If I moved to the countryside...

[ecc83]

"something that's guaranteed to NEVER happen in any urban area"

Well, I don't know? Here at NN5 5PF I am getting 25-29 dBC on my (admittedly cheap) Maplin SPL meter and 25dB is I suspect ITS noise floor. That is if I stop breathing! The merest movement pops things up to 35-40dbC
I do not of course know how well calibrated it is but things like speech seem about right 70dB at a foot. NN5 is definitely not in the middle of nowhere! Yes, out in the suburbs but densely populated.

But 'countryside' is far from quiet! Yes, at 2am in the dark sub 30dB but once the pigeons are awake!! Even at 2am Hedgehogs make a terrific racket! I shall post some examples.

Dave.

I have in the past posted several clips of me waffling and most have a noise floor around -70dB fs.

 

[TalismanRich]

I was always amazed that so many of the big studios are located in the center of cities... EMI/Abbey Road, Electric Lady, Capitol Studios, Record Plant, The Hit Factory, the original Motown Studio, Sound City, Olympic. They are/were all located in major cities, some even in areas with industry close by, not just city traffic.

I remember the first studio I visited. It was on the outskirts of town, in a house on a hillside that had very few residences nearby with forest land between. It seemed that would be the right type of spot, no traffic, no neighbors, no heavy trucks. The loudest things in the summer would be the crickets at night. You didn't have to worry about disturbing neighbors.

 

[ecc83]

Well Rich, Abbey road for one is located in genteel St Johns Wood (not far from Lord's cricket ground) and back in the 30s when it was established there would have been next to no traffic. In any case, big studios run 24 hours so even if it was a bit noisy during the day there is always the wee smalls.

Then of course, mid band and high frequencies are fairly easy to keep out/in and these studios had the money to put in compliant room mounts to keep the worst of the rumble out. Then of course, VALVE gear did not go down to DC as is touted by much modern kit! (did not sail in to the realm of bats either)

Dave.

 

[spitzer]

Any structure will absorb and and reduce 'some' sound. It all depends what is around at the time of your test. If a tractor pulling a load goes past 50 yards away, you may find your windows shake. Even with lots of thick insulated walls this sound will still get through and you will see it on your recording meter.

The only way is to build a purpose made insulated sound room/booth to stop 'most' noise. Your test just shows 'some' noise has been reduced. In the summer when the trees and bushes are in full leaf, noise from traffic will be reduced by absorption and deflection. When there is thick snow on the ground but no leaves on the trees the same thing happens...........with 'some' sound.

...o-kay? I thought I said the sound was reduced by tens of dB SPL. Measured with several types of sounds, from several different directions, several different distances.

Tractors? What??? What are you trying to tell me, and why? I didn't mention recording as any part of this particular equation, what I DID mention was that with exactly zero "purpose built" stuff, the sound reduction is easily 20 dB even JUST outside and much more from further away. Earlier, I was told by someone who has "something similar" (a cabin built with 5 inch thick massive timber walls) in their garden and supposedly it provides "virtually zero sound reduction". In my book, over 20 dB is very far from "virtually zero". (oh, and the measurements were indeed concentrated on the lowest frequencies possible so circa less than 200 Hz, since higher frequencies are much less bothersome anyway)

I hope that clears any possible misunderstanding thus far.

Cheers,

 

[miroslav]

I hope that clears any possible misunderstanding thus far.

Cheers,

Honestly...IMO, the only misunderstanding thus far is in trying to understand what exactly you are after.
At times, it seemed like you were trying to make specific decisions about how to treat some space(s)...but then it turned into more of a circular debate about unusual treatments and what theoretically they could do...without ever any conclusion or anything being put into practice.

The other part was this cabin VS the city location...sometimes it seemed like you were just trying to make some decisions and then pick one or the other...but then the discussion again becomes a convoluted dissection of the acoustic principles and techniques, without anything actually being put into play...rather just a lot of "what if" stuff.

