Let's Try This Differently

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sky Blue Lou
  • Start date Start date
Sky Blue Lou

Sky Blue Lou

Well-known member
I'm fleshing out my thoughts here in an effort to get some response. The Fitz question is going nowhere.

I'm creating a space. Nothing "pro" here, just a listening, tracking, mixing room for me. As I develop my ideas I will provide more details but I don't want to get sidetracked or overwhelmed so I want to start with some basic concepts. If these particular questions have been asked before - my apologies. I've used the search function here and elsewhere and just can't seem to resolve my questions. This will be a DIY project and the intent is floor to ceiling traps.

The standard face size for superchunk traps is 24" or 34". These require "legs" of 17" or 24". Two of my corners (diagonally opposite) cannot accomodate that size. 12" "legs" is about all I can do. Would that reduce the volume of the trap to the point of ineffectiveness?

RELATED QUESTIONS - Dependent on answers I guess.

Could they be made asymmetric (non-isosceles) to increase material and space volume or is the 45 degree angle facing the room critical?

How about 12" square "blocks"? This would double the volume of material and space but the faces would be parallel and perpendicular to all walls. Again is the orientation of the face important?

How about smaller in the two obstructed corners and full size in the other two? Is treatment symmetry that critical - will it throw the left/right balance at the mix position off?


Again if these questions have been dealt with before I apologize. Point me at 'em. I'm just chasing thoughts around trying to understand concepts and approaches before I spend money on materials. I've been doing a lot of reading and have answered most of the simple stuff for myself - I think.

Thanks to all who jump in.


lou
 
Last edited:
Sky Blue Lou said:
The standard face size for superchunk traps is 24" or 34". These require "legs" of 17" or 24". Two of my corners (diagonally opposite) cannot accomodate that size. 12" "legs" is about all I can do. Would that reduce the volume of the trap to the point of ineffectiveness?
Click to expand...

Any size will work, but the laws of physics apply. Larger traps are more effective to lower frequencies.

Sky Blue Lou said:
Could they be made asymmetric (non-isosceles) to increase material and space volume or is the 45 degree angle facing the room critical?
Click to expand...

Angle is unimportant. Volume is the important factor for frequencies below 100Hz.

Sky Blue Lou said:
How about 12" square "blocks"? This would double the volume of material and space but the faces would be parallel and perpendicular to all walls. Again is the orientation of the face important?
Click to expand...

Not important. This will work as long as all surfaces are absorbent.

Sky Blue Lou said:
How about smaller in the two obstructed corners and full size in the other two? Is treatment symmetry that critical - will it throw the left/right balance at the mix position off?
Click to expand...

It depends. Ideally, the front of a critical mix room must be symmetrical at all frequencies. Can this be done?

Cheers,
John
 
Thank you very much, John. Just the sort of info I'm looking for in the planning stage as I try to understand the concepts and science.

jhbrandt said:
It depends. Ideally, the front of a critical mix room must be symmetrical at all frequencies. Can this be done?
Click to expand...
Sort of... The complicating issue is a closet on that wall that is offset about two feet left. Wall/wall and wall/ceiling can be made symmetrical. I have some ideas about that closet that I will get into shortly. I need to learn Sketchup and post some pics. Watch this space... :D

Thanks again. Very helpful.


lou
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top