You are here

Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Customising, building or repairing your own gear? Need help with acoustic treatment or soundproofing? Ask away…

Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Studio Support Gnome » Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:33 am

Subsequent to the recent furore and slightly uncomfortable badgering , and to some extent belittling of Ethan and his products, I thought I'd post a few thoughts, based on my personal experiences.

A LOT of the antagonists have been raving about how expensive they are , especially over here in Europe.... and to an extent this is fair comment for the DIY brigade....

HOWEVER, in a commercial facility, they actually make a LOT of economic sense.... if you factor in the time involved in building and fitting 'aesthetically pleasing" custom built absorbent panel traps, at "craftsman" rates, as you would expect in such a facility, then Ethan's traps become equally cost effective.

I can fit 20 of them in a single day. pretty much single handedly.....

As far as I can tell, my rates are far from exorbitant in the industry, and a decent cabinet maker or Chippy often costs about the same. (and often more)

Assuming they could make say 4 really nice ones in a day (which I KNOW isn't unreasonable, as I've been down this road before) that's 5 days at £350 a day.

and being generally heavier, and harder to manhandle, they usually require 2 men about twice as long to fit.

Which adds up to a further 4 days of labour rate (2 men for 2 days)

which is 9 days labour Plus materials.

the labour alone is £3150 and the materials could be roughly another £300

£3450 for 20 fitted traps. Ex vat

Which is roughly £172.50 + vat each.

and of course the time involved, is much much longer.


This is roughly the same as buying and fitting the same number of Mini-traps costs..... but , they can be done in a single day.


So in the professional environment the only real difference in terms of cost is the time the rooms are out of commission whilst they're being fitted.


Further more, I've found that the rooms usually sound a little nicer with the real traps in........

Why?

Well to start with, the "feature" that so many insist on calling a flaw, the absorption ratio curve across the frequency spectrum, actually DOES seem to be about right..... rooms can still sound "Open and Airy" with not TOO much Hf and hi mid absorption going on. and to an extent, it's possible that the membrane layer and frames do actually generate a certain amount of diffusion, that seems to work well "in the field" , almost certainly not as much as a specifically designed and placed diffusion device, (be they skylines or pyramids or wedges) but just enough to be useful and inoffensive.

In rooms where I want much deader acoustics, I use a Mix of Real traps and Custom built AMW based traps, but in MOST rooms, I want controlled, but not "dead" sounding rooms

Furthermore, I find I must take issue with the guys waving the studio-tips tests around like proof of the superiority of ALL foam products.....

for the following reasons

1) YES the MegaLenrds are equally effective at low frequencies, but the IMPRESSION a speed reading bystander gets from many of the posts, here AND elsewhere, intended or not, , is that this applies to the normal sized Foam traps, and that this is often generalised across the whole PROPER acoustic foam market (let's NOT include the Ebay rip offs shall we ?? )

this is simply NOT the case...... there are No test results in that shown scheme for the normal traps, and what's more, I KNOW them to be significantly less effective...and SO do the guys at Auralex , RPG, Primacoustic etc. (And Eric)
AND the MegaLENRD has NOT been listed in the available product pricing and marketing stuff ....... in the Uk it's special order only, and costs about the same (possibly slightly more, as I'm not clear about quantity discounts on them) as the Mini-trap. and they only tell you about it if you ring up and specifically ask them........... No idea WHY that might be, as it would be a valid and useful product to have on hand. but both 0VU and myself can attest to this fact.


2) As I previously mentioned, in fact the tonal properties of the mini-trap seem nicely balanced for most jobs, where "full on" broadband absorption can often be overkill to some extent..... Effectively treating Every Corner of a room, plus one or two mounted above and next to the mix position, with the mini traps, results in a pretty good sound.... Whereas more broadband full absorption applied in the same fashion can result in a "dead" sounding room, that tends to lead people to apply too much Hf Eq and sometimes reverb.


Now then this may all sound like an evangelical Ethan "love In" But I haven't finished, so hold your horses.


I LIKE Ethan, and to a degree, respect his opinion regarding end results, as they're often borne out by my experience, to be broadly correct.

HOWEVER as he himself has admitted in the past, he is NOT a formally trained acoustician, and as a result, SOME of his language and use of terminology is sometimes incorrect and occasionally , one would like to hope, unintentionally, misleading.
It may seem a small thing to many, and there's no denying his helpfulness and general results, BUT to an Acoustic Engineer, it's going to be a red rag to a bull, and even to those of us who are NOT full time acoustic engineers, but have had some formal training, and practical experience, it can be unsettling, I know several people who find themselves sometimes debating whether to call him on it, or leave it be, as ultimately the result for the user is what matters in those cases....... If the thread or posts degenerate into a very specific, or overly general, technical argument, the original poster can often find themselves feeling like they know less about what they need to do than when they started...... which is NOT the point of these forums!

So this is my point here, in this section, whilst he uses incorrect language, and some of his theoretical understanding is "suspect" , Ethan IS always helpful to the people in need of assistance, and his Products do work, and what's more work WELL.

So rather than "ganging up" on him, and harassing him in a very combative manner, it would be more appropriate if people were to offer alternative opinions, and sound theoretical back up in a non competitive manner.


After all, these forums exist to help the Amateur, the Hobbyist the Semi-Pro, and fully professional alike, and screaming at each other is NOT generally helpful. EVEN if you ARE right, it's a pyrrhic victory if the general user doesn't fully understand what it is you're right about, and what difference it makes to their problem.

To an extent, One could argue that perhaps Ethan's motives are more commercial and sales orientated than I have assumed, and this may well have some merit to it, but In general, I've found him not to overtly use his posts to advertise, if he had, they would be deleted by the relevant Moderation team members....... Okay so his Info site is linked to his commercial site, but frankly, so is everyone else's who's in a similarly commercial concern........

But Equally, other people also have numerous motives for being here, or indeed, on any other Audio forum, and this should not necessarily be held against them as such.

OH, and Foam degrades over time..... and as far as I know (although I COULD well be wrong) Ethan's materials Do not...... meaning that you can expect to replace Foam within a 10(or maybe 15) year time scale, at the very least for aesthetic reasons, (i'm not completely sure about performance changes, as I've never had the opportunity to test the same product against itself "new" over that length of time ) but shouldn't have to do so with Mini traps..... but that is being really picky I suppose..........


Rant more or less over\\\

I will In future restructure my general comments on Bass trapping to reflect the availability of things Like the MegaLENRD, AND their effectiveness at LF tasks, and other such devices , but I WILL continue to recommend Real traps products as a viable and useful tools in the armoury of the studio engineer.

