Eating crow tastes like shit.

RICK FITZPATRICK

RICK FITZPATRICK

New member
But it needs to be done.

Ok guys, for those of you who are interested, I'm here to

EAT CROW

This has to do with statements I've made over the years regarding resistance absorbers NEED a boundary to work. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've just discovered something that totally blows my mind. And this all comes from illustrations and explanations in books, as well as on the net that illustrate the concept of resistance absorbers. Without fail, ALL of these illustrations have included this explanation.

Resistance absorbers work BECAUSE..THERE IS ZERO VELOCITY-MAXIMUM PRESSURE AT A BOUNDARY, AND MAXIMUM VELOCITY-ZERO PRESSURE 1/4 WAVELENGTH FROM SAID BOUNDARY"...which the illustrations usually show a 1/4wavelenth sinewave THROUGH the material starting FROM the boundary.

Furthermore, over the years, many many members here and on other bbs's have elaborated further by statements suggesting that not only does the material work BECAUSE of this relationship, but mounting the material whereby you create an airgap behind it, you effectively lengthen this 1/4wavelenth FROM THE BOUNDARY, thereby lowering the frequency where the absorber will have the best absorption coefficient...or something to this effect.

In ALL THE YEARS I have been reading literature regarding this subject, NOWHERE have I ever discovered any statements that resistance absorbers actually work TWICE AS WELL, in FREE SPACE!!!:eek::rolleyes:

According to what I've just been told by various experts..this is the case.

So, with all due respect to former members I have given the wrong information...I hereby EAT MY WORDS,
:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(

Because of quasi physics explanations, my extrapolation of information, and downright assumptions on my part, I've unwittingly construed info and contributed to the well known concept of "net fact". I'm sorry. And embarrassed. So much for my involvement in helping spread information to people interested in improving thier studios. I'm done.

However, I feel I am NOT alone in this situation. I partially blame even the EXPERTS in this field as I have REPEATEDLY asked pertinent questions in regards to this subject, and NOT ONCE, has any of them even so much as hinted to a side of the physics that may explain something. And that is this.

WHERE are the 1/4wavelength/frequency/thickness relationships if there is NO BOUNDARY? I'm still waiting for answers to this. Till then, I bid you all good luck with your quest for knowlege in regards to your studio.


fitZ:o:(:mad::rolleyes:
 
One other thing. I'd like an expert to explain to me just HOW an absorber works TWICE as well in free space, given their explanation that BOTH faces are exposed, when in reality, a sound wave moves in ONE SPHERE of propogation, and can ONLY enter the material through ONE FACE, unless it over time, reflects off a BOUNDARY, and then enters the OPPOSITE FACE...which for all intents and purposes...is the same thing as mounting a panel to a boundary with an AIRGAP behind it. Only the 1/4wavelength now becomes longer and returns with a TIME DELAY:rolleyes:

PHULLLLLLEEEESSE explain this to me, experts.
 
I got nothin.

I do know that I hung some bass traps in the corners and it helped my mixes.
:D

And as to the taste of crow....try some Tapatio and a light white wine.
:p
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
WHERE are the 1/4wavelength/frequency/thickness relationships if there is NO BOUNDARY? I'm still waiting for answers to this. Till then, I bid you all good luck with your quest for knowlege in regards to your studio.


fitZ:o:(:mad::rolleyes:
Click to expand...
In my, somewhat limited, understanding, there must be a boundary somewhere. If you take an absorption panel outside it has no affect (that i can hear) apart from when laid on the ground/near a boundary (i know this because i made mine outside). But if there is a boundary somewhere, not too far, then the absorber will have an affect. The further from the boundary, and the thicker the material, the lower frequency the panel will absorb, although higher frequencies will tail off.

Without a boundary there is nothing to reflect the sound. This means absorption will have no affect because, without boundaries, the area is already completely dead at all frequencies anyway (if you forget the ground).

