.. I suppose reading books and the subject for over 40 years and having built 4 studios I just don't know what I'm doing, you know we are only trying to help but I feel we are having the piss taken now.
Alan.
Okay. How about 0.38 at 125 Hz and 0.24 at 250 Hz then. Does that still suck? Is that significantly different from 0.01 and 0.02 respectively? Is it different by at least an order of magnitude?
And with that I'll offer to the OP these two. They are extremely relevant and were hugely useful to me.
And don't expect them to be just a 'read and get it all in one pass.
It's more like dive in and chip away to what seems relevant to your questions, rinse, repeat, add new questions..
https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Studio-Construction-Budget-Everest/dp/0070213828
https://www.amazon.com/Build-Budget...0121&sr=1-9&refinements=p_27:F.+Alton+Everest
Boy...what a car wreck of a thread!
#86 posts, all the advice and no closer to a solution
Alan.
What I find puzzling (and maybe it was explained somewhere in the 86 posts)...is 1.) how/why is sound penetrating a concrete wall...?...are there some transmission points that are not concrete...?....and 2.) why anyone would think that adding a thin layer of wood would really help that problem...???
I mean, if the sound is going through the concrete...it would take a REALLY thick second wood wall w/insulation layer to improve the problem. If anything, just adding layers of sheetrock type material to the concrete, to increase the concrete density would be the better way for soundproofing...and once the desired amount was reached, then add the appropriate treatment to all that.
Of course....that involves some serious work and material and cost, which apparently is not the desired path.
So I say, slap whatever seems "right"...and proceed with a "trial & error" approach. Those are always educational, and sometimes fun, even if they don't get you what you want. At least you find out what doesn't work.
Not sure where you are getting your numbers. A piece of plywood mounted on a frame is goin g to act like a resonator box unless it's filled with something. A free-standing piece of plywood will just vibrate, transmitting much of the sound. Here's a good page of numbers: http://www.acoustic.ua/st/web_absorption_data_eng.pdf
OP said he wanted to cut down transmission of sound AND ALSO cut down on the reflections (particularly cymbals) from the concrete wall - AND didn't want to cover the whole wall, but never gave a reason why on that.
Boy...what a car wreck of a thread!
Heck...for the two weeks spent asking a lot of questions and rejecting or misunderstanding most of the answers, while at the same time saying none of this was for any serious audio recording, and a willingness to accept failure on whatever homebrewed experiments were tried...
...the best thing would have been to just go ahead and do whatever seemed "right", even if it wasn't...and then experience the results first-hand instead of theorizing endlessly.
Well...have fun.
What I find puzzling (and maybe it was explained somewhere in the 86 posts)...is 1.) how/why is sound penetrating a concrete wall...?...are there some transmission points that are not concrete...?....and 2.) why anyone would think that adding a thin layer of wood would really help that problem...???
I mean, if the sound is going through the concrete...it would take a REALLY thick second wood wall w/insulation layer to improve the problem. If anything, just adding layers of sheetrock type material to the concrete, to increase the concrete density would be the better way for soundproofing...and once the desired amount was reached, then add the appropriate treatment to all that.
Of course....that involves some serious work and material and cost, which apparently is not the desired path.
So I say, slap whatever seems "right"...and proceed with a "trial & error" approach. Those are always educational, and sometimes fun, even if they don't get you what you want. At least you find out what doesn't work.
Maybe you wouldn't find things so puzzling if you actually read the thread before coming in and insulting me.
No one DOES think adding a thin layer of wood on part of one wall would soundproof a room. You're spot on about "educational" and "fun", unfortunately this thread is really neither of those. Certainly not "fun".
I did read the whole thread...and that's why I said what I said, and I wasn't "insulting" you, I was stating the reality of the whole thread.
One thing is clear is that everyone in the thread (people who certainly know enough about the basics of studio treatment) are all still unclear what it is you're really trying to achieve or the manner in which you're going about doing it.
It's like...every time someone gave you suggestions....you came back with your own perspective on how you want or should do it. So why even ask?
So I say again...just go ahead and do whatever it is you think you should...and learn hands-on what is right or wrong with it. I mean. Why keep asking questions when you aren't following anything anyone is suggesting?
Yes...studio treatment can be frustrating for a variety of reasons, but when you don't know anything about it, your best bet is to follow the suggestions of those who do, and stop trying to reinterpret and come up with your alternatives.
...
I really wasn't trying to "insult" you in any way...just though that the thread was all over the place and more convoluted than it needed to be, and that your overly inquisitive approach was probably the cause. I mean, sometimes you're better off without information overload.
Seriously...
I'm so sorry to anyone who thought this might have turned out to be an interesting experiment, or whatever.
I'm not in a state of confusion. I'm in a state of disappointment and disbelief.
