ellrotts Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 Im intending on putting up a stinkload of artwork in my cave see pic. My question is, will they offer any substantial mid treble absorption when put on the walls over the existing concrete. Im happy to fill the inside of the wraps with foam or something to aid in the absorption process if need be, assuming treb wont reflect off the canvass as opposed to penetrating it and being absorbed. Thoughts appreciated.
SteveC Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) 2nd picture from the right is interesting :blink: My understanding is that unless the material is porous then no. You will only get deflection. Edited October 23, 2013 by SteveC
ellrotts Posted October 23, 2013 Author Posted October 23, 2013 2nd picture from the right is interesting :blink: My understanding is that unless the material is porous then no. You will only get deflection. yeh the place has a porny abstract look we got going on, seedy bastard lol. I wonder how low the freqs have to be to "penetrate" the canvas. Im starved for ideas on how to put up treatments that I can make that don't look utilitarian. Ive got the bass traps sorted as you can see in the corner now i need the upper end of the scale sorted out. thanks for ya input steve
metal beat Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) You will get treble absorption from the canvas paintings. I have a brick wall behind the speakers and 3 large paintings on the brick wall. You can certainly hear the difference. Makes no difference on bass thou. Edited October 23, 2013 by turntable 1
ellrotts Posted October 23, 2013 Author Posted October 23, 2013 yeh I got Bass sorted, that big black thing in the corner is a panel trap for Bass, could be considered excessive. the room has brilliant bass qualities since installing those. Would there be any measurable benefit to adding some additional absorption behind the canvas do you think?
metal beat Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 You are a lucky boy having a good room for bass. Mine is absolute ****. I would just hang the paintings first and see how they sound. If you need more absorption you can add from there.
ellrotts Posted October 23, 2013 Author Posted October 23, 2013 mine was a POS before I put the traps in. theyre bloody huge. 1800h 600w 150d. in all four corners. could be excessive but they fixed all my issues.
ArthurDent Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 With what looks like a tiled floor and low ceiling you're going to need a lot more than a few canvas pictures on the walls to tame the mid and top end as they have stuff all absorptive properties. I would also be surprised if the bass traps were enough to tame the bottom end as they're rather small. Measurements might be useful.
ellrotts Posted October 23, 2013 Author Posted October 23, 2013 look above, the measurements are there....
ArthurDent Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 Measurements of the room, ie. RT60, decay, waterfall etc.
ellrotts Posted October 24, 2013 Author Posted October 24, 2013 My understanding is we listen for audible improvements as opposed to a looking at a picture. Eg without the traps if I play a test tone and stop it it still echoed, after trapping, no echo, no boom/ bloat. I dont need a device to tell me that. I understand how they can assist in smaller percentage improvements but if you cant identify the difference with your ears.... whats the point? Im sure after seeing a 2% improvement on the analyser we would tell outselves we can hear the benefit.........
hochopeper Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 (edited) Ears are very poor at identifying the cause of an issue. With data/graphs a smart person could help you get orders of magnitude more benefit per $ than anyone could looking at a picture of the room. Didn't we have this discussion before in the thread about controlling the bass? Edited October 24, 2013 by hochopeper
ellrotts Posted October 24, 2013 Author Posted October 24, 2013 when the problem was as bad as mine, i didnt need to even hear, you could feel the issue. core filled concrete walls and floor. every frequency is gonna rebound off that.
hochopeper Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 when the problem was as bad as mine, i didnt need to even hear, you could feel the issue. core filled concrete walls and floor. every frequency is gonna rebound off that. Not when the wavelength is long when compared to the dimension of the room. Every room has a frequency where issues transition from being resonant to reflection/reverb dominant. Paul Spencer's articles on room treatment refer to it as Schroder Freq others refer to it as the Transition Freq. The construction type will change the strength/duration of the resonance. The construction type and furnishings will determine what frequencies are most absorbed. For the mid-treb absorbtion we cannot see the balance of reverb time with freq so some measurements would help to understand what freq to target with treatments and would change whether additional absorbtive material (behind the paintings perhaps) in the room will help/hinder the music.
ellrotts Posted October 24, 2013 Author Posted October 24, 2013 Im no expert, but i dont think im my situation I need to be so technical. My problems could be instantly solved with some carpet on the walls, which I dont want to do for aesthetic reasons. The speakers are very bright, the room is reflective. absorption required IMO when listening to busy music Eg rock with distorted guitar and cymbals it just fills the room up too much IMO. I need to address the 1st reflection points to tame the effect. Am I wrong?
hochopeper Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 (edited) Carpet isn't thick enough to absorb anything but high freq, often leads to a poor balance. With a couch, some pictures on the wall and rug on the floor you need to be careful not to tame too much on the high end while treating the mid. Balance of absorption in the room and early reflections are the mix to be balanced. I consider first reflections to be only part of the problem, the total reflected energy within the first 10-20ms is important, the ear/brain basically takes an integral. This is why a graph is important because we cannot best understand the freq of most concern or the durations involved to best understand how to treat the issue. Depending on the issue you might want either foam behind the paintings (which is going to struggle to be of sufficient thickness to be of much benefit to midrange I think and you'll need something dense). Or you might want something harder with a dense foam backing that's aimed at midrange like these - http://www.theloudspeakerkit.com/cosmo-midrange-acoustic-panel/ - or if you don't have sufficient furnishing that naturally absorb HF then a panel that's all foam like this http://www.theloudspeakerkit.com/6-x-pyrotek-echohush-profile-tenor/ You could arbitrarily select a solution based on what your gut (or ears) tells you but it might go too far in one freq band and not far enough in the freq band that your problems are and you could have spent the money / effort on something that targets only the problem. Edited October 24, 2013 by hochopeper 1
ellrotts Posted October 24, 2013 Author Posted October 24, 2013 ha, thats wwhat i wanted to hear. thankyou
metal beat Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 mine was a POS before I put the traps in. theyre bloody huge. 1800h 600w 150d. in all four corners. could be excessive but they fixed all my issues. As I said, you have a good room for bass I have 6 x Polymax Absorb XHD 100d x 1200w x 2400h - 3 in each two back corners and my bass is still shite :-) Excessive treble should be easy to resolve. good luck and have fun
Recommended Posts