Acoustic Panelling Construction And Materials
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 бер 2014
- ✅ Try All our Courses for FREE: warpacademy.com/free-trial-2
Watch The Whole Series Free (Plus Lots More): www.warpacademy.com/studio-ac...
In episode three, we get to see behind the scenes of the panels, going through absorbency and the detailed construction. Super cool. Check out the rest of the series and lots more for free at www.warpacademy.com
This video is screaming for some audio compression. Very unstable sound.
And it seems like the camera/recorder has some sort of gate engaged and its chopping off some of the word tails.
lol yeah what about a lesson in properly miking up the speakers (humans) Good info tho!
probably something to do with the acoustics of your room this video might help you
@@badinibeats5939 Irony.
this channel is so much better than all the others sources of info I have come across,, everything makes total sense to me now,so in essence a good thick fibre glass insulation for walls for sound proofing probably about 4 inch,,, which also adds to the bass diffusion, and then add some wall panels etc etc as and when required over a period of experimentation .. job done.. oh!! and throw in a sofa. and a rubber backed carpet for the floor area.
Riding the fader while listening=)
Manual gate😅
The other Guy could be the CEO of this company. He knows his stuff, understands and sells the product so well.
Right on. Yeah, he's super knowledgeable.
Excelente informacion , saludos desde Atlanta,GA.
great info!
thanks DJ Vespers
Awesome info. I never put much thought into this since I typically have all direct input, but I guess it's important to have acoustic foam just to know that you are hearing monitors properly, huh? Thanks for the upload
recoil stabilezer out of wood instead of metal... u could easily get a ringing sound from the metal... even with the foam underneath, i wouldn't risk it, make it with wood instead
or just use isoacoustics stands they work better
GENUINE GUYS :)
So what are the materials/dimensions for the diaphragmatic panel? And the recoil stabilizer?
The diaphragm is rubber and it measures about 2' x 4'.
wow really nice old youtube -- but super high value - thanks
You're very welcome!
Irony! The sound on this video on the subject of improving sound quality, is total crap! I can't even hear you half the time and the room you're in sounds aweful...
I did, however, enjoy the discussion and I got some great ideas from watching, so thanks!
Just needed a compressor behind the mic thats all.. any room is ok
lmao hilarious, didn't even notice til now
So you are not professionals? You don't work in the sound industry?
Fix your audio sound guys!!!!
Jay looks camera shy.
Good information tho.
u min to say that thick straps wil work no need to cover whole corner ...talking abt bass straps
Self ajusting bass trap .? dont need to do the maths lol
I find it interesting that these guys, who portray themselves as acoustic engineers, can't even get their own sound bites straightened out! Lots of great info but credibility just flew out the window!
honestly, everyone in this video looks like they're dying. I would mic everyone up, get out of an office because it looks like you're selling me something and stop wearing all dark colors.
Different materials have different absorption coefficient. All foam are not equal.. Not all absorption materials are equal either.
The problem is getting a good absorption coefficient curve. Many building insulation materials tend to over absorb in the 125hz to 500hz range.
I understand the problem with foam and building codes. BUT, there is a foam that do have a better absorption coefficient curve than building insulation.. I'd check out Acoustic FIeld's foam. it's denser than any other open cell foam I've seen or used.
Corner traps are a hype..
Axial modes are between 2 parallel surfaces, not 2 parallel corners. if you put anything in the corner to go after low frequency problems, you are really only treating about 5% of the low frequency problem. Axial modes are the most audible and the most problematic.
It should go without saying that there are variants of any material that affect acoustic properties. Not all building insulation is equal either, which is why you'd use specific rock wool for broadband absorption. I'd be curious to see the tested acoustic properties of Acoustic Fields foam, feel free to post.
We use Roxul Comfortbatt R14 or 22 for building custom absorption, which is fantastic and inexpensive.
@@warpacademy I hate the sound of rock wool. I've been in many studios with that stuff and it doesn't sound natural at all.
For low frequency below 100hz, I'd recommend a high quality diaphragmatic absorption cabinet that actually absorbs.
Acoustic Fields has excellent absorption coefficient for low frequency and their open cell foam.. I"ve been in several rooms now with their treatment and hands down they had the best attack and decay for low frequency and the most natural mid's and high's.. I highly recommend going to a room with their treatment to experience it..
The problem with Roxul is it really doesn't do that much absorption compared to activated carbon for low end. Activated carbon for the same volume of treatment is FAR denser AND more porous.. Salford University did a study of activated carbon and they had results where they measured Activated Carbon to be effective absorption down to 20hz. Roxul can't do that..
Roxul is inexpensive, but it tends to over absorb in that 125hz to 500hz range.
I would suggest comparing a room with Acoustic Field's foam using the same amount of sq footage coverage to Roxul for mid's and high's. Hear it for yourself.
For low frequency under 100hz, I would recommend the Acoustic Fields' ACDA line, also if you only need to go down to 40hz, then they have a Carbon panel that's 12inch deep and it does well at 40hz.. But for rooms that need to go down to 30hz, then the ACDA Series is what they recommend.
The rooms I was in had their ACDA products, foam and Quadratic Diffusors and I was flat out blown away.. I've been in many studios and I've never heard a room come close to what they are doing..
Also, corner treatment is a joke IMO, it just doesn't do enough to go after the problematic Axial modes. it's just not enough surface coverage..
While activated carbon is an interesting new development, the best rooms in the world are still being made with rock wool and fibreglass. Look at rooms made by Northward Acoustics. They're top of the field. We're getting fantastic results with combinations of rock wool and lower density fibreglass.
If you need to absorb down to 20 Hz, you'd never use rock wool anyways. It's too dense and it would be reflective at those depths. You'd use a lower density porous absorber like fibreglass, in a larger depth.
You're correct that corner absorption doesn't do enough for major excited room modes. You need floor to ceiling, wall to wall absorption, not little toy panels. Air gaps can greatly enhance LF absorption performance as well, especially with floor to ceiling modules.
This is a very old video, reviewing products aimed at hobbyists and home studios. For a serious control room, you'd have a totally different approach.
Activated carbon is a relatively new material. I'll be interested to see how it performs in an actual build. It seems quite expensive, and to be honest, we're getting really good results with mineral wools and fibreglass. I'd be interested to see some tests from REW on a room built with activated carbon and to see the pricing on the completed build.
@@warpacademy But he's tried mineral wools and fiberglass and his activated carbon outperformed those materials with his diaphragmatic cabinets. Yes, it's more expensive, but it's a much more dense and porous substance. Mineral wool and fiberglass aren't nearly as porous or dense. You need poristiy and density to absorb low frequencies.
Here's a link to one study where Activated Carbon was used to absorb low frequencies in the 20hz to 55hz range.
Here's the reality. Acoustic Fields is a relatively new and small company. They don't have marketing and sales resources of reaching out to as many potential clients.
Just because a company has built a studio that's well known and they use fiberglass and wool does not mean it's a better material to use.
In order to compare materials, it's pretty easy, however, if you don't know or don't look at the comparisons, then you'll just use what is cheap and available.
As far as sound quality is concerned, there's some subjectivity and if they haven't compared, then they haven't compared the two. The other aspect is that Acoustic Fields does a few things with their activated carbon that's unique.
A. They mfg. their own AC, so they control the size of the pellets and the porisity levels. There's MANY different types of activated carbon that's used for various applications such as water purifications, air purification, etc. so they are mfg by companies that make their activated carbon specifically for those applications.
Acoustic Fields has patents for theirs and to use for acoustic treatment aborption, so they are kind of the only game in town.
The other aspect is that activated carbon absorbs moisture, which degrades Activated Carbon's sound absorbtion, and to fix that problem, Acoustic Fields has their activated carbon treated with chemical that effectively resists moisture, so their proprietary activated carbon is specifically mfg. for low frequency absorption. They posted a video not too long ago explaining this.
Now, if you want to test different materials yourself, you can buy the build plans to make a diaphragmatic absorption cabinet and for the fill material, you can use anything you want and you can buy some of the activated carbon from Acoustic Fields and then use anything else and then compare the amount of absorption in the lower frequencies and compare. No one has every come forward with better low frequency measures with those cabinet designs using fiberglass, mineral wool, etc. They simply do NOT have the density or porosity as Activated Carbon.
If you look up the most porous substance, it's Activated Carbon. It is one of the most porous material available.
you still need a lot because of how low freuquencies work in a small room with parallel walls. Axial modes are the biggest and they are unwanted low frequency between two parallel surfaces (front to rear, side to side or floor to ceiling) so the more surface area coverage you can get will reduce the big peaks and nulls within a room. However the cabinets are probably going to need to be at least 12inch to 16inches deep because the cabinet sets the frequency and the cabinet fill material dictates how much is going to be absorbed.
