Corner superchunk height

[shadewind]

How much does the height of a corner super chunk matter for the amount of absorption? Does it have to reach from the floor to the ceiling? I was think of making ones that go from about table height and extend maybe 1,5 meters upwards, would that be effective at all?

[Ethan Winer]

The taller the better. Further, the more total corner surface you treat, the better. Always. And remember, most rooms have 12 corners, not four.

--Ethan

[nukmusic]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

The taller the better. Further, the more total corner surface you treat, the better. Always. And remember, most rooms have 12 corners, not four.

--Ethan

what corners are more important?...(or should I say)h What corners should be treated first in the case of limited traps?

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by nukmusic

what corners are more important?...(or should I say)h What corners should be treated first in the case of limited traps?

Start with front corners then back corners.


Glenn

[hduncan]

What about Tri-Corners versus Bi-Corners?

Doesn't more bass accumulate in the Wall/Wall/Floor or Wall/Wall/Ceiling Tri-Corners than in the middle of the Wall/Wall Bi-Corners?

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by DarkEcho

What about Tri-Corners versus Bi-Corners?

Doesn't more bass accumulate in the Wall/Wall/Floor or Wall/Wall/Ceiling Tri-Corners than in the middle of the Wall/Wall Bi-Corners?

Definitely you should trap wall/wall/floor and wall/wall/ceiling areas (floor to ceiling corner trapping) when at all possible.

Frank

[hduncan]

Originally Posted by Weasel9992

Definitely you should trap wall/wall/floor and wall/wall/ceiling areas (floor to ceiling corner trapping) when at all possible.

Frank

Are these the highest of priority to trap first?

What's the best method for treating Tri-corners? Maybe a 2'x2'x2' 705 cube trap?

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by DarkEcho

Are these the highest of priority to trap first?

What's the best method for treating Tri-corners? Maybe a 2'x2'x2' 705 cube trap?

make them 17"x17"x24" and stack them floor to ceiling.

Glenn

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras

make them 17"x17"x24" and stack them floor to ceiling.

Glenn

Yeah, what he said.

Frank

[Driller]

I made mine 24" 24" 34". Did I waste time, space and money?

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by Driller

I made mine 24" 24" 34". Did I waste time, space and money?

Nope, that's fine...bigger is fine, smaller...not so much.

Frank

[Driller]

Originally Posted by Weasel9992

Nope, that's fine...bigger is fine, smaller...not so much.

Frank

Cheers Frank I was worried there for a second!

[Seamus TM]

Originally Posted by Weasel9992

Nope, that's fine...bigger is fine, smaller...not so much.

Frank

Would the 32" make much of a difference in 80Hz and below compared with the 24"?

Also, what about facing the chunk with a 3.5" 703 layer (frk or not) compared to the other two options?

I know that there is no test data to know for sure, but theoretically speaking?

Thanks,
Seamus

[Glenn Kuras]

Would the 32" make much of a difference in 80Hz and below compared with the 24"?

It would, but impossible to say without taking it to a lab and testing it.

Also, what about facing the chunk with a 3.5" 703 layer (frk or not) compared to the other two options?

You could put FRK on the facing.

I know that there is no test data to know for sure, but theoretically speaking?

The FRK should help retain some of the high end in the room.

Glenn

[Seamus TM]

Thanks, Glenn.

The 32" surface would be twice as much $$ as the 24" surface, obviously.
I'm going to guess that the absorption below 80Hz is not going to be anywhere near twice as good.


Thanks,
Seamus

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by Mumblesound

Thanks, Glenn.

The 32" surface would be twice as much $$ as the 24" surface, obviously.
I'm going to guess that the absorption below 80Hz is not going to be anywhere near twice as good.


Thanks,
Seamus

I would have to agree.

[elmolemon]

The bigger the cornerchunk, the better!

But if it becomes too large and too expensive i'd go for the smaller cornerchunk and i'd add some broadband-absorption-panels instead!

[Seamus TM]

Well, look at it this way.
Taking what we learned from Ethan's surface area covered vs. thickness test, a 32" chunk would cover 25% more surface area than a 24" chunk.. and it would be thicker/deeper.

I don't know, that seems like quite an improvement.

I'll probably go with the 32" chunks.

Simply putting a 703 panel on top of a chunk would buy you thickness, but not surface area, really, except for the acual thickness of the panel depending on how it was mounted.

Thanks,
Seamus

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by Mumblesound

Well, look at it this way.
Taking what we learned from Ethan's surface area covered vs. thickness test, a 32" chunk would cover 25% more surface area than a 24" chunk.. and it would be thicker/deeper.

I don't know, that seems like quite an improvement.

I'll probably go with the 32" chunks.

Simply putting a 703 panel on top of a chunk would buy you thickness, but not surface area, really, except for the acual thickness of the panel depending on how it was mounted.

Thanks,
Seamus

If you have the funds then sure.

[elmolemon]

I didn't mean to put an additional absorption-panel "on top" of the superchunks, but to place them elsewhere in the room!

But if you've got the cash and if your room is large enough, no question: go for the larger one!


As i said: bigger is better!

[Seamus TM]

Originally Posted by elmolemon

I didn't mean to put an additional absorption-panel "on top" of the superchunks, but to place them elsewhere in the room!

No, that was something I was thinking out loud about.

[Seamus TM]

Actually, if I faced the superchunks with FRK panels, theoretically, they would be more useful down low, I think...

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by Mumblesound

Actually, if I faced the superchunks with FRK panels, theoretically, they would be more useful down low, I think...

Maybe.

[Seamus TM]

Glenn,
If you were a super hero, you would be Vague Man.

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by Mumblesound

Actually, if I faced the superchunks with FRK panels, theoretically, they would be more useful down low, I think...

How do you mean? They'll be more reflective up high, and that could be useful if that's something you need...

Frank

[Seamus TM]

It's my understanding that frk oc absorbs more low end.
It would be like putting a limp membrane on the face of a superchunk, no?

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by Mumblesound

It's my understanding that frk oc absorbs more low end.
It would be like putting a limp membrane on the face of a superchunk, no?

Yes you are right, but not sure how it would react on a superchunk. I myself would not do it and just stick with proven methods.

Glenn

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by Mumblesound

It's my understanding that frk oc absorbs more low end. It would be like putting a limp membrane on the face of a superchunk, no?

I'm sure a membrane facing on a "chunk" style trap will improve low end absorption just as much as it does on a panel shaped trap. The only real difference is the extra thickness behind.

--Ethan

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

I'm sure a membrane facing on a "chunk" style trap will improve low end absorption just as much as it does on a panel shaped trap. The only real difference is the extra thickness behind.

--Ethan

You might be right, but then again you might be wrong. Like I said I like proven methods.

Glenn

[Ethan Winer]

I'm sure I'm not wrong - you of all people should know better than to suggest that!

Look at the data in my Density Report. The six-inch thick traps are not filled to the corner, but the FRK benefits the thick traps just as it does thinner traps. Same for all of the published data from Owens-Corning - in all cases the FRK facing increases bass absorption. It makes no sense that FRK would suddenly stop working when a "triangle shaped extension" is added behind to make it even thicker.

--Ethan