let me see your studio!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Giganova
  • Start date Start date

good idea to post pix?

  • this thread suxxxx

    Votes: 46 3.6%

  • not interested in peeking into other's bedrooms

    Votes: 19 1.5%

  • is that an Ozbourne poster on the wall?? Yikes!

    Votes: 62 4.8%

  • man -- when did you clean up the last time?

    Votes: 185 14.4%

  • I am so jeleous! Can I move into your house??

    Votes: 969 75.6%
  • Total voters
    1,281
sellthekids said:
Yeah it could be a problem, but the wood is the thinnest wood you can get. If it wasnt for the frame to nail to it would bend and start to hand towards the ground. I still might scratch the whole design, and just wrap them like the wall accents. As it sits the wood is about 18" and it sit almost directly about where the speakers will sit. A foot or two off the wall. So I wont get that much indirect sound.I might even cut sound foam out the shape of the design to cover the wood. On the back wall is going to be a fabric wall paper, and I am building a all wood diffuser. Like the ones they sell. I am going to make two of them 2x2.
There will be pictures.
Thanks for checking this out, and thanks for the advice.
Click to expand...

There are a bunch of designs out there that incorporate frames so the panels don't sag.

About the back wall...don't put diffusion back there. You need low end absorption on the back wall or you're going to have BIG problems at the listening position. I know everybody sees diffusers on the back wall at the big places, but that's always in the context of a comprehensive bass absorption design that usually includes a TON of absorption on the back wall. The diffusers are built into this.

There may be a place for diffusion in your control room (depending on the size and shape), but the back wall is the wrong place for it. You'll create more problems than you'll solve.

Frank
 
Cool thanks for the advice. I have building this room for about 2 1/2 years. Due to material, time, and deciding exactly what I wanted. I have seen almost every picture of every studio on the web. I once was thinking of buying a pre packaged foam treatment. But I didnt like the cheaper ones and couldnt afford to buy the ones I want. So with that I made them. With this design from Primacoustic. Its the same size as my room as is some of the others.
 

Attachments

  • 571074.webp
    571074.webp
    39 KB · Views: 1,412
  • razorblade-34-LG.webp
    razorblade-34-LG.webp
    12.1 KB · Views: 1,397
Weasel9992 said:
There are a bunch of designs out there that incorporate frames so the panels don't sag.

About the back wall...don't put diffusion back there. You need low end absorption on the back wall or you're going to have BIG problems at the listening position. I know everybody sees diffusers on the back wall at the big places, but that's always in the context of a comprehensive bass absorption design that usually includes a TON of absorption on the back wall. The diffusers are built into this.

There may be a place for diffusion in your control room (depending on the size and shape), but the back wall is the wrong place for it. You'll create more problems than you'll solve.

Frank
Click to expand...

A few diffusers are recomended with the absorbsion materials...depending on the size of the room...my control room is a bit small for them.
 
About the back wall...don't put diffusion back there. You need low end absorption on the back wall or you're going to have BIG problems at the listening position.
Click to expand...
Not saying your right or wrong, but what kind of empircal proof do you have to back up your position. I've seen this kind of opinion stated back and forth between diffusion and absorption ever since Everest published his first handbook of acoustics in the early 80's. As I see it, its all a bunch of acoustician rubbish. BACK AND FORTH, depending on WHO says it, how big his reputation is, and who his clients are. The fact is...its ALL arbitrary, because its ALL SUBJECTIVE.:rolleyes: Now, if there were an empirical relationship between sales of music, and recording studio design...now you would have something to stand on. But noooooooooooo...there isn't ONE SHRED OF PROOF THAT ANY OF THIS MEANS A GODDAMMED THING! other than sales of absorbers:rolleyes:
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
Not saying your right or wrong, but what kind of empircal proof do you have to back up your position. I've seen this kind of opinion stated back and forth between diffusion and absorption ever since Everest published his first handbook of acoustics in the early 80's. As I see it, its all a bunch of acoustician rubbish. BACK AND FORTH, depending on WHO says it, how big his reputation is, and who his clients are. The fact is...its ALL arbitrary, because its ALL SUBJECTIVE.:rolleyes: Now, if there were an empirical relationship between sales of music, and recording studio design...now you would have something to stand on. But noooooooooooo...there isn't ONE SHRED OF PROOF THAT ANY OF THIS MEANS A GODDAMMED THING! other than sales of absorbers:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Empirically you're right, but I'm not thinking in that direction. I'm thinking in terms of physics...of the fact that small rooms are dominated by low end modes, there is usually just barely enough space for sufficient broad band treatment, and bass trapping to get them under control. Using up crucial back wall space with diffusion is usually not the right thing to do; you're producing a beautifully diffuse field that will be buried by the standing waves. Some of the biggest peaks and lowest valleys will come off of an untreated back wall...I see it every single day. It's by far the most common source of small room low end problems.

Furthermore, most commercially available diffusers are designed to work with more space than the the typical small room has. What's the point in using a 6" deep QRD that requires 6'-8' to produce a properly diffuse field in a 12' deep room, or on an 8' high ceiling? What you end up with are, at best, near field diffusion artifacts.

Lastly, diffusers that are placed improperly are largely ornamental...useless at best, and actually negative at worst. I can't tell you how many times I see diffusion just randomly dropped into a ceiling or thrown up on a wall with absolutely no plan at all.

Is there a subjective *element*? Sure there is, but the my position can certainly be defended objectively as well. The simple issue is this: what will a 6" deep QRD do to solve the biggest issues in a small room? Not a thing, and that's not the least bit subjective.

Frank
 
Last edited:
sellthekids said:
Well the control room is 9 1/2 x 12 with 9 foot ceilings.
Click to expand...

If you're going to go with diffusion in a room that size, then I'd confine it to the right and left walls near the rear of the room. As it is your width and height dimensions are nearly identical, and that's going to mean a ton of bass trapping to control the 50Hz-150Hz stuff.

Frank
 
GIK Acoustics
www.gikacoustics.com
Click to expand...
this tells me something.:D

I'm thinking in terms of physics...
Click to expand...
hmmm, seems to me I read that same thing somewhere else...oh yea. The Master Handbook of Acoustics...oh, and somewhere else...er...lets see...where was that? Oh yea...RPG/QRD's.:rolleyes:;)

Just kidden with ya Frank. Although I have to say one thing. Maybe you haven't read any of my rants about this subject yet. They starrted FIVE YEARS ago, after posting a question here to John Sayers about QRD's. I won't go over it again as I'm more convinced than ever now that its all about "opinion" Let me give you a PERFECT example.

A few weeks ago, over at Studiotips, a guy posted a plan of his room in Sketchup, and wanted to know how to treat it. Well, I'm no expert in acoustics, but I know enough from following this subject since 1985 what small room treatment is about by now. Maybe not in mathamatical terms, but general knowlege. The guy only had (10) 2'x4' panels of absorption material available to use, but had some existing quirks in the room construction that made for difficult placement of the panels in corners. So, even though I have limited expertize in acoustics, I decided to post my .02, as I'm pretty adept at Sketchup, having been a 2d CAD detailer for 15 years. So I took his file and arranged his 10 panels with the standard corner traps, cloud, first reflection point panels, AND the last two remaing panels on....YUP...the REAR WALL.
Lo and behold, immedietly, Scott(I'm sure you know him from ReadyTraps..right? or at least I would think so:rolleyes::D) posted an affirmation of my layout....but THEN...said...of all things..."HOWEVER, he would move the panels from the REAR wall.....TO THE FRONT WALL"!!!!:eek::confused::eek:


Soooooo, what does this suggest to me? I'll tell you. IF, by virtue of PHYSICS, your assessment(which I don't disagree with) of the importance of absorption at the rear wall.... is exactly OPPOSITE of a peer who is part owner of a competitor of yours, on top of the fact that Eric told me flat out he could hardly believe the Master Hanbook was a book on acoustics, and John told me he's seen MILES of QRD's torn out because they DON"T WORK..even though this concept was designed by Phyisicist/acoustician/scientists, backed up by a published acoustician.....etc etc etc...I'm actually amused anymore.:rolleyes:
Want more? For YEARS, John has used and even advocated the use of at SAE, HANGERS. Only to read Eric say(from my understanding) he doesn;t think they work, or at least doesn't acknowlege them. Its getting to the point that I've come to view this whole thing like doctors...who will NEVER dispute what another doctor does...or attorneys who battle in court, and then go have lunch together.... PROFESSIONAL CURTESEY outweighs outright DISPUTE...except maybe Eric/Ethan/Scott's outrageously rediculous netfight type things.;) (which I've chimed in a few times in Ethans defense and actually told Eric to either drag Ethan into a court of law, or SHUT THE FUCK UP:mad::rolleyes:)

Anyway, hence my "Not saying your right or wrong," viewpoint. I've actually tried to pin down MANY people on this "diffusion vs absorption thingy", only to get 10 different opinions from 10 different people. What this tells me is this......Hire 10 different acousticians to design a control room/studio..and you are likely to get 10 different sets of solutions...ea of which may be totally different than another. Maybe not in small rooms...however, if Scotts reply as opposed to yours isn't a perfect example of this bullshit I don't know what is.:rolleyes:
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
this tells me something.:D
Click to expand...

Actually, we sell diffusers too...:D

I understand your point Rick. Acoustics is not necessarily an intuitive discipline, and there are always new developments. Everybody has an opinion. Big names disagree, but the same is true in every discipline of physics, particularly more theoretically, *empirically* oriented disciplines. One of the things every researcher has to learn early on is that the act of observation influences or even alters the thing observed; so the most we can ever know is what *might* be true.

I have certain things that I do as a default mode, as it were. These things tend to be the best things to do 80% of the time, but like each mix, every room is different and has to be considered on its own merits.

Frank
 
One of the things every researcher has to learn early on is that the act of observation influences or even alters the thing observed; so the most we can ever know is what *might* be true.
Click to expand...
Like this subject.:D That WAS my point.
 
Ok... here is my little one !
 

Attachments

  • CIMG0324.webp
    CIMG0324.webp
    39 KB · Views: 1,036
  • CIMG0325.webp
    CIMG0325.webp
    36.8 KB · Views: 1,029
So Close I can taste it....

Hey all here's my nearly completed small studio....all i lack is some trim and desk.....












 
did you make that diffuser panel with all of the woodblocks?

did you make that diffuser panel with all of the woodblocks? how'd you do it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top