![]() | All Advertisers |
| Member Services Directory | Classifieds | Reviews | Jobs | Deal Zone | Merchandise | Marketplace | Facebook App | Books, DVDs & Gadgets | Video Vault | Tips & Techniques |
| |||||||
New Reply | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| | #1 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,397
Thread Starter | Cotton traps: 1.5 pcf vs 3 pcf
I need to build some 4" cotton-based traps and I'm looking at 2 options for materials: 1) 1.5 pcf Bass Buster
Freq. 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1KHz 2KHz 4KHz 2) 3 pcf Echo Eliminator
Freq. 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1KHz 2KHz 4KHzSo two things stand out for me. First, the the 3 pcf option will cost more than twice the 1.5 pcf option. Although I am rarely eager to spend more than I must, panels last a life time, so it's not something I'm eager to cheap out on, unless it's really better or no different for the result. Second, I have no absorption data to judge the specs of 4" 3 pcf cotton. Additionally, looking at the chart for 1.5 pcf cotton, I am impressed by the high NRC, but somewhat wary about the 250 Hz bump and seemingly precipitous drop off below that. No data is supplied for sub-125 frequencies, but judging from the slope there I do not guess it would be good. My only experience treating rooms is anecdotal. I have treated rooms with OFI-48 (703-type fiberglass) and Roxul RHT40 FSK. In my experience, I found the sound of the Roxul FSK far more favorable. It seemed to do a better job of tightening the low end without stifling the highs. However, I have no experience with cotton so I am not sure how the 250 Hz bump would sound in a room or what 3 pcf would sound like by comparison. Currently, I am leaning toward using the cheaper, lighter 4" 1.5 pcf as cloud material as well as stuffing in behind the wells of QRD's. I may also make some triangular corner fills from this material to fit behind the straddled corner traps, cost allowing. For the primary 4" corner traps though, I am still debating densities and don't really have much to go on. I imagine the 3 pcf would have a slightly reduced high frequency absorption, a lower bump (closer to ~125 centered, not 250) and better sub-125 absorption. But if I am doing the 1.5 pcf triangular corner infills, is this even worth worrying about? Am I better off saving a few hundred and sticking to 1.5 pcf throughout? Any input is appreciated. Thanks. (Also, for anyone curious, in Canada, these two products are distributed by Technature in Toronto) |
| | |
New Reply
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Does this medical study mean that cotton bass traps are dangerous? | aquablu8 | Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc | 30 | 21st December 2010 05:42 AM |
| DIY Ultratouch Cotton Bass Traps / Broadband Absorbers | Implicit | Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc | 93 | 20th November 2010 03:41 PM |
| Density of foam? (pcf) - using foam and 703 together? | 666666 | Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc | 7 | 10th September 2009 10:54 PM |
| TRAPS TRAPS TRAPS....photo story | Red Mastering | Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc | 15 | 28th May 2009 05:29 PM |
| cotton bass traps | bigo | So much gear, so little time! | 12 | 5th September 2006 10:34 PM |
| |