Romy the Cat wrote:

A few days back I unpacked my last moving box, which was good. Today for a first day in the new room when I have my playback system back, namely I time-aligned Macondo. Sine I find the right listing position there was no reason not to do it. It took 3 hours and what I did it then foe a first time since April I hear my Macondo as I accustom to hear it. The magnitude of changes in Sound with aliened channels is truly huge and I wish the prejudicial time-aliment was a norm rather a refuge of a few dissidents.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Tomorrow a cleaning lady will de-dust and clean the house and the acoustic treatment will go to the walls.

"Architectual" (man-made) joists have some decided advantages over natural lumber, including excellent unit-to-unit consistency.  Most residential "TJI" joists (as opposed to beams) are made straight and installed without an initial "crown" (manufactured beams often start with a pre-load crown), and TJIs are designed to stay flat under design loads once the subfloor diaphragm is glued and nailed or screwed down to schedule.  In this case, your hi-fi equipment probably exceeds the floor's design loads, so the use of shores in this case is at least pre-emptive structural reinforcement.  As I described earlier in the thread, the usual course is to shore up beams that run perpendicular to and in turn support the floor joists, to divide the floor load, as opposed to using jacks helter-skelter under individual joists.  In any case, the jacks are only truly effective if they are "grounded" to something appropriately solid and stable, and a 4" basement slab is generally considered inadequate for this purpose.  One way around this is to increase the number of jacks and so distribute the load(s).  Another is to use "sleepers" (basically, beams lying on the floor).

I can't think of a structural reason to use the jacks to crank a "crown" into the floor at this point.  You can buy or rent a spinning laser level to check the floor height at any number of "stations"; just do not assume it will in any case be truly "level", nor would one expect it to be.

If you want to "tune" the floor, then you will simply have to use your ears and gut to determine how you like it.  You have probably noticed by now that multiple jacks in various locations can be used to change the "feel" of the room as much as it can alter the "sound", and this "sense" of the room seems to carry up into frequencies that one might say are "not affected" by the treatment.  Don't forget the "wide bowl of water" trick.

All bets are off until you factor in true, strong (U)LF information.

Best regards,
Paul S

Romy the Cat wrote:

I figure out that it is time and put some acoustic treatment on the walls and at some spot of ceiling. The 2” pyramids in white, 24” by 24” look very nice; in fact they almost work like abstract yuppie-ornamentation popular in some Manhattan lofts - not exactly my style but I care less. All together I put 11 sheets of the foam over the entire room and removed all fiberglass traps. I left only 8 ACS fiberglass panel on the ridge of cathedral ceiling. The result was as expected: the room becomes much quitter, sound got less zippy and with less harsh noise, the high amplitude of paling does not overload the room, I might run tweeters harder and the HF ringing on the room not there anymore. That all is fine and they all very positive moments, however I would not say that I this new the Sound all together. I have very difficult time to define what I do like. This new sound got some upper MF efforts in itself that I did not have before when the room was “live”. That effect of heavy laboring in upper range a bit annoying and also it makes wonderful and impressive audio but this is not the result that I am interested in. I very much like the control over HF but I would like do not prevent them to be as they are, I do not want to over manage them. It is not that my room is over-damped now. I think it is OK balance as I cover very few spots with foam- 11 sheet of 24” by 24” is nothing for this room. Still, the contribution of the foam is very profound and not only positive. There is also a sense of artificial hyper-resolution that I very much do not like and it came with the use of foam. The fiberglass on tube traps gave me thin sound, foam gave me flawed resolution. Both are wrong in my view. Surely it is too early to make any conclusion as I only started to play with it. In my old room the “acoustic treatment” was made stuck of record shelves – that worked phenomenally well and it was in a way a natural a natural treatment. Now I use artificial treatment that does not exist in nature. Might it be one of the reasons? If so, then will I have better sound if I order green panels? Anyhow, I look forward to experiment more with acoustic treatment. The result I got now I find not acceptable.

