[GarageGuitar]

HI everyone.

My home studio is almost idiotically small (approx 7ft x 8ft x 7.5ft
LxWxH), but provides a dedicated space for a desk (with eqpt rack,
nearfield monitors, computer monitor, etc), a couple of mic stands
and a stool to sit on while I play mainly acoustic guitar and record
vocals.

Currently the "sound treatment" consists of wall to wall carpet (no
underpad) and ten 12"x 48" panels of 3/4" styrofoam onto which I've
glued panels of roughly 1-1/2" thick convoluted foam mattress pad (hi-
tech, eh?). Eight of these panels are hung vertically on the walls,
centered vertically, and laid out about 4 inches apart on the two
walls at the mic stand end of the room. There are 2 more panels hung
horizontally behind the desk at the opposite end of the space behind
the nearfields. I also hang a blanket across the doorway while
recording to cut down on reflections off the smooth door surface,.

All of this helps immensely, but the room still suffers from flutter
echo/tin can reverb, which is mucking up my vocal takes, especially
when I get loud. My question is how best to deal with the situation in
a cost-effective manner. How mich of the drywall should I be trying to
cover with absorptive materials? What about bass traps? Should I treat
the ceiling?

On one hand, I feel like I should treat the entire space as a vocal
booth (it's not much bigger!) and glue foam on every inch of surface
area. On the other hand, I dont want a totally dead room.

I'd appreciate your thoughts, suggestions for treatment mateials, war
stories or any other advice you care to offer.

Thanks in advance!

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:39:13 -0800 (PST), GarageGuitar
wrote:

HI everyone.

My home studio is almost idiotically small (approx 7ft x 8ft x 7.5ft
LxWxH), but provides a dedicated space for a desk (with eqpt rack,
nearfield monitors, computer monitor, etc), a couple of mic stands
and a stool to sit on while I play mainly acoustic guitar and record
vocals.

I'd appreciate your thoughts, suggestions for treatment materials, war
stories or any other advice you care to offer.

It's either a very quiet evening at home or everyone's still
replaying "Survivor" for subtle details. Spoiler alert: no
pretty girls were voted out.

But seriously, how long can you make a pair of microphone cables?
What else do you have available, room-wise? The current lack of
responses is at least partly because the you're asking the old joke
question "Doctor, when I hit my head with this hammer it hurts".

Of course you know that, and I don't want this post to come off
wrong, so maybe a better way to respond is "Is this little room
really the only alternative?"

If so, it'll take someone much smarter than me to help. Fortunately,
they abound.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"It's 90% boilerplate, 1% real work, 9% WTF?"
-Les Cargill

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:39:13 -0800 (PST), GarageGuitar
wrote:

My home studio is almost idiotically small (approx 7ft x 8ft x 7.5ft
LxWxH),

snip

On one hand, I feel like I should treat the entire space as a vocal
booth (it's not much bigger!) and glue foam on every inch of surface
area. On the other hand, I dont want a totally dead room.

I think that's your only option. Deaden the room, mic close and add
some artificial life to the recording. Or, as already suggested,
treat it as a control room and run cables to somewhere better. Not
very convenient if you're a one-man operation, I admit!

[GarageGuitar]

LP:

Don't I wish I had another (larger) space available! The irony is that
my room is adjacent to a huge open basement space whch I'd love to
carve a chunk out of, but I've been vetoed by The Spouse.

So I guess I'll be looking onto lots of foam..... Any ideas on how to
neatly foam a ceiling with pot lights in it? Maybe a checkerboard of
12x12 squares with lights in opne spaces......

Thanks for the input.

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:04:13 -0800 (PST), GarageGuitar
wrote:

LP:

Don't I wish I had another (larger) space available! The irony is that
my room is adjacent to a huge open basement space whch I'd love to
carve a chunk out of, but I've been vetoed by The Spouse.

So I guess I'll be looking onto lots of foam..... Any ideas on how to
neatly foam a ceiling with pot lights in it? Maybe a checkerboard of
12x12 squares with lights in opne spaces......

Thanks for the input.

Have a look at www.soundservice.co.uk

I know they aren't local to you, but the sort of products they have
must be available there. You will end up with much better (and
spouse-acceptable) ideas than simply gluing up foam.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Ken Winokur]

On Feb 29, 8:04 am, GarageGuitar wrote:
LP:

Don't I wish I had another (larger) space available! The irony is that
my room is adjacent to a huge open basement space whch I'd love to
carve a chunk out of, but I've been vetoed by The Spouse.

So I guess I'll be looking onto lots of foam..... Any ideas on how to
neatly foam a ceiling with pot lights in it? Maybe a checkerboard of
12x12 squares with lights in opne spaces......

Thanks for the input.

Regular foam is a really poor solution (it's almost transparent to
sound). The foam sold for audio treatment is good to break up sound
somewhat but mostly doesn't absorb bass (unless it's quite fat).
Check out bass traps - this will help enormously. Ethan Winer's
designs are elegantly simple and easy to build (and his site has lots
of info about how to use them). He's easily found on a Google search.

I wouldn't deaden the whole room. Put up some wood panels (at
angles) to resonate with your guitar and vocals. You could even make
them so that you can flip them around to change their amount of
reflectivity. Randomize the reflections of the live surfaces so that
you don't create standing waves. Playing or singing in a totally dead
room is really weird - you'll hate it.

How come you can't just use the basement rooms? Acoustic guitar and
vocals doesn't sound that annoying (unless you really suck)? You can
deal with a certain amount of ambient noise in the unsound proofed
rooms, by close micing. At least you could have some choices of
acoustics. Send the old bat to the movies and run some cables into
the living room. Quit your job and make her go out to work every day
while you record any damn where you want.

Why is it that I assume that you're the man and she is the wife? My
appologies if I got the sexes wrong.

[Arny Krueger]

"GarageGuitar" wrote in message

HI everyone.

My home studio is almost idiotically small (approx 7ft x
8ft x 7.5ft LxWxH), but provides a dedicated space for a
desk (with eqpt rack, nearfield monitors, computer
monitor, etc), a couple of mic stands and a stool to sit
on while I play mainly acoustic guitar and record vocals.

Currently the "sound treatment" consists of wall to wall
carpet (no underpad)

Padded carpet usually sounds a little bit better.

and ten 12"x 48" panels of 3/4"
styrofoam onto which I've glued panels of roughly 1-1/2"
thick convoluted foam mattress pad (hi- tech, eh?).

You ought to find your nearest professional insulation contractor and pick
up a 6-pack of Dow Corning 703 or its equivalent. It comes as 2' x 4' x 2"
blankets. Cut each one in half lengthwise and add it to the sandwich, above.

However, you might want to get a 12 pack, and disperse the other 7 pieces on
walls around your little room.

Use it in separated areas, don't butt the pieces together.

[Anahata]

GarageGuitar wrote:

So I guess I'll be looking onto lots of foam..... Any ideas on how to
neatly foam a ceiling with pot lights in it? Maybe a checkerboard of
12x12 squares with lights in opne spaces......

To reduce the bass problems you need *depth* of absorbing material. Put
as much thickness as you can on the ceiling without hitting your head on
the bottom of it, leaving gaps where the lights are.

You should easily be able to add 8 inches thickness of absorbing
material, or possible save money by having a 4" gap and 4" of absorbent
material below that on a false ceiling framework. Dense fibre glass is
better than foam.

On the walls you've covered with foam, instead of covering the whole
wall with foam, cover half the wall with double the thickness. Try to
get bare parts of the wall facing treated parts, so there's no place
where sound can bounce back and forth between them.

It won't be perfect but you'll get less bass resonance and less
"deadness" at the same time.

Anahata

[Ken Winokur]

On Feb 29, 8:41 am, Anahata wrote:
GarageGuitar wrote:
So I guess I'll be looking onto lots of foam..... Any ideas on how to
neatly foam a ceiling with pot lights in it? Maybe a checkerboard of
12x12 squares with lights in opne spaces......

To reduce the bass problems you need *depth* of absorbing material. Put
as much thickness as you can on the ceiling without hitting your head on
the bottom of it, leaving gaps where the lights are.

You should easily be able to add 8 inches thickness of absorbing
material, or possible save money by having a 4" gap and 4" of absorbent
material below that on a false ceiling framework. Dense fibre glass is
better than foam.

On the walls you've covered with foam, instead of covering the whole
wall with foam, cover half the wall with double the thickness. Try to
get bare parts of the wall facing treated parts, so there's no place
where sound can bounce back and forth between them.

It won't be perfect but you'll get less bass resonance and less
"deadness" at the same time.

Anahata

Ethan Winer's bass traps (which I have been planning to build but have
not yet done) use somewhat thin amounts of rigid fiberglass. From
what I gather, the designs he has are quite scientific and use a small
amount of deadening material coupled with a resonant membrane (just a
piece of plywood cut to a specific size and mounted at a specific
depth) to do what we all have mostly done with huge amounts of
absorptive materials. Even the deep bass traps are only 4" deep. So
they would easily fit in your small room (on the walls or ceiling).

There are three slightly different designs that alternately trap deep
bass, high bass and mid/high sounds. Using some of each you get a
nicely balanced sound.

Ethan you out there? Why do your thin panels work?

Here's the website for his designs:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/basstrap.html

[Ethan Winer]

Currently the "sound treatment" consists of wall to wall carpet

Have a look at my Acoustics FAQ for the right way to do this:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

A cube shaped room needs much more than foam.

--Ethan

[Powell]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote

Have a look at my Acoustics FAQ for the right way to do this:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

Are you aware of any books or links which describe the
specific methodology used to measure actual room
resonances for the Dolby studio facility certification?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Powell wrote:
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote

Have a look at my Acoustics FAQ for the right way to do this:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

Are you aware of any books or links which describe the
specific methodology used to measure actual room
resonances for the Dolby studio facility certification?

The information is public. You could contact the Production
Services Group in Wootton Bassett and you should be able to get a
manual and a fancy calculator for figuring room modes.

Almost certainly they have isolation and noise floor standards and
some basic rough room mode numbers. Remember, of course, that these
are intended for soundstages and mixing theatres, and the required
acoustics are very, very different than for music recording or for
performance halls. So I would _bet_ that they would have a fairly narrow
range of allowable RT60s for a soundstage, for instance, and I'd bet
those numbers are way too short for a music studio.

Not available in the US, of course.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Powell]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote

Have a look at my Acoustics FAQ for the right way to do this:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

Are you aware of any books or links which describe the
specific methodology used to measure actual room
resonances for the Dolby studio facility certification?

The information is public. You could contact the Production
Services Group in Wootton Bassett and you should be able to get a
manual and a fancy calculator for figuring room modes.

Almost certainly they have isolation and noise floor standards and
some basic rough room mode numbers. Remember, of course, that these
are intended for soundstages and mixing theatres, and the required
acoustics are very, very different than for music recording or for
performance halls. So I would _bet_ that they would have a fairly narrow
range of allowable RT60s for a soundstage, for instance, and I'd bet
those numbers are way too short for a music studio.

Not available in the US, of course.

I think your information is incorrect. A facility does not submit
theoretical paperwork to get certified. It is based on actual
measurements by company (Dolby) representatives.
*THX Professional Facility certification,* for example.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Powell wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote

Have a look at my Acoustics FAQ for the right way to do this:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

Are you aware of any books or links which describe the
specific methodology used to measure actual room
resonances for the Dolby studio facility certification?

The information is public. You could contact the Production
Services Group in Wootton Bassett and you should be able to get a
manual and a fancy calculator for figuring room modes.

Almost certainly they have isolation and noise floor standards and
some basic rough room mode numbers. Remember, of course, that these
are intended for soundstages and mixing theatres, and the required
acoustics are very, very different than for music recording or for
performance halls. So I would _bet_ that they would have a fairly narrow
range of allowable RT60s for a soundstage, for instance, and I'd bet
those numbers are way too short for a music studio.

