|
Post by Hexspa on Mar 30, 2017 2:43:15 GMT
I'm about to design new broadband absorbers.
I'm going to be using fluffy.
In another thread Ethan talked about 3' thicknesses in high end facilities; that's beyond my budget.
We advise anything thicker than 8" to be fluffy.
We say an 8" rigid panel absorbs to one octave lower than a 4" rigid panel.
Does that same linear ratio apply to fluffy too?
Do we know how fluffy compares to rigid in terms of slope?
I'm assuming fluffy can be air gapped too.
Basically I'm deciding whether to use 24" (most unlikely), 15" (most likely) or 12" (second most likely) thickness in my new fluffy panels.
Does that last 3" with fluffy make much of a difference? Obviously with rigid it would if the difference was between 3" and 6" rigid panels.
I don't know the new room's dimensions but I'm curious what the opinion of the crowd might be.
I want to use 15" R19 and make it double wide - essentially 47x30x15" soffits.
Since I want these to be modular (never know when I'll move again), most will receive FRK and some won't.
As usual, I'll try to keep this thread updated with info as the project progresses. I'm virtually 100% sure I'll be building more treatment.
Replies welcome.
-m
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Apr 4, 2017 21:20:32 GMT
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. And probably. Maybe after you buy a bunch of fluffy you can do some tests with REW and show us what you found? That would be awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Apr 6, 2017 0:37:16 GMT
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. And probably. Maybe after you buy a bunch of fluffy you can do some tests with REW and show us what you found? That would be awesome. Anything particular we want to know? -m
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Apr 10, 2017 17:01:31 GMT
Yes, we want to know which works better. You can model your tests after these: Density Report
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on May 6, 2017 2:32:53 GMT
I'm in the new place.
Based on it's size (approx 8x24.75x14.33 - 2836ft3) I'm hypothesizing I'll need only 8-9 more panels to treat my room.
After those are built I'll be happy to do a test, if somewhat limited, to compare and contrast 4" rigid panels vs. 1' fluffy in identical locations.
I may even be able to apply FRK but we'll see.
-m
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on May 6, 2017 17:29:36 GMT
I want to chronicle this process for posterity. It may or may not be the ideal progression but it's what I've got going: 1. Moved to new place (obviously) 2. Provisional setup - just to make sure all my equipment is working and ready for further testing. 3. Emptying room for initial measurements (where I'm currently at). 4. Initial measurements, response, waterfall and decay - close mic'd sub woofer, sub port, mains, mains woofer, mains port, LP: L mains, R mains, L+R mains, Sub only, L+R+Sub 5. ? ? ? 6. Profit
I'm following this guide www.hifizine.com/2011/06/bass-integration-guide-part-1/. The main thing I hope to get out of it is integrating complementary responses. Also, as mentioned previously, I hope to get a comparison of fluffy vs rigid in this room. Lastly, I want to see what kind of difference gapping super chunks makes. I recall Ethan saying that they do better flush in the corner but I want to see first hand what happens.
-m
|
|
|
Post by rock on May 6, 2017 22:17:41 GMT
Great! Really looking forward to seeing your results and comparisons.
I don't know if you're planning on this one but I wonder how 8" thick paper-faced fluffy would work for corner traps. It is sold in rolls or batts 24" wide and I imagine it could be hung lengthwise from the ceiling with a wood cleat (2x4, 1x2, 2x2 etc) attached across the corner on the ceiling and the paper facing stapled to the wood. I have never tired this but considering all the information we have it seems this may be an inexpensive and easy way to implement bass traps. If you have the resources, I hope you consider it for your tests.
Adding further to the above idea, the wall inside the corner could also have Fluffy hung vertically to help fill the space like a super chunk with the paper facing the wall (for stapling purposes) ... I know this may go against recommendations but paper facing is a good attachment material and being against the wall may not be detrimental.
Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on May 7, 2017 1:41:58 GMT
Hey rock thanks for participating in this thread.
I'm way too zoned out to digest what you just posted but I promise I'll go back to it when I'm fresh.
Just wanted to post a quick update before end of business over here.
Pretty much I've done through step 4 above.
Additionally, I tested three locations for both my mains and six locations for my sub.
I selected the closest position for the mains (41") and an elevated, right-of-center position for my sub.
These are provisional locations - essentially, the best position for each individual component.
Tomorrow I will do a full-system, empty room measurement followed by an attempt to "integrate" the responses so that they complement each other.
I might be somewhat limited in this, though, because I don't have a way to time-compensate any distance offsets.
Regardless, I think everyone here knows how to set up their speakers. I think it's really for the fluffy measurements for which we're all waiting.
Of course, in order to determine the effectiveness, I need to first get a raw, empty response with no treatment and that means I've got to dial in my speaker's locations.
Till tomorrow,
-m
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on May 7, 2017 2:24:32 GMT
Great! Really looking forward to seeing your results and comparisons. I don't know if you're planning on this one but I wonder how 8" thick paper-faced fluffy would work for corner traps. It is sold in rolls or batts 24" wide and I imagine it could be hung lengthwise from the ceiling with a wood cleat (2x4, 1x2, 2x2 etc) attached across the corner on the ceiling and the paper facing stapled to the wood. I have never tired this but considering all the information we have it seems this may be an inexpensive and easy way to implement bass traps. If you have the resources, I hope you consider it for your tests. Adding further to the above idea, the wall inside the corner could also have Fluffy hung vertically to help fill the space like a super chunk with the paper facing the wall (for stapling purposes) ... I know this may go against recommendations but paper facing is a good attachment material and being against the wall may not be detrimental. Cheers, Rock Ok got it. So, if I understand correctly, you want 8x24" FRK free-hanging both solo and in conjunction with 4" rigid? Well, between you and Ethan, I'm starting to think this might be a job for Kickstarter. I was planning to buy 23" R19 (6.5" thick) and cut it into 1' thickness then stack it to 47" tall panels similar to my super chunks. I end up with nine units that way. They recently raised the price to about $86/bag (133.xx ft2) but comes with a $20 utility rebate until December. But if any of you are set on getting some good measurements - I'll do my best - maybe we can work together. I can auction off the extra panels after I'm through. There's just no way I can afford to build more than I need at this time, for better or worse. So, there's that. Thanks for the suggestions, though. If we can't make a deal then for sure this thread will be valuable for someone who might be so capable. -m
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on May 7, 2017 19:58:50 GMT
I did four sets of measurements today: with and without treatment. The treatment is with nine super chunks (ea 47"hx31"Wx23"d) at my new provisional LP and speaker placement. The measurements were: No treatment, chunks in corners, chunks with 2' gap and chunks at 1/4 wavelength of my various dimensions - with the exception of two chunks, which during the latter, kind of got stuck around 4' toward the back wall - actually probably where they belong. I'll post in the aforementioned order. Basically it looks like you get the most benefit by just putting the chunks in the room. After that it seems more about tailoring your response to your needs. However, I just completed these measurements and wanted to share to get more eyeballs on them. Lastly, I offset the responses wherever possible to make the graphs more comparable. Here we go: No Treatment, Full SPL, 1/3 Octave Smoothing: No Treatment, Bass SPL, No Smoothing:
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on May 7, 2017 20:00:02 GMT
No Treatment, Waterfall: No Treatment, Decay:
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on May 7, 2017 20:01:44 GMT
Chunks in corners, Full SPL, 1/3 Octave Smoothing Applied: Chunks in corners, Bass SPL, No Smoothing:
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on May 7, 2017 20:02:44 GMT
Chunks in Corners, Waterfall: Chunks in Corners, Decay:
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on May 7, 2017 20:05:33 GMT
2' gap (two directions), Full SPL, 1/3 Octave Smoothing Applied: 2' gap (two directions), Bass SPL, No Smoothing:
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on May 7, 2017 20:06:39 GMT
2' gap (two directions), Waterfall: 2' gap (two directions), Decay:
|
|