Quadratic Residue Diffusor - Vertical or Horizontal Slots???
- Thread starter Kasey
- Start date
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Kasey,
> in my situation it'd be best if i could make those slots horizontal <
If you mean the orientation of the "chambers," I think you want them vertical because that spreads the sound horizontally.
--Ethan
> in my situation it'd be best if i could make those slots horizontal <
If you mean the orientation of the "chambers," I think you want them vertical because that spreads the sound horizontally.
--Ethan
RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
Hello Kasey. If you'll notice, these units are built as MIRRORED PAIRS, whereby the PERIOD(5,7,11,17,19,43 etc) is 1/2 of the unit. THEORETICALLY, this is what creates a "hemidisc" of diffusion. Adding more units, or increasing the period, or increasing the well width(frequency band target) will widen the hemidisc diameter. However, I have seen walls of these units stacked in checkerboard pattern, where alternating units of vertical and horizontal configurations supposedly "further diffuse" as the hemidisc dispertion pattern is now checkerboarded also. But who knows in reality. I have had a well known studio designer tell me "these don't work and I've seen "miles" of these torn out of studios".....
Then I've been told by a well known acoustician that these are quarter wavelength "silencers" too, which sounds like they can create "comb filtering" if placed to close to the monitoring position. I've even heard people describe these effects as "heterodyning", or beat effects. At one time, I specifically asked on a Physics/Acoustics website forum, about the pictures in Alton Everests Masterhandbook of Acoustics, of diffusers and studio configurations of them and if THEY WORK. One acoustician told me he "couldn't believe this was actually a book on Acoustics, and said he woud NEVER build what was in those pictures.
Another acoustition told me "no doubt the do work, but whats the point of building these giant dimensional units, when for small rooms, a good start on diffusion can be had by patchwork placement of ABSORPTION panels 
So, who do you believe????????????
I do know this. Diffusion is an area of on going study. Actual testing procedures have been proposed at the AES, and new studys appear all the time. Yet, to my knowledge, there is disagreement on this stuff to this day. I've even asked about this "disagreement", which the response left little to the imagination....I was probing "professional experience" and even though testing hasn't proved one way or the other in RELATIONSHIP TO SMALL ROOMS, "professional experience warrants their use"....go figure. Pisses me off though. Trying to get a direct answer on this subject is like pulling teeth.. I've even been told this is the market share of acoustical "snakeoil" products too!! So, buyer beware. I have been told by another location recording engineer that he routinely carries 4 of these units for placing on stage in small club venues, and it diffuses the wavefront from the stage. So, who knows for sure. I think it is all in the mind of the beholder, as anyone who spends time and money on these will surely defend thier value with personal observations as to their sonic contributions.
But personally, after researcing this stuff for the last 5 years, with all the disagreement, something is not quite right about this stuff, and untill I see REAL LAB TESTS RESULTS, I'm not convinced. Quasi self testing by manufactures of these units are best left to the school of thought....BUYER BEWARE. I've yet to see a REAL LAB TEST. If someone wants to point me to one, I'm ALL EARS as I would love to be convinced they work IN SMALL ROOMS.
fitZ
Then I've been told by a well known acoustician that these are quarter wavelength "silencers" too, which sounds like they can create "comb filtering" if placed to close to the monitoring position. I've even heard people describe these effects as "heterodyning", or beat effects. At one time, I specifically asked on a Physics/Acoustics website forum, about the pictures in Alton Everests Masterhandbook of Acoustics, of diffusers and studio configurations of them and if THEY WORK. One acoustician told me he "couldn't believe this was actually a book on Acoustics, and said he woud NEVER build what was in those pictures.
Another acoustition told me "no doubt the do work, but whats the point of building these giant dimensional units, when for small rooms, a good start on diffusion can be had by patchwork placement of ABSORPTION panels So, who do you believe????????????
