View Single Post
Old 29th July 2010
Gear Guru
Glenn Kuras's Avatar

There is no public evidence to suggest that this still applies to different thickness of panel and trap.
There similarly no test info to the opposite except for Glenn's story. He has suggested that the result may be room dependent, i.e. different results in different rooms. (Thus my inclusion of room size relative to panel area or even total panel area)
wow Dan I almost find this a bit insulting. Story??? Lets please try to help instead of trying to just look smart, OK???

The fact of the matter is you did one tests in your room, so for your room it worked fine and for 4" I can see why. 2" on the other hand is not 4".


So are you saying you recommend the foil on the back of panels used to absorb MF and HF?????????????
I was answering a question that was about foil to the front, which I DO recommend.

When you say the "response" was better, exactly what do you mean... More abosrbent? My frames make my panels about 1.5" from the wall and the eye hooks may add another inch.
It was a number of years ago, but the over all response seemed to be much smoother, if I remember right, between 125hz and 500hz and did not change below that. The bottom line is (as I have said) as it has been proven A TON of times that not using foil on the back works and Dan might be totally right about his method, but I can't take one test in someones room and start to recommend it all the time. It would be very unprofessional of me (btw that is nothing against Dan as I have a lot of respect for me).

BTW I totally am up for being wrong on this. I have no horse in this race. heh