Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

How thick should my walls be, should I float my floors (and if so, how), why is two leaf mass-air-mass design important, etc.

Moderators: Aaronw, sharward

RKML
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:27 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by RKML »

Or this isn't out of the question:

20cm thick wall panels:
Rear Wall 4 Panels.jpg
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 11938
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by Soundman2020 »

I'm thinking "what can I do successfully, for most effect, in the limited windows of time I can get to do this right now?"
Search the forum for "superchunk". Build two of those, large ones (at least 24" on the sides, bigger if you can), in the rear corners, another across the top in the ceiling/wall corner, and fill the rest of the wall with 6" of 703. Then do another REW test.


- Stuart -
RKML
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:27 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by RKML »

Soundman2020 wrote:
I'm thinking "what can I do successfully, for most effect, in the limited windows of time I can get to do this right now?"
Search the forum for "superchunk". Build two of those, large ones (at least 24" on the sides, bigger if you can), in the rear corners, another across the top in the ceiling/wall corner, and fill the rest of the wall with 6" of 703. Then do another REW test.


- Stuart -
Will do. I’ll get on the case

2 quick questions:
*In the UK the equivalent of 703 seems to be RockWool 45kg/m3. All good?

*I can only come out 20cm from the wall at the sides because of the door frame. Higher up the thread you suggested that the triangles could be non equilateral and instead have longer sides along the back wall.
If I can only come out 20cm from the wall either way, should I just fill the entire wall with 20cm of RW, right to the edges, as this would cover the entire potential area for Superchunks, and more.
(Edit: I know 20cm is not at all deep in those corners, but it might be the best I can do in the space. Still worth doing?)

Cheers,

Owen
RKML
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:27 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by RKML »

Rear wall done.

24" Superchunk at top of wall.

As I couldn't fit superchunks in the corners I did the best I could and went for 'fill the wall with as much as I possibly can.'
The whole wall below the top superchunk now has 30cm of RW 45 on it. Currently uncovered by fabric.
It comes out past the door a bit, but you can squash it to open the door, and I just wanted to get as much on there as I could in the space.

Here's the mdat
https://www.dropbox.com/s/q7su6yhmw76eo ... .mdat?dl=0
L Rear Wall Treated.jpg
I'm reading threads on here to educate myself on how to read these REW files.
I feel like I understand the functionality of most of the graphs, but if anyone has any choice threads they can recommend on REW interpretation I'd love to read them.
I know Stuart is generous with his knowledge and takes time to help, but I'm also very aware that this is an internet forum, and not 'Stuart's Free Acoustician Service!'

I'd like to pull my weight if possible :)

Thanks!

Owen
Gregwor
Moderator
Posts: 1501
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:03 pm
Location: St. Albert, Alberta, Canada

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by Gregwor »

Can you upload some real life pictures of what you've built and installed?
I think you need more bass trapping to smooth things out more. That, or you have some extreme SBIR issues. Can you also post some physical measurements of your room (you've probably already done so) as well as speaker and measurement microphone placement? From there, someone might be able to determine if those deep nulls and tall build ups are SBIR related.

Greg
It appears that you've made the mistake most people do. You started building without consulting this forum.
RKML
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:27 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by RKML »

Gregwor wrote:Can you upload some real life pictures of what you've built and installed?
I think you need more bass trapping to smooth things out more. That, or you have some extreme SBIR issues. Can you also post some physical measurements of your room (you've probably already done so) as well as speaker and measurement microphone placement? From there, someone might be able to determine if those deep nulls and tall build ups are SBIR related.

Greg
Cheers Greg, I will do.
I’m sure there’s huge SBIR going on, as there is 0 treatment at all on the front wall at the moment. The speakers will be banging their signal straight off the front wall and side wall.

The only treatment in the room as yet is the 30cm rockwool coverage on the rear wall, with Superchunk at the top.

The room is smaaaaaaall!
It’s
W229cm
L330cm
H233cm
RKML
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:27 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by RKML »

Superchunk now installed in front corners.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qaot66v99juab ... .mdat?dl=0

The decay times appear to be stepping into line, but clearly that's a huge null at 100hz.
L RearWall and Front Superchunks.jpg
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 11938
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by Soundman2020 »

I know Stuart is generous with his knowledge and takes time to help, but I'm also very aware that this is an internet forum, and not 'Stuart's Free Acoustician Service!'
:thu: Thanks! Comment much appreciated! For 'Stuart's Paid Acoustician Service!', press the 'PM' button... :)
Here's the mdat
It looks like you changed all the settings on your DAW, so it is not possible to validly compare the two readings. There's a difference of about 7 or 8 dB in the SPL levels (this test was done 8 dB louder than the first one), which implies that you could have been triggering modes that were not triggered the first time, or could be triggering modes differently. That's over 5 times more energy you were pumping into the room, so it's probable that things were not excited in the same way.

Here's the difference, when smoothed to 1/3 octave:
RKML--#2--FR--20-20k--7db-diff.png
So that's a problem. You need to go back and repeat the tests using the exact same setup and calibration you used for the very first test.

- Stuart -
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 11938
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by Soundman2020 »

Superchunk now installed in front corners.
Whoa! Slow down! You are rushing way ahead of yourself! Take the time to analyze each set of REW tests completely, BEFORE roaring off full-steam into the next round of treatment...


At least this time you did the test with the same levels as the second test, but they are both invalid as compared to the first test, so you don't really know what you have accomplished at all!

In fact, according to the latest test you have already used too much absorption in the room overall, since your overall decay times are now too low across the spectrum, especially in the low end. You are now down around 140 ms for everything under 250 Hz, so before going any further, you need to deal with the issues that you have already created by over-treating.
The decay times appear to be stepping into line,
What decay time did you have in mind? it seems too low to me, even for a small room like that. You started out with nearly 900 ms EDT, and now you are down to 103.... For me, that's less than half what I would use for such a room. Why do you think that is "stepping into line"? :)
but clearly that's a huge null at 100hz.
Yup, and it will stay exactly where it is until you do something to treat it! So far, nothing you have done is anywhere near the location that is causing that problem... :) You have only treated the places that are NOT related to it, and until you treat the location that IS related to it, you won't see any change...

- Stuart -
RKML
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:27 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by RKML »

Soundman2020 wrote:Whoa! Slow down! You are rushing way ahead of yourself! Take the time to analyze each set of REW tests completely, BEFORE roaring off full-steam into the next round of treatment..
In fact, according to the latest test you have already used too much absorption in the room overall, since your overall decay times are now too low across the spectrum, especially in the low end. You are now down around 140 ms for everything under 250 Hz, so before going any further, you need to deal with the issues that you have already created by over-treating.

Oh no... After all the months reading this forum, and now I'm that guy aren't I. Dammit. Left alone on my own on a Saturday afternoon, with no baby to look after and a stack of Rockwool at my mercy... :D

Luckily it's not a problem to pull out what I put in - nothing is fabric-covered yet, and it's just held in place with tacks and twine at the moment. Everything is easily-modifiable.
It looks like you changed all the settings on your DAW, so it is not possible to validly compare the two readings. There's a difference of about 7 or 8 dB in the SPL levels (this test was done 8 dB louder than the first one), which implies that you could have been triggering modes that were not triggered the first time, or could be triggering modes differently. That's over 5 times more energy you were pumping into the room, so it's probable that things were not excited in the same way.
Yeah, I'm annoying myself here with my seeming inability to get this right.
One thing I do know is that each time I test, the HH is definitely registering the speaker level as 80db on L and R, and 86 with both together. So hopefully the sweep tone is the same level, and is affecting the room the same way each time.
I'm sure it's a mic input trim issue that is affecting the final levels that show in the tests

I'll re-calibrate REW, and do a new set of tests, all with exactly the same settings - it won't take long.

What decay time did you have in mind? it seems too low to me, even for a small room like that. You started out with nearly 900 ms EDT, and now you are down to 103.... For me, that's less than half what I would use for such a room. Why do you think that is "stepping into line"? :)
:) I think that is me using a bit of 'British' understatement. What I meant was - the decay is nowhere near as huge as it was.
I think I was a bit spooked by the original RT60 that went off the scale - so went over the top trying to bring the decay down.
I have now done some reading on ITU/EBU recommendations and I have a clearer idea now why too little decay = also not ideal.
Bob Gold's calculator gives *RT60 (ITU/EBU Control Room Recommended): 138 ms* for my room. I'm guessing this is 'recommendation' as opposed to 'hard rule'?
I also don't know whether it's best to err above or below that number for given frequency areas.
RKML wrote:but clearly that's a huge null at 100hz.
Soundman2020 wrote:Yup, and it will stay exactly where it is until you do something to treat it! So far, nothing you have done is anywhere near the location that is causing that problem... :) You have only treated the places that are NOT related to it, and until you treat the location that IS related to it, you won't see any change...
- Stuart -
Gotcha.

If you don't mind fact-checking me - I've attempted to do some learning here.. (without getting ahead of myself)
Room W 229cm H 233cm L 330cm
If I'm reading the room-mode calculator correctly, the 52hz peak, and the 104 hz null are both being caused by the same axial mode - between the front / rear walls.
52hz = 6.6m
104hz = 3.3m
One is boosting, one is nulling in my listening position. Have I understood that correctly?

Then I've got the other big peak around 143hz, which I think corresponds to the axial mode between floor and ceiling?

So in terms of potential treatment:
I can see how an angled cloud with a hard back might sort out the 143hz, by essentially 'lowering' the ceiling, and putting the surfaces off parallel, so you no longer have an axial mode there.

I don't know the solution to the front / rear axial mode.

Maybe I'm barking up all sorts of wrong trees here!

Thanks,

Owen
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 11938
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by Soundman2020 »

Luckily it's not a problem to pull out what I put in - nothing is fabric-covered yet, and it's just held in place with tacks and twine at the moment. Everything is easily-modifiable. .... the HH is definitely registering the speaker level as 80db on L and R, and 86 with both together.
But that's NOT what REW is showing! The original tests seem to have been done with the individual speakers at around 65 - 70 dB, and the latest tests at around 75, or a bit less. Are you SURE you followed the procedure exactly? Are you SURE you set your HH meter to "C" weighting and "Slow" response, and that you typed in the correct number in REW? To me, it looks like you have the HH meter set to "A" weighting, and REW set to "C"...

Double-check everything, re-calibrate carefully, then make accurate notes of where you have every single setting for ever device in the signal chain, including the exact location of the mic tip in the room (That's also very important, for checking high frequency response later). Then try to not change any setting at any place in the signal chain from here on, and always set the mic in the exact same spot, every time.
So hopefully the sweep tone is the same level, and is affecting the room the same way each time. I'm sure it's a mic input trim issue that is affecting the final levels that show in the tests
If you are absolutely certain that this is the case, then there's no need to pull out the back wall to repeat the "empty room" measurement, as I can adjust it in REW to match the later measurement, ... but I'm a bit skeptical that it was only mic pre gain setting....
I'll re-calibrate REW, and do a new set of tests, all with exactly the same settings - it won't take long
:thu:
I think I was a bit spooked by the original RT60 that went off the scale - so went over the top trying to bring the decay down.
There's basically two method for tuning a room: start with it very live, and kill it slowly, or start with it very dead and liven it up slowly. Personally, I prefer the later. Take a look at this thread carefully (and follow it into the future!) to see how that works: http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... =2&t=21368 If the room is dead, then you KNOW that you have already damped all the modes and resolved the big reflection issues, so you can see exactly what is happening as you add each new device. If you start the other way (very live, slow killing) then you keep on revealing new stuff that you didn't know was there, as it was masked by other stuff, so you are forever chasing your tail, adding new treatment to deal with those newly discovered things you hadn't seen yet. However, both methods work, and both are valid. But you have to decide which one you are going to use! It's really tough to try to use both at once... :)

So, starting with that empty room setting, you added a lot of absorption and got some results in attempting to make it "dead", but the modal issues are still there. So I'd suggest that you need to spend time attacking JUST the modal issues now, while taking care to not over-do the high-end absorption. In other words, absorption mostly, perhaps some type of tuned trap if you have a really stubborn mode, but keep the highs in the room.
I have now done some reading on ITU/EBU recommendations and I have a clearer idea now why too little decay = also not ideal.
:thu: Yup! Anad apart from the technical reasons, it just doesn't sound nice. It is fatiguing, and uncomfortable to be in a dead room for long periods, trying to do critical listening.
Bob Gold's calculator gives *RT60 (ITU/EBU Control Room Recommended): 138 ms* for my room. I'm guessing this is 'recommendation' as opposed to 'hard rule'?
I would go a little higher than that. More recent research suggest that engineers prefer longer decay times, and find it more comfortable and accurate to mix in, provided that the decay is diffuse, not specular. I would aim for closer 200 ms. Perhaps around 180 or so.
I also don't know whether it's best to err above or below that number for given frequency areas.
Ideal is flat! I mean flat TIME response, not just flat FREQUENCY response. In other words, the decay rate should be the same for all frequency bands, across the scale, within +/-50ms So if you have, for example, 200 ms at 1 kHz then no point on the graphs should go higher than 249ms and no point should go lower than 151 ms, plus adjacent bands should ALSO be within 50ms of each other: so you can't have 150 ms at 315 Hz but 250 ms at 400 Hz, which is the very next band. Right now, you have 178ms at 315 Hz, then 271 at 400 Hz... :)

You can relax that a little at the very low end and very high end, but the mid range is critical. BS.1116-3 includes a graph that shows the upper and lower limits across the spectrum. If you can stay within those dotted lines, then you are doing fine. This is more important that flat frequency response, actually. Most people tend to grab onto the frequency response graph and attempt to get that flat, but it's actually the least useful graph of the lot! Much more important is time-domain response, which includes modal decay, SBIR, reflections, and other forms of resonance. If you get that right, then the FR will take care of itself...
If I'm reading the room-mode calculator correctly, the 52hz peak, and the 104 hz null are both being caused by the same axial mode - between the front / rear wall
I'd agree that the 52 Hz peak is modal, but I'm not so sure about 104. You had that mode in the empty room, but it got nicely damped with the first round of treatment:
RKML--FR-20-500--first-three.png
Orange is the "empty room" test, green is with the rear wall done, and purple with the front superchunks. So the mode at 101 was controlled with the first round. The second round did not cause a "negative mode"! Most likely, it uncovered an SBIR issue that happened to be at the same frequency as the mode, so it only came to light once the mode was fully damped. You can see signs that it was there all along, but the mode was masking it.

It is also roughly in the typical spot for all rooms, for the first-order floor bounce null. That's what I would suspect.
Then I've got the other big peak around 143hz, which I think corresponds to the axial mode between floor and ceiling?
Possibly, but I'm not convinced. It took a big hit with the front wall superchunks, so I'd suspect either axial across the room, or lengthwise. However, it does not line up with any predicted modem which makes me suspect that either your walls are rather thin and/or low mass, or that the measurements you gave ar not correct. Are you SURE it is 330cm long, 229cm wide, and 233cm high? In other words, a square cross section? :shock:
I don't know the solution to the front / rear axial mode.
Which one? :)

One general rule of thumb (not entirely accurate, but it helps to get you on the track sometimes): usually you will find that treating the front and back walls with absorption will affect the time domain response, and treating the side walls with absorption will affect the frequency response. Don't confuse large SPL variations with modal ringing: they are related, but not the same thing....
Maybe I'm barking up all sorts of wrong trees here!
A little bit! But there's lots of cats out there, calling for your attention, so it's normal to go rushing around barking at everything until you figure out which tree they are actually hiding in... :)

- Stuart -
RKML
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:27 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by RKML »

As always, thanks for a very generous and very interesting reply.
Soundman2020 wrote:But that's NOT what REW is showing! The original tests seem to have been done with the individual speakers at around 65 - 70 dB, and the latest tests at around 75, or a bit less. Are you SURE you followed the procedure exactly? Are you SURE you set your HH meter to "C" weighting and "Slow" response, and that you typed in the correct number in REW? To me, it looks like you have the HH meter set to "A" weighting, and REW set to "C"...
Hmm. I'll check this
Double-check everything, re-calibrate carefully, then make accurate notes of where you have every single setting for ever device in the signal chain, including the exact location of the mic tip in the room (That's also very important, for checking high frequency response later). Then try to not change any setting at any place in the signal chain from here on, and always set the mic in the exact same spot, every time.
but I'm a bit skeptical that it was only mic pre gain setting....
I'm just going to do the tests again. no point messing around with potentially flawed data.

At the moment I'm delayed by the most British of problems... it's raining!
So I can't take the rockwool out yet, as I have nowhere to put it except in the garden. I think Thursday is my next chance so fingers crossed.
There's basically two method for tuning a room: start with it very live, and kill it slowly, or start with it very dead and liven it up slowly. Personally, I prefer the latter. Take a look at this thread carefully (and follow it into the future!) to see how that works: http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... =2&t=21368 If the room is dead, then you KNOW that you have already damped all the modes and resolved the big reflection issues, so you can see exactly what is happening as you add each new device. If you start the other way (very live, slow killing) then you keep on revealing new stuff that you didn't know was there, as it was masked by other stuff, so you are forever chasing your tail, adding new treatment to deal with those newly discovered things you hadn't seen yet. However, both methods work, and both are valid. But you have to decide which one you are going to use! It's really tough to try to use both at once... :)
So, starting with that empty room setting, you added a lot of absorption and got some results in attempting to make it "dead", but the modal issues are still there. So I'd suggest that you need to spend time attacking JUST the modal issues now, while taking care to not over-do the high-end absorption. In other words, absorption mostly, perhaps some type of tuned trap if you have a really stubborn mode, but keep the highs in the room.
This makes sense - and it sounds like I've sort of started down the path of the second approach?

I'm inferring that my likely sequence of action now will be something like:
* Leave what I've done as it is (after I've re-tested)
* Add more absorption strategically, to get the modes
* Put some longer decay back, with intelligent use of relective surfaces.
Soundman2020 wrote: :thu: Yup! Anad apart from the technical reasons, it just doesn't sound nice. It is fatiguing, and uncomfortable to be in a dead room for long periods, trying to do critical listening.
RKML wrote:Bob Gold's calculator gives *RT60 (ITU/EBU Control Room Recommended): 138 ms* for my room. I'm guessing this is 'recommendation' as opposed to 'hard rule'?
I would go a little higher than that. More recent research suggest that engineers prefer longer decay times, and find it more comfortable and accurate to mix in, provided that the decay is diffuse, not specular. I would aim for closer 200 ms. Perhaps around 180 or so.
That's fascinating. That's experiential knowledge. Thank you.

I'd agree that the 52 Hz peak is modal, but I'm not so sure about 104. You had that mode in the empty room, but it got nicely damped with the first round of treatment:
RKML--FR-20-500--first-three.png
Orange is the "empty room" test, green is with the rear wall done, and purple with the front superchunks. So the mode at 101 was controlled with the first round. The second round did not cause a "negative mode"! Most likely, it uncovered an SBIR issue that happened to be at the same frequency as the mode, so it only came to light once the mode was fully damped. You can see signs that it was there all along, but the mode was masking it.

It is also roughly in the typical spot for all rooms, for the first-order floor bounce null. That's what I would suspect.
The floor you say!!!
It must be defeated!!!
I shall immediately cover my entire floor with 30cm of Rockwool...........
or on second thought, maybe I'll hold my horses a little this time, read the data, and try to find the most sensible solution before I break out the rockwool... :mrgreen:
Soundman2020 wrote:
RKML wrote:Then I've got the other big peak around 143hz, which I think corresponds to the axial mode between floor and ceiling?
ed. It took a big hit with the front wall superchunks, so I'd suspect either axial across the room, or lengthwise. However, it does not line up with any predicted modem which makes me suspect that either your walls are rather thin and/or low mass, or that the measurements you gave ar not correct. Are you SURE it is 330cm long, 229cm wide, and 233cm high? In other words, a square cross section? :shock:
I know. :!:
That fell firmly into the category of "it's that or no studio at all". I just hardly had any space to play with.
I was aware going in that it was going to be tough to treat.

The measurements are definitely correct.
I don't think the walls are particularly thin, although I don't know how you would define that relative to other walls. They are Stud-->15mm plywood-->15mm drywall-->15mm drywall.
so 30mm drywall altogether on a backing of ply. The plasterboard is the high-density SoundBloc - it weighed 44kg per sheet, as I learned when I helped to lift them off the truck!

One general rule of thumb (not entirely accurate, but it helps to get you on the track sometimes): usually you will find that treating the front and back walls with absorption will affect the time domain response, and treating the side walls with absorption will affect the frequency response. Don't confuse large SPL variations with modal ringing: they are related, but not the same thing....
That's really interesting. I was wondering about exactly this after doing my best to interpret my test results
My front / back wall absorption has clearly hammered the decay times, but doesn't really seem to have touched the frequency response in the big peaks and the one huge null. I was surprised at this - thought that it would have an effect on both.
I'm fascinated now to see now what happens when I do add some treatment to the side walls.

