Well a non dedicated space is of course different. We live in an Edwardian house, because we too like the feel of high ceilings etc. But if you're in a blacked out room, once the film starts, I assume you can't get a sense of scale from visible spare around you, because there is none. Before and after the film are of course different.Well, thinking about it now, I value my space so much since it is not a dedicated room and am far more aware of the visible space around me, which feels 'epic' and heightens the sense of scale from the image.
While the image during the film is a high priority for me, I understand that part of the enjoyment of watching a good film is also in being in a nice environment. The image might look great once the film has started, but if it didn't feel like a nice experience when you sat down, that's going to have an impact. But I don't expect that losing a few inches on the width here and there will impact how my room feels.
I don't think it would shrink at all with panels. The opposite in fact, the whole point of the panels is to make the bubble of sound better. Remember that absorbing panels don't simply reflect off of their surface, so any sound that does reflect to you still has to go to the main wall and back, but there will be less of it, and the reflected sound you do get will have had to bounce off more surfaces, so it will be more diffuse, have traveled further and your space will sound larger.Secondly, the large, dynamic bubble of sound the space affords me. Though, I know that will only shrink very slightly with panels fitted.
Your panels also don't need to stretch to the floor or ceiling, and if you light up those areas when the film isn't showing, your eyes will be drawn to the highest/widest parts of the room.
Interesting that Gary found it enough, I know he knows his stuff. Results will be room and speaker dependent though.Gary explained to me that he used 32mm x 19mm battens (from Wickes, he recalls), so he only lost around 64mm from the room width in total. He also hid 30mm Rockwool behind the MVEL which is used to tame audio reflections below 44" height. Deeper is better he said, but like me, he did not want to lose any more width than I had to, otherwise he would have had 2 or 4 inches of Rockwool and an air gap for best effect. So, although he have less width than you, he was happy to lose some width as the velvet was worth it.
An air gap doesn't give the best effect, you get better without an air gap, but what an air gap does give you is nearly the same results for less money. ie, 2" of Rockwool and inch off the wall gives nearly as good results as 3" of Rockwool on the wall. Both take up 3", but one is cheaper.
I don't quite get what you mean - what's the difference? Isn't sound treatment hidden inside fabric panels exactly what acoustic panels are?I just thought that, if I can go with deeper panels, being able to have some beneficial sound treatment hidden inside the fabric panels, instead of acoustic panels jutting out from the walls, is another bonus.
I'm talking about home made panels, with rockwool (or similar) inside, and covered in MVEL. They will be my acoustic panels (except for some fancy diffusion panels, but let's not worry about the for the minute).
Definitely. You can see how it sounds, take same REW measurements, see where it needs help etc.I think I can look into the panelling after my room is painted.
Ah. Piece of cake.I still do not feel confident I can make them myself, however.