Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Cork

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 8:19:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I was thinking about using Cork to cover the parallel surfaces in my
12'x10'x8' room. I was thinking 2'' on the walls and the ceiling. I
have hard wood floors and drywall walls and ceiling. I'm wondering if
anyone here has experience with it and can tell me how they find it to
be?

I already have bass traps in the corners but I want to reduce the
flutter echo. People seem to think it's not very absorptive yet I've
found that it's used as a sound absorbing material in industry
underneath flooring. It's true it loses absorption if you laminate it.
However, the stuff that is springy and used for billboards has
different absorption traits.

It's composed mainly of tightly packed air filled cells. This structure
is hard to immitate with foam. Air pockets are one of the best things
for stopping sound waves.

Here's some information I found in Google newsgroups. 25mm is about 1
inch of cork. Not bad for 1 inch of material. I read somewhere that
someone found 3 inch thick tiles of it. I'm wondering if you have to
custom order this thickness because everywhere I looked the max
thickness was around 1''.

Check out this information about Cork:
http://www.cerescork.com/whycork.html

Cork

> << I read about a product called "Quiet Cork" from Portugal that
> has an STC of 21 for just 6 mm thickness. Double that thickness and
> you should get STC 27 (6 more dB's for double the thickness). >>


> Actually the relevant data for this kind of product is going to be an

> absorbtion coefficient, not an STC rating, since for all practical
purposes
> this is a surface treatment with no real sound transmission loss.
> Scott Fraser



I have some info on the absorption coefficients of 25 mm cork on solid
wall:

Freq: 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000
Coeff: 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.55 0.6 0.55


Almost like carpet but less absorptive in the highs. Someone
mentioned that cork has an odd sound and should be used with
alternating panels of wood and not as the only material.

More about : cork

Anonymous
January 1, 2005 10:24:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1104542358.813878.23150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> brendan0813@hotmail.com writes:

> I was thinking about using Cork to cover the parallel surfaces in my
> 12'x10'x8' room. I was thinking 2'' on the walls and the ceiling.

Planning to tack up a lot of notes? Cork is a relatively hard,
reflective surface. It might be of some use above 5 kHz or so, but I
can't see it really as an acoustic treatment.

> Here's some information I found in Google newsgroups. 25mm is about 1
> inch of cork.

25mm is about 1 inch of anything. What else did you learn?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 12:07:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Well, the absorption coefficient shows that 1 inch of it reduces mids
and highs by half. I think that is enough to affect the echoes. With
2 inches you'll probably get even better results. Interesting that the
highs start to drop off as the frequencies get higher. So we're
looking at a unique material, unique sound. A material that seems to
be an 'in between' for live and dead.

The reason I'm interested in this material is because I want to tame
the echoes without deadening the room as foam does. I also don't want
to cover my room with fiber glass as that would also deaden the room.

The only area I could see the point in totally deadening is the
ceiling.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 12:17:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Well, the absorption coefficient shows that 1 inch of it reduces mids
and highs by half. I think that is enough to affect the echoes. With
2 inches you'll probably get even better results. Interesting that the
highs start to drop off as the frequencies get higher. So we're
looking at a unique material, unique sound. A material that seems to
be an 'in between' for live and dead.

The reason I'm interested in this material is because I want to tame
the echoes without deadening the room as foam does. I also don't want
to cover my room with fiber glass as that would also deaden the room.

The only area I could see the point in totally deadening is the
ceiling.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 12:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Read the rest of my first post, I took some information from other
posts and put it there.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:12:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

lex wrote:
> Well, the absorption coefficient shows that 1 inch of it reduces mids
> and highs by half. I think that is enough to affect the echoes. With
> 2 inches you'll probably get even better results. Interesting that the
> highs start to drop off as the frequencies get higher. So we're
> looking at a unique material, unique sound. A material that seems to
> be an 'in between' for live and dead.

It's enough to screw up the room in most cases.



> The reason I'm interested in this material is because I want to tame
> the echoes without deadening the room as foam does.

The main problem with foam is that it deadens HF (and depending on thickness, MF) without doing anything for the LF.



> I also don't want
> to cover my room with fiber glass as that would also deaden the room.


It's specific configurations of fiberglass combined with diaphragms that do the trick for most rooms.



> The only area I could see the point in totally deadening is the
> ceiling.

Why?
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:52:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 1 Jan 2005 07:24:57 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>Planning to tack up a lot of notes? Cork is a relatively hard,
>reflective surface. It might be of some use above 5 kHz or so, but I
>can't see it really as an acoustic treatment. <snip>

Cork's a disaster in an audio environment. What you get is a "tubby"
room with lots of mid-range reflection and no top end.
>
>> Here's some information I found in Google newsgroups. 25mm is about 1
>> inch of cork. <snip>

First of all, this is Usenet. "Goo goo groopz" is "Usenet for
Idiots." Get smart and get an NNTP account and a newsreader.

>25mm is about 1 inch of anything. What else did you learn? <snip>

LOL! 5'll get you 10 he's a gee-tawr player.

dB
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:53:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 1 Jan 2005 09:07:18 -0800, "lex" <brendan0813@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The reason I'm interested in this material is because I want to tame
>the echoes without deadening the room as foam does. <snip>

Uh...I think you have serious misconceptions about acoustics.

dB
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:19:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Look guys, I didn't come here to start a fight, just some thoughtful
dialogue. Please stop looking for reasons to post sarcastic comments
and read my 'entire' post. The one inch comment I made refers to the
measurements below near the end of my post.

Well, google is rather convenient since it's my start page and I see no
fault in it. I don't see how that's an indicator of intelligence,
perhaps geekiness though, I'll give you that.




DeserTBoB wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2005 07:24:57 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:
>
> >Planning to tack up a lot of notes? Cork is a relatively hard,
> >reflective surface. It might be of some use above 5 kHz or so, but I
> >can't see it really as an acoustic treatment. <snip>
>
> Cork's a disaster in an audio environment. What you get is a "tubby"
> room with lots of mid-range reflection and no top end.
> >
> >> Here's some information I found in Google newsgroups. 25mm is
about 1
> >> inch of cork. <snip>
>
> First of all, this is Usenet. "Goo goo groopz" is "Usenet for
> Idiots." Get smart and get an NNTP account and a newsreader.
>
> >25mm is about 1 inch of anything. What else did you learn? <snip>
>
> LOL! 5'll get you 10 he's a gee-tawr player.
>
> dB
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:28:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> The only area I could see the point in totally deadening is the
> ceiling.

Why?

The floor is hard and reflective and only 8 feet away from the ceiling.
The direct reflections combined from the floor and ceiling will affect
my sound by producing comb filtering. By putting full absorption on
the ceiling you simulate the effect of an infinite ceiling.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:29:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

lex wrote:
>
> google is rather convenient since it's my start page and I see no
> fault in it. I don't see how that's an indicator of intelligence,
> perhaps geekiness though, I'll give you that.

Using Google Groups for research is not limited to the newbie or those lacking in clue. Where else would one find the depth of archive?

Using it to post is a little frustrating, most regular posters eventually move to more traditional NNRP.

\
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:35:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

lex wrote:
>>
>>> The only area I could see the point in totally deadening is the
>>> ceiling.
>>
>>
>> Why?
>
> The floor is hard and reflective and only 8 feet away from the ceiling.
> The direct reflections combined from the floor and ceiling will affect
> my sound by producing comb filtering. By putting full absorption on
> the ceiling you simulate the effect of an infinite ceiling.

But there is no full absorption, certainly not in a room that size.

You can get reasonably broadband absorption with proper materials (fiberglass and wood, or RealTraps) but you won't get anything like that with foam or cork.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:56:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> But there is no full absorption, certainly not in a room that size.

True, but I mean as close as you can get to it.

I don't want full absorption, at least not for the walls. I was
thinking cork on the ceiling as well because I'm more interested in
taming rather than killing. If I was to go for full absorption the
only place I would desire it is the ceiling.

This would require a lot of material and some time so I don't want to
just try it without knowing what I can expect. Otherwise, I'll be left
with huge bulletin boards.

Someone said they tried it and got a tubby sound. Can I ask what type
of cork you used and what thickness? How and where did you apply it?
What were the room dimensions?

I was thinking the shredded and glued together variety would have
different acoustic properties as compared to the natural structure
assembled into tiles.


Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> lex wrote:
> >>
> >>> The only area I could see the point in totally deadening is the
> >>> ceiling.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > The floor is hard and reflective and only 8 feet away from the
ceiling.
> > The direct reflections combined from the floor and ceiling will
affect
> > my sound by producing comb filtering. By putting full absorption
on
> > the ceiling you simulate the effect of an infinite ceiling.
>
> But there is no full absorption, certainly not in a room that size.
>
> You can get reasonably broadband absorption with proper materials
(fiberglass and wood, or RealTraps) but you won't get anything like
that with foam or cork.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 3:04:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

No need to get so defensive, I'm just asking a question. I'm sorry I
forgot my VIP pass.

I think the comments made are evidence that the entire post wasn't
read.

I did research this but I haven't arrived at conclusive results. A lot
of the previous answers to Cork have been ambiguous and secondhand
knowledge passed on to other people.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 4:12:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 11:29:39 -0800, Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net>
wrote:

>Using Google Groups for research is not limited to the newbie or those lacking in clue. Where else would one find the depth of archive?
>
>Using it to post is a little frustrating, most regular posters eventually move to more traditional NNRP. <snip>

It's unfortunate the "goo goo" got the archives from Deja. Deja's
interface was easier to use, and the "goo goo groopz" HTML interface
is kludgy at best. Also, I've noticed that their Usenet search is
somewhat buggy, also. Articles appear and disappear for no apparent
reason. Never had that with Deja.

dB
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 4:25:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 1 Jan 2005 12:04:35 -0800, "lex" <brendan0813@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I think the comments made are evidence that the entire post wasn't
>read. <snip>

It was. You're just shopping for an answer that'll support your
unfounded position. The dumb man learns from his own mistakes; the
smart one learns from others'.

dB
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 4:52:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

DeserTBoB wrote:
>
> The dumb man learns from his own mistakes; the
> smart one learns from others'.

And then there are the *really* dumb ones who learn from neither (a surprising number of whom have managed to get in office of late...)
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 4:54:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

DeserTBoB wrote:
>
> The dumb man learns from his own mistakes; the
> smart one learns from others'.

And then there are those who learn from neither (a surprising number of whom have managed to get into elected office of late...)
January 1, 2005 5:59:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

lex wrote:

> Look guys, I didn't come here to start a fight, just some thoughtful
> dialogue. Please stop looking for reasons to post sarcastic comments
> and read my 'entire' post.

You asked about cork as an acoustical treatment. You reportedly did a
google search prior to posting, but apparently not a very thorough one, as
there is plenty of info out there that indicates cork to be not very
suitable for such use. You got three accurate responses, but seem
unwilling to accept them.

If you had bothered to lurk for a bit before posting, you would already
know that Mike & Kurt are both well respected at RAP & you can pretty much
take their advice at face value. This is in no way a slight to Bob. But
he's just kind of a "new guy" around here & it takes some time to build up
a reputation.

And by the way, just because someone doesn't quote your entire post should
not be construed to mean that they didn't read it. Bandwidth still matters
to some people.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 5:59:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 14:59:17 -0500, agent86 <maxwellsmart@control.gov>
wrote:

>This is in no way a slight to Bob. But
>he's just kind of a "new guy" around here & it takes some time to build up
>a reputation. <snip>

I've already got one! Ask Will Miho and Morgan. LOL!

>And by the way, just because someone doesn't quote your entire post should
>not be construed to mean that they didn't read it. Bandwidth still matters
>to some people. <snip>

Moronic forwarding of unsnipped postings is a breech of Usenet
etiquette...still. Quote the relevant text, toss the rest. Not that
anything like etiquette matters anymore, what with the influx of "goo
goo grooperz" tearing Usenet apart now.

dB
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 7:32:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"lex" <brendan0813@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104542358.813878.23150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I was thinking about using Cork to cover the parallel surfaces in my
> 12'x10'x8' room. I was thinking 2'' on the walls and the ceiling. I
> have hard wood floors and drywall walls and ceiling. I'm wondering if
> anyone here has experience with it and can tell me how they find it to
> be?

It's pretty good at reflecting mid and high frequencies. Great for
encouraging flutter-echoes !

geoff
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 9:01:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi John. From what I've read it seems diffusion won't do much in a
room this small though I'd love to try some of those RPG ones. You
might be
right though and this could be the problem, I'm not sure at the moment.

I have an L shaped room caused by a closet on the right 12' section of
wall. I leave this open while recording to help scatter the sound. I
also have a small table with a few objects on it and some records
beneath it
to scatter some sound around. This is situated against the middle of
the left 12' section.

The microphone is at the bottom 10' section of the room facing in
towards the room. So it's facing down the long length of the room at
my mixing desk(diffuser sort of).

I have 4 MiniTraps(Fiber Glass panels) across the corners of the rooms
where the walls meet, and 4 where the wall meets the ceiling. These
are all spanning the corner and centered. I have one micro trap
directly over the mics and to either side of my recording position, on
stands by the walls. My mixing desk with books and cds on it is at the
top of the room, 10' section.

I'm not sure what this problem is exactly. It looks and sounds to me
to be what is described as comb filtering. My waves are very jagged
looking. I'm not sure if it's that or room modes causing extra
resonance at certain frequencies. Or perhaps this is low freq. flutter
echoes.

I don't really know. I don't have enough experience to really diagnose
it. I have two sets of headphones. One is an AKG K-501. The other is
an AKG K240-DF. The distortion is really obvious in the K-501(horrid
buzzing sound) but hardly noticeable with the
K240-DF. The sound from the monitors sounds like amplification and
buzzing on the worse
frequencies. I'm going to start another thread to try and diagnose it
with sound samples.

I thought it might be the soundcard. I set the sample rate to 96k and
32 bit. I recorded at about 18'' away with both my Aardvark DirectPro
24/96 and my Turtle Beach Santa Cruz. I get the same problem at longer
distances and lower gain settings. They both show the same problems.
I also tried listening to the playback with both cards. The Aardvark
shows the problem more clearly.

Listening to professionally recorded music is fine, no distortion.
Taking all this into account, I'm guessing it's a room problem.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:19:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Cork used to be used as insulation in ice houses and some farm storage
buildings -Controlled Atmosphere rooms for storing fruit in a nitrogen
atmosphere - aka no oxygen. The cork used for this application was like a
coarsely ground powder & the wall cavities were very thick - 12-16" in the
ones I've seen. I used to practise in an old converted ice house with this
type of insulation and it is the only room I've ever been in that contained
the sound completely. When the massive walk in refrigerator style door was
closed, you couldn't tell there was a band playing on the other side. I
checked into obtaining this material for a studio I was building some years
ago and it was ridiculously cost-prohibitive! I'd give serious
consideration to an old building constructed like this if one came on the
market.

jep
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:19:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 20:19:24 GMT, "crow" <crowTHEOBVIOUS@peoplepc.com>
wrote:

>I used to practise in an old converted ice house with this
>type of insulation and it is the only room I've ever been in that contained
>the sound completely.<snip>

12-16" inches of ANYTHING will complete contain the sound!

>When the massive walk in refrigerator style door was
>closed, you couldn't tell there was a band playing on the other side. I
>checked into obtaining this material for a studio I was building some years
>ago and it was ridiculously cost-prohibitive! <snip>

Cork as a thermal insulation material has been obsolete for decades
now. Fibreglas and other modern materials are easier to work, provide
nearly ten times the insulation efficiency per unit of depth and are
not subject to mildew and mold encroachment as much as is cork. Thus,
cork is a low demand, naturally produced commodity mainly only used
for only small items like gaskets and seals, as well as, of course,
"corks!"

dB
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:40:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1104609387.674794.200590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> brendan0813@hotmail.com writes:

> I don't want full absorption, at least not for the walls. I was
> thinking cork on the ceiling as well because I'm more interested in
> taming rather than killing. If I was to go for full absorption the
> only place I would desire it is the ceiling.

Well, there's absorption and there's reflection - those are like
"square" and "pregnant." You don't get a little of one or the other,
something is either absorptive or reflective. It's not like a
volume control. What changes is the ratio of absorption to reflection
at any given frequency. A broad-band absorber absorbs more than it
reflects over a wide range of frequencies. A high frequency absorber
absorbs more high frequencies than it reflects, but low frequencies go
right right it and get reflected by whatever is behind it. That's how
it works.

Putting up cork might absorb some high frequencies, but it's probably
a better reflector at mid frequencies than what you have now, so
you'll upset the apple cart unless you put in something to absorb
those new reflections.

> This would require a lot of material and some time so I don't want to
> just try it without knowing what I can expect. Otherwise, I'll be left
> with huge bulletin boards.

My point exactly. It's been proven not to be a good acoustic treatment
for a studio. Rigid Fiberglas is a proven material. You adjust the
"amount" of absorption by the percentage of the wall covered by the
absorber. It's not expensive, but doing a nice job yourself is labor
intensive. But then you're in this for the fun, aren't you?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:04:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

http://www.geocities.com/lex888888/index.htm

I posted some samples of the problem there in .mp3 format. You might
need to listen through some good headphones or monitors to hear the
problem. Can someone tell just by listening what's going on?
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:04:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is to add diffusion type materials to
break up the flutter echo. I'm a bit curious, how did you figure you had a
low frequency flutter echo(your initial post claims that's what your bass
traps are for).

If a flutter echo is present, do you know where in the frequency spectrum it
is occuring? This may help with the search for diffusion materials.

Something along the line of the clasic RPG diffusers may be what you need.
Plus, it won't "kill" the liveness in the room.

Best regards,

John
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:19:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

lex wrote:
> http://www.geocities.com/lex888888/index.htm
>
> I posted some samples of the problem there in .mp3 format. You might
> need to listen through some good headphones or monitors to hear the
> problem.

Well, I got the first one OK, but then came:

The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer.
....
Access to this site will be restored within an hour. Please try again later.


Mostly I hear tuning and intonation problems compounded by background noise of what sound like someone else's stereo.

What am I supposed to hear?
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:47:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks for trying it. I think that happens when you left click the
file instead of right clicking. It uses up more bandwidth when it's
asked to open it from the web page. Or it could be that a lot of
people were at the page at the same time downloading it.

Hmmm, I hear this in all my recordings. It feels like pressure in the
240DF's and you can actually hear it with the K-501's or monitors. Are
you trying it with headphones or monitors?

Yeah, I hit one bum note on the Aardvark sample, second to last note.
Ignore that, that's me. That's my dad playing piano in the background.
I'll tell him he sounds like the radio. :) 

Turn up the volume and listen through some sensitive monitors if you
can.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 2:25:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

lex wrote:
>
> I hear this in all my recordings. It feels like pressure in the
> 240DF's and you can actually hear it with the K-501's or monitors. Are
> you trying it with headphones or monitors?

Headphones (Sennheiser HD600s with a good amp and DAC.)

Big resonance (probably room) at maybe 90 Hz or so, and another around 120. Also some subsonic junk you might want to HPF.



> That's my dad playing piano in the background.
> I'll tell him he sounds like the radio. :) 

Old time radio at that...
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 2:28:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I've noticed that their Usenet search is
> somewhat buggy, also. Articles appear and disappear for no apparent
> reason. Never had that with Deja.

Buggy is right...the beta groups search is a disaster.

-John O
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:12:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"lex" <brendan0813@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104599238.259198.49200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Well, the absorption coefficient shows that 1 inch of it reduces mids
> and highs by half. I think that is enough to affect the echoes. With
> 2 inches you'll probably get even better results. Interesting that the
> highs start to drop off as the frequencies get higher. So we're
> looking at a unique material, unique sound. A material that seems to
> be an 'in between' for live and dead.

I worked a room quite some time ago that had a lot of cork in the control
room (not completely covered in it, but there was plenty enough of it there
for it to have a definite effect at the listening position) it took me a
helluva long time to get used to that room & make mixes translate well; but
that may have just been me. It's also awfully expensive per square foot
compared to other solutions. I think if I had a choice between cork &
nothing, I'd go with "nothing".

Neil Henderson
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:12:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:12:20 GMT, "Neil Henderson"
<neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:

>I worked a room quite some time ago that had a lot of cork in the control
>room (not completely covered in it, but there was plenty enough of it there
>for it to have a definite effect at the listening position) it took me a
>helluva long time to get used to that room & make mixes translate well; but
>that may have just been me. It's also awfully expensive per square foot
>compared to other solutions. I think if I had a choice between cork &
>nothing, I'd go with "nothing". <snip>

No, it sure wasn't you...it was the cork behind you. Chopping off all
the top end reflection but boucing all the mids back at you from
behind can have a VERY deliterious effect on imaging from the
monitors, not to mention freq response of the room itself. When cork
was cheaper in the '70s, I used to see a lot of this stuff thrown up
in smaller rooms, especially the cheapie four trackers. It was awful.
Usually, cork on the wall was a sure sign the place wouldn't be around
much longer!

dB
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 10:53:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< >I was thinking about using Cork to cover the parallel surfaces in my
> 12'x10'x8' room. I was thinking 2'' on the walls and the ceiling. I
> have hard wood floors and drywall walls and ceiling. I'm wondering if
> anyone here has experience with it and can tell me how they find it to
> be? >>



I looked into it for one of my rooms, based mainly on its visual appeal. It can
look great, but it has minimal absorptive characteristics & is really freaking
expensive. Had to be imported from Portugal, IIRC.


Scott Fraser
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 2:27:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>I worked a room quite some time ago that had a lot of cork in the control
>room (not completely covered in it, but there was plenty enough of it there
>for it to have a definite effect at the listening position) it took me a
>helluva long time to get used to that room & make mixes translate well; but
>that may have just been me. It's also awfully expensive per square foot
>compared to other solutions. I think if I had a choice between cork &
>nothing, I'd go with "nothing". <snip>

It's weird-sounding but I could imagine a little bit of it in a room could
be interesting. I was once in a teletype room at an Asian broadcaster, where
the walls were all cork-padded because cork was cheap and acoustic tiles
were expensive there. The effect was really weird.... there was actually
some high end reflection but no upper midrange reflections. It could be
a fun material to get an interesting room sound but not in a control room.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 8:52:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2005-01-02, lex <brendan0813@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, that's along the lines of what I was looking for. It's
> strange that it gives a tubby sound because looking at it's absorption
> coefficient values you would think it would have a similar effect as
> carpet. Maybe the natural stuff would perform better.

Carpet would be even worse. I once played in a rehearsal room
lined with carpet on all sides, including the floor and, IIRC,
the ceiling. The carpet absorbed all of the treble and none of
the bass. The room was dead and boomy at the same time.

To add visual discomfort to the aural unpleasantness, the owner
had chosen a dark brown carpet.

--
André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/&gt;
Todos, todos me miran mal
Salvo los ciegos, es natural
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 2:44:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Mechanical-Engineering/...

Interesting study, though mostly beyond me.


Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> lex wrote:
> >
> > I hear this in all my recordings. It feels like pressure in the
> > 240DF's and you can actually hear it with the K-501's or monitors.
Are
> > you trying it with headphones or monitors?
>
> Headphones (Sennheiser HD600s with a good amp and DAC.)
>
> Big resonance (probably room) at maybe 90 Hz or so, and another
around 120. Also some subsonic junk you might want to HPF.
>
>
>
> > That's my dad playing piano in the background.
> > I'll tell him he sounds like the radio. :) 
>
> Old time radio at that...
!