(Incidentally, I've recently heard of some interesting new stuff in testing that promises to out perform both the Megalenrd and the mini-trap.... But they may both take some time to come to market, and be quite expensive :frown: )

Max.....



PS, you needn't all start screaming at me, I just felt it needed to be said, I wasn't really looking to start a fight okay? but by all means, reasonable rebuttals or alternative opinions are still welcome.....

Oh, and 0VU........

More moderation if you please ;) :tongue:





:headbang: :headbang: :SOS: :angel:

said the kettle calling the pot......... [list]
User avatar
Studio Support Gnome
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2913
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:00 am
Location: UK
Now available for consultations and audio engineering jobs .  Also guitar tech work , and “rent-a-shredder” sessions .  Oxfordshire based but can and will travel .  Email maxtech.audio@me.com

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Guest » Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:16 am

Cheers Max - light the blue touch paper and stand well back :tongue: :bouncy: Remind me to nip into the Mac forum and start a "PC is better than Mac" thread (even though it's stating the obvious ;) )

OK, I've only scanned what Max put and I'll try to read it properly when I'm more awake. On my scan through, there's much I agree with and some that, as usual, I don't. Most of this is just differences of opinion and not anything that warrants further comment.

There is of course another point of view to a lot of this and, as I have a sneaking suspicion that this thread might attract some strongly held opinions on all sides :roll:, please can we keep things reasonably objective - or at least avoid getting too personal. This topic does need discussing and we should be able to debate these points without recourse to squabbling. Please ;)

Is that enough moderation for now Max? ;) :tongue:
Guest

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Scott R. Foster » Sat Dec 04, 2004 4:50 am

Max:

I find it hard to believe you have ever built a broadband because everything you say about em is wrong. MiniTraps are heavy, but the DIY broadband absorber designs I am familiar with are not. How much you reckon these units weigh? Not much eh?

Image

You aren't really suggesting that a MiniTrap [with a steel frame and 3" of 703/705 stuffing] is going to weigh LESS than a 2x2 wood frame and 4" of 703 - are you?

Moreover, your cost figures for building 20 broadband absorbers are kooky... at the prices you estimate, you'd spend 157.50£ per device to job site production build 20 rectangles of 2x2 lumber, stuff a panel of Rockwoll in em and cover em with burlap. If carpentry paid like you describe, guys would be making 70,000£ a year cutting 2x2's and stapling em together... I think not.

As to your vauge acoustic notions such as I spent $8000 on magic traps so the room will sound "Open and Airy" ... please forgive me if I can't bring myself to take that approach seriously. You may be selling this kinda stuff to your clients, but you aint gonna sell it to me.

As to the idea that we should concern ourselves that the a "speed reading bystander" might get the wrong "IMPRESSION"... well these things happen. There aint no hope for someone who forms firm conclusions from stuff he didn't actually read. OTOH, if you have read the post you are replying to, then you are aware that the big point made on the whole foam thing was that FOAMS ARE NOT EQUAL. If you didn't get that point pounded into your head, maybe you should go back and read these posts a little slower.

As to this quote:

I find I must take issue with the guys waving the studio-tips tests around like proof of the superiority of ALL foam products


Who the hell said that? When you find these guys, let me know and I'll help you explain to them that the test to which you refer are valid for the devices tested... not other things - not elephants, nor peakcock teeth nor upholsters foam... afterall, as we all know [read it slowly with me]... ALL FOAMS ARE NOT EQUAL.

By the by... most of the guys at Studiotips use mineral fiber.. not foam... so you really picked the wrong group to dump that load on. We simply reject the notion that foam don't work... that's false, good foam works great... it's expensive... but it does work great... as opposed to MiniTraps which are expensive and which have a very bumpy absorption line in comparison to both MegaLenrds on the one hand, and two other compressed fiberglass panel devices [and not just in the lows either... look at the graph again.. the MiniTrap absorption line has two peaks... maybe you should look at it more slowly].

IMO, if you want a good absorber and you care a lot about what it costs and you are up to a weeksends worth of work to make a few - use mineral fiber. If you don't care about money, or you don't have the time to do the work, get MegaLenrds [for your corners anyway... you can't beat em].

As to how much you like Ethan... and your apparent need to justify all the money you have spent on your client's behalf... I really don't care. Hopefully you, Ethan and your clients can work all that out between yourselves. My participation in forums like these has been and always will be driven by my desire to learn, and then to pay the favor forward. It aint about who I like, or what I did... its about the science, and the costs to the user.
User avatar
Scott R. Foster
Regular
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Paul Woodlock » Sat Dec 04, 2004 5:46 am

Greetings Max

As some of your comments are flawed, some of them not relevant, and some even untrue, I feel I must respond.


Max The Mac wrote:

.......

Further more, I've found that the rooms usually sound a little nicer with the real traps in........

Why?

Well to start with, the "feature" that so many insist on calling a flaw, the absorption ratio curve across the frequency spectrum, actually DOES seem to be about right..... rooms can still sound "Open and Airy" with not TOO much Hf and hi mid absorption going on. and to an extent, it's possible that the membrane layer and frames do actually generate a certain amount of diffusion, that seems to work well "in the field" , almost certainly not as much as a specifically designed and placed diffusion device, (be they skylines or pyramids or wedges) but just enough to be useful and inoffensive.

In rooms where I want much deader acoustics, I use a Mix of Real traps and Custom built AMW based traps, but in MOST rooms, I want controlled, but not "dead" sounding rooms



Firstly, if this was such a good feature, why did this 'feature' only appear after the StudioTips test results were published?

I don't claim to be an acoustics expert in the slightest, but I've learn't enough to know that anyone who calls that a feature, and keeps a straight face, for a standing wave trap shows more than a little naivety in acoustic treatment.

It ain't about the Hi-Mid and HF

The HI-Mid and HF are irrelevent to this discussion. Mini-traps/MegaLenrds/Rockwool Corner absorbers are all designed for absorption of standing waves resulting from the resonance resulting from two or more opposing boundaries in a space. The frequencies of these standing waves are determined by the distance between those surfaces and the speed of sound in the medium between. Which is usually air ( and probably an amount of methane in most studios :lol: )

Each dimension of a space will resonate at not only a fundermental freqeuncy ( which is usually between 30Hz and say 70Hz for most average home studios ) but also at the harmonics above.

The collective term for all those resonances in the room which cause standing waves is Room Modes

It ain't just about the bass either.

Now because of the harmonics, the room modes extend all the way up the frequency range. However above around 500Hz the modes are of far too little intensity and far too closely spaced to be anything but negligable. And can be ignored.

but....

Below around 500Hz the modes( standing waves ) start to get progressively higher in intensity and are further apart, and this is where they cause problems to the monitoring envirnoment and will need attention.

