Cheap Room Treatment

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Bernard

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
4,475
Reaction score
22
Location
Ottawa, Canada
I wanted to break up the wave hitting the wall behind my SL3, and did not want to spend a pile of cash, so I took some swimming pool noodles, covered them in fabric that I bought from the company that supplies Tube Traps, and velcroed them to the wall, three behind each speaker, about 2 inches apart. I noticed a definite clarity in female vocals and the higher instruments. Unfortunately I do not have a good picture and cannot take one right now as my listening room is in transition.
 
These are favorites with the Maggie folks. They take 3 or 4 of them, attach them to a stand with dowel at the bottom and locate them behind the speakers at different distances until they find a good location for their room and setup. The noodles are acting more as a diffraction enhancement then absorption.
 
The noodles are acting more as a diffraction enhancement then absorption.

Correct me if I wrong Dan, but that is what we want behind our di-pole speakers, except or maybe bass traps in the corners, so I was led to believe. The amount would be relative to the distance from the wall behind and the type of surface it is.
 
Correct me if I wrong Dan, but that is what we want behind our di-pole speakers, except or maybe bass traps in the corners, so I was led to believe. The amount would be relative to the distance from the wall behind and the type of surface it is.
Depends on the room, depends on the individual. Some like diffusion behind their speakers, some like absorption. Some like a little of both. It is a trial and error effort.

But Bass Traps in the corners, starting with them at ear level if limited, but ultimately from floor to ceiling is the best. Some will use a panel at ear level, then corner treatments above and below.

I have used GIK panels from floor to ceiling in my room in the four corners along with acoustical cotton (5.5" thick) filling in the floor joists above the dropped ceiling. I concentrated my cotton additions in the corners, along ceiling/wall seam areas, and then in the rest of the ceiling with what I had left. This made the ceiling area one very large bass trap and quite WAF friendly.
 
DTB,
What you did to your ceiling is just standard sound absorbancy. 5.5 inches of cotton batting agains a solid surface is about as effective as 2.5 inches with a 3 inch gap to the solid surface.
a Bass trap on the other hand is made from material similar to peg board. basically a sheet of wood with holes in it, with something absorbant behind (fibreglass is best for turning the sound energy into heat) (which is what happens when you absorb sound). The theory goes something like this: Bass sound waves are HUGE, 20 or 30 feet long in some cases, while hi frequencies are very, very short. so what happens with bass and 5.5 inches of any material is very little, the big wave goes straight through, bounces off the wall and comes back unchanged. but, if they hit a hard surface with holes, some of the energized air goes through the holes, reflects off whatever is behind then only by chance can it get back through the holes and into the listening space. hence the name: Bass Trap. a thick rubber membrane against the wall is also very good at reducing bass energy, it has some "give" in it and moves slightly, turning some of the bass energy into movement. sp,e people incorporate the peg board thing with the rubber thing for increased bass absorbtion.
This short paragraph is vastly simplified, by the way.
happy tuning.
 
DTB,
What you did to your ceiling is just standard sound absorbancy. 5.5 inches of cotton batting agains a solid surface is about as effective as 2.5 inches with a 3 inch gap to the solid surface.
I never said it was 5.5 inches against a solid surface.....

My joist space is about 9" total from floor to drop ceiling. So "technically" I have about 3" behind the cotton to the ridgid suface of the floor above as the cotton sits right against the ceiling tiles. While 5.5 inches is not really what one needs (probably more in the area of 12"-16" is required) but something is better than nothing.

The absorption ratings of the cotton is very close to that of the very common rigid fiberglass and mineral wool, but without the iching and scratching you get from the fibers. Ratings are out there to view.

And according to the frequency response testing I did, the cotton did some improvements - not GRAND mind you, but a slight improvement - and every little bit helps.

a Bass trap on the other hand is made from material similar to peg board. basically a sheet of wood with holes in it, with something absorbant behind (fibreglass is best for turning the sound energy into heat) (which is what happens when you absorb sound).
The resonance tuned traps you speak of are used by some people out there. Some use FRK, some use a type of covering or membrane to assist with reflection of the mids and highs and to also help with the returning wave, then there are the resonance tuned traps you speak of which can be tuned for a more specific frequency if you wish.

