jimmyjazz wrote on Wed, 03 January 2007 14:44 |
Good lord! Without running the calcs, it's pretty obvious 2:1:1 is going to be bad. I feel your pain! No doubt your best course of action is what you suggested. Any chance they can rotate the room so the monitors fire down the length? That is going to be one dead room when you're through! |
Ethan Winer wrote on Wed, 03 January 2007 18:12 |
So I take it this is someone else's room? > Due to practical reasons the speakers are set up to shoot across the shorter length of the room. < How is a horrible bass response ever practical? If this is someone you're advising, show them this pair of graphs for the same room, one with the speakers firing the longer way and the other the shorter way. Maybe then they'll reassess their idea of what's practical. |
jimmyjazz wrote on Thu, 04 January 2007 00:05 |
Hey Ethan . . . what did you use to generate that graph? Is it from some analysis you did on Tomas' room, or is it from a room you actually measured? It's interesting, regardless. |
Ethan Winer wrote on Thu, 04 January 2007 19:05 |
Tomas, > So, except for turning the whole rig 90 degrees, what else is there to be done to make it less of a disaster? < Bass traps, my friend, lots and lots of bass traps. Of course, you'd want as much bass trapping as possible even if the room were rotated 90 degrees! --Ethan |
jimmyjazz wrote on Fri, 05 January 2007 04:28 |
Search the web for Chris Wealy's acoustics spreadsheet, which will help you perform quite a few basic room analyses. You can evaluate things like reverberation time (which has limited accuracy in small rooms), modal frequencies, modal spacing, etc. The reverberation time calcs can provide partial guidance about how much absorption you'll need on your walls to flatten out the room response, but it doesn't account for corner traps, which work better than a given amount of absorptive material slapped right on the wall. Wealy's spreadsheet does include a very extensive material library, allowing you to model things very similar to Ethan's products, among others (foam, rock wool, etc.). You can input your own user-defined absorption curves for materials he doesn't include. Really, to flatten the modal issues in the low frequencies, more traps are usually better. It's hard to deaden the low end MORE than the middle frequencies and above, so there's not a lot of risk there, but you can make the room TOO dead overall if you go crazy with absorptive broadband traps. I imagine your budget will crap out before that point, though! |
jimmyjazz wrote on Fri, 05 January 2007 10:41 |
I would trap the corners and put additional broadband absorption at the first reflection points. |