alternatives to dry wall? using wood?

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

User avatar
joninc
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: canada
Contact:

alternatives to dry wall? using wood?

Post by joninc » Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:19 pm

i may be soundproofing a new studio space soon (likely a detached garage/workshop) and am looking to do some research and learning now that i can apply when the time comes.

i have been working primarily in a 300 sq feet 1 room studio with iso booth. double walled construction, staggered studs, caulking on all seams etc.. the classic room-within-a-room deal. tons of drywall.

i hate drywall.

acoustically and aesthetically.

on the other hand - i LOVE wood.

cedar would be awesome.

have any of you used wood in your studios in place of drywall - on the interior studio walls?

do you need to drywall first and then attach wood to it?

were the costs really high? what about finding old, reclaimed/recycled wood
from barns etc.

i realize this is a broad question - just looking to hear from those who've done it
and maybe get some tips. even applying wood to half the walls or something would be cool.
the new rules : there are no rules

User avatar
jhbrandt
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Bekasi, Indonesia
Contact:

Re: alternatives to dry wall? using wood?

Post by jhbrandt » Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:22 pm

You are talking about building staggered stud construction.. this is for ISOLATION. Isolation requires mass. It doesn't really matter what you use for this mass, but drywall or gypsum board is VERY good at 'mass' and it is cheap. That's why we use it.

Your FINISH, however can be cedar or whatever you want. Treatment is a whole 'nuther thing. ;) You will need to determine your design approach first, then build accordingly. RE: design approaches, you might enjoy ready my paper 'Who needs a Haas Kicker' - on my publications page.

Cheers,
John
John H. Brandt - Recording Studio, Performance Hall & Architectural Acoustics Consultants
http://www.jhbrandt.net

"Twenty thousand dollars worth of Snap-On tools does not make you a Professional Diesel Mechanic"

User avatar
Scodiddly
genitals didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Mundelein, IL, USA
Contact:

Post by Scodiddly » Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:22 pm

Fire resistance might be something to look at - drywall won't burn, and a lot of building codes are based around the house not burning down too fast.

So maybe a layer of drywall to stop some sound and any flames, and then add wood on top? Wood is actually not horrible when it comes to house fires, because it takes a while to start burning. Way different than fabric or foam that a studio might put on the walls.

User avatar
roscoenyc
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by roscoenyc » Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:57 pm

As stated above.
No wood product approaches the mass of drywall.
Mass is needed.
A wood wall is like a tent.
If you are cool with a canvas tent, then by all means go for all the groovy wood you can find!

The Scum
moves faders with mind
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 11:26 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Post by The Scum » Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:25 pm

Drywall is also pretty easy to work with. You can cut it with very simple hand tools.

It's also very consistent. It's molded or extruded or whatever, so every sheet is very close to the same size, shape and thickness...and it stays that shape as it ages - it doesn't twist or warp.

Due to those factors, it's easy to make a well sealed structure with it.

Wood (even "engineered wood" like plywood or OSB) can be somewhat inconsistent - knots and voids, warping. It's also harder to work with - you can't casually shave it to size with a utility knife. Compare the screwgun that's used for installing drywall versus one used to making decks - very different beasts.

You might look into what people are calling the "inside-out" wall - stick framing with drywall on the outside for soundproofing, and treatment (fiberglass, fabric, wood etc) on the inside.
"What fer?"
"Cat fur, to make kitten britches."

User avatar
joninc
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: canada
Contact:

Post by joninc » Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:33 pm

thanks guys - i like the inside out idea.... kind of building the acoustic treatments right into the wall instead hanging it all out on the face of it later...
the new rules : there are no rules

User avatar
Smitty
tinnitus
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:14 am
Location: columbus, oh

Post by Smitty » Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:53 pm

Quick note on barnwood: (from a guy who has spent the last year or so dismantling and repurposing material from a 19th century barn here on the farm).

Lots of neat wood to be had in barns. BUT some old wood can be infested with wood-chomping insects that would find the wood in your home just as tasty as the barnwood they've been living in. Be careful about what you bring into your home.
"I try to hate all my gear equally at all times to keep the balance of power in my favor." - Brad Sucks

User avatar
jhbrandt
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Bekasi, Indonesia
Contact:

Post by jhbrandt » Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:09 pm

I would advise caution with the 'inside-out' approach.

If you want a certain amount of isolation there is ONLY one way to get the same STL spec... and that is with the same mass AND AIR SPACE. Building walls 'inside-out' in the manner of John Sayers places the gypsum board on the air gap side of the studs... This dramatically reduces the STL of the wall. UNLESS you build it the same as standard construction and MOVE the framing studs so that the air space between the INSIDE (the air gap) of the gypsum board partitions remains THE SAME as a normally built decoupled wall system.
And if you do that, you might as well build a standard wall. It is about 200% easier.

Besides, once an 'inside-out' wall is built, you have only 3 1/2" or 89mm to fill with acoustic treatment for trapping and/or reflection control.. That is far too little trapping and only suitable for minimal 'home studio' type setups that want to LOOK like a real studio. There is a big difference.

Sorry, if I seem to be 'down' on this approach, but there are far too many disadvantages.

Simply build a 'thin' framework around the room to put your treatment in. Make it look like the 'walls'. It IS that simple. Build the structure FIRST to accommodate the best modal distribution AND sound isolation (STL=Sound Transmission Loss), THEN place the treatment. If you are limited to panels, fine. But if you can completely treat the room so that you obtain the optimal response from THAT room, you are far better off. Don't forget that you can use the entire ceiling for a trap if you have some height.

