The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Traps: My final general questions.
Old 29th July 2008
  #1
Lives for gear
 
foamboy's Avatar
Traps: My final general questions.

Well first off,let me say a HUGE THANKS to everyone who has given me advice and direction in these acoustic matters.

Before I venture on with my own DIY project, I have a few more general questions that I am hoping you will help me yet again. I am planning to use Ultra Touch cotton.

Questions are as follows:

1) I am planning to use either the 5.5" or 8" thick cotton and I was wondering IF there is really a difference in performance on the thicker guage? The only reason I am considering the 8" is b/c I don't really have a lot of room for a lot of traps and I was thinking the thicker would be better. I am planning to try and hang 8 panels and maybe 10,but 8 for sure. Also the 8" is already pre-cut to the recommended bass trap size.

2) Do traps actually have to be 24"x48" in order to be effective? The problem is that in my room (which really SUX) it is going to be difficult to to have panels this size. In two corners I have doors. In one of those I can only put either 16"x48" panels(from floor to ceiling) or a single 18"x24" panel in the upper corner only. I might be able to put a standard size panel IF I use 5.5" cotton.The problem is having the door swing open and hitting the panel. Because of this , I am not sure which width of cotton to get. I really don't want to buy two different sizes. If 16" w x 8" d cotton would work for all the corners that would be better for me financially!


3) How do I hang the panel above my mix position? In other words, do I put panels directly above me on the ceiling, or do I put them straddling the ceiling and regular wall in front of me, OR do I need to do both?

I think this covers the basics.

Thanks again,
foamboy
Old 29th July 2008
  #2
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
Quote:
1) I am planning to use either the 5.5" or 8" thick cotton and I was wondering IF there is really a difference in performance on the thicker guage? The only reason I am considering the 8" is b/c I don't really have a lot of room for a lot of traps and I was thinking the thicker would be better. I am planning to try and hang 8 panels and maybe 10,but 8 for sure. Also the 8" is already pre-cut to the recommended bass trap size.
well thicker is always better so if you can afford it then go that route.

Quote:
2) Do traps actually have to be 24"x48" in order to be effective? The problem is that in my room (which really SUX) it is going to be difficult to to have panels this size. In two corners I have doors. In one of those I can only put either 16"x48" panels(from floor to ceiling) or a single 18"x24" panel in the upper corner only. I might be able to put a standard size panel IF I use 5.5" cotton.The problem is having the door swing open and hitting the panel. Because of this , I am not sure which width of cotton to get. I really don't want to buy two different sizes. If 16" w x 8" d cotton would work for all the corners that would be better for me financially!
The bigger the panel the more it will absorb but if you have to make it small then that is that, go for it.

Glenn
Old 29th July 2008
  #3
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by foamboy View Post
1) I am planning to use either the 5.5" or 8" thick cotton and I was wondering IF there is really a difference in performance on the thicker guage?
Bondedlogic does not have any test data on 8" Ultratouch in their brochure. Seeing the minor change in absorption at 125 Hz going from 3.5" to 5.5" thickness, I suspect that there is internal reflection becoming dominant. If you want to build you traps 8" thick (which I agree with 100% BTW) use 4" thick material with a 4" gap behind it.

Andre

Last edited by avare; 31st July 2008 at 04:15 AM.. Reason: corrected spelling and dimensional error.
Old 30th July 2008
  #4
Gear Addict
 
timmcallister's Avatar
 

As many will point out, you do have at least 12 corners in your room. The bass doesn't know if it's bouncing out of a wall/wall corner or a ceiling/wall corner. Generally speaking, trapping four ceiling/wall corners will provide the same bass control as trapping four wall/wall corners.


Look - up in the sky - it's a plane! - no it's a bird! - no!! it's a BASS TRAP! Heres my build of a ceiling mounted bass trap. Works great.
Ceiling mounted bass traps with pictures


we talk a lot about 2x4 and 2x6 panels cause they are easy to make and move around. But don't let that limit your thinking.

For bass trapping, you're better of using TWO 2x2 panels straddling the tri corners (floor/wall/wall and ceiling/wall/wall) than ONE 4x2 panel hung midway wall/wall.

If you are creative, your bass traps in the floor/wall/wall area can double as seating. For that matter, build yourself a 2x2 frame on the floor all the way down a wall. Lay a couple of planks down on the top of the frame for seating or whatever. Fill the frame with cotton and bam!

You're still probably better off using 2x4 and 2x6 panels for reflection points, but thats a different matter.

get creative, have fun, and enjoy a much better listening experience.

peace
Old 30th July 2008
  #5
Lives for gear
 
foamboy's Avatar
Thanks again for the advice.

Yep timmcallister, I have been wondering A LOT about the 2X2 ceiling/wall/wall setup b/c my ear tells me that is where all the trouble is gathering. Of course, ears can be deceiving,but I think I'm gonna just make it up as I go along. I will probably use a variety of sizes and stuff.

Thanks again,

foamboy
Old 30th July 2008
  #6
Lives for gear
 
foamboy's Avatar
Okay, sorry,but I am confused again and here's why......


Glenn stated that thicker is always better.but it sounds like Avare and timmcallister are saying that less dense material and more "air space" behind the panel is better.

So, IF you guys were gonna purchase only ONE density of material, what would it be?

3.5", 5.5", or 8".

I am probably going to make some 2x2 tri-corner panels and some standard 24x48 panels to put behind my spkrs and in some of the wall/wall spots as well as above my head on the ceiling. I am thinking of building them all with 1x4 frames to achieve the "air space".

Thanks again,

foamboy
Old 30th July 2008
  #7
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by foamboy View Post
Okay, sorry,but I am confused again and here's why......


Glenn stated that thicker is always better.but it sounds like Avare and timmcallister are saying that less dense material and more "air space" behind the panel is better.

So, IF you guys were gonna purchase only ONE density of material, what would it be?

3.5", 5.5", or 8".

I am probably going to make some 2x2 tri-corner panels and some standard 24x48 panels to put behind my spkrs and in some of the wall/wall spots as well as above my head on the ceiling. I am thinking of building them all with 1x4 frames to achieve the "air space".

Thanks again,

foamboy
Avare is not (I think) is not saying the air gap works BETTER, he is just saying you can do it that way. On a cost per sabins having 4" acoustic treatment with a 4" air gap is a better value, but 8" of solid acoustic treatment will absorb more but cost more per sabin.

Glenn
Old 30th July 2008
  #8
Lives for gear
 
foamboy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras View Post
Avare is not (I think) is not saying the air gap works BETTER, he is just saying you can do it that way. On a cost per sabins having 4" acoustic treatment with a 4" air gap is a better value, but 8" of solid acoustic treatment will absorb more but cost more per sabin.

Glenn

So, I know the panels will be HUGE,but should I use 8" material AND use a 4" air gap?

foamboy
Old 30th July 2008
  #9
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by foamboy]
Glenn stated that thicker is always better.but it sounds like Avare and timmcallister are saying that less dense material and more "air space" behind the panel is better.
The generalities are true as generalities. What Glenn is wrote is true as a generality. What I wrote is specific for Bondedlogic Ultratouch. The acoustics involved are not straightforward in an intuitive manner and well beyond something to detail in one or two posts. To give you an good idea of what is involved, Could someone help out interpreting material's gas flow properties is a great thread. Start with post 29 studying the drawings, Then posts 5 and 28. If you still want more, then read all the thread and at least scan the linked documents.


Quote:
So, IF you guys were gonna purchase only ONE density of material, what would it be?

3.5", 5.5", or 8".
Your question is confusing density and thickness. If you are getting Bondedlogic Ultratouch or similar material, then 3.5"

Cottony soft,
Andre

Last edited by avare; 30th July 2008 at 06:06 PM.. Reason: Corrected html errors
Old 30th July 2008
  #10
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
sure if you can afford the space.

Glenn
Old 30th July 2008
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Cottony soft,
Andre
That's awesome.

