# Acoustic Design



## Kevinicus (Sep 11, 2014)

I am having an acoustic expert do my acoustic treatment design. I am planning on having 2 rows of seating, and my last decision is if I want the design to be optimized for all seats, or just for the front row. 

The design itself would cost me $500 less if I just do the front row, and there would be additional savings because there would be less treatments involved. I'm not sure how many less though, so the overall savings is difficult to estimate.

Now, most of the time, only the first row will be used. And most of the people that use the theater probably wouldn't notice (or care).

The budget is pretty firm on everything, so a little savings here offers more wiggle room down the line. I am so tempted to get everything the best it could be though. 

What do you guys think?


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

Could you be more specific about what differences there are between optimizing for just the front row vs optimizing for both?


----------



## Kevinicus (Sep 11, 2014)

The design would only focus on making the sound be the best for the front row and wouldn't worry about making it good for the back row. There would be less treatments to buy because the design wouldn't specify anything for the reflection points that would impact the back row.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

You can't skip on any treatments and have the front row optimized..
You will still need second reflection point panels and rear wall panels, plus bass traps in the rear corners to have good surround sound..
You can then optimize for the front seats..


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

Kevinicus said:


> The design would only focus on making the sound be the best for the front row and wouldn't worry about making it good for the back row. There would be less treatments to buy because the design wouldn't specify anything for the reflection points that would impact the back row.


Well, you might think you're eliminating that don't matter much, but look at it his way: you're going to do this once, in the grand scheme, I doubt that the additional $500 will make or break the budget, and if you give your room the full treatment it deserves, you'll know it's good everywhere. Seems a small thing for what's probably the cost of one speaker. 

I'm not sure I totally agree with Prof., but it just seems to be a false economy to eliminate any acoustic treatment because nobody will notice. You will!


----------



## Kevinicus (Sep 11, 2014)

gazoink said:


> Well, you might think you're eliminating that don't matter much, but look at it his way: you're going to do this once, in the grand scheme, I doubt that the additional $500 will make or break the budget, and if you give your room the full treatment it deserves, you'll know it's good everywhere. Seems a small thing for what's probably the cost of one speaker.
> 
> I'm not sure I totally agree with Prof., but it just seems to be a false economy to eliminate any acoustic treatment because nobody will notice. You will!


If it was just the $500 I wouldn't have any doubts. But I also have a very strict budget to work with. I can't go over and say it was worth it. I simply can't go over. And I'm not sure there will be room to compromise anywhere else.


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Kevinicus said:


> If it was just the $500 I wouldn't have any doubts. But I also have a very strict budget to work with. I can't go over and say it was worth it. I simply can't go over. And I'm not sure there will be room to compromise anywhere else.


Why don't you DIY them?


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

Kevinicus said:


> If it was just the $500 I wouldn't have any doubts. But I also have a very strict budget to work with. I can't go over and say it was worth it. I simply can't go over. And I'm not sure there will be room to compromise anywhere else.


That makes this sort of difficult to respond to. You're asking if not optimizing the second row is a good place to save $500 without any other alternatives. Hard to make that call without knowing the options.


----------



## Kevinicus (Sep 11, 2014)

gazoink said:


> That makes this sort of difficult to respond to. You're asking if not optimizing the second row is a good place to save $500 without any other alternatives. Hard to make that call without knowing the options.


I would guess the savings would probably be at least $1000, but it's hard to determine without knowing what the difference for treatments would be. There are still some costs that are unknown right now, and it may end up that I could fit everything in no problem. Or it could end up that I am really tight with no room to spare. I'm asking if you guys think it would be worth it for something that wouldn't be used all that much.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

Kevinicus said:


> I would guess the savings would probably be at least $1000, but it's hard to determine without knowing what the difference for treatments would be. There are still some costs that are unknown right now, and it may end up that I could fit everything in no problem. Or it could end up that I am really tight with no room to spare. I'm asking if you guys think it would be worth it for something that wouldn't be used all that much.


My feeling, and the way I handle acoustic treatment is, it's only a rough estimate until the room is built, and I can test with everything in place. That way it's not over-treated or under-treated. There's simply no real way to predict everything with enough accuracy to budget without a pretty good sized margin. I know a lot of guys try to model the room and predict it down to the last detail, but reality doesn't work that way, there are too many things that you can't model. But you can test once it's built and get it right, then know what to budget for materials. Other items in the budget should be pretty fixed by now. 

Acoustic treatment is also usually easily added after the fact, and in response to measurements. You could just generally treat the room, then wait to optimize once its all finished. You might just find you don't need to do anything additional, or you might find just one problem area you need to diffuse, fuzz or trap.


----------



## Kevinicus (Sep 11, 2014)

gazoink said:


> My feeling, and the way I handle acoustic treatment is, it's only a rough estimate until the room is built, and I can test with everything in place. That way it's not over-treated or under-treated. There's simply no real way to predict everything with enough accuracy to budget without a pretty good sized margin. I know a lot of guys try to model the room and predict it down to the last detail, but reality doesn't work that way, there are too many things that you can't model. But you can test once it's built and get it right, then know what to budget for materials. Other items in the budget should be pretty fixed by now.
> 
> Acoustic treatment is also usually easily added after the fact, and in response to measurements. You could just generally treat the room, then wait to optimize once its all finished. You might just find you don't need to do anything additional, or you might find just one problem area you need to diffuse, fuzz or trap.


Well, the treatments will be covered, so I'm not sure it will be all that easy to add after the fact. It could be done, but not without some work.


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Kevinicus said:


> Well, the treatments will be covered, so I'm not sure it will be all that easy to add after the fact. It could be done, but not without some work.


Why would it be hard to add the treatments after the fact... Are you doing fabric wall panels? If you set everything up with bare walls and then measure you can finish the wall coverings after you have the room tuned. :T


----------



## Kevinicus (Sep 11, 2014)

I ended up going with the design for both rows of seating.


----------

