ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Acoustic treatment alternatives  (Read 10268 times)

Jason Raboin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 307
    • Klondike Sound
Re: Acoustic treatment alternatives
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2011, 09:22:36 am »

Ultra Touch has not been tested by anyone that I am aware of to see how well it absorbs under 125hz.  I would stick to rock wool.  If you are mostly interested in the 400-500 range then you don't need your panels to be very thick.  4" would suffice, I think.  $16k seems pretty steep.  You don't need to cover every surface.  My 2'x4' panels cost me less than $50 each in materials. 

But before you go making panels, I would look into other factors.  In the pic, the inside boxes look angled pretty well back onto the stage.  Is the issue present when the room is empty and you are playing back music or just when a mic is open on stage?  Might is just be that that frequency range is wrapping back around into your front line mics?  What about monitors?  Might it be the monitors that wrap into the house at that range?  I imagine you thought of these things already, just thought I should mention them before you spent a lot of money on the problem.
Logged
Jason Raboin
Partner
Klondike Sound

Greg_Cameron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 668
    • Cameron Pro Audio
Re: Acoustic treatment alternatives
« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2011, 09:44:17 am »

Ultra Touch has not been tested by anyone that I am aware of to see how well it absorbs under 125hz.  I would stick to rock wool.  If you are mostly interested in the 400-500 range then you don't need your panels to be very thick.  4" would suffice, I think.  $16k seems pretty steep.  You don't need to cover every surface.  My 2'x4' panels cost me less than $50 each in materials. 

But before you go making panels, I would look into other factors.  In the pic, the inside boxes look angled pretty well back onto the stage.  Is the issue present when the room is empty and you are playing back music or just when a mic is open on stage?  Might is just be that that frequency range is wrapping back around into your front line mics?  What about monitors?  Might it be the monitors that wrap into the house at that range?  I imagine you thought of these things already, just thought I should mention them before you spent a lot of money on the problem.

As far as the mains/monitors go, the issue has been present long before my rig was installed and when there was a different stage. As far as the UltraTouch goes, it was recommended to me by a reputable source. Here are the specs on it:

http://www.soundaway.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/ultratouchdenim_spec.pdf

Greg
Logged
"Procrastinators of the world - contemplate uniting!"

Cameron Pro Audio

Brad Weber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2209
  • Marietta, GA
Re: Acoustic treatment alternatives
« Reply #12 on: November 19, 2011, 01:02:21 pm »

4" would suffice, I think.  $16k seems pretty steep.  You don't need to cover every surface.  My 2'x4' panels cost me less than $50 each in materials.
As far as the UltraTouch goes, it was recommended to me by a reputable source. Here are the specs on it:

http://www.soundaway.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/ultratouchdenim_spec.pdf

That data looks good but it's also for 3.5" and 5.5" thick batt type insulation, which is not what one would typically use for wall panels.  It is much more common to use 1" or 2" higher density, typically 3 to 6 pcf, fiberglass board.  Two reasons for that.  One is that batt insulation in a wall panel tends to sag and shift, you'd have to somehow attach it in multiple locations to a solid backing to prevent that.  The other is that a wall panel made out of batt insulation covered with fabric is very easy to tear or damage.  There is no impact resistance and since the batt gives when something catches or impacts it, that stresses the fabric.  It may be a good material choice for some applications, I'm just not sure it's the right material for wall panels in a venue like yours.

On the cost, keep in mind that there are two components to the overall cost, the product and the installation.  Products like the black fiberglass board may seem more expensive than some other product options but there is little labor involved in installing it.  DIY acoustical panels can involve some significant labor to build much less to install, so consider the total cost.

That also applies somewhat to spray-on materials as the material cost is usually low but you are going to have to have someone apply it.  The total cost is still usually much lower than the overall cost for fabric wrapped panels but if you assign no cost to building and installing some DIY panels then comparing the two is effectively comparing an installed cost to a product only cost.
Logged

Tom Young

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 620
Re: Acoustic treatment alternatives
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2011, 03:05:12 pm »

Tom, the rigging was designed by Dave Rat in conjunction with ATM and the bumpers are designed to hold 8 boxes (1 ton) each with a greater than 5:1 safety factor. There is also steel backup for the nylon straps used to hold the boxes to the bumper and the fly tracks............All wire rope used is rigging certified and purchased through a reputable rigging shop. If you see something improper though, by all means point it out.Greg

Great, Greg.