Today I was thinking all day long what the hell is happening in my room and why the 2” pyramids do the job to subdue HF in my room but still create problem and kill Sound. The ease and spontaneity of Sound the I had just two day back is gone and replaced with labored pressure and not at the high frequency but in upper mid range.  I was thinking listening, changing a lot today in acoustic treatment, even put the large black panels back – nothing worked – the right sound has gone. I played good 5 hours with it and twice fallen from my step ladder – the only think the work properly in my room was gravity…

I do not want to give an impression that I love to do all of it too much but I was very pissed as there was some kind of hidden reason WHY it happened and I knew that until I get control over this reason I will not get my Sound in my room. If it was 2 years back then I would blame electricity but now I PP2000 my entire system and I am accustomed that sound does not changed from day to day.

I said that I give up and started to do absolutely idiotic think – I began to move the thing into my room exactly as it was 3 days back, when I make my post “I’m drinking from the grail of glory.” Then I turn the CD. From the very first note I know that I have my sound back, I was laughing like a meshugana!

Then I begin to analyze what was change. The biggest thing was that I put the fiberglass tube traps back into the room. They are very powerful at HF but NOT so powerful to moderate the MF pressure. Then it came to! As anything else it was ridicules simple and surprisingly you.

A couple, years back a site reader from Swaziland contacted me and share an interesting idea of shaping sound with reflective panels. We spoke over the phone and I made some experiments building his panels. It was interesting but no more than that. Suddenly during my straggling with Acoustic Treatment I felt that I experience the same “MF pressure” and my Swaziland managed with his reflectors. I looked at the well-treated with foam 24” wide wall behind my listening chair  that cover the load-caring beams - now it was covered with 20” fiberglass half-tubes. It stroked me that it is not about the fiberglass vs. foam but about the shape of this wall. Even covering with foam the wall is not reflective at HF but at MF it acts as the Swaziland reflector. Since the wall is very much stand alone and has my listening position has no back reelections (something that I was craving for years!!!!) the harrow wall was acting like a lens, focusing the only back reflection to my chair. Looking at the size of the wall 22” and the double distance from the wall to the chair it was obvious where the MF pressure came from.  In case of the fiberglass half-tubes the wall was converted into a sphere with no ability to focus the reflection back to me.

That explained everything, including why I felt that the fiberglass tubes had so powerful effect in my room. I immediately took aluminum foil and warped it around the half-tubes behind the chair. The great sound did not despair. So, it was NOT about absorption rate about reflective shape! I am a fucking genius!

Now I had good sound and full control over it.  I was inspired. I took my foam back but kept the half-tubes behind the chair’s wall. I realized that I do not want to kill HF anymore and want to randomize HF making room live but controlled live. I left the foam only on the very few strategic locations and took the rest foam away. Then I took 6” spikes and covered with them the top of the back wall, still keeping the half-tubes on the back wall behind the chair. The Sound was very nice, room feel very nice and I feel that it is it about acoustic treatment. The only thing I need now is to get my custom made 30 pounds air-condition ducts and to replace the 20” fiberglass half-tubes with 24” half-tubes (will less extend into room), covering the half-tubes with nice fabric. Below are a few pictures how the acoustic treatment is use in my room as now.

fulcrum wrote:

Romy, very interesting stuff.That was exactly the kind of info I was seeking with my post on curved corners below that your readers took such exception to.Granted I had the idea ass backwards as a great number of people who contacted me privately pointed out.A couple of the people who did contact me asked to produce 1/4 tubes to fill in corners, partial tubes to diffuse sound from side walls and curved panels that can be wall mounted with tilt and swivel brackets to allow them to be adjusted for the best sound.

Fulcrum, I did see that you have thread but I hardly understood what you are trying to do or to say. Your illustrations are very inadequate and your idea about the application of curvature walls is NOT very clearly expressed. If you are a maker of curved walls and trying to soloist some business at this site then it is fine. I never had any attitude ageist proprietors fishing for clients but I always demand it to be in context of the advancement of sound reproduction techniques. I did not see a lot of it in your posts and I did not pay any attention to them.