The panel may still absorb sound (convert it to heat), but will produce no noticable affect on the sound.
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
One other thing. I'd like an expert to explain to me just HOW an absorber works TWICE as well in free space, given their explanation that BOTH faces are exposed, when in reality, a sound wave moves in ONE SPHERE of propogation, and can ONLY enter the material through ONE FACE, unless it over time, reflects off a BOUNDARY, and then enters the OPPOSITE FACE...which for all intents and purposes...is the same thing as mounting a panel to a boundary with an AIRGAP behind it. Only the 1/4wavelength now becomes longer and returns with a TIME DELAY:rolleyes:

PHULLLLLLEEEESSE explain this to me, experts.
Click to expand...

Could be a difference in design goals? When you are hanging lots and lots of panels from a very high ceiling in a very large room, the reflections at any given panel will be sufficiently diffuse as to be undistinguishable from one side to the other. In a home studio:confused:

Just a wild guess, though.
 
I thought you were supposed to eat a cubic foot of 703, or was it a cf of pussy? IDK, my memory isn't so memorable :D
 
pandamonk said:
..Without a boundary there is nothing to reflect the sound. This means absorption will have no affect because, without boundaries, the area is already completely dead at all frequencies anyway (if you forget the ground)..
Click to expand...

Not claiming expertise here, nor addressing Rick's question. But just seat of the pants- this seem silly. The absorber is still doing what it does -trap and convert to heat regardless of 'walls. The disconnect seems to be 'no walls simply means no reflections, therefor no peaks and resonances- and nothing to compare sound wise in free space with and w/o the absorber. (In fact if the 'open window' is a perfect 'absorber', and 705/703 is less than perfect- it might actually reflect some -more than free space perhaps?
Does seem that what causes the need for absorption (the wall') also gives us the second pass (reflection) that would seem to give us some extra millage' out of the panel?

Did I mention I'm just joining in for the sport of it? :D Maybe if we can tear Ethan away from the magic bowls' acoustic resonator threads... :rolleyes::D
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
a sound wave moves in ONE SPHERE of propogation, and can ONLY enter the material through ONE FACE, unless it over time, reflects off a BOUNDARY, and then enters the OPPOSITE FACE
Click to expand...
Exactly. If the goal is to reduce RT60 in a room, it doesn't matter if some of the absorption kicks in 10 milliseconds later after reflecting off a boundary.

--Ethan
 
mixsit said:
Not claiming expertise here, nor addressing Rick's question. But just seat of the pants- this seem silly. The absorber is still doing what it does -trap and convert to heat regardless of 'walls. The disconnect seems to be 'no walls simply means no reflections, therefor no peaks and resonances- and nothing to compare sound wise in free space with and w/o the absorber. (In fact if the 'open window' is a perfect 'absorber', and 705/703 is less than perfect- it might actually reflect some -more than free space perhaps?
Does seem that what causes the need for absorption (the wall') also gives us the second pass (reflection) that would seem to give us some extra millage' out of the panel?

Did I mention I'm just joining in for the sport of it? :D Maybe if we can tear Ethan away from the magic bowls' acoustic resonator threads... :rolleyes::D
Click to expand...
That was exactly my point, just explained better (it was late and I was really tired).
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
.. In ALL THE YEARS I have been reading literature regarding this subject, NOWHERE have I ever discovered any statements that resistance absorbers actually work TWICE AS WELL, in FREE SPACE!!!:eek::rolleyes:

According to what I've just been told by various experts..this is the case.
Click to expand...
As you understand it then can (or does) 'free space mean any distance off of the boundary -and is the gap and frequency of interest still related? Or is the low frequency absorption still only related to panel depth?
 
As you understand it then can (or does) 'free space mean any distance off of the boundary -and is the gap and frequency of interest still related? Or is the low frequency absorption still only related to panel depth?
Click to expand...
At the moment, I DON"T understand a damn thing. Untill I do some pinning down of this whole concept, I've got some serious misgivings to various statements made by Ethan as well as here:
http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3457

I know these guys are experts, but let me tell you something...YOU CAN"T TRUST EVEN THE EXPERTS. And I'll tell you why:mad: I spent the better part of 10 fucking years trusting what Alton Everest wrote in the Master Handbook of Acoustics AND RPG Inc...in regards to QRD's(Ouadratic Residue Diffusers). Ive discussed this whole thing at length with various experts..only to discover..what I believe is a growing amount of evidence that its all a matter of EXPERT OPINION!!!!
Take this with a grain of salt. On one hand you have experts TO THIS DAY, who stand behind QRD's, and then on the other, there are OTHER experts who flat out laugh!!:eek::rolleyes::mad: Sad. If you don't believe me, ask me for the links.