Having just built a dedicated drum space (which I have named the Drum Bubble), I can offer this in regard to soundproofing (not acoustics): your room will only be as good as it’s weakest link. If you treat only one wall, you may be disappointed with the result. Sound has a way of finding every leak and flowing through it into the places you don’t want it to go. The door, in particular, is very hard to seal. My space, even though I very carefully sealed it with acoustic caulk on every layer, is still leaking, or resonating perhaps, way too much low end. There are several details I haven’t completed yet like sealing the sill plate and outlets and lights, I’m hoping those will help. Looks like I will be chasing those low frequencies for a while even though the room is completely decoupled from the house. Low end is the most difficult to seal out.Oh, I suppose the first time I mentioned "plaster" could be ambiguous. There's no plaster board on the wall currently, it's plaster (mortar) coated . Aka a concrete surface. Different things in that respect.
I understand the difference between acoustics and soundproofing, my project is a little bit of both. I have a gobo as well but it's elsewhere in the room.
I'm not looking to treat the entire space [*], only that one specific spot is problematic (acoustically from the inside and less, much less from the other side, from a soundproofing standpoint) and most importantly I'm not going to invest a lot of time and money into anything at this time.
I'll try to make a diagram. Depending on things, that could be after I've done my little experimental panel (kind of like a gobo actually) though.
Still interested in a) specific spatial directions in which a drum set mostly projects low frequencies and b) how to maximise LF absorbtion in any system incorporating an air gap.
[*] The other parts of the room are already treated in various ways. Generally, the room is pretty diffuse, and works well enough for what I need. Only the one harsh, flat wall is any kind of problem (and it even depends on who you ask if it IS such a big problem).
Thanks. Later.
Just as you can place a sub woofer almost anywhere in a room and it is still heard, the same with low end from a drum set or any low frequency sound source. Low frequencies are not very directional.Oh, I suppose the first time I mentioned "plaster" could be ambiguous. There's no plaster board on the wall currently, it's plaster (mortar) coated . Aka a concrete surface. Different things in that respect.
I understand the difference between acoustics and soundproofing, my project is a little bit of both. I have a gobo as well but it's elsewhere in the room.
I'm not looking to treat the entire space [*], only that one specific spot is problematic (acoustically from the inside and less, much less from the other side, from a soundproofing standpoint) and most importantly I'm not going to invest a lot of time and money into anything at this time.
I'll try to make a diagram. Depending on things, that could be after I've done my little experimental panel (kind of like a gobo actually) though.
Still interested in a) specific spatial directions in which a drum set mostly projects low frequencies and b) how to maximise LF absorbtion in any system incorporating an air gap.
[*] The other parts of the room are already treated in various ways. Generally, the room is pretty diffuse, and works well enough for what I need. Only the one harsh, flat wall is any kind of problem (and it even depends on who you ask if it IS such a big problem).
Thanks. Later.
Low frequencies propagate through a given material better than high frequencies, so imo testing the db of a kick drum to a cymbal isn’t useful.mixsit: Absolutely, the sound will go around it. However, it could still be "effective". Just like a gobo, or an acrylic screen or similar concepts. I completely agree that most of its effect would be in altering the response in the room. Just as is intended.
Sometimes (not referring to this thread) these sorts of discussions are superbly off the wall. Like imagine a thick concrete block wall, but there's a 1 mm diameter hole drilled through it. 100% guaranteed an "acoustics guru" will come and say that since the wall has a leak (Oh my GOD! A leak!), it's completely useless. Which is obviously not true.
I was cleaning up my place the other day and I noticed that one corner, floor side, has an exposed plumbing pipe. I thought wth, where's the sandbag thingy I put there 10 years ago as a kind of "trap"? That's a huge leak, and a channel for vibrations to go through. But I did my measurements before I noticed it. 60 dB peaks on the other side. (I couldn't find anything as heavy as the bag that used to be there but I did a quick, lighter fix. Might measure again to see what that did.)
BTW, I'm currently investigating which frequency range is actually the most problematic. Volume-wise, what might surprise some, the bass drum and low tom are not the loudest components of the set. There's actually a significant difference. Floor tom and kick only -> 106 dB peak. Set including cymbals -> 112 dB peak. As for the frequency response, there's something in mid range that I don't like. Makes especially the cymbals sound weird (comparing different cymbals, some that elsewhere might be too bright sound very well balanced on recording and "darker" cymbals sound like the high end is not even there). That also affects the snare crucially. Have to think of something.
Anyway, despite that volume difference, the lower frequencies are harder to block or absorb so that's the focus. I think I'll do a bit of spectrum analysis. The "fundamental note" of the kick that I hear most clearly is at about 200 Hz. But is it at it's loudest there? Who knows.