Are rubber walls a bad idea?

[TLS Guy]

Do you have any experience measuring rooms and treating the acoustical problems? I do- I also have college-level acoustics in my background and the professor wasn't a TA or someone "who knows about this stuff", he was a real Physics PhD. who was recruited for the Manhattan Project.

Denying the effectiveness doesn't make your opinion fact.

How would you deal with bad acoustics while people are speaking with no amplification? Which local concert halls are your favorites? You might look around- I can almost guarantee that most have acoustical treatments.

I have never had a need to install acoustical treatments as I am not in the habit of installing audio equipment in public lavatories.

I have used speakers in a wide variety of locations while making live recordings and have never encountered a room I could not reliably monitor in.

In our home the AV room has designed optimal dimensions and there are architectural features to optimize the room, but no ugly sound treatments.

The great room and family room have no special treatments and sound excellent.

So no, I have zero need of acoustic treatments. Family and friends voices sound normal and as they always do. So speakers should NOT require special treatment, and if there was a problem the speakers would be studied and likely redesigned in some way.

 

[trochetier]

Rubber walls make the most sense when you are nuts.

A good alternative to straight jacket too!

 

[highfigh]

I have never had a need to install acoustical treatments as I am not in the habit of installing audio equipment in public lavatories.

I have used speakers in a wide variety of locations while making live recordings and have never encountered a room I could not reliably monitor in.

In our home the AV room has designed optimal dimensions and there are architectural features to optimize the room, but no ugly sound treatments.

The great room and family room have no special treatments and sound excellent.

So no, I have zero need of acoustic treatments. Family and friends voices sound normal and as they always do. So speakers should NOT require special treatment, and if there was a problem the speakers would be studied and likely redesigned in some way.

The OP's question could have been answered with "Yes" or "No".

Speakers don't require treatment, ROOMS require this but some speaker choices make it necessary. Speakers should be chosen for their dispersion when possible, but if you check consumer speaker systems, polar dispersion patterns aren't usually offered, while commercial/industrial product technical information DOES include this.

This thread isn't about your room & preferences, your rooms have nothing to do with anything outside of them and you don't seem to understand the scope of the acoustics industry or why it's necessary. Do you think architectural schools teach acoustics for their health? No, they teach it so fledgling archis don't go into the world, designing acoustical nightmares.

Room treatments (literal or coincidental) are in every private and public place, visible, or not, and in many places where reflections and echo are a problem. Acoustical problems exist in almost every building and when the space has minimal objects and furnishings, the problems remain while furniture that's made of hard/non-porous materials do little to help. Adding some soft materials and objects makes a big difference. Changing the place isn't an option for most people.

In contrast to your anecdotal opinion, my house is older, isn't going to be changed by me beyond what I have already done, and when I have used any speakers, had problems in the upper bass below 100Hz. I tested the panels I made for a demo in a home theater build while I ran REW and could easily see that with each panel came improvement in the response. Ultimately, I was able to eliminate the problems and the sound is much better. Is this because I'm delusional? No, it's verifiable objectively AND subjectively.

EVERY room has its own sonic signature and some have sonic problems because of the materials and/or dimensions but thinking that your system is perfect is, as you would say, bollocks. Not the dog's bollocks, just bollocks. You prefer it above all others and that's ideal. It may well be the best room in history but statistically unlikely but I would also ask- is your hearing perfect? It's possible that you can't hear something that could be measured and found to be 'out of the range for perfection'- we all lose hearing acuity.

You're fixated on the idea that the speakers are at fault in all cases, when the rooms can be and are the problem. Those problems CAN and ARE addressed in professionally designed spaces, research has been done for many decades and if you do some research, you would find that reverberation over a specific time range makes music virtually un-listenable and speech unintelligible.

You want to think in absolute terms but that's not practical and it's not applicable in applications outside of your control.

Acoustical treatments can definitely be ugly, but many are unnoticeable and many look like wallpaper or painted surfaces- not all are panels that hang on walls or from ceilings.

 

[highfigh]

Acoustics is a solution to problems that are difficult to solve in other (reasonably priced) ways.

 

[MrBoat]

Biggest problems with rooms is that decorative/architectural trends and other strict accommodations often put the ears in the worst place with regard to those first and secondary reflections. The larger than life video screens that are all the rage now exacerbate this condition even more. Used to be, the cure was to install the system where it could most efficiently be fit, and then find the best natural sweet spot and work from there out. People tend to be stubborn in this regard, especially if there is an overbearing spouse-in-charge to overcome.

Secondly, the trend towards sparse and sterile accommodations start the space as a super excitable echo chamber. Wide open layouts with every surface reflective. People want to be able to clean a whole room with a swiffer and not much else. If they let their grandmothers from the '50s and '60s furnish it for them, they'd be ahead of the game.

We used to get away with a lot more, when overstuffed pit grouped furnishing, and other various seating arrangements were included. There would often be bookshelves, randomly placed arm chairs and other clutter about the room.

When I used to install carpet for a living, you could 'hear' the room change as we moved furniture out piece-by-piece, and with the most stark change being when the old rug was stripped, and then reinstalled. Once all the furniture was back in, you could notice that you no longer had to quiet your speech, and could just talk without effort. That trade taught me the most about rooms. Ever since, I have been sure to have 'enough' randomly padded surfaces in the room and other disruptions.

 

[highfigh]

Secondly, the trend towards sparse and sterile accommodations start the space as a super excitable echo chamber. Wide open layouts with every surface reflective. People want to be able to clean a whole room with a swiffer and not much else. If they let their grandmothers from the '50s and '60s furnish it for them, they'd be ahead of the game.

We used to get away with a lot more, when overstuffed pit grouped furnishing, and other various seating arrangements were included. There would often be bookshelves, randomly placed arm chairs and other clutter about the room.

When I used to install carpet for a living, you could 'hear' the room change as we moved furniture out piece-by-piece, and with the most stark change being when the old rug was stripped, and then reinstalled. Once all the furniture was back in, you could notice that you no longer had to quiet your speech, and could just talk without effort. That trade taught me the most about rooms. Ever since, I have been sure to have 'enough' randomly padded surfaces in the room and other disruptions.

A big pit group saved an installation where I wanted to use treatments, the homeowner agreed and his wife overrode everything. That room had terrazzo floor, lath & plaster ceiling, mortared masonry walls and long echo times. Once the big rug and pit group were in place to stop the sound from the speakers that were placed in the low cabinet (below ear level), it actually sounded pretty good, considering the alternatives.

 

[Eppie]

A big pit group saved an installation where I wanted to use treatments, the homeowner agreed and his wife overrode everything. That room had terrazzo floor, lath & plaster ceiling, mortared masonry walls and long echo times. Once the big rug and pit group were in place to stop the sound from the speakers that were placed in the low cabinet (below ear level), it actually sounded pretty good, considering the alternatives.

I had to look that up. I don't think I've heard of a sectional being referred to as a pit group before. Is that an American term, like couch vs sofa?

 

[MrBoat]

I had to look that up. I don't think I've heard of a sectional being referred to as a pit group before. Is that an American term, like couch vs sofa?

America is a melting pot. All of those descriptions apply somewhere and interchangeably. Ask again tomorrow and we'll call it something else.

 

[MrBoat]

A big pit group saved an installation where I wanted to use treatments, the homeowner agreed and his wife overrode everything. That room had terrazzo floor, lath & plaster ceiling, mortared masonry walls and long echo times. Once the big rug and pit group were in place to stop the sound from the speakers that were placed in the low cabinet (below ear level), it actually sounded pretty good, considering the alternatives.

It perplexes me, the modern approaches to acoustics, with all that we have learned over the decades. Cozy, efficient homes, have always been the best listening spaces. Divided rooms, many of which that by familial function and sized/optimized accordingly, ended up much nearer to that golden ratio, more often than not.

If I added heavy curtains to mine now, it would fix about all I needed to from here on out.

