The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Acoustisorb 2 vs 3 Bass Traps
Old 15th September 2011
Here for the gear
Acoustisorb 2 vs 3

Hey guys

Just wanted some advice. I'm in Australia and looking to use this product, Tontine Acoustisorb, to build my bass traps and panel absorbers from. I'm thinking of using the Acoustisorb 3 (48kg/m^3) 75mm (3") thickness for the first reflection points, and also for the ceiling clouds that I shall have.

With regards to bass traps, I was going to trap the front corners (i.e. mix position, facing forwards) and possibly one back corner to start with (I can't do the other because of a door). However, using 4" Acoustisorb 3 is quite expensive and out of my budget. Would you recommend using the 3" (which is just over half the price of the 4"), or actually using 4" of Acoustisorb 2, which is only 32kg/m^3? I know the lower density might cause issues, but I figure the thickness might help.

These are typical straddling corner traps, by the way, not superchunks. I was just going to start with this, then add or subtract more as I do measurements and see what else I need.

Basically, 4" of 32kg/m^3, or 3" of 48kg/m^3 for straddled corner bass traps?

Thanks for any help.

Acoustisorb link: Technical Data Sheets
Old 15th September 2011
Gear Addict

Def. thicker is better than denser when it comes to bass (in general, of course).
Old 15th September 2011
Lives for gear
Jens Eklund's Avatar
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
The single most important figure is ”flow resistivity” (Rayls/m or kPa*s/m²). Once you know this value, you can simulate the effect of it using different thickness and air gaps using this free calculator:

Porous Absorber Calculator V1.58
Old 18th September 2011
Gear Guru

That data is supplied.
At 125Hz and 250Hz

A2 4 inches 0.67 1.08
A3 3 inches 0.48 0.9

No contest.

Old 18th September 2011
Gear Addict

Depending where you are, Martini Polymax Absorb may be a cheaper alternative. Same "low fibre diameter" technology, same density.

Polymax - Specialised Projects

will have to ring them to find out supply issues.
Old 3rd November 2011
Gear Head

Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
Am I right in saying the lower the rays, the better it is against low frequency absorption?

I plug into the calculator figures for Bradford Quietel (50mm,130kg/m3) 55,600 and then Bradford Supertel (50mm, 32kg/m3) 18,200 and the latter has far far better low frequency absorbption
Old 3rd November 2011
Lives for gear
Jens Eklund's Avatar
Flow resistivity values of about 5-15 kPa*s/m² usually works best and if thick, you want lower FR.
Old 3rd November 2011
Gear Head

The figures im getting quoted are in raysl, 14,200 showed better low frequency absorbption then say Bradford Quietel which had 55,00 raysl
Old 26th July 2012
Gear Addict
guys can we use Tontine Thermal & Sound Batts™ as ab alternative to the expensive acoustisorb ??
Old 27th July 2012
Gear Addict

Flow resistivity would probably be too low. Plus, the manufacturer doesn't control the fibre mix as well as it does with the Acoustisorb.
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 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