I do know this. Diffusion is an area of on going study. Actual testing procedures have been proposed at the AES, and new studys appear all the time. Yet, to my knowledge, there is disagreement on this stuff to this day. I've even asked about this "disagreement", which the response left little to the imagination....I was probing "professional experience" and even though testing hasn't proved one way or the other in RELATIONSHIP TO SMALL ROOMS, "professional experience warrants their use"....go figure. Pisses me off though. Trying to get a direct answer on this subject is like pulling teeth.. I've even been told this is the market share of acoustical "snakeoil" products too!! So, buyer beware. I have been told by another location recording engineer that he routinely carries 4 of these units for placing on stage in small club venues, and it diffuses the wavefront from the stage. So, who knows for sure. I think it is all in the mind of the beholder, as anyone who spends time and money on these will surely defend thier value with personal observations as to their sonic contributions.But personally, after researcing this stuff for the last 5 years, with all the disagreement, something is not quite right about this stuff, and untill I see REAL LAB TESTS RESULTS, I'm not convinced. Quasi self testing by manufactures of these units are best left to the school of thought....BUYER BEWARE. I've yet to see a REAL LAB TEST. If someone wants to point me to one, I'm ALL EARS as I would love to be convinced they work IN SMALL ROOMS.
fitZ
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Rick,
> I've even heard people describe these effects as "heterodyning", or beat effects <
Heterodyning requires nonlinearity - distortion - so I don't think that's a valid argument.
> Diffusion is an area of on going study. <
Sure, but that doesn't mean the jury is still out on whether diffusion is useful! Every single field of science has ongoing study, but it's pretty well accepted that antibiotics work, airplanes can fly, and so forth.
> testing hasn't proved one way or the other in RELATIONSHIP TO SMALL ROOMS <
What sort of tests would you even imagine running? RPG and Auralex both have lab results showing diffusion patterns. What more are you looking for?
If you haven't heard a real diffusor in person, the best "test" is to find someone that has a good one, and talk into it. That's how I learned what diffusion is all about, and in ten seconds my understanding quadrupled.
--Ethan
> I've even heard people describe these effects as "heterodyning", or beat effects <
Heterodyning requires nonlinearity - distortion - so I don't think that's a valid argument.
> Diffusion is an area of on going study. <
Sure, but that doesn't mean the jury is still out on whether diffusion is useful! Every single field of science has ongoing study, but it's pretty well accepted that antibiotics work, airplanes can fly, and so forth.
> testing hasn't proved one way or the other in RELATIONSHIP TO SMALL ROOMS <
What sort of tests would you even imagine running? RPG and Auralex both have lab results showing diffusion patterns. What more are you looking for?
If you haven't heard a real diffusor in person, the best "test" is to find someone that has a good one, and talk into it. That's how I learned what diffusion is all about, and in ten seconds my understanding quadrupled.
--Ethan
RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
Show me the ASTM standards for testing DIFFUSION please.
fitZ
fitZ
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Rick,
> Show me the ASTM standards for testing DIFFUSION please. <
I have no idea if ASTM has formalized practices for that. But that doesn't mean it can't be tested. I haven't read all the related stuff on RPG's site, or Auralex's site, but they both show polar plots so there must be some method, no? Likewise, does ASTM have standards for measuring power amplifier distortion? (I'm asking - I don't know the answer.)
--Ethan
> Show me the ASTM standards for testing DIFFUSION please. <
I have no idea if ASTM has formalized practices for that. But that doesn't mean it can't be tested. I haven't read all the related stuff on RPG's site, or Auralex's site, but they both show polar plots so there must be some method, no? Likewise, does ASTM have standards for measuring power amplifier distortion? (I'm asking - I don't know the answer.)
--Ethan
RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
Me either Ethan. And btw, I wasn't trying to be a smart ass. I was sincere. If no standards exist for testing diffusers, then the same old problem exists. WHO DO YOU BELIEVE?? A MANUFACTURER?? HARDLY......no offence intended Ethan but you know why I am that way
I don't trust ANY manufacturer self produced tests...EVEN Savant said in so many words that the marketplace is a big influence on advertized data.......even you have seen it more than once. NO?
Plus, since standards have NOT been formallized, this SUGGESTS something to me too. Untill then, I'm not saying they DON"T work, but untill someone shows empirical data of HOW THEY WORK IN A SPECIFIC SIZE ROOM with STANDARDS in place, HOW is one to compare real performanc? Simply by manufacturers SAYING they work? Give me a break. Especially at the price of these products.
One question I've had in regards to this, is the "HEMIDISK" of diffusion. Sure, walk up to one and talk into it and you are within the hemidisk. However, as far as control room use(rear wall), the norm is these should be three times the distance as the engineering space is to the monitors, or about 18 feet to the rear wall. Unless the rear wall were that WIDE, then the hemidisc radius would NOT meet the engineering position. So WHAT IS THE POINT if you are NOT in the diffusion hemidisc. Unless this "hemidisc" is a figment of someones imagination...but even the MANUFACTURERS data is related to diffusion at 180 degrees, no? So....hmmmmm, please give me a clue!!!
Same at a front wall. IF in a control room, given that removal of EARLY reflections from the front and side walls are the usual goal of splaying, and or absorption, what is the poinat of diffusing EARLY REFLECTIONS, when they can STILL mask the TDG of the studio AND stereo image. Again, give me a clue here.
As far as a live room, thats an animal of another color. However, IF the point is to have a "diffused sound field", please tell me HOW one would extend this diffusion down to modal frequencies....I THINK
At least this seams to be the holy grail of diffusion, as even Alton Everest shows MASSIVE Diffusers of depths and widths around 3 feet and more. Otherwise, how would DECAY occur in all frequency bands at a consistant RT-60. I've NEVER seen pictures of this use of floor space in a studio, let alone a control room. Personally, I DO have this depth of available space at my rear wall, and this is exactly why I asked these questions regarding diffusers on other forums. However, the concensus seems to suggest BASS HANGERS(absorption), which when pressed for data on THESE devices, AGAIN I am met with NO PROOF THAT THEY WORK< ONLY PROFESSIONASL OPINION, which if you have read all the times on other forums that these have been suggested as a solution, it is a NO BRAINER...that for all intents and purposes it COULD result in the same as INCORRECT manufacturers test data ...IN FACT, this is what I said to response by others in reply to my questions........ When INVOICING a client for professional consultation and design by Experienced OPINION, without empirical data to support these opinions, it could possibly be construed that it is no different than a manufacturer supplying INCORRECT data to merchandise their products, REGARDLESS if the professional was incorrect by intent. IT STILL COULD BE WRONG.......just like the question of the incorrect HEMHOLTZ Formula. Since this mistake was long term, and in PROFESSIONAL published documents and no doubt was used to design devices used in studios world wide, how come no one ever HEARD IT??????????? Well, I recieved the same type of replys used by OTHER professionals covering their ass. BULLSHIT. At least to me. If you can't hear the damn difference, especially when these were SUPPOSEDLY used to CORRECT a resonant frequency, HOW COME THEY COULDN"T HEAR IT???????????????Hmmmm I have my own opinion. Anyway, I file this stuff under the heading of "blindingly obvious". Well, so much for my UNPROFESSIONAL NON EXPERT .02. So be it. At least its not my money and time.
fitZ
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Rick,
> I'm not saying they DON"T work, but untill someone shows empirical data of HOW THEY WORK IN A SPECIFIC SIZE ROOM with STANDARDS in place, HOW is one to compare real performanc? <
Well, you could always do as I did and find some to listen to in context. Have you ever seen/heard a diffusor? The first time I did was at Wes Lachot's studio, and the benefit of his RPG "well" diffusors was immediately obvious. Since then I've visited the studios of two local customers who each had a different brand of cheap diffusor. One of the cheap diffusors did absolutely nothing, and the other sounded worse than a bare wall (in my opinion). So in all three cases I didn't need test data. And understanding that depth relates to the lowest frequency, I don't need official data to know that any diffusor only half an inch deep is not very useful.
> please tell me HOW one would extend this diffusion down to modal frequencies <
Diffusion that low is not useful, and even if it were you'd need something 5 to 10 feet deep. But it's not useful because you want to absorb low frequencies to avoid muddy ringing. At least in "normal" sized rooms like you'll find in a home studio.
> If you can't hear the damn difference, especially when these were SUPPOSEDLY used to CORRECT a resonant frequency, HOW COME THEY COULDN"T HEAR IT???????????????Hmmmm <
I do agree with that. I built three studios using wood panel traps, for which I had no data at all. In all three cases they turned a room that was unusable into one that was a pleasure to mix in. So maybe you should stop worrying so much about this technicality, and just build / buy some deep QRD diffusors for your back wall. If you buy from RPG or build equivalents, I personally guarantee they will be a useful addition to your room.
--Ethan
> I'm not saying they DON"T work, but untill someone shows empirical data of HOW THEY WORK IN A SPECIFIC SIZE ROOM with STANDARDS in place, HOW is one to compare real performanc? <
Well, you could always do as I did and find some to listen to in context. Have you ever seen/heard a diffusor? The first time I did was at Wes Lachot's studio, and the benefit of his RPG "well" diffusors was immediately obvious. Since then I've visited the studios of two local customers who each had a different brand of cheap diffusor. One of the cheap diffusors did absolutely nothing, and the other sounded worse than a bare wall (in my opinion). So in all three cases I didn't need test data. And understanding that depth relates to the lowest frequency, I don't need official data to know that any diffusor only half an inch deep is not very useful.
> please tell me HOW one would extend this diffusion down to modal frequencies <
Diffusion that low is not useful, and even if it were you'd need something 5 to 10 feet deep. But it's not useful because you want to absorb low frequencies to avoid muddy ringing. At least in "normal" sized rooms like you'll find in a home studio.
> If you can't hear the damn difference, especially when these were SUPPOSEDLY used to CORRECT a resonant frequency, HOW COME THEY COULDN"T HEAR IT???????????????Hmmmm
<I do agree with that. I built three studios using wood panel traps, for which I had no data at all. In all three cases they turned a room that was unusable into one that was a pleasure to mix in. So maybe you should stop worrying so much about this technicality, and just build / buy some deep QRD diffusors for your back wall. If you buy from RPG or build equivalents, I personally guarantee they will be a useful addition to your room.
--Ethan
RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
Hello Ethan. Hey thanks bud for the usefull replies. My wife says I'm a natural born agnostic. I tend to think I'm just a grumpy old fartSo maybe you should stop worrying so much about this technicality, and just build / buy some deep QRD diffusors for your back wall. If you buy from RPG or build equivalents, I personally guarantee they will be a useful addition to your room.
Ok, I'm going to do JUST THAT..Been planning since 1992(thats when I got Everests book). However, by the time I had a space to build them, I'd already been convinced(by other experts) that they DON'T work..
In fact, you've probably read a few of my rants about this DISAGREEMENT of experts. Here is a perfect example why I wonder about PROFESSIONAL OPINION when it comes to designing acoustical spaces. On pages 313, 314, and 315 of Everests Master Handbook(1st edition), there is a picture of a very SMALL control room with vast usage of CUSTOM DESIGNED(not RPG) ORD's on both the rear wall(LOW frequency) and the SIDE WALLS AND CEILING around the engineering position. It is a LEDE design with absorption at the front of the room.For a LONG time, I believed this was a valid acoustical design as they were
designed by a professional acoustician named Helmuth Kolbe. Now, I don't know about you, but when someone possesses credentials as a professional, it SUGGESTS they know what the fuck they are doing regardless of what is in acoustical VOGUE at the time. Not only that, but if something WORKS, why would acoustical design DOGMA CHANGE??? When I DIRECTLY asked about this design(even gave page numbers) on the Physics/Alt. Acsoustics forum, I recieved a response from(you know who)
that "you know who" would NEVER consider doing this type of design in a studio...In fact, he went on to say the first time he read Everests book, he "couldn't believe this was a book on acoustics"... wha the......????.now WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON!! Why would one professional acoustician dispute what another professional designs......I mean DIDN"T THEY STUDY THE PHYSICS OF THE SAME DAMN UNIVERSE?????????
What this suggested to me at the time, is.... CREDENTIALS doesn't make a DAMN bit of difference....OPINION is the NAME OF THE GAME!!!! Regardless. Hence my remark about professional opinion is only as good as the disagreement of their peers. Fuck. Hence my statement.....WHO DO YOU BELIEVE???? No wonder I've become a grumpy fart. When I told my dad about this, he had the answer... they REALLY don't know...otherwise the designs would STILL be in use. Like an engine. If it runs...why the fuck change it JUST because another designer says.....it doesn't RUN...hahahahahaha...what a joke. I still have a few questions regarding WHAT CRITERIA one uses as a starting point in deciding the period, and the frequency band target. I mean..what are the boundaries of the design?? Room dimensions vs modes? Periods vs available space? I've also asked a direct question about this various times, but never got a direct answer from anyone. What determines this Ethan? I mean, is it ARBITRARY? Everest says nothing in regard to what one uses to determine "the frequency of interest".....FUCK..I'm interested in ALL OF THEM!!
So, whats the deal? Don't try to answer that Ethan...I know where you are coming from. Yet I still wonder this.OK Ethan. I'm holding you responsible
I'm going to embark on this quest once more. If this is a waste of time, money and energy, YOU'LL be hearing from me. ThanksfitZ
ps
I believe Alton would disagree with you here. Actually, I think he does in the book.
RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
PS. It appears a diffusion coefficient is being put into a standard.
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf...s.salford.ac.uk/research/arc_cox_projects.htm
I haven't read all of this yet. No time right now. But I will.
fitZ
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf...s.salford.ac.uk/research/arc_cox_projects.htm
I haven't read all of this yet. No time right now. But I will.
fitZ
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Rick,
You still haven't answered what I think is the most important question of all: Have you ever had a chance to "hear" a real diffusor in action?
> Here is a perfect example why I wonder about PROFESSIONAL OPINION when it comes to designing acoustical spaces. <
I think you're missing something important here. Like music, acoustics is an art as much as it is a science. For example, some people prefer a live sounding space, and some prefer more dead. Great music can be recorded and mixed in either type of room, so who's to say which approach is correct?
> "you know who" ... went on to say the first time he read Everests book, he "couldn't believe this was a book on acoustics" <
That says more about "you know who" than about Everest, no? If you know "you know who" as well as I do, you'll understand that he is not always a reasonable person. Not that everything in Everest is perfect or everything he says is universally accepted as "the truth" by all acousticians. A good friend of mine who is an excellent pro studio designer told me he plans one day to write an article about what he believes are several failings and gaffs in Everest's book.
Likewise, science marches on, new information comes to light, and tastes change. Observe that Everest doesn't mention rigid fiberglass across corners even once in his book! I am absolutely 100 percent convinced that my approach to treating rooms is superior to the old school ways. Aside from totally whacky rooms like 10 foot cubed, I am certain that the best solution is broadband absorption that works well to as low a frequency as possible. I explained my approach in detail in THIS article for Electronic Musician magazine, explaining all of the reasons quite thoroughly. Yet not soon after that article came out, "you know who" and his cohorts denounced it. Of course, they had nothing of substance technically, only name calling and insults. Yawn, what else is new? However, I believe they now agree with me after seeing the very same principles applied successfully in some newly built studios. So who's the real expert - the guy with all the (imaginary) degrees, or the guy with the most common sense?
> Why would one professional acoustician dispute what another professional designs <
Again, there's a difference between issues of taste versus the basics. I'm certain that all acousticians universally agree that flutter echo is bad, small rooms having poorly spaced modes yield boomy and erratic bass, comb filtering is best avoided, you don't want to record an orchestra in an anechoic chamber, and so forth.
> WHAT CRITERIA one uses as a starting point in deciding the period, and the frequency band target. <
I'd think the goal for diffusion is similar to that for absorption: You want to diffuse as wide a frequency range as possible, as opposed to only above 4 KHz or whatever. And then the lower limit is determined by how much physical space you're willing to give up since going lower requires a larger and deeper device.
> I believe Alton would disagree with you here <
Understand that my expertise, and all that I ever address in these groups, is small rooms. It may be that diffusion down to 100 hz is useful in a really large room. I kind of doubt it, but I admit I know little of large spaces like auditoriums.
> It appears a diffusion coefficient is being put into a standard. <
Well, Rick can now finally stop being so damn grumpy!
--Ethan
You still haven't answered what I think is the most important question of all: Have you ever had a chance to "hear" a real diffusor in action?
> Here is a perfect example why I wonder about PROFESSIONAL OPINION when it comes to designing acoustical spaces. <
I think you're missing something important here. Like music, acoustics is an art as much as it is a science. For example, some people prefer a live sounding space, and some prefer more dead. Great music can be recorded and mixed in either type of room, so who's to say which approach is correct?
> "you know who" ... went on to say the first time he read Everests book, he "couldn't believe this was a book on acoustics" <
That says more about "you know who" than about Everest, no? If you know "you know who" as well as I do, you'll understand that he is not always a reasonable person. Not that everything in Everest is perfect or everything he says is universally accepted as "the truth" by all acousticians. A good friend of mine who is an excellent pro studio designer told me he plans one day to write an article about what he believes are several failings and gaffs in Everest's book.
Likewise, science marches on, new information comes to light, and tastes change. Observe that Everest doesn't mention rigid fiberglass across corners even once in his book! I am absolutely 100 percent convinced that my approach to treating rooms is superior to the old school ways. Aside from totally whacky rooms like 10 foot cubed, I am certain that the best solution is broadband absorption that works well to as low a frequency as possible. I explained my approach in detail in THIS article for Electronic Musician magazine, explaining all of the reasons quite thoroughly. Yet not soon after that article came out, "you know who" and his cohorts denounced it. Of course, they had nothing of substance technically, only name calling and insults. Yawn, what else is new? However, I believe they now agree with me after seeing the very same principles applied successfully in some newly built studios. So who's the real expert - the guy with all the (imaginary) degrees, or the guy with the most common sense?
> Why would one professional acoustician dispute what another professional designs <
Again, there's a difference between issues of taste versus the basics. I'm certain that all acousticians universally agree that flutter echo is bad, small rooms having poorly spaced modes yield boomy and erratic bass, comb filtering is best avoided, you don't want to record an orchestra in an anechoic chamber, and so forth.
> WHAT CRITERIA one uses as a starting point in deciding the period, and the frequency band target. <
I'd think the goal for diffusion is similar to that for absorption: You want to diffuse as wide a frequency range as possible, as opposed to only above 4 KHz or whatever. And then the lower limit is determined by how much physical space you're willing to give up since going lower requires a larger and deeper device.
> I believe Alton would disagree with you here <
Understand that my expertise, and all that I ever address in these groups, is small rooms. It may be that diffusion down to 100 hz is useful in a really large room. I kind of doubt it, but I admit I know little of large spaces like auditoriums.
> It appears a diffusion coefficient is being put into a standard. <
Well, Rick can now finally stop being so damn grumpy!
--Ethan
RICK FITZPATRICK
New member
Hell no. My my world so small you'd think I'd never left the house
You see Ethan, most of my life was spent in Sacramento California. Untill the late 80's, I don't think there were more than 2 studios in Sac. At least at pro level, and even then, I doubt anyone there had even heard of a QRD, let alone a diffuser.I was in ONE "pro" studio in my life. And it sucked. That was WAY before multitracking too. I recorded a few tunes in the early 60's there. I spent a good portion of my life as a WORKING musician, and the rest as a woodworker and designer/draftsman. I did work at a popular music store in the late 80's and met a lot of other musicians, but the home studio thing was just starting, and was very expensive to indulge in even then. So not many people had them. Especially me. I was real interested in recording, and did a lot of cassette stuff, but it wasn't untill around 94 that I got a Tascam MSR-16 and that finally started me really getting into it. No money to invest though so it was difficult. Still is. By 2000 I owned my own home, but was working outside of music so I was never around other players, or studios. By 2003, I moved to a little town in Oregon called Coos Bay, which is about as far from music/studio life as you can get. You could even call it isolated cause it is. But I like it, and now I'm 60, so the whole point is actually getting less important to me. The only reason I dabble in this stuff is to keep me in touch a little bit.
My ONLY real knowlege of this stuff comes from reading and the forums, although by the end of summer I should have my little "studio" up and running so I'll finally get a chance to hear what it really is about. It's been 2 years since I moved here and I've done very little to it because any extra moola has gone into my shop to make a living here, which is difficult at best, damn near impossible if you don't have a trade. The coast of Oregon is pretty well non-industrial, so there are few jobs. If it weren't for my shop, I'd probably starved last winter.
So, you can see why I couldn't ever hear one.Maybe my opinion would be different if I had, as it has been based on "trust".
Once PRO(Everest), once CON(you know who, and John. Thats why I became so distrustful, and with little money to spend, I wasn't about to waste it on stuff that DOESN"T WORK.
Well, I don't know about that. My wife wouldn't know me.
Anyway, thanks for the input and the positive info. I'm going to dig out my plans for the QRD's and see about putting them into my studio plan. I've got a closet at the rear wall that is about 10 feet wide and 3 feet deep. I was going to use it as a bass trap, which from what I understand about new designs of diffusers, may still be possible as Trevor Cox was explaining about a new design with absorption slots within some of the wells. I still have to read it though. Anyway, thanks again Ethan. BTW, I am doing the superchunk thing in my front corners, sidewall absorption, and a cloud over the mixing position. I'll post a plan as soon as I finish it. fitZ
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Rick,
> Hell no <
Well that explains a lot.
Seriously, once you hear a good diffusor you will immediately understand their value. You won't need me or anyone else to convince you how cool they are.
> as it has been based on "trust" <
You can trust me, Rick, you really can. The difference between me and some others is I freely admit when I don't know something.
> My wife wouldn't know me. <
Same here. Exactly the same. I'm a skeptic, not a cynic, but my skepticism takes me really close to the dividing line.
> I've got a closet at the rear wall <
Do not fill the whole space with diffusion. Leave room for bass trapping along the floor and ceiling corners. A 2x4 foot panel straddling the corner impinges about 20 inches in each direction. So plan your diffusor to fill the difference from 20 inches off the floor up to 20 inches below the ceiling.
--Ethan
> Hell no <
Well that explains a lot.
Seriously, once you hear a good diffusor you will immediately understand their value. You won't need me or anyone else to convince you how cool they are.
> as it has been based on "trust" <
You can trust me, Rick, you really can. The difference between me and some others is I freely admit when I don't know something.
> My wife wouldn't know me. <
Same here. Exactly the same. I'm a skeptic, not a cynic, but my skepticism takes me really close to the dividing line.
> I've got a closet at the rear wall <
Do not fill the whole space with diffusion. Leave room for bass trapping along the floor and ceiling corners. A 2x4 foot panel straddling the corner impinges about 20 inches in each direction. So plan your diffusor to fill the difference from 20 inches off the floor up to 20 inches below the ceiling.
--Ethan