 

[highfigh]

I had to look that up. I don't think I've heard of a sectional being referred to as a pit group before. Is that an American term, like couch vs sofa?

It may have been L-shaped and that's really not correct- a pit group has three sides with seating, in the shape of a U or C, but it has been so long that I don't remember if it was an L or a pit.

Add divan to sofa vs couch- too many words used for many things.

 

[LoudAsFudge]

I have the mats laying outside, might take a few weeks for the smell to go away. The 1 mat I hung decreased frequencies above 400hz by 10 dB on the other side of the wall. With just the mat. I think the corregations might phase align the sound that's reflected as well as slow reflections. Or if I put 4" panels of 706 in front of the rubber, in places, the corregations will trap more low frequency. The goal is an all in one solution since i can cover the mats as i see fit, with primary focus on isolation.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have the mats laying outside, might take a few weeks for the smell to go away. The 1 mat I hung decreased frequencies above 400hz by 10 dB on the other side of the wall. With just the mat. I think the corregations might phase align the sound that's reflected as well as slow reflections. Or if I put 4" panels of 706 in front of the rubber, in places, the corregations will trap more low frequency. The goal is an all in one solution since i can cover the mats as i see fit, with primary focus on isolation.

Is this mat new or used? New may take much longer to degas enough to be acceptable.

 

[lovinthehd]

It perplexes me, the modern approaches to acoustics, with all that we have learned over the decades. Cozy, efficient homes, have always been the best listening spaces. Divided rooms, many of which that by familial function and sized/optimized accordingly, ended up much nearer to that golden ratio, more often than not.

If I added heavy curtains to mine now, it would fix about all I needed to from here on out.

I'd think most have learned very little about acoustics over the decades in general, tho.

ps Then again rubber walls may be the best place for many of today's "audiophiles"

 

[highfigh]

I have the mats laying outside, might take a few weeks for the smell to go away. The 1 mat I hung decreased frequencies above 400hz by 10 dB on the other side of the wall. With just the mat. I think the corregations might phase align the sound that's reflected as well as slow reflections. Or if I put 4" panels of 706 in front of the rubber, in places, the corregations will trap more low frequency. The goal is an all in one solution since i can cover the mats as i see fit, with primary focus on isolation.

Rough surfaces that have shallow grooves, holes, etc, scatter sound. Porous materials used for ceiling tiles/panels like fiberglass, mineral tiles (heavier, easy to break) and decorative sheets used in places like offices/lecture spaces allow the movement of air in, then the energy is dissipated without allowing reflections. These shouldn't be painted unless the manufacturer is contacted, in order to find out if/which specific paint will allow them to work as they did before.

There is no 'all in one' solution for all frequencies and covering the ones you have will change their effectiveness/performance.

 

[highfigh]

It perplexes me, the modern approaches to acoustics, with all that we have learned over the decades. Cozy, efficient homes, have always been the best listening spaces. Divided rooms, many of which that by familial function and sized/optimized accordingly, ended up much nearer to that golden ratio, more often than not.

If I added heavy curtains to mine now, it would fix about all I needed to from here on out.

That house was built in 1918 and it originally had decorative wall hanging cloths- it was called the 'ballroom', where a pianist or small group of musicians would play in a corner and the guests wold dance. This wasn't a listening space. It wasn't extremely large, either- makes me wonder who called it the 'ballroom', but that's what it was called on the blueprints.

Golden ratio wouldn't have been used for the vast majority of houses- room sizes were based on use, ease of construction using typical dimensional lumber and, especially after WWII, getting as many built as possible in a short time. If you ask most people about this ratio, they're likely to blink their eyes and ask "Wut?".

Most acoustical problems are fixed accidentally, by furnishing the rooms. It's the minimalist places with hard surfaces everywhere that are often the worst and where someone removed the carpeting without using some kind of rugs, to show off the wooden floors.

 

[MrBoat]

Golden ratio wouldn't have been used for the vast majority of houses- room sizes were based on use, ease of construction using typical dimensional lumber and, especially after WWII, getting as many built as possible in a short time. If you ask most people about this ratio, they're likely to blink their eyes and ask "Wut?".

Most acoustical problems are fixed accidentally, by furnishing the rooms. It's the minimalist places with hard surfaces everywhere that are often the worst and where someone removed the carpeting without using some kind of rugs, to show off the wooden floors.

Just to be clear, not saying that rooms were designed for acoustics, but many family home rooms just happened to be more favorable acoustically because of the function and more conservative sizes. For example, all the rooms in my late '60s home are rectangular, built in an era where homes avg. sq. ft. was around 1500, for a 3 bed/2 bath home. Also, many homes had the main rooms with separations with just a passage way between that offered breaks or at least chokes of sorts. Enough restriction to act as smaller/easier to power acoustic spaces, yet enough openings for standing waves to escape or be disrupted somewhat. The wood frame home I lived in before this one was built in 1908 and was raised off of the ground. All of the rooms in that were rectangular as well. That was one of the most acoustically favorable homes I ever lived in.

All of my friends have more modern homes built from the '90s on, with open floor plans/vaulted or cathedral ceilings. They basically have to use a separate, dedicated rectangular room for their HT and music rooms. The TV in their wide-open-to-everything living rooms sounds awful. If the wife is wearing heels, it sounds like a horse on cobblestones that you can mentally map from one end of the house to the other. Even the lightest clicks like their dog's nails leave no mystery to where it's at. Everything just rings forever in there.

 

[LoudAsFudge]

There are porous and non-porous mats. Based on the price, I imagine these are porous. So gyms coat their mats for hygiene.
I envision the 3/4" thick rubber suspended with a couple of hanger bolts, 1-1/2" off face of wall, with 1" thick absorbant material between drywall and flat surface of mats. Next, I'll listen to how that sounds. Then I'll cover the corrugated face with dryerase board, covering the entire rubber wall, with absorbant material in between. Then I'll listen to how that sounds. Next I'll cut out 2'x4' holes in the dry erase board at reflection points. They sound will enter the absorbant material and be absorbed and reflected(phase aligned) by the corrugated rubber. Both side walls are now heavy, limp, with a mixture of damping, absorbing and reflect. I could also put holes in the dryerase board to trap low frequency. Sounds like a good time.
Pretty cool huh?

 

[LoudAsFudge]

Kinda like this

 

[metholdakaarison]

Acoustical room treatments aren't generally used for making a room dead, they're used to limit reflection time in order to make speech intelligible and to allow the perceived location of sounds to be correct or to come close to matching their locations in the mixing/mastering room. While it's almost impossible to truly match that sound, coming close is a goal some people choose, for better or worse.

The first reflections in narrow/small rooms cause a lot of problems, especially when the walls are similar or the same length. If that room has hard surfaces, it's very hard to achieve good sound, never mind great sound. High SPL compounds the problems and equalization will never tame them. Flutter echo is a bad problem in small rooms and if nothing is done, nobody will enjoy the experience. It's easy to hear flutter- walk into a room and clap your hands- it's very easy to hear and any sound of impacts in music or sound form videos will show it. This also emphasizes the frequencies that reflect most and when they're in the range where people are most sensitive, the level can be decreased using EQ, but the duration can't be adjusted using any controls in the equipment. Slightly lower SPL in those frequencies will decrease the duration to some extent but that can't be considered a 'cure'.

Go into a lecture hall that hasn't been treated and try to understand what is being said, then treat it- huge difference. Restaurants are a prime example of spaces that should be treated, whether they have music or not.

Anyone who has been in a place that has terrible acoustics may find that their mood changed after they spent time there- noise levels and bad acoustics are often called 'sonic pollution for leatheryork ' and after having dinner at a restaurant last night, I can give you another specific example of this- we were in a small booth with less than 4' between any of us and it was very hard to understand what was being said. We could, however, hear people across the room very clearly because of the 45° angles of the ceiling causing the sound to reflect directly to our booth. The din was very annoying. Open concept houses with high ceilings suffer from this, too. Without treatment, home theater or even dinner, would be a terrible experience.

Great