Btw, thanks for the reply Ethan.
This isn't intended as a direct assault on you or anyone else - though I'm aware that it might come across as such - I just want to catch up on a load of things that I would've posted as the thread developed, had I not been away for a few days. I should probably just let things lie as they seem to have reached a sort of logical conclusion in the thread but there are a number of things I want to query/comment on. There doesn't seem to be much point in starting a new thread as it all relates to this existing one but it is perhaps going off topic - for which I apologise.
however, there's NO such thing asa truly effective foam bass trap.
Until very recently I would've agreed 100% with that - it's a comment I've often made on this forum. More recently though, I've seen and heard some (not yet commercially available) foam corner traps that do work surprisingly well. And if the figures for the MegaLENRD are correct - and I've no reason to doubt them - there's another product that's really testing the accepted theory. Bums! So much for another of my accepted beliefs - wrong again! Though I still wouldn't say they're as efficient as most well built DIY glass/mineral wool corner traps and therefore perhaps represent limited value for money for anyone working on a tight budget. They would however be viable as a workable solution for someone to whom convenience is more important than ultimate cost, and who likes the appearance of sculpted foam (not really my taste). I guess they could always be hidden behind some fabric - but if you're going to do that, you might as well forget about the foam and save some money - assuming there's time.
> [Quoting Olivier] the minitraps are tuned where corner traps are not <
That's not true at all. MiniTraps and our newer, larger MondoTraps are both broadband absorbers. They do have a huge amount of absorption at low frequencies, and it may appear from the data at our site that they are tuned, but they are not.
I don't think I follow the plot here. Looking at the figures on the comparative graph the behaviour of the Minitrap is more akin to that of a tuned trap than a broadband absorber. Whilst it does clearly absorb across a much wider bandwidth than many "tuned" traps, it does exhibit a marked and quite steep response peak - much more marked than any of the other products under test. You've stated that the reduced absorbtion higher up the spectrum is deliberate and that's fine. All the other products tested also exhibit some degree of "tuned" response in their absorption peak at around 100Hz but imo this is more likely to be a function of their, and the MiniTrap's, common test setup/application across a corner rather than anything specific about the materials used in the products themselves (though the addition of a membrane, even a well damped one, generally will create a tendancy to a more "tuned"/peaky/resonant behaviour). Ignoring the unreliable sub-100Hz figures (though this unreliability applies to all the products tested) the MiniTrap (I can't speak for MondoTraps as I've seen no comparable research on them) exhibits a much lower absorption above the peak frequency than the other products. Whilst the extended upper frequency absorption does give weight to the description of "broadband" I'd say that it's not a particularly efficient broadband absorber. I do understand that this is a deliberate design feature not an accident and I'm in no way implying that it's anything other than a deliberate choice, I also follow the thinking that led to it and can see applications where it's a good idea so this isn't really a criticism of it's performance. There are times when a reduced absorption in the higher spectrum can be desirable but whatever the method used to achieve the reduced absorption the result is a trap that's optimised to a specific frequency band/contour so in my book that optimisation makes it a tuned/hybrid rather than a true broadband trap.
> I read that the auralex stuff absorbs bass end + all frequencies BETTER than the realtraps stuff. <
Not in a million years.
The comparison I believe you're referring to was 1) sponsored by Auralex, and 2) used a slab of foam four times larger than a MiniTrap. And even with all that mass it was only a tiny bit more absorbent (5 percent) at 100 Hz than a MiniTrap. More important, that data is invalid for a variety of technical reasons. You can trust the independant magazine reviews that all came to the conclusion that RealTraps surpass foam in every way.
I don't see how you arrive at this. The graph clearly shows that the Auralex product in the test does absorb bass and all frequencies more efficiently than the MiniTrap. Whether this is always desirable is another matter. To be fair though, I'd say that DoeZer's comment can only really be applied to the two specific products under test not as a blanket remark covering all Auralex and RealTraps products.
Whilst it's true that the research was paid for by Auralex, the methodology and results are clearly given and appear to me at least to be reasonable and honestly stated. Whilst not explicit in your remark above, the implication that this somehow invalidates the research, I feel, is at best not relevant and at worst is rather disingenuous and does you few favours.
