2d qrd diffuser make

3ft x3ft 90lbs

576 pieces of the wood

i don't know what that is.

that is rad as fuck! you gonna make it pretty or just leave it bare?

nice one dude. if i'm correct, it's a diffuser for echo cancellation. the different depths of the holes will trap different frequencies, thus making this more broadly effective than some other methods.

heavy as fuck though! are you going to mount it?

stands, for now. my living quarters is very small so i need to move it around

prob leave it bare for a while - im not fucking with it ... so sick of wood right now

cutting 576 pieces of wood

then sanding 576 pieces of wood

then glueing 576 pieces of wood = not even thinking about painting even if i wanted to for at least a year.

diffusers diffuser acoustic energy via proper math, vs random scattering and lobing

qrdude is awesome

mine is taking from an old bbc here:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1990-15.pdf (i made 4 of them, and put into a 2x2 array)

download this too - it'll help with design of PRD and QRD w/ prime numbers

http://www.sendspace.com/file/2ldw5n

and QRDUDE app is awesome and great learning tool just reading the online manual

well was it worth the effort?

lol @ dumbass

Fuck yes! Real life extrude effect.

wouldn't mind one of these.

foam will start to absorb at lower frequencies instead of reflect/diffusing...but it is nice if your design needs to be light

what about foam with a lacquer coating?

Oh and btw if you decide to paint yours, get a paint sprayer. Otherwise you'll be there for a donkey's age.

  On 12/22/2010 at 4:00 AM, chenGOD said:

what about foam with a lacquer coating?

still doubt that would have the mass to reflect vs absorb at those frequencies

for ceiling, i'd def prefer foam (vs 90lbs of wood crashing down and stabbing me in the face)

yeah yeah, right right.

But does it work ? Could you make a recording of you blasting some music in your room with and without this, "wall" ?

  On 12/22/2010 at 9:31 AM, Babar said:

yeah yeah, right right.

But does it work ? Could you make a recording of you blasting some music in your room with and without this, "wall" ?

if i find a mic, sure ... it's not installed yet (still have to build stand for it to keep it raised off the ground)

this will be for my back wall (where i currently have about 6" OC703 rigid fiberglass there now -- full absorption so no sound bounces off the rear wall and interferes (comb filter) with the original source).

does it work? lol you're not very good at math as a child, have you been? do you even understand the fundamental issues that diffusers address? let alone how they do it? you shouldn't need "proof" but i suppose the "proof" is any proper studio designed in the last 20 years...

  On 12/22/2010 at 4:00 AM, chenGOD said:

what about foam with a lacquer coating?

 

Oh and btw if you decide to paint yours, get a paint sprayer. Otherwise you'll be there for a donkey's age.

if i paint it, i might just paint the ends of each wood block. ill get a projector, project a logo onto it, draw the outlines of the logo, and then paint that. it'll be like that perspective art shit (http://www.funmansion.com/pics/perspective_art.html) where the image only lines up if you stand in the 'sweet spot' - no what i mean?

Thats fucking cool man. I take back every insult to you and your lossless ways, you're clearly hardcore.

babar,

here is the original bbc design that my diffuser is built off of (but it's very easy to design PRD/QRD's with software like QRDude - and you can adjust the frequency band that it diffuses based on your own individual design requirements):

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1990-15.pdf

and maybe you should have a read of this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive/pdffiles/architectural-acoustics/bbc_guideacousticpractice.pdf

and yes, you can find polar graphs showing proper and equal (mathmatical) diffusion across the frequency spectrum that the diffuser is designed around...and example is like this:

if you think sound bouncing off a boundary (wall) at the incident angle (all of the acoustic energy) is better than properly and evenly diffusing it across multiple planes, well then ok - enjoy your flutter echo and comb filtering.

diffusion can also help people stuck in small rooms (e.g. bedrooms) make their room sound much larger than the actual physical dimensions.