Frank
Old 30th July 2008
  #12
Lives for gear
 
foamboy's Avatar
Okay Avare I have read the thread you linked me to and I "think" I get what you are saying. I think part of my problem is that I don't understand the "R" rating on insulation. Now, I "think" maybe I do.....so let's talk Ultra touch. The lower "R" rating refers to the materials density, correct? So,if more "wooly" absorbent material is what I want,then I should get Ultra touch with a smaller "R" rating? Yes? So if I really wanted to trap some bass, I should get less dense,thicker material? Yes? Say,something like R-13, 5.5"? Or would you still say that R-13,3.5" is as good or better?


This crap is HARD!!!!!

Okay,PLEASE let me know IF I am anywhere in the right zone!!!!!


foamboy.
Old 30th July 2008
  #13
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

The different R value insulations all use the same nominal density insulation. What changes is the the thickness of the insulation.

Andre
Old 30th July 2008
  #14
Lives for gear
 
foamboy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
The different R value insulations all use the same nominal density insulation. What changes is the the thickness of the insulation.

Andre

Hmmm. Right. I guess I don't get it then. I must a bigger dumba$$ than I thought.

I guess I don't understand why Ultratouch would list same thickness panels with different R ratings.

Well,like I said, I'm gonna make it up as I go and hope that my uneducated decisions will yield me some positive results for the time and money I'm gonna spend!

THANKS AGAIN!!!!!!


foamboy
Old 30th July 2008
  #15
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
Don't sweat it to much, any of the ones you are looking at will work.

Glenn
Old 31st July 2008
  #16
Gear Addict
 
timmcallister's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by foamboy View Post
Okay, sorry,but I am confused again and here's why......


Glenn stated that thicker is always better.but it sounds like Avare and timmcallister are saying that less dense material and more "air space" behind the panel is better.

So, IF you guys were gonna purchase only ONE density of material, what would it be?

3.5", 5.5", or 8".

I am probably going to make some 2x2 tri-corner panels and some standard 24x48 panels to put behind my spkrs and in some of the wall/wall spots as well as above my head on the ceiling. I am thinking of building them all with 1x4 frames to achieve the "air space".

Thanks again,

foamboy
Glenn is right (of course!) but I don't think I said air space is "better" than solid. Actually, I don't think I said anything about airspace. But anyway.

Many have discussed this. It a cost thing. It would be better to cover twice as much area 4" deep than 1/2 the area 8" deep. And you'll get better performance out of your 4" deep panel if theres a 4" airspace.

If you can afford the cost (and space!) stuff some rockwool 4 FEET thick into each corner. You'll tame the bass! but at a high cost of material and space.

4" thick with a 4" airspace is just generally considered the "value point".
Old 31st July 2008
  #17
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by foamboy View Post
I guess I don't understand why Ultratouch would list same thickness panels with different R ratings.
Where did they do this? I have try to provide links or references to wherever possible in this thread. The attachment is from the brochure that I linked to earlier in the thread. It clearly shows different R value insulations having different thicknesses, with the exception of the R19 and R21 insulations.

Please provide a link to where different R value insulations are listed as having the same thickness.

Andre
Attached Thumbnails
Traps: My final general questions.-ultratouch-tech.jpg  
Old 31st July 2008
  #18
Lives for gear
 
foamboy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
It clearly shows different R value insulations having different thicknesses, with the exception of the R19 and R21 insulations.

Andre
This is the exception to which I referred.

Thanks again,

Foamboy
Old 31st July 2008
  #19
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by timmcallister View Post
Glenn is right (of course!) but I don't think I said air space is "better" than solid. Actually, I don't think I said anything about airspace. But anyway.

Many have discussed this. It a cost thing. It would be better to cover twice as much area 4" deep than 1/2 the area 8" deep. And you'll get better performance out of your 4" deep panel if theres a 4" airspace.

4" thick with a 4" airspace is just generally considered the "value point".
I am the one who recommended, not suggested, using 3.5" material with an airspace in post #3 in this thread, with the technical explanation for the recommendation. When several people remarked upon my recommendation, I clarified it in post#9 with a link to thread that discusses porous insulation and sound absorption. It had nothing to with cost or value point.

The absorption of a porous absorber is dependent upon three things:

Location
Thickness
Gas flow resistance

Location is important because porous absorbers work on impeding the velocity of the air particles caused by the sound waves. If the location is where there is no particle velocity, then the of the absorber is nil.

Thickness affects how wide a frequency range the absorber is effective at. The thicker the absorber, the wider the frequency range. With absorbers against a wall, this being effective down to lower frequencies.

Gas flow resistance is important as for best absorption, the resistance of the absorber should equal the impedance of air (406 Rayls). If the resistance is too low, then the sound travels through the absorber. This is shown in the first drawing in post #29 in the thread I linked. If the resistance too high, then sound will be reflected, as shown in the second and forth drawings. The reflection occurs within the absorber itself. This is shown in the attachment, along with the equations detailing the real and imaginary components, of the sound wave and impedance. The resistance is a function of the gas flow resistivity and thickness of the absorber.

Unfortunately, almost no insulation companies provide gas flow resistivity data on their products, so we (as in studio designers) use material density as an indirect indicator of gas flow resistivity and scrutinize test data for clues.

With the Ultratouch test data (repeated in my previous post), it shows almost no increase in absorption in the 125 Hz band when the material thickness is increased by over 50%. If there is no internal reflection due to high gas flow resistance, then absorption would increase. This is being taken a clue that the gas flow resistance is too high.

As I wrote two paragraphs above " The resistance is a function of the gas flow resistivity and thickness of the absorber. " Since the type of material has been defined, this leaves adjusting spacing and thickness to achieve desired results.

The use of spacing is common in commercial facilities. Eric Desart used it in Galaxy Studios' absorbers. Peutz used it in the wall treatments for the Heineken Music Hall. In the latter case the ratio was 2:1 for space to material thickness) Neither of these are "value point" projects.

If the OP uses thicker Ultratouch instead of spacing with 3.5" material, he will get inferior acoustic results while spending more money. The recommendation for a space is based on physics and the restraints (what material) of this particular project.


The attachment is from the Bruel Acoustics web page. Unfortunately the page uses frames. If you want to read the document, which deals with his Standing Wave Tube apparatus, log onto the web page Bruel Acoustics, click on "Technical review and products information" and then "Technical Review 97-01: Standing Wave Tube SWT". If the name Bruel seems familiar, it could be because he is one of the founders of Bruel and Kjaer.

Andre
Attached Thumbnails
Traps: My final general questions.-internal-reflection.jpg  

Last edited by avare; 19th September 2008 at 01:03 AM.. Reason: Corrected html error. Added "latter" to clarify which example was being referred to.
Old 9th April 2009
  #20
Lives for gear
 
wesarvin's Avatar
 

*PAGING AVARE*

Ok, so what if you mount the 3.5" Ultratouch panels in the corners and then fill the remaining gap with a less-dense material, such as pink fluffy stuff? It makes sense for thicker absorbers to use a lesser-density material, and why many reccomend using a less-dense mineral wool for superchunks.

To me, the cotton/fluffy hybrid superchunk seems like the ultimate in cost:performance ratio. Heck, I could treat a whole 12'x11' room (seven corners' worth and RFZ) for under $300.

If Avare's gone, anyone else care to chime in?
Old 9th April 2009
  #21
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by foamboy View Post
2) Do traps actually have to be 24"x48" in order to be effective?
Owens Corning, Johns Manville, Knauf... They all make similar materials, they all come in 24"x48" sheets, and I think they all come in bundles of 6. It's just a common size that just so happens to work well.
Old 9th April 2009
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarwes View Post
*PAGING AVARE*

Ok, so what if you mount the 3.5" Ultratouch panels in the corners and then fill the remaining gap with a less-dense material, such as pink fluffy stuff? It makes sense for thicker absorbers to use a lesser-density material, and why many reccomend using a less-dense mineral wool for superchunks.
It'll extend the low end absorption to some degree. How much is hard to say.

I'd like to hear from Andre on this one too, actually.

Frank
Old 16th April 2009
  #23
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarwes View Post
*PAGING AVARE*

Ok, so what if you mount the 3.5" Ultratouch panels in the corners and then fill the remaining gap with a less-dense material, such as pink fluffy stuff? It makes sense for thicker absorbers to use a lesser-density material, and why many reccomend using a less-dense mineral wool for superchunks.

