# DIY room treatment/freestanding treatment



## LinearZero (Mar 23, 2021)

Hi all, hope you're well

Not sure if this is the right area to post this but basically I have a small amateur studio set up and I want to treat my room. The problem is with my living situation I can't go drilling holes into walls or using adhesives of any kind so I have been using studio monitors which is not ideal. I had a look online for sound treatment solutions and found you can purchase what is essentially the same materials used on studio walls but as a freestanding unit, similar to a divider you would use in an office space however these are quite expensive so I was thinking of making my own. "DIY" vs "commercial" arguments aside is something like this viable for a studio or does sound treatment have to be hard up against a wall to do what it's intended to do?

This is an example of what I'm referring to: https://djcity.com.au/product/aural...Y4bRop0K8HxBYGofVFlzZxto67qq9AfAaAvqxEALw_wcB


----------



## jcrosby (Mar 23, 2021)

In terms of what you linked... I'd avoid those, especially at that insane of a price. Auralex will do nothing other than kill flutter echo on the highs and high mids. You want something heavy dutier. Ironically heavy dutier standing options cost less! Auralex have made a fortune marketing their foam, even as bass traps. The reality is lows and low mids pass through foam like a hot knife through butter... It'll stop echo above 2-3k-ish, but so will putting a blankets on the walls.... (Really....)

Some of the best absorbers have a gap between the insulation and the wall. That said the gap size is specific to the panel size so they're more effective though, and it's pretty nerdy stuff when you get into the actual math... Overall though I'd imagine this wouldn't leave you any worse off than having DIY rigid fiberglass panels flush on your wall...

The short version is is that acoustic materials are measured in absorption coefficients. When you compare these numbers between any acoustic foam vs any rigid fiberglass (or similar material) the two options are vastly different... Even the most expensive foam doesn't have any impact on the lower range frequencies that tend to do the most damage in terms of what your speakers sound like inside your room....

GIK not only makes great stuff, these are the same materials used in heavier panels used to deal with lower frequencies... Here are a few options...









FreeStand Bass Trap


GIK Acoustics FreeStand Bass Trap is ideal for straddling corners where wall mounted bass traps cannot be used or in multipurpose rooms.




www.gikacoustics.com





https://www.gikacoustics.com/product/gik-acoustics-screen-panel/

At the very least I'd at consider watching this before considering dropping $500+ on freestanding foam.




In terms of him talking about putting a membrane on the front the add crispness back in, this video lets you hear the difference between some panels with intentionally reflective surfaces, foam, and the raw room. While the foam sounds deadest, remember that that only comes with literally plastering the living shit out of a room with foam. And foam just doesn't have the proper coefficient to also properly handle anything down toward the lower range of his sax (300-ish...)

I'm also not suggesting hunting for panels with a reflective surface per se... I just think this is a great comparison between just how different all 3 scenarios _can_ sound...


----------



## Macrawn (Mar 23, 2021)

jcrosby is right. 

I'd rather have the GIK traps than that foam garbage. As pointed out you can make this stuff yourself at half the cost or even less. Gearslutz or whatever the site is called now has lots of geeks who diy it and do acoustical tests on what they build. 

I also think realtraps makes free standing units and those are real bass traps which is what you need. That foam stuff is useless against bass. They make good traps for reasonable price. Gaps between the wall and traps are actually good. They are best in corners but you want to treat early reflections too.


----------



## LinearZero (Mar 24, 2021)

Wow 


jcrosby said:


> In terms of what you linked... I'd avoid those, especially at that insane of a price. Auralex will do nothing other than kill flutter echo on the highs and high mids. You want something heavy dutier. Ironically heavy dutier standing options cost less! Auralex have made a fortune marketing their foam, even as bass traps. The reality is lows and low mids pass through foam like a hot knife through butter... It'll stop echo above 2-3k-ish, but so will putting a blankets on the walls.... (Really....)
> 
> Some of the best absorbers have a gap between the insulation and the wall. That said the gap size is specific to the panel size so they're more effective though, and it's pretty nerdy stuff when you get into the actual math... Overall though I'd imagine this wouldn't leave you any worse off than having DIY rigid fiberglass panels flush on your wall...
> 
> ...



Ok. Something in that price range looks very feasible, interesting that the heavy duty ones are cheaper than the flimsy lighter ones.


----------



## davidanthony (Mar 24, 2021)

If you can source Caruso Iso-bond it is extremely effective and very easy to build free standing absorbers with it.

