|
|
Post by jarery on Apr 9, 2016 16:53:29 GMT
If I decide to make corner bass traps, since shipping to Canada and currency exchange rate at the moment are terrible, I have only a few options.
Roxul Safe n Sound is available locally, which is about the only one I can find.
Cutting each 24" x 48" x 3" batt into triangles to make a corner bass trap, I can make either of two sizes.
Each batt into 4 pieces, 24 x 24 x 34
Each batt into 8 pieces, 17 x 17 x 24
And then stacking the triangles up 112" tall, wrapped and in a frame of course.
I know that bigger is better in this case, and the roxul cost is double for the large one, but what would the performance difference be between the two ? Would the smaller size, if put into 2 corners make a noticeable difference, and the larger just a bit better, or could one expect to have the larger make twice the difference?
Has any testing been done?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Apr 10, 2016 17:06:45 GMT
If cost is a concern, make 4-inch (or 6-inch) thick panels instead of "chunk" style traps that fill the entire corner. Treating four corners with 24-inch wide flat panels is much better than treating only two corners with 24-inch wide chunks. And both are better than 17 inch wide traps no matter how the material is arranged.
--Ethan
|
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Apr 10, 2016 20:49:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jarery on Apr 11, 2016 17:36:53 GMT
Thanks
I have its absorption coefficients form the manufacturers site, but that's a great link !
Cost is not my primary driver in this endeavor, but that said I also don't wish to throw away many for minimal returns. I found an online multilayer calculator but I'm not familiar with it and the math enough to be sure of my results when using it, especially on a corner as it appears designed for flat wall panels.
My question was what to expect of the performance between the two sizes of a corner bass trap. I know larger will perform better. Is 17x17x24 large enough to do anything or is 24x24x34 required before measurable results can be achieved? One is twice the cost of the other, but what can one expect for the performance of the large one compared to the half cost one.
As an example, If I have a 20db null/peak and a 17" corner trap reduces it by 3db, and a 24" corner trap will reduce it by 3.3db then I have probably reached the point of diminishing returns with the 17". A 10% gain for 2x the cost I would be better served by putting the money to other treatments.
This is my first time doing any room treatments, first time using REW, first time learning about audio engineering, So this was the type of experience I was hoping to tap into with my questions. Just trying to set my expectations and limit my costs to best bang for the buck.
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelSpiers on Apr 11, 2016 21:48:42 GMT
Hi,
These are good questions you are asking but I don't think you will get the answers you require. This is because each room is acoustically different and reacts in a different way when acoustically treated.
Therefore the trick is to experiment with your room before you cut up your panels and before you make any wooden frames.
Luckily you already have the ideal panels to do this experimenting (1200x600x75mm) and all you need do is lean them in the corners of the room (either on the floor or on a table to see the difference height makes) until you get a sound you are happy with. The panels don't need to be fixed in place and gaps around the panels/walls make no difference either.
Also try leaning them against the back wall - maybe two panels thick - a lot of room problems can be solved by very thick treatment on the wall behind your mixing position.
Best Regards
Nigel Spiers
NZ Acoustics Ltd
|
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Apr 12, 2016 16:28:49 GMT
I don't think 17 inches across the face is wide enough for a bass trap. It's all a matter of degree: The larger the traps, and the more you have, the better controlled the bass becomes and the lower in frequency the benefit extends. It's really that simple.
--Ethan
|
|
|
|
Post by jarery on Apr 21, 2016 20:13:39 GMT
I don't think 17 inches across the face is wide enough for a bass trap. It's all a matter of degree: The larger the traps, and the more you have, the better controlled the bass becomes and the lower in frequency the benefit extends. It's really that simple. --Ethan The smaller of the two traps wouldn't be 17" across the face, they would be 24". The 17" dimension is the two shorter sides placed along the wall faces. Or are these the faces your referring to? I realize the larger the trap, the more effect it has and the lower the frequency it can effect, that was never in question. My question was if changing a chunk style trap from 24" face to a 34" face would be 2x the effect as its 2x the cost, or would it be a minor incremental change. |
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Apr 23, 2016 15:52:01 GMT
Ah, okay, 24 inches across the front face is good.
I never measured 34 versus 24 inches, for a panel or filled corner. My guess is 34 inches will absorb 1.5 times more because its surface is (about) 1.5 times larger.
--Ethan
|
|
|
|
Post by jarery on Apr 24, 2016 0:04:29 GMT
I never measured 34 versus 24 inches, for a panel or filled corner. My guess is 34 inches will absorb 1.5 times more because its surface is (about) 1.5 times larger. Oh that makes good sense. Thanks ! |
|
