Recording & Mixing Studio in Argentina
Posted: Tue, 2020-Jul-14, 00:01
I'm a little slow here: sorry about that!ericwisgikl wrote:Source of the post Thank you Stuart!Soundman2020 wrote:Source of the post I can probably help you with that.
I'll appreciate that very much. The cloud I'm planning to do is about 3.2 m. length, by 3.3 m. width, with the "front" part angled back, and the "back" part, less angled, and almost against the ceiling. Here go some preliminar drawings.
That's a pretty big cloud! If you have it hard backed, by estimator says the total weight will be around 250 kg. With no hard back, it comes down to around 120 kg. That assumes you build it with 2x4s, for a thickness of about 90mm. You could go with 1x6 instead for about the same weight (125 kg), and you'd get 140mm thick.
Anyway, that's just rough estimation... a lot depends on the internal design. But whichever way you look at it, it's going to be fairy heavy.
Ok. Sure it'll be simpler. Do you mean these corners?
If you do use plastic on those, it would have to be very thin: painter's drop sheet would be good. If not, you run the risk of getting high frequency reflections back to the mix position.By the way, I'm planning the other treatment for the room. On the side wall panels, I'll use 10 cm. thick 30 kg/m3 fiberglass. Then, if needed, I'll put some plastic on it, or not. We'll see.
Yup! You mean something like the photos higher up, of the studio I mentioned before? That's what I would do. Consider the LeanFuser for that rear wall: they work very well, and because they are fractal, they cover a broad range of frequencies. Also, I would consider going a bit thicker than 40cm in the rear center: I suspect you'll need more like 50, maybe even 55.On the rear wall I was thinking hangers could be a great option, beside the diffusor, which isn't designed yet. Rear wall treatment would be 40 cm. thick at midpoint, and thicker at corners.
Well, that's a "rule of thumb". There's some leeway with that, for adjustment, depending on the what you do with that depth. Minimum useful depth is around 0.06, yes (1/16 wavelength), but more is better: 0.13 is good (1/8 wavelength), assuming plain absorption. But you can get away with less depth if you also include limp membrane traps or other tuned devicesI read somewhere here in the forum that rear wall treatment has to be 0.07 the lowest axial mode wavelength. In that case, being 5.17 m. my length, it is supposed to be 0.72 m. the minimum thick I should take.
As much area as possible, but generally you can go thinner in the middle... especially if you use some tricks to scatter the very low end (somthing like bass diffusion, but not really diffusion...)But does it applies to hole rear wall treatment or just corners? I have to get a well treated rear wall losing the less posible space. If the hole treatment has to be that thick, I'll be losing some room, but i'll be ok anyway.
Personally, I'd go for the extra space in the room! Decreasing the MSM gap to get more room length can be a good thing, as it will drive the lowest mode down lower still in frequency... but it's also a bad thing, because it will drive the lowest mode down lower still in frequency... Modal support down low is a good thing, but lower frequencies are harder to damp...Beside, there is some room I maybe could take from the air gap of the MSM isolation system, which is greater in the back wall only in order to go ahead with room ratio, but reading Stuart's post about ratios, I think it won't harm getting a little out of my "perfect" ratio and wining some room. The room will still be into good dimensions, wouldn't it? What do you think? Keep exact ratio? Get some extra room?
- Stuart -