Mc.
The way you challenge gik and realtraps I think it would be fair to meet Ethans request.
Would be interesting.

Even if you seem to have very clear intentions in this thread..

Hi
You have to be more specific, you are saying that my Window time is to short but I hope you mean that it is too long and you want to see 300ms. I'm I correct here?

Have you lookt at my link?

Thanks

No, I mean window time. There are two time settings for a waterfall plot, the overall time span back to front, and the "window" time which affects the low frequency resolution much like the gate time for a normal response graph. Your Window time seems to be 50 ms or less (guessing) based on the shape of the "mountains" as they come forward. With a window that short the finest resolution is 20 Hz, which is equal to 1/3 octave averaging at 60 Hz. With a window time of 300 ms the bandwidth resolution is 3.3 Hz, showing much more closely the true extent of peaks, nulls, and ringing.

You mean the other thread showing your room? Yes, briefly, but I don't have time to read it all. I did notice the same too-low resolution was used for those graphs.

--Ethan

If modal frequencies were the only ones that benefit from treatment in a room, I might agree with you. Most rooms benefit from a reduction in reverb time -- provided that reduction is even, at all frequencies. Absorption is by far the most cost-effective way to achieve these results.

I do agree with you that over-absorption in the high end is all-too-common when people treat their rooms, and is something to be avoided. Again, the key is balance.

I've never used RealTraps for its not in my budget.
But I have used the Auralex stuff & feel its throwing $$ away.
Purchased GIK Roomkit 1 in December & its 100X better than Auralex foam.
I put an order in last week for 2 pairs of 244 Bass Traps.
You can't go wrong with GIK Acoustics for the service/quality/price.
Peep the comments page on their site.
GIK Acoustics customer review page.

It amuses me to see mc challengeing people in here like this and just shutting up.

I would call it weak.
But I had a beer so..
I would just call it weak.

Hi
Here comes the unsmoothed DFT measurements according to ARTA. I am just showing to 200Hz, above this freq is irrelevant. Just interested in the lower freq response as meantioned before.

Downstairs

This is somthing like Realtraps video and there is not much difference in the response.

Upstairs

This is even better....

For the CSD plots, I still really don't understand what you are after Ethan, but you could read the ARTA's user manual and tell me how you would like to set the parameters for the CSD and I would be gladly to provide it for you.

It has nothing to do with weakness, I have a life too and have been busy.

Thanks

I own both real traps and I own the gik stuff.

I have 3 real traps and

2 tri corners and 2 244 or whatever big traps from gik.

I also have 2 msr spring traps and a buttload of 703 and a couple of those little tube traps.

I cant really say hey this is better in my room as I'm really only using my ears but I will say that the realtraps look and feel more solid and they work well on my sides they really helped focus the sound in that spot.

I have the giks tri traps in the front corners and the msr springs with the mondo ones on top of them in the rear.

If I wanted my room to look sexy above and beyond anything using these products it would be realtraps and the msr all the way.

But the giks do work well.

There you go, and a response span of 15 dB between the worst peak and null is definitely good. I'm sure your room sounds wonderful. In my Hearing is Believing video we managed to get the response deviation with 10 dB below 200 Hz. Graphs below. And that was in a much smaller (16 x 11.5 x 8 feet) room where peaks, nulls, and ringing are typically much more difficult to deal with than in a room like yours.

I don't know ARTA and, like you, I'm very busy. Too busy to learn software I have no intention of ever using. I'm sure there are window settings in there somewhere that let you specify the various parameters.

--Ethan

I think I remember you saying at one time that if you can get within a 15db span you are doing pretty well. Good stuff Ethan.

Ethan, please explain why you have 600 ms in the video and 300 ms in this waterfall example. It can't be the same case.

I do not have a span of 15 dB between 20-100 Hz(upstairs room) and the most important thing here is I do not have any resonances below 100 Hz as well. Remember, I do not use visible broadband absorber in my room.

The problem in your graph is that the 40 Hz resonance hasen't been fixed with your product. I have asked you before, how do you proceed if I as a costumer want that problem to be resolved? What is your solution?

Thanks

It is the same measurement. I loaded the same data file into REW and set the graph parameters as posted. Though the colors are different too. heh If you compare the frequencies and peak and null amounts, you'll see they're exactly the same.

At this point I don't even know what you're trying to say. Without making me search back through dozens of past posts in other threads, did you show a high-resolution graph of the room you claim doesn't have a 15 dB span? Can you post it again here? And what do you mean by "visible?" Bass traps are bass traps, whether you can see them or not.

Well, "fixed" is a very strong word. The ringing peak around 40 Hz was brought down by 5 dB, and it's decay time was made much shorter, and its Q was also reduced which is equally important. This is very good for 6-inch thick broadband (not tuned) bass traps that aren't even straddling the corners. Don't forget this is a very small room, much smaller than the room you showed.

Even more, and thicker, traps. Loading all four wall-wall corners from floor to ceiling with RealTraps MegaTraps will improve 40 Hz quite a bit!

--Ethan

An article (aimed for the beginner, so not fully applicable in this thread) I wrote for hometoys.com recently address this "fixed" concept for small room acoustics in more detail. Basic summary: the 2 most basic truths about room acoustics are 1) There is no such thing as a perfect room, and 2) Every room can be improved with an intelligent treatment strategy.

HomeToys eMagazine Article - What Are the Characteristics of a Good-Sounding Room?