Not available in the US, of course.

I think your information is incorrect. A facility does not submit
theoretical paperwork to get certified. It is based on actual
measurements by company (Dolby) representatives.
*THX Professional Facility certification,* for example.

Where did I say this was not the case? Please don't put words in my mouth.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Powell" wrote ...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote
The information is public. You could contact the Production
Services Group in Wootton Bassett and you should be able to get a
manual and a fancy calculator for figuring room modes.

Almost certainly they have isolation and noise floor standards and
some basic rough room mode numbers. Remember, of course, that these
are intended for soundstages and mixing theatres, and the required
acoustics are very, very different than for music recording or for
performance halls. So I would _bet_ that they would have a fairly narrow
range of allowable RT60s for a soundstage, for instance, and I'd bet
those numbers are way too short for a music studio.

Not available in the US, of course.

I think your information is incorrect. A facility does not submit
theoretical paperwork to get certified. It is based on actual
measurements by company (Dolby) representatives.
*THX Professional Facility certification,* for example.

You must have posted this message to the wrong thread.
None of the information you proclaim "incorrect" is actually
stated in the message you responded to.

[Powell]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote


I think your information is incorrect. A facility does not submit
theoretical paperwork to get certified. It is based on actual
measurements by company (Dolby) representatives.
*THX Professional Facility certification,* for example.

Where did I say this was not the case? Please don't put words
in my mouth.

You wrote "manual and a fancy calculator for figuring
room modes." I'm not interested in this whatsoever.

meth-od-ol-o-gy (meth uh dol'uh jee) n. pl. -gies
1. a set or system of methods, principles,
and rules used in a given discipline, as
in the arts or sciences.

As in actual tester methodology for certification.

[Powell]

"Richard Crowley" wrote

You must have posted this message to the wrong thread.
None of the information you proclaim "incorrect" is actually
stated in the message you responded to.

Prove it.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Powell wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote


I think your information is incorrect. A facility does not submit
theoretical paperwork to get certified. It is based on actual
measurements by company (Dolby) representatives.
*THX Professional Facility certification,* for example.

Where did I say this was not the case? Please don't put words
in my mouth.

You wrote "manual and a fancy calculator for figuring
room modes." I'm not interested in this whatsoever.

Well, indeed, that's what Dolby will give you. I have one on my
desk at home. They have a standard kit which includes the aforementioned
manual which describes the measurements and what the allowable limits
are, and includes the aforementioned calculator. I believe if you look
on the Dolby web site you will probably see a mention of this.

meth-od-ol-o-gy (meth uh dol'uh jee) n. pl. -gies
1. a set or system of methods, principles,
and rules used in a given discipline, as
in the arts or sciences.

As in actual tester methodology for certification.

Yes, of course they do that. When did I say they didn't? You seem to
have a severe reading comprehension problem and a bizarre knee-jerk
reaction to anything that involves calculation.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Powell]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote

I think your information is incorrect. A facility does not submit
theoretical paperwork to get certified. It is based on actual
measurements by company (Dolby) representatives.
*THX Professional Facility certification,* for example.

Where did I say this was not the case? Please don't put words
in my mouth.

You wrote "manual and a fancy calculator for figuring
room modes." I'm not interested in this whatsoever.

Well, indeed, that's what Dolby will give you. I have one on my
desk at home. They have a standard kit which includes the aforementioned
manual which describes the measurements and what the allowable limits
are, and includes the aforementioned calculator. I believe if you look
on the Dolby web site you will probably see a mention of this.

meth-od-ol-o-gy (meth uh dol'uh jee) n. pl. -gies
1. a set or system of methods, principles,
and rules used in a given discipline, as
in the arts or sciences.

As in actual tester methodology for certification.

Yes, of course they do that.

