Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan  Ethan, the Rotating Boom is common in the ISO and other Testing Standards. Multiple locations are also used, with limits keeping the mic and speaker away from trouble.
A combination of both would obviously be best, these rotating booms are not long enough to randomise VLF.
I would assume that those GIK panels and TriTraps were tested in the same location in the same manner, probably in similar temperature and humidity conditions? If they were, and if spatial averaging was correctly implemented, I see no reason to doubt the result. Actually, even without spatial averaging of any type, I believe the test would be valid so long as everything remains the same except for the change of test subject.
Same room, same stimulus, same location in the room, etc. etc. One device measures 30% better than the other in the 50Hz band. I can't find a flaw in that.
DD |
Right.
Let me point out again that it was 2 comparisons that I noted. 4" 703 and our 244 which are 2 different panels. Which (not to brag) our 244 is much more effective then just using 4" or 703 at the lower frequencies.
Edit:
Dan and just to add if you compare the Monster and the 244 you will see they both follow each other from 50hz up. The difference between the 2 products are 2" and both where tested on different days. If a lab was that far off you would see a MAJOR swing between the numbers, but if you look they follow each other pretty darn close.
GIK Acoustic Panels are tested and certified.