My original generic plan was for 60cmx120cm panels, on the first reflection points on the side walls, 10cm thick, and spaced 10cm off the wall if possible.
Now I'm wondering if that's still the best plan, or there's a more targeted approach here - if there's a chance that 100hz null could be got at with sidewall treatment.
I won't be doing anything til the tests are done anyway.

Once again Stuart, your help with my flounderings here is very, very much appreciated. I'm enjoying learning every bit, but it's nice to know that if I start wandering off track, I'll probably be called on it sooner rather than later! :mrgreen:
RKML
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:27 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by RKML »

Retest done.
I hope these files are usable. I've been having problems with clipping in REW, and I just cannot find the culprit. I had to mess with my input trim again and again during calibration to get it right.
These files are as close as I can get to 80db L, and 80dbR, and 86db LR.

I have not touched the master volume or any other settings at any point once I started testing though, so I can guarantee that the sweep tone was putting the same energy into the room on each test.
At the very least I know these tests are consistent.

First up, the empty room:
EmptyRoom.jpg
Empty Room Wtrfll.jpg
Then the room with Rear Wall treatment.
* Superchunk across rear wall / ceiling corner. 56cm along the sides. 40cm deep. 79 Cm Hypotenuse
* 30cm fill of rear wall.

(I've made a drawing error in Sketchup here. The fill does not stop at knee level as it looks to in the picture - it goes down almost to the skirting board.)
RearWall.jpg
Rear Wall Wtrfll.jpg
Then the addition of the front corner Superchunk
* Superchunks are 60cm along sides. 42cm Deep. 85cm Hypotenuse
RearWallSprChnk.jpeg
RearWallSprChnk Wtrfll.jpg
All treatment is done with Rockwool 45kg/m3

MDAT file containing all results
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ikkhmqms9hph ... .mdat?dl=0

The only thing missing from the sketchup drawings is me sitting in the chair, hyperventilating and swearing loudly in Welsh at REW my input trim knob :D
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 11938
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by Soundman2020 »

me sitting in the chair, hyperventilating and swearing loudly in Welsh at REW my input trim knob
Now THAT'S something I probably wouldn't want to hear! A Welshman swearing loudly is not very musical! :) In fact, I'm surprised your mic didn't melt! :shock: :)

OK, I took a very quick look at the data, and it's all good now, at the right levels, and showing what I'd expect it to show. I'll try to find some time tomorrow to take a closer look, and see what I'd suggest, but I'm kind of busy right now with the projects of my paying customers, so I hope you understand that this can't take high priority...

- Stuart -
RKML
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:27 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Garage Studio Build - Checking my plans are sensible

Post by RKML »

Soundman2020 wrote:Now THAT'S something I probably wouldn't want to hear! A Welshman swearing loudly is not very musical! :) In fact, I'm surprised your mic didn't melt! :shock: :)
Nid yw'n swn melys iawn! :)
OK, I took a very quick look at the data, and it's all good now, at the right levels, and showing what I'd expect it to show.
That's great to hear - I will now be declaring an exclusion zone around my sound card and no settings will be touched until all testing is finished
I'll try to find some time tomorrow to take a closer look, and see what I'd suggest, but I'm kind of busy right now with the projects of my paying customers, so I hope you understand that this can't take high priority...

- Stuart -
Of course, anytime you get a chance is brilliant Stuart. I'm enjoying digging in the archives here, researching and learning.
I'm sure it's far more useful for the forum as a resource if I try to work it out myself as much as possible, and you can put me back on track if needed.

I'm focussed on trying to find that dip at 100hz at the moment, although I am forming a suspicion that the treatment that solves that will likely help the peaks around it too.
I haven't done anything with the sides yet, so I'm guessing something on the sidewalls, or even superchunks on the side wall / ceiling corners (or both) might be next point of attack.

I wonder if I can treat this room to a usable state with just absorption. I'd like to.
I've read some great threads about slatted tuned traps, and had a look at John's diagrams and formulas for them. I think they fit into the 'something to try in the future' category for me at the moment. I don't even know if I have enough space in my room for something like that.

All food for thought.
Post Reply