The way to combat the negative affects of the room modes is to absorb, as much as possible, the acoustic energy that's stored in the room as a result of these standing waves. As this energy tends to congregate in corners of a room, then this is the place to place the absorption for maximum efficency.


The term Bass Trap is used around the Net a lot, and to the acoustical layman this is a bit misleading when it comes to standing wave absorption. becuase it kind of indicates to people that only the bass is the region that needs trapping.

This is not the case. Analyse the freq response of any typical untreated room, and you'll find it will have innaccuracies due to standing waves ANYWHERE between 30Hz and 500Hz. This is about a 4 octave range.

Now you can tackle the standing waves in different ways.

1] You can firstly analyse ( or software model if it's not built yet ) the room and find out where the specific mode problems are, and then use tuned narrowband absorbers for each problem frequency. These come in many flavours, panel traps, membrane traps, helmoltz resonantors, tuned hangers', etc,etc

This can be time consuming and expensive, as their are quite a few frequencies that are affected in a typical room. This sort of treatment is usually done in commercial studios becuase the studio Design Company will ( should!! ) have the level of expertise to do it.



or..

2] You can use Broadband Absorption that's very efficient over the Bass to Lo-Mid frequencies and tackle all the standing waves in one sweet go.

For the DIY studio builder ( and even low to mid size commerical studios ) who can't afford the likes of Tom hidley, Phillip Newell or even Eric Desart ( ;) ), the Broadband approach is much simpler. And cheaper when comparisons of absorption efficiency are taken into account.


As I've said, standing wave control is only part of the acoustic treatment arsenal. There's also Early reflections and the time and tonal balance of the room's reverberation to consider and treat where necessary.

There's no need to consider Hi-Mid and HF when controlling standign waves by trapping. Hi-Mid and HF are controlled by other means. i.e reflective surfaces ( diffuse or non-diffuse ) and/or the EQ controls on the monitor ( or seperate EQ )

Take a typical room, say L=3m, W=4m, H= 2.5m which has a total surface area of 59m2. 0.6m wide traps in all four corners from floor to ceiling is only 6m2 in total.

That means only 10% of the rooms surfaces are given to standing wave absorption

And in any case I would think a carpet would kill the HF more than 4 corners of traps, simply by it's much greater area. 12m2 in the example room above.

And let's not forget that TWO of the corner traps will be behind the speakers, where negligable direct HF is emitted anyway ( we all place our monitors with the drivers facing us don't we? :) )

The MINI TRAP!
--------------

Despite erronous claims by Ethan/RealTraps, the MIni-Trap is NOT a broadband device. It is a membrane trap and as such has a resonance And thus a MIni-Trap is Narrowband

Now NO ONE is saying a Mini-trap doesn't work, and again despite claims to the contrary from Ethan, NO ONE is saying a Mini-Trap ( or any of RealTraps products ) doesn't have a place in the market.

We at StudioTips believe the best method for standing wave control for the typical Home amd lower end commerical facility is the broadband method. For the reasons I've outlined above.

Now PERSONALLY SPEAKING, I find the Mini-Trap an odd product. It's a fixed tuned device. So unless your modal problems coincide with it's resonant frequency then it's specification doesn't seem that efficient. Furthermore it's damped to cut down the level of resonance at this freqeuncy to give it a broader but less efficient device.

Furthermore mounting such a device close to a wall can reduce the TL at the resonant frequency due to the Mass-Spring-Mass effect. See this interesting thread..http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=1198

If you're marketing a standing wave absorber that's supposed to be easy and simple to install, then why not sinmply make it a broadband device.

Myself and studiotips have always thought the broadband method of standing wave absorption was the better method way before the FOUR CORNER DEVICE TESTS were published.

In fact if I was Ethan, I'd take the membrane out of a Mini-Trap and just leave a 4" mineral wool slab, and sell it as a Nice Looking Broadband Absorber. IMHO it would be much more effective for the purpose at which it is sold.



Furthermore, I find I must take issue with the guys waving the studio-tips tests around like proof of the superiority of ALL foam products.....


You say 'ALL' in capitals as if to draw attention to that. That is a COMPLETE UNTRUTH. We at StudioTips, have ALWAYS tried to steer people away from bad foam, and towards good foam

Your issue with us does NOT EXIST.

If there are any issues, it's Ethan's persistence in misleading people that Mini-Traps are better than 'typical foam' that he often get's a response from the StudioTips guys wherever he spreads this nonsense.

Ethan's Data on his Real Traps website shows comparisons of Mini-Traps v. RIP-OFF proven Bad Foam as sold by Foam by Mail

The reason we don't like this at StudioTips is becuase it misleads the reader into thinking that proper acoustic foam ( such as that used by auralex ) isn't as good as a mini-trap. Which is NOT THE CASE

In a corner, the FOUR CORNER DEVICES TESTS Prove that for the same effective corner area taken up the foam used by Auralex performs MUCH BETTER. In fact over the 125Hz to 500Hz range has TWICE THE ABSORPTION AS A MINI-TRAP

Why doesn't Ethan provide comparison data between the same frontal face area of a Mini-Trap v. a MegaLENRD on his site? It's because of highly understandable commercial reasons. I wouldn't publish data on a website of my companies products ( if I had one ) v. a competitors is I knew the competitors product was more absorptively efficient. So I don't blame Ethan for not doing so.




for the following reasons

1) YES the MegaLenrds are equally effective at low frequencies, but the IMPRESSION a speed reading bystander gets from many of the posts, here AND elsewhere, intended or not, , is that this applies to the normal sized Foam traps, and that this is often generalised across the whole PROPER acoustic foam market (let's NOT include the Ebay rip offs shall we ?? )

this is simply NOT the case...... there are No test results in that shown scheme for the normal traps, and what's more, I KNOW them to be significantly less effective...and SO do the guys at Auralex , RPG, Primacoustic etc. (And Eric)
AND the MegaLENRD has NOT been listed in the available product pricing and marketing stuff ....... in the Uk it's special order only, and costs about the same (possibly slightly more, as I'm not clear about quantity discounts on them) as the Mini-trap. and they only tell you about it if you ring up and specifically ask them........... No idea WHY that might be, as it would be a valid and useful product to have on hand. but both 0VU and myself can attest to this fact.


Well, with sincere respect, I think you're patronising most readers then. The Studiotips tests go to great length to show the comparison was done with the SAME EFFECTIVE CORNER AREA taken up. It's a like for like comparison in the REAL WORLD. The difference in effective volume of a MegaLENRD v. a Mini-Trap is almost negligable.

And of course a smaller absorber like the normal LENRD is going to absorb less. trhis isn't a like for like comparison at all. And so it hold no value to your argument.