Before I waste valuable time, as I understand it, the
Dolby web site contain some document you vaguely
recall but have no title or link to. In addition this
document will contain essential information to me such
as where in my specific facility/room testing will take
place, what testing microphone type will be used,
signal generator algorithm, ect.... the overall
methodology such that I can assure my certification
before actual testing takes place ... because as
you wrote it is only "calculation". Is this your
overall position, Scott? An associate assures me that
based his research of companies which will actually
build and warrant such facilities is very expensive...
$120-250 per square. You seriously underestimate
the finances and labor involved in certification.
Your best advice so far "bookshelves."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Powell wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote
Before I waste valuable time, as I understand it, the
Dolby web site contain some document you vaguely
recall but have no title or link to. In addition this
document will contain essential information to me such
as where in my specific facility/room testing will take
place, what testing microphone type will be used,
signal generator algorithm, ect.... the overall
methodology such that I can assure my certification
before actual testing takes place ...

No, that information is contained in the manual which you can request
from the Dolby team. Clearly you are reading the words that I wrote but
you are not understanding the meaning of them. Either that or you are
deliberately lying.

The Dolby website has this:
http://www.dolby.com/professional/mo...er_studio.html

which does in fact mention that they will provide you with the manual
and with the nifty calculator.

because as
you wrote it is only "calculation".

No, that is not what I wrote. You are putting words into my mouth
again. Stop lying.

Is this your
overall position, Scott?

No, it is not. If you will go back to my posting and read what I wrote,
it was very precise. I claimed that Dolby would send you on request
a manual which describes the criteria for certification, and a nifty
calculator that does things like room mode calculation. This web site
states this to be the case.

An associate assures me that
based his research of companies which will actually
build and warrant such facilities is very expensive...

Of course. It's very expensive to build good rooms, and since the
criteria almost certainly include isolation, it's probably much more
expensive to build a room that meets the Dolby specifications than
to build an effective studio. But that's really neither here nor there,
since, as I point out, the Dolby requirements relate to rooms that don't
have all that much in common with a music studio. You appear to have
misread that statement as well.

Go back, read what I wrote, and stop lying about what I said. People
don't like liars.

$120-250 per square. You seriously underestimate
the finances and labor involved in certification.
Your best advice so far "bookshelves."

No, that wasn't my advice at all. You're putting words in my mout again.
Stop lying.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Powell]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote

Before I waste valuable time, as I understand it, the
Dolby web site contain some document you vaguely
recall but have no title or link to. In addition this
document will contain essential information to me such
as where in my specific facility/room testing will take
place, what testing microphone type will be used,
signal generator algorithm, ect.... the overall
methodology such that I can assure my certification
before actual testing takes place ...

No, that information is contained in the manual which you can request
from the Dolby team. Clearly you are reading the words that I wrote but
you are not understanding the meaning of them. Either that or you are
deliberately lying.

The Dolby website has this:
http://www.dolby.com/professional/mo...er_studio.html

Mmmm... no. I'm looking for this:
http://www.thx.com/company/index.html

"THX PROFESSIONAL STUDIO CERTIFICATION"

It has just occurred to me that Dolby and THX may be
different companies or systems.

"The certification program enables sound designers to work
in optimal environments for sound recording, mixing and
mastering. It provides them with confidence, knowing that
they have creative control and quality assurance during
audio mixing and monitoring sessions. Today, some of the
world's premier audio mixing studios and screening rooms
are THX Certified, including Skywalker Sound at
Lucasfilm's Skywalker Ranch and Peter Jackson's Park
Road Post in New Zealand."


You are putting words into my mouth
again. Stop lying.

Is this your overall position, Scott?

No, it is not.

If you say so, Scott.


An associate assures me that
based his research of companies which will actually
build and warrant such facilities is very expensive...

Of course. It's very expensive to build good rooms,
and since the criteria almost certainly include isolation,
it's probably much more expensive to build a room that
meets the Dolby specifications than to build an effective
studio.

More debate-speak. You make gross generalizations
about acoustic fixes. But when pressed you can't
support your boilerplate.


Go back, read what I wrote, and stop lying about what I said.
People don't like liars.