Thanks for replying to my request for an expansion on your comment about about the invalidity of the data, I appreciate it. It's thrown up some more questions for me. I take your point about flaws in the test methods but since these flaws apply uniformly to all the products under test I don't see how is this relevant to the *relative* effectiveness of the products under test (however much the absolute figures are flawed. My understanding/reading of the figures is that the tests were performed on real products set up so as to attempt to simulate their practical useage. I might be wrong but I don't read it as an attempt scientifically to evaluate the mechanical or acoustic properties of the materials from which the products are made or any other abstract test; rather the relative practical effectiveness of a number of actual products. I can see that comparing a MiniTrap to a physically larger product like a MegaLENRD is not comparing apples to apples but if I'm right, and the test is one of products not one of principles, that's irrelevant. I'd be interested to know whether the results shown were the product of multiple repeated tests on each product - I assume that the tests followed the standard routines and they were. This should reduce the stastical variation in results though I suspect that physically larger products would still have an advantage in terms of ultimate accuracy as well as ultimate absorption. Though as I've already said, I don't think that's relevant as that isn't what was being tested.
When acoustic panels are tested according to ASTM standards, at least 64 square feet of surface material is demanded to ensure a large enough change in reverb time in the test chamber.
Unless I'm missing something (and I've not yet read all pertinent the ASTM standards documents - I downloaded them but like most standards documents they're rather soporific ;)) In what I've read so far there doesn't seem to be a standard specification designed for measurement of corner mounted acoustic absorbers rather than flat/wall mounted absorbers. The detailed properties and (theoretical) behaviour of corner acoustics and absorption afaik still aren't fully understood so it's probably not yet actually possible to devise a foolproof/accurate standard for testing. (Though already I might well be wrong about this.)
Another rule was also violated, quoted from ASTM document C-423: "extreme aspect ratios, such as long narrow strips, shall be avoided." Those tests Auralex paid for placed the traps end to end creating - yup - a long narrow strip.
Surely the intended application for corner mounted absorbers produces long narrow strips of absorber and the probem is one of a lack of an appropriate test standard rather than anything for which Auralex is responsible. Imo, for comparison purposes, as long as all the products were tested in similar circumstances and along the lines of those recommended for their use the test still is a fair and valid comparison. The potential for inaccuracy in the testing of " long narrow strips" was there for all the products tested and whilst it could call into question the absolute values obtained by the tests, if the steup is as per the recommended use of the product, they should still be valid as a comparison of perfomance. I haven't seen any suggestion that the results shown for MiniTraps are incorrect but suggesting - if you're not, I apologise but that's how it appears - that the results are somehow biased/invalid because a, the products are different, b, the test methodology is flawed when none better exists, it was uniformly applied and not apparently chosen to bias the results, and c, Auralex paid for the tests, is itself not fair.
Point me to this "other forum", there are some heads that need bashing.
that is complete and utter bollox.
Ever the diplomat ;) :tongue:
TRUST ME, I do NOT work for Ethan , nor do i get a special rate or any backhanders..... but I have PERSONALLY installed more than 50 of his real traps "Mini traps" on client sites since they became available in the UK, and they are FAR more effective than ANY foam based product as currently available.
the corner wedge bass traps are all uniformly useless below @120-150 Hz, and even there they are less effective... they are quite capable above @200Hz, but that's it.
You know we all trust you darling ;) And I don't doubt that in your extensive experience of such things what you say is true. As I said above, I used to feel the same about foam "bass traps" (though I've never had reason to use a RealTraps product as I usualy have the option of implimenting something a bit more "custom"). However, in the context of this thread, i.e. most cost effective rather then convenient acoustic treatment I feel that there are possibly better options than MiniTraps - and Auralex - even though both are effective in their own way. To return to the original question, imo, carefully deployed MiniTraps would give a better result than the Auralex kit mentioned - especially at LF - but, with a bit of effort, there are DIY solutions which would yield better results than either. They just take more time, a modicum of skill/care in their construction and will be more messy to install.
for me personally, the only reason I want to sway more towards the other products (not the real or mini traps is cos theyre a DAMN sight cheaper over here than the realtraps stuff!
does anyone have any opinions on these 'prima-kits' which also do the room-in-one kind of solution...
just more of the same I imagine?? heres a link...
It's obviously sensible to look for the most cost effective solution but as you point out very well in another post, that isn't always the cheapest. The foam in a box or MiniTraps solution is clean, quick and convenient but as has been pointed out several times in this thread there are more efficient and cost effective ways to treat a room.
just one point though. i dont think its right to say that one product is better than the other given that its alot SMALLER. its down to cost. if you buy X trap and its more effective than Y trap and cheaper then X trap wins. Yes, Y trap may indeed be alot smaller and on a per cubic meter of material basis may win hands down, but most people are just interested in cost and effectiveness...
having said that!! all this positive talk on mini-traps is being noted and I certainly will check them out! like i say, all I want is as 'true' a monitoring environment as i can get! once I feel Im getting value for money I dont care who I go to!