The theory goes something like this: Bass sound waves are HUGE, 20 or 30 feet long in some cases, while hi frequencies are very, very short. so what happens with bass and 5.5 inches of any material is very little, the big wave goes straight through, bounces off the wall and comes back unchanged. but, if they hit a hard surface with holes, some of the energized air goes through the holes, reflects off whatever is behind then only by chance can it get back through the holes and into the listening space.
Thanks for the basics of sound waves instruction....

Going through and back does not happen unchanged, there is some absorption happening, how much is not as great as a thicker or denser product, or ones like the resonance tuned traps you keep referring to. But there is some absorption occuring with the changing of energy into heat as you noted.

Again, this resonance trap you are refering to, is usually used with a solid piece of wood with a space between it and then the absoption material. These can be "tuned" based on the materials used on the front of the panel.

a thick rubber membrane against the wall is also very good at reducing bass energy, it has some "give" in it and moves slightly, turning some of the bass energy into movement. sp,e people incorporate the peg board thing with the rubber thing for increased bass absorbtion.
This short paragraph is vastly simplified, by the way.
Just thick rubber by itself really does not acomplish much, but with something else used with or in layers (wood, metal, etc has been used), as used in some studios or testing facilities can accomplish a great amount of absoption.

But us poor audiophiles in small room, without the ability to build brand new walls with the proper abosoprtion and design are limited to the bass trapping with product like rigid fiberglass, mineral wool, and acoutical cotton. We need to use it in many places to gain the same improvments in our rooms due to the inability to have walls or the entire room designed properly for this.

We also do not have the ability to take up 12-16" sticking out taking up valuable living space around the room, or even the extra sizes with the tuned traps. And unfortunately most of us have our setup in living areas and not dedicated rooms. With a dedicated rooms, better acoustic treatments and room construction can occur giving better results.

But the results in my room with the GIK products, first reflection point treatment, and the addition of the acoustical cotton above the ceiling is more than a slight improvement in sound and it was also measurable to show the differences.

So while there is always better, what some of us have used from either GIK or Real Traps, works for our applications and room limitations. And if you REALLY do not think their products have any benefit at all, I suggest you get in contact with Ethan or Glenn to dispute the products as false advertising.
 
Last edited:
DBT, in 20 years of live audio, hi-end custom home and comercial theater performance spaces and countless other such projects, I learned 1 thing... and before I say what it was, I would like to say that GIK make excellent products, I have used them myself on numerous jobs, so do countless other companies that do variations on the same theme. I would also like to apologize for making assumptions on your ceiling solution, and making any attempt to educate you in something you clearly know something about.
What i learned was this: not everyone hears things the same. Not everyone wants to hear things the same, that's why there are a squillion loudspeaker speaker manufacturesr (and only 4 or so main driver manufacturesr) Not everyone has the same budget or are fortunate enough to have a dedicated listening room... I learned that when someone is happy with the way things sound, then the correct solution has been found.
As I'm sure you know, the field of acoustics and psycoacoustics can't be boiled down in a few sentences, and there's a zillion ways to set up a sound system and come away extremely happy with the results... Next time i leap into a thread, i will look into the poster's previous posts so I don't come off sounding like some knucklehead teaching his granny to suck eggs. (I hope that phrase translates and doesn't cause offence to any grannies, or eggs who may be reading).
 
. . . . . . and if the noodles are the ones with the holes in the middle, slice the left overs into 5" lengths and thread them over your speaker cables. They make great cable lifters!
 
DBT, in 20 years of live audio, hi-end custom home and comercial theater performance spaces and countless other such projects, I learned 1 thing... and before I say what it was, I would like to say that GIK make excellent products, I have used them myself on numerous jobs, so do countless other companies that do variations on the same theme. I would also like to apologize for making assumptions on your ceiling solution, and making any attempt to educate you in something you clearly know something about.
Not a problem on the assumption, I just wanted to make it clear to others who may be reading, that I tried very hard to keep a gap between the cotton and the floor above. Like you probably already know the gap really helps with any absorption properties the item you are using may have.

Yeah I know that there may be better solutions out there, but I wanted to give the cotton a try as panels in my room. I ended up liking the GIK and Mineral Wool better, so instead of throw it away, I decided to put it up in the ceiling joist gap. Since I basically listen in a cement bunker :) in my partial basement, any additional broadband absorption I could add would be a benefit.

What i learned was this: not everyone hears things the same.
How very true. Thank goodness we have so many different pieces of equipment to help tune our setups to our liking. As we know there are many here who love the sound of tubes, some who love the sound of Class A SS, some who love vinyl, some who love digital. There is something for everyone out there to reach their nirvana.

