Yup; sorry if I confused things. Kris is right, seems like quite a few people have a hard time with the fact that different rooms, different purposes, different acoustic needs.
I'll be more succinct in future; lemme practice a bit -
Yup.
Nope.
Probably.
Maybe.
Depends.
Not sure.
That'll work.
OK, think I got it now - man, this is gonna save me a CRAPload of time...
Sorry, Andre, just funnin' witcha, I get in these moods when deprived of enough sleep (man, those new Titanium Toothpicks really work - look, you can even see my eyes in that last shot)
Soooo, when a Musician dies, do they hear the white noise at the end of the tunnel??!? Hmmmm...
Thanks and thanks. When I wrote my post regarding symmetry I was going to elaborate in control vs tracking and decided against it in order to avaoid confusing people who complete threads, figuring if someone wasn't clearly understanding the thread they would ask. So keeping ti succinct:
I've measured the room more accurately and included a detailed drawing. Ceiling hieght is 7'8", except under HVAC ducting where it's 6'10".
I've also plugged the dimesions into ModesV2 and RoomTune. See attached graphs.
After reading the recommended sections of this site and reviewing several studios in construction, I think it makes sense that I proceed as follows:
1) Determine type and ideal placement of acoustic treatment
2) Test room to see if emperical results agree with attached graphs
3) Install acoustic treatment
The drawing of the tracking room shows my guess at all the possible locations for slat resonators (triangles) and panel absorbers (rectangles). I understand I may not need treatment at every location.
My questions at this point:
1) I perceive my main problem areas to be at ~80Hz (panel absorbers), ~113 Hz (slat resonator), ~150 Hz (slat resonator), and ~225 Hz (slat resonator). Did I miss any other areas?
2) I plan to put the drums along one of the short walls (as shown) with an acoustic cloud above them. Given this location, what's the optimal placement for the panel absorbers and slat resonators?
3) The studio is in a basement. Will the fact that two of the tracking room walls have concrete behind them affect where the acoustic treatment should go?
Hopefully no one will shoot me for bumping this thread since it's been dormant for 9 days. If I'm not being patient enough, someone please let me know.
I need some help with the questions in my last post before I continue with the project. I'm looking for advice on where to place the traps in my tracking room, and also need some help determining which of the freqs I identified are worth treating.
> I'm looking for advice on where to place the traps in my tracking room <
Bass traps work best in corners. If you fill all the corners - including the wall-ceiling corners - and still have bass problems, then you can consider even more traps flat on the walls.
> need some help determining which of the freqs I identified are worth treating. <
Best is to absorb all bass frequencies, not just those predicted by a mode calculation program.
I'm wondering if a combination of panel traps and helmholtz resonators might work better than just a shotgun approach with panel absorbers. I'm also interested in the optimum placement for the helmholtz resonators given the location of the drums. Finally, I was hoping the resonators could be used to break up the room symmetry.
The final decision will be made after recording test tones at various locations in the room.
The drum's energy is predominately in the lower portion of the frequency spectrum. The frequencies I've identified that may require treatment also reside in the lower portion of the spectrum.
Given that i'll be micing the drums it makes sense to place the acoustic treatment such that a 'sweet spot' exists around the drums, i.e., no localized nodes, ringing, etc.
It seems as though this issue has been addressed for other studio threads on this board, that's why I bring it up here.
> I'm wondering if a combination of panel traps and helmholtz resonators might work better than just a shotgun approach with panel absorbers. <
Broadband absorption is not a "shotgun approach." All rooms have peaks and nulls at all low frequencies, not just frequencies related to the room dimensions. See THIS article I wrote for Electronic Musician magazine that explains the principles in more detail.
The drum's energy is predominately in the lower portion of the frequency spectrum. The frequencies I've identified that may require treatment also reside in the lower portion of the spectrum.
Given that i'll be micing the drums it makes sense to place the acoustic treatment such that a 'sweet spot' exists around the drums, i.e., no localized nodes, ringing, etc.
It seems as though this issue has been addressed for other studio threads on this board, that's why I bring it up here.
...or I could be completely full of shite....
The last line is close to the truth. There is no "optimum", "sweet spot" "perfect sound" etc for generic drums. Look at and study the studios in the "studios under conscturction" section.
You want help, we will help you. You mention othere studio threads regarding drum. Use the search function. We gladly help those who willing to help themselves. IF you want spponfeeding, teh going rate is 120$/hr (US) the last I checked. Ethan has been doing a great job TRYING to help you. You counter help with poor communication and obstructions, and no one will help you.
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.
> 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?
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
Soooo, when a Musician dies, do they hear the white noise at the end of the tunnel??!? Hmmmm...
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.
(man, those new Titanium Toothpicks really work - look, you can even see my eyes in that last shot)
Ethan has been doing a great job TRYING to help you. You counter help with poor communication and obstructions, and no one will help you.