Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

All about acoustics. This is your new home if you already have a studio or other acoustic space, but it isn't working out for you, sounds bad, and you need to fix it...
User avatar
endorka
Senior Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon, 2019-Sep-23, 06:36
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#121

Postby endorka » Tue, 2020-Jul-28, 21:42

shybird wrote:Source of the postI remeasured using C weighting "slow" and I got a range from 39-69dB in a matter of about a minute (again HVAC off). It literally shot straight from 39 to 59 at one point and there was no perceivable change to my ears.


That sounds strange. With that kind of leap - effectively 8 times increase in volume - I think you would hear it. What meter / mic are you using? Is there a way to verify it is working? Do you have it securely fixed to a mic stand? If it is handheld perhaps handling noise is causing the leaps?

Cheers,
Jennifer



User avatar
shybird
Full Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat, 2020-Jul-04, 17:29
Location: Nashville, USA

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#122

Postby shybird » Tue, 2020-Jul-28, 22:22

endorka wrote:Source of the post That sounds strange. With that kind of leap - effectively 8 times increase in volume - I think you would hear it. What meter / mic are you using? Is there a way to verify it is working? Do you have it securely fixed to a mic stand? If it is handheld perhaps handling noise is causing the leaps?


I thought so too! It’s this meter...https://www.guitarcenter.com/American-Recorder-Technologies/Sound-Level-Meter.gc
It’s not on Stuart’s list so I had messaged him before buying and he thought it would be fine considering it has the necessary standardization certs to qualify it as not cheap junk lol.

I don’t have it on a stand though I’m not moving at all while holding it. If I move or knock it I do notice it go up even more. But yea, these jumps seem abnormal though I don’t have much frame of reference to truly know.

I will try stabilizing it with something other than my hand and see if that changes anything.

Thanks for the input and help with this!

Cheers
Trevor



User avatar
endorka
Senior Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon, 2019-Sep-23, 06:36
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#123

Postby endorka » Wed, 2020-Jul-29, 03:53

Some other thoughts:

Is it possible a draft of some kind is getting to it? Try some different positions in the room, and some other rooms too,

How does it react to a constantly loud signal e.g. 85 dB at mix position and put the mic near a monitor? Is the reading consistent then?

If you can't get a reliable ambient sound reading even with it propped on something, it might be worthwhile comparing it with a normal mic. It's not calibrated and doesn't have an even frequency response, but that's ok for this. All we aim to measure is the relative changes in ambient sound over a small period of time.

If you don't have a calibrated measurement mic an omnidirectional condenser would be best, but others would do in a pinch. Just install Room EQ Wizard and fire up the SPL meter in that. C weighted slow. Make a guess at calibration, let's say 42dB as a baseline for the ambient sound in your room.

Does it show any fluctuations or a steady state? If the fluctuations are still there, your SPL meter was correct. If not, it could be a dud.

Cheers,
Jennifer



User avatar
shybird
Full Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat, 2020-Jul-04, 17:29
Location: Nashville, USA

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#124

Postby shybird » Wed, 2020-Jul-29, 10:04

endorka wrote:Source of the post Is it possible a draft of some kind is getting to it? Try some different positions in the room, and some other rooms too,

Thanks again for the help Jennifer. I've tried in different areas of the room and other rooms as well. This thing is clearly a dud. It's all over the place and for no reason. :roll:

endorka wrote:Source of the post How does it react to a constantly loud signal e.g. 85 dB at mix position and put the mic near a monitor? Is the reading consistent then?

It's a little better with a constant louder signal but even then it is jumping over 10dB-15dB back and forth when the music is staying the same.

Does it show any fluctuations or a steady state? If the fluctuations are still there, your SPL meter was correct. If not, it could be a dud.

I pulled up REW just now and measured using my Presonus PRM1 and it was getting a constant 42-43dB with C (slow) and the occasional spike up to 45dB (which I noticed as a car drove by). I believe the mic is still calibrated from the whole walk through I did that Stuart lined out before the first REW test.

