How square is square ?
Posted by: Ian P on 24 May 2002
Hi all,
I'm back for my once in 6 months question !
I understand that square rooms are an acoustic no-no. We're planning to have an extension built - a room for the hifi !!!
Looks like it'll be 14' by 12' (apx 3.1m by 2.8m), and a standard kind of ceiling height (apx 8' or 2.2m).
Is this going to cause any problems ?
Secondly, the room will be exposed on three sides, and essentially flat roofed. Any suggestions for sound/heatproofing ?
Thanks,
Ian
I'm back for my once in 6 months question !
I understand that square rooms are an acoustic no-no. We're planning to have an extension built - a room for the hifi !!!
Looks like it'll be 14' by 12' (apx 3.1m by 2.8m), and a standard kind of ceiling height (apx 8' or 2.2m).
Is this going to cause any problems ?
Secondly, the room will be exposed on three sides, and essentially flat roofed. Any suggestions for sound/heatproofing ?
Thanks,
Ian
Posted on: 24 May 2002 by Eric Barry
I'm no expert but the operative principle is that each dimension will have characteristic resonances at a fundamental frequency and at each multiple of that fundamental. So if you have two dimensions that are the same, that's a big problem, and if two are multiples, then (like 8 foot ceilings and a 16 foot length) you have problems. What you offer, 14x12x8 avoids the major bugaboos though the 2nd harmonic of the 12 dimension doubles the third harmonic of the 8. The Cardas site has the forumula for figuring the resonances.
--Eric
--Eric
Posted on: 24 May 2002 by Ian P
quote:
Originally posted by Eric Barry:
I'm no expert but the operative principle is that each dimension will have characteristic resonances at a fundamental frequency and at each multiple of that fundamental. So if you have two dimensions that are the same, that's a big problem, and if two are multiples, then (like 8 foot ceilings and a 16 foot length) you have problems. What you offer, 14x12x8 avoids the major bugaboos though the 2nd harmonic of the 12 dimension doubles the third harmonic of the 8. The Cardas site has the forumula for figuring the resonances.
--Eric
Thanks Eric.
Given that my dimensions are approximate only, the reality is that the 12ish and 8ish measures won't "collide" on the second and 3rd harmonics.
Posted on: 24 May 2002 by Ian P
Anyone got any advice on the question of insulation (preferrably some product designed to go in the cavity walls) ?
Thanks,
Ian
Thanks,
Ian
Posted on: 24 May 2002 by Thomas K
Hi Ian,
I moved into a new flat a year ago. There was a suspended ceiling which was causing some problems. I had the cavity filled with a special kind of shredded paper - they blow it in with a huge hose. Usually it's used as an alternative to cancerogenic heat insulation, but also for sound insulation. Contrary to what one expects, it is fairly fireproof (apparently).
In Germany it is sold under the brand names Isoflock and Isodan. See what google says if you're interested.
Thomas
I moved into a new flat a year ago. There was a suspended ceiling which was causing some problems. I had the cavity filled with a special kind of shredded paper - they blow it in with a huge hose. Usually it's used as an alternative to cancerogenic heat insulation, but also for sound insulation. Contrary to what one expects, it is fairly fireproof (apparently).
In Germany it is sold under the brand names Isoflock and Isodan. See what google says if you're interested.
Thomas
Posted on: 24 May 2002 by Dave Hartley
Ian,
We have a very similar size extension that was built some 15 years ago.
3 external walls, a solid floor and a conventional tiled roof with a loft area.
Everything seemed ok initially untill we saw the 1st winter and then lots of problems cold and what seemed like a damp room.
We had no cavity insulation as thermalite breeze blocks had been used.We had Shell supply us the cavity insulation which was injected through the walls as small polystirene beeds.This was a big improvement.
Next came another layer of loft insulation again improvements felt.
The room is still the coldest in the house.Especially 1st thing in the morning.
If you have have a solid floor I assume with changes in Building regulations you should have some form of insulation under the concrete screed....I don't. I would suggest some thermolite tiles on the floor before you put any carpet down.
The music still sounds great.
Dave
We have a very similar size extension that was built some 15 years ago.
3 external walls, a solid floor and a conventional tiled roof with a loft area.
Everything seemed ok initially untill we saw the 1st winter and then lots of problems cold and what seemed like a damp room.
We had no cavity insulation as thermalite breeze blocks had been used.We had Shell supply us the cavity insulation which was injected through the walls as small polystirene beeds.This was a big improvement.
Next came another layer of loft insulation again improvements felt.
The room is still the coldest in the house.Especially 1st thing in the morning.
If you have have a solid floor I assume with changes in Building regulations you should have some form of insulation under the concrete screed....I don't. I would suggest some thermolite tiles on the floor before you put any carpet down.
The music still sounds great.
Dave
Posted on: 27 May 2002 by Ian P
Thanks for those comments and suggestions. I'll have a word with the builder, and search the net for more info.
Cheers,
Ian
Cheers,
Ian
Posted on: 27 May 2002 by Willy
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Pilgrim:
Secondly, the room will be exposed on three sides, and essentially flat roofed. Any suggestions for sound/heatproofing ?
Thanks,
Ian
Ian,
There are all sorts of applicable building regulations with regard to insulation (seems a bit pointless if global warming is for real) and your architect should take these into consideration. Building control are usually quite strict on these and will inspect them at key points during the build. Of course there are work-arounds, my split-level listening room is officially a gymnasium. That way I don't have to install an unsightly balustrade. Unfortunately we forgot to inform the builder of this and he installed teh floor with extra joist spacing to give the gym bounce!
Regards,
Willy.
PS If you can get underfloor heating.
Posted on: 27 May 2002 by Eddie Pugh
Ian
Check out the Rockwool website for their insulation products. Alternatively look at closed cell polystyrene insulation sheets from sheffield Insulations or similar.
Remember the thicker the better minimum 75mm with an additional 50mm airgap to stop any water penetration. It means you have quite thick walls
100 + 75 + 50 +100 plus say 10mm plaster on inside face. You need quite long wall ties but this is fairly standard stuff now with the new Part L I think it is Building Regulations.
In the roof you should have at least 100mm insulation preferably more say 150mm. and don't forget the double glazing. Also go for at least 75 - 100 mm of insulation under the concrete floor slab if ground bearing or use one of the proprietory precast beam and keyed infill insulated block systems if you are going for a suspended floor
There are some articles around on good ratios for music rooms. Mine is about 13ft by 12ft but is relatively high 11'6" Old Victorian dining room ratios. Works very well.
Eddie
Check out the Rockwool website for their insulation products. Alternatively look at closed cell polystyrene insulation sheets from sheffield Insulations or similar.
Remember the thicker the better minimum 75mm with an additional 50mm airgap to stop any water penetration. It means you have quite thick walls
100 + 75 + 50 +100 plus say 10mm plaster on inside face. You need quite long wall ties but this is fairly standard stuff now with the new Part L I think it is Building Regulations.
In the roof you should have at least 100mm insulation preferably more say 150mm. and don't forget the double glazing. Also go for at least 75 - 100 mm of insulation under the concrete floor slab if ground bearing or use one of the proprietory precast beam and keyed infill insulated block systems if you are going for a suspended floor
There are some articles around on good ratios for music rooms. Mine is about 13ft by 12ft but is relatively high 11'6" Old Victorian dining room ratios. Works very well.
Eddie
Posted on: 27 May 2002 by Rico
quote:
There are all sorts of applicable building regulations with regard to insulation (seems a bit pointless if global warming is for real)
Excuse me? Surely greater thermal efficiency for dwellings contibutes to a reduction in heating demand - which given the nature of power generation, is a good thing overall for the global warming thing.
Uncharacteristically serious Rico.
Rico - SM/Mullet Audio
Posted on: 28 May 2002 by Willy
quote:
Originally posted by Rico:
[QUOTE] There are all sorts of applicable building regulations with regard to insulation (seems a bit pointless if global warming is for real)
Excuse me? Surely greater thermal efficiency for dwellings contibutes to a reduction in heating demand - which given the nature of power generation, is a good thing overall for the global warming thing.
Uncharacteristically serious Rico.
Rico,
If it's getting warmer outside then surely you need less heating/insulation to keep warm inside? Of course this assumes that you believe the current hype over us causing Global Warming.
Characteristically sceptic (and tongue in cheek) Willy.
Rico - SM/Mullet Audio [/QUOTE]
Posted on: 28 May 2002 by Steve Toy
Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are a result of global warming and not a cause. (Don't ask me where I read that... :0 )
We are still retreating from the last ice age.
Global warming caused by exhaust emissions is a myth peddled by politicians who want to:-
A) Justify indirect taxation on fuel.
B) Justify denying the masses access to their own transport.
Regards,
Steve.
The proof of the pudding...
We are still retreating from the last ice age.
Global warming caused by exhaust emissions is a myth peddled by politicians who want to:-
A) Justify indirect taxation on fuel.
B) Justify denying the masses access to their own transport.
Regards,
Steve.
The proof of the pudding...
Posted on: 28 May 2002 by Martin Clark
..whilst waiting for i) the Ross Ice shelf to breakup and ii) having to use the Mana to fend off Polar bears, a couple of quick pointers for the orginal problem:
- * Building regulations in the UK in respect of conservation of fuel and power changed with effect from 1st April. Have a read of Approved Document L1 available here.
* There's no end of info been posted on this forum with regard to modelling rooms - try the search bicycle, or the modest spreadsheet available on this speaker positioning page. ;-)
Posted on: 28 May 2002 by Willy
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Toy:
Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are a result of global warming and not a cause. (Don't ask me where I read that... :0 )
Regards,
Steve.
_ The proof of the pudding..._
Steve,
Was at a lecture by a glacierologist (or some similar word) a couple of years back. Seems that just before the last ice age the temperature rose, along with the CO2 level. Not much industrialisation around then so the one theory is that the rise in temperature releases CO2 from the deep oceans. Of course this fact is not politically correct and gets little coverage.
Also seems the breakup of the Ross Ice shelf is a cyclical thing. It grows to an unstable size, breaks, and then starts all over again.
But hell if I could get a grant to study Global warming I could be persuaded......
Regards,
Willy.
Posted on: 28 May 2002 by J.N.
No one has yet mentioned the very important issue of what you need in the room apart from the Hi-Fi.
'Busy' rooms (plenty of absorptive and diffractive items) sound best. In simple terms, this means soft furnishings/carpets/heavy curtains etc: and other items to break up the sound.
If you end up with large expanses of hard plastered walls, you'll hear the effect in the form of hardness and a flutter echo. I've had to resort to acoustic panels to deal with the problem.
My local Naim dealer has several customers who had a great sound in small, terrace house rooms. They moved their Hi-Fi and limited furnishings into a relatively cavernous larger space and got a bloody awful sound!
'Busy' rooms (plenty of absorptive and diffractive items) sound best. In simple terms, this means soft furnishings/carpets/heavy curtains etc: and other items to break up the sound.
If you end up with large expanses of hard plastered walls, you'll hear the effect in the form of hardness and a flutter echo. I've had to resort to acoustic panels to deal with the problem.
My local Naim dealer has several customers who had a great sound in small, terrace house rooms. They moved their Hi-Fi and limited furnishings into a relatively cavernous larger space and got a bloody awful sound!
Posted on: 28 May 2002 by Joe Petrik
Steve,
You should inform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 1000 or so experts worldwide who specialize in different aspects of climate change. I'm sure your insightful analysis into global warming would be a welcome break from all that scientific mumbo-jumbo they pour over daily.
Joe
quote:
Global warming caused by exhaust emissions is a myth peddled by politicians who want to:-
A) Justify indirect taxation on fuel.
B) Justify denying the masses access to their own transport.
You should inform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 1000 or so experts worldwide who specialize in different aspects of climate change. I'm sure your insightful analysis into global warming would be a welcome break from all that scientific mumbo-jumbo they pour over daily.
Joe
Posted on: 29 May 2002 by Willy
Joe,
You're probably right there, 1000 "experts" plus all their assistants, panel members, hangers on etc. talking shite all day would no doubt contribute to Global Warming. That's without even considering the trees cut down to print their reports, the A1 burnt jetting them off to exotic locations for conferences, and the post dinner methane as a result of all the rich food consumed there.....
Life has led me to develop a healty scepticism of "experts", even in the narrow field of Hi-Fi we've had experts tell us that "turntables don't make a difference", "cables don't make a difference, "solid state isn't succeptable to microphony" and "CD is perfect sound forever". Quite often these "expert" opinions were/are in direct conflict with what I could/can hear with my own un-expert ears and were presented with either no, or flawed scientific reasoning.
What concerns me most about the "climate change experts" is their attitude. "I have scientifically proven that climate change is due to mankind, give me a grant to explore it further". There seems to be a distinct reluctance to explain further or engage in any discussion with nay-sayers. Simply accept what the experts say or you're branded as a nutter. Often the "proof" presented is so logically absurd as to be near comical.
Last years floods in the UK were proof of global warming. Nothing to do with developers building all over flood plains, or upstream flood defences driving the problem downstream, oh and did we mention the floods fifty years ago were worse.
Glaciers receeding are proof of global warming. Except the Glacieroligist who's lecture I was at last year pointed out that for every glacier that receeds there's another advancing. They are quite succeptible to local climate changes.
The thining polar Ice cap is proof of global warming, except latest measurements show it to be thickening again.
Conversely those who question the perceived wisdom of climate change, or it's causes do take the time to explain their concerns/reasoning, presenting the factual case of longer term climate cycles (150k year ice age,15kyear interglacials), or the (unproven)effect of sun activity. This is of course only on the rare occasion when they get air time to express their politically incorrect views.
What about the shorter term climate variations, the mini Ice age of teh 1600's, the fact that in the 1200's temperatures in the UK were several degrees above current levels, and supporting a thriving wine industry?
I'm open to persuasion on global warming and it's causes, as on all issues. At present the arguments of both sides leave a lot to be desired and I am unlikely to be convinced by arguments of the calibre currently being advanced by the climate change lobby are unlikely to convince me. Especially when they make such a hansome living from it!
Willy.
You're probably right there, 1000 "experts" plus all their assistants, panel members, hangers on etc. talking shite all day would no doubt contribute to Global Warming. That's without even considering the trees cut down to print their reports, the A1 burnt jetting them off to exotic locations for conferences, and the post dinner methane as a result of all the rich food consumed there.....
Life has led me to develop a healty scepticism of "experts", even in the narrow field of Hi-Fi we've had experts tell us that "turntables don't make a difference", "cables don't make a difference, "solid state isn't succeptable to microphony" and "CD is perfect sound forever". Quite often these "expert" opinions were/are in direct conflict with what I could/can hear with my own un-expert ears and were presented with either no, or flawed scientific reasoning.
What concerns me most about the "climate change experts" is their attitude. "I have scientifically proven that climate change is due to mankind, give me a grant to explore it further". There seems to be a distinct reluctance to explain further or engage in any discussion with nay-sayers. Simply accept what the experts say or you're branded as a nutter. Often the "proof" presented is so logically absurd as to be near comical.
Last years floods in the UK were proof of global warming. Nothing to do with developers building all over flood plains, or upstream flood defences driving the problem downstream, oh and did we mention the floods fifty years ago were worse.
Glaciers receeding are proof of global warming. Except the Glacieroligist who's lecture I was at last year pointed out that for every glacier that receeds there's another advancing. They are quite succeptible to local climate changes.
The thining polar Ice cap is proof of global warming, except latest measurements show it to be thickening again.