This can be done in stages so that it doesn't break the bank. - Do it once, do it right. 8)

Cheers,
John
John H. Brandt - Recording Studio, Performance Hall & Architectural Acoustics Consultants
http://www.jhbrandt.net

"Twenty thousand dollars worth of Snap-On tools does not make you a Professional Diesel Mechanic"

User avatar
losthighway
resurrected
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:02 pm
Contact:

Post by losthighway » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:20 am

I would also add that you can get as much wood in the mix as you like once your walls are up. Look at pictures of Joel Hamilton's older Studio G. They slapped found wood of various sizes all over the place in there and it looks really cool. It also probably does some diffusion too because of the stacking and layering- no probably not the mathematically perfect diffusion of an engineered diffuser that scatters everything perfectly, but something that can definitely affect the sound of the room.

You can also do something a little more formal on one wall; lay in rows of identical pieces side to side at a 45 degree angle. That can be stained and look nice. You just need to be aware of where your studs are when you put it up over the finished drywall.

The other thing that comes up in this conversation is the hard to believe science that a flat wood panel mounted securely to your studs, a flat concrete wall, and a flat piece of drywall all have the same sound. This gets mixed up with thinner wood, or drywall, and whatever you have behind it soaking up some of the lows, but in general there's a very different look with a very similar sound. This goes against ages of musicians commenting on how they love the sound of a wood room. "It's just so much warmer sounding, like the inside of a violin or an acoustic guitar"- not really true.

User avatar
jhbrandt
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Bekasi, Indonesia
Contact:

Post by jhbrandt » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:32 am

+1

- John
John H. Brandt - Recording Studio, Performance Hall & Architectural Acoustics Consultants
http://www.jhbrandt.net

"Twenty thousand dollars worth of Snap-On tools does not make you a Professional Diesel Mechanic"

User avatar
JWL
deaf.
Posts: 1870
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: Maine
Contact:

Post by JWL » Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:35 pm

losthighway wrote: The other thing that comes up in this conversation is the hard to believe science that a flat wood panel mounted securely to your studs, a flat concrete wall, and a flat piece of drywall all have the same sound. This gets mixed up with thinner wood, or drywall, and whatever you have behind it soaking up some of the lows, but in general there's a very different look with a very similar sound. This goes against ages of musicians commenting on how they love the sound of a wood room. "It's just so much warmer sounding, like the inside of a violin or an acoustic guitar"- not really true.
So true! We actually did some testing on this front: http://www.realtraps.com/art_surfaces.htm

User avatar
darjama
tinnitus
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:11 pm
Location: East SF Bay

Post by darjama » Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:12 am

JWL wrote: So true! We actually did some testing on this front: http://www.realtraps.com/art_surfaces.htm
Looking at this, it appears the the glass surface increases high frequency delay times by 1/4 or 1/3. That seems to be significant, assuming that ratio would hold for spaces larger than your test box.

Of course for most of us we're considering MDF vs wood, not MDF vs glass. But even a 10% difference in the high frequency delays I would guess to be audible?

User avatar
jhbrandt
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Bekasi, Indonesia
Contact:

Post by jhbrandt » Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:38 pm

I don't see any information about delays. The article is talking about reflections and the sound of certain surfaces.

The point is that THERE IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE. I see this time and time again all over the forums that folks are splitting hairs over these things.

There is hardly ANY difference between a concrete floor and 3/4" hardwood on the concrete floor - sound wise. Now, we as humans, like the more natural 'look' usually, so we go with a wood floor so that we 'feel' warmer. It's a Jedi mind trick.

Acoustic design is often complicated by aesthetics but should never be compromised with them. Form follows function, but there is often about 90% function that is hidden from view in a good studio design.

There's no substantial difference between using MDF, soft pine, hardwood, plywood... for surface treatment. There IS a difference, however between using hardwood vs. Styrofoam... (eg; diffusors)

It depends on the purpose of the use as well. If you need Isolation.. you need mass.. it doesn't matter what it is.. just mass. heavier=better

If you are using it for acoustics/aesthetics; use the wood that you LIKE. Apply it per the acoustic design.

Cheers,
John
John H. Brandt - Recording Studio, Performance Hall & Architectural Acoustics Consultants
http://www.jhbrandt.net

"Twenty thousand dollars worth of Snap-On tools does not make you a Professional Diesel Mechanic"

User avatar
JWL
deaf.
Posts: 1870
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: Maine
Contact:

Post by JWL » Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:15 pm

darjama wrote: Looking at this, it appears the the glass surface increases high frequency delay times by 1/4 or 1/3. That seems to be significant, assuming that ratio would hold for spaces larger than your test box.

Of course for most of us we're considering MDF vs wood, not MDF vs glass. But even a 10% difference in the high frequency delays I would guess to be audible?
These are measured in dB, so you are talking about differences of less than a quarter of a dB. Not really audible, as John said. If you aren't convinced, then try adding an EQ to a track and adjusting any octave you wish by 0.25dB (assuming your EQ plugin even has resolution that fine).

User avatar
joninc
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: canada
Contact:

Post by joninc » Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:33 pm

this is all good info guys. thanks!

i guess the bottom line is - drywall is effective and cheap for isolation so it's the foundational layer and wood, treatments and stuff can go on top.

the wood floor is really funny to me - almost everybody puts them in, and then they cover them with rugs! (myself included( i am not sure what i will do on the next place for floors... i'd rather have wood on the walls i think and leave the floors as concrete or maybe old school lino (like Sun)

i think i am just really frustrated with the acoustics (for mixing) of my small room - and i am blaming that on drywall. it's more likely just a product of the small space and the close walls that are reflecting the energy around (and yes i do have lots of treatment)

... space is a wonderful diffuser...
the new rules : there are no rules

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests