Can someone translate what this means in STC or other

What does this phrase mean?: "Isolation: Minimum greater than -39db, Maximum greater than -51db(@1kHz)" Can someone explain this in STC rating or a "sounds like this won't leak in or out" Thanks.

Paul can't you refer to the link you found this? It's a bit a quiz like this. Normally transmission loss is expressed as a positive dB or dimensionless number (but still referring to the dB scale number). If they express it as a negative number as done here (not standard) they MAYBE express it as the decay of the level at the receiving side (immission level) where no insulation then equals 0 dB (or 100% of the emission level). Mathematically 0 dB represents the factor 1 or 100 %. Negative dB numbers still represents an arithmetical positive percentage > 0% and < 100%. STC, RW and comparable standards etc. mostly refer to the 500 Hz band (after checking several defining spectrum related parameters) not 1000 Hz. Hence POSSIBLY these values are overated versus STC and Rw (1000 Hz will mostly isolate more than 500 Hz) 51 dB @ 1000 Hz isn't bad but isn't impressive either, and 38 dB is relative poor, but these comments of course depends on what we're referring to. And NO you can not translate a number of SINGLE band or frequency to an overal insulation. But I can continue making lots of assumptions, or you refer to the source where you found this, so people can see your question in context.

Eric_Desart wrote:

Paul can't you refer to the link you found this? It's a bit a quiz like this. .

Good point, here is the site reference. www.projectstudiosolutions.com and go to the vocal booth page. I spoke with my trusty local recording engineer from my VO classes and his suggestion was to download the aurelex.au acoustic 101 data http://www.auralex.com/literature/default.asp. Seems to have everything well outlined.

Paul, This site gives very little info, it's all vague. The MLV and foam in the better version is likely not be responsible for this min versus max TL. It's still gambling for me (and these picture don't show up for me, maybe my security settings, don't know). Such data (or better lack off), I don't feel comfortable with. It looks like some standard vented ISO enclosure. If you need something like that, ask better data.

paul, That's truly a pi$$-poor presentation of information. E.g., "greater than -39 dB" ... 0 dB is greater than -39 dB. :shock: Putting "min" in front of this ludicrous statement creates a lovely oxymoron. There's just no way of knowing from the information on that site what the performance would be. Besides, they're providing these specs for booths that the user builds from plans they provide (sell). To provide any sort of performance estimate is placing a lot of faith that the user will be able to build the booth exactly to their design. FWIW, there's not a lot of rocket science to building a booth. Use at least several layers of gypsum wallboard ("drywall" - 3-4 total layers usually does the trick), insulation between the studs, make sure the construction is airtight, minimize windows and penetrations, seal doors, etc. The Auralex reference is a good one, as is Rod Gervais' book.

Even with the bare scratch of knowledge I have learned, it didn't look right to me. The Acoustics 101 PDF was very helpful, too. Thanks guys.

I received this via email today

Webmaster, This refers to the thread on your forum headed 'Can someone translate what this means in STC or other?' dated Thurs Jun 07, 2007 www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.ph ... 033b5e04ce 233de121a. The thread is ill-informed, biased in nature and contains defamatory remarks regarding our product the PSS Vocal Booth Plan. As such we request that the comments and all links to www.projectstudiosolutions.com be removed forthwith. We would expect that this will receive your immediate attention. Clint Osborne. Project Studio Solutions.

I ensured Clint that the comments are informed and suggested that he loggon and reply to the postings. cheers john

At least he appears honest enough to state that the unit does have it's limitations :wink: 8)

Funny, I hope they DO logon here.

To Mr. Osborne: This statement appears in the Registration Terms for this forum: "...all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable." Besides that, nothing about this thread is ill-informed; the information discussed is taken directly from the projectstudiosolutions.com website. There is no bias - none of us have a vested interest or hidden agenda. We are merely commenting on what we believe to be a poor presentation of information. Information, btw, that is in the public domain. Since the comments in this thread express the opinions of their respective authors, they can hardly be construed as defamatory. Again, the information under discussion is taken directly from the projectstudiosolutions.com site. Finally, Mr. Osborne, you are more than welcome to contribute to this discussion. As an Acoustical Engineer, I would be delighted to hear your explanation of phrases like:

Project Studio Solutions wrote:

Typical isolation: *Min greater than -39db*^max greater than -51 db(@1kHz).

(Source.) And just so I'm clear about what I believe to be the problem with the information: • Acoustical isolation is not expressed in negative decibels. • The isolation information provided is only for the 1 kHz band. Whether this is an octave band or a one-third octave band is not specified. What the isolation is at all the other bands is not provided. • What is being called "isolation" is, technically, supposed to be referred to as "transmission loss" (TL). • There are ASTM and ISO standard tests for the measurement of TL. These standards also offer guidance on the presentation of test results. These standards appear to have been generally ignored. At the very least, they have not been referenced. • Nitpicky, but the abbreviation for decibel is "dB" (capital B). • Also nitpicky, but the specific usage of "Min", "max" and "greter than" in the contexts of the negative numbers being presented is simply incorrect. (See my comment above about 0 being greater than -39.) Now, I'm sure you could argue that your presentation of data is not intended to be a full technical report. Which is fine. However, this information is found on a page entitled "Specifications." As an Engineer, this phrase carries a certain weight. Since the "Specifications" did not provide all the requisite information that a person like me expects from companies like yours, I interpreted this as a shortcoming and commented as I felt appropriate. Regardless of the source, I personally will take information at face value and comment upon it - offering my opinions - when asked to do so by other members of this forum.

:) :) Tjaaah, ...... We do have experience with suppliers/producers using the back-door to let forum info disappear. An admirable response I really do respect a lot from John. If something made public in a forum isn't correct, defend your case in public. One has every right to do so, and one even should, in the interest of many, if others spread questionable stuff. But if the alleged questionable stuff isn't questionable, than it should remain as well, also in the interest of many. Anyone is responsible and accountable for his own words.

For all we know Clint may have a good product, he may have devised a simple efficient method of building the proverbial vocal booth. What is being questioned is the performance specs and the way they are expressed. The original poster couldn't interpret them nor could the two following posters who we all know are both well versed in this subject. I ask Clint to join this thread and perhaps with the combined experience of this community we can come up with a way of expressing the specs of his product that tells the real story. As I've said on various occasions I have no problem with people promoting commercial products that fall withing the bounds of this forum and in this case I see Clint's product as falling within this area. cheers john

John, and all posters here: I left this thread a while ago when the responders basically wrote that the information was too vague and does not do an effective job of outlining the performance of the vocal booth. I am very impressed with the cool, professional, and mature response by you and others here to the email. I want to add that my intention was only to seek "Translation into English" of the technical topic to which I have become married as a voice actor. Practicing the Voice Acting side of this freelance life is relatively cheap and easy. Becoming functionally literate and skilled on the technical side is another issue. Mistakes can be costly in time and money, and I know I am not interested in wasting either. Folks here have been extremely helpful and supporting (please read patient while patting me on the head and saying "they're so cute at this level of ignorance".... :D ). I've gone from fearing the necessity of spending a lot of money on products that are over qualified for me to knowing that, for the narrow requirements to produce voice over, simple and clean is better than flashy and fancy. Trust that I will be back with knucklehead questions in the future though... This could be good in the long run. Clint may use this as a chance to improve his advertising so that it communicates clearly and accurately, therefore making his product more enticing for someone who may be interested. I wasn't out to bash anyone.

John Sayers wrote:

For all we know Clint may have a good product, he may have devised a simple efficient method of building the proverbial vocal booth. What is being questioned is the performance specs and the way they are expressed. The original poster couldn't interpret them nor could the two following posters who we all know are both well versed in this subject. I ask Clint to join this thread and perhaps with the combined experience of this community we can come up with a way of expressing the specs of his product that tells the real story. As I've said on various occasions I have no problem with people promoting commercial products that fall withing the bounds of this forum and in this case I see Clint's product as falling within this area. cheers john

As a note of interest, the website, www.projectstudiosolutions.com , doesn't seem to be available any longer. Coincidence ;)?

xSpace wrote:

As a note of interest, the website, www.projectstudiosolutions.com , doesn't seem to be available any longer. Coincidence ;)?

Space, that's odd - I clicked on the link in your post and went right to their site....... As a point of interest - I see they haven't bothered to clean up their act regarding their method of presenting the degree of isolation. I still would reccomend against purchasing their plans seeing as they can't provide data of any substance in that regards. Sincerely, Rod

Yes, I see that Win IE will go there. Just tried it since I do not use IE to browse. The version of Mozilla Firefox I use doesn't seem to go there. My url box reads : about:blank Nothing lost nothing gained.

That is my decision at this point. Actually, I found a construction diary right here that was pretty detailed that is in the vein of my own needs. Right now, I'm still seducing my wife into giving up a perfect corner of some storage space (farthest wall from street, basement level, under the least used space in the house during recording times....) where I can construct the studio space for VO recording. Lately I've even been helping some VO colleagues who don't have studios, so this might even start paying for itself once it's up and running. Audiobooks will be SOOO much easier when I don't have to stop for snow plows, 'Hoop-T' cars, and screaming little ones on bicycles...

rod gervais wrote:

As a point of interest - I see they haven't bothered to clean up their act regarding their method of presenting the degree of isolation. I still would reccomend against purchasing their plans seeing as they can't provide data of any substance in that regards. Sincerely, Rod