Not everyone wants to hear things the same, that's why there are a squillion loudspeaker speaker manufacturesr (and only 4 or so main driver manufacturesr) Not everyone has the same budget or are fortunate enough to have a dedicated listening room...
Boy, wish I did have a dedicated room, but I have what I have, and I get some pretty good sound from the limitations presented to me. Could it sound better. Hell yeah it could.

I learned that when someone is happy with the way things sound, then the correct solution has been found. As I'm sure you know, the field of acoustics and psycoacoustics can't be boiled down in a few sentences, and there's a zillion ways to set up a sound system and come away extremely happy with the results...
Unfortunately room acoustics and treatment is very new, and the mass of audiophiles out there either are scared of the addition, or just do not believe it. I am a FIRM believe in acoustic treatment, no matter what level you decide to do. Now there are many very POOR products out there to make people think they are great, but they are nothing but money sucking items. Look for people with some independant testing to show how good their products are and people that are also willing to help you out with your quest.

Next time i leap into a thread, i will look into the poster's previous posts so I don't come off sounding like some knucklehead teaching his granny to suck eggs. (I hope that phrase translates and doesn't cause offence to any grannies, or eggs who may be reading).
My granny is now very p*issed off. No just kidding.... If you are familiar with room acoustics, treatments, and helping the sound of our setups get better, please hang around, and post with some of your knowledge. I have been very interested in room treatments and acoustics for a few years now, but I learn something new everyday. Passing on what you know sure would help out all the members of this forum.

Dan
 
Acoustics is really a black art. Meaning the truth behind it is hidden (or being hidden). And the truth is that we don’t currently know enough to call it a science. People who claim to be all knowing are full of it.

However we do know that reflections will combine at different points and frequencies in the room to add and subtract in amplitude (room nodes). The goal of course is to minimize this behavior. Diffusion attempts to spread the sound evenly so that waves won’t interact so dramatically. Absorption helps by subtraction. Speaker placement will make the biggest difference because they are the source of the reflected waves.

Smaart 6 is a great tool for quantifying the results of your acoustic treatment and speaker placement. Of course you will need a PC to run it on and a (reasonable quality) measurement mic. You can download it and use it free for 30 days here:

http://www.eaw.com/products/software/EAWSmaart/

It is a fact that early reflections that arrive at your ears within about 20 milliseconds (20 foot delay) of the primary wave will not sound like reflections (echos) but will distort clarity and (dis)color the sound. I have found that it is best (imperative) to do IR (impulse response) testing before anything else. This test gives you an idea of what and where the reflections are. Minimize those first by speaker and furniture placement. Then move on to diffusion and lastly absorption.

It is an iterative process of measurement, treatment, listening and finally settling for close enough. It is likely that your floor and ceiling just in front of your speakers will be the biggest source of reflections and also the most difficult to ‘fix’. There is no way to get it perfect, whatever that is, and still have a livable room. There are always tradeoffs always. At the end of the day your ears (and your wife’s eyes) will be the final judge.

Scott
 
Last edited:
Acoustics is really a black art. Meaning the truth behind it is hidden (or being hidden). And the truth is that we don’t currently know enough to call it a science.

I disagree with this perspective. There are many great textbooks on acoustics and much that we do know. If this is your perspective, I don't think you have done a lot of research. There is no question that it is a science and that we understand much of the physics and psychoacoustics behind it.

Now for the layman to understand that technical knowledge and apply it in his own room, that is another matter. I am not saying it is not difficult to understand and apply, but it is not a complete mystery or outside the realm of science. The truth is, if you understand just a few basics, that will get you 90% of the way there in most rooms. Getting great sound is not rocket science, but it is science.

It is likely that your floor and ceiling just in front of your speakers will be the biggest source of reflections and also the most difficult to ‘fix’.

Actually, with Martin Logans being line source speakers, reflections off the floor and ceiling are minimal. The biggest source of reflections on these speakers are the front, rear and side walls.
 
There is no question that it is a science and that we understand much of the physics and psychoacoustics behind it.

If this were true there would be no acoustically disappointing concert halls. How do you explain this?
To call it a science it would need to stand up to the scientific method: observable, measurable, repeatable. Sound fits these criteria acoustics does not. It’s close but it is not 100% repeatable. The ‘science’ part can help up to a point but depending on the room involved it may not help at all.

The truth is, if you understand just a few basics, that will get you 90% of the way there in most rooms.
I maintain there are only a few basics that we currently understand. Everything beyond that is just hyperbole. Or better yet art - black art. Ask anyone who is not a layman and not trying to sell you something.

Getting great sound is not rocket science, but it is science.
Again, there is a certain amount of 'science' involved but it is more of an art. Follow the basics then trust your ears.

Actually, with Martin Logans being line source speakers, reflections off the floor and ceiling are minimal. The biggest source of reflections on these speakers are the front, rear and side walls.

That’s what they say. That’s not what I have measured. Try it yourself.
 
Last edited:
Actually, with Martin Logans being line source speakers, reflections off the floor and ceiling are minimal. The biggest source of reflections on these speakers are the front, rear and side walls.

That’s what they say. That’s not what I have measured. Try it yourself.
Yes, there are reflections happening with the floor and ceiling but they are not directly from the speaker, they are from other reflections in your room.

To call it a science it would need to stand up to the scientific method: observable, measurable, repeatable.
But they have measured absorption or diffraction of frequencies with products. Trouble is, things change with each and every room. Unless of course you want to travel out to Edwards and try out their Anechoic Chamber :)

IMO, audio and science just do not mix - there are just too many variables for one to scientifically state something will happen all the time due to x, y, & z.

If this were true there would be no acoustically disappointing concert halls. How do you explain this?Again, there is a certain amount of 'science' involved but it is more of an art.
Don't really follow you here. :confused: You say it is not a science, but then say there is a certain amount of science?

Sounds like we need to get people who do sound for a living back here to talk about this.
 
If this were true there would be no acoustically disappointing concert halls. How do you explain this?

Unfortunately, there are a lot more factors that go into designing and building a concert hall than just sound quality. Esthetics, mechanical engineering for holding that many people, fire codes, owner desires, etc. etc. If you have ever worked with architects to design anything, you would know how hard it is to maintain the design solely oriented to something like acoustic quality. On top of that, there are lots of architects, engineers, building contractors, and supervisors who don't have a clue what they are doing and make poor decisions along the way.

The concert hall in my city is very well designed and has great acoustics. I would say a lot of science and engineering went into making that possible.

To call it a science it would need to stand up to the scientific method: observable, measurable, repeatable. Sound fits these criteria acoustics does not. It’s close but it is not 100% repeatable. The ‘science’ part can help up to a point but depending on the room involved it may not help at all.

I disagree. I say every aspect of acoustics is observable, measurable, and repeatable. Acoustics is the study of sound and its interaction with the environment and our ears/brains. To say the study of sound is science but acoustics is not makes no sense.

And to say that acoustics is a science doesn't mean that you can predict with absolute certainty what the acoustics will be like in any particular room. We can't predict exactly where the next tornado will strike either, but that doesn't mean the study of weather forecasting isn't a science.

Ask anyone who is not a layman and not trying to sell you something.

Actually, I have a good friend who is an acoustical engineer. He knows his stuff and is very good at what he does. He agrees that it is a science, although quite complex and highly technical. I understand what you are saying about there being some art and feel involved in getting it right in a particular application, but to say that it is not a science is just absurd to me. It is physics and biology. Simple as that.
 
Yes, there are reflections happening with the floor and ceiling but they are not directly from the speaker, they are from other reflections in your room.
Granted. Nevertheless these (final) reflection points are where most of the reflections that reach your ears will come from.

IMO, audio and science just do not mix - there are just too many variables for one to scientifically state something will happen all the time due to x, y, & z.
As the Bard says: There's the rub.

Don't really follow you here. :confused: You say it is not a science, but then say there is a certain amount of science?
Notice my use of quotes.

Sounds like we need to get people who do sound for a living back here to talk about this.

I whole heartedly agree. The more we can demystify this more we will all benefit.
 
Unfortunately, there are a lot more factors that go into designing and building a concert hall than just sound quality. Esthetics, mechanical engineering for holding that many people, fire codes, owner desires, etc. etc.
All true. All engineering is a tradeoff between what you want and what you have to work with. However, to say that acoustic quality was purposefully degraded for some reason other than neglect is to presume it was a calculated endeavor. To make the judgment that the lack of acoustic quality in a concert hall is calculated to match some cost benefit analysis is to put way too much faith in those calculations or just plain foolish.

