Acoustics: Real Traps Vs. Ready Traps ?

Double Tones · 24th January 2006, 12:02 AM

Hi,

Does anyone have experience with either real traps or ready traps? OR even better, both? The ready traps seem to be the same product but less expensive.

Any help is appreciated, thanks!

TML · 24th January 2006, 01:32 AM

I haven't heard the ready traps...have the "Real" ones....from the looks I'd rather have the pro look of the real trap..than the "did-it-myself" look of the other....ymmv
Tim

nukmusic · 24th January 2006, 01:50 AM

http://www.radford.edu/~shelm/acoustics/bass-traps.html

Found this on "GOOGLE" better save the info to your harddrive.

Double Tones · 24th January 2006, 06:54 AM

anythin' else?

nukmusic · 24th January 2006, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Tones

anythin' else?

u can spend all that money if u want.........

DIY DIY DIY DIY

aapee · 24th January 2006, 08:37 AM

http://www.radford.edu/~shelm/acoustics/bass-traps.html

"Below is a graph showing before and after installing the acoustical treatment. The severe dip at 105Hz. and peak at 138 Hz. have both been tamed. The peak at 90Hz. has been completely annihilated by -12db! Overall bass response has been greatly flattened."

I wish I could see more of these kind of results from your control room. I mean measured results and what kind of they are. In that way I would know how far I am from my goal...

Hey guys! Post your own measures!

AaPee

Youn · 24th January 2006, 04:37 PM

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;

slowdive · 24th January 2006, 06:29 PM

I didn't want to pay the high prices for Realtraps either, so I bought a whopping 19 panels from GIK Acoustics. Cost me just over $1000 shipped for 19. They were relatively easy to install and my room sounds really good now! Definitely check them out if you are on a budget. www.gikacoustics.com

mykla · 24th January 2006, 07:00 PM

So how does the GIK Acoustics panel [GIK 244] compare to the same size Real Traps [Mini Traps] ?

mykla · 24th January 2006, 09:17 PM

Darius · 25th January 2006, 04:33 AM

If you want to do it yourself-great. I didn't so I bought some real traps- and they're great too. One of the best studio investments I've made. All my mics sound better.

Darius

gabler · 25th January 2006, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darius

If you want to do it yourself-great. I didn't so I bought some real traps- and they're great too. One of the best studio investments I've made. All my mics sound better.

Darius

Did you mean your monitors sound better?

slowdive · 25th January 2006, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykla

So how does the GIK Acoustics panel [GIK 244] compare to the same size Real Traps [Mini Traps] ?

I have no way of directly comparing them. I've never used Realtraps. However I am very happy with the GIK panels. They have definitely made my room sound MUCH better! The reason I went with GIK as opposed to Realtraps was purely an issue of cost. The GIK were just much cheaper. I'm sure they would be even cheaper if you made your own. I'm NOT handy at all though!

bjornson · 25th January 2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gabler

Did you mean your monitors sound better?

maybe he put em in the tracking room!

djui5 · 25th January 2006, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nukmusic

u can spend all that money if u want.........

DIY DIY DIY DIY

I built my own too and hung them on the sides of my control room. Just a 2" thick sheet of mineral wool framed by 2x3's and wrapped with Guildford fabric. Works well for what I'm doing.

I haven't "graphed" it yet, but will do someday.

I just don't have the money to be ordering a bunch of pre-fab'd panels when I can build them myself

Real-traps are great products though, as evidenced by their specs. It's kinda hard to fake good acoustic treatments. If your in doubt, ask some users.

Brad McGowan · 25th January 2006, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykla

So how does the GIK Acoustics panel [GIK 244] compare to the same size Real Traps [Mini Traps] ?

Actually, if you compare the GIK 244 data to the Real Traps MondoTrap when mounted across a corner you will have a better comparison. And if you do your own plot comparing the numbers the GIK 244 does as good or better than the MondoTrap. So for that particular mounting configuration the GIK 244 will theoretically outperform the MiniTraps as well. The GIK website had RealTraps data overlayed on their measurements when the test was first completed. That comparison data quickly got taken down...hmmm...someone must have been a little sensitive to the competition.

I currently own some MondoTraps in my control room. I'm about to order some GIK 244's to throw in there as well. It should be interesting.

There was a cool Japanese vendor at NAMM making really nice looking traps very similar in design to the RealTraps stuff, but just more aesthetically interesting. www.aygosound.com

Brad

Glenn Kuras · 25th January 2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

Actually, if you compare the GIK 244 data to the Real Traps MondoTrap when mounted across a corner you will have a better comparison. And if you do your own plot comparing the numbers the GIK 244 does as good or better than the MondoTrap. So for that particular mounting configuration the GIK 244 will theoretically outperform the MiniTraps as well. The GIK website had RealTraps data overlayed on their measurements when the test was first completed. That comparison data quickly got taken down...hmmm...someone must have been a little sensitive to the competition.

I currently own some MondoTraps in my control room. I'm about to order some GIK 244's to throw in there as well. It should be interesting.

There was a cool Japanese vendor at NAMM making really nice looking traps very similar in design to the RealTraps stuff, but just more aesthetically interesting. www.aygosound.com

Brad

>That comparison data quickly got taken down...hmmm...someone must have been a little sensitive to the competition. <

Ethan and I are really good freinds, so the more I thought about the comparing thing the more I did not like it.. You think the 244 has good numbers you should see the new trap we have out.. The GIK Monster Bass Trap..

Check this out!!!

Sabins / Coefficient
50hz / 5.06 / 0.63
63 / 10.16718 / 1.27
80 / 23.97018 / 3.00
100 / 18.69531 / 2.34
125 / 16.03005 / 2.00
160 / 14.83462 / 1.85
200 / 15.76 / 1.97
250 / 16.47977 / 2.06
315 / 16.70001 / 2.09
400 / 16.82887 / 2.10
500 / 14.9268 / 1.87
630 / 13.31032 / 1.66
800 / 11.34136 / 1.42
1000 / 9.25368 / 1.16
1250 / 8.04945 / 1.01
1600 / 7.13705 / 0.89
2000 / 7.13705 / 0.89
2500 / 6.63483 / 0.83
3150 / 6.22435 / 0.78
4000 / 6.2129 / 0.78
5000 / 5.81151 / 0.73

Wall Mounted
Sabins / Absorption Coefficient
50hz/ 1.46 / 0.18
63/ 3.25354 / 0.41
80/ 4.52446 / 0.57
100/ 7.56871 / 0.95
125/ 16.45525 / 2.06
160/ 14.11184 / 1.76
200/ 16.20953 / 2.03
250/ 15.92303 / 1.99
315/ 16.66551 / 2.08
400/ 17.46593 / 2.18
500/ 15.32155 / 1.92
630/ 14.05176 / 1.76
800/ 12.50539 / 1.56
1000/ 10.84612 / 1.36
1250/ 9.78454 / 1.22
1600/ 8.78007 / 1.10
2000/ 8.31903 / 1.04
2500/ 7.82578 / 0.98
3150/ 7.62539 / 0.95
4000/ 7.6723 / 0.96
5000/ 7.65318 / 0.96

Glenn Kuras · 25th January 2006, 06:59 PM

>There was a cool Japanese vendor at NAMM making really nice looking traps very similar in design to the RealTraps stuff, but just more aesthetically interesting. www.aygosound.com<

Very cool looking panels but I do not see any test numbers on them.. You really have to be careful of companies that do not have test data.. Just like any other piece of equipment in your room..

Glenn

Brad McGowan · 25th January 2006, 09:55 PM

Glenn,

I'm going to call you. I want to find out more about the Monster bass trap!

Brad

Ethan Winer · 25th January 2006, 10:03 PM

Guys,

As Glenn said, we're good friends and neither of us is interested in getting into a "who's d!ck is bigger" competition.

But I will address this:

One of the realities of acoustic testing is that all labs do not give the same results, even though the goal is for all labs to give the same data for the same tested material. But some labs tend to measure much higher than others, especially at low frequencies where the different lab sizes and shapes have a big effect. Disparities as large as 50 percent are possible at 125 Hz, and even more at lower frequencies.

