|
Post by musicfirst on Dec 27, 2016 18:18:52 GMT
Hi Guys
For my first post, I am thinking of some DIY panels for my stereo room and considering 3" material framed with 1x4 finger pine and covered in Silver burlap.
My stereo has six 12" subs corner loaded and produces significant usable bass down to well below 20 Hz
I am trying to find the material with the best recommended absorption characteristics for this project. I am hoping to put six of them on the walls with a 3" standoff, and either three of them on the center of my peaked ceiling, or three of them on either side of the peak.
I see there are two types of contenders: one has SEC values close to or greater than one in frequencies above 250 Hz, but relatively poor performance below, such as the Corning 703 unfaced. Others, such as the Roxul Rockboard, have a flatter performance curve with better performance below 250 but performance below one across the upper frequencies.
Corning 705 FRK has been the reining champ here, but I have found little info thus far on the Roxul material.
What are your experiences? What do you consider, inch for inch, the top 3 materials for absorption in this application?
Thanks
Kerry
|
|
|
Post by rock on Dec 28, 2016 1:23:45 GMT
Hi Kerry,
When constrained to 3" thickness, your 3 material choices will have only marginal differences but for bass traps in non reflection areas, you need to use FRK or an applied membrane. From another angle, please consider that the thicker the absorber gets, the less the density matters AND the more effective at LOWER frequencies (but for bass traps in non reflection areas, always use a membrane front surface). So, over 8 inches, low density "fluffy pink" is about as effective as higher density rockwool or rigid 703/705 etc.
My question to you is: Why is your choice 3" when thicker will provide better LF performance?
Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by musicfirst on Dec 28, 2016 16:05:48 GMT
Hi rock
Thanks for the response. 3 or 4 inches is the most I am comfortable with for wall and ceiling panels. For corner bass traps I am considering construction that uses triangular batting that goes completely into the corner and was planning on using the same high density material as I am for the wall panels; however, lower density material is a possibility for the bass traps. I was planning to build floor to ceiling traps in 3 stackable modules with 24" faces. Is using lower density material for this thick construction better?
Thanks again.
Kerry
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Dec 28, 2016 20:20:29 GMT
Just to add to Rock's advice, 20 Hz is pretty low, so you'll need a lot of traps. Of course, your room might not have a problem that low! My SVS sub is flat to 18 Hz, but my lowest peak is around 45 Hz related to the 25 foot length. Either was, if you have 24-inch wide traps, and they're 3 inches thick plus an FRK type facing, and spaced off the wall 3 more inches, and you have enough of them, you'll be able to get good results for sure.
As for density, at 3 inches thick you want high density. Lower density is good once you get to 8 to 12 inches thick or even thicker.
--Ethan
|
|
|
Post by rock on Dec 28, 2016 21:13:01 GMT
OK, so the panels that are for refection points (areas), don't use FRK or any other membrane on the front (or back). For the corner traps pink is way cheaper than the more expensive hi density stuff and it's only slightly better so Ethan says over 8" thick use fluffy. I have never seen comparison measurements for solid filled bass traps (super chunks) fluffy vs hi density but there are diyers that have used higher density but I don't know WHAT the difference is. I guess if you can afford it, use hi density.
Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Dec 29, 2016 4:04:39 GMT
My super chunks are 31.5 across the face and only about the center third is thicker than 8" - 15" actually at the apex.
Honestly, you could probably make some with the center third fluffy and the outer thirds rigid to get better results than pure fluffy.
8lb mineral wool is roughly equivalent to OC 703.
-m
|
|