DIY acoustic treatment can go quite a long way, however, most hobbyists and home-studio owners don't seem to want to sacrifice the necessary space to truly tackle their low-end issues. Rockwool (Safe n' Sound or similar) does a great job of handling everything from maybe 80Hz and above.. given 6 to 10" of depth. In order to truly hit the lowest octaves: fluffy pink insulation (R20 or similar) is actually far more effective, however, it requires thicknesses more like 15" or thicker to get the job done. Corners initially (vertical and horizontal), and likely more. It tends to be more work, cost, and space than most home recording folks are willing to sacrifice for a truly honest listening environment. The trade off is more trips to the car haha.
Thanks for the video; but the test is very flawed and misleading to people who might not know what they need. With acoustic treatment for rehearsal rooms, mix rooms, etc. -- we're not looking for sound ISOLATION, and that is precisely what you've tested; by measuring what sound goes THROUGH (or doesn't go through) the treatment. We are normally looking for minimising reverberation, reflections. This can only be measured from the same side as the speaker -- not from the other side of the treatment you're applying. Measuring as in your video, the "result" will always be quite striking, making some believe that a similarly "good" result will be achieved for their room when hanging this stuff on the walls. Thinking this way, people start hanging layers of old towels on walls, because they saw an identical test on YT where it purely showed isolation -- and tried to convince people that it's good for acoustic treatment. Which might be, of course -- but that's something completely different, and has little to do with the test you've presented. A cool comparison would be if you put the mic (or two mics, or something omnidirectional) in your target listening position, the speakers placed where they normally are, and take on and off the various acoustic treatment you have. Now that's useful, practical, and shows the actual results!
Thank you for watching and for your detailed feedback! I appreciate your perspective on the differences between sound isolation and acoustic treatment. In the video where I build these panels, I actually conducted the test you're describing. My goal for this test was to illustrate the dramatic difference in effectiveness of absorbing sound between acoustic foam and rockwool. Nowhere in the video do I suggest that this setup is intended for soundproofing. But it’s worth mentioning that rockwool is commonly used in home construction and is effective in reducing sound transfer between rooms, making it a versatile material for both acoustic treatment (Hung on walls/ceilings) and sound isolation (when used in the construction stage.) All the walls/ceilings in my recording/mixing rooms are filled with it. What sound doesn't pass through the panel from the speaker is absorbed, illustrating which frequency areas the treatment will affect. In short, high frequencies are more easily absorbed, while lower frequencies take much more insulation to absorb. The test shows this, albeit crude. Your suggestion for a comparison with mics in a target listening position is a great idea, and I'll consider incorporating that into future videos. Thanks again for your input!
@@LearnAudioEngineering Hey, thanks for following up! I do like this test, and it's awesome to hear you've done (and are planning to do) other stuff like this. I have been following your channel for this reason for quite a while, and I enjoy your semi-casual takes on these matters a lot. Was not my intention to be condescending in any way! I guess what rubbed me the wrong way is this video's title, combined with your very first words: "we're going to be comparing the effectiveness of different types of acoustic treatment", after which you continue to demonstrate the absorption/isolation. For a person looking for basic info on how to treat their room acoustically, this might be misleading, possibly. It's rather easy to see/hear this and think this will translate 1:1 to a better acoustic treatment e.g. for mixing -- which it might, of course, but that doesn't seem to be the purpose of the video. Looking forward to upcoming stuff like this :)
Yeah, thats fair. I really appreciate the feedback and will design a more accurate test in the future. I mainly just wanted to show how much foam sucks for acoustics, but maybe theres better ways to do that. Thanks for keeping me honest. I appreciate the support. :D
@@dalizoomwhile I do get what you are trying to say.. in principle, this video does still perfectly illustrate the range of frequencies within which any of the shown options will be effective. Your assertion that the microphones need to be 'on the same side as the sound source' seems to miss what I think the video is trying to demonstrate. I don't think @LearnAudioEngineering was trying to show what the room would sound like if you used a specific type of treatment. I took the test to be a demonstration of which frequencies each material/thickness would have an effect on. Obviously, one could get far more into the weeds with this subject. For instance, sound that encounters a wall mounted panel will actually pass through the absorptive material twice before reaching the listener's ear (once as it hits the panel, and a second time as it reflects off of the solid wall surface and passes back out toward the room). This effectively doubles the absorption of a panel at any given frequency (Moreso if the panel is spaced away from the wall). That said, if something like acoustic foam (which is mostly useless for studio treatment) only absorbs something like 5% of the sound energy at 1kHz.. doubling that effectiveness is still basically nothing. I tend to consider an absorption coefficient of anything less than 0.4 to indicate a material is NOT effective at that given frequency. [For reference, my mix-room measures +/- 3~4dB below 100Hz and +/- 1.5~2.5dB above 100Hz...before the room correction (Trinnov) is applied. With the Trinnov active, the room measures something like +/- 2.5dB below 100Hz and +/- 1.5dB above 100Hz]
@@stringsdiezel oh yeah, absolutely agree. The video shows important things for sure, but what I missed there (in the beginning, ideally, or in the title/description) was the actual point/purpose. You and me, we can get the right information from this video due to our experience and/or knowledge; but I'm guessing a lot of people who are starting out or planning their first treatment -- might get the "wrong" conclusions from this. Although honestly, they will probably do good if they just avoid the foam and get some of the stuff presented in the video :)
DIY acoustic treatment can go quite a long way, however, most hobbyists and home-studio owners don't seem to want to sacrifice the necessary space to truly tackle their low-end issues.
Rockwool (Safe n' Sound or similar) does a great job of handling everything from maybe 80Hz and above.. given 6 to 10" of depth.
In order to truly hit the lowest octaves: fluffy pink insulation (R20 or similar) is actually far more effective, however, it requires thicknesses more like 15" or thicker to get the job done. Corners initially (vertical and horizontal), and likely more.
It tends to be more work, cost, and space than most home recording folks are willing to sacrifice for a truly honest listening environment.
The trade off is more trips to the car haha.
Eggggggggggcellent!
Yo, good to see ya! thanks for watching
Although foams are not great, this test was even more so unfair towards them as they were too small in area. It's not just about thickness.
Thanks for the video; but the test is very flawed and misleading to people who might not know what they need.
With acoustic treatment for rehearsal rooms, mix rooms, etc. -- we're not looking for sound ISOLATION, and that is precisely what you've tested; by measuring what sound goes THROUGH (or doesn't go through) the treatment. We are normally looking for minimising reverberation, reflections. This can only be measured from the same side as the speaker -- not from the other side of the treatment you're applying.
Measuring as in your video, the "result" will always be quite striking, making some believe that a similarly "good" result will be achieved for their room when hanging this stuff on the walls. Thinking this way, people start hanging layers of old towels on walls, because they saw an identical test on YT where it purely showed isolation -- and tried to convince people that it's good for acoustic treatment. Which might be, of course -- but that's something completely different, and has little to do with the test you've presented.
A cool comparison would be if you put the mic (or two mics, or something omnidirectional) in your target listening position, the speakers placed where they normally are, and take on and off the various acoustic treatment you have. Now that's useful, practical, and shows the actual results!
Thank you for watching and for your detailed feedback!
I appreciate your perspective on the differences between sound isolation and acoustic treatment. In the video where I build these panels, I actually conducted the test you're describing.
My goal for this test was to illustrate the dramatic difference in effectiveness of absorbing sound between acoustic foam and rockwool.
Nowhere in the video do I suggest that this setup is intended for soundproofing. But it’s worth mentioning that rockwool is commonly used in home construction and is effective in reducing sound transfer between rooms, making it a versatile material for both acoustic treatment (Hung on walls/ceilings) and sound isolation (when used in the construction stage.) All the walls/ceilings in my recording/mixing rooms are filled with it.
What sound doesn't pass through the panel from the speaker is absorbed, illustrating which frequency areas the treatment will affect. In short, high frequencies are more easily absorbed, while lower frequencies take much more insulation to absorb. The test shows this, albeit crude.
Your suggestion for a comparison with mics in a target listening position is a great idea, and I'll consider incorporating that into future videos.
Thanks again for your input!
@@LearnAudioEngineering Hey, thanks for following up! I do like this test, and it's awesome to hear you've done (and are planning to do) other stuff like this. I have been following your channel for this reason for quite a while, and I enjoy your semi-casual takes on these matters a lot. Was not my intention to be condescending in any way!
I guess what rubbed me the wrong way is this video's title, combined with your very first words: "we're going to be comparing the effectiveness of different types of acoustic treatment", after which you continue to demonstrate the absorption/isolation. For a person looking for basic info on how to treat their room acoustically, this might be misleading, possibly. It's rather easy to see/hear this and think this will translate 1:1 to a better acoustic treatment e.g. for mixing -- which it might, of course, but that doesn't seem to be the purpose of the video. Looking forward to upcoming stuff like this :)
Yeah, thats fair. I really appreciate the feedback and will design a more accurate test in the future.
I mainly just wanted to show how much foam sucks for acoustics, but maybe theres better ways to do that. Thanks for keeping me honest. I appreciate the support. :D
@@dalizoomwhile I do get what you are trying to say.. in principle, this video does still perfectly illustrate the range of frequencies within which any of the shown options will be effective. Your assertion that the microphones need to be 'on the same side as the sound source' seems to miss what I think the video is trying to demonstrate.
I don't think @LearnAudioEngineering was trying to show what the room would sound like if you used a specific type of treatment. I took the test to be a demonstration of which frequencies each material/thickness would have an effect on.
Obviously, one could get far more into the weeds with this subject. For instance, sound that encounters a wall mounted panel will actually pass through the absorptive material twice before reaching the listener's ear (once as it hits the panel, and a second time as it reflects off of the solid wall surface and passes back out toward the room). This effectively doubles the absorption of a panel at any given frequency (Moreso if the panel is spaced away from the wall).
That said, if something like acoustic foam (which is mostly useless for studio treatment) only absorbs something like 5% of the sound energy at 1kHz.. doubling that effectiveness is still basically nothing.
I tend to consider an absorption coefficient of anything less than 0.4 to indicate a material is NOT effective at that given frequency.
[For reference, my mix-room measures +/- 3~4dB below 100Hz and +/- 1.5~2.5dB above 100Hz...before the room correction (Trinnov) is applied.
With the Trinnov active, the room measures something like +/- 2.5dB below 100Hz and +/- 1.5dB above 100Hz]
@@stringsdiezel oh yeah, absolutely agree. The video shows important things for sure, but what I missed there (in the beginning, ideally, or in the title/description) was the actual point/purpose.
You and me, we can get the right information from this video due to our experience and/or knowledge; but I'm guessing a lot of people who are starting out or planning their first treatment -- might get the "wrong" conclusions from this. Although honestly, they will probably do good if they just avoid the foam and get some of the stuff presented in the video :)