Acoustics: Real Traps Vs. Ready Traps ?

[PaulP]

Originally Posted by Bonemeister

The following graphs were taken from various companies that produce bass traps.

You're comparing apples with oranges and not providing any useful data on the fruits in question.

Paul P

[bwo]

Who is Savant and does he have or work for a company?

[DanDan]

Peter, interesting graphs. Unfortunately the Y scale is unreadable here. What is it? I am curious as to whether this is a level playing field.
e.g. Was it the same size, including depth, of auralex foam vs the fibreglass unit? Are the curves absolute, treated equally, or shifted for visibility.
If they are absolute and comparing systems of similar size, then you clearly have achieved something special.
DD

[mkapou]

I own several Realtraps panels (Mondos, minis, diffusers) and they work for me. I have been in other studios with GIK panels and the work very well also. No experience with ready traps.
My opinion based on my experience when I was researching this is that trying to base your decision on the measurements and the data provided can drive you crazy. There is always some kind of variable or other catch that prevents you from getting a true comparison.
So: I think Gik and realtraps are both good and acoustically the difference between them is very small. Realtraps are supposed to have a little more durable built. Both companies are very helpful with support and suggestions. I believe both will still quarantee their product and take it back if you are not happy with it.
The time spent trying to figure out which is better from studies and data is not worth whatever small difference there is between the two. Just pick your horse and go with it.... or ... combine them!

[Bonemeister]

Originally Posted by Bonemeister

The following graphs were taken from various companies that produce bass traps. The data is the published info from each company. The first image compares Broadway panels to typical foam to provide a baseline. In each following case, we compare the Primacoustic MaxTrap with a heavy diaphragmatic membrane to others. The size of the room dictates the frequency and the diaphragm automatically finds it like a microphone.

We hope to have a new web page up shortly that will explain all of these in detail. For now... enjoy the pictures!

The Y axis is absorption coeficient while the X axis is frequency. All of the graph data was taken by downloading the data (Riverbank lab tests) from each company's web site. The absorption coeficcient is a standard mesurement like that of a frequency response chart from a microphone. A factor of 1.00 refers to 100% absorption at that given frequency. Greater than 100% absorption is achieved by mounting, sound entering the device at oblique angles and so on. As I said before, the guys at the lab never experienced such results.

Another point... we did not invent this. Diaphragmatic membranes have been around and in use for a while. We have only created a commercial product that is relatively affordable and easy to assemble and had it tested. It works.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by PaulP

You're comparing apples with oranges and not providing any useful data on the fruits in question.

No kidding. This is a huge can of worms, and I can produce graphs showing the exact opposite. This article I wrote for Sound & Vibration magazine explains the problems with such inappropriate product comparisons in great detail:

Alternative Test Methods for Acoustic Treatment Products

--Ethan

________________
The Acoustic Treatment Experts

[RKrizman]

I wouldn't make too much of this either way. Somebody asked for numbers and Peter provided them. People can look for themselves and see how much each unit costs, what its size is, etc. I.e., it's relatively easy to estimate, say, what 2 Realtraps would absorb compared to one Primacoustic, and make a decision accordingly. Or at least a rough guess.

Anybody who is familiar with these products would expect that the Primacoustic trap would be the best performer, so the graphs, to me, do little more than affirm common sense.

The point of all this isn't to do a take down on one product or another, but rather to give people an overall feel for what they might expect if they use these products. Neither one will be a panacea, and its use will only be meaningful as part of an overall treatment strategy.

-R

[DanDan]

Thank you Peter. Many of us would like a viable method of comparing the various Bass Traps. However it does seem very difficult to provide a test methodology or presentation which is fair and equal. I suggest the ' single figure' methods used in Building Acoustics and Noise Control, might be worth looking at.
A ratio on the X scale doesn't do it for me. Others have tried Sabins per linear foot or whatever. That wouldn't do it for me either. The real size has to come into play. Your Max may have the same front surface area as a RealTrap but overall your unit is much bigger.

I have seen Absorption Coefficients larger than 1 before. Anomalies of the test methods I guess. However I have never seen anything like your graphs with the whole curve above 1. Doesn't seem possible.


You have probably seen the Studiotips comparison. Acoustics Forum • View topic - Corner Absorption Comparision test
On first look through it appears the SuperChunk is a superb performer, the Corner Absorber very useful for much less cost. Open the Excel file and we find the graph again, this time saying 'Normalised Sabines per linear foot' or whatever.
I was misled by this for years. Looking again I see that the Corner Straddling Absorbers is 24 inches wide, while the others are 34 inches. So the little Corner Absorber, actually outperforms them all, and not just in terms of cost. A 34 inch Corner straddler should be Mega.....


IMHO your design is excellent. If I were to imagine the best design possible for a corner trap, there it is. From the numbers and pictures it looks like you have engineered it very well. However, I believe your comparisons will do you no favours.

Best Regards, DD

[unmasked truth]

Originally Posted by SAC

One might think that someone so motivated to know such information would make the effort to go to each company's website and either query or request such information instead of simply expecting everyone else to jump to satisfy your misplaced whim assuming that this site is simply for the purpose of sales - as they have helped quite a few with information on how to make such treatments and more, themselves - which someone as astute as yourself might also interpret as being contrary to their commercial interests.

well the info was taken down from their sites from what i read here. to say the site is not for the purpose of brand recognition or extra sales for business boost is nonsense. im sure people appreciate they are here to help answer questions for potential customers contrary to their commercial interests. BUT THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH IN THIS WORLD.. imo there is nothing wrong with requesting such info, its only fair if someone is interested in their products, should be public knowledge. obviously it was motivational enough that their data was available in the first place.

[SAC]

Originally Posted by unmasked truth

... if someone is interested in their products, should be public knowledge.

I suspect it is...assuming you have actually taken the time to read this thread and understood the legitimate concerns regarding test data.

And as you want it, you can easily go to their commercial business websites and query it, or contact them directly without expecting, or demanding, that others do this for you.

Nothing has prevented your querying this information except your own inaction.

And the generic information regarding the ratings of the various sourced component materials has been posted on this website myriad times.

It gets old when someone whining about this site being used for commercial purposes simply posts a request that requires the rest of us to look up and post that which those who 'are oh so interested' are too lazy to easily do themselves.

Especially when the overwhelming focus of the site has been toward DIY.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by unmasked truth

well the info was taken down from their sites from what i read here.

Yes, but in at least one case the product being compared to is not identified. I can't speak for other vendors, but RealTraps has bass traps ranging from 3-inch thick MiniTraps through MegaTraps that are nearly three feet wide across the face and fill the entire corner.

This gives me a great idea. Maybe I should publish a comparison labeled only Foam and RealTraps, where the unnamed foam is two inches thick and sculpted with half the material removed, and the RealTraps is our MegaTrap.

--Ethan

________________
The Acoustic Treatment Experts

[bwo]

Yes. A comparison between Primacoustics MaxTrap and Realtraps' MegaTrap would be more interesting.

Ethan: What material and density do you use for Megatrap?

[DanDan]

Ooooooh, saucer of milk for Ethan

The Mega Traps are filled with Cat Fur. Quite thick, the more intelligent cats get to live in the house..... :-)


DD

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by bwo

Ethan: What material and density do you use for Megatrap?

Originally Posted by DanDan

The MegaTraps are filled with Cat Fur. Quite thick, the more intelligent cats get to live in the house..... :-)

Asked and answered.

--Ethan

________________
The Acoustic Treatment Experts

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by unmasked truth

i wana see some stats between real traps, gik, and ready acoustics. owners shouldnt shy away of putting numbers up for the consumer to make wiser choices. its a business and we need to know what we are getting. afterall real traps did a comparison to se filters in youtube videos. lets be honest, there is no real friendship in business so im curious to know how gik compare with real traps.

While we don't post comparisons of our product versus anyone else's, we do post the RAL data for several of our products on the respective product pages on our website (as SAC said).


Frank

[bwo]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Asked and answered.

--Ethan

________________
The Acoustic Treatment Experts

Hehe. I assume you're using fiberglass like in other Realtraps products, but I'm interesting in knowing if you use lower density.
When I built my Tri-trap recently, which is almost as wide as the MegaTrap, it was difficult to find out what the optimal density would be. I chose 30 kg/m3 rockwool, but I'm assuming around 40kg/m3 would have been better.

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by Weasel9992

While we don't post comparisons of our product versus anyone else's, we do post the RAL data for several of our products on the respective product pages on our website (as SAC said).


Frank

Just to add RAL is used by most companies.