ceiling hanging acoustic absorbing (ready made ) any available?

[kero]

I want to hang something from my ceiling above my desk and speakers to absorb the sound.

I have no DIY skills, so I need something which is ready made.

Will one of these bass traps do? and can I hang it about 20cm from the ceiling somehow?

https://www.decks.co.uk/products/aco...p#.V-zdScdlmgQ

[biggator]

Ping Glenn

http://www.gikacoustics.com/

Pretty sure they'll have stuff that's ready to hang.

[cyrano]

Originally Posted by kero

I want to hang something from my ceiling above my desk and speakers to absorb the sound.

Why?

I have no DIY skills, so I need something which is ready made.

Will one of these bass traps do? and can I hang it about 20cm from the ceiling somehow?

https://www.decks.co.uk/products/aco...p#.V-zdScdlmgQ

Our high quality panels are made for industrial grade fiberglass with a density of 96K/m3 which is upto 50% denser than domestic fibre glass found in UK stores. This gives our bass traps that extra punch you will not get from inferior alternatives.

Have you even read that?

It's mumbo jumbo.

Their panels are made FOR industrial grade fiberglass.

That's better than DOMESTIC fiberglass...

Seriously.

Going over a certain density doesn't work. It'll turn absorbers into reflectors. The optimum for absorbers is around 50 kg/m3. Almost double that would be bad.

And I sincerely doubt that fiberglass panels can even reach that kind of density and be acoustically useful.

And why would you put yours 20 cm from the ceiling? You risk creating a triple-leaf situation, which results in less absorption, depending on how the ceiling was made.

[jerome_oneil]

Originally Posted by cyrano

Why?

That bears repeating. Hanging stuff on the wall randomly may do more harm than good.

Have you measured the room?

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by cyrano

Why?

Flutter echos and modes/nodes between ceiling and floor. They were a big problem in the last two rooms I treated proven by ear and measurement. However, they are only likely needed at mix position and/or recording spot if recording in the same room.

For the OP: I'd suggest GIK with similar pricing which is who I used but they are US... Nope, they also have a Europe office...

http://gikacoustics.co.uk/

Customer service was great which does matter IMHO. What you are really paying for is construction etc., someone has to build these. I was happy buy mine because I could afford it. Meaning you could build these yourself but it always comes down to budget vs cash flow vs having better things to do (or not).

[kero]

Originally Posted by cyrano

Why?





Have you even read that?

It's mumbo jumbo.

Their panels are made FOR industrial grade fiberglass.

That's better than DOMESTIC fiberglass...

Seriously.

Going over a certain density doesn't work. It'll turn absorbers into reflectors. The optimum for absorbers is around 50 kg/m3. Almost double that would be bad.

And I sincerely doubt that fiberglass panels can even reach that kind of density and be acoustically useful.

And why would you put yours 20 cm from the ceiling? You risk creating a triple-leaf situation, which results in less absorption, depending on how the ceiling was made.

I guess this is the correct one then? but is this price just for one panel? and I need three?

http://www.studiocare.com/primacoust...oM1BoCQJTw_wcB

[RJHollins]

a lot of money for not much useful treatment ... particularly standing waves [floor/desk to ceiling].

In our Mastering Suite, we needed 3, HARD-backed clouds, 4 inches thick. The 'hard backing' was 3/4" MDF + 3/4" plywood, covered with 4" rigid insulation [KNAUF]. The hard-backed cloud is what sets a boundary to alter the standing wave pattern. [particularly in the difficult LOW freq area. With those 2" panels you've posted. the bass will pass right through ... minimal [if any] treatment of standing waves. This is the most common issue in any room, and why so many 'home' mixes have over amount of bass. This is due to the 7 foot to 8 foot ceilings in most homes.

anyway

They were suspended from the ceiling with chains, hung at an slope [angle].

For the remainder of the Control Room ceiling, there was absorber clouds, 4" thick, 4" from ceiling.

[cyrano]

Originally Posted by kero

I guess this is the correct one then? but is this price just for one panel? and I need three?

http://www.studiocare.com/primacoust...oM1BoCQJTw_wcB

Wrong thickness. You'd need to stack two of them, which is kind of hard if you want to suspend them...

And bloody expensive.

[cyrano]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Flutter echos and modes/nodes between ceiling and floor. They were a big problem in the last two rooms I treated proven by ear and measurement. However, they are only likely needed at mix position and/or recording spot if recording in the same room.

Hanging a distance from the ceiling is always less efficient than "hanging" on the ceiling.

Besides, the question was rather aimed at "why would you want to hang anything, without measuring".

[kero]

Originally Posted by cyrano

Hanging a distance from the ceiling is always less efficient than "hanging" on the ceiling.

Besides, the question was rather aimed at "why would you want to hang anything, without measuring".

I agree cyrano
Unfortunately I have a beam on the ceiling, so it has to hang below this!

[Geoff Waddington]

Originally Posted by cyrano

Going over a certain density doesn't work. It'll turn absorbers into reflectors. The optimum for absorbers is around 50 kg/m3. Almost double that would be bad.

And I sincerely doubt that fiberglass panels can even reach that kind of density and be acoustically useful.

I use 48 kg/m3 and this room measures rather well using REW (Room EQ Wizard) +/- 5db 20Hz - 20KHz

Originally Posted by cyrano

And why would you put yours 20 cm from the ceiling? You risk creating a triple-leaf situation, which results in less absorption, depending on how the ceiling was made.

I think you're confusing sound isolation with room treatment -- see Rod Gervais excellent book, Home Recording Studio 2nd edition, the panels SHOULD be spaced from the ceiling -- a good rule of thumb is to space them about the thickness of the absorber, so a 2" panel should be placed 2" from the ceiling, or even a bit more if you want.

[Geoff Waddington]

Originally Posted by RJHollins

a lot of money for not much useful treatment ... particularly standing waves [floor/desk to ceiling].

In our Mastering Suite, we needed 3, HARD-backed clouds, 4 inches thick. The 'hard backing' was 3/4" MDF + 3/4" plywood, covered with 4" rigid insulation [KNAUF]. The hard-backed cloud is what sets a boundary to alter the standing wave pattern. [particularly in the difficult LOW freq area. With those 2" panels you've posted. the bass will pass right through ... minimal [if any] treatment of standing waves. This is the most common issue in any room, and why so many 'home' mixes have over amount of bass. This is due to the 7 foot to 8 foot ceilings in most homes.

anyway

They were suspended from the ceiling with chains, hung at an slope [angle].

For the remainder of the Control Room ceiling, there was absorber clouds, 4" thick, 4" from ceiling.

Wow, as far as I know, that is quite simply incorrect. The panels work on a gas resistivity principal. For this to work the gas (air) must be moving through the material, hard backing simply reduces effectiveness of the system, I'm curious to know what information you used that indicated hard backing, perhaps I'm missing something here.

[Geoff Waddington]

Originally Posted by cyrano

Hanging a distance from the ceiling is always less efficient than "hanging" on the ceiling.

Incorrect, see above.

[airon]

I'm looking for frame materials today for some ceiling absorbers.

My floors and ceilings are thick concrete, so I'm expecting to do 20 cm thick absorbers with a broad-spaced steel wiremesh to hold in the rather soft rockwool-like material(in my case Thermohanf).

Probably build four of them to cover first and second reflections areas above my mix position. Chained at the absorbers thickness distance as well.

SOB to hang but good bass absorption is just a basic necessity.

[Geoff Waddington]

Originally Posted by airon

I'm looking for frame materials today for some ceiling absorbers.

My floors and ceilings are thick concrete, so I'm expecting to do 20 cm thick absorbers with a broad-spaced steel wiremesh to hold in the rather soft rockwool-like material(in my case Thermohanf).

Probably build four of them to cover first and second reflections areas above my mix position. Chained at the absorbers thickness distance as well.

SOB to hang but good bass absorption is just a basic necessity.

You will probably get better absorption with double the amount of area 10cm thick, twice as many panels, each half as thick.

[cyrano]

Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington

Incorrect, see above.

Based on dozens of control room and other measurements, it's only better if measured and calculated precisely. If, fi, you need to suppress one particular frequency. And that almost never happens in practice.

It's the same class as non-rectangular rooms. If you're building, you might add it. If the room exists, don't bother, as it is a quantité négligeable.

[cyrano]

Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington

You will probably get better absorption with double the amount of area 10cm thick, twice as many panels, each half as thick.

Can't tell without measuring, unless that's what you do for a living. I have a friend who does acoustics all the time. His predictions are usually spot on, after seeing and hearing the room. Without seeing and hearing the room he won't even do predictions.

[Geoff Waddington]

Originally Posted by cyrano

Can't tell without measuring, unless that's what you do for a living. I have a friend who does acoustics all the time. His predictions are usually spot on, after seeing and hearing the room. Without seeing and hearing the room he won't even do predictions.

Well airon suggested he was going to use 4 20cm panels, If you look at Ethan Winers pages, or Glenn's, or other literature, you'll see that the wavelengths here are so long that those 4 traps will not be as efficient at broadband absorption as 8 traps half as thick, because you get more surface coverage. If you use a larger number of traps, then thicker traps start to make sense. The overall room size, of course is very important, and not in a good way. The smaller the room the more traps you need, and the thicker they need to be, and because they are thicker, they need to be spaced further from the wall, thereby taking away even more space in an already small room.

[RJHollins]

Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington

Wow, as far as I know, that is quite simply incorrect. The panels work on a gas resistivity principal. For this to work the gas (air) must be moving through the material, hard backing simply reduces effectiveness of the system, I'm curious to know what information you used that indicated hard backing, perhaps I'm missing something here.

Rod Gervais & Glenn Stefford were my designers.

[semiquaver]

The ceiling is your number one source of first order reflection as often as not - I have found some absorption overhead and in front of the mix position to be very helpful. Its not so important that the absorbtion be full range however if your goal is to clean up combing at the mix position. For bass absorption there are better, easier places to put things (the corners for one). That said, a gap does broaden the absorption band if the material is permeable as Geoff and others have pointed out. I have had good luck with flexible banners from acoustical solutions. Very cheap to boot.

[Geoff Waddington]

Originally Posted by RJHollins

Rod Gervais & Glenn Stefford were my designers.

Well, I stand corrected then, those guys definitely know which end is up, wonder what the thinking is behind the hard backing.

[RJHollins]

Without going into detail now ...

The design called for 3 hard-backed clouds, suspended over the Mix location, hung at an angle. [don't recall the actual degrees].

The rest of the ceiling had 'pass-through' absorbers suspended parallel to the ceiling [soft back].

The hardbacks also have 4" absorb facing the room. The mass of the back is to get into the area of 'boundary' condition. The angle altered the build-up of standing waves [especially at the mix position area].

Of critical concern, these HB Clouds are heavy. At least 80 lbs. Hanging overhead. Much care was used to double chain each of the 4 connections.

The ceiling, 2 layers of 5/8" Type-X drywall [with GreenGlue], was penetrated with HD butterfly clips. The rating of each clip was more than the total weight of each 2' x 4' panel. With 4 connects, we were well within safety specs.

Standing Waves at the mix position is a HUGE issue. Just doing the math shows what wavelength affected ... it's using right in the kick/bass heart [of course !].

Using REW exposed all the analysis details.

We went with the RTZ Control Room design.

Rod and Glenn are brilliant !

Over my 30+ years, I've worked in many hi-end rooms. The design and meticulous build we had was right there [sometimes better ].

[Geoff Waddington]

Originally Posted by RJHollins

Without going into detail now ...

The design called for 3 hard-backed clouds, suspended over the Mix location, hung at an angle. [don't recall the actual degrees].

The rest of the ceiling had 'pass-through' absorbers suspended parallel to the ceiling [soft back].

The hardbacks also have 4" absorb facing the room. The mass of the back is to get into the area of 'boundary' condition. The angle altered the build-up of standing waves [especially at the mix position area].

Of critical concern, these HB Clouds are heavy. At least 80 lbs. Hanging overhead. Much care was used to double chain each of the 4 connections.

The ceiling, 2 layers of 5/8" Type-X drywall [with GreenGlue], was penetrated with HD butterfly clips. The rating of each clip was more than the total weight of each 2' x 4' panel. With 4 connects, we were well within safety specs.

Standing Waves at the mix position is a HUGE issue. Just doing the math shows what wavelength affected ... it's using right in the kick/bass heart [of course !].

Using REW exposed all the analysis details.

We went with the RTZ Control Room design.

Rod and Glenn are brilliant !

Over my 30+ years, I've worked in many hi-end rooms. The design and meticulous build we had was right there [sometimes better ].

Excellent !!

Sounds like you got great results.

With remote design input from Rod and Ethan, we used RISC clips holding hat channel, to which we mounted 2 layers of 5/8" firecode drywall (with GreenGlue), then a 4" air gap, then the entire ceiling area covered with 4" 48kg/m (OC703 equivalent), held in place by a traditional drop ceiling.

Agree REW is your friend, we measured that, contrary to convention, bass trapping the corners actually hurt the response at the mix position, so we did not use them (now we have a few nice producer/bass/drummer seating areas around the room edges )

You mean RFZ I think, we also opted for that.

I have also had the privilege of working more than a few high end rooms, and isn't it nice that, standing on the shoulders of these giants and others, we can enjoy relatively good acoustics in almost any reasonably sized room, in my case a home recording studio.

I'm intrigued, will look into the "hard backed" cloud approach, in particular what mechanisms come into play acoustically.

[RJHollins]

"You mean RFZ I think" ... Yes [bad finger, bad finger].

It is absolutely amazing what we are able to accomplish nowadays.

[SwampDonkey]

contact Glenn

Glenn.k@gikacoustics.com

or ethan winer

ethanw@realtraps.com

they are the experts, and super nice guys, both of em.