Mobile monitoring.

[John Williamson]

I suspect the answer is either no, or will make me gasp and say "How
much?!!!!"

The space available is just under 7 feet wide, 6' 6" high, and about 10
feet long. The outside is a steel shell about 1/6" thick, with a number
of windows which could be double glazed. I'd not like to lose more than
a couple of inches of headroom or width, and the space still needs to
work as a living area.

What I'd like to do is set it up as a monitoring space that would give
better results than using headphones. Is this possible. I've seen
pictures of mobile trucks that are about this size, but I suspect their
budget is bigger than mine.

I don't think that the space being on a boat (This one:-

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16330500@N06/9680032387/

will make any difference.

I'm thinking along the lines of lining the ceiling and sides with
acoustic foam screened by cloth, and hoping I can control the bass
without too much aggravation.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Frank Stearns]

John Williamson > writes:

>I suspect the answer is either no, or will make me gasp and say "How
>much?!!!!"

Depends on how much of the work you want to do. Material costs probably aren't all
that bad, but you're looking at a lot of fairly intricate work building and fitting
absorption and trapping.

>The space available is just under 7 feet wide, 6' 6" high, and about 10
>feet long. The outside is a steel shell about 1/6" thick, with a number
>of windows which could be double glazed. I'd not like to lose more than
>a couple of inches of headroom or width, and the space still needs to
>work as a living area.


Similar to the location rig I built. Lots of 1" 703 for absorption and 1/4" baltic
birch over several cavities formed with 2x4 framing lumber for panel traps. 703 was
floated out as far as I dared to improve LF performance. 2" used where space
allowed. Monitors were the Blue Sky 6.5 series, soffit-mounted, and with custom
subs. Great little powered monitor in a small foot print; heard them initially in a
line up of about a dozen competing boxes, most of which had a fake sound, scooped
curve, and lousy imaging (to be expected in an awful showroom).

Ah, but the Blue Sky units -- sounded like music, head and shoulders above the rest,
even in that crap environment, and they actually managed to kick out an image. That
gave me a running start in a what would always be a compromised environment.

Wasn't a lot of room to put in working diffusion, so it erred on being pretty dead.
A few reflective strips in the back helped a little, but too much and you had the
usual problems of too much relfection.

Keep in mind that the best you're going to do is probably a nice nearfield with a
very small sweet spot; just make sure that the nearfield is pretty clean and
reflection free (such as a console surface, or some such - I put 703 "tongues"
sticking out from the soffits at the bottom edge of the monitors to prevent most of
the console bounce issues).

>I'm thinking along the lines of lining the ceiling and sides with
>acoustic foam screened by cloth, and hoping I can control the bass
>without too much aggravation.

Foam doesn't work that well. Stay with compressed, rigid fiberglass such as Owens
Corning 703 or 705; cloth-wrap that. Study up on how to build panel traps for LF
absorption. Use lots of those, bass traps were wrap-around wainscotting in my rig.
Don't neglect the flooring. I reinforced the floor structure from below so that it
didn't "boom" when you walked on it, then laid down 1/2" thick, higher density
neoprene-like material under a very short-pile carpet. Much heavier than carpet pad;
help further control the LF issues.

I think the matierals costs were around $2500 (does not include the $1000 for the
monitors and then another $400 for the sub drivers). But the 200-300 hours of labor
were mine, not hired out.

Good luck with it.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson > wrote:
>
>I'm thinking along the lines of lining the ceiling and sides with
>acoustic foam screened by cloth, and hoping I can control the bass
>without too much aggravation.

If you aren't careful, you can make it super dead at high frequencies
and then still have weird slap echos in the lower midrange. I'd try
some thick foam to start out with but I would suspect you're going to
have to add in some diffusion as well.

If you can make the walls slightly non-parallel it can help.

Using monitors with restricted low end can actually be a big help. I
used LS 3/5as in a truck for a while and you couldn't hear what was
going on down at the bottom but at least you knew that you couldn't.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

John Williamson > wrote:

> I'm thinking along the lines of lining the ceiling and sides with
> acoustic foam screened by cloth, and hoping I can control the bass
> without too much aggravation.

I would use acoustical cotton, which offers higher absorption on the low
end that comparable thicknesses of acoustical fiberglas, and is a joy to
work with compared to 'glas.

It can be had in panels that offer enough rigidity to mount on a wall
without framing, or to mount easily in a frame to leave space behind the
panels, improving their absorption. These come in attractive colors, so
one needn't feel compelled to cover them with cloth.

Here's an example:

http://www.acousticotton.com/product_info3.htm



--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Frank Stearns > wrote:

> Stay with compressed, rigid fiberglass such as Owens Corning 703 or 705;
> cloth-wrap that. Study up on how to build panel traps for LF absorption.

Acoustical cotton beats 703 and 705. Don't need to wrap with cloth.

http://www.bondedlogic.com/construction-products/acoustical-panels

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[John Williamson]

On 14/02/2014 19:08, hank alrich wrote:
> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>> Stay with compressed, rigid fiberglass such as Owens Corning 703 or 705;
>> cloth-wrap that. Study up on how to build panel traps for LF absorption.
>
> Acoustical cotton beats 703 and 705. Don't need to wrap with cloth.
>
> http://www.bondedlogic.com/construction-products/acoustical-panels
>
That looks interesting.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 14/02/2014 19:08, hank alrich wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking along the lines of lining the ceiling and sides with
>> acoustic foam screened by cloth, and hoping I can control the bass
>> without too much aggravation.
>
> I would use acoustical cotton, which offers higher absorption on the low
> end that comparable thicknesses of acoustical fiberglas, and is a joy to
> work with compared to 'glas.
>
> It can be had in panels that offer enough rigidity to mount on a wall
> without framing, or to mount easily in a frame to leave space behind the
> panels, improving their absorption. These come in attractive colors, so
> one needn't feel compelled to cover them with cloth.
>
> Here's an example:
>
> http://www.acousticotton.com/product_info3.htm
>
>
>
Bookmarked. Now I need to find a stockist of this and the alternatives
in the UK.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>John Williamson > wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking along the lines of lining the ceiling and sides with
>> acoustic foam screened by cloth, and hoping I can control the bass
>> without too much aggravation.
>
>I would use acoustical cotton, which offers higher absorption on the low
>end that comparable thicknesses of acoustical fiberglas, and is a joy to
>work with compared to 'glas.

Actually, what about fibreglass banners? They are very cheap per unit
absorption and you don't have to deal with the fibreglass in your hands.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 14/02/2014 19:43, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> hank alrich > wrote:
>> John Williamson > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm thinking along the lines of lining the ceiling and sides with
>>> acoustic foam screened by cloth, and hoping I can control the bass
>>> without too much aggravation.
>>
>> I would use acoustical cotton, which offers higher absorption on the low
>> end that comparable thicknesses of acoustical fiberglas, and is a joy to
>> work with compared to 'glas.
>
> Actually, what about fibreglass banners? They are very cheap per unit
> absorption and you don't have to deal with the fibreglass in your hands.
>
One problem I could foresee is that I may not be able to get them in the
right sizes, and cutting them to size would expose the glass fibres. I
could be wrong, though...


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Frank Stearns]

(hank alrich) writes:

>Frank Stearns > wrote:

>> Stay with compressed, rigid fiberglass such as Owens Corning 703 or 705;
>> cloth-wrap that. Study up on how to build panel traps for LF absorption.

>Acoustical cotton beats 703 and 705. Don't need to wrap with cloth.

>http://www.bondedlogic.com/construction-products/acoustical-panels

Thanks, Hank -- looks pretty good. In fact, the specs look very good.

Now I'm just holding my breath about price, but will hope for the best!! :)

Where'd you come across this stuff? Have you seen it/heard it first hand?

