![]() So I'm looking at the cost factor to see how much I'm paying for the experiment vs how much good it might do. If I replace them later with something better, I can re-use the traps somewhere else. It might be worthwhile to buy some cheaper traps that I can fit now. I don't really know what I can or need to do. In the long run, there is only so much room in the room for traps, and one would want to make the best use possible of whatever space can be made available.īut I am considering the cost factor as I'm doing this very experimentally. Of course, the long run issue for me may not be the cost per unit of absorption, but the quantity/quality of bass reduction per unit volume. At most, they might be 2x or therabouts more effective per dollar spent than foam (fiberglass is about 2x as dense as foam also), and actually, the numbers I have (from promotional websites which may be misleading) suggest that some foam traps might even be better on a cost basis. OK, but on a cost-effectiveness they're not that much (well, a factor of 2-3x) different from acoustical foam traps, mainly because acoustical foam corner traps are much cheaper. Real Traps brag about how Megatraps is the best. It will also be useful to run before-and after measurements to see the affect of different materials and different placements. Regardless of how the room physical or acoustic measurements work out, if you are starting from a pre-existing room, about all you can do is add as much bass trapping as you possibly can. ![]() No, it's not one of the "optimal" ratio sets, but it's not bad either.Īnyway, I now agree with what Real Traps says. It looks good enough that you might believe the house developer (low cost San Antonio builder Rayco, which sold out to national developer K&B about 10 years ago) actually considered the acoustic properties in the floorplan, which has no doubt been used countless times. So, not that I could change the dimensions anyway, they don't look too bad. But in my system, dipolar speakers play above 85 Hz and their output seems to stimulate room modes less. Even "good" ratios have a few pile-ups like that. Then the next next pile up is with 215 and 217 Hz. Then there is a more pronounced pile-up at 130Hz (2nd harmonic of room width by third harmonic of height). That's actually a 1.2 ratio, which is about the smallest acceptible such ratio. Though RoomCalc doesn't show it as a pileup, you could also argue there is a pile up because of the two lowest principal modes at 36Hz and 43hz (caused by room length and width). In fact, I have noticed a mode in that area. That is the 2nd harmonic of 36hz (72 Hz) and the primary height mode of 66 Hz, and the height mode should be somewhat soft because of the center-peaked ceiling. Below 125Hz, there is only one area where two node-multiples come together. So there's a gradual increase up to the maximum calculated 500Hz. You notice in all such plots that as you get to higher frequencies, you get more mutual node re-inforcement because on a log frequency scale the frequencies get closer together. Given that all rooms have to have modes, it doesn't look bad, the modes are reasonably well spaced and don't tend to pile up much. If I chose to use max height, for example, the ratios would be:Īnd the height modes would start at 61.35 Hz. ![]() Note that the height is an average one, so the 65 Hz sequence, and the ratios, are fuzzy. Heigth has modes which are multiples of 65.70 Hz (66, 131, 197, 263) I'm running the program ModeCalc from RealTraps, which produced the plot above. Had friends over for my monthly discussion party tonight, so I was able to make measurements of living room (which requires second person on opposite wall, since there are no straight paths on the floor). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |