|
Post by musicfirst on Jan 4, 2017 4:35:58 GMT
Hi Guys Here's an interesting approach to framing panels and traps using thin gauge steel drywall bead instead of finger pine or MDF. The nice thing is that this method exposes more of the sides of the panels, but perhaps at the expense of more 'ringing' in the steel beads themselves. Any thoughts on what provides the best solution? Thanks Kerry www.radford.edu/~shelm/acoustics/bass-traps.html
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jan 4, 2017 5:17:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by musicfirst on Jan 4, 2017 16:04:13 GMT
OK, maybe ringing is not the right term. Wouldn't the steel surfaces reflect a wider spectrum of frequencies than a similar geometry made of wood?
|
|
|
Post by rock on Jan 4, 2017 19:45:09 GMT
Ethan's Realtraps use a custom metal frame and he has had lab tests done. Metal is not necessarily a problem so you will be OK using that method as long as your joints are solid. (There is an EXTREMELY outside chance that a loose connection might rattle under the right conditions)
Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jan 5, 2017 8:48:00 GMT
The frame in this design takes up 1/4 the surface area of each 4" panel if my math is correct.
Some sound will be reflected. Exactly which range of frequencies is not known.
Some energy will be lost too though because the frame is attached to a damping surface.
In a typical wooden frame, not only will less of your panel be exposed to air unobstructed, there will be more frame material to reflect.
Plus the wooden frame will be more massive and thus more reflective than the thin, perforated bead.
-m
-math follows:
The bead is 1.25".
That's 2.5" x two frames per 144" perimeter 2.5(288)=720in2 per 4x2' panel.
That's not including the holes in the metal.
In contrast, a 4" thick panel has an original surface area of 24"x48"=1152 x 2 faces = 2304" + the side edges 2(48x4)=384 + the short edges 2(24x4)=192 yielding 2880in2.
|
|