RFZ Mix Room Design. Second Floor.

[jonkr]

All points well taken Stuart. As usual, your time and input is beyond valuable and immensely appreciated.

Anyway, I plan to get back to work soon and hopefully have it done by the end of the year. I’ll be sure to update this thread as with some photos ASAP and I’ll post some REW measurements when I get the Klasiks installed.

Cool! Looking forward to that!

If you want, do some REW tests now! That will give you a good point of comparison, to check your future upgrade against. It might even highlight other issues that can be fixed at the same time as the upgrade. Here's how to do the REW tests: http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... =3&t=21122 . If you feel like doing that now, and posting the MDAT file some place I can download it, then I'd be happy to take a quick look for you, and see if there's some things that can be improved easily.

- Stuart -

I have a snapshot that I did in March but I don't know how much use it will be because I don't have both speakers separate. The only thing out of symmetry is the air duct that runs along the bottom left side of the room about 1 ft wide and 1 ft tall. And, of course, the door on the right side. Anyway, here it is:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1IAzwZ ... Cm4bpF01qW

Edit: The desk was in place when this was taken as well.

Fortunately, many of the point you touched on are non issues here (at least I don't think so ). My framing and and soffit baffle are much more heavy and rigid than in that video. I don't think a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick could budge it. It's 2x4 framing with 2 layers of 3/4" MDF.

Initially the hanging method seemed like a good solution, but I now see the issues with it. Thanks to Paulus87's bump (and despite being quite busy at the moment) I went ahead and removed my NS-10's. The Klasiks are now sitting in their place but still need a bezel that fits.

I've been messing with the sorbothane calculator with the intention of building a box flush around the speaker and floating the box. One of my issues is that in order to get near 100% isolation my deflection percentage always has to go well above 20%, yet the Sorbothane Engineering design guide states:

The most effective static deflection for Sorbothane
with a shape factor between 0.3 and 1.0 is in the
range of 10-20%.

So i'm unsure of whether I should place more value on the deflection % or isolation %. I'm thinking maximum isolation % within the recommended deflection % range is what I should be shooting for. I saw another thread where you posted calculator screenshots of a square piece. My calculations seems to work out more favorably with hemispheres (though I'm not 100% certain whats actually favorable or not). Do you recommend one shape over the other? Or does it just depend what works for the particular system. Hemispheres seem to be more readily available on Amazon.

I feel as though installing the sorbothane inside the box would be the ideal method, but I have no idea how to figure out which sorbothane units to put on the top, I think it will be easier to float the entire box with sorbothane pads on the bottom and perhaps on the left and right sides to make sure no lateral movement occurs over time. This is a private room so there won't be anyone tampering with or pushing on the speaker to potentially sink it back into the wall, though I suspect it would take a intentional effort.

There are no shelves above or below the speakers. While I plan to install and small shelf to rest the sorbothane pads + speaker/boxes, on I'm confused as to whether or not the shelves serve any acoustic purpose. I've been unable to find any information to suggest that they do, yet nearly every design I've seen seems to implement a shelf under the speaker connecting the rear of the baffle to the inner shell of the room.

Also, I've downloaded Tim Perry's fractal diffuser plans and have been thinking of building 4 units for the rear wall with the intent of increasing the decay time a bit in the lower mids. As you can see in the mdat the low mids have less decay than the highs. Not sure if this is a proper solution? Or if I just like the idea of those nice looking diffusers on the back wall...

PS... I hung some fluffy insulation under the light fixtures on my cloud which seemed to knock down the 24-34 ms reflections on the IR by several db. I accidentally closed REW before saving so I don't currently have the mdat to reflect this. I do, however, have some newer LED light fixtures that fit more flush with the cloud angles that I have yet to install. The ones I have installed now protrude by an inch or two.

Photos as promised:

[Soundman2020]

I have a snapshot that I did in March but I don't know how much use it will be because I don't have both speakers separate.

That's fine. Anything is better than nothing! I'll download it and take a look.

... I tried to download it, but it didn't work. Here's the message I got:

The page isn’t redirecting properly
Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete.

Not sure what that means!

I've been messing with the sorbothane calculator with the intention of building a box flush around the speaker and floating the box. One of my issues is that in order to get near 100% isolation my deflection percentage always has to go well above 20%, yet the Sorbothane Engineering design guide states:

It's impossible to get 100% isolation in the frequency range that the calculator allows. There will always be some transmission, no matter what you do. But you don't need 100%! Also, you have to specify what frequency you want to see the isolation for: perhaps you are specifying a frequency that is too low? What frequency did you specify?

"The most effective static deflection for Sorbothane with a shape factor between 0.3 and 1.0 is in the range of 10-20%"

Right! Higher deflection is generally better (lower frequency), but you need more loading to get there.

So I'm unsure of whether I should place more value on the deflection % or isolation %.

Keep deflection reasonably high, say around 16-20%, and make sure you specify a realistic excitation frequency.

My calculations seems to work out more favorably with hemispheres (though I'm not 100% certain whats actually favorable or not).

Hemispheres have the disadvantage that they are not linear. As the load increases, the affected surface area (and shape factor) also increase, so it's very hard to come up with a realistic scenario for calculating isolation. I prefer rectangular shapes, or maybe rings.

Hemispheres seem to be more readily available on Amazon.

In most cases, I recommend buying a pieces of sheet stock, and cutting out the shapes you need.

I feel as though installing the sorbothane inside the box would be the ideal method,

but I have no idea how to figure out which sorbothane units to put on the top,

If you think it through carefully, you can probably figure it out. I really don't like saying more than that in public, since it took me years to develop and perfect the method that I use, so I only use it with my paying customers for now. I might make it public one day, but that day is far in the future...

and perhaps on the left and right sides to make sure no lateral movement occurs over time.

That time will come very, very fast! As soon as you play the first bar of music on that speaker, the left and right sides come into play. A speaker cabinet vibrates in all directions at once, not just up and down...

This is a private room so there won't be anyone tampering with or pushing on the speaker to potentially sink it back into the wall, though I suspect it would take a intentional effort.

I think you missed the point of floating your speaker: It's not related at all to people touching your speaker. It is related to the speaker itself vibrating, and transmitting those vibrations into the soffit frame. Floating the speaker prevents the vibrations from getting into the soffit.

There are no shelves above or below the speakers. While I plan to install and small shelf to rest the sorbothane pads + speaker/boxes, on I'm confused as to whether or not the shelves serve any acoustic purpose.

The speaker needs a very firm, solid, rigid, and massive base to sit on, and usually that is a shelf. I have some designs where the speaker enclosure sits on a platform such as a pile of bricks, or a concrete pillar. That's OK too, but a shelf is a lot easier.

I've been unable to find any information to suggest that they do, yet nearly every design I've seen seems to implement a shelf under the speaker connecting the rear of the baffle to the inner shell of the room.

Think of the soffit as being a larger version of the speaker cabinet itself. That should help you understand why you need panels above, below and on the sides.

for the rear wall with the intent of increasing the decay time a bit in the lower mids. As you can see in the mdat the low mids have less decay than the highs.

I wish I could see your MDAT file, but I can't download it from that link you gave me! Maybe you could post it ti DropBox?

fractal diffuser plans and have been thinking of building 4 units

You can't use those in even numbers: they have to be arranged in odd numbers, t be effective. So you can have 1, 3, 5, or 7 units, but not 2, 4, 6, or 8.

Photos as promised:

That's a really nice looking desk! Is that your design?

I'd really like to look at the MDAT, if you can figure another way to post that...


- Stuart -

[Gregwor]

I was able to download it last night. I just put it on my Google Drive for you.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Crcco ... gXceO6S1xH

Stuart, is there any way to change the forum settings to allow MDAT files to be attached? And maybe larger SKP's as well?

Also, regarding shelves in the soffit, they add extreme stability to the system which makes everything more rigid which is the end goal.

Greg

[jonkr]

@Gregwor thanks for relinking. I understand the shelves are for holding the speaker rigidly in place. Just didn’t know if there was some other acoustic purpose such as keeping airborne resonances behind the soffit wall from having a an open path into the room. Though I suspect all that insulation behind the soffit wall would mostly take care of that. Thanks for clarifying!

That's fine. Anything is better than nothing! I'll download it and take a look.

... I tried to download it, but it didn't work. Here's the message I got:
The page isn’t redirecting properly
Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete.
Not sure what that means!

Here's a dropbox link
https://www.dropbox.com/s/psqnwac8cjtha ... .mdat?dl=0

It's impossible to get 100% isolation in the frequency range that the calculator allows. There will always be some transmission, no matter what you do. But you don't need 100%! Also, you have to specify what frequency you want to see the isolation for: perhaps you are specifying a frequency that is too low? What frequency did you specify?

I specified 35Hz as that is the ±2db free field cutoff according to the monitor specs.

"The most effective static deflection for Sorbothane with a shape factor between 0.3 and 1.0 is in the range of 10-20%"

Right! Higher deflection is generally better (lower frequency), but you need more loading to get there.

Keep deflection reasonably high, say around 16-20%, and make sure you specify a realistic excitation frequency.

Got it

Hemispheres have the disadvantage that they are not linear. As the load increases, the affected surface area (and shape factor) also increase, so it's very hard to come up with a realistic scenario for calculating isolation. I prefer rectangular shapes, or maybe rings.

In most cases, I recommend buying a pieces of sheet stock, and cutting out the shapes you need.

Understood

but I have no idea how to figure out which sorbothane units to put on the top,

If you think it through carefully, you can probably figure it out. I really don't like saying more than that in public, since it took me years to develop and perfect the method that I use, so I only use it with my paying customers for now. I might make it public one day, but that day is far in the future...

Completely understandable! I began with several different ideas on how to figure it out which I've been narrowing down... or so I thought, until I read your comments on Stadank0's build. My idea was to simply force the pieces on top to the correct static deflection. Then add the weight it would take to achieve that onto the weight of the speaker when calculating for the bottom pieces. Back to the drawing board... with a calculator that is apparently not accurate

This is a private room so there won't be anyone tampering with or pushing on the speaker to potentially sink it back into the wall, though I suspect it would take a intentional effort.

I think you missed the point of floating your speaker: It's not related at all to people touching your speaker. It is related to the speaker itself vibrating, and transmitting those vibrations into the soffit frame. Floating the speaker prevents the vibrations from getting into the soffit.

I realize it's not floated for any reason to do with someone touching it. My concern is that once everything is installed and one of my nieces decides to go push on the front of my speaker box or someone accidentally bumps it that it will sink back deeper into the box. I suppose I could build cross section with a sorbothane pad inside the box across the rear of the speaker to stop that from happening. But how would I make sure it stays compressed enough? And if it did get bumped it would become over compressed and couple the speaker to the box! More things to think about

The speaker needs a very firm, solid, rigid, and massive base to sit on, and usually that is a shelf. I have some designs where the speaker enclosure sits on a platform such as a pile of bricks, or a concrete pillar. That's OK too, but a shelf is a lot easier.

Thanks for clarifying. I think I'll do a 3/4" plywood shelf.

I've been unable to find any information to suggest that they do, yet nearly every design I've seen seems to implement a shelf under the speaker connecting the rear of the baffle to the inner shell of the room.

Think of the soffit as being a larger version of the speaker cabinet itself. That should help you understand why you need panels above, below and on the sides.

This is the part where I'm still confused. When you say panels above, below, and on the sides are you talking about the actual box that will be built closely around the speakers? Like this? http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/downl ... &mode=view

Or like this in this example where the corner walls along with the middle and top shelf will create sort of an enclosed space on all sides once the baffle is put on?: http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/gar ... cGc=/?ref=

I'm think your just talking about the box that will go tight around the speaker (with the sorbothane pads inside) but I've been a bit confused by this. Like in this image, why was it necessary to make such an intricate cut to get that shelf sitting so tightly? what's the advantage over cutting a rectangular shelf if it doesn't need to be airtight anyway? Is it simply a means of adding more stability to the system?

for the rear wall with the intent of increasing the decay time a bit in the lower mids. As you can see in the mdat the low mids have less decay than the highs.

I wish I could see your MDAT file, but I can't download it from that link you gave me! Maybe you could post it ti DropBox?

Done

fractal diffuser plans and have been thinking of building 4 units

You can't use those in even numbers: they have to be arranged in odd numbers, t be effective. So you can have 1, 3, 5, or 7 units, but not 2, 4, 6, or 8.

Yes, my mistake. I was thinking Tim's suggestion was 0110, but it was actually 10110. Thanks for pointing that out.

That's a really nice looking desk! Is that your design?

Thanks! It's a bit of a hybrid design based on other designs that I liked. It was really the only option I could come up with to have my Artist Mix, qwerty keyboard, and piano keyboard all in front of me at the same time while still having easy access to my rack equipment and staying within the size constraints of my listening position. While I did put quite a bit of thought into the height and length in regards to speaker height and mix position, i fear that when I get down to really measuring IR reflections I'm going to have to do some modifications to get the top/surface angles correct.

Best of all, it only cost around $150 to build.

[Soundman2020]

Here's a dropbox link

That one worked! (For some reason, my browser doesn't seem to like the other links to Google Drive).

I have to say, the REW data looks pretty good. The frequency response is fairly flat, phase is great, decay is pretty smooth. Overall decay is a bit low, especially in the low mids and lows, but apart from that, it's pretty nice. Of course, there's not much bass, but that's to be expected from NS-10s. Once you replace those with something a bit beefier, you might find that there are modal issues you aren't seeing right now, but I don't think that will be the case.

I specified 35Hz as that is the ±2db free field cutoff according to the monitor specs.

For NS-10's ? NS-10s are more like -25dB at 35 Hz. I guess you were talking about some other speaker! What speaker did you have in mind that produces -2dB at 35Hz? There's not many of those around. There's a few, but they are pricey, so I'm guessing that your upgrade is going to be rather nice!

Anyway, it's fine to look at the cut-off and use that as the excitation in the calculator. Correct. But in that case, what you should be looking for is to make sure the resonant frequency is going to be at least an octave lower than that, and preferably more, with the isolation percentage being decently high (at least 50%, and hopefully better than 75%). I normally try to tune to below 12Hz.

Then you should also think about why you need decoupling down that low: What instruments are you going to be mixing that go below 35 Hz in any case? About the only ones that can achieve that, are the 6-string bass, the cathedral pipe organ, and a concert grand piano. There's not much else that goes down that low, and even then, it's not common to have actual music that goes down that low, even when the instrument can. How many contemporary songs can you think of that call for a six-string bass played totally open throughout, in the key of B0, with that being the loudest instrument in the mix? So there's the issue here of maybe not even needing to worry about the ultra-low end. Unless your mixing deal with a lot of explosions, earthquakes, canon fire, thunder, and colliding planets, then it's not likely that you'd be doing much at 35 Hz. And if that's your genre, it would probably be better to get a large sub to handle the low end, with a cross-over to roll off the mains below about 80 Hz or so.

I began with several different ideas on how to figure it out which I've been narrowing down... or so I thought, until I read your comments on Stadank0's build. My idea was to simply force the pieces on top to the correct static deflection.

You CAN force them to the correct deflection, yes, but you need to be sure that you also have the other parameters correct, to ensure that the loading is in the right range for that deflection. If you force the deflection with geometry, then the actual load could be anything! It doesn't matter if you use a square inch or a square foot of rubber: it would still be deflected the right amount, but the LOAD on it (psi) would not necessarily be correct... So you do the math to figure out the correct load, then force the deflection to get that.

Then add the weight it would take to achieve that onto the weight of the speaker when calculating for the bottom pieces. Back to the drawing board... with a calculator that is apparently not accurate

Yep! That's a big issue. Their V1 calculator was known to be way off, a long time ago, and I guess that's why they released V2. But that is also not accurate. The area seems to be off at 92% (in other words, 8% error). When you only have 20% deflection to play with, an 8% error in area can throw you off a lot. I'm not even sure if this is a manufacturing problem or just an calculation problem, and if it holds true for all sizes and ratings of their rubber. Therefore, it's better to do some actual testing once you have your piece of rubber, to find out how far off YOUR piece is, with respect to the calculator. Do not trust the calculator!

My concern is that once everything is installed and one of my nieces decides to go push on the front of my speaker box or someone accidentally bumps it that it will sink back deeper into the box.

If that's a real concern in your case, then maybe it would be good to place a metal grill of some sort in front of the speaker, with the metal bars carefully placed to not cause acoustic interference. On the other hand, if there are people in your room who are thumping on the front face of your speakers hard enough to force them way back in the soffit, then your woofer and tweeter cones are probably toast anyway, so you'll be buying new speakers to replace the damaged ones, which means you'll need to open up the soffit again in any case! Maybe get an armored steel plate to bolt in front of the speakers when those threats are present in your room!?!?! Or maybe just don't let them into the room at all?

And if it did get bumped it would become over compressed and couple the speaker to the box!

The complaint you generally see from people trying to mount their speakers in enclosure boxes, is that it's incredibly hard to actually move the speaker around after it is sitting on the rubber: that stuff grabs the speaker like crazy, and won't allow you to slide the speaker at all. It's unlikely that a slight bump is going to move it, and a bump that is hard enough to actually move it, likely did some serious damage.

Thanks for clarifying. I think I'll do a 3/4" plywood shelf.

Take a look at the other thread: the shelves are built up from two layers of 3/4" MDF... So is the enclosure box.

This is the part where I'm still confused. When you say panels above, below, and on the sides are you talking about the actual box that will be built closely around the speakers? Like this?

For clarity, I refer to that box as the "speaker enclosure box". It surrounds the speaker itself, and it sits inside the "soffit panel box". There's a big empty space between the enclosure box and the panel box. Neither of them is sealed.

Or like this in this example where the corner walls along with the middle and top shelf will create sort of an enclosed space on all sides once the baffle is put on?:

That's what I would call the soffit panel box, or just the "soffit", for clarity.

So, to clarify some more: the speaker itself is held by an "enclosure box", and that enclosure box sits on a shelf which is part of the much bigger soffit itself. There are panels on the sides and top of the soffit, roughly in like with the front baffle, and those panels for a box too. That box needs to be stuffed with insulation, to damp resonances in there, just like there is damping inside your actual speaker cabinet itself. Both the enclosure box and the soffit "box" are not sealed: they can't be sealed! The speaker needs airflow to keep it cool, and it also needs space around it, for various "mysterious" reasons...


- Stuart -

[jonkr]

I have to say, the REW data looks pretty good. The frequency response is fairly flat, phase is great, decay is pretty smooth. Overall decay is a bit low, especially in the low mids and lows, but apart from that, it's pretty nice. Of course, there's not much bass, but that's to be expected from NS-10s. Once you replace those with something a bit beefier, you might find that there are modal issues you aren't seeing right now, but I don't think that will be the case.

Do you think that Tim Perry diffuser on the rear wall would be effective at bringing back some of the decay or should I look toward another method?

I specified 35Hz as that is the ±2db free field cutoff according to the monitor specs.

For NS-10's ? NS-10s are more like -25dB at 35 Hz. I guess you were talking about some other speaker! What speaker did you have in mind that produces -2dB at 35Hz? There's not many of those around. There's a few, but they are pricey, so I'm guessing that your upgrade is going to be rather nice!

I have a pair of APS Klasiks. They are spec’d surprisingly low for their size. The headroom isn’t amazing but plenty enough to handle the loudest volumes I tend to work at.

Anyway, it's fine to look at the cut-off and use that as the excitation in the calculator. Correct. But in that case, what you should be looking for is to make sure the resonant frequency is going to be at least an octave lower than that, and preferably more, with the isolation percentage being decently high (at least 50%, and hopefully better than 75%). I normally try to tune to below 12Hz.

Then you should also think about why you need decoupling down that low: What instruments are you going to be mixing that go below 35 Hz in any case? About the only ones that can achieve that, are the 6-string bass, the cathedral pipe organ, and a concert grand piano. There's not much else that goes down that low, and even then, it's not common to have actual music that goes down that low, even when the instrument can. How many contemporary songs can you think of that call for a six-string bass played totally open throughout, in the key of B0, with that being the loudest instrument in the mix? So there's the issue here of maybe not even needing to worry about the ultra-low end. Unless your mixing deal with a lot of explosions, earthquakes, canon fire, thunder, and colliding planets, then it's not likely that you'd be doing much at 35 Hz. And if that's your genre, it would probably be better to get a large sub to handle the low end, with a cross-over to roll off the mains below about 80 Hz or so.

Most of the work I do is production/mixing in modern, bass-heavy genres. So I would say having a system that is accurate down 40hz or so is necessary and down to 30hz is preferable as that’s usually my hi-pass cutoff point for 808 subs and such (though I can usually estimate with decent accuracy what going on down there based on the higher harmonics).. I have 2 subs that I would prefer to avoid using if possible as they are decent but not the highest quality units and the bass they put out doesn’t seem to be quite as tight and focused as the Klasiks. I used one sub for a while with the Klasiks set up on stands and seemed to make better decisions with the sub turned off and Ik Multimedia ARC 2.5 turned on. I also understand that could simply be an issue of the sub not being placed well.
The ARC system works pretty decent and has helped with translation, though it does produce phase issues that are quite noticeable. Never tried it with the NS-10s.

I began with several different ideas on how to figure it out which I've been narrowing down... or so I thought, until I read your comments on Stadank0's build. My idea was to simply force the pieces on top to the correct static deflection.

You CAN force them to the correct deflection, yes, but you need to be sure that you also have the other parameters correct, to ensure that the loading is in the right range for that deflection. If you force the deflection with geometry, then the actual load could be anything! It doesn't matter if you use a square inch or a square foot of rubber: it would still be deflected the right amount, but the LOAD on it (psi) would not necessarily be correct... So you do the math to figure out the correct load, then force the deflection to get that.

As suspected! Great info here. Taking notes...

Yep! That's a big issue. Their V1 calculator was known to be way off, a long time ago, and I guess that's why they released V2. But that is also not accurate. The area seems to be off at 92% (in other words, 8% error). When you only have 20% deflection to play with, an 8% error in area can throw you off a lot. I'm not even sure if this is a manufacturing problem or just an calculation problem, and if it holds true for all sizes and ratings of their rubber. Therefore, it's better to do some actual testing once you have your piece of rubber, to find out how far off YOUR piece is, with respect to the calculator. Do not trust the calculator!

Note taken. Guess I’ll have to brush up on my math

If that's a real concern in your case, then maybe it would be good to place a metal grill of some sort in front of the speaker, with the metal bars carefully placed to not cause acoustic interference. On the other hand, if there are people in your room who are thumping on the front face of your speakers hard enough to force them way back in the soffit, then your woofer and tweeter cones are probably toast anyway, so you'll be buying new speakers to replace the damaged ones, which means you'll need to open up the soffit again in any case! Maybe get an armored steel plate to bolt in front of the speakers when those threats are present in your room!?!?! Or maybe just don't let them into the room at all?

The complaint you generally see from people trying to mount their speakers in enclosure boxes, is that it's incredibly hard to actually mode the speaker around after it is sitting on the rubber: that stuff grabs the speaker like crazy, and won't allow you to slide the speaker at all. It's unlikely that a slight bump is going to move it, and a bump that is hard enough to actually move it, likely did some serious damage.

Sounds good. I’m certain the niece’s wouldn’t go out of their way to push on my speakers. They’re just young and mischievous at times. Not a big concern. Plus I can always lock the room when I’m not there. Also there won’t be anyone in there that would mess with or damage the speakers. I was just thinking more about it accidentally getting bumped when moving equipment around or something. Anyway, the way you describe the rubber seems sufficient to hold it sturdy.

Take a look at the photos in the other thread: the shelves are built up from two layers of 3/4" MDF... So is the enclosure box.

Two layers of 3/4 it is!

For clarity, I refer to that box as the "speaker enclosure box". It surrounds the speaker itself, and it sits inside the "soffit panel box". There's a big empty space between the enclosure box and the panel box. Neither of them is sealed.

So, to clarify some more: the speaker itself is held by an "enclosure box", and that enclosure box sits on a shelf which is part of the much bigger soffit itself. There are panels on the sides and top of the soffit, roughly in like with the front baffle, and those panels for a box too. That box needs to be stuffed with insulation, to damp resonances in there, just like there is damping inside your actual speaker cabinet itself. Both the enclosure box and the soffit "box" are not sealed: they can't be sealed! The speaker needs airflow to keep it cool, and it also needs space around it, for various "mysterious" reasons...

Thank you for the clarification. I’ve been searching and could not seem to find a clear, concise answer to this anywhere. And the designs posted on the forum don’t always clearly display this. Very good to know. I guess this means my baffles are coming down temporarily because my soffit boxes are certainly not a box. They are currently completely open on the top, bottom, left and right. It’s pretty much just the soffit baffle and the shell wall(front wall of the room):shock:

[Gregwor]

Please share your math for the Sorbothane! I hope it works out great!

Greg

[Soundman2020]

Do you think that Tim Perry diffuser on the rear wall would be effective at bringing back some of the decay or should I look toward another method?

I really like Tim's design. I've used that on a few studios, but none are completed yet. Here's the one that is closest (guess what goes in that big hole? ):

STVNO-USA-REAR-WALL-DSC00299.JPG

There's going to be a full 7-panel sequence in there: the room is wide enough for that.

That should be done in a couple of weeks, if you want to wait for the results to come in. But the theory is rock solid, and it should do nice things in this room. Not sure about your room, though. I'd need to know more about the room to figure that out. You can't use numeric-based diffusers in rooms that are too small. (Well, you CAN use them, but they can do more harm than good at the mix position...)

I have a pair of APS Klasiks.

I'm not familiar with those, but I'll take a quick look at the specs tomorrow.

I also understand that could simply be an issue of the sub not being placed well.

I'm not sure if you've seen the Studio Three thread: it took us a couple of days to position the subs optimally in that room, in order to get smooth, even coverage at both the mix position and client couch. It can be challenging to set up subs properly.

The ARC system works pretty decent and has helped with translation

I'm not a big fan of those systems at all. Yes I do use digital tuning in rooms that can handle it, but I tune it manually, as those "automated" things have no idea what rooms are supposed to SOUND like. They can do the math ,a dial in the filters, but that doesn't mean that the result will be any better than no tuning at all! Most of those things tune for frequency response, which isn't the most important aspect of room acoustics anyway: Time domain response is, and it's really hard to tune for that... Especially if there are phase issues with the room or signal chain. I'd suggest leaving that off, and PM me if you want to get your room tuned digitally. Your room is actually a good candidate for that, because of the way you have treated it. It can be improved in both time and frequency domain.

though it does produce phase issues that are quite noticeable.

Bingo! Your honor, I rest my case... There's a better way to do it that won't mess with your phase so much.......

Never tried it with the NS-10s.

Probably not worth it. Most of the tuning should be aimed at the low end, and the NS-10s don't have any!

Two layers of 3/4 it is!

Look at the most recent photos of the corner control room speaker enclosure boxes, on that thread. You might be able to figure out a few things from there...

Thank you for the clarification. I’ve been searching and could not seem to find a clear, concise answer to this anywhere. And the designs posted on the forum don’t always clearly display this.

There are different ways to do soffits: I'm talking about the way I do them. The same basic principles apply, and the end goal is the same, but the method of getting there is different. Different details. And as the saying goes, the devil is in the details...

Very good to know. I guess this means my baffles are coming down temporarily because my soffit boxes are certainly not a box.

I'd wait until you are ready to upgrade your speakers before doing that. Things are working about as well as can be expected with the NS-10s (which isn't saying a lot! ). I'd also be interested in seeing a full set of REW tests, with separate L, and R tests, plus an LR test, all done at the same time. Having just the LR by itself doesn't reveal as much as having the individual channels does. It's quite possible there are differences between L and R that sort of cancel each other out when looking at the combined LR. So if you have a chance, please run the full set of REW tests (you probably have already seen it, but here's how: http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... =3&t=21122 .)

They are currently completely open on the top, bottom, left and right. It’s pretty much just the soffit baffle and the shell wall(front wall of the room)

It's possible that you aren't getting enough separation like that, which is why I suggested the full REW test.... Maybe it's all OK... but the only way to be sure, is to test!


- Stuart -

[jonkr]

Please share your math for the Sorbothane! I hope it works out great!

Thanks! I'll be sure to share. Although it might not be til the end of the week. I'm pretty busy for the next few days and while I'm ok at math I'm certainly no wiz. Plus the calculator is broken, so there's that lol.

I really like Tim's design. I've used that on a few studios, but none are completed yet. Here's the one that is closest (guess what goes in that big hole? ):

STVNO-USA-REAR-WALL-DSC00299.JPG

There's going to be a full 7-panel sequence in there: the room is wide enough for that.

That should be done in a couple of weeks, if you want to wait for the results to come in. But the theory is rock solid, and it should do nice things in this room. Not sure about your room, though. I'd need to know more about the room to figure that out. You can't use numeric-based diffusers in rooms that are too small. (Well, you CAN use them, but they can do more harm than good at the mix position...)

The rear false wall where it would likely be mounted is right at about 8ft. behind the mix position. The actual rear wall is about 10 ft. behind the mix position. But yes, I think I'll wait and see how the other room fares. I plan to get my soffit issues taken care of before messing with the rear wall anyway.

I have a pair of APS Klasiks.

I'm not familiar with those, but I'll take a quick look at the specs tomorrow.

I spoke to the owner of the company before I purchased them. He said I was the first person to ask about flush mounting, but said that it should work fine with the low end filter set to the "passive" rolloff setting. He also suggested that he do my pair with squared edges to make the bezel cut easier. So I had him do that.

IMG_0169.jpg

I'm not sure if you've seen the Studio Three thread: it took us a couple of days to position the subs optimally in that room, in order to get smooth, even coverage at both the mix position and client couch. It can be challenging to set up subs properly.

I agree. And yes I've gone through that thread several times. Excellent looking room! You guys did a great jobs on that. I also read your build story on the website.

The ARC system works pretty decent and has helped with translation

I'm not a big fan of those systems at all. Yes I do use digital tuning in rooms that can handle it, but I tune it manually, as those "automated" things have no idea what rooms are supposed to SOUND like. They can do the math ,a dial in the filters, but that doesn't mean that the result will be any better than no tuning at all! Most of those things tune for frequency response, which isn't the most important aspect of room acoustics anyway: Time domain response is, and it's really hard to tune for that... Especially if there are phase issues with the room or signal chain. I'd suggest leaving that off, and PM me if you want to get your room tuned digitally. Your room is actually a good candidate for that, because of the way you have treated it. It can be improved in both time and frequency domain.

I agree. It was more of a temporary solution to help me get better translation while my room was incomplete (which it did well enough for the moment). I understand the inherent drawbacks and it's definitely not something I plan to keep as a long term solution. Since reviving this thread I've switched out the ns-10s with the Klasiks. It seems just having them in the optimal position is giving me quite a bit better translation already though they are just kind of hanging there and the bezel doesn't fit. I haven't recalibrated ARC since moving them and don't plan to. Also, I fully planned on hiring you when I contacted you earlier this year and still do. I had financial setbacks that made that impossible, but things are getting back to normal and I will definitely be PMing you sooner than later. Just trying to learn what I can in the meantime.

IMG_0166.jpg

Two layers of 3/4 it is!

Look at the most recent photos of the corner control room speaker enclosure boxes, on that thread. You might be able to figure out a few things from there...

Beat you to it! I was studying those last night.

There are different ways to do soffits: I'm talking about the way I do them. The same basic principles apply, and the end goal is the same, but the method of getting there is different. Different details. And as the saying goes, the devil is in the details...

Got it.

Very good to know. I guess this means my baffles are coming down temporarily because my soffit boxes are certainly not a box.

I'd wait until you are ready to upgrade your speakers before doing that. Things are working about as well as can be expected with the NS-10s (which isn't saying a lot! ). I'd also be interested in seeing a full set of REW tests, with separate L, and R tests, plus an LR test, all done at the same time. Having just the LR by itself doesn't reveal as much as having the individual channels does. It's quite possible there are differences between L and R that sort of cancel each other out when looking at the combined LR. So if you have a chance, please run the full set of REW tests (you probably have already seen it, but here's how: http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... =3&t=21122 .)

Should I do the tests with the Klasiks even though they aren't properly fitted? Since they are already in place and are the one's I plan to replace the NS-10s with anyway?

They are currently completely open on the top, bottom, left and right. It’s pretty much just the soffit baffle and the shell wall(front wall of the room)

It's possible that you aren't getting enough separation like that, which is why I suggested the full REW test.... Maybe it's all OK... but the only way to be sure, is to test!

I'll try to get a test in this coming weekend. I have some things I'd like to get out of the room first to get a clean reading (Concrete blocks I was using as speakers stands, boxes, keyboards, etc.). Should I remove the desk as well. It will be somewhat difficult to remove as it's quite large and I'll have to remove all the equipment off it to be able to separate the top from the bottom and fit it through the door. But I can if it's totally necessary.

[Soundman2020]

Should I do the tests with the Klasiks even though they aren't properly fitted? Since they are already in place and are the one's I plan to replace the NS-10s with anyway?

It's worth doing, sure! Any time you do a REW test, you'll probably learn new stuff about your setup that you hadn't noticed before, and it's always good to have a record of what changed and what didn't with each round of treatment, or change in the room, or change of speakers...


- Stuart -

[jonkr]

Update: It's been a busy week and I haven't had a chance yet to mess with the sorbothane numbers. I should have some time early next week and will update with any progress.

For now, I've removed everything from the room except for the desk and took measurements with the APS Klasiks.

I've taken two sets of L, R, L+R measurements. First with the low end rolloff switch set to "Extended Rolloff" (This is the setting that brings the speakers range down to 35Hz). The other set is with the rolloff set to "passive" as suggested by the manufacturer. Both sets are labeled in the mdat.

Mic was set at 53.5" from front wall and 47.5" Height.

Please note, the Klasiks are not yet mounted properly and just sitting loosely in the soffit openings. The bezels that were made for the NS-10s are around them but don't fit well as the NS-10s have a larger face. MDAT attached below if anyone wants to take a look:

EDIT: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ow01fx9ztqy15 ... t.zip?dl=0

IMG_0210.JPG