Conversely those who question the perceived wisdom of climate change, or it's causes do take the time to explain their concerns/reasoning, presenting the factual case of longer term climate cycles (150k year ice age,15kyear interglacials), or the (unproven)effect of sun activity. This is of course only on the rare occasion when they get air time to express their politically incorrect views.
What about the shorter term climate variations, the mini Ice age of teh 1600's, the fact that in the 1200's temperatures in the UK were several degrees above current levels, and supporting a thriving wine industry?
I'm open to persuasion on global warming and it's causes, as on all issues. At present the arguments of both sides leave a lot to be desired and I am unlikely to be convinced by arguments of the calibre currently being advanced by the climate change lobby are unlikely to convince me. Especially when they make such a hansome living from it!
Willy.
Posted on: 29 May 2002 by Joe Petrik
Willy,
Very commendable. Skepticism is a good thing. Pity that poor Doubting Thomas wasn't given more credit.
I presume that you're not criticizing scientists who apply for grants? It is, after all, how they get funds to do their work. Beakers and test tubes aren't free, you know.
Anyway, no one has "proven" that climate change is, without a shadow of a doubt, occurring and that humans are the cause. To quote from the 2nd IPCC Assessment of Climate Change: "Overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, has increased, in a global sense, through the 20th century, although data and analyses are poor and not comprehensive. On regional scales there is clear evidence of changes in some extremes and climate variability indicators. Some of these changes have been toward greater variability; some have been toward lower variability."
That a scientific hypothesis should elicit vigorous discussion among scientists is a sure sign of its scientific merit: Science progresses most surely through the ruthless scrutiny of ideas and their honest comparison with the observable world.
Clearly, we're still at an early stage in climate research -- climatology, isn't a mature discipline like, say, organic chemistry -- so no doubt opinions and theories will change as evidence is gathered and better models are devised. However, a number of studies have recently been completed by scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California that point to human-induced climate change.
By running an atmospheric model with pre-industrial atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and emissions of sulfate aerosols, and comparing it with the same model run with near present-day concentrations/emissions they were able to obtain an expected pattern of global warming (which in some places was regional cooling). They then examined the observational record and, through sophisticated statistical techniques, appeared to see the emergence of the model response pattern in the observational record.
This lead to one of the most important conclusions of the IPCC: "Viewed as a whole, these results indicate that observed global warming over the past 100 years is larger than our current best estimates of natural climate variations over the last 600 years. More importantly, there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols in the observed climate record. This evidence comes from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change. Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on global climate."
Joe
quote:
Life has led me to develop a healty scepticism of "experts",...
Very commendable. Skepticism is a good thing. Pity that poor Doubting Thomas wasn't given more credit.
quote:
What concerns me most about the "climate change experts" is their attitude. "I have scientifically proven that climate change is due to mankind, give me a grant to explore it further".
I presume that you're not criticizing scientists who apply for grants? It is, after all, how they get funds to do their work. Beakers and test tubes aren't free, you know.
Anyway, no one has "proven" that climate change is, without a shadow of a doubt, occurring and that humans are the cause. To quote from the 2nd IPCC Assessment of Climate Change: "Overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, has increased, in a global sense, through the 20th century, although data and analyses are poor and not comprehensive. On regional scales there is clear evidence of changes in some extremes and climate variability indicators. Some of these changes have been toward greater variability; some have been toward lower variability."
quote:
There seems to be a distinct reluctance to explain further or engage in any discussion with nay-sayers. Simply accept what the experts say or you're branded as a nutter.
That a scientific hypothesis should elicit vigorous discussion among scientists is a sure sign of its scientific merit: Science progresses most surely through the ruthless scrutiny of ideas and their honest comparison with the observable world.
Clearly, we're still at an early stage in climate research -- climatology, isn't a mature discipline like, say, organic chemistry -- so no doubt opinions and theories will change as evidence is gathered and better models are devised. However, a number of studies have recently been completed by scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California that point to human-induced climate change.