2) As I previously mentioned, in fact the tonal properties of the mini-trap seem nicely balanced for most jobs, where "full on" broadband absorption can often be overkill to some extent..... Effectively treating Every Corner of a room, plus one or two mounted above and next to the mix position, with the mini traps, results in a pretty good sound.... Whereas more broadband full absorption applied in the same fashion can result in a "dead" sounding room, that tends to lead people to apply too much Hf Eq and sometimes reverb.


Again with respect, this is a nonsense argument. BOTH Broadband AND mini-Trap tretment of a room can cause it it to be too dead if placed wrongly. And in anycase anyone who ONLY uses devices designed to trap standing waves as the total treatment in a room can't call themselves an acoustic designer/consultant.



Now then this may all sound like an evangelical Ethan "love In" But I haven't finished, so hold your horses.


I LIKE Ethan, and to a degree, respect his opinion regarding end results, as they're often borne out by my experience, to be broadly correct.

HOWEVER as he himself has admitted in the past, he is NOT a formally trained acoustician, and as a result, SOME of his language and use of terminology is sometimes incorrect and occasionally , one would like to hope, unintentionally, misleading.
It may seem a small thing to many, and there's no denying his helpfulness and general results, BUT to an Acoustic Engineer, it's going to be a red rag to a bull, and even to those of us who are NOT full time acoustic engineers, but have had some formal training, and practical experience, it can be unsettling, I know several people who find themselves sometimes debating whether to call him on it, or leave it be, as ultimately the result for the user is what matters in those cases....... If the thread or posts degenerate into a very specific, or overly general, technical argument, the original poster can often find themselves feeling like they know less about what they need to do than when they started...... which is NOT the point of these forums!

So this is my point here, in this section, whilst he uses incorrect language, and some of his theoretical understanding is "suspect" , Ethan IS always helpful to the people in need of assistance, and his Products do work, and what's more work WELL.


Just remember it was you who mentioned the personals on Ethan first in this thread :)


So now it's mentioned....

I do NOT consider myself an expert in acoustics by any means. I've spent the last four years researching it for a] Sheer Interest, and b] to maximise he quality of my new Studio. I don't go around telling people I'm an expert.

Now we all, including Ethan himself, finally agree Ethan is NOT an acoustics Expert..

Ethan on the other hand publishes the slogan 'RealTraps, The Acoustic Experts' at very available oppurtunity. It's in all his Forum signatures.

I respect EVERYONE's level of knowledge. but I do take issue with people selling themselves higher than they are. I do agree however that Ethan's general level of beginner advice is OK.

Ethan would gain a lot more respect from me if he removed the 'Acoustic Experts' from his marketing. No doubt he'll say it's referring to RealTrapsrather than Ethan himself. But Real-Traps pretty much IS Ethan.



So rather than "ganging up" on him, and harassing him in a very combative manner, it would be more appropriate if people were to offer alternative opinions, and sound theoretical back up in a non competitive manner.


All we at Studiotips want is for prospective studio builders, acoustic tweakers, etc to be able to make INFORMED choices about which products are best suited for them.

It's all down to Ethan. If he continues to make misleading references about foam and his acoustical abilities and even write errronous articles in magazines, etc then we feel the 'end user' isn't getting the best choice or advice.

That's all we want. An open, honest and misleading-hype free acoustical world. Most people who require such acoustical treatment are only getting it for a means to an end. they won't be au fait with acoustics, so it's especially important.
...





OH, and Foam degrades over time.....


??? Does ALL Foam degrade over less time than is reasonable? I don't know. Do you? If you don't know, then that is a potentially misleading statement.




Max.....



PS, you needn't all start screaming at me, I just felt it needed to be said, I wasn't really looking to start a fight okay? but by all means, reasonable rebuttals or alternative opinions are still welcome.....

......



Well there's my reasonable rebuttles. I too hope the thread continues as a good discussion with contributions from all sides. I felt the last thread was closed as a knee-jerk reaction, to what was misconstrued as a gang-up.

The reason we at Studitips responded before is becuase we felt the StudioTips data was being mirepresented. And also there was a misguided opinion on the value of Foam in this Forum. Ethan's claims we are trying to ruin his business are ludicrous to be quite frank.

Yes we might have come across a bit harsh to start with, and I apologise if that offended anyone. It's just that having to go through all this time and time again get's a little tiring at times.

I really like this Forum. It's got great potential. That's the reason I've stayed around and contributed where I can to the general pool of knowledge. And I will happily continue to do so as long as I am welcome.

Anyway, I now have RSI from typing for so long, so goodnight folks. cya tomorrow :)

Paul
Paul Woodlock
Regular
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Paul Woodlock » Sat Dec 04, 2004 5:55 am

Max The Mac wrote:.......

As far as I can tell, my rates are far from exorbitant in the industry, and a decent cabinet maker or Chippy often costs about the same. (and often more)

Assuming they could make say 4 really nice ones in a day (which I KNOW isn't unreasonable, as I've been down this road before) that's 5 days at £350 a day.

and being generally heavier, and harder to manhandle, they usually require 2 men about twice as long to fit.

Which adds up to a further 4 days of labour rate (2 men for 2 days)

which is 9 days labour Plus materials.

the labour alone is £3150 and the materials could be roughly another £300

£3450 for 20 fitted traps. Ex vat

..

Yes, I have to agree Foz, that this figure is way off the mark.

Not only is my best and long term, friend for many years a Carpenter, I have worked on sites myself with people who build comparable stuff for a living and I can certainly say those figures are extremely misleading for the work required.


Paul
Paul Woodlock
Regular
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:20 pm

Foz wrote: MiniTraps are heavy

Huh? I can lift and support a Real Traps Minitrap panel easily in one hand. That ain't heavy. Dropping one on the bathroom scales here suggests they weigh less than 7kg each. I've not bothered to weigh enough 2x2 wood to make a similar sized frame along with 4" of 703, but I'd be surprised if it is significantly less.

Put simply, whatever the precise weights of the DIY alternatives, the actual weight of a Minitrap is insignicant from a handling or constructional point of view.

Moreover, your cost figures for building 20 broadband absorbers are kooky.

Clearly, chippies charge different amounts in different places for different jobs. But what Max is talking about is getting someone in to build suitable boxes on site, not to mass produce in a factory.

My own experience of similar projects with on-site fabrication (within the BBC in my case) agrees broadly with Max's figures and time scales. Certainly close enough that the economic argument for the Real Traps products, expensive as they are, become both viable and pragmatic.

...As would several other commercial acoustic treatment products.

Hugh
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 27539
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby cc. » Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:52 pm


(disclaimer: I own some minitraps, so am undoubtedly biased)

Some more points that don't seem to have come up:

- minitraps weigh 18 pounds each - maybe someone could weigh a DIY panel and sort that one out once and for all!

- the main critisism of the minitraps seems to be that they have an absorbtion hole in the lower mids - the RAL tests (paid for by Auralex) say they do, the IBM tests (paid for by Ethan) say they don't, Ethan's waterfall plots say they don't. Also MW's waterfall tests from his SOS minitraps review also don't show this hole (although the published figures only go up to about 200Hz). Maybe someone could explain why one test should be believed more than the others?

- on the performance of DIY broadband vs minitraps - I still think the greater hf absobtion of the DIY trap is a disadvantage - but again this depends on how much lf trapping you need.

- on the minitraps vs megaLenrds, one thing to note about the graph is that it is given per linear ft, rather than per area, this makes the minitraps look worse because they are smaller. Whether this matters to you or not depends on your room. For instance in my room I don't have 2ft between the tops of my windows and the ceiling, so it matters a lot because the megaLenrds woundn't fit at all!

- on the cost vs DIY - I don't think you'll be able to settle that one, for the hobbyist it depends on how much your time is worth to you. For the pro working for a customer it's even more complicated (I'll leave that to the pros).

- no one has mentioned fire safety - presumably the DIY solution could be made fireproof, but I'm guessing that would add to the costs.
User avatar
cc.
Regular
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:00 am
Location: lisbon at the moment

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:05 pm

Thanks for the complete brain dump on approaches to room treatment, Paul. A veritable essay indeed ;)

Paul Woodlock wrote:Despite erronous claims by Ethan/RealTraps, the MIni-Trap is NOT a broadband device. It is a membrane trap and as such has a resonance And thus a MIni-Trap is Narrowband

I think we are talking semantics here, and it is getting really quite tedious.

Looking at all the various plots on all the various web sites, it is quite obvious that the Minitrap provides a significant amount of absorption over a very wide frequency range. I would agree that the amount of absorption does not appear to be constant with frequency -- it does tail off in a pronounced way as the frequency rises -- but it still provides a measurable amount of absorption at mid frequencies nonetheless (ie the 500Hz region). That makes it a broadband absorber in my book -- a 'tailored response' broadband absorber may be.

Now PERSONALLY SPEAKING, I find the Mini-Trap an odd product. It's a fixed tuned device. So unless your modal problems coincide with it's resonant frequency then it's specification doesn't seem that efficient.

That's fine as an opinion. To contrast it with my own experience -- as well as that of several others here and elsewhere -- this 'odd' product does seem to deliver the goods in practice. Whether Ethan's Minitrap design happens to agree with your own interpretation of the acoustics theory or not, doesn't really matter. If it didn't live up to the claims, no one would use or recommend it. AS it happens, a lot of people are pleased with the results obtained from using it. I really don't understand why you seem so keen to put the product, the company and Ethan down.

By all means feel free to recommend alternatives, but let's stop this petty bickering and all the pseudo-science that's being bandied around.

Sure, there may be more efficient and/or cheaper ways of doing the same thing -- but most people only install room treatment once so comparing system A with system B or C is not an option for most people. All you can say is that the Real Traps panels do appear to work well in practice. If people like the look of the things, they have the budget, and the method of mounting appeals to them, then the Real Traps products are a perfectly valid option. That's all there is too it. Nothing more need be said.

On the other hand, if other people happen to like DIY, or like the texture and flexibility of foam, then these alternatives are great too. They can all be made to work in the required way.

If you're marketing a standing wave absorber that's supposed to be easy and simple to install, then why not sinmply make it a broadband device.

The Minitrap is quite clearly a broadband device -- look at the charts -- and it seems to work well enough as it is. Let's move on.

In fact if I was Ethan, I'd take the membrane out of a Mini-Trap and just leave a 4" mineral wool slab, and sell it as a Nice Looking Broadband Absorber. IMHO it would be much more effective for the purpose at which it is sold.

Your hypothetical design changes are not really very relevant are they? If you want to start manufacturing your own traps, then great. There is a clear market for such things and I'm sure being based in the UK, you could undercut the MiniTraps prices quite significantly. We could then review the Woodlock Broadband Traps and maybe recommend them as another great and cost effective alternative.

In the meantime, please lay off this constant negativity about the Minitrap design. It's not constructive in any way, and is misleading in itself about the practical effectiveness of these particular devices.

If there are any issues, it's Ethan's persistence in misleading people that Mini-Traps are better than 'typical foam' that he often get's a response from the StudioTips guys wherever he spreads this nonsense.

Again, semantics. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the MiniTrap is far more effective than the excuses for bass traps supplied in the standard Auralex and Primacoustic room kits, for example.

If such kits of foam can be considered 'typical' -- and I don't think that is an unreasonable assumption -- then his claim is true. However, I am willing to accept that the larger megaLRNDs foam bass traps maybe more effective. I have no experience of them, so I don't know.

The reason we don't like this at StudioTips is becuase it misleads the reader into thinking that proper acoustic foam ( such as that used by auralex ) isn't as good as a mini-trap.

Surely, it is up to Auralex (and other foam manufacturers) to discuss such claims with Real Traps if they feel they are being misrepresented. I really don't see what business it is of StudioTips, and especially not in the kind of personal vendetta that you and your associates appear to be doing.

In fact over the 125Hz to 500Hz range [the Auralex]has TWICE THE ABSORPTION AS A MINI-TRAP.

So you at least recognise that the Minitrap provides broadband absorption then... just not as much as this Auralex product? Perhaps we are getting somewhere after all ;)

And in anycase anyone who ONLY uses devices designed to trap standing waves as the total treatment in a room can't call themselves an acoustic designer/consultant.

Er, actually anyone can call themselves an acoustic designer/consultant. The issue is whether they can deliver the required results and get good recommendations from satisfied customers. Max does.

It would be a very foolish assumption to suggest that Max only uses Minitrap products to solve all of a rooms acoustic issues. However, it is clear that he understands the characteristics of the Real Traps Minitraps panels and is able to use them effectively in combination with other products to achieve a satisfactory overall acoustic correction of whatever room he is addressing.

I don't go around telling people I'm an expert.

Maybe not in so many words. But the manner of your posts certainly contributes to the impression that you are, shall we say, proficient in the subject.

Ethan on the other hand publishes the slogan 'RealTraps, The Acoustic Experts' at very available oppurtunity. It's in all his Forum signatures.

It's a company marketing slogan for christsakes! Not a personal claim to a doctorate in acoustics! AS a marketing tool I think it probably works a little better than: 'Real Traps: the okay panel people'.

A certain British console and outboard manufacturer uses the slogan 'The father of British EQ' when it is self evident that he is nothing of the kind! It doesn't matter -- it's just a marketing phrase. Get over it.

Ethan would gain a lot more respect from me if he removed the 'Acoustic Experts' from his marketing.

I doubt he'll be that bothered to be honest. :headbang:

All we at Studiotips want is for prospective studio builders, acoustic tweakers, etc to be able to make INFORMED choices about which products are best suited for them.


A laudable aim, and one we share completely at SOS. That's why we use Auralex and Primacoustic foam treatment kits on our Studio SOS articles, along with Real Traps and even DIY solutions, as appropriate. Likewise, I and my colleagues here endeavour to maintain an even handed representation of all possible products in whatever subject the discussion is based.

It's all down to Ethan. If he continues to make misleading references about foam and his acoustical abilities and even write errronous articles in magazines, etc then we feel the 'end user' isn't getting the best choice or advice.

This has an air of 'threatening' about it, which I'm sure you don't intend. I don't understand why you feel the need to be a self-appointed judge and jury on this. As I said before, if the other manufacturers feel mispresented I'm quite sure they can stand up for themselves in the proper manner. And the SOS forums really isn't the place for it :boring:

Does ALL Foam degrade over less time than is reasonable? I don't know. Do you?

What is reasonable? If I invest a lot of money in acoustic tratement I would espect it to remain in good condition for a very long time, and to survive a studio rebuild or three.

Again, from my own experience, various commercial foam panels I saw installed in several different home and semi-pro studios a decade or so ago have certainly degraded and do look rather tired and tacky today. In the worst cases the foam has crumbled and become very dusty (where exposed to sunlight). In many cases, bored musicians (or their groupies) have also picked at the foam, nicking small pieces out, resulting in a very tired and moth-eaten appearance. It probably works just as well but doesn't look too great.

I've not seen any similar intrinsic or man-made degradation of Minitrap panels yet -- although the oldest installation I know of personally is only a few years old, to be fair.

I really like this Forum. It's got great potential.

Thanks... we thought so too... :tongue:

Hugh
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 27539
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Scott R. Foster » Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:14 pm

The MiniTrap is steel and fiberglass... I doubt it degrades in the slightest over time. In fact I think it is probably the smartest looking unit on the market [just an opinion - YMMV] and would last a lifetime. Not shocking really.. fiberglass is pretty inert, and a device hung on the wall aint apt to get much wear and tear.... foam is just so fragile I think this is the lower limit of where these concerns are likely to come up... also different foams have different attributes in this regard... the Auralex stuff is pretty tough, but its still foam, and musicians are still much like bears with tools... so maybe a steel cage around your absorbent panels is worth considering on that level as well.

:headbang:

OTOH, I know a lot of folks who have made spiff looking DIY absorbers. For example, I really like the work Dave P did and how it complimented his room's color scheme. Anyway, I don't see how you could top the look and finish he achieved with a manufactured product absent doing custom paint work.

Image

In addition to looking spiff the MiniTrap is heavy compared to typical DIY designs... Max has got this one absolutely backwards. The difference may be insignificant to some [as Hugh finds] but the difference goes the other way regardless absent a pretty kludgey frame.

A DIY absorber's weight will vary on how you frame it [if you frame it] but FWIW the one I just put on my bathroom scale weighs 9 lbs. [half the weight of a MiniTrap] and of that 9 lbs., about 7 lbs. is the 4" of 703 [33% more mineral fiber than a MiniTrap which does a lot to explain the superior performance of the SCA over the MiniTrap]. You want to call a MiniTrap at 18 lbs. "lightweight", that’s' fine by me, but don't try and tell me my 9 lbs. broadband absorber with 33% more stuffing is heavy, that just aint true.

As to the semantics of "broadband" absorption, I just can't apply the term to a MiniTrap in a corner mounting.

Hugh, if your interpretation of the term broadband is such that a device which yields .94 Imperial Sabins at 100 Hz but only .29 at 250 Hz and then grows to 3.1 at 630 Hz [a 66% diminution followed by a 37% increase] = broadband, then I gotta agree with you... we'll have to agree to disagree. To me that's an enormous hump followed by a cavernous dip followed by a another bump. The result is so far from flat that the term broadband is not rationally applicable IMO. Narrow band is correct terminology IMO.

Check out this calculator

http://www.rmmpnet.org/members/ChrisW/Porous.html

By your reckoning, it would be questionable to call a perforated panel Helmholtz resonator narrowband... after all they have absorption curves similar to the MiniTrap curve described above. It just doesn’t make sense to me to call Helmholtz panels broadband.. and if they are not narrowband, what is?

As to the idea that I should hold ETF waterfalls generated in the MiniTrap manufacturer's garage to the same credibility as RAL data - I'm sorry I just can't go there. As I am sure you are aware low frequency absorption data cannot be collected in such a venue - I aint trying to be argumentative, that's just the laws of physics.

As to comparing the IBM data to the RAL data... different things were tested, it aint valid to try and mix those apples with them oranges - moreover their are significant questions that arise as to the presentation of the IBM data that don't pass the sniff test with me, but that's a different thread which I have no interest in starting or participating in... if you really want to explore the apparent inconsistencies of these test I suggest you drop by StudioTips and nudge the elbows of some of the engineers over there who have expertise in acoustic labs, absorption coefficient data collection and data normalization methods.

Finally, as to the idea that $340 per panel is a rational cost estimate to frame and upholster a 4" thick panel of 703 and hang it on the wall, you are in my field of direct expertise. and I don't know how yall do this stuff in acoustic facilties in the UK, but I gotta tell ya... you are out of your gourd if you think you could get that to fly over here in the States.

I have been doing construction cost estimation and management for over 20 years on projects varying from 1920's theater restoration to department stores, to high rise offices... and job site product of unique design features is not uncommon [decorative soffet work with custom lighting is a common example... fabric based architecture fixtures would be another... or mulit-level planters with built in benches... I have even seen custom outdoor furniture fab'ed up for multi building sites that match the architecture of the buildings]. Building absorption panels would be a fairly simplistic example of the practice. If doing this sort of thing cost anything like what yall are suggesting, almost no one would ever do it... it would be too expensive... but the fact is this sort of thing is a standard form of finish treatment in commercial structures [sandwich shops, retail stores, office lobbies etcetera].

In the example given [an acoustic faclty in need of 20 2'x4' units] a sub contractor would be hired to fab the units in his shop and come hang em on the day desired... the architrect or designer would provide specs and plans [pretty simple ones I might add], and anyone who bids $7,000 for that part of the job is gonna get laughed out of the GC's office.

If you point out that some folks aint up to building the things.. I see your point... if you want to tell me that building one and hangng it on some guys wall has a value of $340, then while I aint rying to tell you how to run your bitness, I think you ought to grab all of that work you can get... cause you are gonna make a fortune.. it being that there is about $300 in gross profit for the guy who does the labor of stapling together a 2'x4' rectangle of light timber and stretching a bit of cloth across it. Nice work if you can get it.

Good Luck!
User avatar
Scott R. Foster
Regular
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Ethan Winer » Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:16 pm

Max and Hugh:

First, thanks very much to both of you for your comments, and for Max's comparison of DIY costs versus MiniTraps. And thanks too for amplifying the point that MiniTraps are in fact broadband, even though they exhibit the same 100 Hz peak that all corner mounted traps do. That those guys continue to refer to a MiniTrap as a "fixed tuned device" shows either ignorance or malice or both. It's not like I haven't explained it 25 times already!

I'll have more to say about malice later on.

CC:

Likewise, thanks to you too for pointing out the obvious:

Ethan's waterfall plots say they don't [have a hole]. Also MW's waterfall tests from his SOS minitraps review also don't show this hole (although the published figures only go up to about 200Hz). Maybe someone could explain why one test should be believed more than the others?

Your point about whose tests to believe raises a great point I'd like to explore further here. Paul Woodlock's post in the now-locked thread is the first time I've ever heard someone minimize the validity of using ETF room testing. In fact, I'll argue that ETF is better than a lab when measuring below 100 Hz, and there's no question in my mind that the tests I've done with ETF are far more telling than the Riverbank tests of four traps that Auralex sponsored. In the Riverbank tests a very small sample size was used when compared to the total size of the room. In order to determine with certainty the absorption of each device, there must be a sufficient change in reverb time between when the room is empty and when the traps are in place. I already explained this adequately, so I won't do so again. In the ETF test results I posted, 12 MondoTraps were added to a small room. The difference between empty and trapped is significant and immediately obvious, in contrast to other tests we did at the same time using fewer traps.

The main reason ETF tests in a small room are more useful than reverb-based lab tests below 100 Hz is more complex, but not terribly difficult to understand either. In order to assess absorption at, say, 50 Hz you need either true reverberation or a natural room resonance. Something has to decay in order for a change in decay to be measured. Acoustic labs are not large enough to develop true reverb that low, which is why they're not certified to test below 100 Hz. Labs use 1/3 octave noise to measure reverb decay, but the reverb at low frequencies is not dense enough for 1/3 octave tests to be valid. However, even a medium sized bedroom has obvious resonances at very low frequencies, and so the change from "before" and "after" trapping is very large and can be reliably measured. The ETF waterfall graphs I posted show this clearly, as do Martin Walker's graphs that accompanied his MiniTraps review. If lab tests below 100 Hz were made at the lab's resonant frequencies, at least those frequencies would be reliable. Indeed, this is also a limitation of using ETF to measure absorber performance. You can measure relative absorption reliably, but only at the room's resonant frequencies. In the RealTraps lab I can test reliably at 42 Hz, 57, 70, 85, 97, 114, 141, 155, 171, and 183 Hz. To test other frequencies I'd need to use a different room.

While an ETF test in a small room with no climate control cannot obtain an accurate Sabins measure of absorption, the relative difference between the room empty and trapped, or between one trap type and another, is absolutely valid. Much more so than 1/3 octave noise tests, even when performed in a real lab. The tests I posted earlier in that thread were taken only minutes apart. So any variation of temperature and humidity, which could affect the results, was avoided.

StudioTips guys:

I see little value in addressing your points because I've done so repeatedly, here and elsewhere, and so far it's fallen on deaf ears. But I will address one point again here because it's a serious charge. Even though I have explained it many times in Paul Woodlock's presence, he wrote this anyway:

Ethan deliberately used the FOAM-BY-MAIL foam for comparisons to his Mini-Traps, becuase he KNEW the foam-by-mail foam is not made out of the correct material for acoustic treatment, and hence forth doesn't perform well at all.
When RealTraps decided to test corner foam for ourselves we bought from Foam by Mail (FBM) for the same reason everyone else does - because it's cheaper than the brand name products yet claims the exact same performance. It's unfair to accuse RealTraps of deliberately buying inferior foam. If that brand really is inferior, and so far I have no proof that it is, then we were duped just like everyone else who bought from FBM. I follow a lot of acoustic newsgroups and web forums, and I never once heard anyone indict FBM as inferior until after we published our test results. I have no idea how much foam is sold by FBM compared to other foam vendors, but FBM is a very popular brand here in the US and in that sense it is typical by definition, even if it can be proven inferior to the foam sold by Auralex, Sonex, RPG, and other vendors. When this first came up I asked Jeff Szymanski of Auralex if I could see the corner-mounted data for regular LENRD corners, because I'm certain that regular LENRDs were measured the same day as the four other bass traps. So far I have not been shown that data, and that would be the only proof that FBM is in fact inferior. To be clear, the burden of proof is not on me, but rather on those who claim that FBM's data is fraudulent. Even if fraud can be established, the guilty party is surely FBM, not me!

On Malice

CC wrote:

on the minitraps vs megaLenrds, one thing to note about the graph is that it is given per linear ft, rather than per area, this makes the minitraps look worse because they are smaller.

It's even worse than that. Those guys keep insisting that a MegaLENRD occupies "the same effective corner area" when that is clearly untrue. A MegaLENRD is 34 inches across the face and a MiniTrap is only 24 inches wide, so a MegaLENRD impinges far more into the room. Those guys know this, yet they continue to purposely misstate the facts out of malice toward me. In fact, my point about a MegaLENRD having four times the mass of a MiniTrap was not to criticize MegaLENRDs because they take up more space in a room (which they do). Rather, it was to show how efficient a MiniTrap is for coming so close to the same performance below 125 Hz even though it has only 1/4 the material.

But the intentional deception and malice goes farther than that. Take a close look at the Sabins data in the "four devices" thread they link to at every opportunity. The correct way to display this is with 0 Sabins as the base line, and the absorption in each band shown as some positive value. But this data was intentionally biased to start at 1, not 0, to force MiniTraps farther down the graph and wrongly make them seem "worse." When presented correctly the "shelf" behavior of MiniTraps at mid and high frequencies is far more evident, and the response appears less "peaky." This intentional fudging of the data shows a willful intent to deceive and a disregard for science, yet these guys want people to believe they're unbiased. As further proof this was done intentionally, when Auralex published the same data in their Acoustology newsletter the graph was properly based at 0, not 1. So "whoever" put together the report that appears at StudioTips did this willfully and knowingly. In the name of science and fairness to foam, of course.