Next time I'll not knee-jerk react like that.



Logged
Tom Young
Electroacoustic Design Services
Oxford CT
203-888-6217

Kurt Pendleton

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Acoustic treatment alternatives
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2011, 07:06:24 pm »

Great, Greg.

Next time I'll not knee-jerk react like that.

I just love how people are quick to jump all over people in forums just trying to ask a quick question for other things. Its like a pissing contest or something. "I'm smarter!...No I am!" It goes with the territory I suppose. haha

Anyhoo, Greg.....Not having read the middle of this thread, just the front and back like my newspaper in the morning because I would be asleep after reading the stupid gossip section, but we have several installs like this size and acoustically old foundries and mills suck because of all of the hard surfaces. Cheaper solutions? tapestries with 1/2 plywood panels with insulation and fabric covering them behind it on the wall works really well. also, 2' x 4' panels made the same way hanging 6" from the ceiling straight down in a "thatch-work" array with around 12-18" between them should work. The sound wave for mid-bass - low-end vocal range is about 12" for 800 hz and 18" for 400 hz "ish" without pulling out my old books. This will make the waves bounce in between and tighten it up and lower (not eliminate) those ranges and keep reverb down.

Thats what I would do to start off since it should be done anyways to fight the waves....Dude! If that doesn't satisfy you then active crossovers like DriveRack from DBX or Audyssey processing should enter the equation.

cool? or did I miss it?
Logged

John Roberts {JR}

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16356
  • Hickory, Mississippi, USA
    • Resotune
Re: Acoustic treatment alternatives
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2011, 07:20:43 pm »

You may have missed something... Many of the people posting here have been exchanging ideas with each other over years. Tom made an observation that upon closer inspection was incorrect and he apologized. If Greg is not upset with Tom, maybe you should consider giving him a pass. This is not a drive by smack down, but an honest mistake between community members. 

It is bad form to complain about the behavior of others on the internet by doing pretty much the same thing.

You will need to learn a few other more basic rules about this forum like using your real name, etc.

Good luck with all that.

JR
Logged
Listen to what a properly "cleared" drum sounds like.   http://circularscience.com/

Brad Weber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2209
  • Marietta, GA
Re: Acoustic treatment alternatives
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2011, 06:59:35 am »

Cheaper solutions? tapestries with 1/2 plywood panels with insulation and fabric covering them behind it on the wall works really well. also, 2' x 4' panels made the same way hanging 6" from the ceiling straight down in a "thatch-work" array with around 12-18" between them should work. The sound wave for mid-bass - low-end vocal range is about 12" for 800 hz and 18" for 400 hz "ish" without pulling out my old books. This will make the waves bounce in between and tighten it up and lower (not eliminate) those ranges and keep reverb down.
The wavelength for 800Hz is, at standard temperature, pressure and humidity, roughly 17" while the wavelength for 400Hz would be twice that of 800Hz or around 34", so your numbers are quite a bit off.  Of course I'm not sure how relevant the relationship of the distance between the panels and the wavelength is since the sound sources are not located between the panels.

You have to be careful with hanging baffles or panels as issues such as affecting airflow from the HVAC system, interfering with lighting and especially interfering with the coverage of sprinkler heads often has to be considered.  You'd probably also want to be careful of the attachment to the panel and ceiling, you don't want the panels falling when the music gets going or the air conditioning turns on.

What type of insulation and fabric do you recommend using and how thick should the insulation be?  Again, if the wavelength of 400Hz is 34" then that suggests that minimum 8-1/2" thick treatment is preferable to address that frequency and that is probably impractical, but what should be used?  And are you talking about insulation on just one side of the plywood for the hanging baffles?

Thats what I would do to start off since it should be done anyways to fight the waves....Dude! If that doesn't satisfy you then active crossovers like DriveRack from DBX or Audyssey processing should enter the equation.
I don't think Greg mentioned what processing is used in the system but how is using an active crossover relevant to an acoustical issue or to a problem that is primarily at 400-500Hz?
Logged

Anna Gold

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: Acoustic treatment alternatives
« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2012, 12:41:14 am »

For big studios which is the best curtain materiel for sound absorption.
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
 


Page created in 0.054 seconds with 22 queries.