Well said. :)
Despite how it might appear, I agree with the positive comments about RealTraps and defence of their UK pricing. The product is undoubtedly good and fills a market niche. (The same is true of the various foam products.) The pricing was explained with commendable candour by the UK distributor in a thread on the old Infopop forum and, whilst they're not cheap, it doesn't seem an unreasonable price to pay for the particular combination of effectiveness, convenience, expected longevity, and the level of service described in that thread.
> Apparently this Eric Desart guy has a hard on for bustin' Ethan's chops. <
Yes, and it amazes me that a 56 year old man (Eric) can devote so much of his time and energy to harrassing me. He literally Googles me every day to see where I post, then shows up and starts trouble. He poses as an objective scientist, but it's clear from all his name calling that he is anything but. 'Nuff said.
Not quite "'Nuff said".
Ethan, I don't know what is the problem between you and Eric and I don't particularly want to know. I'd just rather the squabbling didn't find it's way into this forum. Equally, I'd rather people on this forum didn't start having a go at Eric without him being here to defend himself.Your comments are rather one-sided and, without Eric being here to respond, rather un-called for. From what little I've read so far, Eric does seem rather annoyed about something though he does make some good points. Just for the record, and to balance the negative comments a little, though I don't know Eric Desart, I know his reputation and his work and imo he knows more about acoustics - both practical and theoretical - than anyone I've seen on this forum or a large number of people I've dealt with who call themselves acoustic designers/experts. I've never directly had any dealings with the man but I've worked in rooms he designed/consulted on and they are some of the best I've ever seen/heard anywhere in the world and certainly verify his qualification to comment on matters of acoustic design. I'm not taking sides and I'm not suggesting that he's always right - I doubt he'd claim that; neither am I suggesting that Ethan or anyone else is wrong or less qualified to make their point; I'm just saying that I have personal experience of Eric's work and I really don't think that it's fair to write him off in his absence with the implication that he's some kind of bitter nutter with a personal vendetta.
If what Ethan says about Eric "Googling" him every day in order to pick fights is true then it's a remarkably sad way for him to spend his time. I've not yet bothered to look up all these arguments - though I will spend some time on it - but in some of the few ...er...discussions I've seen between them, Ethan hasn't been above some name calling and frankly childish behaviour so perhaps Eric isn't the sole guilty party here. I would also say that, despite the ongoing spat, Eric does consistently produce some well reasoned and compelling arguments to explain his point of view and his technical standpoint and, despite numerous requests, I can't see where Ethan's really answered many if any of them. I don't doubt that there are rights and wrongs on both sides but with my Moderator hat on I don't want them aired here unless it can be done in a reasonable and fair way.
> theyre a DAMN sight cheaper over here than the realtraps stuff! <
Understand that the foam product shown in that comparison costs about the same as a MiniTrap, yet it's four times larger. This is not a typical piece of corner foam! You can see how effective typical sized corner foam is on the Product Data page of the RealTraps site.
Frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether the Auralex tests are valid or not because MiniTraps held their own admirably. What looks like lower absorption above the high bass range is a big feature of MiniTraps, not a failing. Further, the only way Auralex could best a MiniTrap was by comparing it to a huge chunk of foam. That was not a standard LENRD they tested, it was a MegaLENRD, which is 34 inches across the face and has four times the volume of a MiniTrap. Likewise for the "super chunk" which also is 34 inches across the face and solid rigid fiberglass all the way through.
As I said above, in the context of those tests, this isn't really relevant. The test was put forward as a comparison of different products; if a duvet had produced the best results they'd still be valid! The foam trap may not be a typical piece of corner foam but no-one pretended it was. The pertinent data for the product is freely available and it was clearly stated to be a MegaLENRD rather than a LENRD. The fact the MiniTrap and the MegaLENRD cost about the same isn't really relevant either as I don't think anyone claimed that the test was of similarly priced products though it doesn't do any harm in a perceived VFM comparison that they're similarly priced. If all that matters is the sheer quantity of absorption offered by the two products then the MegaLENRD wins on bang for the buck. However what matters isn't just the numbers - it's how the products are deployed in a given design scenario. As pointed out above, one might not want the ultimate in broadband absorption in every circumstance. Perhaps it's better to look at them as two separate products designed to fulfill different roles and with different applications rather than seeing them as direct competitors.
(P.S. Ethan, I've had a look at the information you refer to on your website and can I ask, what was the corner foam product and test setup that you used to obtain the results shown - they're somewhat different from any data I've been able to find anywhere for foam corners? (Feel free to PM if you'd rather spare the blushes of it's manufacturer and not mention them openly in this forum - I promise not to use the information against them ;)))
Anyway, that's about it for thoughts on this one. Finally!
I think I'm starting to turn into Scott ;) :tongue: