- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,680
- Likes
- 37,389
Bass absorption to any meaningful amount requires depth. That is just the physics of it.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Acoustic treatment with slats - before-and-after measurements
- Thread starter janbth
- Start date
I’ll put about 40-60cm of glass wool behind the slats. That should do the trick
i am doing that, waiting the slats, i have 60cm of glass wool
60cm of glass wool behind the slats, and w\o felt and w\o slats: arbitrary felt thickness and GFR values and simplified model:
Increasing gas flow resistance of the felt layer will worsen the result. Also, the model does not take into account the membrane effect.
Increasing gas flow resistance of the felt layer will worsen the result. Also, the model does not take into account the membrane effect.
Last edited:
Isn’t 2222 Pa*s/m2 a bit low?
Rockwool has 6000 Pa*s/m2 and most glass wool has 5000 Pa*s/m2.
I want to remind the reader to pay attention to the depth of glass wool behind the slats: 60cm. On a typical small listening room of 20m2 that will cause almost a 30% floor area reduction. Imagine the OP installing wall-to-wall cupboards on both walls!
Do you think this is a realistic solution?
For his space it is indeed a bit much.
I personally don’t need much storage space so it would be a viable solution.
How big is your room?
About 6x5m
May be it is.. Practical results are interesting.
I don't know how breathable this felt is.
So you are happy with a floor area reduction if 20%? In other words to use absorbers that will occupy 6m2 of your 30m2 floor area?
The main problem is finding a good coverage material for the insulation material.
I thought of getting cheap 3mm felt but it’s hard to get resistivity values for it.
Fabric will probably not look as clean as something more rigid like felt
With glasswool I would more likely do 40cm of depth. For 60cm something less dense is better but all materials I found with this property are way more expensive than simple glass wool.
But yes, I would be fine with 40cm less room if the wall ends up looking good
The better question is ''Is there are a better solution''. And I honestly don't know.
- Joined
- May 18, 2020
- Messages
- 1,285
- Likes
- 2,938
I have a question about simulations like these - could you help? Allard & Champoux's 1992 equations have, I believe, proved themselves pretty accurate via empirical tests. But are they not based on a simple one-time pass-through calculation, i.e. SPL in on one side, minus SPL out on the other? But for room acoustics, aren't we dealing with three separate stages? I.e., SPL into the absorber, then some leakage through the wall, and then the remaining reflection passing through the absorber again, in the reverse direction. Can anyone elucidate?
I don’t see how the look of the wall is to do with the depth of the absorber…
Of course there is!
Membrane, Diaphragm & Helmholtz is much more efficient than using simple absorbent materials. No acoustician will even consider using a 60cm deep absorbent wall. On a usual size room the volume of just one of such an absorber will be around 9 m3 or a volume to store 9 metric tons of water!
Last edited:
Why not use perforated board?
Perforated Acoustic panels | Decustik
The Perforated Acoustic panels are the most economical way to get an acoustic treatment with a high degree of absorption
www.decustik.com
Similar threads
