Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-04-2009, 08:42 PM   #1
plgrmsprgrs
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 2,021
Default Acoustic Foam This Cheap!!!?

Anyone ever see this site before? Can the foam be good?

http://www.foambymail.com/Products.html

Kyle
__________________
"Same as it ever was . . . " - David Byrne
plgrmsprgrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 09:05 PM   #2
drbam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Prescott
Posts: 443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plgrmsprgrs View Post
Anyone ever see this site before? Can the foam be good?

http://www.foambymail.com/Products.html

Kyle
No. Unless you're using it for dog beds, which for that its a fairly good buy. I'm serious. We have 2 large dogs and we replaced their bed foam with this stuff.

I learned the hard and expensive way that except for treating a few early reflections, foam is a total waste of money. Save for the some Owens Corning 703 & 705 (or the equally performing substitutions). This is one of the best investments you will ever make.
drbam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 09:59 PM   #3
audioguytodd
Human being with feelings
 
audioguytodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,057
Default

Whoa,

I don't know about that foam specifically as I have never used it. I have heard good things about it (mostly from newbies) and bad things (about it starting to crumble after a while, not as good as other foam), but using good 2" acoustic foam is definitely a worthwhile investment.

I don't know your particular application. What are you trying to do?? Mix?? Track???

I don't know the dimensions of your room.

But (and this is a semi-big BUT), MOST home rooms built with Sheetrock are horrible to mix/track in. Sheetrock just sounds like ass.

As the other poster said, using OC703 or some such thing will help A WHOLE LOT MORE for lower/bass frequency's- but to get the room 'a bit better' and not as 'slappy' there is no problem with using 2" or 3" foam. You just have to be smart in how you use it.

Do a search on this forum for Acoustic Treatment or similar.

I am not an expert (though I have built quite a few studios and converted a few home rooms in the past) and I have never used the foambymail.com stuff.

I just wanted to let you know that there are things you can do that will help.
__________________
Comp Specs: WIN XPSP3, Q6600, ASUSP5K, 3 GB PC6400 RAM, Focusrite Saffire, AlphaTrack, lots of plugins and hardware.

Last edited by audioguytodd; 05-04-2009 at 10:02 PM.
audioguytodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 10:27 PM   #4
shockwave199
Human being with feelings
 
shockwave199's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 362
Default

Foam has it's place. Aside from the great products I purchased at realtraps which do the bulk of the acoustic work in my control room, I wanted some foam too because I like the look of it in the live room and to cut down on some reflections. I chose FBM over the more expensive auralex and quite frankly, I've been very happy with it. It does what I need it to do, nothing more, nothing less. I got the 1", 2" sheets, and corner block. My color choice was red and grey. I use the 1 inch sheets on the lower half of my walls and use the corner block as a cap to that to create the look of waynescoting. It looks great and serves a bit of a purpose. I also use the corner block around my studio glass on the control room and vocal booth. It does nothing more than look great. I've had it all up for five years and it hasn't faded or crumbled. Still in perfect shape. The only thing I will caution- it smells when new and depending, you may or may not like it. The smell wares off after a bit, but it does smell. Can't describe it, but it has it's own smell. Also, it comes packaged VERY compressed, so open up the packages right away to avoid permanent mis-shaping. But as far as foam will go for acoustics, the stuff is great imo. Why pay more?








Dan

Last edited by shockwave199; 05-04-2009 at 10:46 PM.
shockwave199 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 10:36 PM   #5
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,955
Default

nice studio pics!

i'm keen to get some tontine acoustisorb (they have loads of it in at a rehearsal studio i use and it seems pretty good, also relatively cheap) - but i don't think i need a full package of the stuff. anyone in the sydney area interested in going halves on a package of some of it? mail: dan@remaincalm.org
dub3000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 11:22 PM   #6
scottdru
Human being with feelings
 
scottdru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,312
Default

WARNING!!!! All "studio foam" or "acoustic foam" is NOT the same. My personal experience with the cheap FBM stuff, as well as lab testing on their products done by RealTraps, indicates that the FBM is not nearly as effective as their lab tests claim.

You can see this on the RealTraps data page:

http://realtraps.com/data.htm

My advice: Don't waste your money on FBM or other cheap substitutes for properly specced acoustic foam. Better to spend your money on raw OC 703 (or the Rockwool equivalent) and some fabric, to make your own broadband panels.
__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun sort of helps."

- Eddie Izzard
scottdru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 11:52 PM   #7
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,955
Default

i have some chunky foam traps (similar to auralex) and positioned correctly they do a really good job with everything above 250hz or so, but down low they're useless.

the acoustisorb i'm talking about is proper, dense insulation-type material (available in 32kg to 48kg/sqm, 25-100mm thick, 2400x1200mm panels) and i've got first hand experience of a room full of it - it works really well and it's relatively cheap. needs diy frames built tho which is going to be very interesting...

oc703 is a lot harder to get in sydney from what i can tell and seems to be a lot nastier to work with.
dub3000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2009, 03:56 AM   #8
plgrmsprgrs
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 2,021
Default

Thanks for the input everyone. I'll give all this some thought and do a bit more reading. What really caught my eye at FBM was the price of bass traps that looked like the Auralex LERND traps. My studio area consists of approx. half of a 13x16 room that doubles as my study. One wall (back) is completely bookshelves starting about 9" from the ceiling down to roughly chair rail height, and then cabinets down to the floor. One side wall has a double window. The opposite wall has a door in the middle with another high, standing bookshelf on either side down to the floor. The front wall has a corner closet on one end and some built in cabinets (flush) about the same width as the closet door on the other end. All that to say, on much of the area along the horizontal, wall to ceiling corners, I am limited as to how wide a 703 can be diagonally mounted. Same is true in the vertical, wall to wall corners (even more so - actually impossible). The LERND traps are only 1x1x8, thus tucking nicely into the space available above the door jams and below the horizontal corners. My main concern acoustically seems to be bass, as my mixes in the room untreated seem to typically sound too brittle when transfered to other systems. Can 703 DIY panels still be effective for this application if they are only 2' wide in the corners, and/or perhaps not a full 45 degrees?

Thanks,
Kyle
__________________
"Same as it ever was . . . " - David Byrne
plgrmsprgrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2009, 05:28 AM   #9
stupeT
Human being with feelings
 
stupeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: frankonia
Posts: 1,996
Default

I achieved excellent results using foam made from Basotect. It was invented for the airplane industry to give a lightweight absorber. It is available in pyramid-shape up to 4 inches thick - or so and also flat. It's a total different league compared to cheapo-foam.

But keep in mind that even the best 4 inch thick foam will only work down to the midrange frequencies.

I tried to build a corner bass trap from that foam (layered). I made it *huge*. Even though many people told me that foam will not work at all for bass.

It finally worked perfectly down to one of my resonances at 166 Hz and to some degree down to 83 Hz and did NOT change the 41 Hz main mode of the room (SPL-wise). But still the low bass *precision* is much improved by that. Maybe by cutting reverb time down there - just a guess - I cant measure that.

But the most impressing of all changes by treating the room properly with this type of foam is the precision of the stereo image. Most people where actually searching for the "hidden" suround-center speaker *ggg*...

It was the best investment I ever made...
__________________
------------------------------------------
Don't read this sentence to it's end, please.
stupeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2009, 06:53 AM   #10
drbam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Prescott
Posts: 443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plgrmsprgrs View Post
Thanks for the input everyone. I'll give all this some thought and do a bit more reading. What really caught my eye at FBM was the price of bass traps that looked like the Auralex LERND traps. My studio area consists of approx. half of a 13x16 room that doubles as my study. One wall (back) is completely bookshelves starting about 9" from the ceiling down to roughly chair rail height, and then cabinets down to the floor. One side wall has a double window. The opposite wall has a door in the middle with another high, standing bookshelf on either side down to the floor. The front wall has a corner closet on one end and some built in cabinets (flush) about the same width as the closet door on the other end. All that to say, on much of the area along the horizontal, wall to ceiling corners, I am limited as to how wide a 703 can be diagonally mounted. Same is true in the vertical, wall to wall corners (even more so - actually impossible). The LERND traps are only 1x1x8, thus tucking nicely into the space available above the door jams and below the horizontal corners. My main concern acoustically seems to be bass, as my mixes in the room untreated seem to typically sound too brittle when transfered to other systems. Can 703 DIY panels still be effective for this application if they are only 2' wide in the corners, and/or perhaps not a full 45 degrees?

Thanks,
Kyle
You can create "corner chunks" out of 703/705 which would take up about the same space as the LERND type thing. It costs more and certainly is more work but this approach will perform even better than the usual application of covering the corners with full 4 inch or 6 inch panel arrangements. It also looks better IMO. Check out the acoustics forum on gearslutz for more info on the corner chunk application.

Last edited by drbam; 05-05-2009 at 06:55 AM.
drbam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2009, 07:35 AM   #11
Bubbagump
Human being with feelings
 
Bubbagump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,028
Default

FBM is junk. There are several sites that measure FBM and it is pretty much worthless.
Bubbagump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2009, 10:36 AM   #12
shockwave199
Human being with feelings
 
shockwave199's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 362
Default

What I use it for is looks and reflections. For bass trapping I agree, it's not going to help you. Auralex won't be as good as 703/705 either. I don't use foam for serious acoustic treatment. YMMV.

Dan
shockwave199 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2009, 10:41 AM   #13
plgrmsprgrs
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 2,021
Default

What I think I'm hearing here is that you can do a room pretty completely with just 703/705, and just forget foam altogether. Broadband treatment handles bass trap duty and reflexions?

Kyle
__________________
"Same as it ever was . . . " - David Byrne
plgrmsprgrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2009, 10:57 AM   #14
drbam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Prescott
Posts: 443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plgrmsprgrs View Post
What I think I'm hearing here is that you can do a room pretty completely with just 703/705, and just forget foam altogether. Broadband treatment handles bass trap duty and reflexions?

Kyle
Well all I can say is that if knew then what I know now, I would NOT waste my money on foam and would only use 703/705 in various configurations to handle what is required. And although at this point I am fairly savvy regarding studio treatment, I can also tell you that many people who know a LOT more than I do about this completely agree with my view.
drbam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2009, 01:01 PM   #15
Bubbagump
Human being with feelings
 
Bubbagump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plgrmsprgrs View Post
What I think I'm hearing here is that you can do a room pretty completely with just 703/705, and just forget foam altogether. Broadband treatment handles bass trap duty and reflexions?

Kyle
Correct... plus all foam is not created equal.
Bubbagump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2009, 10:36 PM   #16
scottdru
Human being with feelings
 
scottdru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,312
Default

That's the key point . . . all foam is not created equal. Foam is certainly valid as acoustics treatment, though it seems from most lab testing that it will take a bit more foam to achieve the same performance as the OC 703/705 or rockwool equivalents.

The thing with foam is that there are a lot of people selling sculpted "studio foam" that does not perform to the level of Auralex, Primeacoustic, or other brand name acoustical foams. There ARE some other "off-brand" companies that are selling good quality acoustic foam, but it is very important to make sure they publish CERTIFIED ASTM lab test reports. As I understand it, FBM basically just grabbed the data off the Auralex site, and published it as though they had tested their own foam and it produced comparable results in the lab. Such was subsequently shown to be false!

But yes . . . OC 703/705 or the Rockwool equivalent can be used to do everything foam can do (and more), and it will generally outperform the foam.

The advice of the several posters above is spot on, so I won't repeat it here.

Bottom line . . . broadband absorption is your best bet in any small room. And the more bass absorption you can get, the better.
__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun sort of helps."

- Eddie Izzard
scottdru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2009, 10:43 PM   #17
scottdru
Human being with feelings
 
scottdru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupeT View Post

I tried to build a corner bass trap from that foam (layered). I made it *huge*. Even though many people told me that foam will not work at all for bass.
Yeah . . . it's a bit of a misnomer that foam will not work for bass. It certainly will, if you have enough of it, at the proper thickness, density and gas flow resistance.

