Acoustics: Real Traps Vs. Ready Traps ?

[Joel DuBay]

Originally Posted by Youn

They are different products. Ready Traps are bags that can be filled with the standard acoustic foam. Real Traps are a line of products, non of which are simply foam - though I never did see a cross-section of any so I may be wrong. I think they are tuned slightly, as opposed to completely broad-band. Personally I think the best bang-for the buck are "StudioTips Super Chunks" which are simple to construct and do a good deal of treatment...

http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=536;

Just a quick note..

Ready Acoustics products are much different than RealTraps or any other in a few ways. There certainly are economic differences, as well as aesthetic differences. In terms of materials, I would encourage anyone to have a look at our website, or better yet, give us a call to learn more. We do offer the acoustic bag solution, and other "complete" HF/ Bass Traps/ broadband solutions as well. I am not trying to sell anything here, just trying help clarify the differences some have inquired about.

Thanks very much!

[Savant]

Ethan,

I checked through your site. I only saw references to IBM's Hudson Valley lab. Did you have your stuff tested at Riverbank recently? If so, why the switch? They're both reputable labs.

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by KrisAnderson

At the end of the day, all that matters is the product coming out of the studio, regardless of the way the studio sounds. better acoustics will yield better mixes yes, but knowing what the capabilites of your room are to begin with and knowing how it will affect your mixes will give you better direction in your mixes. tech talk is good, but there is no reason to get fired up about it. You guys need to go pick up some *****s or something and relax.

man you are so right, but I do get fired up when I see a person with a $3000 a/d converter and blankets on the walls..
The only thing I would disagree with you and with all due respect is "but knowing what the capabilites of your room are to begin with and knowing how it will affect your mixes will give you better direction in your mixes." If your room is treated right then you don't have to guess.. What you mix is what you will hear in all systems..

Glenn

[Ethan Winer]

Jeff,

> Did you have your stuff tested at Riverbank recently? If so, why the switch? They're both reputable labs. <

We have not retested any of our products lately, and I was referring to the data you measured when you worked for Auralex. But we have considered either measuring our traps again at Riverbank, or buying some of Glenn's panels (and maybe some other vendors too) and testing them at IBM. As you know, corner testing can create more questions than answers when different labs are used. Not only different labs, but different places within each lab. I know where MiniTraps were placed in the IBM lab's corners and I have detailed photos of every test session. But I don't know where all of Glenn's panels were placed in Riverbank's lab. Maybe his were closer to tri-corners than ours were or vice versa, or maybe the labs are different sizes and shapes? Based on the photos at GIK's web site even for the "A" mounting tests it looks like the traps were not placed in the center of the room where they should be. Or maybe those are the "J" tests? Who knows, since it's not explained anywhere.

As you yourself pointed out months ago elsewhere, it's not fair or ethical to compare corner tests in different labs because of these variables. Indeed, when I compare the data you measured for MiniTraps at Riverbank with Glenn's 4-inch and 7-inch panels also measured at Riverbank, MiniTraps beat Glenn's 4-inch panels by 3 to 1 at 63 Hz, and they beat Glenn's 7-inch panels by 2 to 1 there. Since MondoTraps absorb twice as much as MiniTraps at 100 Hz and below you can extrapolate from that.

Does this mean that based on the Riverbank data, MondoTraps beat Glenn's 7-inch panel by 4 to 1 at 63 Hz? Maybe, maybe not. You didn't test enough MiniTraps to get certifiable data, and I don't know where in Riverbank's lab any of the traps were placed for any of those tests. I do know that you put the MiniTraps adjacent, and that reduced their absorption compared to having them spaced apart as we recommend. So maybe MiniTraps would have measured an even larger advantage had they been spaced a few feet apart. This is the real issue: The only way to compare two products fairly and ethically is to measure eight of each, and do all tests in the same lab in the same locations. Anything else is just guessing.

All of this is aside from the reality that lab measurements vary wildly even when performing standard ASTM C-423 tests. Especially at 125 Hz and below. Based on the data I've seen it's clear that Riverbank reports on the high side, at least when compared to IBM. Is Riverbank high? Or is IBM low? Or maybe both? Who knows!

There's also a lot more to assess than just raw Sabins of absorption. The balance of absorption versus frequency is important (and is a very big feature of all RealTraps), as is fit and finish, product durability, ease of installation, expertise of product support, and on and on.

--Ethan

[Brad McGowan]

Measurements and test data validity aside, all of you trap guys should take a look at the way that Aygo Sound does their mounting. I was talking to the designer about it at the NAMM show and it's super easy and sensible. His traps can be hung vertically or horizontally on nails or screws in addition to being hung with picture wire supplied with the trap. The cool thing about his wire is that it has clips on the end (like on the end of a dog leash) that just clips onto the back frame. It was pretty slick. You guys may want to implement such a feature on your traps.

Brad

[Ethan Winer]

Brad,

> His traps can be hung vertically or horizontally on nails or screws in addition to being hung with picture wire supplied with the trap. <

That's a great idea, and we already have that in the works. Picture wire is great for ceiling mounting, and for walls where nobody will bang against them. But for mounting on a door or somewhere else you need the attachment to be secure, a more stable bracket makes sense. We should have that any old day now.

By the way, do you know how much those Aygo panels sell for?

--Ethan

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Jeff,

> Did you have your stuff tested at Riverbank recently? If so, why the switch? They're both reputable labs. <

We have not retested any of our products lately, and I was referring to the data you measured when you worked for Auralex. But we have considered either measuring our traps again at Riverbank, or buying some of Glenn's panels (and maybe some other vendors too) and testing them at IBM. As you know, corner testing can create more questions than answers when different labs are used. Not only different labs, but different places within each lab. I know where MiniTraps were placed in the IBM lab's corners and I have detailed photos of every test session. But I don't know where all of Glenn's panels were placed in Riverbank's lab. Maybe his were closer to tri-corners than ours were or vice versa, or maybe the labs are different sizes and shapes? Based on the photos at GIK's web site even for the "A" mounting tests it looks like the traps were not placed in the center of the room where they should be. Or maybe those are the "J" tests? Who knows, since it's not explained anywhere.

As you yourself pointed out months ago elsewhere, it's not fair or ethical to compare corner tests in different labs because of these variables. Indeed, when I compare the data you measured for MiniTraps at Riverbank with Glenn's 4-inch and 7-inch panels also measured at Riverbank, MiniTraps beat Glenn's 4-inch panels by 3 to 1 at 63 Hz, and they beat Glenn's 7-inch panels by 2 to 1 there. Since MondoTraps absorb twice as much as MiniTraps at 100 Hz and below you can extrapolate from that.

Does this mean that based on the Riverbank data, MondoTraps beat Glenn's 7-inch panel by 4 to 1 at 63 Hz? Maybe, maybe not. You didn't test enough MiniTraps to get certifiable data, and I don't know where in Riverbank's lab any of the traps were placed for any of those tests. I do know that you put the MiniTraps adjacent, and that reduced their absorption compared to having them spaced apart as we recommend. So maybe MiniTraps would have measured an even larger advantage had they been spaced a few feet apart. This is the real issue: The only way to compare two products fairly and ethically is to measure eight of each, and do all tests in the same lab in the same locations. Anything else is just guessing.

All of this is aside from the reality that lab measurements vary wildly even when performing standard ASTM C-423 tests. Especially at 125 Hz and below. Based on the data I've seen it's clear that Riverbank reports on the high side, at least when compared to IBM. Is Riverbank high? Or is IBM low? Or maybe both? Who knows!

There's also a lot more to assess than just raw Sabins of absorption. The balance of absorption versus frequency is important (and is a very big feature of all RealTraps), as is fit and finish, product durability, ease of installation, expertise of product support, and on and on.

--Ethan

?????? If you go to our site you can down load the PDF's of the lab reports.. I know you are a smart guy so you do understanding "A" testing. Unlike a few companies, we take a lot of pride in showing all reports and not hiding behind HTML or only showing sabins when is works in our favor..

Not sure how this whole comparing thing started, but as you have stated to me our product is for the bottom feeder and your is for the pro.. As we do not look at our customers as bottom feeds, but people who can not or will not spend lots of money on acoustics.. I think it is safe to say that we have done pretty well in having a product that is tested and proven.. You Ethan have the same and look to you to grow awareness of acoustics with your background.. I guess what I am trying to say is get off my back..

Please everyone understand that I really have the highest respect for Ethan and his product...

Glenn

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Brad,

> His traps can be hung vertically or horizontally on nails or screws in addition to being hung with picture wire supplied with the trap. <

That's a great idea, and we already have that in the works. Picture wire is great for ceiling mounting, and for walls where nobody will bang against them. But for mounting on a door or somewhere else you need the attachment to be secure, a more stable bracket makes sense. We should have that any old day now.

By the way, do you know how much those Aygo panels sell for?

--Ethan

Ethan isn't it funny that a idea takes about 1 week to come up with and about 6 months to get it to market?

[Joel DuBay]

Originally Posted by myfipie

?????? If you go to our site you can down load the PDF's of the lab reports.. I know you are a smart guy so you do understanding "A" testing. Unlike a few companies, we take a lot of pride in showing all reports and not hiding behind HTML or only showing sabins when is works in our favor..

Not sure how this whole comparing thing started, but as you have stated to me our product is for the bottom feeder and your is for the pro.. As we do not look at our customers as bottom feeds, but people who can not or will not spend lots of money on acoustics.. I think it is safe to say that we have done pretty well in having a product that is tested and proven.. You Ethan have the same and look to you to grow awareness of acoustics with your background.. I guess what I am trying to say is get off my back..

Please everyone understand that I really have the highest respect for Ethan and his product...

Glenn

"I guess what I am trying to say is get off my back..

Please everyone understand that I really have the highest respect for Ethan and his product..."

Now cut it out you two. Let's see a big hug and sloppy kiss between you...

[Glenn Kuras]

"Now cut it out you two. Let's see a big hug and sloppy kiss between you..."

If you like to see men kissing then I am never having beers with you!! ha ha ha

Glenn

[slowdive]

this thread is getting really lame. this is the low end forum. now go either A) make your own panels, or B) buy from a low-cost company like GIK i don't know much about this boring technical talk...but i do know that since i treated my room, EVERYTHING sounds better. and that's really the point here.

and by the way, i don't consider myself a "bottom feeder" just because i didn't buy "realtraps"

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by slowdive

this thread is getting really lame. this is the low end forum. now go either A) make your own panels, or B) buy from a low-cost company like GIK i don't know much about this boring technical talk...but i do know that since i treated my room, EVERYTHING sounds better. and that's really the point here.

and by the way, i don't consider myself a "bottom feeder" just because i didn't buy "realtraps"

That is a great point.. The best way to get someone not to treat there room is to dump so much science on them that they just give up..

[Ethan Winer]

Glenn,

> If you go to our site you can down load the PDF's of the lab reports. <

Where is the link?

> you have stated to me our product is for the bottom feeder <

Huh?

> get off my back ... Please everyone understand that I really have the highest respect for Ethan and his product <

Ditto, and I have no idea why you're taking this so personally! I thought we were talking about testing methods and lab reliability.

--Ethan

[daveyd]

are there not any set testing 'standards' that you guys can test too? Then all the acoustic manufacturers can have all the same standard tests with the data available to the 'bottom feeders' and Pros alike, saves all this 'my dads bigger than your dad' rubbish that always comes out in threads like this. I see this all over the internut!

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Glenn,

> If you go to our site you can down load the PDF's of the lab reports. <

Where is the link?

> you have stated to me our product is for the bottom feeder <

Huh?

> get off my back ... Please everyone understand that I really have the highest respect for Ethan and his product <

Ditto, and I have no idea why you're taking this so personally! I thought we were talking about testing methods and lab reliability.

--Ethan

http://www.gikacoustics.com/absorption.htm

There is no pictures of the "A" mount, but if you look at the pictures you will see a yellow outline on the floor.. That is where they do "A" testing..
Not taking anything personally.

Hope that helps..

[daveyd]

am i right in saying A mount is 'surface' mounted and E mount is with a gap behind?

[ddageek]

Come on Guys! You 2 have brought more real acustic treatment to the masses than anyone else! Stop makeing the foam guys look good! (see this is why we don't publish data below 100hz nobodys certified so the data is pretty useless) like any test data it is only for comparisons sake and in the real world Who knows? Look
lets Not make tis about who can be the bigger Dick!

Fact real broadband traps work!
whos better? we really can't tell but real traps and GIK have both Tested their products and publish full range data that proves both work!
Ready traps are pretty much a DIY KIT no data but they have a budget product and lab testing is expensive!

Buy some traps put them up experiment with placement listen mesure and you will probably become addicted!

sorry about spelling but typeing with 8 fingers and a toddler ain't easy!

For the record I have yet to decied whos product will end up in my new space!
DIY is not consistant and not that much cheaper!
and why don't both of you put better install instructions on the web site!
Ethan you have excellent an placement gid for the control room but nothing for the liveroom vocal room or drum room!