Thanks again,

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[hank alrich]

Frank Stearns > wrote:

> (hank alrich) writes:
>
> >Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
> >> Stay with compressed, rigid fiberglass such as Owens Corning 703 or 705;
> >> cloth-wrap that. Study up on how to build panel traps for LF absorption.
>
> >Acoustical cotton beats 703 and 705. Don't need to wrap with cloth.
>
> >http://www.bondedlogic.com/construction-products/acoustical-panels
>
> Thanks, Hank -- looks pretty good. In fact, the specs look very good.
>
> Now I'm just holding my breath about price, but will hope for the best!! :)
>
> Where'd you come across this stuff? Have you seen it/heard it first hand?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio

I have deployed it extensively fixing on-stage acoustical problems for
the Armadillo Christmas Bazaar's music festival stage in Austin. We have
used both the floppy stuff that is cheaper, most often used for thermal
in-wall and ceiling insulation, for hidden panels secured by and
suspended in plastic netting, and the stiffer stuff for sidewall panels,
the latter of which we did still cover with black stage curtain material
for appearance.

The result has been outstanding. The acoustical improvements coupled
with a few tweaks to speaker positioning and system operation have made
a big difference in the way it feels to play on stage and how it sounds
to the audience.

Post last year's event, the 38th annual, a staffer not associated with
production commented that there seemed to be a lot more standing
ovations than previously. That is correct, by a lot, the deal being that
given a somewhat optimized performing environment musicians, without
forethought, deliver inspired performances. I said, "My job is to create
standing ovations". <g>

It's good stuff, and much easier to work with, fun actually, compared to
'glas. That it works _better_ than the 'glas acoustically pretty much
cinches the deal for me.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson > wrote:
>> Actually, what about fibreglass banners? They are very cheap per unit
>> absorption and you don't have to deal with the fibreglass in your hands.
>>
>One problem I could foresee is that I may not be able to get them in the
>right sizes, and cutting them to size would expose the glass fibres. I
>could be wrong, though...

That's the point, you order them in custom sizes, they come precut with
the vinyl covering over top.

They are not a solution for all problems but they have a lot of broadband
absorption for sufficiently little money that you can stack them.

I have not used the acoustical cotten stuff, though! The manufacturers'
numbers look nice if they are to be believed!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 2/15/2014 11:32 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
>>> Actually, what about fibreglass banners? They are very cheap per unit
>>> absorption and you don't have to deal with the fibreglass in your hands.
>>>
>> One problem I could foresee is that I may not be able to get them in the
>> right sizes, and cutting them to size would expose the glass fibres. I
>> could be wrong, though...
>
> That's the point, you order them in custom sizes, they come precut with
> the vinyl covering over top.
>
> They are not a solution for all problems but they have a lot of broadband
> absorption for sufficiently little money that you can stack them.
>
> I have not used the acoustical cotten stuff, though! The manufacturers'
> numbers look nice if they are to be believed!
> --scott
>

There's some stuff out now call Roxul that may be useful for sound absorption.
You can read about it here:

http://www.roxul.com/stone+wool/overview/faq#1034_1414

It's stone wool:

"ROXUL insulation is a rock-based mineral fiber insulation comprised of Basalt
rock and Recycled Slag. Basalt is a volcanic rock which is abundant in the
earth, and slag is a by-product of the steel and copper industry. The minerals
are melted and spun into fibers."

We're going to try some in a small broadcast studio in the next few months. Some
people I know who have tried it say that it's great, but they're not in
recording studio environments.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 12:07:37 -0500, mcp6453 > wrote:

>On 2/15/2014 11:32 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> John Williamson > wrote:
>>>> Actually, what about fibreglass banners? They are very cheap per unit
>>>> absorption and you don't have to deal with the fibreglass in your hands.
>>>>
>>> One problem I could foresee is that I may not be able to get them in the
>>> right sizes, and cutting them to size would expose the glass fibres. I
>>> could be wrong, though...
>>
>> That's the point, you order them in custom sizes, they come precut with
>> the vinyl covering over top.
>>
>> They are not a solution for all problems but they have a lot of broadband
>> absorption for sufficiently little money that you can stack them.
>>
>> I have not used the acoustical cotten stuff, though! The manufacturers'
>> numbers look nice if they are to be believed!
>> --scott
>>
>
>There's some stuff out now call Roxul that may be useful for sound absorption.
>You can read about it here:
>
>http://www.roxul.com/stone+wool/overview/faq#1034_1414
>
>It's stone wool:
>
>"ROXUL insulation is a rock-based mineral fiber insulation comprised of Basalt
>rock and Recycled Slag. Basalt is a volcanic rock which is abundant in the
>earth, and slag is a by-product of the steel and copper industry. The minerals
>are melted and spun into fibers."
>
>We're going to try some in a small broadcast studio in the next few months. Some
>people I know who have tried it say that it's great, but they're not in
>recording studio environments.

