Low-cost sound control for a new home studio?

tuco

New member
Greetings,

I have a 10 x 20 workshop I'd like to turn into home recording space for spoken word, hand drums, and Native American flute.

The existing rectangular space has a concrete floor, exposed studs (no insulation yet), and a wood-paneled ceiling. Needless to say, a very reflective room with no absorption at all.

Any ideas on how best to acoustically treat this room without spending a ton of money on commercial sound control panels? (I already have a solution for quieting the computers).

Open to all ideas.
 
Low cost sound control?

Remember those rubberback curtains your Grandma used to have? BINGO! if you cant find any try carpet scraps from the a big carpet stores dumpster. cant get any cheaper than that. :D
 
Visit John Sayers forum. i would suggest making two splayed walls and some 703 panels.
 
Visit John Sayers forum. i would suggest making two splayed walls and some 703 panels.
Splayed walls will help a lot, but 703 panels, strategically placed, will probably be adequate, imo. If he hadn't said "Any ideas on how best to acoustically treat this room without spending a ton of money" then i would suggest it. The best bang for the buck treatment has to be 703(or similar rigid fiberglass/acoustic cotton/mineral wool etc.) panels.

I can get Knuaf rocksilk 2" for £20 for 10, plus the cost of a simple wood frame(12' around £4) and material(3m^2 around £4), so around £10($19) per panel. Just depends how cheap you can get each part though. Material and wood might be a lot cheaper over there? Shopping around will bring the costs down too, obviously.

Just double/triple the rocksilk(703, or whatever) for corner bass traps. I'd suggest at least(more if possible) 4 bass traps, and at least 5 normal panels strategically placed.

If you wanted, you could build a simple stud wall to make a wee booth(maybe 6'x10'). I'd suggest building at least 2 traps for the booth.

Just realised, you are probably going to sheet the walls anyway, so building splayed walls shouldn't be too much more. What are your building skills like? It'll be a lot easier to simply add insulation between the studs(any fluffy stuff will do) and drywall, but won't be as good acoustically.
 
Last edited:
Splayed walls meant for acoustic correction are pretty cheap. If you are trying to sound proof, that's a whole 'nother story. :D

BTW - like Panda said, rubber curtains will make most of your problems worse, much worse. :(
 
Fantastic, thanks everybody!

I'm getting the idea about this and will read more here and at John Sayer's forum.

I have the power tools; don't see any problem doing this giving a bit of time. Need to get a handle on why the splayed walls are important and how much wall surface should be covered with panels, but I suppose that will become clear as I go. I also read somewhere that mixing panel types (703 + 705?) might help balance the absorbtion across the spectrum.

I not as concerned about actual sound-proofing (isolation from neighbors), more like deadening this space.
 
Fantastic, thanks everybody!

I'm getting the idea about this and will read more here and at John Sayer's forum.

I have the power tools; don't see any problem doing this giving a bit of time. Need to get a handle on why the splayed walls are important and how much wall surface should be covered with panels, but I suppose that will become clear as I go. I also read somewhere that mixing panel types (703 + 705?) might help balance the absorbtion across the spectrum.

I not as concerned about actual sound-proofing (isolation from neighbors), more like deadening this space.
The mixing panel types... hmm.

I'll try and quickly explain that, if i can. In most cases, too much HF(high frequency) absorption is abtained, leaving the LF(low frequencies) to continue causing problems. This leads to even worse problems than no absorption at all.

I think that 705 is denser than 703, this allows better LF absorption and less HF absorption. This a good thing, but is not hugely necessary. You can find materials a lot cheaper than 703/5 that do the same job. I think as long as you get above around 40kg/m3(2.5pcf) then it should be fine. LF(well all) absorption depends on thickness.

To determine the(theoretical) limit of absorption, you must do some math. The speed of sound is around 340m/s. Hz tells us how many waves in a second. So with these two things, we can determine wavelength. So for 20Hz, 340/20=17m wavelength. For absorption, we work with quarter wavelegths, so to efficiently absorb down to 20Hz, we need 4.25m of absorbant material. This is no to say that thinner material cannot absorb well down to 20Hz, just that theoretically it tails off absove this.

If something is 4"(10cm) thick, then we do 340m/0.1m=3400/4(quarter wavelength)=850Hz. This is the theoretical limit of 4" absorbent material. Below this it will tail off, dependant on the type of material and it's density(and maybe other things).

We can increase the LF absorption by spacing the material from a reflective surface. So 4" material spaced 4" from a wall will absorb well down to 425Hz, and then tail off. Spacing can also reduce the effectiveness of the material though, so i recommended only spacing it by around the same depth as its thickness. People suggest placing traps in corners, because 1. bass builds up in(between) corners, and 2. it allows effective spacing without taking up too much room.

Hope this explains a bit, especially why carpet/curtains aren't good(very thin).
 
Wow, that's interesting. But given your 4" thickness example, which is good down to 850 Hz, doesn't that leave much of the vocal/bass spectrum unaffected? The fundamental frequency of human male voice is something around 150 Hz. Is it possible to influence that lower range, or is it practically impossible or unnecessary?
 
Wow, that's interesting. But given your 4" thickness example, which is good down to 850 Hz, doesn't that leave much of the vocal/bass spectrum unaffected? The fundamental frequency of human male voice is something around 150 Hz. Is it possible to influence that lower range, or is it practically impossible or unnecessary?
Like i said, or tried to get across anyway, this is the "theoretical" limit to the absorption.

Depending on other factors, the type of material, density, etc, the absorption can still be very good below this limit. It doesn't simply cut off at this frequency, but tails of. For instance, 4" OC703 even increases absorption at 500Hz, and 250Hz(1.24) than it does at 1kHz(1.08), but then tails off a bit at 125Hz(0.84). This can be caused by a few things, i don't know much about them, but there might be a dip at certain frequencies that the coefficients test picked up, the material and density might be better at absorbing lower frequencies, etc.

I think this can be shown better(is more accurate) at lower frequencies, although coefficients usually don't show these. I will attach one of the coefficients(2" materials) which show it tailing at LF. It's actually below 1/4 of the "theoretical" limit before it tails off below 1.00. This really all depends on the material though.

Maybe it isn't a limit, but a peak... hmm. That might be it... :o
 

Attachments

  • absorption tailing off.GIF
    absorption tailing off.GIF
    6.8 KB · Views: 206
I see, so it might be 1/3 as effective at 160 Hz for example. That's fine, I'll study up on this. Thanks for your help.
 
I'm going to have to look into these panels. I actually haven't seen one in person.


Has anyone looked into buying like, an old office cubicle?

Is that what these panels are?



Tim
 
I'm going to have to look into these panels. I actually haven't seen one in person.


Has anyone looked into buying like, an old office cubicle?

Is that what these panels are?



Tim
What the absorption panels? They look a little like what's in an office cubicle, but are a lot more effective. So no, i wouldn't recommend that.

I hadn't seen one in person 'til i built them.

They just look like a 4'x2' frame covered in fabric.
 
Back
Top