Build Your Own Multi Functional Theater Seat Riser

[Savant]

That's about as funny as a screen door on a submarine LOL I should watch U-571 to really test out the effectiveness of these U-boats

Worth it, if only to see Bon Jovi bite it over and over again...

 

[ned]

Jeff,
Would the stage be constructed in similar fashion? How about columns and soffits?

 

[Savant]

ned,

Sure. Though attaching the seats to the columns and soffits might prove difficult.

Kidding aside...sure!

 

[Tumara Baap]

You guys rock. One of the most helpful articles ever. I'm not clear on the purpose of the U-Boats. What I can glean is that they allow spaces within the chambers to couple, making the device more broadband in its absorption. However, do the U-Boats in any way contribute to the tactile feel with bass? I'm also thinking substituting wood blocks for U-Boats might render the device creaky and/or wobbly.

For those who've inquired, mineral wool can be shipped to your door from www.insulationworld.com

Tumara Baap

 

[JTBAOLSON]

Nice looking riser!

Nice article. As luck would have it, I just finished a riser of my own. Mine is designed specifically to maximize the transmission of a Buttkicker. To this end, it works perfectly. Unfortunately, I decided to paint it and was not totally pleased with the result. I really like your carpet idea and plan to copy it during my next free weekend. Kudos!

 

[Savant]

Tumara,

However, do the U-Boats in any way contribute to the tactile feel with bass?

Yes.

I'm also thinking substituting wood blocks for U-Boats might render the device creaky and/or wobbly.

Likely. I would suggest something resilient if one seeks an alternative to the U-Boats. Neoprene is alright, but EPDM rubber is better. There are lots of materials out there that would work well - closed-cell polyurethane foam (the stuff they make kids' play mats out of), limp-mass PVC (like your credit cards, only not rigid), that recycled tire stuff (anyone know where to get this?), et al. Even cut up pieces of carpet pad would work, though you would need many more of them (3x?, 4x? - never tried it or gave it much thought) than the U-Boats.

 

[Scott R. Foster]

You could try the matts they sell at feed stores for horse stalls... but it seems risky to me. An awful lot to take apart if it doesn't satisfy - or wears out. they are pretty tough though, and resilient, and cheap.

 

[ivseenbetter]

I'm dragging this one up from the past. I find myself in a position where I need to build a riser for my room. I really like the design of this one due to the multi-purpose approach. I am getting a dual MFW-15 setup so I think the bass-trap functionality will be useful. However, I have some questions on the build that I am hoping somebody can answer.

1. Do those holes go on the sides or do they go on the front or back?

2. From the pictures I am guessing that the carpeting goes over the holes...so you don't ever really see them?

3. I don't understand the need for the U-boats. I intend to place this over the existing carpet and pad in the room so will the U-boats not really be effective? Maybe I am confused on where they are placed. Do they go inside the structure or are they under it, touching the floor?

I’m sure I will have a bunch more questions as I get closer to doing this project but I guess I need these answered so that I can start the planning phase.

 

[Savant]

1. Do those holes go on the sides or do they go on the front or back?

Wherever they are completely exposed to sound. I.e., if putting them on the sides puts them within a few inches of a wall, the front would be a better choice. Locating the holes will also depend on which way you run the joists, to some extent.

2. From the pictures I am guessing that the carpeting goes over the holes...so you don't ever really see them?

I'm not a fan of carpeting over the holes as this changes the performance of the riser. Better to make the holes such that they can be fitted with decorative louvers/vents, or acoustically transparent fabric, IMO.

3. I don't understand the need for the U-boats. I intend to place this over the existing carpet and pad in the room so will the U-boats not really be effective? Maybe I am confused on where they are placed. Do they go inside the structure or are they under it, touching the floor?

They go between the structure and the floor, providing both isolation, and some coupling between joist cavities, which helps with LF absorption.

 

[jostenmeat]

Knowledgable folks:

I built my riser as one huge box (19" H, bit over 4 ft in length, and about 12 ft wide). It is "sealed" on all sides, except the bottom. Before covering it all (except the bottom) with cheap commercial carpeting, did I decide to "seal" it for added support/integrity. I forget how many joists are in there, but its pretty solid. I used up eleven 2x6s plus ply.

I notice the tactile response seems to be of a higher frequency than when sitting in the front row. If I cut out a couple of large holes in the back, what should I expect to happen to response? Will tactile response increase or decrease? Do I even bother, since its one huge box really?

If tactile response was the goal, would it be recommended to forgo fill?

 

[Savant]

A sealed box will absorb differently than a box with holes. With approximately 5.5" of depth, no fuzz, and no holes, the result will be narrowband absorption centered at a (more or less) single frequency. With holes only, the same result, but at a different frequency. (Or frequencies if different sized holes are used.) With holes and fuzz, it will be more broadband, with lower overall absorption. This is generally the preferred approach (more forgiving for a wider range of possible LF problems), though it will be room dependent.

 

[jostenmeat]

"Experimented" is probably not what I would call it. But, yes, I have explored this. The math involved is run-of-the-mill Helmholtz equation stuff, Scott. You can toy with it yourself to ascertain whether the complexity is worth the effort. The physics here tends to play out in reality quite well, so - in general - WYSIWYG when you run the calcs.

A sealed box will absorb differently than a box with holes. With approximately 5.5" of depth, no fuzz, and no holes, the result will be narrowband absorption centered at a (more or less) single frequency. With holes only, the same result, but at a different frequency. (Or frequencies if different sized holes are used.) With holes and fuzz, it will be more broadband, with lower overall absorption. This is generally the preferred approach (more forgiving for a wider range of possible LF problems), though it will be room dependent.

Got it, thanks for the lucid explanation. I can't believe my riser may also get upgraded, lol. Nothing is immune from upgraditis!?!

Could you please direct me towards Helmholtz formulae, explanations for laymen, and even really nice would be a plug 'n play calculator! (I was never very good at math).

Thanks a lot, Savant.

-jostenmeat

 

[Savant]

Could you please direct me towards Helmholtz formulae, explanations for laymen, and even really nice would be a plug 'n play calculator! (I was never very good at math).

Hmmm... That's actually a tougher question than it looks. I recently wrote a chapter on acoustical treatments for a textbook that will be released in October (more details when it comes out ). In my research, I found that there are many inconsistencies with the published formulae on Helmholtz resonators. It's not that the equations are wrong (far from it, in fact); they are simply derived and hence expressed differently, or they use the author's preferred symbology (for which there is no standard), or there are even multiple approximations for opening effects. In other words, it's not as easy as the familiar speed of sound / frequency / wavelength relationship: c = f*λ.

But that's the dodging answer.

The best resource, IMO, is Cox & D'Antonio. However, that book is (a) expensive, (b) very detailed, and (c) probably not what you're looking for if you're mathematically-challenged.

The other references I have are even more complex than Cox & D'Antonio.

So, in order to spare you a formula and subsequent explanation, I will post a spreadsheet in this post later. (It's on a different computer.)

 

[jostenmeat]

That is a lot, over half the cost of the riser. FWIW, I have a couple of friends with solid math background. One I see rarely, the other I see pretty often, and he has a masters degree in stats. Maybe he could decipher what you throw at me.

Thanks.

 

[KASR]

Great article! I'm tempted to tackle this project now.

 

[jostenmeat]

So, in order to spare you a formula and subsequent explanation, I will post a spreadsheet in this post later. (It's on a different computer.)

Savant, does "now" count as "later"?

Haha, I don't mean to rush you at all. You are busy compiling a syllabus for students for all I know. Just a nagging reminder. No rush, I've still got my plate full . . .

Thanks again.

 

[Savant]

meat,

Apparently, I cannot edit the previous message anymore? (Don't know if there's a time limit on that...)

Anyway, I've obviously taken a while to get back to this and for good reason: I'm hopefully going to have quite a useful spreadsheet tool that anyone can use to calculate the resonant properties of a riser or riser cavity.

Since that is, naturally, taking more time than I'd anticipated, I will at least post the basic formula for calculating the resonant frequency, fr, of a Helmholtz resonator, which is what is created by punching a hole in the end of a joist cavity in a riser:

fr = (c/(2*pi))*[sqrt(S/(V*L'))] ................... Eq. 1

where:
c = speed of sound in air
S = area of opening
V = volume of cavity
L' = effective length of opening

There are two tricky parts for Eq. 1:
1. Mind your units. E.g., if you calculate V in ft³, use c in ft/s, S in ft², and so on.
2. The effective length of the opening is calculated by:

L' = L + (x*d) ................... Eq. 2

where:

L = actual length of the opening
x = mass correction term (unitless)
d = diameter of the opening

I have seen values of x between 0.70 and 0.85. I like x = 0.80, which should get the resulting fr in the ballpark.

For the example case of a riser joist cavity, where a hole is being cut or drilled into a "2x" piece of lumber, L would equal 1.5 inches and d would be the diameter of the hole. (Think of the hole in the joist as a cylinder with diameter d and "height" L; I'm calling the "height" the length here, just to confuse. )

Calculating fr, it will become apparent that it can change significantly for small changes in opening or cavity properties, especially since S and L' are interrelated. I hope to have (much later ) a spreadsheet with some macros that will optimize the hole diameter, even if the plan is for more than one hole to open up the cavity. If you (or your math friend) come up with anything in the meantime, let me know.

 

[jostenmeat]

Savant, so I printed out your post, and checked it out last night. Seems* straighforward, on paper. The variable being port size. I want to list some things that I am mulling over, and trust me, I'm a mega-noob. Never built speakers either.

- the idea of placing a port of any particular length. A new variable?
- recommend any specific material for a port?
- the actual frequency that I would like to target.
- or frequencies, if I was to use multiple ports of varying size (and the accompanying complex math that two different ports would create).
- the effect of significant fill in relation to your mathematical explanation
- the idea that this math works when the riser is thought of as completely inert

just blabbering. In regards to targeted frequency, am I to have better luck with lower bass, as opposed to high bass? For instance, is tuning for 110hz going to be as effective as tuning for 15hz?

Can't wait to see the spreadsheet. oh, I'm patient.

 

[Savant]

- the idea of placing a port of any particular length. A new variable?

No. By "port," I assume you're talking about the opening. Consider a joist cavity as a rectangular box. Drilling a 2" diameter hole anywhere on the outside of the box creates an opening, or "port." If the hole is drilled in a joist, the length is the thickness of the joist that's been drilled through. If the hole is drilled in the top of the box, the length is the thickness of the materal that's been drilled through.

Now, if a tube of some sort is fitted into the hole that's been drilled, the length of the tube is the new length of the opening, or "port." This length equals L in Eq. 2 above. The only tricky part would be accounting for a new diameter if the tube has a non-negligible wall thickness.

- recommend any specific material for a port?

If the "port" is simply a drilled hole, there is no other material necessary. If some sort of tube is inserted in the hole, it could be made of anything, really. Piece of PVC, old TP roll, whatever.

If the "port" is a rectangular opening, it could be fitted with a vent cover, like something that would be used to cover an a/c opening in a wall or ceiling. I've done this before. The math is all the same (but with a different way to calculate L'), with some allowance necessary for the restriction introduced by slots in the vent cover. A little trickier, but it can be done.

- the actual frequency that I would like to target.

This is a good question. If you have a side-to-side axial mode, that might not be a good frequency to target, especially of the "ports" will be across the face of a riser. The best application, IMO, would be for floor-ceiling or front-back axial modes. For the latter, ports on the back of the riser would be best...which may mean they need to be in the top of the riser if the riser is up against the back wall.

- or frequencies, if I was to use multiple ports of varying size (and the accompanying complex math that two different ports would create).

I've also done this. I.e., different joist cavities to address different frequencies. Careful planning of where to put which "ports" is needed in this case.

- the effect of significant fill in relation to your mathematical explanation

Also an excellent point. Fill for a Helmholtz resonator generally broadens its frequency range while reducing the overall absorption. The center frequency of absorption will still be fr. Full (100%) fill is generally discouraged as is fill right behind the "port." I've had best results with approximately 50-75% loose fill that doesn't come within a few inches of the "port."

- the idea that this math works when the riser is thought of as completely inert

If by "inert" you mean "rigid and sealed," then yes.

In regards to targeted frequency, am I to have better luck with lower bass, as opposed to high bass? For instance, is tuning for 110hz going to be as effective as tuning for 15hz?

In theory, you will get the same effect regardless of frequency. Running through the math, you will find that tuning a joist cavity to something like 110 Hz is going to be significantly more difficult than something like 15 Hz, simply due to the volume you're dealing with. Low bass will generally be easier with something on the order of a riser joist cavity. However, planning ahead for segmented joist cavities, each with their own "ports," could help get something into the higher bass range. But the real question at that point becomes whether you cannot address the higher bass with some good, thick wall panels or "traps."

 

[jostenmeat]

Yes, regarding port length, I realized how redundant that was to this discussion . . . after posting. Thanks for addressing that nonetheless!

The reason I think of a different "port" than the actual joist is only for any possible flexibility in obtaining the desired Fr. I was indeed planning on the back side of the riser, and I have the option to make a hole through the thinner plywood that completes the seal, or through the ply + 2x6s that run horizontally at the top and bottom borders. I figured a port of desired length in the ply would be easy . . .

Regarding the different target frequencies among different joist cavities: I only have one cavity. It is simply one huge box. I suppose I could make more cavities. It might be difficult to produce an excellent seal. Maybe not. But, since I know nothing about this stuff, are we (or namely you) going to address multiple ports for the same cavity? Is this too wishful?

Thanks for the all of the various tips, everything from x=.80 to the idea of vent covers.

I am using traps, and have more on the way. I might even obtain round three of treatments, which would be for the ceiling, and not so much bass response.

Oh, yet another question comes to mind. For a very roughly estimated box of 70 cubic ft, how imperative is it to get the volume perfectly right, before the calculations? Of course I'd try to get the # as accurate as possible, but if I was off by, say, one cubic foot, how fruitless will my efforts become?

Could the target frequency change be very small, like a couple of hertz? I suppose with the spreadsheet to come, that I will find my answer then.

Thanks. You're the best.

-jostenmeat