It may be good, but the evidence of the website suggests that they
have no engineers competent in acoustics among their staff. Hopefully
that will change in time - probably through feedback from engineers
who have tried it. Maybe you can be one of them?

d

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 2/15/2014 12:29 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 12:07:37 -0500, mcp6453 > wrote:
>
>>
>> There's some stuff out now call Roxul that may be useful for sound absorption.
>> You can read about it here:
>>
>> http://www.roxul.com/stone+wool/overview/faq#1034_1414
>>
>> It's stone wool:
>>
>> "ROXUL insulation is a rock-based mineral fiber insulation comprised of Basalt
>> rock and Recycled Slag. Basalt is a volcanic rock which is abundant in the
>> earth, and slag is a by-product of the steel and copper industry. The minerals
>> are melted and spun into fibers."
>>
>> We're going to try some in a small broadcast studio in the next few months. Some
>> people I know who have tried it say that it's great, but they're not in
>> recording studio environments.
>
> It may be good, but the evidence of the website suggests that they
> have no engineers competent in acoustics among their staff. Hopefully
> that will change in time - probably through feedback from engineers
> who have tried it. Maybe you can be one of them?

Nope. I'm neither qualified nor interested. From what I understand, the sound
properties are secondary. The material is primarily for thermal insulation and
is intended to replace the pink stuff.

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> John Williamson > wrote:
> >> Actually, what about fibreglass banners? They are very cheap per unit
> >> absorption and you don't have to deal with the fibreglass in your hands.
> >>
> >One problem I could foresee is that I may not be able to get them in the
> >right sizes, and cutting them to size would expose the glass fibres. I
> >could be wrong, though...
>
> That's the point, you order them in custom sizes, they come precut with
> the vinyl covering over top.
>
> They are not a solution for all problems but they have a lot of broadband
> absorption for sufficiently little money that you can stack them.
>
> I have not used the acoustical cotten stuff, though! The manufacturers'
> numbers look nice if they are to be believed!

Given how well acoustical cotton has been working for me I think the
numbers are reasonably honest. And yes, it is one hell of a lot more fun
to work with.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

mcp6453 > wrote:

> On 2/15/2014 12:29 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 12:07:37 -0500, mcp6453 > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> There's some stuff out now call Roxul that may be useful for sound
> >> absorption. You can read about it here:
> >>
> >> http://www.roxul.com/stone+wool/overview/faq#1034_1414
> >>
> >> It's stone wool:
> >>
> >> "ROXUL insulation is a rock-based mineral fiber insulation comprised of
> >> Basalt rock and Recycled Slag. Basalt is a volcanic rock which is
> >> abundant in the earth, and slag is a by-product of the steel and copper
> >> industry. The minerals are melted and spun into fibers."
> >>
> >> We're going to try some in a small broadcast studio in the next few
> >> months. Some people I know who have tried it say that it's great, but
> >> they're not in recording studio environments.
> >
> > It may be good, but the evidence of the website suggests that they have
> > no engineers competent in acoustics among their staff. Hopefully that
> > will change in time - probably through feedback from engineers who have
> > tried it. Maybe you can be one of them?
>
> Nope. I'm neither qualified nor interested. From what I understand, the
> sound properties are secondary. The material is primarily for thermal
> insulation and is intended to replace the pink stuff.

The description sounds much like "mineral wool", under a brand name. IU
find mineral wool almost as big a PITS to work with as the pink death
stuff.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:56:37 -0500, mcp6453 > wrote:

>On 2/15/2014 12:29 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 12:07:37 -0500, mcp6453 > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There's some stuff out now call Roxul that may be useful for sound absorption.
>>> You can read about it here:
>>>
>>> http://www.roxul.com/stone+wool/overview/faq#1034_1414
>>>
>>> It's stone wool:
>>>
>>> "ROXUL insulation is a rock-based mineral fiber insulation comprised of Basalt
>>> rock and Recycled Slag. Basalt is a volcanic rock which is abundant in the
>>> earth, and slag is a by-product of the steel and copper industry. The minerals
>>> are melted and spun into fibers."
>>>
>>> We're going to try some in a small broadcast studio in the next few months. Some
>>> people I know who have tried it say that it's great, but they're not in
>>> recording studio environments.
>>
>> It may be good, but the evidence of the website suggests that they
>> have no engineers competent in acoustics among their staff. Hopefully
>> that will change in time - probably through feedback from engineers
>> who have tried it. Maybe you can be one of them?
>
>Nope. I'm neither qualified nor interested. From what I understand, the sound
>properties are secondary. The material is primarily for thermal insulation and
>is intended to replace the pink stuff.

You're not interested? OK, now you've lost me.

d

[[email protected]]

Please consider the fireproof properties of your materials.

Fire is not a problem until it is.

Mark

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 2/15/2014 4:36 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:56:37 -0500, mcp6453 > wrote:
>
>> Nope. I'm neither qualified nor interested. From what I understand, the sound
>> properties are secondary. The material is primarily for thermal insulation and
>> is intended to replace the pink stuff.
>
> You're not interested? OK, now you've lost me.

That didn't come out right. Ignore that.

If it works for us, I'll definitely feed back the information.

[Scott Dorsey]

mcp6453 > wrote:
>There's some stuff out now call Roxul that may be useful for sound absorption.
>You can read about it here:
>
>http://www.roxul.com/stone+wool/overview/faq#1034_1414

Rock wool is more or less a substitute for fibreglass and the numbers come
out similar. Sometimes it might be a little bit better because the surfaces
of the fibres are a little more irregular.

Here's the idea:
1. Bass traps work by impedance matching a load to free air, so that when a
wave goes into the trap it doesn't reflect back from the wall behind it.

2. You can think of impedance matching in air as converting a high pressure
wave with a little bit of volume to a low pressure wave with a large amount
of air volume, or vice-versa. Think about what a horn does, for instance.

3. The bass trap does the matching by slowing air down, and it slows air down
by making it go through lots of different irregular paths.

4. The more tiny paths through the thing, the more effective it is.

5. The more surface area of the fibres, the more tiny paths through the thing.

This is why I am encouraged about acoustical cotton, because the cotton
fibres are more irregularly shaped and have a lot more area. I know,
for instance, that wool curtains are more effective than fibreglass safety
curtains.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[gregz]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> mcp6453 > wrote:
>> There's some stuff out now call Roxul that may be useful for sound absorption.
>> You can read about it here:
>>
>> http://www.roxul.com/stone+wool/overview/faq#1034_1414
>
> Rock wool is more or less a substitute for fibreglass and the numbers come
> out similar. Sometimes it might be a little bit better because the surfaces
> of the fibres are a little more irregular.
>

The Safe & Sound product should be better than fiberglass. I checked out
some when they were installing it in a building. It's very dense and heavy.
I have not seen similar fiberglass product. I have not bought any yet, but
I was planning on using some in my basement.

Greg

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

gregz wrote:

> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>> mcp6453 > wrote:
>>> There's some stuff out now call Roxul that may be useful for sound
>>> absorption. You can read about it here:
>>>
>>> http://www.roxul.com/stone+wool/overview/faq#1034_1414
>>
>> Rock wool is more or less a substitute for fibreglass and the

Rockwool is a brand name, I don't like working with it, and stone wool
generally should not be used inside loudspeaker boxes, but the manufacturer
has done a lot of research and has a lot of well documented well working
products for acoustic and thermal insulation. In my opinion Roxul is a
dispeccable spoof on a well respected trade-name and trademark.

> Greg

Kind regards

Peter Larsen