Ron's Speaker, Turntable, Power and Room Treatment Upgrades

[spiritofmusic]

There is a friendly soul who is pitching the idea of buying the entry level UHA machine and sharing/swapping tape dubs, maybe mainly classical.

He’s going to pitch the concept to me.

Anyone who thinks they know him, please don’t identify him, I’m not sure of the copyright/provenance issues this entails.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Good!

I pitched the entry-level UHA machine to you too.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Why do non A80 owners need multiple tape machines as opposed to A80

Because they heard a B 62 lol.
A 80 sounds Nice too i give micro that

I find it odd that those repairman over the pond won t repair other tapemachine models
Usually in my business if someones declines to repair anything other is because he doesnt know how.
Why dont you guys overthere buy ampexxes i would buy a transportable model of the 102.
They sell them fully restored with gurantee at atrservices
In a flight case they even give courses at how to adjust. And use the machines properly .
I guess grass is always greener at the otherside

 

[andromedaaudio]

May be an idea for Ron.
Visit ATR services do the course, make a nice review.
They might even give you one for free

 

[microstrip]

Why do non A80 owners need multiple tape machines as opposed to A80

If you want to optimize playback you should drop the erase and recording hard, replacing it with the proper rollers. In this way you can minimize scrape flutter. I think this would be also possible to A820 and other exchangeable headstack machines. Due to the high number of manufactured Studer A80's headstacks are easily available - I have a few.

The choice between those machines is also a question of price - I never paid more than 2500 euros for a Studer A80 in Europe and can get spares at very decent prices. The age and condition - except for cosmetics - is not an issue. All rolling , joint or hinge points are bearings, once you replace them you get an as new machine. A few weeks ago I was lucky and got a set of two never used rec/replay heads for the A80 for around euro 600.

 

[Ron Resnick]

If you want to optimize playback you should drop the erase and recording hard, replacing it with the proper rollers. In this way you can minimize scrape flutter. I think this would be also possible to A820 and other exchangeable headstack machines. Due to the high number of manufactured Studer A80's headstacks are easily available - I have a few.

. . . A few weeks ago I was lucky and got a set of two never used rec/replay heads for the A80 for around euro 600.

Yes, those are good playback-only improvements.

Great work on that Studer A80 heads find!

 

[Bruce B]

Why do non A80 owners need multiple tape machines as opposed to A80

I have 2 A80 machines and multiple head-blocs and cards. That's all anyone would need for dubbing. If you want to just play back tape, then all you need is one machine.

 

[Hi-FiGuy]

All of Jeff T’s friends loved Leslie Brooks’ Led Zeppelin tape. Of course that music is before my time so I wasn’t familiar with it.

Oh no you didn't!

 

[Ron Resnick]

I am fed up thinking about wall structure treatments, so I am sure y'all must be too! I think I am getting close to a resolution.

Bonnie has proposed one wall structure treatment for the wood frame sections and a different wall structure treatment for the cinder block sections.


on the wood frame sections:

-- 1/2" plywood over

-- 1/4" Hardiebacker over

-- 5/32" NoiseOut2 vinyl over

-- 1" wood "fur-out" left empty(air only) over the wood framing filled with blue jeans insulation
​

on the cinder block sections

-- 3/4" plywood over

-- 5/32" NoiseOut2 vinyl over

-- 1" wood "fur-out" filled with two layers of 3/8" SoundSense Acoustic Thermal Insulation ("ATI") (insulation over a layer of foil) applied directly to the cinder block
​

This week I asked Bonnie to evaluate the efficacy of the above proposed wall structure treatment compared to an alternative and uniform wall structure treatment I am proposing for both the wood frame sections and the cinder block sections:

-- 3/4” walnut veneer engineered flooring planks with a 10mm layer of natural hardwood walnut (10mm of hardwood walnut veneer on flooring planks is thicker than the thin layer of wood veneer on typical 4’ x 8’ sheets of plywood veneer) over

-- 5/32” NoiseOut2 vinyl over

-- 1" wood "fur-out" filled with two layers of ATI over

-- 1/2” Hardiebacker
​

Would you be troubled by a non-uniform wall structure treatment (one sandwich over the wood frame sections and a different sandwich over the cinder block sections)?

What do you think of my uniform alternative sandwich?

 

[Bobvin]

I would say Bonnie's modeling has already generated the structures that will provide the optimal results (based, of course, on her analysis). You have different wall structures, expecting them to behave uniformly is not realistic, hence the differing suggested structure. I know Bonnie focuses heavily on the RT values, if you go with a uniform structure over non-uniform, you are going to get inconsistent results, which is what she's trying to allow for.

 

[PeterA]

I am fed up thinking about wall structure treatments, so I am sure y'all must be too! I think I am getting close to a resolution.

Bonnie has proposed one wall structure treatment for the wood frame sections and a different wall structure treatment for the cinder block sections.


on the wood frame sections:

-- 1/2" plywood over

-- 1/4" Hardiebacker over

-- 5/32" NoiseOut2 vinyl over

-- 1" wood "fur-out" left empty(air only) over the wood framing filled with blue jeans insulation
​

on the cinder block sections

-- 3/4" plywood over

-- 5/32" NoiseOut2 vinyl over

-- 1" wood "fur-out" filled with two layers of 3/8" SoundSense Acoustic Thermal Insulation ("ATI") (insulation over a layer of foil) applied directly to the cinder block
​

This week I asked Bonnie to evaluate the efficacy of the above proposed wall structure treatment compared to an alternative and uniform wall structure treatment I am proposing for both the wood frame sections and the cinder block sections:

-- 3/4” walnut veneer engineered flooring planks with a 10mm layer of natural hardwood walnut (10mm of hardwood walnut veneer on flooring planks is thicker than the thin layer of wood veneer on typical 4’ x 8’ sheets of plywood veneer) over

-- 5/32” NoiseOut2 vinyl over

-- 1" wood "fur-out" filled with two layers of ATI over

-- 1/2” Hardiebacker
​

Would you be troubled by a non-uniform wall structure treatment (one sandwich over the wood frame sections and a different sandwich over the cinder block sections)?

What do you think of my uniform alternative sandwich?

Ron, I do not understand why you are suggesting alternatives to Bonnie's suggestion. She is the acoustic expert whom you hired to address your room conditions. Why second guess her ideas and ask a bunch of us non experts on an audio forum? Are your ideas based on your recent visit to MikeL's room?

 

[Joe Whip]

I would go with Bonnie’s suggestions as well. She knows her stuff.

 

[Pb Blimp]

If Bonnie can model your approach and it shows equivalent performance so be it. The concept of effectively building a new room inside of a bad room to mitigate the variances in the old, bad room is not uncommon but to me it all comes down to what she approves through modelling as others have said.

 

[pjwd]

I am fed up thinking about wall structure treatments, so I am sure y'all must be too! I think I am getting close to a resolution.

Bonnie has proposed one wall structure treatment for the wood frame sections and a different wall structure treatment for the cinder block sections.


on the wood frame sections:

-- 1/2" plywood over

-- 1/4" Hardiebacker over

-- 5/32" NoiseOut2 vinyl over

-- 1" wood "fur-out" left empty(air only) over the wood framing filled with blue jeans insulation
​

on the cinder block sections

-- 3/4" plywood over

-- 5/32" NoiseOut2 vinyl over

-- 1" wood "fur-out" filled with two layers of 3/8" SoundSense Acoustic Thermal Insulation ("ATI") (insulation over a layer of foil) applied directly to the cinder block
​

This week I asked Bonnie to evaluate the efficacy of the above proposed wall structure treatment compared to an alternative and uniform wall structure treatment I am proposing for both the wood frame sections and the cinder block sections:

-- 3/4” walnut veneer engineered flooring planks with a 10mm layer of natural hardwood walnut (10mm of hardwood walnut veneer on flooring planks is thicker than the thin layer of wood veneer on typical 4’ x 8’ sheets of plywood veneer) over

-- 5/32” NoiseOut2 vinyl over

-- 1" wood "fur-out" filled with two layers of ATI over

-- 1/2” Hardiebacker
​

Would you be troubled by a non-uniform wall structure treatment (one sandwich over the wood frame sections and a different sandwich over the cinder block sections)?

What do you think of my uniform alternative sandwich?

Ron - the key question here is what are these linings as designed actually doing - is the idea to present a constant acoustic wall performance to the complete space - if so, a high density rigid backing to timber framed areas to simulate blockwork and then a consistent sheeting system over would seem to be the best - if the sheeting systems are treating different frequencies for each system ( which I would think would be the case ) - that may be a part of the design
Like others I think you need to work with your designer - drill down into the intent of the system to allow alternatives to be developed
The system seems like a membrane absorber that uses non typical products and would work at relatively low frequency and relatively small absorption - I presume it a tested system that has clear goals

cheers,

Phil

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thank you, Peter, Joe, Paul and Phil.

I agree -- my first inclination is to just agree to whatever Bonnie suggests. But I have trouble with the idea of different sandwiches on the different walls sections -- even though it makes sense that to equalize the acoustic response of different materials, different remediating solutions may be required. But the other concept is to make the walls as structurally similar as possible, and that implies putting the same formula on all walls.

So I asked Bonnie the difference in efficacy between her asymmetrical proposal and my uniform alternative proposal. The thinking being that if the difference in efficacy is not significant, why not go with what makes me more comfortable?

I am waiting for the final analysis but initially it looks like the difference in efficacy is less than 10%.

Phil, the objective of this wall structure -- and of the 1" wood furring filled with acoustic insulation in particular -- is to provide modest absorption around 125 Hz.

 

[microstrip]

Thank you, Peter, Joe, Paul and Phil.

I agree -- my first inclination is to just agree to whatever Bonnie suggests. But I have trouble with the idea of different sandwiches on the different walls sections -- even though it makes sense that to equalize the acoustic response of different materials, different remediating solutions may be required. But the other concept is to make the walls as structurally similar as possible, and that implies putting the same formula on all walls.

So I asked Bonnie the difference in efficacy between her asymmetrical proposal and my uniform alternative proposal. The thinking being that if the difference in efficacy is not significant, why not go with what makes me more comfortable?

I am waiting for the final analysis but initially it looks like the difference in efficacy is less than 10%.

The objective of this wall structure -- and of the 1" wood furring filled with acoustic insulation in particular -- is to provide modest absorption around 125 Hz.

Can I ask what do you mean by "efficacy is less than 10%"? What acoustical parameters will be reduced by 10%?

Most of the time people use solutions that they have worked in other systems - I would follow Bonnie advice without any doubt. You are not following other people advice on matters such as speakers, why being disturbed by their advice on plywood?

My room left wall is 60 cm stone hard plastered and the right one is 20 cm massif also hard plastered , I have never noticed any imbalance or asymmetry in sound. IMHO the critical part for symmetry is just the outer layer.

Just to please my curiosity what are the layers in the engineered flooring planks you are considering?

 

[Pb Blimp]

Can I ask what do you mean by "efficacy is less than 10%"? What acoustical parameters will be reduced by 10%?

Most of the time people use solutions that they have worked in other systems - I would follow Bonnie advice without any doubt. You are not following other people advice on matters such as speakers, why being disturbed by their advice on plywood?

My room left wall is 60 cm stone hard plastered and the right one is 20 cm massif also hard plastered , I have never noticed any imbalance or asymmetry in sound. IMHO the critical part for symmetry is just the outer layer.

Just to please my curiosity what are the layers in the engineered flooring planks you are considering?

Not when it comes to low frequencies.

 

[microstrip]

Not when it comes to low frequencies.

Can you quantify this statement? We are addressing absorption and reflection, not emission.

 

[Pb Blimp]

Can you quantify this statement? We are addressing absorption and reflection, not emission.

I am not sure I understand your point. They are all intrinsically related. That which is not reflected or absorbed is emitted. At low frequencies you need high mass that is fixed for reflection and a high mass with kinetic potential for absorption. The absence of either creates emission. If the outer layer does not possess either of these properties (standard drywall construction, paneling, plywood etc.) the low frequency will go right through this layer until it either hits a fixed high mass substance like concrete and reflects; it hits a high mass substance with kinetic potential like spring loaded (floating) quiet rock, bass plates, or Helmholtz traps and absorbs (my room) or it will continue on as emission. Asymmetry in this regard is extremely problematic to flat FR.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Can I ask what do you mean by "efficacy is less than 10%"? What acoustical parameters will be reduced by 10%?

Most of the time people use solutions that they have worked in other systems - I would follow Bonnie advice without any doubt. You are not following other people advice on matters such as speakers, why being disturbed by their advice on plywood?

My room left wall is 60 cm stone hard plastered and the right one is 20 cm massif also hard plastered , I have never noticed any imbalance or asymmetry in sound. IMHO the critical part for symmetry is just the outer layer.

Just to please my curiosity what are the layers in the engineered flooring planks you are considering?

Hello Francisco!

I wrote "difference in efficacy is less than 10%" (emphasis added). By "efficacy" Bonnie means the effective of the wall treatment is functioning as a modest bass trap at around 125 Hz.

You are not following other people advice on matters such as speakers, why being disturbed by their advice on plywood?