Building my home-studio

Customising, building or repairing your own gear? Need help with acoustic treatment or soundproofing? Ask away…

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Building my home-studio

Post by nifaun »

blinddrew wrote:Yes-ish.
It's better if the gap is filled (doesn't have to be with the same heavy duty RockWool as the front of the trap, but it will still work if you have, for example, a flat panel across a corner with a gap behind it.

I can't remember reading this explicitly in the text books I've read, but if you have a flat panel too far from a parallel wall then I expect it will act as a nodal point for any dominant room modes.
To take a theoretical example: say you have a flat panel 50cm from one wall, that will be at the nodal point for a wavelength of 1m (347Hz). So it's going to do next to nothing for that frequency. If your room was, say, 4m wide, it would also be a dominant room mode so could lead to problems.
This is why it's generally recommended to space your panels off the wall by a distance equal to their own thickness. In this case the thickness of the panel is large compared to the wavelength of the space behind it, so it will still have a significant effect. In the example above we can see that a 5cm deep panel, 50cm from the wall is really pretty small compared to the wavelength of the standing wave that can arise either side of it, so therefore won't have much affect.

Putting a flat panel across a corner obviously gives you a variable distance between the wall and the panel so mitigates this effect.

Thanks Blinddrew,

I asked several isolationshops about the right rockwool plates for my studio. Most of them said they had only rockwool plates to a density of 55. When I searched online I found Rockfound Duo what has a density of 60 on the front and a density of 35 in the rear... Im kinda doubt wheter this is the panel I need, can you provide me more clarity about this? If not, can you tell me which panel is best for my studio?
nifaun
Poster
Posts: 15 Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:59 pm

Re: Building my home-studio

Post by Sam Spoons »

Another advantage of a corner placement is that the reflected wave travels around the corner, reflected twice before emerging so the effective depth of the trap is greater than the actual physical depth.
User avatar
Sam Spoons
Jedi Poster
Posts: 19593 Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:00 am Location: Manchester UK
People often mistake me for a grown-up because of my age.

Re: Building my home-studio

Post by Drew Stephenson »

nifaun wrote:I asked several isolationshops about the right rockwool plates for my studio. Most of them said they had only rockwool plates to a density of 55. When I searched online I found Rockfound Duo what has a density of 60 on the front and a density of 35 in the rear... Im kinda doubt wheter this is the panel I need, can you provide me more clarity about this? If not, can you tell me which panel is best for my studio?

I suspect the difference between 60 and 55 density is negligible from both a audio and workability perspective, but if you let us know whereabouts in the world you are we can probably make some sensible recommendations. :thumbup:
User avatar
Drew Stephenson
Jedi Poster
Posts: 24450 Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am Location: York
(The forumuser formerly known as Blinddrew)
Ignore the post count, I still have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/

Re: Building my home-studio

Post by nifaun »

nifaun wrote:
blinddrew wrote:Yes-ish.
It's better if the gap is filled (doesn't have to be with the same heavy duty RockWool as the front of the trap, but it will still work if you have, for example, a flat panel across a corner with a gap behind it.

I can't remember reading this explicitly in the text books I've read, but if you have a flat panel too far from a parallel wall then I expect it will act as a nodal point for any dominant room modes.
To take a theoretical example: say you have a flat panel 50cm from one wall, that will be at the nodal point for a wavelength of 1m (347Hz). So it's going to do next to nothing for that frequency. If your room was, say, 4m wide, it would also be a dominant room mode so could lead to problems.
This is why it's generally recommended to space your panels off the wall by a distance equal to their own thickness. In this case the thickness of the panel is large compared to the wavelength of the space behind it, so it will still have a significant effect. In the example above we can see that a 5cm deep panel, 50cm from the wall is really pretty small compared to the wavelength of the standing wave that can arise either side of it, so therefore won't have much affect.

Putting a flat panel across a corner obviously gives you a variable distance between the wall and the panel so mitigates this effect.

Thanks Blinddrew,

I asked several isolationshops about the right rockwool plates for my studio. Most of them said they had only rockwool plates to a density of 55. When I searched online I found Rockfound Duo what has a density of 60 on the front and a density of 35 in the rear... Im kinda doubt wheter this is the panel I need, can you provide me more clarity about this? If not, can you tell me which panel is best for my studio?

1. I havent understood it yet... Does the distance between the panel have to be equal to the thickness of the panel?

blinddrew wrote:
nifaun wrote:I asked several isolationshops about the right rockwool plates for my studio. Most of them said they had only rockwool plates to a density of 55. When I searched online I found Rockfound Duo what has a density of 60 on the front and a density of 35 in the rear... Im kinda doubt wheter this is the panel I need, can you provide me more clarity about this? If not, can you tell me which panel is best for my studio?

I suspect the difference between 60 and 55 density is negligible from both a audio and workability perspective, but if you let us know whereabouts in the world you are we can probably make some sensible recommendations. :thumbup:

2. Okay so what about the tho measurements. Should I focus on the front one... Or does the back one matters as well.

Im based in the Netherlands, ordering from German stores is possible as well.
nifaun
Poster
Posts: 15 Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:59 pm

Re: Building my home-studio

Post by Drew Stephenson »

Sorry, meant to reply earlier but forgot.

I'll see if I can draw a diagram for 1) - leave that with me. But in short, yes, the distance from the wall should be roughly the same as the thickness.

A rockwool plate of density 55 will be fine. If you went with a dual density I would guess, and it would be a guess, that you'd be better with the low density side facing the room. This would make it easier for the sound to penetrate the slab and therefore be absorbed.
If you use too high a density (100kg/m3 for example) it will still function to an extent but will actually reflect higher frequencies rather than absorb them.
Knauf Earthwool is a comparable product to Rockwool.
I have no idea if this is a good supplier, but they have 60kg/m3 rockwool and earthwool: https://www.ikoustic.co.uk/products/aco ... g8QAvD_BwE
User avatar
Drew Stephenson
Jedi Poster
Posts: 24450 Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am Location: York
(The forumuser formerly known as Blinddrew)
Ignore the post count, I still have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/

Re: Building my home-studio

Post by Drew Stephenson »

Ok, here's an attempt to answer your question 1) with some badly drawn diagrams (I couldn't easily find a sinewave so you've got ovals instead)...

Let's look at sound interacting with a wall:
Image
The highest sound pressure is right up against the wall (because the air can't go anywhere) but the most air movement is 1/4 wavelength away from the wall.

This can be easier to visualise if you think of it like a guitar string:
Image
N.B. we're obviously only looking at half a wavelength at this point, the rest of the wavelength continues off the screen to the right.

Right, now let's add an absorber against the wall and bring the wavelength down a bit for illustration:
Image
As we can see, with the absorber right against the wall, it's most effective on its outside edge, where the air movement is greatest, but against the wall, where there's no air movement, it's doing almost nothing.

Let's move the absorber away from the wall a distance of its own thickness:
Image
Now we can see that all the absorber material is in an effective zone for this wavelength.

Now, to get to your question of distance from the wall vs thickness of absorber.
Let's take the same situation and look at a higher frequency:
Image
Even where half a wavelength matches the distance behind the absorber, we can see that it's still going to be effective because the peak air movement is still easily covered by the absorber at the next anti-node.

Ok, now take the same absorber but bring it further away from the wall:
Image
You can see now that at longer wavelengths, where the node coincides with the position of the absorber, it will be doing very little at all.

And if we go back to the shorter wavelength:
Image
You can see that the absorber here will be less effective because it again sits at a node.

I'm sure Hugh or Max could have explained that better (and they may still be along to correct me!) but hopefully that makes sense?
User avatar
Drew Stephenson
Jedi Poster
Posts: 24450 Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am Location: York
(The forumuser formerly known as Blinddrew)
Ignore the post count, I still have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/

Re: Building my home-studio

Post by Wonks »

Looks OK to me.

It should be noted that this really applies to standing waves/resonant wavelengths which are fractions of the rooms dimensions. Other soundwaves will hit the absorbers at all different amplitude along their wavelengths and will be attenuated to greater or lesser extents. They certainly won't all hit the wall at node points.

But it is the standing waves that cause the most problems, which is what we (hopefully) design and position the traps to reduce.
User avatar
Wonks
Jedi Poster
Posts: 17005 Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am Location: Reading, UK
Reliably fallible.

Re: Building my home-studio

Post by Hugh Robjohns »

All well explained Drew, although in respect of the last two diagrams:

blinddrew wrote:Ok, now take the same absorber but bring it further away from the wall:
Image
You can see now that at longer wavelengths, where the node coincides with the position of the absorber, it will be doing very little at all.

At very low frequencies the wavelength is so long that to emulate your diagram the absorber would have to be placed several feet from the wall, which is obviously impractical, so it's never going to find itself sat in a node half a wavelength out in reality. Instead, at very low frequencies the absorber will tend towards being in the node pressure zone against the wall. Either way it loses efficiency, of course.

And if we go back to the shorter wavelength:
Image
You can see that the absorber here will be less effective because it again sits at a node.

Except that in this situation a practical absorber will be thick enough probably to span several full (short) wavelengths, so it will actually be very efficient.
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 38836 Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual... 

Re: Building my home-studio

Post by Drew Stephenson »

Sorry Hugh, the point I was trying to make was that a 'normal' depth absorber wouldn't necessarily benefit from being further and further from the wall.
The question a few posts back was about a 5cm panel 50cm from the wall.
User avatar
Drew Stephenson
Jedi Poster
Posts: 24450 Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am Location: York
(The forumuser formerly known as Blinddrew)
Ignore the post count, I still have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/

Re: Building my home-studio

Post by nifaun »

blinddrew wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:38 pm Sorry Hugh, the point I was trying to make was that a 'normal' depth absorber wouldn't necessarily benefit from being further and further from the wall.
The question a few posts back was about a 5cm panel 50cm from the wall.

Thanks blinddrew. But I don't know if it is because I'm a non native speaker or rather that I'm a beginning record producer, but how do I know how much is 1/4 wavelength?

Ooh and they always say that you have to put 4 bass traps, one for each corner, but in one of the corners is a door? Would that give any problems?

Thanks for your help and your patience, I'm close to recording in my new studio ;)
nifaun
Poster
Posts: 15 Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:59 pm

Re: Building my home-studio

Post by Drew Stephenson »

The wavelength of a sound is inversely proportional to the frequency.
At 20kHz the wavelength is 1.7cm. So clearly even a thin absorber will be effective here as the point(s) of the greatest air movement will always be included in the depth of the absorber.

At 20Hz though, the wavelength is 17m. So in order to have an absorber that was fully effective here it would need to be 4.25m deep. That's not practical for most of us! (My room is only 4m long).
So you can quickly see that bass performance in small rooms is always a compromise.

Say you have a panel 10cm deep, and it's spaced 10cm from the wall. That will be very effective down to about 400Hz (wavelength about 86cm) because the front of the absorber is 20cm from the wall; nearly 1/4 wavelength at 400Hz.
It will still be fairly effective below this as well.

But to control your low end you need to go deeper, which is why if you can use the corners you get the benefit of a deeper trap without losing too much room space, as well as putting your bass traps in the most efficient place for them (sound pressure is at its highest in the corners).

So definitely target the corners, and if you can only do three of them then that'll have to do but you might get a bit of stereo instability - consider hanging a thick broadband absorber off the back of the door to compensate.
Don't forget that it's not just the vertical corners you can tackle, remember your wall/ceiling corners as well.
User avatar
Drew Stephenson
Jedi Poster
Posts: 24450 Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am Location: York
(The forumuser formerly known as Blinddrew)
Ignore the post count, I still have no idea what I'm doing...
https://drewstephenson.bandcamp.com/

Re: Building my home-studio

Post by Hugh Robjohns »

blinddrew wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:38 pm Sorry Hugh, the point I was trying to make was that a 'normal' depth absorber wouldn't necessarily benefit from being further and further from the wall.

Ah.. yes. True enough.

The question a few posts back was about a 5cm panel 50cm from the wall.

Hmmm... not particularly effective or particularly practical ! :D
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 38836 Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual... 
Post Reply