John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum Archive

The major reason laminate is a better option than the carpet is that carpets can get pretty shabby under heavy wear. & the studio areas do get heavy wear, there is a lot of motion always going on in such a small space, much more than in a normal living room

Generally speaking, there should be some good reflection in a studio room, otherwise it just sounds too dead. But that reflection can be broken up by having irregular surfaces, & irregular floor doesn't work well for walking on. And the acoustic drawback of carpet is that it absorbs at high and mid frequencies, but not the low frequencies. So having too much carpet may bias a room towards the low end, And may make it acoustically 'heavy'

The major reason laminate is a better option than the carpet is that carpets can get pretty shabby under heavy wear.

No, that's not the major reason why carpet is not used on studio floors. There are many, many carpets designed for high traffic, that can take a beating and not show it, so those would work fine in studios, if what you claim is true. But it isn't.

The major reason why carpet is not used in studios, is because it has the exact opposite acoustical properties of what is needed for most rooms. Carpet absorbs highs very well, mids randomly but decreasingly well as frequency goes down, and does nothing at all to lows. What most rooms need is massive absorption in the lows, controlled, smooth and decreasing absorption as frequency increases , and practically nothing in the highs.

That's why carpet is seldom used. It has the wrong acoustic properties.

Generally speaking, there should be some good reflection in a studio room, otherwise it just sounds too dead.

Not true. Lack of reflection does not cause a room to sound dead: too much absorption will cause that, or insufficient diffusion. A room can be totally non-reflective but still very live.

But that reflection can be broken up by having irregular surfaces,

That only works for high frequencies, not mids or lows. Sound waves are only broken up by objects that are comparable to the wavelength of the sound. Considering that low-mids have wavelengths that are already many feet long, you would need "irregularities" that are many feet in each dimension to break those up.

So having too much carpet may bias a room towards the low end, And may make it acoustically 'heavy'

Wrong. The majority of rooms are ALREADY "biased towards the low end"! Carpet won't make it sound heavier. Instead, it will make it sound dull, boomy, muddy, and unpleasant.


Now, since this thread is ten years old, has been dead for over five years, and has only been taken over by spammers since then, I'm wondering what your purpose is in adding more to it? Especially considering that you are blatantly ignoring the rules for even making a single post on the forum...


- Stuart -

Not to kill something already dead, but I'd like to confirm my bias on another potential use for laminate flooring. I have a studio under construction, room dimensions of 17' L x 11' W x 8' H project/commercial with soundproofing and electrical complete. I am considering putting a bunch of {6"} 703 on the back wall and side walls which is CMU block construction to give me some absorption and decrease the time decay in the room as well as increase the low frequency absorption. What I am after is a "range limited" type of bass trap effect built into the whole wall.This would be built in addition to several 34" cut super chunks of either 703 stacked, or safe and sound stacked with netting every third of the height.
The wall absorption/construction would be:
6" to 10" of 703 glued to the wall and then 7mm to potentially 12mm laminate flooring to cover the 703. The intended use is that the laminate, which is mdf/plastic covering, would act as a membrane to reflect high and mid frequencies...
How practical and effective would this be?
Or would that thickness of laminate be a hard stop barrier to everything below 100hz?
Budget is flexible, accuracy below 100hz and effectiveness is paramount & primary.
If this is not feasible, what would be more effective? Again, I want to range limit the absorption effect, at the scale of a whole wall, to maintain mid and high frequency energy in the room. Iv'e thought of using pegboard, or other hard thin laminates, hardboard, birch plywood all 1/8" thickness, but would have to route out either slots or B.A.D. type of patterns, and then cover it with fabric to get it to look decent. Laminate looks better.
Thanks,

RAD

The wall absorption/construction would be:
6" to 10" of 703 glued to the wall and then 7mm to potentially 12mm laminate flooring to cover the 703. The intended use is that the laminate, which is mdf/plastic covering, would act as a membrane to reflect high and mid frequencies...

The basic concept is probably OK, but I would not try to glue 10" of 703 to the wall! Rather, just stack it in layers, or better still, build proper hangers.

I'm not sure if you have seen this thread already, but take a look at how we did the rear-side walls on this studio: http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... =2&t=21368 That's towards the end, but it might help you reading through the entire thread, to see the general process for tuning a room.

Or would that thickness of laminate be a hard stop barrier to everything below 100hz?

It depends on how wide the planks are, and how far apart you space them: There's lots of things to take into account. With that room, those are tuned slots resonators, but the don't have to be.

Budget is flexible, accuracy below 100hz and effectiveness is paramount & primary.

Like this? http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 923#p40923 . is that the type of accuracy you are aiming for?

I want to range limit the absorption effect, at the scale of a whole wall, to maintain mid and high frequency energy in the room. Iv'e thought of using pegboard, or other hard thin laminates, hardboard, birch plywood all 1/8" thickness, but would have to route out either slots or B.A.D. type of patterns, and then cover it with fabric to get it to look decent

All of those are feasible, and he all have different sets of pros and cons. A LOT depends on the actual room size and shape, and the design goals. As you can see from the Studio Three thread, it is possible to get excellent results, world-class, with careful design. We are heading the same way with that room. It's all about designing the room with the end goal in mind, then tweaking the tuning to where you want it to be by measuring it (acoustically) and treating accordingly at each stage.


- Stuart -

jonessy wrote:I think there is common confusion between different types of 'parquette' flooring:

'Laminate' floor is simply strips of HDF (high density fiber) with a wallpaper (with a wood pattern) sticker glued to it and plasic lamination above.
This type of flooring is very inexpensive.

The true 'parquette' flooring is commonly called 'triple-layer' and is made from three layers of 2-3mm wood glued together (sandwich).
The top layer is laminate finished to protect the wood.
This type is about 4-10 times more expensive.

The acoustical coefficients are very similar - the 'laminate' is a little more reflective to HF.

'triple-layer' feels better to walk on, but should be maintained accordingly [SPAM LINK DELETED-SPAMMER BANNED] (it is a lot more sensitive to weight distribution, moisture, humidity, etc...).

'laminate' has a problem of static energy, and this is really annoying if you plan to use a lot of electric devices in the room.

Hope this helps.

Thank you for all these valuable tips. I just started renovating my house.

Superb Information!!!