TBH...I was kinda surprised that after almost 5 months, you pretty much picked up where you left off about the cabin. I would think by now you would have implemented at least some kind of solutions...yet it's still all just academic discussion....so I really don't understand what you're after, what is your final goal, and at which point are you actually going make some kind of decisions.
I also don't get that stuff about having to drive back-n-forth for hours and hours in order to make some decision and implement some solutions.

Heck...by now, of the several things you wanted to try...have you actually tried any of it...the multiple layers of drywall, the Styrofoam, etc, etc...?
I don't think anyone else is going to try those things...so we're kinda waiting on you to do the experiments and bring back the answers...but it seems like you're waiting for someone to provide the best/right answers for you.

Just explain what this is all about.

 

[Orson]

...o-kay? I thought I said the sound was reduced by tens of dB SPL. Measured with several types of sounds, from several different directions, several different distances.

Tractors? What??? What are you trying to tell me, and why? I didn't mention recording as any part of this particular equation, what I DID mention was that with exactly zero "purpose built" stuff, the sound reduction is easily 20 dB even JUST outside and much more from further away. Earlier, I was told by someone who has "something similar" (a cabin built with 5 inch thick massive timber walls) in their garden and supposedly it provides "virtually zero sound reduction". In my book, over 20 dB is very far from "virtually zero". (oh, and the measurements were indeed concentrated on the lowest frequencies possible so circa less than 200 Hz, since higher frequencies are much less bothersome anyway)

I hope that clears any possible misunderstanding thus far.

Cheers,

Countryside = Tractors. Tractors produce deep low sound. Large diesel engines with minimum exhaust silencer/muffler qualities. That deep low frequency noise penetrates like hell.

50db's down to 30db's is a 20db reduction but for a sound studio is useless. I take it your sound meter begins at 30 db's? As a lot of the cheap ones do.

If the inside of your studio was 30db's what are you going to record? 30db's is equivelent to leaves rustling and soft music. So behind your voice you will be recording all noise at that level.

Wood is totally useless for sound reduction. I am surprised you got a 20db reduction from the outside to inside. I imagine that sound outside was mainly airborne (in the wind)? A better test would be to play a constant noise like a cordless drill right next to the wall on the outside of your log cabin. Then measure the inside reduction up against the internal wall or window.

 

[spitzer]

Countryside = Tractors. Tractors produce deep low sound. Large diesel engines with minimum exhaust silencer/muffler qualities. That deep low frequency noise penetrates like hell.

50db's down to 30db's is a 20db reduction but for a sound studio is useless. I take it your sound meter begins at 30 db's? As a lot of the cheap ones do.

If the inside of your studio was 30db's what are you going to record? 30db's is equivelent to leaves rustling and soft music. So behind your voice you will be recording all noise at that level.

Wood is totally useless for sound reduction. I am surprised you got a 20db reduction from the outside to inside. I imagine that sound outside was mainly airborne (in the wind)? A better test would be to play a constant noise like a cordless drill right next to the wall on the outside of your log cabin. Then measure the inside reduction up against the internal wall or window.

Yeah, I got the impression that you were talking about outside noise coming in only about 2/3rds through reading your post. That's a different subject altogether. After all, a rock band playing anywhere makes sounds decades in excess of one HUNDRED decibels SPL... so the first thing to do is to figure out whether or not that disturbs the neighbours or not.

My sound meter seems to be able to go below 30, but... now you DID get me there. If I turn it on here, I can JUST get it to dip below 30 if I hold my breath and it's so quiet I can't hear ANYTHING except a very faint computer fan. This is inside, just to be clear now. We must have different standards, or some confusion over units or measurement schemes or something, but if I was recording something now, the "noise" I hear would be so far below all cut-offs it's meaningless. From a recording point of view, I estimate I'd be looking at -85 or less and pushing the hardware limits what comes to SNR.

Wood is totally useless? First time I ever heard that. I was surprised too, but the reason was glass instead of wood. Through the wall where there are no windows, the reduction was more like 50 dB SPL. From the inside to the outside, naturally.

 

[spitzer]

Honestly...IMO, the only misunderstanding thus far is in trying to understand what exactly you are after.
At times, it seemed like you were trying to make specific decisions about how to treat some space(s)...but then it turned into more of a circular debate about unusual treatments and what theoretically they could do...without ever any conclusion or anything being put into practice.

The other part was this cabin VS the city location...sometimes it seemed like you were just trying to make some decisions and then pick one or the other...but then the discussion again becomes a convoluted dissection of the acoustic principles and techniques, without anything actually being put into play...rather just a lot of "what if" stuff.

TBH...I was kinda surprised that after almost 5 months, you pretty much picked up where you left off about the cabin. I would think by now you would have implemented at least some kind of solutions...yet it's still all just academic discussion....so I really don't understand what you're after, what is your final goal, and at which point are you actually going make some kind of decisions.
I also don't get that stuff about having to drive back-n-forth for hours and hours in order to make some decision and implement some solutions.

Heck...by now, of the several things you wanted to try...have you actually tried any of it...the multiple layers of drywall, the Styrofoam, etc, etc...?
I don't think anyone else is going to try those things...so we're kinda waiting on you to do the experiments and bring back the answers...but it seems like you're waiting for someone to provide the best/right answers for you.

Just explain what this is all about.

Why don't you explain what this is all about? What styrofoam??? I had a chance to simply TEST whether or not the "inverse square law" actually works in the meaning that you can make all the noise you want if anyone listening isn't right next to you (like in the city) but a bit farther away. And it sort of does, among other things that make sound behave very differently in the environment compared to let's say a garage.

 

[miroslav]

Why don't you explain what this is all about? What styrofoam???

Really?
You're going to say that Styrofoam wasn't a big part of your discussions 5 months ago...?
OK.....

Look...let's not even go back, let's just move on...so how about you simply state very plainly what you are trying to accomplish within these threads.

Are you looking for an actual solution to something...one that you are going to implement, and then move on with life and get back to making music, etc....?

Or is this just going to be more of an open-ended "what if" pseudo-theoretical discussion without any real-world goals at the end, or any implementation of a specific solution to whatever acoustic issues you're trying to solve...or if you're really even trying to solve anything other than how far to kick the can...?

Point being...I would say that most of us here are willing and looking for ways to help you come to some solutions, if that's what you are after...but honestly, it's been rather vague if you are even looking for that...or is it something else that's driving these threads.

 

[Orson]

Wood is totally useless? First time I ever heard that. I was surprised too, but the reason was glass instead of wood. Through the wall where there are no windows, the reduction was more like 50 dB SPL. From the inside to the outside, naturally.

Like I said place a constant noise next to the outside like a drill. Then show us your 50db's through timber.

 

[spitzer]

Like I said place a constant noise next to the outside like a drill. Then show us your 50db's through timber.

That would be a bit difficult, but I feel like I have to stress this again: the point is NOT to keep outside sounds from leaking in. It's not even really the opposite, but almost, kind of.
The point is simply, given a VERY loud, bassy, sound source (one hundred and ten decibels, 110 dB, Sound Pressure Level) INSIDE the building, how far away outside do you need to walk before you realise you can't really hear it anymore - which would also likely be the point where your SPL meter would show that the outside ambient noise is louder than the said source... or failing that, less than 60 dB SPL.

My ears and my SPL meter have proven what they have proven to me already, I'm not sure what it is that you want exactly?

Imagine a house built only from 2x4's. The frame, the walls, all 2x4's, no gaps. Then - imagine ANOTHER layer of 2x4's on top of those, making it a house with a combined 4 inches of wall thickness. And yes, that would all be wood. Would this imaginary house be somehow inadequate from a sound reducing point of view in your opinion? Because I really don't understand how or why this kind of thing seems to be a surprise or fallacy to you. What would YOU expect a 5 inch thick solid timber wall to do, leak sound through like it wasn't there? Seriously, I'm interested because I don't get what you're talking about. What "purpose built" stuff to reduce sound does anyone need, if there actually is NO NEED to reduce sound in the first place???

Finally, there are many, many OTHER factors, such as the surrounding environment, the size of the building, reflective, non-reflective materials, floating floor or flat floor... Countless things that influence the final outcome.

Something like "50 db's through timber" is such a broad generalisation as well and many people will completely misunderstand what the actual scenario would be. I also didn't in any way boast or promise anyone that, and I don't understand why I'd need to "show it".

P. S. What is your fascination with drills? Why does it have to be a drill? The only cordless drill I have makes a pleasant buzzing noise, nowhere near loud enough to test sound isolation nor LOW enough. What do you see as the problem with bass drums, bass guitar amps etc. that actually produce SERIOUS low and VERY low frequency pressure aka sound?

Cheers,

 

[spitzer]

Are you looking for an actual solution to something...one that you are going to implement, and then move on with life and get back to making music, etc....?

Yes.

specific solution to whatever acoustic issues you're trying to solve...or

You assume the only issues that apply are "acoustic". That's not the case.

Point being...I would say that most of us here are willing and looking for ways to help you

Even you?

Cheers,

 

[miroslav]

OK...what other issues besides acoustic...?

Honestly...you're posts are often vague, even cryptic...you ask a lot of questions and make lot of comments about technical measurements...but it's never been clear what your final goal is.

All I know is you have some drums that you want to use and your current environment is not working...but I can't tell if you've actually tried any solutions, or just endlessly kicking around ideas for solutions...?

Also...when folks here have provided some solution possibilities (yes, me too)...you always come back with some counterargument to those solutions.
OK...so then what? Do you have better ones...or will this never come to any real world implementation, just endless "what if"...?

I've been sitting here working on my own acoustic treatment plans for my new studio...and I've been thinking about what I want to do for quite awhile.
I've done some basic layouts, considered the materials needed to make my acoustic treatments...priced it out, located sources...and now the last couple of days, I've been reviewing my plans, but at the same time, still kinda holding things up, not deciding...so I know that "what should I do?" feeling.

My plan is to just pick what I think is the best case...and order the stuff...which I was actually finalizing at this time...the last couple of hours.
I know there will not be a *perfect* plan, and I may have to adjust as I go along or even after the fact if I find it's not exactly what I had in mind...but I know that I need to get on it, and implement something. I can't theorize endlessly.
TBH...and not trying to brag...but I've got quite a large space I need to sort out. I mean, I'm looking at 40+ acoustic panels I need to put together. So it's not like I don't understand complexities.

So my point is...come up with a goal, and then just go for it...do something. The more you kick ideas around and play the "what if" game...and look at specs and measurements, it just makes it that much harder.
You know what you have to work with...you know your budget....your skills...etc....so just get on it, put something into action, and then adjust as needed.

 

[Orson]

That would be a bit difficult, but I feel like I have to stress this again: the point is NOT to keep outside sounds from leaking in. It's not even really the opposite, but almost, kind of.
The point is simply, given a VERY loud, bassy, sound source (one hundred and ten decibels, 110 dB, Sound Pressure Level) INSIDE the building, how far away outside do you need to walk before you realise you can't really hear it anymore - which would also likely be the point where your SPL meter would show that the outside ambient noise is louder than the said source... or failing that, less than 60 dB SPL.

My ears and my SPL meter have proven what they have proven to me already, I'm not sure what it is that you want exactly?