Can see some examples here: https://www.jochenschulz.me/en/blog/caruso-iso-bond-vs-rockwool-comparison


----------



## storyteller (Mar 24, 2021)

LinearZero said:


> Hi all, hope you're well
> 
> Not sure if this is the right area to post this but basically I have a small amateur studio set up and I want to treat my room. The problem is with my living situation I can't go drilling holes into walls or using adhesives of any kind so I have been using studio monitors which is not ideal. I had a look online for sound treatment solutions and found you can purchase what is essentially the same materials used on studio walls but as a freestanding unit, similar to a divider you would use in an office space however these are quite expensive so I was thinking of making my own. "DIY" vs "commercial" arguments aside is something like this viable for a studio or does sound treatment have to be hard up against a wall to do what it's intended to do?
> 
> This is an example of what I'm referring to: https://djcity.com.au/product/aural...Y4bRop0K8HxBYGofVFlzZxto67qq9AfAaAvqxEALw_wcB


Certain adhesives can be done well without problems on walls. You can get velcro strips and put them on the walls. Remove them easily with a heat gun. Even if you had to touch up paint, that is really super easy, but the heat gun should keep you from having to do that. For example, I use heavy duty velcro adhesive strips on the foam-core doors in my studio to hold up my acoustic panels. I have Primacoustic panels which do not have a heavy frame and which hang on a metal hanger velcroed to the doors. For the walls, I obviously drilled the mounts into them, but I wouldn't have hesitated to do the velcro on the walls if it was my only option. Velcro might not hold a heavier bass trap though.


----------



## jcrosby (Mar 24, 2021)

LinearZero said:


> Wow
> 
> Ok. Something in that price range looks very feasible, interesting that the heavy duty ones are cheaper than the flimsy lighter ones.


Yeah I have gripes about Auralex personally. It'd be one thing if they offered a similar product to GIK for a higher price, but they've been marketing foam as a form of bass management for decades which I personally feel is unethical... For a years they were one of the only mainstream 'retail' options available to the average musician so it's easy to see how they still manage to sell foam at an extreme markup. Anyhoo... Rant over 

The DIY route is totally doable. My 1st round of treatment was DIY... My entire front wall and rear wall are still giant 12" thick DIY traps I made. My rear wall corner traps are actually freestanding, I just used a bunch of cheap but durable screw on legs I bought on Amazon. My ceiling an Sidewalls I redid with GIK. (Not because the DIY wasn't effective but because I have complicated room dimensions and an SBI issue that GIK's panels were better suited to handle.)

I went with GIK more or less because have really competitive pricing but the quality is still equally as solid as anything else. Real traps are really well respected too, they just didn't offer the kind of volume discount I could get through GIK... I had my eye on some of their stuff early on as well though... Primacoustic as well. A bit out of my price range for the volume and density of coverage I was after..

Overall both instances were money well spent.

In terms of stands GIK has a few, Even if these seem a but pricy perhaps they'll give you some ideas of what you could hunt for somewhere else and/or cobble together yourself...









Custom Metal Stands - GIK Acoustics


If you do not wish to mount your panel to the wall, a great alternative that adds flexibility to GIK Acoustics panels and traps is our custom metal stands.




www.gikacoustics.com













Panel Foot Kit - GIK Acoustics


Convert your wall-mounted panel into a portable, freestanding gobo with the Panel Foot Kit. A cost-effective solution that adds flexibility to GIK Acoustics panels and bass traps.




www.gikacoustics.com


----------



## LinearZero (Mar 25, 2021)

jcrosby said:


> Yeah I have gripes about Auralex personally. It'd be one thing if they offered a similar product to GIK for a higher price, but they've been marketing foam as a form of bass management for decades which I personally feel is unethical... For a years they were one of the only mainstream 'retail' options available to the average musician so it's easy to see how they still manage to sell foam at an extreme markup. Anyhoo... Rant over
> 
> The DIY route is totally doable. My 1st round of treatment was DIY... My entire front wall and rear wall are still giant 12" thick DIY traps I made. My rear wall corner traps are actually freestanding, I just used a bunch of cheap but durable screw on legs I bought on Amazon. My ceiling an Sidewalls I redid with GIK. (Not because the DIY wasn't effective but because I have complicated room dimensions and an SBI issue that GIK's panels were better suited to handle.)
> 
> ...


Thanks, that give me a lot of options and ideas. Thanks for everyone else's input too 🙂 
BTW is ceiling treatment a must-have? I didn't even think about that.


----------



## Crowe (Mar 25, 2021)

Wow. Those are some ridiculously overpriced panels. I generally make my Traps myself and they work really, really well.

I find that a decent hanging ceiling-panel is pretty important for my workspace but I do not claim to know your space.


----------



## jcrosby (Mar 25, 2021)

LinearZero said:


> Thanks, that give me a lot of options and ideas. Thanks for everyone else's input too 🙂
> BTW is ceiling treatment a must-have? I didn't even think about that.


They help in pretty much any scenario... Typically the distance between floor and ceiling is the shortest distance between parallel walls/surfaces. (Unless you have high ceilings). In an average room with an 8 foot ceiling you'll always have some speaker boundary interference in play with the ceiling... This typically results in some parts of the low-low mids being boomy in some areas of the spectrum, other areas having dips.

The other thing is that aside from some carpet, floors don't typically have treatment options.. So having something on the ceiling also helps mitigate the issue of not being able to treat one of those two surfaces... A decent ceiling cloud can also create the impression the your stereo image is a little 'taller'. (Height's the one aspect of stereo imaging people often neglect discussing... In reality a good stereo image has 3 axes, not just two...)

Basically a good 1st place to start treating are the surfaces closest to your speakers since sound reflects off of them first. So in a typical bedroom/spare room sized space this is often the sidewalls directly parallel to the speakers, the ceiling, and the front wall. Treating these areas effectively should immediately give you the impression that the sound from your speakers is more direct. It tends to improve your stereo image, and often clears up _some_ low end to low mid issues. (Low end 100 Hz and below is a whole discussion on its own...)

That's the long version  Basically it's definitely worth considering if you think it's a possible... But it can get pricy and requires space so start with what you can afford or have space for...


----------



## johnsrev (Mar 28, 2021)

Here is a website for TubeTraps which are "stand-alone" products that are used by top engineers: https://www.acousticsciences.com/products/tube-trap


----------



## Macrawn (Mar 28, 2021)

johnsrev said:


> Here is a website for TubeTraps which are "stand-alone" products that are used by top engineers: https://www.acousticsciences.com/products/tube-trap


Those look like garbage to me honestly, and they are very expensive. I don't think I would buy those over realtraps or the GIK ones without some concrete measurements.


----------



## wst3 (Mar 29, 2021)

I'm not sure what kind of deal Art Noxon made with the devil (do you think he had to go to the crossroads too?) but ASC Tube Traps work, and they are worth every cent - at least to me.

I have a rough idea of how they work, and if you call he will give you the entire explanation, but suffice it to say, they are really effective.

A big part of their success is the applications. You don't cover the walls with them, you place them where you need them, for specific applications. 

I love the sound of a "vocal booth" implemented with Tube Traps. The "drum booth" works well, but you do need the floor space to implement it. One of the nicer things about the Tube Traps is that they are effective as Gobos too.

And I'd love to have a room where I could set up the "Attack Wall", well, maybe not? I did have the pleasure of working in a room that used Tube Traps as monitor stands - just the bottom part, and that made a pretty remarkable difference!

I really like their "8 is great" approach, although from my experience I'd probably do 6+2, because I'd want the monitor stands to stay put<G>. The other six I could arrange as required.

But yeah, they ain't cheap!!


----------



## Macrawn (Mar 29, 2021)

I dug around on the site looking for product data and I found some that was stated as theoretical, but the tube traps look decent if the theoretical is correct. Better than 4 inches of rigid fiberglass at 100 hz, quite a bit better. Would be nice to see an actual lab test, like others manufacturers. So I stand corrected there if those things do have a coeffcient of .6 at 100hz.


----------



## wst3 (Mar 29, 2021)

He used to publish the measurement data, I'm not sure why he stopped. But you are right, I can't find it either. I will ask. Be fun to see if he remembers me<G>...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 29, 2021)

I have some of those Auralex foam things from way back (they sent them in for review when I was at Recording magazine in the '90s). It looks like they've added a layer of material, but they're basically foam that's been skewered to fit on a mic stand.

They're great, but they're not going to do what you want them to do, regardless of what any ads say. EDIT: I mean they're not going to do what LinearZero wants them to do to his monitoring setup. They work well for voiceover.

Tube Traps, as the esteemed wst3 recommends, really do work. ASC makes great stuff, although I don't always agree with how they set it up. Their Attack Wall is what they make for monitoring, I believe.

I have these broadband ASC panels on each side, but I don't think they make them anymore. Notice that I'm sitting outside their "reflection-free zone" with my small speakers splayed in, because I don't believe in RFZ, (The big speakers are in an expedient position, not a good one for listening.)


----------



## jcrosby (Mar 29, 2021)

Got an email from GIK today about speaker boundary interference and thought about this thread.... Mind you it's a pretty oversimplified explanation, but there's still a lot of useful information in terms of why speaker placement's the 1st thing you want to sort out, and how pretty much every wall (i.e. floors/ceilings count as 'walls') in your average domestic room introduces some level of interference...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 29, 2021)

jcrosby said:


> Got an email from GIK today about speaker boundary interference and thought about this thread.... Mind you it's a pretty oversimplified explanation, but there's still a lot of useful information in terms of why speaker placement's the 1st thing you want to sort out, and how pretty much every wall (i.e. floors/ceilings count as 'walls') in your average domestic room introduces some level of interference...



What he says about wavelengths from front wall bounces is right. The part about interference from the side walls is wrong in my opinion - although equidistant spacing from the walls and floors isn't a good idea.


----------



## wst3 (Mar 29, 2021)

Ah Nick, I know you don't believe in a reflection free zone, but in this case I do not think those are the reflections to which he referred, I could be wrong.

The best way to mount monitor is to "dog house" them. Problem is, that doesn't work well with most small monitors intended for use in the near field (whatever that is?)

Right now my monitors are about five feet from the front wall, I"m about 3 feet from them, and the back wall is about 15 feet behind me - not perfect geometry, but it eliminated a bunch of problems. What it didn't do is solve my ergonomic problems, so I am going to re-arrange things, placing the monitors as close to the front wall as possible and moving everything forward, which will (hopefully) give me some breathing space.

It is all a crapshoot, and I'll just have to see how it works out.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 29, 2021)

wst3 said:


> Ah Nick, I know you don't believe in a reflection free zone, but in this case I do not think those are the reflections to which he referred, I could be wrong.
> 
> The best way to mount monitor is to "dog house" them. Problem is, that doesn't work well with most small monitors intended for use in the near field (whatever that is?)
> 
> ...



My speakers (the Blue Sky ones) are about 4' from the front wall. They also have a very poor man's soffit mount: the stuff in between them - computer monitor, rack, etc. - that blocks reflections from the front to some degree.


----------



## jcrosby (Apr 2, 2021)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> What he says about wavelengths from front wall bounces is right. The part about interference from the side walls is wrong in my opinion - although equidistant spacing from the walls and floors isn't a good idea.


Low frequency sound is omnidirectional. Sidewalls introduce interference, not just front and rear walls. Same goes for floor and ceiling. The section on SBIR in the RPG's PDF below has a lot of great info... (Page 6)

The short version is each boundary introduces room gain. Some frequencies re-combine with the source constructively causing an increase in volume, others re-combine destructively and decrease in volume, and the frequency that re-combines out of phase nulls. With SBI the nulls can actually be even worse than nulls introduced by room modes.



https://www.ime.usp.br/~kon/acmus/relacionados/AcousticDistortion.pdf



Finally, here's a video that demonstrates it happening in an actual room using a speaker, (and starts with a simplified but convenient simulation). In the real world example The frequency and location of SPL meter don't change, only the distance of the speaker to the wall....


----------



## jcrosby (Apr 3, 2021)

Here's a video that 1st explains it with an illustration, than demonstrates it happening in a physical room with a speaker.


----------



## wst3 (Apr 3, 2021)

Don't wish to speak for Nick, but I think you may be misinterpreting his comment.

Sidewalls can introduce reflections that affect the perceived frequency response at some specific spot(s) in the room. What I believe Nick is objecting to is the idea that side wall reflections create multiple arrival times at the ear, wherever it might be.

This is a somewhat contentious view, but it is supported by some really smart people. Check out Dave Moulton's articles on room design.

Dr. D’Antonio is no slouch either! I have to re-read the paper, but I believe he was also talking about interference that causes perceived frequency response errors, not time problems. And I'm not convinced that boundary interference is worse than room mode problems, I think that depends on the room.

Bottom line - there is no perfect critical listening space, you have to pick the problems that bother you the least.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 3, 2021)

wst3 said:


> Don't wish to speak for Nick, but I think you may be misinterpreting his comment



Right, what I'm saying is that due to psychoacoustics, reflections from side walls aren't heard as comb filtering the same way a mic combines them, they're heard as part of the sound by your brain. The speakers behave like an instrument in the room.

Sound coming from the same angle as the speakers - i.e. the front walls - is combined.

That's not opinion! Where opinion comes in is whether you like monitoring setups with dead sides.

Again, mics are a different story. Recording isn't the same thing, because mics don't have human brains.


----------



## wst3 (Apr 3, 2021)

just imagine a microphone with a brain...


----------