Enough!

this thread is makeing me want foam!

[Joel DuBay]

Originally Posted by slowdive

this thread is getting really lame. this is the low end forum. now go either A) make your own panels, or B) buy from a low-cost company like GIK i don't know much about this boring technical talk...but i do know that since i treated my room, EVERYTHING sounds better. and that's really the point here.

and by the way, i don't consider myself a "bottom feeder" just because i didn't buy "realtraps"

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by daveyd

am i right in saying A mount is 'surface' mounted and E mount is with a gap behind?

Yes you are right.. The problem with "A" testing is you would never set up your room this way, so it really does not tell you much.. Some people will say that this is the only way to compare products, which they are right, but not entirely.. If you have a panel that all edges are covered with wood and another that is not, "A" testing could come out the same (or very close).. But if you take the same 2 products and space them out around the lab floor things will start to look much different, because the panels without wood sides is going to pick up more sound.. So which product is better??? Well it would have to be the one without wood sides, but "A" testing did not show this..

Glenn

[daveyd]

I see, so what your saying is a product that has open sides will perform better than a product without open sides, but what about a product which mounts off the wall to start with, i saw some panels here in the uk that were manufactured with the fittings built in, making them sit off the wall when 'flush' mounted? Is that still an A mount?

[Glenn Kuras]

>this thread is makeing me want foam!<

NOOOOOOOOOO! ha ha ha

Really I think it is safe to say that Ethan and I are out for one thing. Making people realize that your room sound is the most important thing in your room.

Ok enough said on this subject.. Hell is it not Friday?? Time for a beer!

Glenn

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by daveyd

I see, so what your saying is a product that has open sides will perform better than a product without open sides, but what about a product which mounts off the wall to start with, i saw some panels here in the uk that were manufactured with the fittings built in, making them sit off the wall when 'flush' mounted? Is that still an A mount?

If they are made that way then, yes it would be still "A" mounting..

Oh yes opened sides will help A TON... Quote from Ethan (I think this is right)
"On a 4" panel the sides can add 60% more surface area".. Big number I would think... so if you are building your own you are better off just to rap the fiberglass then to frame it with wood..

Glenn

[Ethan Winer]

Davey:

> are there not any set testing 'standards' that you guys can test too? <

There are standards, but none for corner mounting, which is a shame because bass traps work best when mounted in corners. Even with the standards, labs vary as much as 50 percent or even more. Especially at low frequencies. At 63 Hz the difference between Riverbank and IBM seems to be 5.5 to 1. Not so useful, eh?

Glenn:

> Not taking anything personally. <

Then why are you telling me to "get off your back" and accusing me of calling your customers "bottom feeders?" That's not very nice, and it's not true. Hey, I appreciate a good bargain as much as the next guy. So I'm a bottom feeder too. Heck, I'm a cheap bastard! You should have seen me at the supermarket last night comparing prices to save 10 cents on Light Sour Cream.

> it would have to be the one without wood sides, but "A" testing did not show this. <

Indeed. It's also the panel without the wood back side.

dda:

> you have excellent an placement gid for the control room but nothing for the liveroom vocal room or drum room! <

Placement for a live room is much more variable than for a control room. In this case it's best to consider each situation separately, and I spend a lot of my time helping people plan their placement. But there are general guidelines on our site for this, and some of my magazine articles there go into more detail.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Glenn,

> it is safe to say that Ethan and I are out for one thing. Making people realize that your room sound is the most important thing in your room. <

Indeed. So let's kiss and make up, okay? But better pull the curtain first so Joel doesn't see and get all excited.

(Joel, I'm kidding!)

> On a 4" panel the sides can add 60% more surface area <

Almost. It's a 50 percent increase for a panel that's 2 by 4 feet, 4 inches thick. And that's a lot of absorption to discount!

--Ethan

[Glenn Kuras]

>Indeed. It's also the panel without the wood back side. <

Don't get me started on those panels!
Guys what Ethan is talking about is broad band bass traps with a piece of plywood on the back.. It will not work..

>Almost. It's a 50 percent increase for a panel that's 2 by 4 feet, 4 inches thick. And that's a lot of absorption to discount!<

[Joel DuBay]

Now THAT'S what I call a big hug.

[daveyd]

thank you gentlemen

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by daveyd

thank you gentlemen

All bets are off Ethan slipped me the tongue and pitched my butt.. ha ha ha

Glenn