The diagram to the right shows my room, which serves
as my studio. The dimensions seem to be bad for low frequencies and
there are sound-pressure failures at 55Hz and between 110 and 140 Hz. I
have an Auralex foam bass trap, but I don’t known if absorption is the
answer. What should I do to improve this situation?
Via SOS web site
SOS
columnist Martin Walker replies:
I agree: that’s a bad choice for a
room, dimensionally, as far as acoustics are concerned. The 2.6-metre
width and 2.5-metre height are nearly identical, while the 5.8-metre
length is close to double these, giving you a shape that’s almost two
cubes joined together. The room is also relatively small, which will
mean it’ll have relatively few modes below a few hundred hertz and, as
the dimensions are closely related to each other, these modes will pile
up at some frequencies (resulting in a huge peak), with large gaps
between them (creating big dips in the frequency response).
Room-mode
frequencies are fairly easy to calculate, but it’s even easier to plug
your three dimensions into a utility, such as the on-line MCSquared
Room Mode Calculator (www.mcsquared.com/metricmodes.htm) or the Hunecke Room Eigenmodes Calculator (www.hunecke.de/en/calculators/room-eigenmodes.html). However, if you’ve got a PC, the ModeCalc utility from Realtraps (www.realtraps.com/modecalc.htm)
is one of the easiest to use, displaying the first 16 axial modes for
each room dimension up to 500Hz in an easy-to-interpret graphics plot.
It would show that the biggest gaps in your room mode plot occur between
30 and 60 Hz (which explains your hole at 55Hz), between 70 and 90 Hz,
and again between 90 and 130 Hz (the other area you’ve already
pinpointed).
Without acoustic treatment, your
listening position will be very critical, since you can end up sitting
in a bass trough at one frequency and a huge peak at another. However,
your loudspeakers and listening position do look to be near their
optimum locations for the flattest compromise response. The oft-quoted
ideal is to place your listening position (ears!) close to 38 percent
into the room from the front wall.
Acoustic-foam
bass traps, like the one you already have, can certainly be effective,
and acoustic foam is also excellent for dealing with mid-/high-frequency
early reflections from your side walls and ceiling. However, acoustic
foam is invariably a lot less dense than the 60kg/m3 Rockwool that is
generally recommended for DIY bass traps, and you will, therefore,
require a much greater volume of it to achieve a similar amount of
absorption at lower frequencies. In a small room, you’ll simply run out
of space before you can cram in enough acoustic foam traps to
adequately deal with the problems.
Diffusion can
be a good way to ‘break up’ your reflections so they become less
troublesome, but you ideally need to be at least a couple of metres
away from them to avoid hearing a set of discrete reflections, rather
than a more diffuse soundfield, so they are not often used in small
rooms like yours. Tuned traps also have their place in the grand scheme
of things but, in my experience, tend to be more difficult to tune and
place optimally compared with broadband trapping that you simply fit
where the bass levels are loudest, so they absorb the sound more
efficiently.
Overall, I think broadband
absorption is your best bet; as much of it as you can reasonably fit
into your room. Start by placing traps that straddle the front vertical
corners of the room, then the rear vertical corners, followed by any
other corners you can manage, such as the ceiling/wall corners, and even
the floor/wall corners where feasible. Also, don’t forget some side
panels and ceiling ‘cloud’ at the ‘mirror points’ to deal with early
reflections.
No comments:
Post a Comment