I say every aspect of acoustics is observable, measurable, and repeatable. Acoustics is the study of sound and its interaction with the environment and our ears/brains. To say the study of sound is science but acoustics is not makes no sense.
The problem here is that you have linked acoustics to sound quality. Unfortunately there is (still) no way to measure quality.
And to say that acoustics is a science doesn't mean that you can predict with absolute certainty what the acoustics will be like in any particular room.
If you can't prove it it's not science. It's philosophy or metaphysics.
We can't predict exactly where the next tornado will strike either, but that doesn't mean the study of weather forecasting isn't a science.
The 'study of' OR forecasting itself. You don't really believe forecasting of anything is really a science. Do you?

Don't forget the butterfly.

Actually, I have a good friend who is an acoustical engineer. He knows his stuff and is very good at what he does. He agrees that it is a science, although quite complex and highly technical.
There's one vote.
It is physics and biology. Simple as that.
My feeling is that it is closer to metaphysics and psychology.
 
For those interested in learning more about the science (and art) of acoustics, acoustical engineering, and room treatment, here are a few links:

Wikipedia has these articles:
Acoustics, Architectural Acoustics, Room Acoustics, Musical Acoustics, and PsychoAcoustics.

This page has lots of good articles, although some of the links are out of date: ecoustics.com

The different companies that sell acoustical products tend to have lots of good information on their sites. Here is a sampling:

Ethan Winer

Real Traps

ASC

RPG

GIK

Rives Audio


This is an interesting article on architectural acoustics.

For those wanting more technical understanding, there is always:

Master Handbook of Acoustics

and

Acoustic Diffusors and Absorbers: Theory, Design, and Application

This only begins to scratch the surface, but there is lots of good information out there if you are willing to do a little digging.
 
The study of the structure of the ear is a study in physiology. The
study of human perception of sound comes under the general heading
of psychology. Psychoacoustics is an inclusive term embracing the
physical structure of the ear, the sound pathways, the perception of
sound, and their interrelationships. Psychoacoustics, quite a recent
term, is especially pertinent to this study because it emphasizes both
structure and function of the human ear.
The stimulus sound wave striking the ear sets in motion mechanical
movements that result in neuron discharges that find their way to
the brain and create a sensation. Then comes the question, “How are
these sounds recognized and interpreted?” In spite of vigorous
research activities on all aspects of human hearing, our knowledge is
still woefully incomplete.

THE MASTER HANDBOOK OF ACOUSTICS
F. Alton Everest
FOURTH EDITION
page 41
 
The problem here is that you have linked acoustics to sound quality. Unfortunately there is (still) no way to measure quality.

I disagree. All qualities of sound are measurable. What you refer to as unmeasurable is our subjective interpretation of those qualities. Even a lot of that can be measured and predicted.

If you can't prove it it's not science. It's philosophy or metaphysics.

I didn't say it can't be proved. I said it can't be predicted with 100% accuracy with the knowledge and understanding we have right now. To say something is science doesn't mean that we completely understand every aspect of it yet. Science is the quest for knowledge through observation and experiment; it is not the endpoint.

The 'study of' OR forecasting itself. You don't really believe forecasting of anything is really a science. Do you?

The study of the physical processes of global weather is a science. I studied it in depth in college with numerous courses in weather, climatology, and, yes, weather forecasting. Weather forecasting is a process that takes our scientific knowledge of weather phenomena and physics and applies it to known data to try to predict an outcome. The more we learn about the science and the more data we have on which to base our predictions, the better able we are to make accurate predictions. Does this mean we have all the data available or completely understand all aspects of the science? No, of course not. That is why our predictions come with an increasing amount of error the further into the future we try to predict. Does the fact that we can't make perfect predictions mean it is not science? Of course not. It means we still have a lot of scientific study and learning to do and that we may never be able to gather enough data at one time to make a completely accurate prediction. I mean, for crying out loud, there's a lot of butterflies out there.

You seem to be under the illusion that something is science only if we understand it 100% and it is basically a law, like the law of gravity. That is not accurate. Science is the systematic study of the natural and physical world through observation and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. It is a continual process because we are always learning new things to add to our understanding of every scientific field. To say it is not science because we don't completely understand it yet is to mock all scientific endeavor.
 
Then comes the question, “How are
these sounds recognized and interpreted?” In spite of vigorous
research activities on all aspects of human hearing, our knowledge is
still woefully incomplete.

This is absolutely true. But it doesn't mean the study of psychoacoustics is not a science. It means it is a science with lots more research and study yet to be done. We don't know everything about the universe either, but the study of astronomy and physics is still science.
 
Back
Top