|
Post by Hexspa on May 24, 2016 22:38:31 GMT
Ethan, I remember watching a video you did in Doug's studio wherein I believe you talk about how 4-6" thick 703/5 traps affect low end. It was the one with balloons and an RTA. I know you did the 701/703/705 FRK comparison but I'm wondering - since these are verifiably effective in the low range, why does everyone talk about porous absorbers needing to operate at 1/4 wavelength (at maximum velocity) and hence be very thick? 1/4 wavelength of 32Hz is over 9ft! a 1/4 wavelength of 4' is nearabout 70Hz - that's supposing 2' of fluffy with a 2' air gap. So what's going on?
Also you advise toward broadband absorption and away from resonant absorbers in a small room - is there any place for a resonant absorber in a home studio?
Thanks,
-m
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on May 25, 2016 16:21:01 GMT
I can't tell you why people believe stuff that isn't true. Obviously absorbers two feet thick will absorb 30 Hz better than absorbers only two inches thick. And it's true that the theoretical best place for a porous absorber is 1/4 wavelength from a boundary. But it's not like it must be that far away to work at all, or that absorbing even 25 percent won't make a big difference. Absorbing only 25 percent improves a null from infinitely deep (in a cement room) to less than 18 dB deep.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on May 25, 2016 22:05:35 GMT
I can't tell you why people believe stuff that isn't true. Obviously absorbers two feet thick will absorb 30 Hz better than absorbers only two inches thick. And it's true that the theoretical best place for a porous absorber is 1/4 wavelength from a boundary. But it's not like it must be that far away to work at all, or that absorbing even 25 percent won't make a big difference. Absorbing only 25 percent improves a null from infinitely deep (in a cement room) to less than 18 dB deep. Makes sense. Sort of like, theoretically angling your fingers parallel with the frets is ideal but that didn't stop Hendrix - just get some meat on the strings. Thanks, -m
|
|