Watch our other videos on acoustics & studio design: ✅ Get Our Free Acoustics Course ➤ bit.ly/free-acoustics-course ✅ How to Build the ULTIMATE DIY Acoustic Sound Panels for Music Studios: th-cam.com/video/ECazGzutkV8/w-d-xo.html ✅ Master the Art of Wrapping DIY Acoustic Panels Like a Pro!: th-cam.com/video/NYew5ZqGM7Q/w-d-xo.html ✅ How to Quickly & Easily Mount & Air Gap DIY Acoustic Panels for Music Studios: th-cam.com/video/uR5JZ6lUe6U/w-d-xo.html ✅ Unlock the Magic in Your Music Studio: Mastering the Art of Porous Absorption: th-cam.com/video/SSn8HEsG8ro/w-d-xo.html
I come from home theater audio and was so happy to see this. Side note - your tutorials for ableton and shared template have helped me so much. Thank you
Hey hey. Thanks for watching and commenting. I think you missed a critical part of the video where I said this, "If space and money are no object I would always opt to fill the air space with more porous absorption." It's later on in the video, so make sure you watch the whole thing. Also the section about sealing the air space. Note that when you do choose to fill the air space with more absorption, you must be careful about the density of the material. It will perform better for you if you use layers of material with multiple densities (graduated density). Some people use 40-60 kg/m3 material as a front layer (something like OC 703 or Rockwool Cavityrock) then lower density material in the range of 20-32 kg/m3 behind it (like OC Pink or Rockwool Comfortbatt). It all depends on your depth! Make sure you do not use just the same density of rock wool for the whole absorber assembly, especially when the density is over 32 kg/m3 and the depth is 12" or more.
gotta give props to a video about sound treatment that sounds good. u wouldn't believe the amount of videos i've seen from audio guys that don't know how to de ess or limit etc lol
Should I use Rockwool Safe 'n' Sound (slightly denser/increased flow resistance if the numbers I found are correct)? Or would that be too dense/cause reflections at this thickness? Would that decision be room dependent also? Cheers
Hey hey. In general, you should be mixing at the ideal volume level for where your psychoacoustic perception of sound is as balanced as possible. IE where the Equal Loudness Contours are as flat as possible. For a small room, this could be as low as 73 db SPL-C weighted. If you want to minimize reflections in a small room, treat your room or use nearfield monitors, or both; don't try and achieve that with volume. If you mix too quietly, you'll dramatically overdo the bass in your mix. That's because you're not very sensitive to bass frequencies at low levels. You'll hear much less bass than there actually is, and then turn it up too high in your mix, which will equal a muddy mix that won't translate. To learn how to take the first steps in treating your room, watch this: th-cam.com/video/ECazGzutkV8/w-d-xo.html. Cheers!
I have two 5.5 inch thick cloud panels, may I know should I leave the air gap as low as possible or not more than 4 inch air gap? My ceiling is 10ft height
You have a fair bit of ceiling space to work with. You'll want to test that for sure, and yes you'll definitely want to air gap your panels from the boundary so that they work better. Typically you'll want to angle the cloud toward the back of your room slightly so use a suspension system that allows for adjustment. You could start with an air gap equal to the thickness of your absorber.
You missed a biggie with porous absorption. It's not just acoustic energy being lost to friction and heat. Consider the refractive aspect which by causing a massive number of minor deviations to the soundwaves, the cohesion of the wave patterns disintegrates toward complete nullification. This is to a degree why foam absorptive panels are measurably more effective when their surfaces are 3D and irregular. Just a thought here. It doesn't warrant reengineering of the paneling in this vid.
Interesting. This is not mentioned in any of the acoustics books I’ve seen where they discuss porous absorption although it makes sense theoretically. What are you basing this on? A study? I assume someone has tested this and how substantial the effect of refraction might be. Do you have sources? Any info would be appreciated and I’d be keen to take a look through it. Cheers.
@@warpacademy Hi there, WarpAcademy. I really appreciate your thoughtful reply. It presents me with a problem though: how to explain where, why, and how that idea came about and present what I can to support its legitimacy. However, this raises some concern for two reasons. The first is that it entails that I write an unconventional account which will take some time, although it might be fun to formally construct, as I've never taken the time to do it before (and I should). The second though feels like I'd be doxxing myself. I'm not on Instag or Discord, but I might still have my FB acct. I'll check and hit you up there later if I can. I'm quite surprised that you're not on X? All the best.
Hey hey. Thanks for the reply. Now you've made me even more curious ha! I'm surprised this isn't discussed in any of the acoustics books (even advanced ones from AES). So I'm excited to hear about it and deepen my knowledge. I don't use lots of platforms (X being one of them), because...focus. I want to concentrate, not dilute my efforts in creating valuable content. But reaching me privately is easy. Please use our contact form at Warp Academy and send me a note there: warpacademy.com/contact/ Please just reference this video and that you and Vespers (me) were chatting so my support agent can forward it to me. Cheers.
The foam is destroying the purpose of the panel by reflecting most frequencies. Infact everything below around 12k. Lose the foam, use 8-10kg m/3 insulation of 7-8’’ thick, breathable fabric and a sealed air gap behind the panel. Foam is a gimmick, don’t use it. If you got the budget, a psi active bass trap is also advisable but start with the basics of effective panels.
Foam? There’s no foam in this module whatsoever. And nothing that is reflective at these densities and depths. I think you didn’t see the video I did about how these are made. You can check it out here: How to Build the ULTIMATE DIY Acoustic Sound Panels for Music Studios th-cam.com/video/ECazGzutkV8/w-d-xo.html The density of material you mention is very low. You’d only get into that range if you’re going beyond 8” depth. 32 kg/m3 is ideal for up to around a foot even, after least with rock wool it is. 10,000 Rayls. Read up on John Brant’s recommendations or Philip Newell for reference.
A single layer of this module won't do much at 30 Hz. But if you layer them, with air gaps, and use absorption of different densities, they can work wonders. They absolutely can control 30 hz and I have the acoustic results to back that up. My control room is made of very similar modules, layered, and using materials of different densities. I have zero issues at 30 Hz despite the fact that my Neumann KH420s cut off at 26 Hz, and the front back axial room mode is 28 Hz. Here's the design of the room: th-cam.com/video/5VrG2K_E7qI/w-d-xo.html. No fancy pressure-based treatments, no PRDs, no QRDs, no active trapping. Just the strategic use of porous absorption to make a non-environment room.
@@warpacademy That's what you should mention right away))) layers of them with air gaps. I know what you're talking about. i design room with the same principle now. How good is absorption coefficient?
I should clarify that I never said this is a "bass trap". This is a wide band absorber. A bass trap design would integrate a pressure-based treatment approach, graduated density, thicker absorption, range limiters or all 4. It depends on the room, the room cutoff frequency, and the cutoff frequency of the monitoring system. In terms of the absorption coefficients, they are frequency-dependent and vary based on depth and density. I discuss this more fully in this video about porous absorption: th-cam.com/video/SSn8HEsG8ro/w-d-xo.html. And this video about the wide band absorption modules I use: th-cam.com/video/ECazGzutkV8/w-d-xo.html Hope that helps clarify. Cheers!
Watch our other videos on acoustics & studio design:
✅ Get Our Free Acoustics Course ➤ bit.ly/free-acoustics-course
✅ How to Build the ULTIMATE DIY Acoustic Sound Panels for Music Studios: th-cam.com/video/ECazGzutkV8/w-d-xo.html
✅ Master the Art of Wrapping DIY Acoustic Panels Like a Pro!: th-cam.com/video/NYew5ZqGM7Q/w-d-xo.html
✅ How to Quickly & Easily Mount & Air Gap DIY Acoustic Panels for Music Studios: th-cam.com/video/uR5JZ6lUe6U/w-d-xo.html
✅ Unlock the Magic in Your Music Studio: Mastering the Art of Porous Absorption: th-cam.com/video/SSn8HEsG8ro/w-d-xo.html
such a good guy. god bless u
Glad you enjoyed the video. Cheers.
This channel is extremely good quality and professional.
Thanks very much, I appreciate that!
its amazing!
Thanks mate!
I come from home theater audio and was so happy to see this.
Side note - your tutorials for ableton and shared template have helped me so much. Thank you
Awesome to hear you're liking the content! I’m glad you’ve found the template and Ableton stuff useful. Subscribe and stay in touch!
@warpacademy the ducking sends/reverb was a huge piece I was missing. Thanks
@@michaelquinn8402 Right on. Yeah, it is a super big piece of the puzzle. Cheers!
Hi, many thanks for your work! Great stuff. I am wondering why not to fill airgaps with more rockwhool, if space and budget is no constraint. Thanks!
Hey hey. Thanks for watching and commenting. I think you missed a critical part of the video where I said this, "If space and money are no object I would always opt to fill the air space with more porous absorption." It's later on in the video, so make sure you watch the whole thing. Also the section about sealing the air space.
Note that when you do choose to fill the air space with more absorption, you must be careful about the density of the material. It will perform better for you if you use layers of material with multiple densities (graduated density). Some people use 40-60 kg/m3 material as a front layer (something like OC 703 or Rockwool Cavityrock) then lower density material in the range of 20-32 kg/m3 behind it (like OC Pink or Rockwool Comfortbatt). It all depends on your depth!
Make sure you do not use just the same density of rock wool for the whole absorber assembly, especially when the density is over 32 kg/m3 and the depth is 12" or more.
gotta give props to a video about sound treatment that sounds good. u wouldn't believe the amount of videos i've seen from audio guys that don't know how to de ess or limit etc lol
Agreed. Good audio is very important for all videos, but especially if you're a person in the industry as an engineer!
I've noticed this too. It seems like a simple requirement for audio experts to sound clean!
Should I use Rockwool Safe 'n' Sound (slightly denser/increased flow resistance if the numbers I found are correct)? Or would that be too dense/cause reflections at this thickness? Would that decision be room dependent also? Cheers
You can totally use that at 5.5” depth. All good. It’s 38 kg/m3 vs 32 so you can model its GFR in my calculator.
Great video, I make acoustic panels for just jamming out to edm and trance tunes and I appreciate all the info here! Thanks 😊
Happy to help!
Hi. For those of us with a smaller room Is there a volume level we should be listing to our music to minimise reflection of sound. Thanks..
Hey hey. In general, you should be mixing at the ideal volume level for where your psychoacoustic perception of sound is as balanced as possible. IE where the Equal Loudness Contours are as flat as possible. For a small room, this could be as low as 73 db SPL-C weighted. If you want to minimize reflections in a small room, treat your room or use nearfield monitors, or both; don't try and achieve that with volume. If you mix too quietly, you'll dramatically overdo the bass in your mix. That's because you're not very sensitive to bass frequencies at low levels. You'll hear much less bass than there actually is, and then turn it up too high in your mix, which will equal a muddy mix that won't translate.
To learn how to take the first steps in treating your room, watch this: th-cam.com/video/ECazGzutkV8/w-d-xo.html. Cheers!
I have two 5.5 inch thick cloud panels, may I know should I leave the air gap as low as possible or not more than 4 inch air gap? My ceiling is 10ft height
You have a fair bit of ceiling space to work with. You'll want to test that for sure, and yes you'll definitely want to air gap your panels from the boundary so that they work better. Typically you'll want to angle the cloud toward the back of your room slightly so use a suspension system that allows for adjustment. You could start with an air gap equal to the thickness of your absorber.
You missed a biggie with porous absorption. It's not just acoustic energy being lost to friction and heat. Consider the refractive aspect which by causing a massive number of minor deviations to the soundwaves, the cohesion of the wave patterns disintegrates toward complete nullification. This is to a degree why foam absorptive panels are measurably more effective when their surfaces are 3D and irregular.
Just a thought here. It doesn't warrant reengineering of the paneling in this vid.
Interesting. This is not mentioned in any of the acoustics books I’ve seen where they discuss porous absorption although it makes sense theoretically.
What are you basing this on? A study? I assume someone has tested this and how substantial the effect of refraction might be. Do you have sources? Any info would be appreciated and I’d be keen to take a look through it. Cheers.
@@warpacademy Hi there, WarpAcademy. I really appreciate your thoughtful reply. It presents me with a problem though: how to explain where, why, and how that idea came about and present what I can to support its legitimacy.
However, this raises some concern for two reasons. The first is that it entails that I write an unconventional account which will take some time, although it might be fun to formally construct, as I've never taken the time to do it before (and I should). The second though feels like I'd be doxxing myself.
I'm not on Instag or Discord, but I might still have my FB acct. I'll check and hit you up there later if I can. I'm quite surprised that you're not on X?
All the best.
Hey hey. Thanks for the reply. Now you've made me even more curious ha! I'm surprised this isn't discussed in any of the acoustics books (even advanced ones from AES). So I'm excited to hear about it and deepen my knowledge. I don't use lots of platforms (X being one of them), because...focus. I want to concentrate, not dilute my efforts in creating valuable content.
But reaching me privately is easy. Please use our contact form at Warp Academy and send me a note there: warpacademy.com/contact/
Please just reference this video and that you and Vespers (me) were chatting so my support agent can forward it to me. Cheers.
The foam is destroying the purpose of the panel by reflecting most frequencies. Infact everything below around 12k.
Lose the foam, use 8-10kg m/3 insulation of 7-8’’ thick, breathable fabric and a sealed air gap behind the panel. Foam is a gimmick, don’t use it.
If you got the budget, a psi active bass trap is also advisable but start with the basics of effective panels.
Foam? There’s no foam in this module whatsoever. And nothing that is reflective at these densities and depths.
I think you didn’t see the video I did about how these are made. You can check it out here: How to Build the ULTIMATE DIY Acoustic Sound Panels for Music Studios
th-cam.com/video/ECazGzutkV8/w-d-xo.html
The density of material you mention is very low. You’d only get into that range if you’re going beyond 8” depth. 32 kg/m3 is ideal for up to around a foot even, after least with rock wool it is. 10,000 Rayls. Read up on John Brant’s recommendations or Philip Newell for reference.
30 hz? with a small bass trap like that? you must be kidding me.
A single layer of this module won't do much at 30 Hz. But if you layer them, with air gaps, and use absorption of different densities, they can work wonders. They absolutely can control 30 hz and I have the acoustic results to back that up.
My control room is made of very similar modules, layered, and using materials of different densities. I have zero issues at 30 Hz despite the fact that my Neumann KH420s cut off at 26 Hz, and the front back axial room mode is 28 Hz.
Here's the design of the room: th-cam.com/video/5VrG2K_E7qI/w-d-xo.html. No fancy pressure-based treatments, no PRDs, no QRDs, no active trapping. Just the strategic use of porous absorption to make a non-environment room.
@@warpacademy That's what you should mention right away))) layers of them with air gaps. I know what you're talking about. i design room with the same principle now. How good is absorption coefficient?
I should clarify that I never said this is a "bass trap". This is a wide band absorber. A bass trap design would integrate a pressure-based treatment approach, graduated density, thicker absorption, range limiters or all 4. It depends on the room, the room cutoff frequency, and the cutoff frequency of the monitoring system.
In terms of the absorption coefficients, they are frequency-dependent and vary based on depth and density. I discuss this more fully in this video about porous absorption: th-cam.com/video/SSn8HEsG8ro/w-d-xo.html.
And this video about the wide band absorption modules I use: th-cam.com/video/ECazGzutkV8/w-d-xo.html
Hope that helps clarify. Cheers!