Imagine a house built only from 2x4's. The frame, the walls, all 2x4's, no gaps. Then - imagine ANOTHER layer of 2x4's on top of those, making it a house with a combined 4 inches of wall thickness. And yes, that would all be wood. Would this imaginary house be somehow inadequate from a sound reducing point of view in your opinion? Because I really don't understand how or why this kind of thing seems to be a surprise or fallacy to you. What would YOU expect a 5 inch thick solid timber wall to do, leak sound through like it wasn't there? Seriously, I'm interested because I don't get what you're talking about. What "purpose built" stuff to reduce sound does anyone need, if there actually is NO NEED to reduce sound in the first place???

Finally, there are many, many OTHER factors, such as the surrounding environment, the size of the building, reflective, non-reflective materials, floating floor or flat floor... Countless things that influence the final outcome.

Something like "50 db's through timber" is such a broad generalisation as well and many people will completely misunderstand what the actual scenario would be. I also didn't in any way boast or promise anyone that, and I don't understand why I'd need to "show it".

P. S. What is your fascination with drills? Why does it have to be a drill? The only cordless drill I have makes a pleasant buzzing noise, nowhere near loud enough to test sound isolation nor LOW enough. What do you see as the problem with bass drums, bass guitar amps etc. that actually produce SERIOUS low and VERY low frequency pressure aka sound?

Cheers,

A drill will produce a constant sound. A drill is a common appliance in many peoples homes. A cordless can have the trigger taped so that it stays on while you disappear inside with a sound meter. A radio will be up and down.

When sound is outside it disperses in the air and wind.

Put your noise source on your wood and it will transfer straight through almost db for db such is the sound proofing qualities of timber.

If you proven it all to you, why are you here asking questions? Or are you just telling us of your amazing discovery?

 

[ecc83]

Perhaps a short clip of the sounds in my garden will put things in perspective?

The 'clatter' which peaks to a smell under 0dBfs is a mouse jumping on a bowel. Yes, the background noise is high but the pigeons can be heard very plainly as can the traffic which must be 50mtrs away.
The setup:
Two cheap dynamics (they last about a year wrapped in clingfilm) driving a Behringer Xenyx 802 mixer. (bass is rolled right off) The mics are a good two mtrs from the mouse 'action'.
Then a tortuous path! Balanced lines bring the audio from a back bedroom into L room and go through a CCTV security recorder. Line out of that goes to a Freeview HDD recorder and then I edit 12hrs of stuff and burn it to DVD...I have 'king DAYS of it!

I think you will all agree that IF it were not for the pigeons, the clumsy mice and the traffic, my garden would be pretty quiet? It would take very little material to reduce that noise level by 20dB?

Now, wood. As I understand acoustics (a very not a lot!) sound is attenuated by MASS? The material is secondary. Obviously the greater the density of the material the less of it you need for a given mass per unit volume. The most important thing with any sound stopping construction is that it is airtight.

So, make your log cabin out of precision fitted planks of Lignum Vitae and you are golden!

Dave.

 

[spitzer]

A drill will produce a constant sound. A drill is a common appliance in many peoples homes. A cordless can have the trigger taped so that it stays on while you disappear inside with a sound meter. A radio will be up and down.

When sound is outside it disperses in the air and wind.

Apparently. But how exactly and what else affects things and how is not so straightforward.

What kind of settings would you use for the SPL meter? A weighting? Or rather C? etc.? What exactly are you looking for when you measure something say, through a wall? Like I said, I wrote down many different measurements from different directions and distances but I can't put them into a proper context here. You say 30 dB is noisy, I can look at a reading of 40 and still think it's extremely quiet.

Put your noise source on your wood and it will transfer straight through almost db for db such is the sound proofing qualities of timber.

Now I must ask you to clarify. What exactly do you mean by this? What is "on your wood"? You didn't respond to the model of a "2x4 house" I proposed. Regular cheap wood like pine or something is around 500 kg/m3 dense so that would be a lot of mass. What does it matter if it's wood or something else? (the "2x4 example" is just to give you a rough idea of just how much pure mass there can be in wooden walls, although I'm sure someone now thinks I'm going to build a house like that )

I don't get this, I will admit. I also admit I'm out of coffee, but you seem to be saying simply that "wood" is not good for anything and I don't know why. I hope someone would explain this to me.

If you proven it all to you, why are you here asking questions? Or are you just telling us of your amazing discovery?

Didn't I say I proved that which I did prove? I didn't prove everything by any means.

And yes, I'm telling everyone who has actually read this thread that I finally DID get the chance to actually test it. Do you understand? You see, earlier it was a question of NOT BEING ABLE to do any empirical testing, which is why I was trying to figure the theoretical and scientific side out in advance as much and as accurately as possible. Is there something wrong with that? (In addition, I haven't seen any rule anywhere here saying that all discussions must only be limited to actual practical applications!)

I'm sorry if I sound at times harsh, it is likely because people reply to individual posts without reading first and so not really knowing much about what has already been discussed so sometimes some suggestions etc. seem very out of place. Don't know if that's the case with you. It's not to be mean, it's just things like suddenly talking about tractor noise coming IN... and I thought "since when have I been worried about THAT?"

Cheers and BEST REGARDS,

 

[Orson]

Apparently. But how exactly and what else affects things and how is not so straightforward.

What kind of settings would you use for the SPL meter? A weighting? Or rather C? etc.? What exactly are you looking for when you measure something say, through a wall? Like I said, I wrote down many different measurements from different directions and distances but I can't put them into a proper context here. You say 30 dB is noisy, I can look at a reading of 40 and still think it's extremely quiet.



Now I must ask you to clarify. What exactly do you mean by this? What is "on your wood"? You didn't respond to the model of a "2x4 house" I proposed. Regular cheap wood like pine or something is around 500 kg/m3 dense so that would be a lot of mass. What does it matter if it's wood or something else? (the "2x4 example" is just to give you a rough idea of just how much pure mass there can be in wooden walls, although I'm sure someone now thinks I'm going to build a house like that )

I don't get this, I will admit. I also admit I'm out of coffee, but you seem to be saying simply that "wood" is not good for anything and I don't know why. I hope someone would explain this to me.



Didn't I say I proved that which I did prove? I didn't prove everything by any means.

And yes, I'm telling everyone who has actually read this thread that I finally DID get the chance to actually test it. Do you understand? You see, earlier it was a question of NOT BEING ABLE to do any empirical testing, which is why I was trying to figure the theoretical and scientific side out in advance as much and as accurately as possible. Is there something wrong with that? (In addition, I haven't seen any rule anywhere here saying that all discussions must only be limited to actual practical applications!)

I'm sorry if I sound at times harsh, it is likely because people reply to individual posts without reading first and so not really knowing much about what has already been discussed so sometimes some suggestions etc. seem very out of place. Don't know if that's the case with you. It's not to be mean, it's just things like suddenly talking about tractor noise coming IN... and I thought "since when have I been worried about THAT?"

Cheers and BEST REGARDS,

I was giving you examples of where your thinking as put in this topic by you may be flawed. A studio has to be as quiet as possible for obvious reasons. 30db's is nowhere near quiet enough. Stopping your sound escaping can only be measured directly on the outside of your building. If your neighbours are hundreds of yards away what is the point of this topic? Because they would be hard pushed to hear anything from you anyway. Tractors was an obvious example of low sound which penetrates almost anything as I said earlier. Wood is not a good example of solid mass as its very structure transmits noise through itself like steel whereas something like concrete buildings absorb noise for all kinds of different reasons in their construction. Twin walled, broken alignment (mortor) etc.

It appears you are not serious for any answers here and live in your own world of deliberate misinterpretation of what people say to you. Life is too short for me to waste on people like yourself.

 

[spitzer]

Perhaps a short clip of the sounds in my garden will put things in perspective?

The 'clatter' which peaks to a smell under 0dBfs is a mouse jumping on a bowel. Yes, the background noise is high but the pigeons can be heard very plainly as can the traffic which must be 50mtrs away.
The setup:
Two cheap dynamics (they last about a year wrapped in clingfilm) driving a Behringer Xenyx 802 mixer. (bass is rolled right off) The mics are a good two mtrs from the mouse 'action'.
Then a tortuous path! Balanced lines bring the audio from a back bedroom into L room and go through a CCTV security recorder. Line out of that goes to a Freeview HDD recorder and then I edit 12hrs of stuff and burn it to DVD...I have 'king DAYS of it!

I think you will all agree that IF it were not for the pigeons, the clumsy mice and the traffic, my garden would be pretty quiet? It would take very little material to reduce that noise level by 20dB?

Now, wood. As I understand acoustics (a very not a lot!) sound is attenuated by MASS? The material is secondary. Obviously the greater the density of the material the less of it you need for a given mass per unit volume. The most important thing with any sound stopping construction is that it is airtight.

So, make your log cabin out of precision fitted planks of Lignum Vitae and you are golden!

Dave.

Did you mention earlier that you've measured even less than 30 dB SPL there? In that same garden? If so, then that is pretty quiet indeed. It's in the very low 30's here now, inside, and it's as quiet as can be.

It's obviously impossible to tell from that recording since I have no reference volume... but I'd guess when you're inside, those pigeons probably don't bother your ears much.

As for LF pressure, let me look at my notes... two measurements from the side that has no windows (so, purely the timber): inside 104 dB SPL, outside 72 dB SPL. Now how was it with the inverse square law again? Go back about 10 steps and it's down to 54 dB SPL, something like that? Seems alright.

 

[ecc83]

INside my house it is lower than 30dBC late at night and I have to be very quiet myself to get that.

I have just come from the garden with my meter and it was around 35dBC (yes, VERY quiet at 10:30am) but only for a moment as various noises poked it up to 50db and a car went past, 20mtrs off, and it hit 75dBC.

On the mouse track, a good amount of the background noise was wind I guess? I HAD considered a pair of Rycotes but at £70 a pop maybe not!

Dave.

 

[spitzer]

I was giving you examples of where your thinking as put in this topic by you may be flawed. A studio has to be as quiet as possible for obvious reasons. 30db's is nowhere near quiet enough. Stopping your sound escaping can only be measured directly on the outside of your building. If your neighbours are hundreds of yards away what is the point of this topic? Because they would be hard pushed to hear anything from you anyway. Tractors was an obvious example of low sound which penetrates almost anything as I said earlier. Wood is not a good example of solid mass as its very structure transmits noise through itself like steel whereas something like concrete buildings absorb noise for all kinds of different reasons in their construction. Twin walled, broken alignment (mortor) etc.

It appears you are not serious for any answers here and live in your own world of deliberate misinterpretation of what people say to you. Life is too short for me to waste on people like yourself.

You haven't answered much of anything, to be frank. In fact you started off by saying that my own ears and sound meters, on location, are wrong, but YOU are right and started telling me I need to do this and that. You have absolutely no place taking any manner of moral high ground here. So just get down from your throne already.

There are several points here you've either ignored or just simply don't know (which is fine). I never said this cabin was my permanent place of residence. I never said I live in it. On the contrary, I believe I mentioned specifically that it is far away from home. I suppose you can start to see it now? I have so far had ONE chance, a couple of days, to test anything, to measure anything, to gauge whether or not the local neighbours can hear any noise or whether they're bothered by it too much.

I am indeed interested and serious. I didn't "misinterpret" what you said about tractors, for example, but I had no idea why you brought it up. Et cetera et cetera.

I would be especially interested in how concrete buildings absorb noise, but wooden buildings do not.

Best regards.