This is why RealTraps publishes low frequency data for other products only when we have measured them ourselves in the same lab we do, in the exact same places within the lab room. To do otherwise is not reliable or even ethical, and this is why Glenn removed comparative data. The lab he used (Riverbank) is not the same as the lab we use (IBM), and Glenn understands that a direct comparison between different labs is unreliable, especially at frequencies below 100 Hz where labs aren't even certified to test.

Also, there is acoustic data on the Aygo site, but you have to dig a bit to find it. I assume they used yet another lab...

--Ethan

Glenn Kuras · 25th January 2006, 11:26 PM

>One of the realities of acoustic testing is that all labs do not give the same results, even though the goal is for all labs to give the same data for the same tested material. But some labs tend to measure much higher than others, especially at low frequencies where the different lab sizes and shapes have a big effect. Disparities as large as 50 percent are possible at 125 Hz, and even more at lower frequencies.<

With all due respect Ethan I understand what you are saying, but are you saying that Riverbank is 50% off??

I hope you are not because you know that would not be right.. Riverbank lab is the one of the highest regarded labs.. Heck Dr Sabin found it! The reason I took your numbers off is because your a friend..
BTW, the 50% was during a round robin and that was not Riverbank... Maybe it was IBM??? ha ha ha just kidding sir

>As Glenn said, we're good friends and neither of us is interested in getting into a "who's d!ck is bigger" competition. But I will address this:<

you can be the bigger d!ck thats fine...

Glenn

Beneficial · 25th January 2006, 11:50 PM

Where can I get information on the GIK monster bass traps?
-- also are you planning on offering pure white color traps?

Glenn Kuras · 26th January 2006, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beneficial

Where can I get information on the GIK monster bass traps?
-- also are you planning on offering pure white color traps?

For right now you will have to call or email me for the info.. As soon as we update the website the info will be on it..

Basics about the panel

Weight is 29 pounds
Size is 2 x4 7.50 inches thick, thus the Monster!
Comes in black and off-wht
Price is $109.00 per panel plus shipping.. The price when it hits the website will start at $109.00 but only for the first 30 days.. Then it is going to be between $119.00 and $129.00 each..

Hope that helps..

Glenn

Darius · 26th January 2006, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjornson

maybe he put em in the tracking room!

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I track and mix in the same room so, my mics sound better because the room sounds better, and I can hear my monitors better too.

Darius

Ethan Winer · 26th January 2006, 06:05 PM

Glenn,

> are you saying that Riverbank is 50% off?? <

As I explained in my email to you earlier, when MiniTraps were tested at Riverbank the absorption reported was twice as high at 100 Hz as when we measured them at IBM. So in this case the disparity is 100 percent, not 50 percent. I'm not saying that testing is not useful - if nothing else it helps to weed out obvious frauds like Foam By Mail. But to deny that labs vary a large amount, especially at low frequencies, is to deny reality. Perhaps we should test our traps at Riverbank in the same corner locations as you did, or maybe you should test your traps at IBM in the same corner locations as we did. That would be the only honest way to compare them.

> you can be the bigger d!ck thats fine <

That was uncalled for, no?

--Ethan

djui5 · 26th January 2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

> you can be the bigger d!ck thats fine <

That was uncalled for, no?

--Ethan

I don't think he meant it like that, just that he didnt' want to fight with you........

If you 2 wanna go at it I'm sure we'd all love to see it though :)

I got $20, who's in?

Glenn Kuras · 26th January 2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Glenn,

> are you saying that Riverbank is 50% off?? <

As I explained in my email to you earlier, when MiniTraps were tested at Riverbank the absorption reported was twice as high at 100 Hz as when we measured them at IBM. So in this case the disparity is 100 percent, not 50 percent. I'm not saying that testing is not useful - if nothing else it helps to weed out obvious frauds like Foam By Mail. But to deny that labs vary a large amount, especially at low frequencies, is to deny reality. Perhaps we should test our traps at Riverbank in the same corner locations as you did, or maybe you should test your traps at IBM in the same corner locations as we did. That would be the only honest way to compare them.

> you can be the bigger d!ck thats fine <

That was uncalled for, no?

--Ethan

Yeck yes I think you should go to Riverbank... Let me know when you might be there and I will fly up to have a beer!

Glenn Kuras · 26th January 2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djui5

I don't think he meant it like that, just that he didnt' want to fight with you........

If you 2 wanna go at it I'm sure we'd all love to see it though :)

I got $20, who's in?

That is what I ment.. Sorry Ethan if you took it any other way..

KrisAnderson · 26th January 2006, 09:47 PM

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.

Youn · 26th January 2006, 11:00 PM

Glenn was clearly joking guys...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Broadband Bass Traps from Ready Acoustics	Ready Acoustics	New product alert!	1	15th August 2006 05:06 AM
Ready Traps--Great CS, looks good so far!	natpub	So much gear, so little time!	47	22nd June 2006 06:08 PM
Has anyone heard of company 'Modular Acoustics' for bass traps, etc.??	Mark Warren	So much gear, so little time!	3	6th June 2006 02:10 AM
Ready Traps anyone	pingu	So much gear, so little time!	3	5th February 2006 05:02 PM
Real Traps "Mini Traps installation at The Library Studio	Jules	Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc	63	14th February 2005 09:23 PM

24th January 2006, 12:02 AM	#1
Double Tones Gear interested Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 27	Acoustics: Real Traps Vs. Ready Traps ? Hi, Does anyone have experience with either real traps or ready traps? OR even better, both? The ready traps seem to be the same product but less expensive. Any help is appreciated, thanks!

24th January 2006, 01:50 AM	#3
nukmusic Lives for gear Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Dallas, TX / New Orleans, LA Posts: 3,470	http://www.radford.edu/~shelm/acoustics/bass-traps.html Found this on "GOOGLE" better save the info to your harddrive. Attached Thumbnails __________________ . "THE BLACK LIST" HBO special.. so many vital topics/points. Just so many. Docta'J aka Big NUK www.nukmusic.com Practice Makes Progress

24th January 2006, 08:37 AM	#6
aapee Gear maniac Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 186	http://www.radford.edu/~shelm/acoustics/bass-traps.html "Below is a graph showing before and after installing the acoustical treatment. The severe dip at 105Hz. and peak at 138 Hz. have both been tamed. The peak at 90Hz. has been completely annihilated by -12db! Overall bass response has been greatly flattened." I wish I could see more of these kind of results from your control room. I mean measured results and what kind of they are. In that way I would know how far I am from my goal... Hey guys! Post your own measures! AaPee __________________ APart-Studio "The Sound meets the Art" ******************************

24th January 2006, 04:37 PM	#7
Youn Gear maniac Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 261	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; __________________ James Youn

24th January 2006, 01:32 AM	#2
TML Lives for gear Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 891	I haven't heard the ready traps...have the "Real" ones....from the looks I'd rather have the pro look of the real trap..than the "did-it-myself" look of the other....ymmv Tim

24th January 2006, 06:54 AM	#4
Double Tones Gear interested Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 27	anythin' else?

24th January 2006, 06:29 PM	#8
slowdive Gear nut Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: NJ Posts: 79	I didn't want to pay the high prices for Realtraps either, so I bought a whopping 19 panels from GIK Acoustics. Cost me just over $1000 shipped for 19. They were relatively easy to install and my room sounds really good now! Definitely check them out if you are on a budget. www.gikacoustics.com

24th January 2006, 07:00 PM	#9
mykla Gear Head Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Hollywood Posts: 38	So how does the GIK Acoustics panel [GIK 244] compare to the same size Real Traps [Mini Traps] ?

24th January 2006, 09:17 PM	#10
mykla Gear Head Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Hollywood Posts: 38

25th January 2006, 04:33 AM	#11
Darius Gear interested Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 27	If you want to do it yourself-great. I didn't so I bought some real traps- and they're great too. One of the best studio investments I've made. All my mics sound better. Darius

25th January 2006, 06:59 PM	#18
Glenn Kuras Lives for gear Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 3,416	>There was a cool Japanese vendor at NAMM making really nice looking traps very similar in design to the RealTraps stuff, but just more aesthetically interesting. www.aygosound.com< Very cool looking panels but I do not see any test numbers on them.. You really have to be careful of companies that do not have test data.. Just like any other piece of equipment in your room.. Glenn __________________ Glenn Kuras - GIK Acoustics www.GIKAcoustics.com GIK Is Now Offering Room Kits

25th January 2006, 09:55 PM	#19
Brad McGowan Lives for gear Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,809	Glenn, I'm going to call you. I want to find out more about the Monster bass trap! Brad

25th January 2006, 10:03 PM	#20
Ethan Winer Lives for gear Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: New Milford, CT, USA Posts: 4,348	Guys, As Glenn said, we're good friends and neither of us is interested in getting into a "who's d!ck is bigger" competition. But I will address this: One of the realities of acoustic testing is that all labs do not give the same results, even though the goal is for all labs to give the same data for the same tested material. But some labs tend to measure much higher than others, especially at low frequencies where the different lab sizes and shapes have a big effect. Disparities as large as 50 percent are possible at 125 Hz, and even more at lower frequencies. This is why RealTraps publishes low frequency data for other products only when we have measured them ourselves in the same lab we do, in the exact same places within the lab room. To do otherwise is not reliable or even ethical, and this is why Glenn removed comparative data. The lab he used (Riverbank) is not the same as the lab we use (IBM), and Glenn understands that a direct comparison between different labs is unreliable, especially at frequencies below 100 Hz where labs aren't even certified to test. Also, there is acoustic data on the Aygo site, but you have to dig a bit to find it. I assume they used yet another lab... --Ethan __________________ www.realtraps.com The acoustic treatment experts ----------------------- Amazing Telecaster guitar video

25th January 2006, 11:26 PM	#21
Glenn Kuras Lives for gear Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 3,416	>One of the realities of acoustic testing is that all labs do not give the same results, even though the goal is for all labs to give the same data for the same tested material. But some labs tend to measure much higher than others, especially at low frequencies where the different lab sizes and shapes have a big effect. Disparities as large as 50 percent are possible at 125 Hz, and even more at lower frequencies.< With all due respect Ethan I understand what you are saying, but are you saying that Riverbank is 50% off?? I hope you are not because you know that would not be right.. Riverbank lab is the one of the highest regarded labs.. Heck Dr Sabin found it! The reason I took your numbers off is because your a friend.. BTW, the 50% was during a round robin and that was not Riverbank... Maybe it was IBM??? ha ha ha just kidding sir >As Glenn said, we're good friends and neither of us is interested in getting into a "who's d!ck is bigger" competition. But I will address this:< you can be the bigger d!ck thats fine... Glenn __________________ Glenn Kuras - GIK Acoustics www.GIKAcoustics.com GIK Is Now Offering Room Kits

25th January 2006, 11:50 PM	#22
Beneficial Gear nut Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 101	Where can I get information on the GIK monster bass traps? -- also are you planning on offering pure white color traps?

26th January 2006, 06:05 PM	#25
Ethan Winer Lives for gear Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: New Milford, CT, USA Posts: 4,348	Glenn, > are you saying that Riverbank is 50% off?? < As I explained in my email to you earlier, when MiniTraps were tested at Riverbank the absorption reported was twice as high at 100 Hz as when we measured them at IBM. So in this case the disparity is 100 percent, not 50 percent. I'm not saying that testing is not useful - if nothing else it helps to weed out obvious frauds like Foam By Mail. But to deny that labs vary a large amount, especially at low frequencies, is to deny reality. Perhaps we should test our traps at Riverbank in the same corner locations as you did, or maybe you should test your traps at IBM in the same corner locations as we did. That would be the only honest way to compare them. > you can be the bigger d!ck thats fine < That was uncalled for, no? --Ethan __________________ www.realtraps.com The acoustic treatment experts ----------------------- Amazing Telecaster guitar video

26th January 2006, 09:47 PM	#29
KrisAnderson Gear Head Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 36	The hostility 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.

26th January 2006, 11:00 PM	#30
Youn Gear maniac Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 261	Glenn was clearly joking guys... __________________ James Youn