Some prefer using the moveable cabinets and some can afford to have the walls, ceiling and in some cases built within the floor stucture, but that's a permanent installation whereas you buy pre-built cabinets or buy the build plans and DIY and make moveable units and build them as required and within your budget. Not everyone can afford to build a $1 Million room. Some can.
But the other issues are reflections and those are frequencies above about 100hz on up and for that, Acoustic Fields has created their own open cell foam with a specific absorption coeffient curve and they modeled it after the hearing curves because they are going after a more natural quality that fiberglass, mineral wool simply were not designed for. Those materials were really designed for thermal insulation (hot and cold) and normally used for building insulation and using those materials for acoustic treatment was more of an after thought and it's widely used because it's cheap and they didn't want to create an open cell foam or other absorption material. Obviously there are companies that did, such as Sonex, Auralex and others, but they have different absorption coefficient curves and their open cell foam is actually less dense and the cell structure isn't as consistent. Which dictates the performance of the material.
I would encourage you to visit a room that Acoustic Fields has designed, I'm sure they can point you to a room you can visit if you call them.
AF has plenty of customers that have been using fiberglass and mineral wool based products that have moved to using their Acoustic Fields Activated Carbon based with their open cell foam and they won't go back to Fiberglass and mineral wool.
On a side note, KEF has a patent on using Activated Carbon for low frequency compliance within their speaker cabinets. They started doing that years ago with their A.C.E. compliance. They used to have some vague information on that on their website, I don't know if they really market that with their products. But they would use activated carbon inside their cabinets to smooth out the low frequencies.
but after it's all said and done, Activated Carbon is relatively new to the market and only one company that I'm aware of offers it and they simply don't have much recognition in the market since they are the only game in town so to speak and it's more a product that's sold on word of mouth and they don't seem to spend a ton of money marketing their products in various magazines, etc. like many of the other big players. Also, large studios tend to go with big name architects that specialize in studio and they literally don't know about activated carbon since they can't mfg. it, so they use what they can get their hands on which is mineral wool and fiberglass.
Big budget studios tend to go with the big name design houses, but Acoustic Fields has sold their products to clients with studios designed by others and augmented (fixed) issues that still existed with some of these other studio designs. Capital Records is just one of those that bought Acoustic Fields products to augment their pre-existing studio that was designed by someone else.
@@warpacademy I had met the guy at Acoustic Fields about 10 years ago and he explained to me that when he designed his diaphragmatic absorption cabinets which uses dual front walls, instead of one front wall. He tested about a dozen different materials including different types of mineral wool, fiberglass, etc. that were commonly used. He said he stumbled across activated carbon by accident. He was testing different wall construction using different materials and the home he was living in for his project had one of those water purifiers in the kitchen, he noticed the red light which indicates to change the filter, not knowing much, he removed the unit, but it was stuck on the faucet so he used a hammer to break it loose and in doing so, he broke it wide open and a bunch of activated carbon came out, which is what they use for water filtration. He started to think about it and realized that Activated Carbon is HIGHLY porous and dense, and he started to investigate the possibility of using that instead. After years of research and mfg. his own, he then figured out how to control the porosity AND he needed to chemically treat to avoid the AC from absorbing moisture, which degrades the performance for low frequency absorption. He did his own testing and comparing to all of the other materials and the results were conclusive that Activated Carbon outperformed all of the other materials. He sent some units to RAL to have it independently tested and engineer called him up and told him he's never seen any other product the measured nearly as well as what was sent to them.
A few years later, he was able to mfg. his own and bring to market.
He routinely sells product to pre-existing studios where he fixes low frequency problems that the other professionally designed and built still had. He has some videos where he interviews or has the studio owner attesting to how well their products work.
But you have to experience the difference in your own studio to verify.
not to say that some of the top end studio designers can't design or build great rooms, but they still might have problems that need to be fixed and the Acoustic Fields products might actually fix low frequency issues.
He has replaced mineral wool or fiberglass used for mid to high frequency reflections, and he's done that all of the time. If you want to test it yourself, call them up, they might send you some test samples to try out in your own studio. He's done that from time to time depending on what he has available to send to prospective clients.
Why should I listen to you if you can't even get your own sound to work well?
Would you have a different opinion if you read all of this information instead?
this sound makes me sick
I'd pick a different provider just to avoid Peter's dipshit attitude.