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
Low density fibre in 4" thick panels - worthwhile or worthless? Utility Software
Old 6th April 2018
  #1
Gear Addict
 

Low density fibre in 4" thick panels - worthwhile or worthless?

Quick question: is 15kg/m3 density mineral wool a bad choice for 100mm/4" depth bass traps?

The context is that I have some DIY bass traps: one at 200mm/8" depth and two smaller panels at 100mm/4" depth, all filled with Knauf Earthwool DriTherm 37 Standard insulation (mineral wool). This stuff:

Earthwool DriTherm 37 Standard | Knauf Insulation

As seems typical, it's proving almost impossible to find any confirmed data about the acoustic properties of this product, although I've read that its density is somewhere between 15-17kg/m3.

I've searched Gearslutz for answers and have gleaned that low density fibre of this type is a good choice for thicker bass traps - so I assume it should be ok (?) for my 200mm/8" panel... but perhaps less so for the thinner 100mm/4" panels, where I'd be better off using something like Knauf RS60 at 48kg/m3.

Is that correct? Or would low density fibre have at least some useful properties at 100mm/4" depth?

I'd like to gauge opinion before sourcing some higher density insulation and deconstructing my DIY handiwork. Thanks.
Old 6th April 2018
  #2
Deleted User
Guest
As far as I know, low density is better for bass traps and high density is used for absorption/controlling slapback. Air gaping should be used with either. Unless you are surrounded by concrete, you may get better results by doing nothing and letting the base escape the room.
Old 6th April 2018
  #3
Gear Guru
Data

http://bobgolds.com/AbsorptionCoefficients.htm

Most commercial 100mm traps are 60-100KG. Although more expensive and perhaps not quite a good at LF, the higher densities do not sag.

DD
Old 7th April 2018
  #4
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana_T. View Post
Unless you are surrounded by concrete, you may get better results by doing nothing and letting the base escape the room.
Haha, I wish it were that simple! Perhaps I could open the windows and let the bass energy escape the room like a bad smell

In all seriousness, it's a relatively small domestic space with solid brickwork behind 15mm plasterboard (drywall), so there's little scope for low frequencies to escape by natural means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
http://bobgolds.com/AbsorptionCoefficients.htm

Most commercial 100mm traps are 60-100KG. Although more expensive and perhaps not quite a good at LF, the higher densities do not sag.
Thanks Dan. Wow... that's a useful link! A Holy Grail of absorbption coefficients; now bookmarked.

Interesting to note how low density fibre outperforms higher densities when dealing with LF energy. I assume that depth/thickness of fibre is an important consideration; perhaps an optimum depth at which low density is the better choice and vice versa?

The panels I've built include lightweight wooden frames, so the fibre hasn't (yet) started to show signs of sagging. Having now seen the data on the Bob Golds page linked above, I may in fact leave these traps as they are with low density fibre, rather than re-DIYing them with denser material.

Again, cheers for your input. Always useful
Old 7th April 2018
  #5
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol303 View Post
Haha, I wish it were that simple! Perhaps I could open the windows and let the bass energy escape the room like a bad smell In all seriousness, it's a relatively small domestic space with solid brickwork behind 15mm plasterboard (drywall), so there's little scope for low frequencies to escape by natural means.
I am in the process of finishing my home studio and before I do any bass trapping, I want to do the REW test first. There are many posts in this community that says under the right conditions, the bass can just escape. My room is 1/2 drywall with pink fluffy and plastic siding. It is 10 miles from any major roads. I am hoping I will not need to use them.

I have also read that many people have taken something like r-30 attic insulation and stuffed it into trash bags and stacked them floor to ceiling. Depending on how much room you have, you may be able to find 8 inch bags and so the same. As far as opening the windows and doors, I have heard of this as well. They say any little bit helps.
Old 8th April 2018
  #6
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana_T. View Post
There are many posts in this community that says under the right conditions, the bass can just escape.
I'd be very interested to read those posts if you have the links available. My guess is that for the vast majority of domestic rooms, the chance of low frequencies being able to 'escape' is minimal, unless you're working in a glass conservatory perhaps (which would bestow another set of problems with HF reflection).

For context, the room I'm working in is already adequately treated. The bass traps I'm referring to in the original post are also quite small: 2 panels measuring 300 x 300 x 100mm and one measuring 750 x 300 x 200mm (l/w/d); hence my decision to just stick with the low density 15kg/m3 fibre, as the added benefit of re-filling these small traps with higher density material would probably be negligible.
Old 8th April 2018
  #7
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol303 View Post
I'd be very interested to read those posts if you have the links available. My guess is that for the vast majority of domestic rooms, the chance of low frequencies being able to 'escape' is minimal, unless you're working in a glass conservatory perhaps (which would bestow another set of problems with HF reflection).
Here is one but it is not the one that I wanted. The theory is simple. Since drywall offers very little ability to treat low frequencies, it simply passes right threw. Using my home as an example, once the bass leaves my speakers, it will travel throughout my home till it hits something that will reflect it.

Since I have no concrete or brick exterior, it should just keep on moving. I will try and find the post that really changed my line of thinking on this subject. I think @Glenn Kuras was a part of this discussion as well.

since low bass passes through drywall ...
Old 9th April 2018
  #8
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana_T. View Post
The theory is simple. Since drywall offers very little ability to treat low frequencies, it simply passes right threw. Using my home as an example, once the bass leaves my speakers, it will travel throughout my home till it hits something that will reflect it.

Since I have no concrete or brick exterior, it should just keep on moving. [/URL]
Sounds plausible, but I'd be cautious and double-check opinion here before basing your decisions (and/or spending) on that theory, just in case. I'm certainly not an expert in acoustics, so I can't confirm either way.

I live in the UK, where it's very rare to find a domestic property that isn't brick or concrete built. I assume your building is a wooden construction? If so, it may be that the walls of the room are still capable of reflecting a significant amount of low end frequencies (i.e. enough to warrant bass traps), depending on thickness and density of wood.

Cue this forum's mantra of "take some measurements"; it's the only way to be sure
Old 9th April 2018
  #9
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol303 View Post


Thanks Dan. Wow... that's a useful link! A Holy Grail of absorbption coefficients; now bookmarked.
as has already been explained several times, measurements in a reverberation chamber are unusable: not reproducible and valid only in the room where the measurement was made.

I don't understand why the bob golds page continue to be posted !!

100 mm for a basstrap, il must be very optimistic.
Old 9th April 2018
  #10
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol303 View Post
Sounds plausible, but I'd be cautious and double-check opinion here before basing your decisions (and/or spending) on that theory, just in case. I'm certainly not an expert in acoustics, so I can't confirm either way.

I live in the UK, where it's very rare to find a domestic property that isn't brick or concrete built. I assume your building is a wooden construction? If so, it may be that the walls of the room are still capable of reflecting a significant amount of low end frequencies (i.e. enough to warrant bass traps), depending on thickness and density of wood.

Cue this forum's mantra of "take some measurements"; it's the only way to be sure
Thanks. I will be testing in the next few weeks. I need to move some gear down first. The house is all wood and vinyl siding. It is one story, 10 miles from the main road. It has two layers of R30 pink insulation in the attic. I have been researching bass trapping for the last 9 months. I want to see the test results before investing any money.

I just finished building 12, 2 x 4 panels using 1 x 6 and 2" thick Roxaul 60. You can hear the difference these made, and I still need to hang the two on the ceiling, by clicking here.
Old 9th April 2018
  #11
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
as has already been explained several times, measurements in a reverberation chamber are unusable: not reproducible and valid only in the room where the measurement was made.

I don't understand why the bob golds page continue to be posted !!

100 mm for a basstrap, il must be very optimistic.
Are you saying that these figures are only related to that room and have no bearing for comparisons for other rooms? If so, I will quit using them for reference.
Old 9th April 2018
  #12
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana_T. View Post
Are you saying that these figures are only related to that room and have no bearing for comparisons for other rooms? If so, I will quit using them for reference.

the measures performed in an impedance tube (where is measured the gaz flow resistivity) is the only way to have measurement non dependent of the initials conditions.

And measures perfomed in reverberant room are biaised by the edge effect. Edge effect or diffraction who substract sound reflection to the mic and strongly increase the absorption.

but the challenge is to find the gaz flow resistivity values of the fiber or the wool.

you have the acousticmodelling web site to simulate your panel with GFR value of course.
Old 9th April 2018
  #13
Deleted User
Guest
Thanks!
Old 9th April 2018
  #14
Gear Guru
Steady

I do not disagree dino. But I do think that some context will explain why bob golds work is useful, and that very strict interpretations of theory can lead to false conclusions.