To my knowledge the addressing of wide size reflections is not something that people too worry or care.  If you have a large wall behind let say 10 feet back then the mass reflection from the wall create a permanent contra-pressure and people do not acknowledge it and it is virtually imposable to tune ourselves off from it. The reason why I was able to catch it, besides my extraordinary anal retentiveness, is become in my case reflective panel is very distinct and located in something that I would describe as “reflective vacuum”. So, if you wish to advance what you do from a perspective that it be interesting for the people like me then you need to come up with a set of measurements of front vs. back pressure or with an elegantly expressed speculation that curved surface address the back-pressure subject and how to learn the benefit of it.

Generally if you were in my disposal next town over then I would heir you to make the wall under the midbass horn completely wavy – 10-15 horizontal crooked waves under the edge of the horn - in the Salvador Dali style.. However, if you make any acoustic claims then you need to do it not from sheetrock but from acoustically effective material, the compress fiberglass appears fine to me. Anyhow, you need to work on the presentation of your idea and to compile it into a complete product and deliverable package.  The way how you present it in your thread did not attract my attention. I would expect the people like you were able to foresee the reflective pressure of non-curved walls and depends of the reflector size and distance of reflection to find out what frequencies are in play and what rate of wave absorption material would make sense to use for the given reflective situation.

tuga wrote:

What have you done with your room? I hope these carbuncles you've dessiminated across your room are only temporary and that you'll replace them with some acceptable props.

That is it. I have felt that my “moving” project is over. I still have a few things that I am planning to do but the basics are done and the huge disturbances that moving to new home are over. The room is fundamentally us done and the core sound in it is absolutely wonderful. Sure there are few moments that I will work on but I know what they are how to deal it. The analog is set up and it pays very fine. The DAW is loved in the basement and all remote administration is set.  Peaty much whatever it do turns out to be very good, not matter how much I am trying to fuck it up. I even have a few wonderful idea that will take Sound end further then it is and I am pretty sure that the ideas will work exceptionally well.

Even the FM harvested me this week with very cool result. Whale I did not have my room and proper Sound I did not harassed my local broadcast people but 3 weeks back I stated to work with them again and today they found the problem that poised Sound. Today David Robertson lead BSO - they played very well and the sound was spectacular. Take a look, this is fragment from Miraculous Mandarin at 88/24, with just one conversion to 32 from 64Bit file.

http://www.mediafire.com/?di7q4gatv0c3g51

This sound we have in Boston from FM, you can only jealous to Bostonians!

Everything is truly came alone very well and I am one have happy pussy.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Romy the Cat wrote:

Romy the Cat wrote: I made a nice half-circle wall in place of the mid column. It sound nice but afar a week of living with it I have to tell that I feel a bit stale and too utilitarian. I do not pretend for any sophistication but the white foam on light foam fell too boring, at least this is how I feel now. I need something different. I need something with more color and 3D texture. I do not know what exactly I want but I know that what kind idea I want. The wall with the horns is too pastel and too pale for the rest of my room and for what I would feel comfortable. I need an inspiration with some kind of other idea

http://www.acusticaapplicata.com/polifemo.php?lang=eng

The reasons why I find it interesting is because this morning I have been thinking about my new idea of the wall with horn treatment and my major concern is to make sure that the Helmholtz resonators will not be activated.

This mooring a brilliant idea hit me. Instead of the pale and un-spicy while foam the boars me I will use a completely different idea. I so got hooked on it that I ordered the parts already.  A few post above I made a post “Spectacularly cheap, pretty and effective.” about the new Kanuf brown fiberglass tubes.  The picture does not make justice to them – in real world they look spectacular. So, my new brilliant idea is to get rid all my acoustic treatment on this wall:

And to replace it with a ccustom-made organ-like pipes, made from Kanuf brown fiberglass tubes. I mean I will build the organ like pattern, with a combination of the tube of different size and different diameters. The Kanuf brown unfinished pipes looks spectacular ion my room. The only concern I have is that the top of the type will be at the same level as the exit of horn mouth – so I naturally would like the types do not make any Helmholtz resonating; otherwise I would need to close the types.

I very much like the idea as it will kill all HF reflection and very dramatically randomize MF. It might also superbly cool looking. I will be hanging a few “trunks” of the Kanuf brown fiberglass tubes under the center ridge of the cathedral selling  as well. The color of the Kanuf unfinished brown fiberglass tubes is very good matching with the color or my furniture and my carpet. Do not be too bound with the ugly plan-drawing I made. I do anticipate a very-very positive esthetic and caustic outcome of this attempt.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I very much like the idea as it will kill all HF reflection and very dramatically randomize MF. Pussy.

fulcrum wrote:

I couldn't figure out how to get more than one picture to upload so I put several in a word document - hope that works You talked about organic materials as possibly improving sound - how about organic shapes?Since a significant part of the function is to randomize then it seems that geometrically exact shapes may not be the best answer.The first pictures are circular sections used with drywall but wouldn't more random shapes provide a more randomizing effect?Maybe a purple spiral sticking out of your wall too radical in terms of looks but what if say instead of a semi-circular pillar of constant cross section - you had a conic section, moving from 2' diameter at floor level to 6" at ceiling height, or what if the cross section is not circular but parabolic, or hyperbolic or just a random squiggle?

Fulcrum, yes, something like this. I do not exactly understand the purpose and a needs of the rest pictures but the first picture is something close to what I am considering to do.  The problem with your “organ” profile is that it is consistent but I will be looking at more inconsistent or random reflection pattern. So, the individual “pipes” would be different decameter and even different heights. BTW, I spoke about your options with my carpenter and he told that he has no problems to make curved walls – he did it past. He does it by submerging special type of drywall into water, bend it and then let it to solidify it this way. I see a problem in ether his or your approach although your walls might have winning reflective profile but they are “hard” walls that would not play acoustically so well. if you find a way to make your walls from some kind of acoustically-active surface then I think your wall would be more effective. If you look at the material the some companies do the ceiling acoustic clouds then it might give you some idea.

http://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/whisperwave_baffle/whisperwave_baffle.htm?d=8

I do not say that you need to imitate them but the glossy, piano-finish surfaces might be something that shape your professional pride but the very last things that we are looking in acoustic treatment or our listening rooms.

unicon wrote:

before doing anything I say you can use a spray made for making dried plant steady and stop them from exploding their body in air.(no idea what was the name of that spary) it can much help and make your tubes safe in your room.

Might be this is a good idea if the spay would not seal the fiberglass texture and would not make it less acoustically absorbing. Do you know a name of such a spas for me to try, I truly do not know what to look for?

unicon wrote:

And what you mean saying:  the tubes will dramatically randomize MF? I dont wanna play technical fellow here but I can see that the tubes in your room are already dramatically absorbing all your MF + HF and you like it and of course they can randomly scatter some MF but its like 10-20% of the sound to be scattered ... saying MF means from 150 hz to 1khz to me

I do not think that the tubes are dramatically absorbing all your MF + HF. I think that they do reflect something and whatever reflection the do they, considering that they will be different sixe tubes, then they will reflect randomly for any driven point of location. It is hard to me to estimate what frequency we are talking about. I do not write a book about out acoustic reflection but am trying to make my room to sound right. I have a wide “endless” opening on the right and left from my listening spot. Relocating the listening spot in front of the opening and pointing the speakers to this position I can get a feeling how my room sound without harmonic reflections, in fact I know how it shall sound. Putting back the listening spot and having the middle column I do pick the harmonic reflections. The word “harmonic” is the key as the reflections has some dominance in one region and do not have in other. The objective is to make any reflections, if they take place to be random my non-specific.