If I want to apply sound treatment in my living room, to make it a
more recording-friendly environment, is the ultimate goal to eliminate
all reverberant characteristics or not necessarily?

If I put up some recordings of hand claps and short shouts either
across the room from or from behind the mics, would it tell you
anything useful about what the room sounds like now and how seriously
in need of treatment it is?

Thanks for all assistance.

Try Real Traps or Modular Acoustics Panels or try the DIY route

Recording.org or John L. Sayers forums have acoustic forums where you can
ask your questions and get good answers

DOn


wrote in message
oups.com...
If I want to apply sound treatment in my living room, to make it a
more recording-friendly environment, is the ultimate goal to eliminate
all reverberant characteristics or not necessarily?

If I put up some recordings of hand claps and short shouts either
across the room from or from behind the mics, would it tell you
anything useful about what the room sounds like now and how seriously
in need of treatment it is?

Thanks for all assistance.

wrote in message
oups.com...


** Hmmm - yahoo plus Google Groups.

Very bad signs ......


If I want to apply sound treatment in my living room,


** How do you propose to * sound proof * it - first ??

Gonna brick up the windows etc ?




....... Phil

wrote:
If I want to apply sound treatment in my living room, to make it a
more recording-friendly environment, is the ultimate goal to eliminate
all reverberant characteristics or not necessarily?

A good thing to aim for is to minimize the variation in reverberation
time with frequency. In practice with small rooms there will be huge
dips and peaks at various low frequencies, in other word it's not
reverberation but ringing and you don't want that. The only reliable way
to deal with this is by absortion.

Since most domestic rooms are full of mid and high frequency absorbers
anyway (like curtains and carpets) you are in practice looking at bass
absorption.

See http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html for a truly excellent
introduction.

Also http://www.realtraps.com/test-cd.htm
Download and build the test tones CD, measure your room and scare yourself!

Anahata

Where did the OP say he wanted to 'sound proof' it?

He said 'sound treatment'
Surely Mr. Allison knows the difference.

wrote:

If I want to apply sound treatment in my living room, to make it a
more recording-friendly environment, is the ultimate goal to eliminate
all reverberant characteristics or not necessarily?

Not necessarily. There was a time when studio-as-anechoic-chamber was
in vogue, but recordings made in rooms like this tend to be lifeless and
lack depth. But, the typcial living room with it's small dimensions and
parallel walls usually makes for a poor acoustical space, so maybe just
eliminating the acoustic signature will be an improvement. Hard to say,
depends on what you're recording.


//Walt

kind of plays with recording values...
large dumptruck of manure pulling up alley!
don't matter what the room sounds like now.

You are assuming.
I've been in lot's of places in Canada where the only vehicle you are
going to hear is the band pulling up.
....and the room treatment was crappy too...

wrote in message
ups.com...


** Another Google Groups, non quoting TROLL !


Where did the OP say he wanted to 'sound proof' it?


** It is BECAUSE he did not that I asked the question - ****wit.


He said 'sound treatment'
Surely Mr. Allison knows the difference.


** I suppose you are blind and missed the words " first " in my question.



......... Phil

"Anahata"

A good thing to aim for is to minimize the variation in reverberation time
with frequency.


** No - a good thing is to reduce all reverberation to the minimum.


In practice with small rooms there will be huge dips and peaks at various
low frequencies,


** Yeah - called standing waves.

Very much dependant on location in the room.


in other word it's not reverberation but ringing and you don't want that.


** No - it is audible reverberation that is MOST objectionable.


The only reliable way to deal with this is by absortion.


** Yep - the sound energy has to be dissipated as heat.


Since most domestic rooms are full of mid and high frequency absorbers
anyway (like curtains and carpets) you are in practice looking at bass
absorption.


** WRONG !!!!

Most domestic rooms are EXTREMELY reverberant in the mid and high
frequencies !!

To eliminate this, ALL smooth surfaces MUST be covered with thick curtains,
carpet or acoustic tiles.

If built from brick and concrete, there are strong standing waves in the
bass as well - near impossible to fix.


See http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html for a truly excellent
introduction.


** Written by a well meaning amateur.

But full of half baked and downright poor advice.





.......... Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

** How do you propose to * sound proof * it - first ??

I don't. Not gonna go crazy, just want to make it less "boingy". I.e. not
necessarily perfect, just better than it is now. Also want whatever I do to
look aesthetic. windows, I actually had though about making some kind of
inserts to put in the windows that are quick & easy to remove, but that's
down the list.

"Walt" wrote in message
...
wrote:

If I want to apply sound treatment in my living room, to make it a
more recording-friendly environment, is the ultimate goal to eliminate
all reverberant characteristics or not necessarily?

Not necessarily. There was a time when studio-as-anechoic-chamber was
in vogue, but recordings made in rooms like this tend to be lifeless and
lack depth. But, the typcial living room with it's small dimensions and
parallel walls usually makes for a poor acoustical space, so maybe just
eliminating the acoustic signature will be an improvement. Hard to say,
depends on what you're recording.

House is drywall/frame, not brick. I'd mostly be recording acoustic guitar
(sampling) and trumpet, to add live trumpet lines to enhance authenticity of
midi tracks made with pretty high-quality sample Soundfonts.

What about hanging squares of this Armstrong acoustic paneling - the stuff
that's about 1/2" thick and sort of resembles asbestos? Arranged artfully it
seems it could be aesthetic as well as functional.

"Doc"

"Phil Allison"

** How do you propose to * sound proof * it - first ??

I don't.


** Impossible to record in a room affected by noise.


Not gonna go crazy,


** You have arrived already.



........... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:
"Doc"

"Phil Allison"

** How do you propose to * sound proof * it - first ??

I don't.


** Impossible to record in a room affected by noise.

Where I'm situated, noise isn't a huge factor.

Take a listen to recordings made in the room as it is now. Not at all
impossible, sound did in fact propagate from the instruments to the
diaphragm of the mics quite successfully. Biggest source of noise was
probably the refrigerator and the hum from the breaker box for the a/c
air handler, both of which can be turned off.

Probably the most telling section as far as the room acoustics is the
raw, unreverbed trumpet lick, particularly as the high note at the end
decays.

4.5 meg 48/16 320kbps mp3

http://home.mpinet.net/~docsavage20/...digy_test.html

Wanna test your skills and guess what mics were used? (Same ones in all
examples)

wrote in message
ups.com...


** Impossible to record in a room affected by noise.


Where I'm situated, noise isn't a huge factor.


** Then neither is reverb - you ****ING IDIOT.





....... Phil

Doc,

What about hanging squares of this Armstrong acoustic paneling - the stuff
that's about 1/2" thick

That's not a good way to treat a room because thin materials absorb only
higher frequencies. The goal is to absorb uniformly over the entire range,
especially the low end. See my FAQ that Anahata was kind enough to link
above. It has exactly the advice you need.

--Ethan

Phil,

a good thing is to reduce all reverberation to the minimum.

Yikes, that is the worst advice I've heard come out of you yet.

Yeah - called standing waves.

Sorry, standing waves are WAVES, not peaks and nulls. But this is a common
misconception. Some people think that standing waves are modes, which is
another common mistake.

Written by a well meaning amateur. But full of half baked and downright
poor advice.

ROF,L.

So where's your FAQ? :-)

--Ethan

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:

The goal is to absorb uniformly over the entire range,
especially the low end.

Ethan,

Read that again.

Or, to paraphrase Orwell: "All [frequencies] are created equal, but some are
more equal than others."

A,

Read that again.

Yeah, I see your point. :-) Okay, let's try again:

It's impossible to have too much absorption at bass frequencies. I set the
"crossover" point at about 300 Hz. As you add more and more bass trapping,
the low frequency response becomes progressively flatter, and LF ringing
continues to be reduced. No matter how much bass trapping you add the
response and ringing will never be good enough. So you do the best you can
and accept the result.

Above about 300 Hz, the goal is to have a uniform reverb time. In truth,
small rooms don't have reverb, but rather a series of individual reflections
that can seem like reverb and can sort of be measured like reverb. The
distinction is that "reverb" in a small room never swells, it only decays.
Regardless, you can treat the decay time as RT60, measure it in third octave
bands, and use that to assess the uniformity of decay time versus frequency.

The reason it's important for the RT60 to be uniform is because a longer
time at some frequencies will give more total energy at those frequencies.
The audible effect is a boost at the frequency (bad), even though the
response might technically be flat.

--Ethan

"Ethan Winer" = over snipping ****head


** No - a good thing is to reduce all reverberation to the minimum.

Yikes, that is the worst advice I've heard come out of you yet.


** It is **expert** advice - you know nothing jerk off.


Yeah - called standing waves.

Sorry, standing waves are WAVES, not peaks and nulls.


** The peaks are nulls are *there * the room BECAUSE "standing waves"exist
at certain frequencies.

The problem is commonly referred to as "standing waves".


Written by a well meaning amateur. But full of half baked and downright
poor advice.

ROF,L.



** Worse than half baked.

Ethan Winer is HALF WITTED.



........ Phil

"Ethan Winer"

What about hanging squares of this Armstrong acoustic paneling - the
stuff
that's about 1/2" thick

That's not a good way to treat a room because thin materials absorb only
higher frequencies. The goal is to absorb uniformly over the entire range,
especially the low end. See my FAQ that Anahata was kind enough to link
above. It has exactly the advice you need.



** It is CARP advice from an ignorant fool.




........ Phil

"Ethan Winer"


Above about 300 Hz, the goal is to have a uniform reverb time.


** Pure bull****.

A fiction invented by demented Yank charlatans..



.......... Phil

Ethan Winer wrote:
Phil wrote,

Written by a well meaning amateur. But full of half baked and downright
poor advice.

ROF,L.

So where's your FAQ? :-)

--Ethan

Well, I intend to take the advice of that "well meaning amateur". He
has many good articles available with information which can be verified
empirically. I have acoustic laboratory instruments with NIST traceable
calibration and uncertainty at my disposal which allows me to verify
assertions. I'll also spare PA the trouble with the typical
non-informational, scatalogically laden responses (which can be
verified by a quick trip through google):

Bob Smith = _______________ (fill in the blank from the following)

****wit, ****head, ****head, idiot, etc. ad nauseum

There was a fellow by the name of Fletcher that used to post here. He
had a colorful posting style too, but his posts contained useful
information in addition to the colorful reparte.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

** Yawn - another Google Groups ******.


Well, I intend to take the advice of that "well meaning amateur".


** Like a prize fool.


He
has many good articles available with information which can be verified
empirically.


** Shame how the underlying assumptions have no basis.


I have acoustic laboratory instruments with NIST traceable
calibration and uncertainty at my disposal which allows me to verify
assertions.


** ROTFL !!

Whose assertions, what assertions ??

It is DUPES like YOU that keep charlatans like Winer in business.




........... Phil

In article .com,
says...
If I want to apply sound treatment in my living room, to make it a
more recording-friendly environment, is the ultimate goal to eliminate
all reverberant characteristics or not necessarily?

If I put up some recordings of hand claps and short shouts either
across the room from or from behind the mics, would it tell you
anything useful about what the room sounds like now and how seriously
in need of treatment it is?

Thanks for all assistance.


Go he http://www.auralex.com

Use their Personalized Room Analysis Form or Interactive Kit Calculator.
Buy what it says. Stick it on the walls. Works really well, looks great.
Check out their window solutions too.

Pip pip
--
Chris Notton
Replace "nospam" with my surname to reply by email
Sostituisca il "nospam" con il mio cognome per rispondere
}////(*

Where I'm situated, noise isn't a huge factor.


** Then neither is reverb - you ****ING IDIOT.

Not a Dale Carnegie devotee I take it.


** Seeing as I'm neither trying to sell anything or control people it
matters not.


Folks, I do believe the air has long ago gone stale in this guy's attic.


** Well, if you can happily tolerate the sound of barking dogs,
lawnmowers, trucks, motorbikes, jet aircraft, screaming kids, rain & thunder
etc as "effects " on your * rustic recordings* then a TINY bit of room
revere is no issue at ALL.

Is it ?



......... Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

Folks, I do believe the air has long ago gone stale in this guy's attic.


** Well, if you can happily tolerate the sound of barking dogs,
lawnmowers, trucks, motorbikes, jet aircraft, screaming kids, rain &
thunder
etc as "effects " on your * rustic recordings* then a TINY bit of room
revere is no issue at ALL.

Most people would notice that in the recording I posted there's no evidence
of the sounds of dogs, heavy machinery, etc. But I realize the voices in
your head make it hard for you to discern much of anything.

The only noise at the moment are the ramblings of a dip**** from down under.
However, this shall be remedied forthwith.

Asshat filter applied.

*plonk*