Thinking about getting a D/A (Now More about Room Treatment)

[Phil O]

Its not only good for the environment, but great priced. I think I picked up a bundle for $125, which was 8 24x94 panels at 3.5 inches deep. The Noise Reduction Coefficient is 1.15 with better ratings at each frequency than the standard OC 703 2"...with the added benefit of no itch.

Please tell us more about the Ultratouch. Was it easy to work with? Have you seen comparisons to the OC 703 somewhere? Man, I hate working with fiberglass!

Phil

[JadeLatrell]

You can get more info here:

http://bondedlogic.com/ultratouch_tech_specs.htm

Look at the submittal sheet, it has the absorption rates.

Here is a comparision, where 1 means full absorption and +/- .15 is the error rate.

703 2"

125 .17
250 .86
500 1.14
1K 1.07
2K 1.02
4K .98
NRC 1.0

Ultratouch r-13 3.5"

125 .95
250 1.3
500 1.19
1K 1.08
2K 1.02
4K 1.0
NRC 1.15

So to compare, the Ultratouch has better low freq absorption with equal absorption above 500Hz.

Pretty slick. Again. No itch, good for the environment, and good absorption, what more could you ask for?

[Phil O]

Thanks muchly for the info. I'll check it out.

Phil

[OldTimey]

You can get more info here:

http://bondedlogic.com/ultratouch_tech_specs.htm

Look at the submittal sheet, it has the absorption rates.

Here is a comparision, where 1 means full absorption and +/- .15 is the error rate.

703 2"

125 .17
250 .86
500 1.14
1K 1.07
2K 1.02
4K .98
NRC 1.0

Ultratouch r-13 3.5"

125 .95
250 1.3
500 1.19
1K 1.08
2K 1.02
4K 1.0
NRC 1.15

So to compare, the Ultratouch has better low freq absorption with equal absorption above 500Hz.

Pretty slick. Again. No itch, good for the environment, and good absorption, what more could you ask for?

comparing 3.5 inch thick ultratouch to 2 inch thick oc 703 isnt exactly a straightforward comparison. but the non-itch factor is pretty nice. seems like it is not as rigid as fiberglass though, so cutting it into odd shapes might be a little harder. I wonder why the more popular panel makers have not ever decided to use the stuff.

I built a few panels based with some help from a member here, using rock wool, and it was pretty easy to do. I've also added, on Brad's suggestion, a few auralex lenrd bass traps in the corners of my room. vastly improved imaging, and my guitar amp has never sounded better in there!


The next step is improving the conversion going into and out of DP. I've looked at the Mytek D/A and some others. well see i guess.

[JadeLatrell]

From what I understand, when you look at the NRC's and absorption rates, you are comparing the densities, not just the thinkness. Rigid fiberglass is certainly denser and would be easier to cut into shapes, for sure. But the density of OC703 at 2" and Ultratouch at 3.5" are similar.

But then, I'm pretty new to all this. For my 16"x16" panels, I wanted them to be thinner. These were to line the front of the studio. I used 1x2's for the frame with two cross braces, and a light wire mesh to contain the insulation. Thus the insulation was compressed to just under 2" thickness. That should be a very similar density to the 703. An added benefit is that the mesh bowed out a bit and when covered with fabric, look quite nice. I dont pretend there is any deflection happening but it looks nice.

Cost, environmental, itch, and absorption, it all just makes sense for what I'm doing.

That all said, I am still going to make the corner traps from 703 in the stacked triangle cuts, so that it is similar to the LENRDs. Im wondering if shaping the face of the stacked angles (like the LENRDs) would help?

Andy

[OldTimey]

From what I understand, when you look at the NRC's and absorption rates, you are comparing the densities, not just the thinkness. Rigid fiberglass is certainly denser and would be easier to cut into shapes, for sure. But the density of OC703 at 2" and Ultratouch at 3.5" are similar.

But then, I'm pretty new to all this. For my 16"x16" panels, I wanted them to be thinner. These were to line the front of the studio. I used 1x2's for the frame with two cross braces, and a light wire mesh to contain the insulation. Thus the insulation was compressed to just under 2" thickness. That should be a very similar density to the 703. An added benefit is that the mesh bowed out a bit and when covered with fabric, look quite nice. I dont pretend there is any deflection happening but it looks nice.

Cost, environmental, itch, and absorption, it all just makes sense for what I'm doing.

That all said, I am still going to make the corner traps from 703 in the stacked triangle cuts, so that it is similar to the LENRDs. Im wondering if shaping the face of the stacked angles (like the LENRDs) would help?

Andy

sure if compressed to 2'' that makes sense. The panels i made are 4'' thick with an inch of air behind them, and they work well.

i dont know that cutting ridges in the fiberglass for your bass traps like the lenrds have would make that big of a difference, but it would increase the total surface area exposed to air. whether that is worth the trouble of all the extra cuts in the fiberglass is totally up to you.

Gik acoustics makes bass triangular shaped bass traps out of fiber glass or mineral wool, and they don't cut grooves into them. so you should get good results either way.

[JadeLatrell]

Old Timey,

Once you made the traps, what did you do to measure the room and their effectiveness?

a.

[OldTimey]

Old Timey,

Once you made the traps, what did you do to measure the room and their effectiveness?

a.

well, subjectively, i know the room sounds better. the bass and low mid range, to my ears, is much less smeared. i can pick out the bass drum much more easily on commercial recordings, and the bass on a lot of what i felt were bass heavy recordings before sound a lot more controlled.

objectively, i took a sine wave generator, and tested the freq response of the room and compared it to results without treatment. while the response isn't flat, the differences between the nulls and the resonances is smaller. the comb filtering i was experiencing from 200-300hz is all but taken care of.

i dont have an expensive omni measurement mic or spectrum analysis software. but the room sounds better, and certain tests show that the treatment is working.

bottom line, i think my mixes will improve because of it.

[James Steele]

All of this is making my head hurt and depressing me... LOL. I was fairly happy with what I was hearing in my room, but it is not treated. I can't give you exactly dimensions at the moment... probably something like 13 x 14 or something. But I had things sounding OK, I thought. Then I rearranged my studio. I came across a deal for an Argosy Dual 15 desk on craigslist and bought it and set it up. I still haven't rewired much of my gear. Any way, it looks great, but now things sound different. I used to have my monitors on stands, now they sit on the desk. I got the Auralex MoPads thinking that would help.

What happened with the change is that suddenly things sounded bassy and smeared. I got fed up and I adusted the LF trim down 1db on my ASP8s. This of course is totally unscientific but I couldn't stand what had "happened" when I changed things around. Now I don't even know where to start but things don't sound as good and frankly I'm depressed about it as I feel completely clueless and don't know where to start. I have tons of Aurlaex 2" studio foam and could start putting that up, but it would be random.

Geez... I don't know what it would cost me to hire someone, but I feel lost and frankly bummed out as I wanted to make music not have some huge science project.

[Phil O]

Geez... I don't know what it would cost me to hire someone, but I feel lost and frankly bummed out as I wanted to make music not have some huge science project.

Unfortunately, sometimes setting up a room is a science project. But don't get bummed out, even if you don't approach it scientifically, trial and error CAN work. Even the best designed rooms often need trial and error tweaking in the end. Try to figure out what changed and work on that first. Perhaps there's a way to get those monitors back on their stands or something similar. I've found that with treatment, it sometimes works in places where you'd least expect it. So "random" might not be a bad place to start.

I have three bits of advice. Don't give up, don't give up, and don't give up. Er, make that four...and don't let it bum you out.

Phil

[JadeLatrell]

There ares some hard and fast rules that (well, soft and speed limit rules) can elliminate some of the confusion.

Start with the tri corners. Bass loves to hang out in those ceiling corners.
Go to the back wall next, then front wall.

It really is more confusing that it ought to be, and once you get down to it, not as bad as you thought.

I simply made the traps and put them up in the room where I knew I was supposed to. Corners, front, back, and then at the sides just in front of where the monitors go (there was a simple calc for this).

Also, if you can get your mixing position to be 38% back from the front of the room, that can help drastically. It may mean some space between the desk and the wall (a good place for monitor stands) but it will help.

It doenst have to be voodoo. But all the home theater audiophiles would like to keep it in the realm of black magik.

Andy

[Phil O]

I simply made the traps and put them up in the room where I knew I was supposed to. Corners, front, back, and then at the sides just in front of where the monitors go (there was a simple calc for this).

I have two rooms and although I started out like this, things ended up where they WEREN'T supposed to be. Go figure. Your advice is indeed good, but I guess the point I was trying to make to James was that it's OK to experiment.
James, you'd be wise to take Andy's approach first.

Phil

[JadeLatrell]

This is a delicate balance between science and needing to be practical. Often, we are dealing with non-ideal situations to begin with so it's tough to make things perfect. We strive for perfect, but often settle for, better than it was.

Phil is totally right in that it is a science. There is formulas and terms that make my head spin. Since we are not (often) building from scratch, sometimes we are renting, sometimes we have to weigh spending $$ on gear vs. spending money on diapers, and almost always, room treatment is less sexy than gear, we have to do the best with what we've got.

Another thing you can do, if you build or buy some traps, is just set them on the floor against the wall for a while and see how they work. You may want to slide them over or play with the positioning.

I hooked up a mic (an Earthworks TC25) to Fuzzmeasure and took some readings. Moved something, and tried it again, moved it back, and tried it again.

I think both Phil and I are trying to say, dont get overwhelmed with the details. Do a couple simple things first, and then see what you've got.

Perhaps tonio will chime back in, he has a good handle on this.

[OldTimey]

Geez... I don't know what it would cost me to hire someone, but I feel lost and frankly bummed out as I wanted to make music not have some huge science project.

If i recall from some of your previous posts, you have someone up in LA handle most of your mixes...since this is the case, it is not 100% important to have a flat listening environment. Don't get too caught up with it unless you choose to start actually mixing serious stuff in your room. Instead focus on getting A) your signal path sounding good, and B) treating the room so that your guitar cabinet/vocal mics/ etc sound good.

In a small room like mine, all i can do is "deaden" the sound completely, and then use high end verb plugs to instill ambiance... it is a trade off.

you may even be able to get by using EQ on your monitors...again because you have your stuff mixed in a nice room up north...

[Tonio]

I Agree w/ Old Timey, no sense in diving into Science if your not mixing.
Though if it sounds muddy and smeared, its not exactly enjoyable to playback the source. Also it could result to poor tracks.
I would try to analize the difference.
e.g. Are you sitting in the same spot as before? Are the monitors at different height & distance to front wall and /or each other?MIx position @ 38% from front wall is a good starting point-you've been studying eh Andy?
Another thing is that the height (woofer center) should not be within 8" of
the room height center.

James you might be sitting in a mode somewhere around 100- 500hz. If you can get a pink noise or sinusoidal wave and go up the range, and simple listen for a drop or peak in any freq. That will tell what to deal with.

It could be as simple as moving forward or backward a foot or two.
I've read that the ASP8's stereo field colapses when they are too close to each other, so might want to check your equalateral positioning also.