Well I would have to build all the panels. The truth is that I’m actually really happy with my room and I can mix perfectly fine and record great sounding songs in it. This is another great example of why you don’t necessarily need to go over the top with acoustic treatment. Maybe one day I’ll take the time and money to build these out for right now. My personal Studio is fine just the way it is.
Thanks for the in-depth explanation and math. I've built really large and heavy 40hz diaphragmatic absorbers using math from this video. It's really made a measurable difference. However, I see almost everyone recommend 12-24 inches of rockwool in the corner and calling it a day. I've used and compared both methods in my room and the diaphragmatic absorbers make a noticeable difference while the rockwool in the corner did almost nothing. Why does everyone recommend rockwool in the corners? Are they uninformed and just repeating everything they've heard from other RUclips channels (who probably got their information from other RUclips channels)? Your channel is only 1 of 3-4 others that state rockwool won't absorb lower frequencies and that you need pressure-based absorbers. Your channel is also one of only a handful that provides the math and tools to back up the information. Just a question because I keep seeing almost everyone recommending rockwool all over the room to absorb lower frequencies and that anyone that disagrees with that doesn't know what they are talking about. I very much appreciate the information you've provided as it has really pushed my ability to mix accurately forward.
That is so great to hear! Well, there are a lot of philosophies out there on the Internet. The main problem is that diaphragmatic absorbers have a very narrow Q so you really can only treat a few frequencies and the absorber take up a lot of space. This being said you might get a more even response in your room by just using insulation. Also, the air gap behind the insulation can help treat lower frequencies because of the wavelength rule. The funny thing is no one is absolutely wrong or absolutely right the more I learn about acoustics the more I learn about physics and are on human psychology.
This seems extremely counterintuitive to use a thick piece of very rigid plywood for this type of absorber? In my mind, I'm thinking about something that has a lot of flexibility in order to vibrate with the room mode. It seems like rigid plywood would just reflect, doesn't it?
I like your presentation, and subscribed. In the formula is the M the actual weight of the cut to size panel on front? Please clarify. If using 1/8" MDF on back it will also have a flexure and natural frequency. Will the front and back interfere with each other? Is thicker material for the back okay? Thanks!
So if I understand this right it’s like just a normal membrane absorber. What I’m still Tran to figure out is the math behind this. If you use a membrane that is 5kg heavy and has a width and length of 1m x 1,5m then is that the area that has to be free? Is so the I would have to have a membrane that’s 1,02m x 1,52m because still have attach that membrane to the corpus? In an acoustic book I read that the membrane shouldn’t be thicker then 5 millimetres and not heavier then 5 kg. Is that something you would say is correct? Thanks in advance. I’ll try this out.
Hi, please help me to understand amroc calculator, at the room 3d image, does the red and blue represent the pressure zone? If they does, so i have to put the absorber on that area? Thank you
When calculating my room with amroc, the result has so many modes, even the axial mode has so many frequency results. How you sort the frequencies2 in order to make & place the diaphragmatic absorber below schroeder frequency?
If these panels are so inefficient, wouldn't it be easier to just make all your velocity traps thicker? Like 4 inch vs 8 inch? They're probably about the same efficiency at lower frequencies right?
As a hobbyist, I've found using carpet padding to be sufficient. I "sandwiched" the padding at the very top between two cheap boards, then used a screw hook and "eye" screw to dangle the absorber about an inch off of the wall. It is better than "good enough."
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
FREE Acoustic Treatment Guide: www.soundproofyourstudio.com/acoustic
Interesting video. Do you have another video showing the panels as-built and the impact of them on the measured room response after installation?
I haven’t built them myself. A lot of people also say not to use them since they are highly focused and take up a ton of space.
Excellent video, please post a follow-up showing the spectrogram before and after!
Well I would have to build all the panels. The truth is that I’m actually really happy with my room and I can mix perfectly fine and record great sounding songs in it. This is another great example of why you don’t necessarily need to go over the top with acoustic treatment. Maybe one day I’ll take the time and money to build these out for right now. My personal Studio is fine just the way it is.
Immensely useful and much awaited video 😊😊😊❤
So glad!
Thanks for the in-depth explanation and math. I've built really large and heavy 40hz diaphragmatic absorbers using math from this video. It's really made a measurable difference. However, I see almost everyone recommend 12-24 inches of rockwool in the corner and calling it a day. I've used and compared both methods in my room and the diaphragmatic absorbers make a noticeable difference while the rockwool in the corner did almost nothing. Why does everyone recommend rockwool in the corners? Are they uninformed and just repeating everything they've heard from other RUclips channels (who probably got their information from other RUclips channels)? Your channel is only 1 of 3-4 others that state rockwool won't absorb lower frequencies and that you need pressure-based absorbers. Your channel is also one of only a handful that provides the math and tools to back up the information. Just a question because I keep seeing almost everyone recommending rockwool all over the room to absorb lower frequencies and that anyone that disagrees with that doesn't know what they are talking about. I very much appreciate the information you've provided as it has really pushed my ability to mix accurately forward.
That is so great to hear! Well, there are a lot of philosophies out there on the Internet. The main problem is that diaphragmatic absorbers have a very narrow Q so you really can only treat a few frequencies and the absorber take up a lot of space. This being said you might get a more even response in your room by just using insulation. Also, the air gap behind the insulation can help treat lower frequencies because of the wavelength rule. The funny thing is no one is absolutely wrong or absolutely right the more I learn about acoustics the more I learn about physics and are on human psychology.
Congratulations!!!🎉 clear explanation a guides me towards a more informed decision! tsk
Awesome! Thank you!
This seems extremely counterintuitive to use a thick piece of very rigid plywood for this type of absorber? In my mind, I'm thinking about something that has a lot of flexibility in order to vibrate with the room mode. It seems like rigid plywood would just reflect, doesn't it?
So, yes, I was right. This is the formula for limp mass membranes, not rigid plywood.
This formula was for a membrane rigid membranes. The limp mass formula is different.
Very helpful video!
Glad it was helpful!
Wow. Nothing but great information, sir. Damn fine work.
Glad it was helpful
Thanks for this video! Great content 👌
Glad you liked it!
I like your presentation, and subscribed. In the formula is the M the actual weight of the cut to size panel on front? Please clarify.
If using 1/8" MDF on back it will also have a flexure and natural frequency. Will the front and back interfere with each other? Is thicker material for the back okay?
Thanks!
Ahh, I found it. You said your OBS material was 2 PSF. Thanks!
So if I understand this right it’s like just a normal membrane absorber. What I’m still Tran to figure out is the math behind this. If you use a membrane that is 5kg heavy and has a width and length of 1m x 1,5m then is that the area that has to be free? Is so the I would have to have a membrane that’s 1,02m x 1,52m because still have attach that membrane to the corpus? In an acoustic book I read that the membrane shouldn’t be thicker then 5 millimetres and not heavier then 5 kg. Is that something you would say is correct? Thanks in advance. I’ll try this out.
What metric units would be used for the M and D figures?
Sorry I didn’t do metric. I am trying to include those more now
Hi, please help me to understand amroc calculator, at the room 3d image, does the red and blue represent the pressure zone? If they does, so i have to put the absorber on that area? Thank you
Yes, that is the idea.
When calculating my room with amroc, the result has so many modes, even the axial mode has so many frequency results.
How you sort the frequencies2 in order to make & place the diaphragmatic absorber below schroeder frequency?
If these panels are so inefficient, wouldn't it be easier to just make all your velocity traps thicker? Like 4 inch vs 8 inch? They're probably about the same efficiency at lower frequencies right?
I need to hit 49 Hz in my room, that G is rumbling like crazy, it can be also be felt at 98 Hz, could I use this scheme and tune it to 49 Hz?
It is possible for sure.
@@soundproofyourstudio i would probably have to make 10 of those until i tune it right 😂😂
As a hobbyist, I've found using carpet padding to be sufficient. I "sandwiched" the padding at the very top between two cheap boards, then used a screw hook and "eye" screw to dangle the absorber about an inch off of the wall. It is better than "good enough."
we are all laughing at you