Just wondering if any of the pro's around here have ever used (or heard of) the "Golden Acoustics" company and their custom panel designs?
http://goldenacoustics.com/http://mixonline.com/products/buyersgui ... treatment/
I didn't find anything with a search and little info is available elsewhere. Is this "under the radar" or "smoke and mirrors" or just avereage treatment with a bizarre shape?
I figured the reponses would have more inquisitive regarding the physics and less about the looks. Seriously, haven't we all seen plenty of rooms with hunks of fiberboard or auralex that were ugly as hell. I guess those are easier to except b/c of tradition.
Still... ugly is obvious.
Cost is average.
What about the function?
Do they publish the results of extensive testing in independent laboratories? Not their own tests and claim, but tests done in real third-party labs, or testimonies of respected and totally unrelated studio designers?
If not, then why be a guinea pig?
My $0.02
- Stuart -
Well, all the facts of what they can or cannot do for a room aside, when it comes down to the last little detail they are not attractive in an up close environment. Maybe someone more avant gard would have different thinking about this product.
I guess that if they really do have spectacular acoustic advantages, you could probably hide them behind large cloth-covered frames. That might be a solution. But I'd sure like to see some independent lab reports before spending that kind of money, and going to that kind of trouble. The theory sounds interesting, but how do they perform in reality, as tested by folks who have nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth about them?
Yeah, but who wants to work in a space that looks like it was a melted reject from the set of "Alien meets Predator"? :)
Recording studios need to look as good as they sound, if you ask me. A fantastic studio that looks like a garbage dump is not going to inspire musicians to play their best, nor engineers to track their best.
IMHO!
- Stuart -
Looks are totally subjective. Just because you are a complete traditonalist doesn't mean that someone else thinks an avant modern style looks unattractive.
To be honest, many studio builds on this forum are using fabric covered 703. NOT VERY ATTRACTIVE. Especially compared to high end rooms, fabric over 703 looks very 70's and cheap. But..... we do it anyway because it sounds better. Not b/c it looks good.
Get your priorities straight.
It is fair enough to say that what works for one may not work for the other. It seems you like these Joe, that is reason enough to use them, if they do what it is you are requiring.
For me, I just can't seem to feng shui them into my room ;)
nah... I'm just sticking up for the possibility that they might do something. The idea was to question the physics, not flame up over how ugly they are.
They are ugly. :horse: so are Auralex panels and some diffusors. Have you seen RPG's Skyline?
Recovered from web.archive.org — originally hosted at http://www.acousticalsolutions.com/images/products/sound_diffusors/rpg/skyline/rpg_diffusers_skyline.jpgThat's ugly too. So what?
Does it work?
Often it is the application of these items that determines if it works in your environment or not.
Since I have never used either, I can only refer you to their website brochures and your knowledge of how you are trying to install them into your space.
Clearly the Golden Acoustics is having downtime as it relates to their data, it isn't there :) So that goes off the list.
Auralex has a proven track record, so if I was in the market for something that does something and isn't completely butt ugly, they would get the nod :)
They are ugly. so are ... some diffusors. ... Have you seen RPG's Skyline? Does it work?
That depends entirely on where you install it, and what you expect of it.
Install it in the wrong place, and it will make matters much worse, not better. Expect it to be a magic bullet to cure all your CR ills, and you will be sorely disappointed. But install it correctly, along with a few identical neighbors, on the back wall of a well-designed CR for example, and it will indeed do what it was designed to do. Proven concept. No guessing. Plenty of science, math, experience and real-world reports to back it up.
Unlike the Alien/Predator reject, as far as I can see.
One more time: Show me the multiple independent lab analysis reports on how it ACTUALLY performs in a controlled test environment, and real disinterested independent testimony from real studio designers (not the manufacturers own hype nor "testimony" from their "customers"), and I might be inclined to think that it does something useful. It may well do so, and it may well do acoustic wonders even for small CR's, which would indeed be amazing. But you'll never know until you can find real tests of the product, by independent testers.
That's my beef with the product. (That, and how ugly it is.) You can hide "ugly" behind acoustic cloth if you don't like it, but you can't make an oversize egg crate perform like a good multi-dimensional QRD, no matter how much you spruce it up with pretty curves and marketing hype. Like they say here about studio builds "no pics means it didn't happen": I'll re-phrase that a little here: "No data means it doesn't work". Show me the data and prove me wrong.
- Stuart -
And Like 703 covered panels.These can be covered too. Stax, Motown, Sun and many other studios were not great looking places to see.
but the sounds were amazing! imho.Even George Harrison said that Studio 2 was drab and dirty yet listen to what they made. If you need more info, maybe you should call them.
You've already decided you don't care for them. Why bother? imho.
Peace,
Kevin
That's kind of what I already said, isn't it? "Ugly" can be hidden, but "useless" would make that pointless.
You've already decided you don't care for them.
No I haven't. Don't put words in my mouth. What I have decided is that the manufacturer has published no independent information on them, on which an intelligent decision can be made as to his claims. There are no independent reviews of them by respected industry sources.
Therefore they don't make the grade of useful studio acoustic treatment.
As I said, they may well turn out to be fantastic devices, but you'll never know until there is an impartial report from a reputable INDEPENDENT acoustic laboratory, and real field reports from disinterested recognized studio designers, who actually have used them and found them to be good (for example, if Rod or John mentioned that they had tried them and found that they accomplish a useful purpose, then I'd be far more interested).
But until I see that kind of independent information, I'm not interested. Why would anybody want to be a guinea pig for the manufacturer, if he can't be bothered to provide the information?
You seem to be implying that I don't like them just because they are ugly. Wrong. I don't like them because I see that there is no published information on them.
One more time: those things quite possibly actually do perform exactly as the manufacturer claims they do, but until the manufacturer takes the initiative to get them tested in independent labs and publishing the reports, it makes no sense to spend money on them. To me, the big question is: Why has the manufacturer NOT done that already? Hmmmm.....
- Stuart -
