I have in fact figured out that my use of the phrase "axe to grind" probably wasn't exactly correct. Sorry about the confusion.
Also, I went through that link you gave to the RealTraps page in more detail. I believe the values you are looking at are for the "other" foam corners - not the Auralex LENRDs. In fact, Ethan has 1.25 listed as the "CLAIMED" value for the non-Auralex devices and 0.60 for the "MEASURED" value. Now, I honestly don't know where the "CLAIMED" value comes from in the case of the LENRD knock-offs. AFAIK, they have no testing to back it up.
The good news is that Ethan's value is lower. The bad news is you cannot calculate absorption coefficients in a strict sense from the test Ethan did. So you have to look at the raw absorption values in the second table. There, you can see how much better the LENRDs are.
So, please forgive my last post above. There are so many numbers on that RealTraps page that I sometimes get confused. I don't think Ethan actually shows the published LENRD data anywhere on that page.
---lovecow--- It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. - Mahatma Gandhi
> the reverb chamber method is simply not desiged to measure the absorptive effect of these sorts of devices as they are applied to small rooms. <
Wow, can I quote you on that?
> you have to look at the raw absorption values in the second table. There, you can see how much better the LENRDs are. <
Absolutely. It's clear that FBM fabricated those numbers.
I mention on our site that using Sabins is more appropriate than absorption coefficients for tube shapes, but I think using Sabins is also more appropriate to measure corner foam, and flat panels too if they're mounted straddling corners. As soon as you have more than one surface absorbing, it's no longer clear what to divide Sabins by to get AbsCo. Even with corner foam, if it doesn't go from floor to ceiling fully, the tops and bottoms are additional absorbing surfaces.
Thanks for your input on this and I hope I did not seem as I am anti Auralex (I am just anti foam). I think Aurealex has done a fine job getting people to think about acoustics. I have just found that for bass trapping or broad absorption there are much better products on the market then foam.
Ethan Winer wrote:...but I think using Sabins is also more appropriate to measure corner foam, and flat panels too if they're mounted straddling corners.
Wow, can I quote you on that?
Glenn: I really don't mind your questions at all. I always admire folks who question things. Just don't be surprised when you actually get some answers!!!
---lovecow--- It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. - Mahatma Gandhi
It might be selfish, but I'd rather have made the attempt to give you all the information I could and have you disagree, than to have you disagree without ever having had this discussion.
Thanks at least for the opportunity!
---lovecow--- It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. - Mahatma Gandhi
"We try to have an exchange and growth of knowledge here."
Great!!!!!
I like to use Mineral wool because of the cost and when making panels it is very easy to space off the wall, which does increase low end. When in the corners they can be straddled to create a very nice air gap also.
One drum room we had done, the person had put Foam on ceiling and walls and also put the foam wedges in. I think about 12 of the wedges things. The room was very dead sounding, and the bass was very unclear. Kind of hard to explain it but there was almost like this pressure on your ears when you stood in the room. First we tried to take down some of the foam but that did not really do much. We took down all the foam and installed 10 4" panels on the walls and corners, but because the person had 8 foot ceilings, we covered the whole ceiling with 2" panels with about a 3' air space. Well lets just say that the room sounds great. High end sings and low end has a very tight punch.
I have told this story before and think it really has some good points about bass trapping and how it can be used.
Let me say again. I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST AURALEX. If you think your room sounds just as good as a million dollar room with that stuff then please have at it. If not then maybe you should think about something else, because pretty much any room can be close to perfect with the right treatment.
Jeff,
Thanks for all your input on all of this. I really do have a new respect for Auralex and the way you explain things.
myfipie wrote:Jeff,
Thanks for all your input on all of this. I really do have a new respect for Auralex and the way you explain things.
Good! I often find folks have been or are misled/misguided about Auralex, our products, their performance, what we represent, the level of support we provide, etc. I'm always glad when I can clear things up, even if it doesn't mean having another "devotee"! I think Saturn makes great vehicles. That doesn't mean they're for everyone!
Anyway, anytime I can help you with anything, just let me know.
BTW: I just saw your post over at RO. I didn't realize your affiliation. Please know that I wish you the best of luck with your products!!!
---lovecow--- It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. - Mahatma Gandhi
The bad news is you cannot calculate absorption coefficients in a strict sense from the test Ethan did. So you have to look at the raw absorption values in the second table. There, you can see how much better the LENRDs are.