An Impedance Tube test is Normal Incidence only, intrinsically. This is not representative of what happens in real rooms. It is a worst case scenario, intrinsically pessimistic rather than realistic.

While bigger is almost invariably better, 100mm Traps have been proven effective in common usage. They have edges.
Alpha 0.85 in the 125Hz Octave.
They exceed this dramatically in Corners. Neither Reverb Room nor Kundt Tube measure this bonus.
Nor does the PAC include it. I don't know if the PAC uses a Constant speed of sound, but if so, Palookaville, as sound is up to 4 times slower in fibre.

Reverb Room Measurements are typically not specified below 100Hz because of the variability of the Actual rooms.
They have to be vast to do LF to any reasonable level of accuracy.
BUT, they are all Reverb Rooms, defined and certified. As such I suggest they are useful for comparing how real materials reduce reverberation by absorption, in Real Rooms.

Q 4 Avare

Area of treatment is not often directly spoken of. A thick corner trap may well have impressive predicted absorption, but 12-20 100mm Traps will do well also.

After all that positivism, a word of caution Dana. Many of us here have a minimum recommendation of 100mm Fibre plus 100 Airgap, and typically 20 or more of these to have significant effect in the now fairly typical domestic Control Room.

DD
Old 9th April 2018
  #15
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
I do not disagree dino. But I do think that some context will explain why bob golds work is useful, and that very strict interpretations of theory can lead to false conclusions.

An Impedance Tube test is Normal Incidence only, intrinsically. This is not representative of what happens in real rooms. It is a worst case scenario, intrinsically pessimistic rather than realistic.

While bigger is almost invariably better, 100mm Traps have been proven effective in common usage. They have edges.
Alpha 0.85 in the 125Hz Octave.
They exceed this dramatically in Corners. Neither Reverb Room nor Kundt Tube measure this bonus.
Nor does the PAC include it. I don't know if the PAC uses a Constant speed of sound, but if so, Palookaville, as sound is up to 4 times slower in fibre.

Reverb Room Measurements are typically not specified below 100Hz because of the variability of the Actual rooms.
They have to be vast to do LF to any reasonable level of accuracy.
BUT, they are all Reverb Rooms, defined and certified. As such I suggest they are useful for comparing how real materials reduce reverberation by absorption, in Real Rooms.

Q 4 Avare

Area of treatment is not often directly spoken of. A thick corner trap may well have impressive predicted absorption, but 12-20 100mm Traps will do well also.

After all that positivism, a word of caution Dana. Many of us here have a minimum recommendation of 100mm Fibre plus 100 Airgap, and typically 20 or more of these to have significant effect in the now fairly typical domestic Control Room.

DD
For the reverberant room, there are different visions between pro. For have been deception with mineral wool having beautiful measurements at 100hz - in reality, all under 100 hz is reflected:. Alpharock - my point of view is to follow the anti reverberant room.
Old 9th April 2018
  #16
Gear Guru
Differences

Certified Reverb Rooms are not trivial, and while they do not comply to standards below 100Hz, this is because for the usual purposes, Building Acoustics, they do not need to. In reality Riverbank and other venerable institutions provide useful data much lower. Absolute levels aside, clearly such spaces are capable of detecting the Dampened Membrane Resonance of 703 straddling corners. Acoustics Forum • View topic - Studiotips Corner Absorber

Both Rev Room and Impedance tube measurements are not directly applicable to our Acoustically Small Rooms. Real room measurements make more sense to me. Rigid fiberglass density tests
DD
Old 9th April 2018
  #17
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Certified Reverb Rooms are not trivial, and while they do not comply to standards below 100Hz, this is because for the usual purposes, BuildingAcoustics, they do not need to. In reality Riverbank and other venerable institutions provide useful data much lower. Absolute levels aside, clearly such spaces are capable of detecting the Dampened Membrane Resonance of 703 straddling corners. Acoustics Forum • View topic - Studiotips Corner Absorber

Both Rev Room and Impedance tube measurements are not directly applicable to our Acoustically Small Rooms. Real room measurements make more sense to me. Rigid fiberglass density tests
DD
The ethan winer measurement is the worst exemple you can show.
A measure in a particular room can not be applied in another rooms.
Old 9th April 2018
  #18
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Certified Reverb Rooms are not trivial, and while they do not comply to standards below 100Hz, this is because for the usual purposes, Building Acoustics, they do not need to. In reality Riverbank and other venerable institutions provide useful data much lower. Absolute levels aside, clearly such spaces are capable of detecting the Dampened Membrane Resonance of 703 straddling corners. Acoustics Forum • View topic - Studiotips Corner Absorber

Both Rev Room and Impedance tube measurements are not directly applicable to our Acoustically Small Rooms. Real room measurements make more sense to me. Rigid fiberglass density tests
DD

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
The ethan winer measurement is the worst exemple you can show.
A measure in a particular room can not be applied in another rooms.
I respect both of your opinions as it would be like me taking a knife to a gun fight to challenge either one of your opinions or expertise. This is why people waste thousands of dollars, reading post in audio forums. Do it my way, no do it my way. Your are wrong, no you are wrong. Myself, I will do what I have always done. Do my own research and make the best decision I can make. The bottom line is all I have to do is please the person cutting me the check for my services. There is no other opinion that really matters. Now, I am going to unsubscribe to this post as it seems to offer no more value to me.
Old 9th April 2018
  #19
Gear Guru
Truth

It is regrettable that people make seemingly contradictory and adversarial posts. It casts doubt and intended help, while contribution nothing positive.
I call it the 'two level thing' i.e. Some here on GS want to discuss the finer points of Professional Measurement, Theory, Text Book Stuff etc. Others want advice on what fibre or fabric to buy.

It will clearly be news to some, but Jules many years ago wrote that his intended ethos for HIS forum was ' a couple or bunch of mates chatting over the days activity over a pint after work'

Pedantically, dino is not incorrect, nor is Ethan Winer, nor me.
And to use words like 'worst example' is blatantly disrespectful of practicing professionals. Typically done anonymously, with no credentials.

Absurdly Pedantically, it is true that adhering to absolute scientific standards, one cannot extrapolate from one small room to another. It is also true that the Kund tube nor Building Acoustics Reverb Rooms do not give results pertaining to Small Room Acoustics. The attached file will suggest otherwise.

Conclusion? None.

I think let common sense prevail. The commercial manufacturers use 60-100KG fibre.
The MHOA shows no difference in absorption of thin panel absorbers over a 4:1 range of densities.

@Skol, you are welcome. I think Drytherm is a good choice for further 8" treatments. I would not rebuild the existing 4" ones, but if you plan doing more I would recommend going denser. The damped membrane effect is significant.
@Dana, your panels as seen in the other thread will work fine. Any of them will have a vastly increased LF effect in corners.

DD
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Playing-with-baffles.pdf (572.7 KB, 32 views)

Last edited by DanDan; 9th April 2018 at 08:40 PM..
Old 9th April 2018
  #20
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
@Skol, you are welcome. I think Drytherm is a good choice for further 8" treatments. I would not rebuild the existing 4" ones, but if you plan doing more I would recommend going denser.
Cheers Dan; noted.

And just to say that I personally enjoy both levels of the ‘two level thing’: picking up some of the textbook theory where possible and gleaning recommendations on the more immediate practical, decision-making stuff.

Gearslutz is invaluable for such advice; you and others here do us a great service and the debate is always insightful. If I could buy you a pint I would... perhaps when 3D printers have advanced to enable web-based pint buying (I can but dream)
Old 9th April 2018
  #21
Gear Guru
Cheers

Ditto on the two levels, but unfortunately people seem to get cross and adversarial. I have made friends here with some of the best Acousticians in the world. Learned so much, often by asking deliberately simple questions to tease out high level debate. Too often though such threads get dragged down.
Why point the mic at the ceiling?
DD
Old 9th April 2018
  #22
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana_T. View Post
I respect both of your opinions as it would be like me taking a knife to a gun fight to challenge either one of your opinions or expertise. This is why people waste thousands of dollars, reading post in audio forums. Do it my way, no do it my way. Your are wrong, no you are wrong. Myself, I will do what I have always done. Do my own research and make the best decision I can make. The bottom line is all I have to do is please the person cutting me the check for my services. There is no other opinion that really matters. Now, I am going to unsubscribe to this post as it seems to offer no more value to me.
A forum is not a place where whatever can be written because people could read this. I was one of this people and i failed my first acoustic treatment.

In the real life, it's impossible to have absorption greater than 1 or 100 %.
A process of measurement giving absorption greater than one is wrong. 125 % is common with the reverberant chamber process.
Some pro doesn't have problems with that. Me yes and i don't understand why they promote a wrong process.
Old 9th April 2018
  #23
Gear Guru
Promotion

Quote:
A forum is not a place where whatever can be written because people could read this

In the real life, it's impossible to have absorption greater than 1 or 100 %.
A process of measurement giving absorption greater than one is wrong. 125 % is common with the reverberant chamber process.
Some pro doesn't have problems with that. Me yes and i don't understand why they promote a wrong process.
Nobody is promoting anything, but somebody is definitely dissing. I appreciate that that the efforts are probably intended to warn people to beware of the limits of Reverberant Chambers testing. Fine, it was never intended to address real LF. They were/are mostly intended for Building Acoustics, i.e. speech and TV sound passing through walls, Sound Power of Domestic appliances etc. I would similarly caution Kundt's Tube testing due to it's worst case Normal Incidence and size issues. Also Free Online Prediction engines partly based on Empirical data from the previous suggests fruit of the poisoned tree. All are very useful IMO, but like any Tool, all are Limited or Flawed. So it's down to those using the Tools knowing their capabilities and limits. All of which has been discussed to death around here many times. I and many find bobgolds work is useful and valid and I think it should not be slighted or dissed. Ditto EW's test, Reverb Chambers, Kundt's Tube, and Demetris Calculator.

I think it might be useful to bring up the 'two level' concept again. Quite often the term RT60 will be used. Someone will interject 'RT60 was defined in the context of Auditoriums and such, it is inappropriate in Small Room Acoustics'. Well, the people who appreciate this distinction already know it, so no benefit to them. Self serving in fact. The other level, new to acoustics, will be utterly baffled as to why it was mentioned by say a Pro here , contradicted by another, and why REW and FuzzMeasure and myriad (mis) use it. The two levels seem like Oil and Water. Emulsion is difficult and needs to be attempted with care and respect.

DD

Last edited by DanDan; 10th April 2018 at 02:35 PM..
Old 10th April 2018
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
A forum is not a place where whatever can be written because people could read this. I was one of this people and i failed my first acoustic treatment.

In the real life, it's impossible to have absorption greater than 1 or 100 %.
A process of measurement giving absorption greater than one is wrong. 125 % is common with the reverberant chamber process.
Some pro doesn't have problems with that. Me yes and i don't understand why they promote a wrong process.
Absorbtion panels for early reflection

At what depth does fiberglass bat insulation become the better choice over rock wool?

Last edited by Jens Eklund; 10th April 2018 at 06:58 AM..
Old 11th April 2018
  #25
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana_T. View Post
As far as I know, low density is better for bass traps and high density is used for absorption/controlling slapback.
This is true only if you are talking about thick bass traps and thinner panels. Some people call a 4" thick panel a bass trap. Low density fibre will perform worse at that thickness. On the other hand, 4" of low density fibre will certainly handle slap echo.
Quote:
Unless you are surrounded by concrete, you may get better results by doing nothing and letting the base escape the room.
Absolutely not. A single layer of drywall is all that is needed to cause severe issues in low frequency response. Open doorways certainly can alleviate some specific sources of interference, but a rear doorway isn't going to fix the awful peaks and dips caused by the out of phase reflections from your front corner LF build up for example. A single layer of drywall only means you don't have as steep a hill to climb where sub frequencies are concerned.

Quote:
I will try and find the post that really changed my line of thinking on this subject. I think @Glenn Kuras was a part of this discussion as well.
That's an unusual thread to have changed your mind. And Glenn's reply had nothing to do with whether bass traps are needed in typical drywall rooms. He is absolutely an advocate of bass traps in such rooms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
The ethan winer measurement is the worst exemple you can show.
A measure in a particular room can not be applied in another rooms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus View Post
as has already been explained several times, measurements in a reverberation chamber are unusable: not reproducible and valid only in the room where the measurement was made.

I don't understand why the bob golds page continue to be posted !!
Bob's page and Ethan's test were both posted for the same (logical) reason.

They're not useless and absolutely are indicative of the comparative trends we see in porous absorption of different densities, which is why they both are saying the same thing. The primary thing that comparative measurements rely on is testing the different items in identical conditions, which was the case for both Bob & Ethan's testing.

It's not surprising at all to see OC 701-703-705 performing worst to best in that order in a 3" thick panel. It's quite easy to see useful corroboration in those measurements.
Old 11th April 2018
  #26
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
This is true only if you are talking about thick bass traps and thinner panels. Some people call a 4" thick panel a bass trap. Low density fibre will perform worse at that thickness. On the other hand, 4" of low density fibre will certainly handle slap echo. Absolutely not. A single layer of drywall is all that is needed to cause severe issues in low frequency response. Open doorways certainly can alleviate some specific sources of interference, but a rear doorway isn't going to fix the awful peaks and dips caused by the out of phase reflections from your front corner LF build up for example. A single layer of drywall only means you don't have as steep a hill to climb where sub frequencies are concerned.

That's an unusual thread to have changed your mind. And Glenn's reply had nothing to do with whether bass traps are needed in typical drywall rooms. He is absolutely an advocate of bass traps in such rooms.

Bob's page and Ethan's test were both posted for the same (logical) reason.

They're not useless and absolutely are indicative of the comparative trends we see in porous absorption of different densities, which is why they both are saying the same thing. The primary thing that comparative measurements rely on is testing the different items in identical conditions, which was the case for both Bob & Ethan's testing.

It's not surprising at all to see OC 701-703-705 performing worst to best in that order in a 3" thick panel. It's quite easy to see useful corroboration in those measurements.
As far as you quoting me, your comments are rubbish. Since each situation has its own set of parameters and will require different approaches, your guesstimate is no better then mine. 300,000 articles on the www where everyone is telling every one else, why they are doing it wrong. The room will dictate the final outcome.
Old 11th April 2018
  #27
Gear Guru
Bad Result

Everything nms has written is true accurate and with good intent, i.e. to clear up misunderstandings. There is nothing whatsoever controversial in his post.
Dana you have been misled and confused.

DD
Old 11th April 2018
  #28
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Everything nms has written is true accurate and with good intent, i.e. to clear up misunderstandings. There is nothing whatsoever controversial in his post.
Dana you have been misled and confused.

DD
With all due respect, I can assure you after 9 months of research, I am not confused. However, I have been mislead. First of all, it amazes me that companies that do this for a living, and I believe that you may either own one or are employed by one, can not explain yourselves to someone unless they have a PHD in audio physics.

I went the route of contacting the companies that do this for a living, that can solve my problem for $6,000.00 to $9,000.00 dollars. I did the diagrams, listed the equipment only to get a bid that no one could consume, other then the ones providing the information.

Funny how I went through a company and spent $159.00 for 12 Roxul 60 2 foot by 4 foot pieces, and put them in a 1 x 6 frame. When I ran my REW test, all I had was a 3db gain in the 40 to 48hz range along with a 6db gain between the 60hz range. Everything else was as flat as one could get in a 12.6 x 10.6 room with 8 foot ceilings. No bass traps whatsoever! But then again, I am not in the business of selling them.

Now before you accuse me of not having the intelligence of being able to read or understand the results of my tests, you boys ain't the only ones who know how to read. I am willing to bet that 99.9% of the people in this community are concerned with improving their spare bedroom, such as myself. Your figures on a 1.8 million dollar studio has no place in this conversation. First and foremost, we simply do not have the space and we all with fail the so called "1,500 cubic requirement".
Old 11th April 2018
  #29
Gear Guru
Que?

Dana, I am having difficulty in determining what you are trying to say. Clearly you are having similar difficulties
Quote:
it amazes me that companies that do this for a living, and I believe that you may either own one or are employed by one, can not explain yourselves to someone unless they have a PHD in audio physics.
Whatever it is you are on about, it certainly isn't acoustics, and this is not your thread and much of what you have posted is blatant nonsense. e.g.
Quote:
you may get better results by doing nothing and letting the base escape the room.
DD
Old 11th April 2018
  #30
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Dana, I am having difficulty in determining what you are trying to say. Clearly you are having similar difficulties

Whatever it is you are on about, it certainly isn't acoustics, and this is not your thread.

DD
I agree 100% and it does not belong to you as well. And yes, it is 100% acoustic. You must agree that if your room is less then 1500 cubic feet, there is no way you will be able to do as it should as far as doing professional mixing, correct? Or here again, is everyone else wrong?
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