it's great for listening/playback - but even better for recording. but i dont do any recording so that's irrelevant. do you think it's beneficial when recording (say,) a guitar - to have the sound enter the mic, and also have the sound go past the mic, hit boundaries (walls) and reflect back into the mic a few milliseconds after the original source and cause comb-filtering. do you think this is beneficial to sound quality? if so, please detail with citations because the rest of the physics students will chuckle

  On 12/22/2010 at 5:00 PM, chassis said:

Thats fucking cool man. I take back every insult to you and your lossless ways, you're clearly hardcore.

the room is the single biggest determining factor in how your music sounds (or how your recorded music sounds)

the information is out there, but it seems like this is the one topic where you literally have to fucking force people to understand it, because no one believes it right away. ive never encountered a topic where i literally had to CONVINCE people of high school physics....you would think once you read the material that it would be a 'eurika' moment on how obviously beneficial it is. but it's not the case with anything related to audio...

no matter how nice of speakers of gear you put in your room, you still have fundamental room issues that dictate how things sound. and the best thing is -- people seem to think room treatments are the 'final touches' for rich people's listening rooms or high end studios ... when the real deal is, room treatments should be done FIRST. the best thing is, they're surprisingly cheaper than you could ever imagine --- everything can be done do-it-yourself....and there is tons of information and people out there to assist. on the forums i frequent, the people who sell commercial room treatments are the ones who assist the most with people building their own - it's wonderful.

ive spent very little money on room treatments and have a world of difference in sound quality, stereo imaging, etc...i know every analord hiss in and out and once i absorbed all my early reflections - im hearing even more details (like the slightest-ever pans, reverb hits, etc) ... it's great. if i were to upgrade my speakers it would cost ridiculous sums of money, and it still wouldnt address fundamental room issues. garbage in garbage out. the room has final say on everything you hear.

and no, EQ does shit. eq is like putting a band-aid on a stab wound. it's a nice 'final touch' but it's certainly not what you start with. if you'd like to no more why eq is garbage, speak up and ill go on.

who talked about EQ???

it's just that, you can have a pro studio with all the good stuff but still put out horrible sound, first we need to listen, learn how to listen, see, see what i did there???

  On 12/22/2010 at 5:03 PM, elusive4 said:

do you think it's beneficial when recording (say,) a guitar - to have the sound enter the mic, and also have the sound go past the mic, hit boundaries (walls) and reflect back into the mic a few milliseconds after the original source and cause comb-filtering. do you think this is beneficial to sound quality? if so, please detail with citations because the rest of the physics students will chuckle

say what? i've been told/learning that the right balance between direct sound and early reflections is needed to achieve a good sound.

  On 12/22/2010 at 7:53 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

  On 12/22/2010 at 5:03 PM, elusive4 said:

do you think it's beneficial when recording (say,) a guitar - to have the sound enter the mic, and also have the sound go past the mic, hit boundaries (walls) and reflect back into the mic a few milliseconds after the original source and cause comb-filtering. do you think this is beneficial to sound quality? if so, please detail with citations because the rest of the physics students will chuckle

say what? i've been told/learning that the right balance between direct sound and early reflections is needed to achieve a good sound.

that must be pretty cool - i dont know anyone who is able to distinguish reflections within the ISD gap

and how on earth can you "balance" reflections that cause comb-filtering?

  On 12/22/2010 at 7:49 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

it's just that, you can have a pro studio with all the good stuff but still put out horrible sound, first we need to listen, learn how to listen, see, see what i did there???

who said anything about pro studio? this is for my listening setup - i dont record

elusive, get down your big horse. I wasn't discussing mathematical proofs, i was just saying "PICS OR GTFO". i'm actually interested in this kind of stuffs, i'd just like to listen to a recording (just to get a remote idea of how it actually sounds).

  On 12/22/2010 at 8:40 PM, Babar said:

elusive, get down your big horse.

That made me lol. Its "high horse" babar

fact: small horses are more expensive