Some questions on DIY "superchunks"...

S.Filpansick · 3rd October 2009

Hey guys, I've been doing a lot of reading on here (as well as other sources on the internet) about superchunks, and I have some questions...

1. I have read conflicting info about the correct density to use; some people say that like any traps, denser is better; and some people say that less dense is better due to better gas flow. Have there been any tests done ON SUPERCHUNK STYLE traps of different densities to confirm either of these theories???

2. If the lower density/better gas flow theory is correct, how would pink fiberglass insulation cut into triangles work? (16" would yield 16x16x23" triangles, and 24" would yield 24x24x34" triangles)

3. If pink fluff triangles wouldn't be dense enough, could you compress them vertically? (you know, like take 12" thick and squish it down to 6" thick) It seems like that would increase the density that the sound waves would see.

4. Does anybody know any density figures on the Owens Corning "high density" pink fiberglass?

Thanks in advance!

Steve

mobius.media · 3rd October 2009

Generally you can go down to 1.2 or 1.5 pcf for bass traps but it's true 2-4 pcf will generally work better at lower frequencies. The only disadvantage to higher density is after a while you reach a point where it starts reflecting more high freqs back into the room.

S.Filpansick · 5th October 2009

Anybody else???

6th October 2009

...

Glenn Kuras · 6th October 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.Filpansick

Anybody else???

Either is going to work well. If you are making them big then the less dense is fine.

Barish · 6th October 2009

Thickness of the mass is more important than its density in terms of coefficiency.

B.

3rd October 2009	#1
S.Filpansick Lives for gear Joined: Sep 2009 Location: Flint MI Posts: 502 Thread Starter	Some questions on DIY "superchunks"... Hey guys, I've been doing a lot of reading on here (as well as other sources on the internet) about superchunks, and I have some questions... 1. I have read conflicting info about the correct density to use; some people say that like any traps, denser is better; and some people say that less dense is better due to better gas flow. Have there been any tests done ON SUPERCHUNK STYLE traps of different densities to confirm either of these theories??? 2. If the lower density/better gas flow theory is correct, how would pink fiberglass insulation cut into triangles work? (16" would yield 16x16x23" triangles, and 24" would yield 24x24x34" triangles) 3. If pink fluff triangles wouldn't be dense enough, could you compress them vertically? (you know, like take 12" thick and squish it down to 6" thick) It seems like that would increase the density that the sound waves would see. 4. Does anybody know any density figures on the Owens Corning "high density" pink fiberglass? Thanks in advance! Steve

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
cheap&easy "superchunks" for lazy guys...ETHAN and GLENN, please advice..	Red Mastering	Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc	9	25th February 2009 10:14 PM
a LAZY MAN's "SUPERCHUNKS", packs of [ROXUL RHT40] or [PAROC NRS 2t] in corners	danielveres	Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc	6	16th January 2009 06:35 AM
DIY concept album, what program to manage the crossfades and "flow"?	ToneRanger	So much gear, so little time!	6	1st November 2006 08:27 PM

3rd October 2009	#2
mobius.media Lives for gear Joined: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,397	Generally you can go down to 1.2 or 1.5 pcf for bass traps but it's true 2-4 pcf will generally work better at lower frequencies. The only disadvantage to higher density is after a while you reach a point where it starts reflecting more high freqs back into the room.

5th October 2009	#3
S.Filpansick Lives for gear Joined: Sep 2009 Location: Flint MI Posts: 502 Thread Starter	Anybody else???

6th October 2009	#6
Barish Lives for gear Joined: Sep 2004 Location: Istanbul, Turkey Posts: 1,802	Thickness of the mass is more important than its density in terms of coefficiency. B.