Problem Frequencies - Treating Tracking Room

I couldn't disagree more AVare. I've read all the required reading. I've read through countless posts about studio construction. I've even referenced one (see my first post) that seems similar to mine. And then I come here asking for clarification on a few points and get accused of wanting to be spoon fed. I encourage you to re-read my posts slowly and see if you don't change your mind. If you still feel the same way, feel free to not offer any further input on my threads. I've noticed in the past that you seem to take a rather heavy hand when replying to other people's posts. This is not meant to be insulting, but is English your primary language? I sometimes wonder if the writer's intent gets lost in the translation when you read things. As for Ethan's post, it is appreciated. However, I notice than Ethan tends to always propose broadband bass trapping, while many others here will also consier Helmholtz devices as a possible solution. I'm simply asking for a wide range of opinions.

Phyl, > others here will also consier Helmholtz devices as a possible solution. < I see that as a more old-school approach, popular before it was understood that all rooms have peaks and deep nulls at all low frequencies. But I'd love to hear narrow-band proponents explain when they would use tuned absorption rather than broadband, and why. Anyone? --Ethan

I certainly can't answer your question. I ask about alternatives like Helmholtz only because they are suggested quite often on this site. As I stated earlier, the fact that they also tend to break up the symmetry in a live room seems to be something in their favor. I don't intend to do anything until I've run some of the tone analysis tests I've seen used. BTW Ethan, I've built six of your low and mid bass traps for my control room. They've been in service about 4 years now; I noticed an immediate improvement once they were installed.

Ethan, generally I tend to agree; however, John has had repeated good results centering a slat absorber at around 300 hZ in drum rooms, that being the first harmonic of a kick drum shell; Also, you've no doubt noticed the favored varying depth traps he uses - while it's generally thought that individual "septums" for different parts of the traps will create MORE variability of Fo, from an empirical standpoint it's also hard to argue with what WORKS. Also, you might ask Rod about Bon Jovi's studio; the pic he's posted of the main room is almost ENTIRELY slat absorbers of knotty pine, and he's told me the room sounds fantastic. Gotta go beat my contractor with a shovel... Steve

Steve, I have no doubt that tuned traps can be effective. Especially if there are a bunch tuned to different frequencies, which then becomes broadband absorption. :) But that still doesn't answer Phyl's core question of whether it would be better than broadband absorption, and if so why. It seems to me (uh oh) that broadband is always better, assuming of course that it's done properly. For example, wood panel traps as shown in my Plans article work great, no question. But it takes twice as many to get the same result as a high efficiency broadband trap because each trap covers only half the frequency range. This is the kind of stuff I was hoping we could discuss. --Ethan

I think that one reason slats may sound better for a drum room (in combination with a bit LESS broadband absorption) is that they DON'T absorb the highs as much; instead, reflecting/diffusing the higher freq's for a brighter cymbal "sizzle" - although a similar effect (minus the diffusion perhaps) can be gotten by stuffing the absorbent into thin garbage bags before placement... Steve

Steve, > I think that one reason slats may sound better for a drum room (in combination with a bit LESS broadband absorption) is that they DON'T absorb the highs as much < Good point, and agreed. As you know that's the principle used in my company's traps. --Ethan