It was getting about 33-34dB with A (slow). So definitely seems much more controlled! That handheld SPL meter must be broken! I don't think I have the box unfortunately so I probably just wasted $100 :cen:

Again, proof that nothing important should ever be purchased from Guitar Center. I just did it because they were the only place in town that had them. And everywhere online was at least a week shipping. I was trying to get that first post up ASAP! Little did I know 4 weeks later I'd be driving to St. Louis to buy $4000 monitors for my soffit build in a room that is likely to have very few of the 24 panels I built! :lol:

Cheers,
Trevor



User avatar
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu, 2019-Sep-19, 22:58
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#125

Postby Soundman2020 » Wed, 2020-Jul-29, 13:57

Don't throw away your meter just yet! It might be fine! It might be telling the truth...

I'll get to the reason why down below, but first some necessary background:

I mentioned the "A" and "C" scale issue briefly in the recent "Step 3" of the "How to design your studio" series, here: Deciding on isolation for your studio... But basically, you have to always use the same scale for everything, because it is impossible to compare readings taken on different scales, and it is impossible to convert between scales. (And considering that we are mostly interested in LOUD things in studios, we always use "C".)

I say "impossible" as in "mathematically invalid": it makes no sense to do that, as you would be comparing entirely different things, so it would be meaningless. And since we have to use the "C" scale to measure loud things (because "A" is not sensitive to low frequencies), then we also have to use "C" for measuring quiet things, even though our own hearing is not very sensitive to low frequencies at low levels.

This all relates to a couple of guys, by the names Fletcher and Munson, who did some research years ago, to see how sensitive we humans are to different frequencies. They originally expected that they would be able to draw a simple curve that showed a more or less fixed relationship between sensitivity and frequency.... but instead they found that our sensitivity curve changes, depending on how loud the sound is!

So we have one sensitivity curve for very quiet sounds, and a very different curve for loud sounds... plus a whole bunch of other curves in between.

This is what they found:
True-FletcherMunson-curves-graph--white.jpg
That's the famous set of "Fletcher-Munson" curves. As you can see, for loud sounds, we hear most frequencies at similar levels. If you look at the curve at the 100 dB level (also called the "100 phons curve" .... I'll get to phons in a bit), then you'll see that a sound at 1kHz and a sound at 100 Hz and even one at 30 Hz, we perceive them all as being the same subjective loudness, but a sound with a tone of 5 kHz would actually need to be 10 dB quieter (only 90 dB real level) for us to judge that it is the same volume as the 1 kHz and 100 Hz and 30 Hz sounds. In other words, the curve is sort of "upside down" since it shows the inverse of "sensitivity". What it really shows is: "How loud does each frequency need to be, such that a human would judge that it is the same level as the reference sound?".

So: each curve in that graph shows the "equal loudness" contour for the reference sound, which is 1 kHz, but using a different reference level for each curve. In fact, that's pretty much how they figured this out! They would play a pure tone at 1 kHz and 100 dB, then ask people to turn up or down the level of another tone played at the same time, but with a different frequency, until they thought it was the same level as the 1 kHz, 100 dB reference tone. Then they would measure the REAL level of that second tone, and plot it on the graph. They did that for a whole bunch of different frequencies, asking people to match the 1 kHz tone, they they drew the graph that shows the REAL level of each frequency, that average people said was the same loudness as the reference tone. (Then they did that all over again, but with the reference level at 90 dB... then repeat again at 80 dB... etc. For all possible sound levels, in 10 dB steps, and all possible frequencies [also in steps]).

OK. so for loud sounds, we hear them all roughly the same, except around 5 kHz where our ears are most sensitive.

But it's a different story for QUIET sounds: Go down to the curve labeled at the 40 dB level (the "40 phons" curve... see below), and you'll notice that a tone at 100 Hz would now need to be about 10 db LOUDER in order for us to judge that it is the same level as a tone at 1 kHz. And a sound at 50 Hz would need to be nearly 20 dB louder for us to judge that is the same as the 1 kHz tone. For a 30 Hz tone (roughly the lowest note on a 6 string bass), that would need to be 40 dB louder for us to judge that it is the same level!

Conclusion: our hearing is all messed up! It is not linear! We are more sensitive to some sounds than others, and it changes with both level and frequency.

Now for "phons". That's just a name that they invented to put on the curves, to make it easy to talk about them. The "40 phon" curve, is the one referenced to a tone of 1 kHz played at 40 dB, and shows how loud all other frequencies need to be, for us to say that they are exactly as loud as that "1 kHz 40 dB" tone. In other words, it shows the "equal loudness" curve for a 40 dB level. If you could set up a synthesizer to play every single possible frequency, with each one at the exact level indicated by that curve, then a typical human would say that each note you played is exactly as loud as any other note. Any specific frequency "Mr. Joe Average" listened to in that situation, he would say that it was the same level as any other frequency. So as you played notes up and down the scale on that hypothetical synthesizer, every note would sound as loud as any of the other notes.

So, getting back to sound level meters: the "A" weighting curve is an approximation of the 40 phon curve, and the "C" weighting curve is an approximation of the 100 phon curve. That's it. It really is that simple. (To be more accurate, the "A" weighting curve is the INVERSE of the 40 phon curve, and the "C" weighting is the INVERSE of the 100 phon curve.)

That's why we use "C" weighting to measure loud sounds, and "A" weighting to measure quiet sounds. Just remember: " 'A' = 40 phon, 'C'=100 phon", and you have the entire picture.

Here are the actual "A" and "C" weighting curves:
SPL-DB-Weightings--A-and-C--GOOD!!!!.gif
SPL-DB-Weightings--A-and-C--GOOD!!!!.gif (36.85 KiB) Viewed 30868 times
SPL-DB-Weightings--A-and-C--GOOD!!!!.gif
SPL-DB-Weightings--A-and-C--GOOD!!!!.gif (36.85 KiB) Viewed 30868 times
Flip those upside down, and you can see that they are both reasonable approximations of the 40 phon and 100 phon curves. Like this:
SPL-DB-Weightings--A-and-C--flipped-upside-down-GOOD!!!!.gif
SPL-DB-Weightings--A-and-C--flipped-upside-down-GOOD!!!!.gif (38.08 KiB) Viewed 30868 times
SPL-DB-Weightings--A-and-C--flipped-upside-down-GOOD!!!!.gif
SPL-DB-Weightings--A-and-C--flipped-upside-down-GOOD!!!!.gif (38.08 KiB) Viewed 30868 times

OK, so, now for the "impossible" part: You CANNOT validly compare measurements that you took using "A" weighting with other measurements that you took using "C" weighting.... because they measure different things! After you take the readings, there is no way to determine what the actual set of frequencies was that you measured! All you have is a number. So if you measured some music on "C" weighting, and got 70 dB on the meter, from just that number you have no idea if there was a lot of bass in there, or no bass at all! If you then take another reading some other place but using "A" weighting, and it happens to show 70 dB, you CANNOT say that they both show the same sound intensity! Because it is quite possible that the first one had a bass guitar in it, while the second one had only a flute in it. If you go back and measure the first one again, but using "A" this time, you might get a level of only 50 dB, instead of 70. And if you go measure the second one on "C" this time you might get 73 dB, instead of 70. Since there is no way of knowing what the individual frequencies were in each case, it is impossible to compare "A" with "C". They would both show exactly the same level if you measured a pure 1 kHz sine wave (because 1 kHz. is the reference point), but they would show very different levels for any other frequency, or combination of frequencies.

You also cannot convert between the two, for the same reason: the single number "85.3 dBC" tells you nothing at all about what the frequencies were that you measured, so there is no conversion factor you can apply, to convert that into dBA. This is not like converting between kilograms and pounds, or between miles and kilometers: those are easy, with a simple conversion, because they measure the same thing. But not with weighted sound level scales.... there is no way to convert. You are not comparing apples with oranges here! It's more like comparing "fruit" and "seafood"...

So: Since it is impossible to compare or convert readings taken on "A" with readings taken on "C", and since studios are all about "LOUD MUSIC", we studio people have to always use "C" weighting.

Actually, there a bit more to it than that: it turns out that Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Munson were optimists: later research showed that they were mostly right, but not quite. The situation is a bit worse than they thought. So today we use slightly different curves, just known as the "equal loudness curves". Here's a graph showing both the original "Fletcher-Munson" curves (blue color), and also the modern "Equal Loudness" curves (red color):
fletcher-munson--and--equal-loudness-curves-together.jpg

OK, now, getting back to the reason why Trevor is seeing things that he can't hear: The answer is simple: "Fletcher-Munson"!

Trevor has his meter set on "C" and it is showing sounds at levels of maybe 40 or 50 dB, that he doesn't consciously notice. You'd expect to hear such sounds, because you'd think that "50 dB is loud"! Except that Fletcher-Munson shows that really you should NOT expect to hear such sounds, if they are both quiet and at low frequencies: The meter will detect them, but you won't... For example, a 50 dB sound at 30 Hz is not audible to humans! :ahh: Surprise! The bottom line on those graphs shows the "threshold of hearing". Anything below that, is inaudible. And a 30 Hz tone has to be at least 50 dB, and probably close to 60 dB before you can hear it. Especially if there is a little background "ambient" noise going on that could mask such a quiet sound. Also, do take into account that most people would consider the 30 phon curve to be "very quiet" already, and the 20 phon curve to be "silent" (unless they have sensitive hearing).... So compare that graph again: Even a relatively high 50 Hz tone would have to be above 60 dB, and maybe 70 dB, in order to be audible for most people. A 100 Hz tone needs to be over 50 dB to rise above the 20 phon curve.

This is very surprising for most people, even musicians and sound engineers, because we don't ever notice those differences in normal life! By the very nature of our hearing, we CANNOT hear those things! So we assume that they don't exist, because we can't hear them. But the meter can hear them, even though we can't, so it is showing the presence of low frequencies that you can't hear. That might well be a distant truck, someone walking on the floor upstairs way across the other side of the house, or wind, or distant aircraft, or even distant music that is bass-heavy.

Which gets to the next point: if we can't hear it, does it matter? You might think that if you can't hear those low-level. low frequency sounds, then they don't matter and you can ignore them... But that isn't true for a simple reason: your mics CAN still hear them, even though you can't! And therefore those low frequencies WILL get into your recording sessions... they will modulate the higher frequencies, much like AM radio transmission carriers are modulated by lower audio frequencies. So those low-level "inaudible" things will appear in your tracks. They will "ride on top of" the other sounds. Thus, if you play a pure note on a guitar, it will no longer be pure, because the "distant truck" will modulate it... and now it will be audible! Even though it was not audible by itself, when combined with something else, it becomes audible. Both to your ears, and also in your mics. Especially in your mics, because they work very differently from how your ears work.

So, ... that's the reason why your meter is showing you things that your ears can't notice, and why you have to always use "C" weighting for all your measurements, even though measuring quiet things will show numbers that you can't hear....

Now, the good part of all this, is that pretty much all noise regulations require that the measurements must be done using "A" weighting, not "C"! So if the cops show up at your studio one day with a noise complaint from your neighbors, they will HAVE to measure the levels using "A", because that's what the law says. Thus, even though you KNOW that the level outside your studio is 50 dBC, it will likely only be 40 dBA, because "A" is less sensitive to low frequencies.. such as drums, bass, growling electric guitar, roaring keyboards.... Thus, you have an advantage. The only time you should set your meter to "A" is if the cops show up saying you are too loud. You can then validly, and legally, and correctly, measure the true level outside your place, and compare that to the regulations. The number on "A" will be lower than on "C", but that's the correct way to measure low levels anyway... which is why the law specifies it for ambient readings.

- Stuart -



User avatar
shybird
Full Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat, 2020-Jul-04, 17:29
Location: Nashville, USA

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#126

Postby shybird » Thu, 2020-Jul-30, 11:07

Wow! Again, thank you Stuart for such attention to detail. That was a very helpful explanation on all levels.

First, I just wanted to say that Guitar Center was kind enough to let me return the SPL Meter even without a box. So I got my money back and ordered the Extech 407730 online. Should be here by Tuesday of next week at which point I will make some more measurements inside and outside the house.

Soundman2020 wrote:Source of the post Which gets to the next point: if we can't hear it, does it matter? You might think that if you can't hear those low-level. low frequency sounds, then they don't matter and you can ignore them... But that isn't true for a simple reason: your mics CAN still hear them, even though you can't! And therefore those low frequencies WILL get into your recording sessions... they will modulate the higher frequencies, much like AM radio transmission carriers are modulated by lower audio frequencies. So those low-level "inaudible" things will appear in your tracks. They will "ride on top of" the other sounds. Thus, if you play a pure note on a guitar, it will no longer be pure, because the "distant truck" will modulate it... and now it will be audible! Even though it was not audible by itself, when combined with something else, it becomes audible. Both to your ears, and also in your mics. Especially in your mics, because they work very differently from how your ears work.


This bummed me out so much haha. I never realized that low rumble could actually change the way a mic is picking up the rest of the frequency spectrum! But it makes total sense. Unfortunately, I don't think there's much I can do in regard to isolating the house any better than it is...so I guess I will just have to live with it. I've made some good recordings but now my OCD brain is thinking "ahhh but they could be so much better probably if I had even better isolation!" :roll: :?

Now, the good part of all this, is that pretty much all noise regulations require that the measurements must be done using "A" weighting, not "C"! So if the cops show up at your studio one day with a noise complaint from your neighbors, they will HAVE to measure the levels using "A", because that's what the law says.

This is SUCH valuable information haha. Thank you for sharing.

Well, I guess I will just deal with what I've got in regard to isolation at this point... Unless anybody has ideas that don't require building a room within a room? That's unfortunately just way out of the question.

Cheers and thank you again for all the help!
Trevor



User avatar
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu, 2019-Sep-19, 22:58
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#127

Postby Soundman2020 » Thu, 2020-Jul-30, 11:30

shybird wrote:Source of the post Well, I guess I will just deal with what I've got in regard to isolation at this point... Unless anybody has ideas that don't require building a room within a room? That's unfortunately just way out of the question.
Adding an additional layer of drywall over your existing walls and ceiling, with Green Glue Compound, could probably gain you several dB. But in most typical houses, the biggest source of isolation issues is sealing: There are always cracks, gaps, and holes that are letting sound in and out: around windows, doors, electrical outlets, switches, light fittings. Just sealing those can gain you several dB. Take a look at Jennifer's complete thread to see all the "little things" like that, that she found, and how dealing with those made a big difference to her studio isolation. viewtopic.php?t=8

- Stuart -



User avatar
shybird
Full Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat, 2020-Jul-04, 17:29
Location: Nashville, USA

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#128

Postby shybird » Thu, 2020-Jul-30, 12:50

Soundman2020 wrote:Source of the post Adding an additional layer of drywall over your existing walls and ceiling, with Green Glue Compound, could probably gain you several dB.

Ahh ok I was wondering if something like that might help. I still think this is probably out of the question as it would be permanent. And due to the way some of the window frames have odd angles around the molding, I would imagine this would a be very tough installation in certain places.

But in most typical houses, the biggest source of isolation issues is sealing: There are always cracks, gaps, and holes that are letting sound in and out: around windows, doors, electrical outlets, switches, light fittings. Just sealing those can gain you several dB.

Cool! I will check out Jennifer's thread again and look for where she talks about that stuff. I certainly could use any additional isolation possible.

Thanks again!
Trevor



User avatar
shybird
Full Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat, 2020-Jul-04, 17:29
Location: Nashville, USA

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#129

Postby shybird » Thu, 2020-Jul-30, 12:56

Also, I know this is a big no no (Stuart might kill me :shock: ), and I will obviously re-test when the real meter comes in...but I did a test with Decibel X (an app for my iPhone 11) and here are the readings (C/slow):

front porch right outside of the control room = 61dB average (58dB min/65dB max)
inside control room = 42dB average (39dB min/45dB max)

I realize this is probably not very accurate but if it's in the ballpark, then I'm getting roughly 20dB of isolation. I will repost these numbers once I have the Extech meter!

Cheers
Trevor



User avatar
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu, 2019-Sep-19, 22:58
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#130

Postby Soundman2020 » Thu, 2020-Jul-30, 13:19

front porch right outside of the control room = 61dB average (58dB min/65dB max)
inside control room = 42dB average (39dB min/45dB max)

I realize this is probably not very accurate but if it's in the ballpark, then I'm getting roughly 20dB of isolation.
Try it going the other way: Get your speakers playing typical contemporary bass-heavy music at around 85 dBC inside the room, the same section of the song on a continuous loop, then go outside and measure, a few feet away form the wall, in several places (near windows, away from windows, up high, down low, etc.)

20 dB isolation is on the low side, but possible for a leaky wall. Typical house walls should give around 25-30 dB. Typical studios are around 55-60 dB. Typical home studios: maybe 45-55 dB.

- Stuart -



User avatar
shybird
Full Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat, 2020-Jul-04, 17:29
Location: Nashville, USA

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#131

Postby shybird » Thu, 2020-Jul-30, 13:54

Hey Stuart,

Thanks! Took your advice and measured with some "four on the floor" dance music playing. Got it to around 85dB inside and then was measuring around 62-65dB tops outside at various locations. Granted, this is including the outside ambient noises of distant traffic etc.

20 dB isolation is on the low side, but possible for a leaky wall. Typical house walls should give around 25-30 dB. Typical studios are around 55-60 dB. Typical home studios: maybe 45-55 dB.


Dang! I thought my place had decent isolation. So much for using your ears to judge. :roll: Proof in what you always say Stuart..."Get a number!" :cop:

I'm feeling anxious that all this acoustic treatment work will be somewhat compromised considering the isolation is not so great in the first place... :cry: I guess I just gotta do the best I can with it.

Cheers
Trevor



User avatar
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu, 2019-Sep-19, 22:58
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#132

Postby Soundman2020 » Thu, 2020-Jul-30, 14:45

shybird wrote:Source of the post I guess I just gotta do the best I can with it.
I would take a good look at the sealing issue! You'd be surprised how much sound gets out through gaps around windows and frames. A tube of good-quality caulk and some soft rubber weather-stripping can do wonders.... Inspect around your windows carefully to see where you might have gaps, and seal the hell out of them! :)

And of course, your chimney is an open duct to the outside world... once you get that closed off, that's probably a couple of dB right there. I'd expect that you can probably get your isolation up to a bit above 30, without doing any major work. If you also add that layer of drywall with GG compound on walls and ceiling, that might get you to 35 or a little more.


- Stuart -



User avatar
Starlight
Full Member
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed, 2019-Sep-25, 12:52
Location: Slovakia, Europe
Contact:

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#133

Postby Starlight » Thu, 2020-Jul-30, 15:45

Soundman2020 wrote:Source of the postA tube of good-quality caulk ...
I don't believe Stuart because I am on my 33rd tube of caulk at the moment. YMMV but I expect a (single) tube may not be enough.



SoWhat
Full Member
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue, 2020-Jun-09, 12:13
Location: Philadelphia, USA...

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#134

Postby SoWhat » Thu, 2020-Jul-30, 16:05

YMMV but I expect a (single) tube may not be enough.


Maybe it's a suggestion of how to keep projects on-budget... :P



User avatar
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu, 2019-Sep-19, 22:58
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Home Mix Room Overhaul - DIY Panel Build - w/ REW Charts/3D Sketchup

#135

Postby Soundman2020 » Thu, 2020-Jul-30, 17:57

ordered the Extech 407730 online.
That's a nice one. I used to have one of those... and now I'm sorry I let it go. Should be fine for what you need.

- Stuart -




  • Similar Topics
    Statistics
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests