Can I solve these big problems????(With your help of course)

Hello all, First of all, excuse me about my english and I'd like to thank everyone who contributes here and makes this forum the excellent resource that it is. I really appreciate it! :D So, I'm trying to fix my home studio acoustics, but to be very clear in my troubles I made a lot of diagrams of my 'studio' in Sketchup, but I couldn't post them because I don't have a web page to link from. :cry: I decided to attach a word document with all of them and the issues... :idea: if someone can place all the information here, :oops: I'd appreciate it. If not I hope that everybody read it from the file...(I know, it is very tiresome) :? THANKS CAMILO.

Hi Camilo... I´m very interested about the diference between the Helmholtz panels and the helmholtz resonantors, you say that the panels absorb low frequencies and the resonators absorb low mids... Can you delve on it? DF

You can read the explanation on this page: http://www.mhsoft.nl/Helmholtzabsorber.asp The helmholtz resonators are the slot absorber like the john’s side wall absorbers in this page: http://www.johnlsayers.com/HR/index1.htm And they explain the Helmholtz panel absorber in the following way:

"By fixing a perforated wooden panel over a frame and putting an absorbent material inside the space created, a resonant bass trap is formed with each perforation acting as a single 'bottle' in our virtual bottle array. By varying the percentage of perforation, the design can be applied to both the bass and mid range. However, predicting the performance of these traps is difficult because the Q or bandwidth varies depending on the amount of internal damping."

Trying with various posibilities in the calculator I could find some options that absorb even 20Hz, I don't know if this compute is fine or not, another person with more knowledge should answer it. CAMILO

Thanks for the reply.... :) And................. those pictures are awesome!!! congratulations!! :o DF

I've been reading a lot of threads in this forum and almost always are talking about the resonators but almost never about the panels made with holes.... :?: And reading in the page http://www.mhsoft.nl/Helmholtzabsorber.asp we can see that these panels are more effective in the low frequencies... Why don't you use this panels extensively? There are some defect on this kind of panels? DF

Diana Fernanda Vélez wrote:

I've we can see that these panels are more effective in the low frequencies... Why don't you use this panels extensively? There are some defect on this kind of panels? DF

If you do the math, you will find out that thin panel absorbers do not go very low in frequency. Andre

Hi Andre, The true is that I don't know the math, I only was using the calcuator that appears in the page http://www.mhsoft.nl/Helmholtzabsorber.asp and for example, according with that calculator, with a panel with the following characteristics: area:3m2 thickness: 2cms depth: 30 cms 200 holes of 5mm of diameter each, the resonant frequency wolud be 21,66 Hz... Is that calculator wrong? DF

Diana: The math is correct, as far as it goes. Consider the percent open area and the absorption maxima. Very low. Going with thicker panels, or openings increase the max absorption significantly. Thanks for the quick post! Andre

Hi, according to that, it's not a good idea to put in the 4 panels of my 'live room' (see the diagram in the document attached) 2 with slats (resonant panel for low mids) and 2 with holes(for lows)????? wich would be the best alternative (using the 4 panels in the walls and the panel in the ceiling---see the diagrams---) to achieve the best response in this small room????? CAMILO

Where is the attachment? :D Andre

Excuse me, I wasn't clear.... The file is in the first post in this thread. The name is tratamiento.doc CAMILO