"People"... who do you personally speake for on this board,
Scott? You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own
facts or personal ownership of this board. .


$120-250 per square. You seriously underestimate
the finances and labor involved in certification.
Your best advice so far "bookshelves."

No, that wasn't my advice at all. You're putting words in
my mout again. Stop lying.

Quack, quack, quack... Please learn to use your
news filter.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Powell wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote
No, that information is contained in the manual which you can request
from the Dolby team. Clearly you are reading the words that I wrote but
you are not understanding the meaning of them. Either that or you are
deliberately lying.

The Dolby website has this:
http://www.dolby.com/professional/mo...er_studio.html

Mmmm... no. I'm looking for this:
http://www.thx.com/company/index.html

"THX PROFESSIONAL STUDIO CERTIFICATION"

It has just occurred to me that Dolby and THX may be
different companies or systems.

They are, in fact, totally unrelated and have no connection with one another
in any way.

THX actually has a whole bunch of different certifications which all have
different standards. They apply to different rooms and different systems
which are used differently.

SOME of the THX standards have the criteria available, but not all of
them do. In some cases the criteria are reasonable, in others they
are pretty ludicrous. In the case of monitoring systems they also limit
the available monitoring hardware to equipment which has been certified
under laboratory conditions.

For the most part the THX certifications are good minimal standards, but
some of them have some bizarre requirements which may rule out some
configurations that will actually give better performance.

There is no THX standard for small cubical rooms.

You are putting words into my mouth
again. Stop lying.

Is this your overall position, Scott?

No, it is not.

If you say so, Scott.

Throughout this thread, I have made two basic statements: first, that
small cubical rooms are very bad and must be changed, and secondly that
bookcases make effective diffusion devices. I have cited references
for both of these statements.

Every other statement that you have attributed to me is something that
has come directly out of your own imagination. I do not appreciate
it when people attribute to me things that I did not say, did not mean,
and do not believe. Please stop.

More debate-speak. You make gross generalizations
about acoustic fixes. But when pressed you can't
support your boilerplate.

So, sending you to the F. Alton Everest book is not sufficient? That
would seem effective support to me.

Go back, read what I wrote, and stop lying about what I said.
People don't like liars.

"People"... who do you personally speake for on this board,

This is not a "board." This is Usenet.

Scott? You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own
facts or personal ownership of this board. .

I am entitled to basic consideration as a human being, and to not
be misquoted. Please stop lying about my statements.

You may want to seek professional help. My psychology degree is only
in psychoacoustics and cannot prescribe medication. You may want to
speak with someone who can.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Steve King]

"Powell" wrote in message
...
|
| "Scott Dorsey" wrote
|
| Before I waste valuable time, as I understand it, the
| Dolby web site contain some document you vaguely
| recall but have no title or link to. In addition this
| document will contain essential information to me such
| as where in my specific facility/room testing will take
| place, what testing microphone type will be used,
| signal generator algorithm, ect.... the overall
| methodology such that I can assure my certification
| before actual testing takes place ...
|
| No, that information is contained in the manual which you can request
| from the Dolby team. Clearly you are reading the words that I wrote but
| you are not understanding the meaning of them. Either that or you are
| deliberately lying.
|
| The Dolby website has this:
| http://www.dolby.com/professional/mo...er_studio.html
|
| Mmmm... no. I'm looking for this:
| http://www.thx.com/company/index.html
|
| "THX PROFESSIONAL STUDIO CERTIFICATION"
|
| It has just occurred to me that Dolby and THX may be
| different companies or systems.
|
| "The certification program enables sound designers to work
| in optimal environments for sound recording, mixing and
| mastering. It provides them with confidence, knowing that
| they have creative control and quality assurance during
| audio mixing and monitoring sessions. Today, some of the
| world's premier audio mixing studios and screening rooms
| are THX Certified, including Skywalker Sound at
| Lucasfilm's Skywalker Ranch and Peter Jackson's Park
| Road Post in New Zealand."
|
|
| You are putting words into my mouth
| again. Stop lying.
|
| Is this your overall position, Scott?
|
| No, it is not.
|
| If you say so, Scott.
|
|
| An associate assures me that
| based his research of companies which will actually
| build and warrant such facilities is very expensive...
|
| Of course. It's very expensive to build good rooms,
| and since the criteria almost certainly include isolation,
| it's probably much more expensive to build a room that
| meets the Dolby specifications than to build an effective
| studio.
|
| More debate-speak. You make gross generalizations
| about acoustic fixes. But when pressed you can't
| support your boilerplate.
|
|
| Go back, read what I wrote, and stop lying about what I said.
| People don't like liars.
|
| "People"... who do you personally speake for on this board,
| Scott? You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own
| facts or personal ownership of this board. .
|
|
| $120-250 per square. You seriously underestimate
| the finances and labor involved in certification.
| Your best advice so far "bookshelves."
|
| No, that wasn't my advice at all. You're putting words in
| my mout again. Stop lying.
|
| Quack, quack, quack... Please learn to use your
| news filter.

Mr. Powell, this is one of the most useful forums for audio on the Internet.
One of the reasons is that there are so few posters like yourself,
uninformed, arrogant, and abusive; and, so many contributors who share their
knowledge and real experience like Scott , who has treated you far better
than you deserve. You persist in making a spectacle of yourself? Please
leave. Scott, your feeding a troll.

Steve King

Steve King

[Richard Crowley]

"Powell" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote
You must have posted this message to the wrong thread.
None of the information you proclaim "incorrect" is actually
stated in the message you responded to.

Prove it.

Even without your apparent perception deficiency,
you attitude makes it easy to ignore any further
outbursts. Bye and plonk to you.

[Powell]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote

It has just occurred to me that Dolby and THX may be
different companies or systems.

They are, in fact, totally unrelated and have no connection
with one another in any way.

THX actually has a whole bunch of different certifications
which all have

Well I guess it's a good thing I caught my own error when
it went right over your head the first time... "*THX
Professional Facility certification,* for example."


Throughout this thread, I have made two basic statements:
first, that small cubical rooms are very bad and must be
changed, and secondly that bookcases make effective
diffusion devices. I have cited references for both of
these statements.

The substance and content of your posts was the BIG Zero.


Every other statement that you have attributed to me is something that
has come directly out of your own imagination. I do not appreciate
it when people attribute to me things that I did not say, did not mean,
and do not believe. Please stop.

More debate-speak. You make gross generalizations
about acoustic fixes. But when pressed you can't
support your boilerplate.

So, sending you to the F. Alton Everest book is not
sufficient? That would seem effective support to me.

Go get the book and do your own homework... then get
back with us with a methodology. You have the definition
now.


Go back, read what I wrote, and stop lying about what I said.
People don't like liars.

"People"... who do you personally speake for on this board,

This is not a "board." This is Usenet.

Hehehehe... deep, Scot, that's so DEEP! I've been
posting to high eight audio since 1996, under this handle.
This isn't school and you're not the teacher, sugar-pants.


Scott? You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own
facts or personal ownership of this board. .

I am entitled to basic consideration as a human being,
and to not be misquoted. Please stop lying about my
statements.

Remove the timber from your own eye first Scott.
The intent of USEnet is an open and free exchange
of information and ideas) You frighten off
participation by others (newbies) who might otherwise
learn and judge for themselves the merits of
audio ideas/concepts. But you got-to-be-you. That's
the price you make all users pay, sadly.


You may want to seek professional help. My psychology
degree is only in psychoacoustics and cannot prescribe
medication. You may want to speak with someone
who can.

Well this is pretty serious Scott, academic fraud. We're
to believe that you have a graduate or doctors degree
in psychology? Since you brought it up, what is you
formal education at the graduate plus level? Perhaps I
can e-mail Mr. Hawley if you can't remember.

And so no formal education in electronics, right?

[RobertH]

Good strategy for the ceiling. That's probably where the original
poster is getting all his echo from. In my old house I had a cathedral
ceiling and I always got great acoustics in that room.