By running an atmospheric model with pre-industrial atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and emissions of sulfate aerosols, and comparing it with the same model run with near present-day concentrations/emissions they were able to obtain an expected pattern of global warming (which in some places was regional cooling). They then examined the observational record and, through sophisticated statistical techniques, appeared to see the emergence of the model response pattern in the observational record.
This lead to one of the most important conclusions of the IPCC: "Viewed as a whole, these results indicate that observed global warming over the past 100 years is larger than our current best estimates of natural climate variations over the last 600 years. More importantly, there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols in the observed climate record. This evidence comes from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change. Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on global climate."
Joe
Posted on: 29 May 2002 by Keith Mattox
quote:
Originally posted by Willy:
What concerns me most about the "climate change experts" is their attitude. "I have scientifically proven that climate change is due to mankind, give me a grant to explore it further".
...
Especially when they make such a hansome living from it!
Willy.
As opposed to the naysayers, the majority of which are financed by oil industry groups?
Very large difference.
Cheers
Keith.
Posted on: 29 May 2002 by Willy
quote:
Originally posted by Keith Mattox:
As opposed to the naysayers, the majority of which are financed by oil industry groups?
Very large difference.
Cheers
Keith.
Keith,
I agree that a lot of the anti-global warmers are also far from independant. I try to take my lead from the small number of, apparently independant, articulate people who I have heard and read on the subject. They raise questions that, to me, make sense and get very short shrift from the Global warming lobby. Living in Northern Ireland I have a very accute insight into the difficulty of finding a reasoned, informed an impartial opinion on many matters!
Further to Joe's posting, there are still a lot of if's and but's and the last 600years in the analysis, however having worked with the LLNL folks I'll credit them as impartial.
Anyway, I'm all for the possibility of growing my own grapes here in the UK. Right now I'd settle for being able to cultivate anything other than moss.
Willy.
Posted on: 29 May 2002 by Joe Petrik
Willy,
If the folks at LLNL are right, you'll be growing those grapes under several metres of sea water.
Joe
quote:
Anyway, I'm all for the possibility of growing my own grapes here in the UK.
If the folks at LLNL are right, you'll be growing those grapes under several metres of sea water.
Joe
Posted on: 29 May 2002 by Willy
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Petrik:
Willy,
[QUOTE] Anyway, I'm all for the possibility of growing my own grapes here in the UK.
If the folks at LLNL are right, you'll be growing those grapes under several metres of sea water.
Joe[/QUOTE]
Joe,
Given the elevation of my cliff-top residence that would make for an interesting redraw of the world map. I may be a cynic but when investing in property felt that a little elevational insurance couldn't hurt. And the view's pretty neat, when it's not raining.
Willy.
Posted on: 29 May 2002 by Keith Mattox
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Petrik:
Willy,
"Anyway, I'm all for the possibility of growing my own grapes here in the UK."
If the folks at LLNL are right, you'll be growing those grapes under several metres of sea water.
Joe
My wife's relatives in Denmark hold the same view. Their highest point is 400 ft. So much for us retiring there.
Never mind large parts of Bangladesh, India, The Netherlands, Finland, the US East Coast, etc. Got room for them on yer grape farm?
Cheers
Keith.
Posted on: 29 May 2002 by Willy
My wife's relatives in Denmark hold the same view. Their highest point is 400 ft. So much for us retiring there.
Never mind large parts of Bangladesh, India, The Netherlands, Finland, the US East Coast, etc. Got room for them on yer grape farm?
Cheers
Keith.[/QUOTE]
Keith,
Plenty of room here, have even been approached about selling part as a building site. Not sure you'd want to be that close to a nocturnal Brik owner. Another criteria for the residence was no close neighbours!
Willy.
Never mind large parts of Bangladesh, India, The Netherlands, Finland, the US East Coast, etc. Got room for them on yer grape farm?
Cheers
Keith.[/QUOTE]
Keith,
Plenty of room here, have even been approached about selling part as a building site. Not sure you'd want to be that close to a nocturnal Brik owner. Another criteria for the residence was no close neighbours!
Willy.