I've often said that you can tell who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't by seeing who resorts to name calling and who sticks to the facts. This thread is full of name calling:

Ethan's persistence in misleading people" ... "Now we all, including Ethan himself, finally agree Ethan is NOT an acoustics Expert" ... "continues to make misleading references about foam and his acoustical abilities and even write errronous articles in magazines.

In fact, I do not agree that I'm NOT an expert. Do I know everything about acoustic treatment? Of course not, nobody does. But I've spent a lot of time over the past two years learning as much as I can, and I believe I can fairly claim "expert" status. This doesn't need to degrade into a pissing contest, but I can show just as many examples of me teaching the StudioTips regulars about acoustic treatment issues as they have examples of them teaching me. When this has come up in the past, and believe me it's come up often, I have always asked my detractors for specific instances of incorrect facts. Nobody has ever been able to show even one instance of bad acoustic science. But they have had plenty of insults.

I can see this point is not lost on the SOS regulars. As Hugh observed:

I really don't understand why you seem so keen to put the product, the company and Ethan down ... please lay off this constant negativity about the Minitrap design. It's not constructive in any way, and is misleading in itself about the practical effectiveness of these particular devices.

The fact that 0VU had to edit Scott's post and add a comment to "keep it civil" speaks volumes about motive and malice. For many more examples of malice, readers here can go to StudioTips and search for "Ethan." I have never once posted there, yet a search on my name will show example after example of insults and name-calling against me and RealTraps. I just now did that and found 30 threads with insults in the general Discussion area alone. That these guys spend so many hours of their personal time following me around the 'net just to make trouble is simply astonishing.

They are absolutely obsessed with me! :headbang:

--Ethan
User avatar
Ethan Winer
Regular
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 1:00 am
Location: New Milford, CT USA

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Studio Support Gnome » Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:57 pm

Ethan Winer wrote:Max and Hugh:

First, thanks very much to both of you for your comments, and for Max's comparison of DIY costs versus MiniTraps. And thanks too for amplifying the point that MiniTraps are in fact broadband, even though they exhibit the same 100 Hz peak that all corner mounted traps do. That those guys continue to refer to a MiniTrap as a "fixed tuned device" shows either ignorance or malice or both. It's not like I haven't explained it 25 times already!


They are absolutely obsessed with me! :headbang:

--Ethan

Hi Ethan

I would like to be clear that I was NOT comparing with DIY pricing, and I tried to make that very clear....
The pricing comparison was against use of professional craftsmen such as a couple of Cabinet makers, who would do a REALLY nice, aesthetically gorgeous job of making traps.... (nice hardwood trim, and little pretty details etc) such as one would reasonably expect to see in a commercial establishment that takes some pride in it's aesthetics....

For example, I have clients who, for reasons best known to themselves (and possibly their shrinks) will NOT allow me to use any kind of Foam in it's "natural state" coloured or otherwise, so those items have to be covered in material... not merely wrapped in burlap, but covered to the standard you'd expect from a professional seamstress or upholsterer, likewise their insistence that any fitted devices, MUST be aesthetically sympathetic to the decor scheme, and LOOK like they cost a million Quid, even if they didn't....

Thankfully, most of the time, they are happy enough with the Mini-Traps in most places.... although one client at least still wanted to go the whole hog with the cabinet makers.

of course, I also have clients that are also happy enough with plain grey Acoustic Foam, fixed where ever, and how ever is required.

Personally I'm not that fussy.......... So a plain timber frame Mineral Wool device covered in suitable material is fine for me........ But I'm also very happy with mini traps....... :lol: some Mondo traps for Xmas please........

As to the aggression , I reckon they're obsessed with the cat , Pussy envy will make a chap do the weirdest things ;)

(we're currently nursing one with Cat flu, and 1 with a busted up jaw....... OUCH ! third one is fine and dandy and enjoying being queen of the rest of the house for a while, till the boys recover.......... ;) )

Max
User avatar
Studio Support Gnome
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2913
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:00 am
Location: UK
Now available for consultations and audio engineering jobs .  Also guitar tech work , and “rent-a-shredder” sessions .  Oxfordshire based but can and will travel .  Email maxtech.audio@me.com

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Ethan Winer » Sat Dec 04, 2004 10:04 pm

Max,

> The pricing comparison was against use of professional craftsmen such as a couple of Cabinet makers, who would do a REALLY nice, aesthetically gorgeous job <

Yes, of course, thanks for clarifying. I knew you meant that, but I wrongly wrote DIY anyway.

Since many DIY people have the time and interest to do it themselves, there's a greater potential for savings compared to hiring a master carpenter or buying commercial traps.

--Ethan
User avatar
Ethan Winer
Regular
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 1:00 am
Location: New Milford, CT USA

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Scott R. Foster » Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:40 pm

The fact that 0VU had to edit Scott's post and add a comment to "keep it civil" speaks volumes


Hmmm, well FWIW I think the fact you post links to homemade crippleware at your commercial site speaks volumes Ethan. But I guess that's what we should expect from a self-appointed "expurt".

While your mouthing off, why don't you tell the folks what you know about that triple coincidence non-axial mode episode... go on I dare ya... but be forwarned I might have saved copies of ALL the posts involved before you deleted em.

Ooops!

The littel dance you'll do to explain that one ought to be good for a chuckle.

PS: I know you think everything is about you [and/or your pussy]... but it aint.
User avatar
Scott R. Foster
Regular
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:00 am

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Guest » Sun Dec 05, 2004 4:15 am

Blimey! Life's too short for this! :roll:

Surely it's possible to discuss this without it turning into a squabble again! I don't want to see this thread locked because it's (potentially) an interesting and valuable discussion but if it just keeps turning into crap then it will be locked - again! - and everyone will have wasted more time!

I edited Foz's post (in a different thread!) and added the comment quoted as even though I agreed with his point I felt that he was being rather combative in his choice of phrase. I'm not sure why it was brought up in this thread and I don't think it "speaks volumes" for anything other than a request not to wind people up. It's a request I make again in the light of his latest post and it goes for you too, Ethan.

Bah humbug! :protest:
Guest

Re: Right , A potentially contentious Post, in defence of Real traps "mini" traps.

Postby Avare » Sun Dec 05, 2004 4:40 am

(Ignoring the confrontation and working with objective information)

Ethan Winer wrote: Acoustic labs are not large enough to develop true reverb that low, which is why they're not certified to test below 100 Hz


The Architectural Testing Inc. facility is NVLAP qualified for C423 testing down to 80 Hz. (Personal comunication with Eric J.Miller, Director - Acoustical Testing)

The Vibro-Acoustics Laboratory is NVLAP qualified down to 63 Hz for C423 testing and 50 Hz for other acoustical testing. This facility has a 550 m^3 reverberation chamber.

edit: corrected spelling error.
Avare
Poster
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:00 am

Next