Different acoustic treatment scenario

Professional audio recording and studio engineering, post #46,079
Author:
Date:
Subject:
 elecbanana
 2008-07-10 21:51:01
 Different acoustic treatment scenario
I've done a lot of research into thin acoustic treatment (rigid
fiberglass, etc.) and room isolation, but I am currently presented
with a scenario I am unprepared for. I am looking for a little help.

I have put together a "youth band room" at my church in an unused
classroom and it's pretty loud. Here's why it's different. The
isolation from the rest of the building isn't a big problem. It could
be better, but we're not doing any recording so whatever. Also, I
have a large drop ceiling to work with. I know about the 2" rigid
fiberglass insulation and stuff, but I figure there is probably a
better or more cost-effective way to quiet the room with 4-5 feet of
unused space above us. Of course there are ducts and wires and stuff
in there, but for the most part it's empty.

Here are some details:
The room is about 17'x15' with a standard square-foot-tiled floor,
drywall walls, and drop ceiling with acoustic tiles and lights and
stuff.
I found some thin carpet to put in there and when I unrolled it I
found it was stair-stepped (think the shape of a stealth bomber) and
it only covers about half the floor. D'oh.
The walls, for the most part, have old office dividers leaning up
against them that are probably about 5-feet tall in an attempt at some
sound absorbtion.
Drop ceiling is at about 9.5 feet.
I have access to a bunch of old, unused acoustic ceiling tiles.
The room is housing a rock band.

Now, the youth band idea is very new and most people at the church
don't even know about it yet, nor do they know there's a band room, so
I would still consider it in the trial period. Therefor, I don't
think the church intends to let me to do much in the way of renovation
nor will there be much budget.

So like I said, little different scenario. Should I just fill the
space above the acoustic tiles with as much of the pink stuff as I can
find? Remove the tiles and do something different? Just somehow
layer a bunch of the acoustic tiles? Make more progress by getting
real carpet and padding? All these? Something else?

Thanks so much. I don't know of anybody in my area that would have
any better idea on this than I would, so I'm appealing to you guys.
Thanks.

Steve
Author:
Date:
Subject:
 Chris Hornbeck
 2008-07-11 05:16:36
 Re: Different acoustic treatment scenario
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:51:01 -0700 (PDT), elecbanana
<[email protected]> wrote:

Just for fun I looked at the headers. Bingo!
GoogooGroups. Duh.
Author:
Date:
Subject:
 Arny Krueger
 2008-07-11 05:59:18
 Re: Different acoustic treatment scenario
"elecbanana" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> Now, the youth band idea is very new and most people at
> the church don't even know about it yet, nor do they know
> there's a band room, so I would still consider it in the
> trial period. Therefor, I don't think the church intends
> to let me to do much in the way of renovation nor will
> there be much budget.
>
> So like I said, little different scenario. Should I just
> fill the space above the acoustic tiles with as much of
> the pink stuff as I can find? Remove the tiles and do
> something different? Just somehow layer a bunch of the
> acoustic tiles? Make more progress by getting real
> carpet and padding? All these? Something else?
>
> Thanks so much. I don't know of anybody in my area that
> would have any better idea on this than I would, so I'm
> appealing to you guys. Thanks.

You might want to check out the church sound area over at ProSound Web.

http://churchsound.prosoundweb.com/
Author:
Date:
Subject:
 Mike Rivers
 2008-07-11 11:52:40
 Re: Different acoustic treatment scenario
elecbanana wrote:
> I have put together a "youth band room" at my church in an unused
> classroom and it's pretty loud. Here's why it's different. The
> isolation from the rest of the building isn't a big problem. It could
> be better, but we're not doing any recording so whatever. Also, I
> have a large drop ceiling to work with. I know about the 2" rigid
> fiberglass insulation and stuff, but I figure there is probably a
> better or more cost-effective way to quiet the room with 4-5 feet of
> unused space above us.

You need to clarify what you mean by "quiet the room." You said that
isolation wasn't a problem, and that's usually what people mean when
they want to make a room quieter - either to keep external sounds from
coming in or (often more important) keeping sound made in the room from
getting out. But Fiberglas insulation and "stuff" won't help that. Only
more mass will keep sound in or out.

There's little cheaper than rigid Fiberglas when it comes to controlling
reflections and fixing acoustic problems within the room so you can make
it sound better for the musicians but it won't help the nursery that
they're planning to build in the room next door that they didn't tell
you about. <g>

> So like I said, little different scenario. Should I just fill the
> space above the acoustic tiles with as much of the pink stuff as I can
> find?

That probably won't solve any problems for you and will just make you
itch. Define your problem better in acoustic terms (not budget terms and
what you have lying around) and perhaps a solution will suggest itself.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
([email protected])
Author:
Date:
Subject:
 elecbanana
 2008-07-11 09:30:01
 Re: Different acoustic treatment scenario
On Jul 11, 7:52 am, Mike Rivers <[email protected]> wrote:
> elecbanana wrote:
> > I have put together a "youth band room" at my church in an unused
> > classroom and it's pretty loud.  Here's why it's different.  The
> > isolation from the rest of the building isn't a big problem.  It could
> > be better, but we're not doing any recording so whatever.  Also, I
> > have a large drop ceiling to work with.  I know about the 2" rigid
> > fiberglass insulation and stuff, but I figure there is probably a
> > better or more cost-effective way to quiet the room with 4-5 feet of
> > unused space above us.  
>
> You need to clarify what you mean by "quiet the room." You said that
> isolation wasn't a problem, and that's usually what people mean when
> they want to make a room quieter - either to keep external sounds from
> coming in or (often more important) keeping sound made in the room from
> getting out. But Fiberglas insulation and "stuff" won't help that. Only
> more mass will keep sound in or out.
>
> There's little cheaper than rigid Fiberglas when it comes to controlling
> reflections and fixing acoustic problems within the room so you can make
> it sound better for the musicians but it won't help the nursery that
> they're planning to build in the room next door that they didn't tell
> you about. <g>
>
> > So like I said, little different scenario.  Should I just fill the
> > space above the acoustic tiles with as much of the pink stuff as I can
> > find?  
>
> That probably won't solve any problems for you and will just make you
> itch. Define your problem better in acoustic terms (not budget terms and
> what you have lying around) and perhaps a solution will suggest itself.
>
> --
> If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
> me here:
> double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
> ([email protected])

Thanks for the response Mike. I thought I had specified, but anyway,
because of where the room is in the building and what's around it, it
doesn't need to be all that acoustically isolated. I am looking to
absorb more sound inside the room so the musicians don't all go deaf
and so we can hear everything better. I guess I would want a fairly
even absorbtion across the frequency spectrum, but like I said, this
isn't a recording studio, so it's not as big of a deal. I know this
is rec.audio.pro, not rec.audio.pro.rehearsalroom, but I trust you
guys. I know rigid fiberglass is the best way to go when space is an
issue, like on recording studio walls, but I have basically 1020 cubic
feet unused over our heads. I've read articles and message boards
saying "you'd have to have a lot of X to make it work", well, I have
room for a lot of X. Does that change things?

Steve
Author:
Date:
Subject:
 Richard Crowley
 2008-07-11 13:53:18
 Re: Different acoustic treatment scenario
"elecbanana" wrote ...
> Thanks for the response Mike. I thought I had specified, but anyway,
> because of where the room is in the building and what's around it, it
> doesn't need to be all that acoustically isolated. I am looking to
> absorb more sound inside the room so the musicians don't all go deaf
> and so we can hear everything better.

Are you saying that it is "too loud" inside the room?
Perhaps you should tell us why the obvious reaction of
"turning it down" isn't appropriate in thie case?
Author:
Date:
Subject:
 elecbanana
 2008-07-11 15:34:46
 Re: Different acoustic treatment scenario
On Jul 11, 4:53 pm, "Richard Crowley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "elecbanana"  wrote ...
>
> > Thanks for the response Mike.  I thought I had specified, but anyway,
> > because of where the room is in the building and what's around it, it
> > doesn't need to be all that acoustically isolated.  I am looking to
> > absorb more sound inside the room so the musicians don't all go deaf
> > and so we can hear everything better.
>
> Are you saying that it is "too loud" inside the room?
> Perhaps you should tell us why the obvious reaction of
> "turning it down" isn't appropriate in thie case?

Well, when I play in there with other professional musicians, it's
fine, we turn down. This is a youth band. High school drummers and
guitarists usually don't fully grasp that concept.
Author:
Date:
Subject:
 Richard Crowley
 2008-07-11 15:38:06
 Re: Different acoustic treatment scenario
"elecbanana" wrote...
> Well, when I play in there with other professional musicians, it's
> fine, we turn down. This is a youth band. High school drummers
> and guitarists usually don't fully grasp that concept.

Then it appears to be an excellent learning experience for them.
The earlier they learn to manage their levels, the longer they will
retain some nominal amount of hearing. Perhaps they can take a
lesson from the decrepit Baby Boomer generation of hearing-aid
wearers.