To me, the cotton/fluffy hybrid superchunk seems like the ultimate in cost:performance ratio. Heck, I could treat a whole 12'x11' room (seven corners' worth and RFZ) for under $300.

If Avare's gone, anyone else care to chime in?

Ultratouch seems to have a higher gas flow resistivity than normal mineral wool (mineral, glass, all of those). This has shown up in test data for 4" vs 6" thick ultratouch. See post 19 in this thread.

It is not suitable in thicker absorbers. If you are filling with regular stuff, why not just use that?

Still cottony soft,
Andre
Old 17th April 2009
  #24
Lives for gear
 
wesarvin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Ultratouch seems to have a higher gas flow resistivity than normal mineral wool (mineral, glass, all of those). This has shown up in test data for 4" vs 6" thick ultratouch. See post 19 in this thread.

It is not suitable in thicker absorbers. If you are filling with regular stuff, why not just use that?

Still cottony soft,
Andre
All apologies, as I should have clarified my question somewhat.

I understand that the Ultratouch has a higher GFR, but would multi-layered construction be of any benefit? Meaning that if I filled the corners with the soft fluffy and then used 3.5" Ultratouch panels for the outer facing, would the layered construction be worth the effort?

I might and repeat might be able to get a truckload of 703 for the price of a Happy Meal. If my guy can get the materials, then I'll just go the 703 superchunk route. If not, I'm looking at this layered construction as a viable option.

Thanks for any help!



Edit:
After re-reading post #19, will the first layer of Ultratouch reduce the particle's flow to such a negligible level that the fluffy behind it would have little effect on absorption?

Last edited by wesarvin; 17th April 2009 at 07:48 AM.. Reason: 123 ABC
Old 19th April 2009
  #25
Lives for gear
 
wesarvin's Avatar
 

Update: I just got 66 1" panels of Thermafiber rockwool. I dunno about the Ultratouch route anymore, but I'm still curious about GFR reactions for different insulation types. Anybody know where is a good place to learn?
Old 19th April 2009
  #26
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarwes View Post
All apologies, as I should have clarified my question somewhat.

I understand that the Ultratouch has a higher GFR, but would multi-layered construction be of any benefit? Meaning that if I filled the corners with the soft fluffy and then used 3.5" Ultratouch panels for the outer facing, would the layered construction be worth the effort?

I might and repeat might be able to get a truckload of 703 for the price of a Happy Meal. If my guy can get the materials, then I'll just go the 703 superchunk route. If not, I'm looking at this layered construction as a viable option.

Thanks for any help!



Edit:
After re-reading post #19, will the first layer of Ultratouch reduce the particle's flow to such a negligible level that the fluffy behind it would have little effect on absorption?
My newbie state on this matter might help me explain the issue in words easier to understand by another newbie.

The general idea is that mounting porous absorbing material in contact with the walls or ceiling (no matter what specs the material has) it will have a very limited effect in the low frequencies, the reason being that the material works for frequencies having their quarter wavelength equal or shorter than the "treated thickness".

Given in numbers, if you need to treat for frequencies from 100Hz upwards then the "treated thickness" needs to be 33".

This is because the l/4 distance from the wall is where the particle velocity is at maximum at any given frequency. This is where the porus material can absorb lots of energy. Close to the wall the particle velocity is diminished so there is little energy for the absorber to absorb.

So, a 4" absorber is typically mounted at 4" distance from the wall so as not to "waste" material where the effect is poor anyway.

Of course, the 4" absorber mounted 4" from the wall will absorb at 100Hz or even lower than that, however the absorbtion will be much lower compared to the potential of the material.

So, bottom line is: The distance from the wall is a way to "tune" the absorbtion between low and high frequencies: The closer to the wall, the more tuned to hf absorbtion; the farther away from the wall, the more it will absorb in the low frequencies without losing hf absorbtion.
Old 19th April 2009
  #27
Lives for gear
 
wesarvin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaSi_SiDi View Post
My newbie state on this matter might help me explain the issue in words easier to understand by another newbie.

The general idea is that mounting porous absorbing material in contact with the walls or ceiling (no matter what specs the material has) it will have a very limited effect in the low frequencies, the reason being that the material works for frequencies having their quarter wavelength equal or shorter than the "treated thickness".

Given in numbers, if you need to treat for frequencies from 100Hz upwards then the "treated thickness" needs to be 33".

This is because the l/4 distance from the wall is where the particle velocity is at maximum at any given frequency. This is where the porus material can absorb lots of energy. Close to the wall the particle velocity is diminished so there is little energy for the absorber to absorb.

So, a 4" absorber is typically mounted at 4" distance from the wall so as not to "waste" material where the effect is poor anyway.

Of course, the 4" absorber mounted 4" from the wall will absorb at 100Hz or even lower than that, however the absorbtion will be much lower compared to the potential of the material.

So, bottom line is: The distance from the wall is a way to "tune" the absorbtion between low and high frequencies: The closer to the wall, the more tuned to hf absorbtion; the farther away from the wall, the more it will absorb in the low frequencies without losing hf absorbtion.
Hmm. That reasoning makes sense, especially for absorbers on the rear wall. But what about corners? The general consensus that I've gathered is filling them with a material that isn't too dense is the best route to go.

Also, how will the spacing affect SBIR issues with monitors close to the front wall, where bass frequencies don't have enough space to reach their full wavelength?
Old 19th April 2009
  #28
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarwes View Post
Hmm. That reasoning makes sense, especially for absorbers on the rear wall. But what about corners? The general consensus that I've gathered is filling them with a material that isn't too dense is the best route to go.
The consensus I've been able to understand is that it is better to fill the corner but not all that better when cost is taken into account. I understand that it is better to treat the two side ceiling-wall corners the same way than fill the vertical corners.

Quote:
Also, how will the spacing affect SBIR issues with monitors close to the front wall, where bass frequencies don't have enough space to reach their full wavelength?
I have no idea. I am not sure if there is an issue of the wavelengths reaching their "size". The monitor speakers located close to the front wall will radiate at 360 degrees in low frequencies and I believe that the front wall will enhance the sound level produced.
Old 20th April 2009
  #29
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Several things are going on in this thread and rather than quote I will attempt to comment separately.

There is no advanatage to combining, or layering, different densities od acoustic material.

Filling a space (including a corner) is one way to get the required gas flow resistance at the required wavelength away from the wall. Cost becomes the factor and look at the cost of the material! 4" 703 last time I checked was $4/ft^2. Roxul Safe n Sound (general home insulation) at 3.5" thick was 37 CENTS/ft^2. The second product has the required GFR for thicker absorbers. A filled corner with it will cost a fraction of layered/spaced 4" 703! Do the math for prices in your part of the world.

Diffuse field absorption is nominally effective down to about 1/15 of the wavelength of the material thickness. Normal incidence absorption down to about 1/7 of the wavelength. Most peopel do not know the differenc between diffuse field and normal incidence absorption and refer to thte diffuse field, as that is what measured in reverb chambers.

Dig around on STudiotips.com Whealey's gas flow resistance and absorption calculator. It works with normal and specific anges of incidence for sound waves.

I hope this helps.
Old 20th April 2009
  #30
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarwes View Post
I might and repeat might be able to get a truckload of 703 for the price of a Happy Meal. If my guy can get the materials, then I'll just go the 703 superchunk route. If not, I'm looking at this layered construction as a viable option.

If you can get it, tha will be great!

Quote:
After re-reading post #19, will the first layer of Ultratouch reduce the particle's flow to such a negligible level that the fluffy behind it would have little effect on absorption?
Little is known about Ultratouch's acoustic properties. From what is known, it will cause internal reflections inside the material at greater thicknesses, which appears to be happening even at 4" thickness. It is not recommended (by me) to use it at thicknesses greater than 4", and even that I am suspect of.

If you want to use it, use the thinner material.

Andre

Last edited by avare; 21st April 2009 at 03:39 PM.. Reason: corrected spelling
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump