".

You might want to take a look at Anton's thread: He gets it. He's getting it right. His studio will work. And he got even worse treatment than you did! But he figured out why, and corrected it. Now things are going great for him. They could go well for you to... - Stuart -

.......................give me like 24 hours to completely remove my jaw from the floor! I am BLOWN AWAY (good thing). :|

I'm still completely flabergated by that response - Im serious! That post made me realize EVERYTHING I did wrong with the room in one shot - that's one hellofa response! I don't even think a "thank you" would be anything short of an insult at this point, so I'll just shut the hell up and read that post 15 more times! :shock:

I don't even think a "thank you" would be anything short of an insult at this point, so I'll just shut the hell up and read that post 15 more times!

I just updated it it with some correction of spelling and grammar errors, and to clarify a couple of points that weren't clear (I originally wrote it at 4 AM, half a asleep, so my fingers weren't keeping up too well with my thoughts...) So you might want to add one extra, and make it 16 times... :thu: - Stuart -

Firstly let me say a big THANK YOU for all the contributors which took time to smack some sense into me, and for those that had the patience to straiten me out. I don't like vague absolutes, and so I find it frustrating when they're presented. That said, I was then given ample explanation for many things and I truly do appreciate that. I am consulting with multiple sources and improving the design by measurement and time tested strategies of acoustics design - so this isn't just "seat of my pants", at best it is "seat of OUR pants" :yahoo: I also took many queues from the previous posts, especially SoundMan's and incorporated them into this latest design package and renders. I am working with DanDan as well over email. I actually have undergone some major revisions over the last couple of weeks. I ripped out all diffusers units out of the design and replaced them with angled slats on all broadband absorbers on side walls, and a few multi-function units like the scatter/absorber devices on side walls you see below to name just a few of many changes. I've also tested going from 6" to 9" on the two "superchunk" style traps at the front corners of the room and am happy to report it is a nice increase in low end control audibly - allot tighter if I were to use adjectives. And so I'll be increasing all 6" Roxul corner traps and upgrading them to 9" of Roxul. Obviously the last 3 inch sheet can only be about 15" wide as opposed to the 24" of the front two stacked Roxul sheets because the back tapers off into a triangle, so there's less room back there. But considering that most of what was air, will be Roxul I'm sure it's an increase in the performance of the traps - In fact, I know, I heard it with just 4 units of 9" Roxul on front corners. I have some measurements but they're not direct comparisons as some major things have changed since previous measurements. The biggest of which, by far is placing the speakers relatively flat against the front wall - BOY that was a massive improvement! Nearly all the low mid buildup was gone, or at least supplemented by a huge, beautiful and controlled bump in the sub 80 Hz area - we're talking 10 dB here, which was lacking before! So if nothing else but less SBIR and therefore less comb filtering and a huge bump in bass smoothed out the FR quite dramatically not just in the low end, but there are audible dividends in the high registers as well from this speaker placement move. Of course further micro tuning is required, but I really need to get those corner traps up at the wall /ceiling junctions. Because I have to sand and finish the wood of the traps on the outside, Ill be taking all of them out of the room soon. When I do, I'll have the opportunity to do a whole slew of measurements in many different locations in the room to compare progress as units get installed. So I'll be monitoring progress and data gathering and so have put together a plan to consistently capture data with as few variables as possible but still practical. Ultimately if practical testing doesn't reveal increases or improvements, then the treatment is not good enough :). That said, we still need consistency for comparative analysis so the test plan I have written up and will follow keeps both of those things in mind. What has changed recently? 20 Degree Angled Slats on Broadband Absorbers - this is perhaps the biggest change in itself. I removed diffusers, but need the air and slats seemed the best way to go. Big thanks to DanDan for this suggestion. Incorporate 8 units of Scatter, Poly Absorbers for control of the slap back in that area of the room. These will give me what I need and nothing more. Increased the "cloud" density. Because of the 125" electronic projector screen at the top, I cannot do a very deep trap or cloud in front of the screen, but can do a 6" with air gap behind it, so I did that. Front 2 pieces are flush mounted, the rear 2 cloud pieces have a 4" air gap cause I have plenty of real-estate laterally back there. Then we have the VPR metal sheet panel absorber at the back to help with the very low end and tame some of that length axial node I have. This is more conceptual and a "beta" idea that I think is a good idea to implement in that relatively available closet space back there. I figured the low end is relatively omni-directional, and having that large 2x2 meter VPR back there will help alleviate that low end pressure wave and attenuate it a bit before it inevitably comes back at my head, granted with allot less intensity because of that VPR. So this is an idea that I think will work great, although its more of an icing on the cake type thing, than a real heavy slammer. For the rear we also have 6 TubeTraps which are 12" diameter. These help "offset" that closet cavity back there by allowing for a less angular or more flat rear wall acoustically. They help attenuate as broadband traps all the way down to about 70 Hz effectively, after which they become far less efficient. This is fine for me because I need these type of devices at the back as simple porous flat panels won't do enough for me back there. TubeTraps in their intrinsic design allow for great pressure control, and it is the ideal place for them in this situation. I also chose TubeTraps for antoher good reason, and that is "mobile vocal booth". I can take those rear traps and while recording, I can place them around the talent or source and tighten up the room as needed. So they're dual purpose, that's why I like the TubeTraps there. Apart from other small things like foam on top shelf of the desk to increase that RFZ, speaker de-couplers under the Metronome's and moving the studio monitors as far back to the front wall as possible, it's all pretty similar. Also, there are more corner traps on the ceiling as well. And last but not least are 2 pieces of 10x8 foot bamboo wood rugs which go over the carpet. I've been guided to do this by several people and it has to do with the overall imaging of the speakers. It is not as ideal as a full replacement of the carpet, but granted that this is not a property I own, I have to be creative about the solutions. And having real bamboo covering a large section of the carpet is more than a compromise in the right direction in my book. I've undergone much scrutiny from the first posts, to these on various forums, which is fantastic cause it means allot of growth. I am happier with this design package than any other so far. It ticks all the boxes, fixes all my standing issues, gives me the kind of response I need and also importantly has the aesthetic appeal that I find important for myself, and my clients as well. Aesthetic are powerful and therefore they are important when running a business. Although I am reaching the final stretches in the conceptual design before phase 2 of the build kicks off, I am by no means unwavering in this design. If you find any gross issues which I missed that could cause major problems, or you see improvements that could actually help please do chime in! However I must say this, with measurements on my side, a relatively simple "armament" of acoustic devices and tried and tested methods of acoustics control the margin of error is relatively small because the devices used are all broadband type and relatively easy to build. Unlike MLV devices or tuned resonators which improperly used could actually worsen the situation, these largely porous design traps are the meat and potatoes of acoustics and therefore somewhat idiot proof. There is of course the post build phase where the small tuning continues in which I may remove some panels, or modify them slightly here and there, lacquer them over, or not all depending on desired response - the way I see it is "Rome wasn't built in one day" so I don't expect perfection when what you see in the renders is done, but I do expect a damn impressive room and no major issues. Sound like a plan?

Any progress on this? You never did send those MDAT files, so I couldn't offer any further advice, but it would still be good to see how it is turning out. - Stuart -

Hi there! I just want to provide an update on what is going on right now. This week I am installing all the traps into their final positions, as they have all been completed, and "upgraded". I converted or upgraded *all* corner traps to 12" pf Roxul as opposed to the initial 6". So now all corner traps are 12" deep of Roxul. Today I am installing the 4 piece cloud, 2 of which are pegboard sealed back traps and 2 are 6" broadband Roxul absorbers overhead. I have had a single piece directly overhead for a week or so and I was amazed at the stereo field difference with it. I've also installed on the front wall, corner the 2 traps above mix position. Another updated is I have moved speakers and mix position to affect frequency response in absolutely dramatic ways! So for now I believe to have gotten the best of both worlds - I have an even better placement physically than before meaning more space, and the FR is quite good now! This has me 3 feet from the front wall, and the speakers right up against it. Speakers are on TubeTraps are touching the front wall. Ill wait to provide MDAT files as soon as I finish mounting all the traps I have available to get an actual room response. It's been going in the right direction though, I can tell you that! I just hope that the cloud traps will suck up that low mid buildup that I still get just a tad. So give me a few days, Ill get the old MDATs and clean them up, label them and get new measurements done for analysis. I appreciate your help! I've also updated the design over my period of silence - I wont go into details, but you can see them. Main difference is VPR's! I'm incorporating them in the area where there is the most pressure in the room, the head end (as ASC calls it). I have a good reason for this, but again, won't go into it now as they're not built yet. I am still sourcing parts.

I've installed some new traps and moved speakers and mix position around by a much as 3 feet, give or take and have gotten great results. Frequency response has smoothed out considerably from the beginnings of the project to today. There's allot of information to discuss, but I'll spare you all. Basically you can take it that I am getting closer and closer to the renders which I have provided recently, so that should answer many of the practical questions for those who care to ask. For the not so obvious things, I have the MDATs which show RELATIVELY a chronological progression of speaker, mix position, treatment placement and so on. Now unfortunately because of the fact that I do work in this room even now, levels werent precisely matched, and for the some of the measurements were not exactly in the same exact place for the mic front to back. All measurements that are similar had mic are "similar" placement, but some of the peaks and nulls you see are actually mainly due to mic/mix position - so keep that in mind. Some of those nulls disappearing are not so much the traps themselves, but rather positioning. Also, the notes I've written were "quick notes" as basic ideas for me to keep track of what changed. So read between some of the missing lines. Also look at the dates, and keep in mind of the slight differences in measurement volumes. Now I know, these are not perfect measurements, but given the amount of data and the provided caveats I think one can extract quite allot of info from these measurements and explanations, at least I hope. The latter measurements accounted for mic placement with a tape measure, so those are a bit more consistent. The room problems and the resolution of those problems should make themselves quite obvious with a bit of investigation - I hope this helps! ***Second Post - upload failed. So since its not working, Ill provide MDATs by means I have control over. MDAT Here https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=B ... ile%2cmdat

Sorry about the delay: hectic times. Lots going on. Anyway, I downloaded your MDAT and looked at all your tests carefully, but unfortunately your data is not valid. You did not calibrate REW or run the tests correctly, and it seems like you are not even using a proper measurement mic, so there's only limited conclusions that can be drawn. What mic did you use for those tests? You should first calibrate REW correctly, with an proper, calibrated sound level meter, then use a good measurement mic to conduct the tests at a level of 85 dBC, not the 65 you were using. at 65 dBC, you won't be triggered many of the room modes. You also need to set REW to run the full audio spectrum and a bit extra, from 18 Hz to 22 kHz, instead of the 25 Hz to 8 kHz range that you used. You are missing an entire one and a half octaves from the top end, and nearly half an octave at the bottom end. You also need to set up your speaker system correctly, or get a good sub: there's very little energy in your room below about 140 Hz, and it rolls of pretty steeply. Almost as if you had some type of filter applied, or used a mic that has very poor response in the low end. That said, there's some clear things in the data: You have pretty heavy modal issues: 44 Hz, 74 Hz., 82 Hz, 94 Hz., 106 Hz, 118 Hz., 139 Hz, 155 Hz., 172 Hz, and several others stick out clearly. The do no't change much (some don't change at all) with your treatment, so clearly the treatment is not working. The room is a little on the dead side, and gets deader as you over-treat it later on. There's several strong early reflections going on, notably a really big one at around 3.9 ms, and two others around 11.9 ms and 25 ms. The overall decay is uneven, not smooth. Overall, the room is over-treated in the mids and highs, but unevenly, and under-treated in the lows. I would go back to my original suggestion: take out ALL of the treatment, put in ONLY the main speakers, the desk and the chair, with no other furniture or treatment, set up the room geometry correctly, and do an initial REW test like that. Post the results here, so we can see how the empty room is behaving, then we'll start treating it in a logical, planned, progressive, sequence, following what the data is saying, not what your imagination is saying. But before doing that, you need to get a good measurement mic with flat response, and you need to calibrate REW correctly. Only then can you run the tests validly. - Stuart -

Hi Soundman, I use the DBX measurement mic - the one's they use for the Drive Rack. It's a ~$100 mic, going through a Neve 1073 preamp, with no HPF into an Apollo 8 interface. Do you have any guides for repeatable measurements? The SPL suggestion makes sense. And I agree about the room being too dead at the wrong end. But keep in mind that the ONLY LF treatment I have in the design doesn't exist yet, so there is NO LF treatment. There are 6 VPRs in the design which are proven devices in lowering decay times in LF and improving FR as well, and that's ultimately my goal. But I am in a transaction currently which would allow me to purchase this property as my home. If that happens, I will tear out the room to the 2x4's themselves, and build not only a soundproof room, but also in-built acoustic devices all together. So that means a new design and having to re purpose allot of my removable absorbers, which sucks, but that's life. Ill keep you guys updated on whether I get to own the property, and can find the money to literally build from a skeleton, or not. For now, we will see what will happen and that shall dictate my next move.