I've only began to dig into this one. Something is beginning to smell fishy to me AGAIN...maybe I'm wrong, but ONCE BITTEN....:rolleyes:


Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but something is telling me there is more to this than I've discovered so far. The point is this...

IF, for small home studios, WHY THE HELL TREAT AN ENTIRE ROOM FOR TRACKING, WHEN, IF A 4" THICK PANEL OF 703 IN FREE SPACE WILL ABSORB TWICE AS MUCH(according to Ethan:confused:) AS THE SAME PANEL MOUNTED TO A BOUNDARY, WHY NOT MAKE SOME MOBILE GOBOS WITH NO BACK, AND SIMPLY PLACE THEM AROUND A VOCALIST, AMP, ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENT OR WHAT EVER?

I mean, really, what is the point of spending lots of money to make a small room acoustically viable, when in reality, most home studio engineers don't understand mic placement issues in regards to comb filtering etc, and really can't get the ambience out of a small room anyway, and if they're recording hard rock, it doesn't make any sense to try and get the ACOUSTICAL properties of the space on tape.....what does this tell YOU?
fitZ
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
At the moment, I DON"T understand a damn thing. Untill I do some pinning down of this whole concept, I've got some serious misgivings to various statements made by Ethan as well as here:
http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3457

I know these guys are experts, but let me tell you something...YOU CAN"T TRUST EVEN THE EXPERTS. And I'll tell you why:mad: I spent the better part of 10 fucking years trusting what Alton Everest wrote in the Master Handbook of Acoustics AND RPG Inc...in regards to QRD's(Ouadratic Residue Diffusers). Ive discussed this whole thing at length with various experts..only to discover..what I believe is a growing amount of evidence that its all a matter of EXPERT OPINION!!!!
Take this with a grain of salt. On one hand you have experts TO THIS DAY, who stand behind QRD's, and then on the other, there are OTHER experts who flat out laugh!!:eek::rolleyes::mad: Sad. If you don't believe me, ask me for the links.

I've only began to dig into this one. Something is beginning to smell fishy to me AGAIN...maybe I'm wrong, but ONCE BITTEN....:rolleyes:


Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but something is telling me there is more to this than I've discovered so far. The point is this...

IF, for small home studios, WHY THE HELL TREAT AN ENTIRE ROOM FOR TRACKING, WHEN, IF A 4" THICK PANEL OF 703 IN FREE SPACE WILL ABSORB TWICE AS MUCH(according to Ethan:confused:) AS THE SAME PANEL MOUNTED TO A BOUNDARY, WHY NOT MAKE SOME MOBILE GOBOS WITH NO BACK, AND SIMPLY PLACE THEM AROUND A VOCALIST, AMP, ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENT OR WHAT EVER?

I mean, really, what is the point of spending lots of money to make a small room acoustically viable, when in reality, most home studio engineers don't understand mic placement issues in regards to comb filtering etc, and really can't get the ambience out of a small room anyway, and if they're recording hard rock, it doesn't make any sense to try and get the ACOUSTICAL properties of the space on tape.....what does this tell YOU?
fitZ
Click to expand...

I'm no expert, but i wouldn't say a panel in free space (quite a distance from a boundary) will absorb TWICE AS MUCH. It may well even absorb less, but it does still absorb and, being further from a boundary, should increase the low frequency absorption although significantly reduce it in the upper range. You may want to look into what point (distance) from a boundary a panel, of certain thickness, becomes ineffective.