Hi,
You don't have to search thru threads just look at post 97 in this thread. This is unsmoothed(1/24oct) DFT measurement according to ARTA. Maybe it is time for you to read the user manual for ARTA before giving comments about any measurement, you are the expert here.

How can it be the same measurement when you have differen't z-scale in ms, the graphs schould be looking differently between 600ms and 300ms.

Visible traps for me is when you have roxull or fiberglass, or the like, covered in fabric. I don't have a single visible absorption in my upstairs room.

So, your solution is to put in some more thicker traps, but what I really want is only to treat that and only that 40Hz ringing(resonance). If this is the only solution you can give me, Well, now I am more convinced that you can't fix that 40Hz resonance. You just can't say for sure just by cover the corners with more thicker traps and say that the 40Hz will be solved, if this is the case then why haven't you been solving the problem in the first place. The only thing you are adding with your solution is killing the higher freq even more. I don't want that.

That's why i don't belive that you can solve the first axiell modal resonance in a small room just by using broadband absorption.

To use the name "Basstrap" is totally missleading. Use my example, change the name to "Visible Broadband Absorption" or VBA.

Thanks

I don't see a waterfall there. But the overall response looks very smooth, and I assume this is a large room? Again, I don't have time to chase all over this thread to learn the difference between your two rooms, which graph shows what, etc. Also, and this is critical: where exactly did you place the measuring microphone when you did your tests? Please post a photo of whichever room you're currently addressing, and draw an X at that spot. Or at least tell us, and say which other post your photo appears in.

Room measuring software like REW lets you adjust the display in a variety of ways. So one graph might have a front to back time span of 300 ms, and another might show 600 ms. But it's the same data. Maybe you need to read the REW manual. heh

Look, I understand that you're rightly proud of your setup and room. But physics is physics, and there's nothing you or anyone else can do to improve on high quality commercial bass traps. Do you really feel it's necessary to put down the efforts and products of others to bolster yourself?

This reminds me of the time a professional HT installer criticized a waterfall plot showing the excellent response and ringing in my living room setup. He posted a graph of response and ringing that he obviously measured with the microphone about a foot in front of the loudspeaker, offering that as proof of his room acoustics expertise. So I replied with the same. Mine was even better than his. heh

--Ethan

You know, I thought that graph looked suspicious, especially the two "screen caps" that had "unsmoothed" spelled differently from one to the other. heh

So I Googled ARTA and came up with a few representative response graphs, attached. These look like what I'm used to seeing for high-res room response. Versus the point-to-point straight lines in the lower frequencies of your graphs. It seems like you doctored those graphs.

--Ethan

I found this even better unsmoothed graph from another thread showing what they're supposed to look like. Sorry for the stoopidly large images. I didn't make these. heh

The bottom one is the response of his room?

Why? They've allready got names... Fibrous, porous, panel, membrane, Helmholtz and active absorbers. They are all sub-groups of the more ample terms Velocity Based and Pressure Based absorbtion.

Velocity based absorbers doesn't have to be "visible", you can cover them with something reflective if the desire is to preserve HF decay (provided that the absorber isn't located at an early reflection point). In any case, even if you've got visible velocity based absorbtion in your room, you wouldn't absorb more HF by making them thicker....



/Sören

Great eyes Ethan - I looked at those and totally missed that........

Rod

+1

Ethan,

Know you are getting really low as an character. Are you saying that I have fiddled with my graphs???? Is this all you can say for the moment.

The spelling you are refering to is the name I write to save the file. I can put Donald Duck there if it suites you.

You keep asking the same question where my waterfall plot is. It is in the link provided in this thread. Read it first before giving any comment.

Why are you showing the graph of the STEP program. I bet you don't even know that there is 3 available program in ARTA.

I know that it is not easy to get used to see a flat freq response below 100 Hz without any ringing. And the best part is that I don't have to use any of your product.

Thanks

Look, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. I already told you what's wrong with the waterfalls you posted. And the "unsmoothed" graph you posted is not possible for a room 14 x 14 x 8 feet unless you put the microphone right in front of the speaker. I notice you didn't answer my question about that.

Tell you what, email me your raw data files through the address on my home page, and I'll download the ARTA demo and show you what you're doing wrong:

Ethan Winer Home Page

--Ethan

Whats wrong with auralex ? & I'm I hearing that GIK & RealTraps are the best I kan get ?

Companies like Ethan's and ours use ridgid fiberglass or mineral wool in our products where Auralex uses pretty much all foam. I would never bash another company but not what we like to use. This is not Auralex foam but I just did a test of corner foam bass traps you see all over the internet. Here is the newsletter with the test results.
http://www.gikacoustics.com/news_020912.html

Mctwins, he's not saying that your room doesn't have excellent frequency response or that you don't know anything about absorption. All he's saying is the graph isn't providing an accurate look at your room. He's trying to help you, if anything, figure out the correct way to measure your room.

Neither do I, about pissing contest. Do you really read this thread. I have never said that I have 14*14*8 feet room. Wich waterfall are you refering to??? and what room???


To clarify about the dimension, here it goes again.

My upstairs room have 7*4.8*3 meters.

Do you really think that I am measuring in front of the speaker. The mic is 4 meters from the speaker, namely the listening pos.

I whant you to tell me what setting I have to do in ARTA to suite your requirement about my measurment. Then maybe I will think about sending any files.

Thanks

It seem to me like you get really insulted here. These people are only trying to help you. Constructive critisism...

Just send him the file, if he does anything sneaky with it you could show that in a heart beat. Why not send it?

To Glenn Kuras.

Gratulations with your 11000th post!
Last time we spoke it was 10000!