A panel will always absorb, convert to heat, no matter what distance it is from a boundary. If you have a drum kit, for example, 20' from a boundary with a panel between it and the boundary and a microhpone between the kit and the panel, the sound has to hit the mic first, then the panel (being absorbed once), hit the wall, the panel again (absorbed twice) then the microphone again.

In my opinion, it shouldn't matter at what point the panel is between the boundary and microphone, the sound will still have to be absorbed twice and the closer it is to the kit and microphone, the less panels you will require. Although it will be absorbed twice, the distance from the boundary will determine the 1/4wavelength/frequency relationship.
 
Arc

RICK FITZPATRICK said:
Fuck it. Look at the ad at the bottom of the page.. Who needs absorption anymore?:rolleyes:
http://www.ikmultimedia.com/Main.html?affordablearc/index.php

:D

oops, the ad changed when I submitted this post. Its still at the link.
Click to expand...

"Regardless of the acoustical issues in your studio,.. what you are recording, mixing or mastering becomes immediately clear and reliable and your studio sound will improve forever." (Italics mine..
Isn't this basically -all be it more advanced, compensating for potentially huge response variations -that we know change extremely all over the room -(especially if 'now you don't need' therefore use, those 'expensive room treatments') and time based errors..with monitor eq?
Phooey. Please. If it was 'ARC' w/o the hype that would be one thing..
 
How about the JBL LSR series monitors with room correction? You get a mic, etc... seems to be along the same lines.

Interestingly, I haven't heard of any complaints on those speakers to date.
 
Strange timing I have. I've been away from forums for awhile but impromptu decided to post pics of the gobos I just finished for my little room. Afterwards I read something posted about gobos a few lines down and now this. My gobos are not backed and standing in free space around my drum kit, to be backed against the wall (two to either side of mix position and two at the back wall) when not in use. Of course I have treatment against the walls, cloud over mix, treatment behind monitors and every 2' oc on the sides floor to ceiling on the sides, and on the back wall too, but I found I wanted to use some gobos for tracking my drums. Went with your advice on the reflective floor and ceiling, and the room has a great "live" but controlled sound. I haven't recorded the kit yet with the gobos in place, but I'll let you know what my ears hear when I do. Now given these are a little half-ass because I just want to tame some of the highs and mids around the kit (I'm using omni overheads, so I was getting a little TOO much room, though I like the sound of the treated room). I'll be curious to see if they do what I want them to.

You have a hell of a setup going on there, mister. Nice pics I saw. I think you are well into the professional realm, not "home studio" anymore. Nice work. Still planning to track to the chained pair of MSR-16s?
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
WHY NOT MAKE SOME MOBILE GOBOS WITH NO BACK, AND SIMPLY PLACE THEM AROUND A VOCALIST, AMP, ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENT OR WHAT EVER?
Click to expand...

This is done all the time!

--Ethan

microgobo2x4b.jpg
 
This is done all the time!
Click to expand...
As far as gobos with no backs, and as far as I knew, this was a better kept secret than the HAARP!:eek::D Seriously, I've been around these boards for years, and somehow must have missed this whole "no back gobo"
thingy. Well dust my britches! Learn somthin new evradaigh! Ok, well, what can I say? Except...

Frankly, I'm getting to the point where I don't really give a damn about any of it anymore. Got no time to finish my studio, record, play guitar or anything connected with music. Just make a living. With the economy going to hell in a handbasket, its all I can do to keep my head above water anymore...seems like all I do is work 12/7:-)rolleyes: Maybe some of you are in a better position than me, but things being as they are...I'm just plain tired trying to keep up with it all. Hell, I was lucky to get a new toy(Autotune unit) a few months ago, and took a month just to get around to opening the package, let alone hooking it up and reading the manual. Fuck...anyway, thanks Ethan. I doubt if I'll even need any of these...thinking about selling everything. Got six panels of 4"x4'x10' 703 sitting out back under a tarp. Been there over a year.:( Got the frames made for the superchunk thingy but no time to put em up. Hell, firewood takes a good chunk of time everyweek, just to keep warm.
Well, excuse my whining. Gotta go pack ebay shit now. Later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top