A lot of this "disinformation" comes from the fact that, at the time Ethan Winer was coming out with his own designs (RealTraps), there were no foam products that had enough mass, etc. to compete. That's one of the reasons Auralex came out with their MegaLENRD, because the LENRD just didn't have enough mass to compete as a bass trap. That said, the MegaLENRD takes up more space, and is more expensive per square foot, than the RealTraps MiniTraps, and does not outperform the MiniTrap (at least as I recall).

Also at issue at that time was the fact that so many people really didn't know anything about small room acoustics, and they would just plaster their rooms with the thin (2 inches or whatever) panels of sculpted foam, thus absorbing all the highs and mids, but leaving all the bass reflection problems in the room, leaving a very muddy or boxy sounding room.

So . . . foam can work for bass absorption, but it tends to be more expensive and need more mass to achieve the same performance. And you also have to make sure that the foam you are using is of high quality for acoustical use, and has been tested in ASTM-certified labs (and the manufacturer should be able to provide the ASTM-certified lab reports, which come in PDF form). With foam in particular, I would always require the certified lab reports, because it's easier to "fake it" with foam, whereas there are only a certain number of manufacturers of the glass wool or mineral wool insulation panels, and all of the acoustical products manufacturers get their glass/mineral wool from the same group of manufacturers, all of whom will have had the raw insulation products tested in ASTM certified labs.

To give you an example, per square foot, an Auralex MegaLENRD is more expensive than a RealTraps MiniTrap, and doesn't out perform the MiniTrap.

If you are using OC 703 (or rockwool equivalents) via DIY panels, it is all the more cost-effective than foam.
__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun sort of helps."

- Eddie Izzard

Last edited by scottdru; 05-07-2009 at 10:26 AM.
scottdru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 11:33 AM   #18
plgrmsprgrs
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 2,021
Default

And 4" of OC 703/Rockwool is needed - correct?
__________________
"Same as it ever was . . . " - David Byrne

Last edited by plgrmsprgrs; 05-07-2009 at 12:06 PM.
plgrmsprgrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 12:46 PM   #19
drbam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Prescott
Posts: 443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plgrmsprgrs View Post
And 4" of OC 703/Rockwool is needed - correct?
For bass traps, 2 x 2" panels 703 = 4" thick MINIMUM. 6" is better (3 panels per trap).
For broadband, a 2" thick panel of 705 works best but 703 will work fine.

Again, I would suggest that you spend a lot time researching the gearslutz forum. You'll find tons of great info, photo tutorials and friendly, free assistance from people who are professionals in the studio design and acoustic treatment world. In my view, its the best place I've found for this kind of stuff. http://www.gearslutz.com/board/bass-...nels-foam-etc/
drbam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 03:23 PM   #20
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,955
Default

i'm picking up some material today (acoustisorb 3) - the panels are big, 2" thick, 48kg/m3. it's listed as 'heavyweight/flexible' - any idea how flexible i should expect this stuff to be? i'm gonna have to squish it up into a arch shape to fit it in my car...

the same stuff is also available in 1" as a roll, but in 2" only as panels, if that's any help.
dub3000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 05:45 PM   #21
shockwave199
Human being with feelings
 
shockwave199's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 362
Default

Will FBM be the best solution for complete acoustic treatment? No. Is it the best out there? No. Does it fair better than auralex? Well, the numbers say no. Should foam even be considered given all the other, more appropriate and beneficial acoustic treatment solutions available? No.

But does FBM look the same as auralex? Yes. Does it cut down on reflections and can it have a limited role in the grand scheme, like ANY foam? Yes. Does it keep it's color and last for years with no wear? Yes. Like choosing not to buy into the Monster cable bullshit, will it save you a bunch of money? Yes. Flex all the acoustic knowledge muscle you want. For looks and what it can do well, which is take care of some nasty reflections- it's great and saves a ton of money when you're talking foam.......in my opinion. Of course there's better options, but to answer the original question- can foam this cheap be good? Sure it can. Depends on what you ask of it.

Dan
shockwave199 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 10:42 PM   #22
scottdru
Human being with feelings
 
scottdru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drbam View Post
For bass traps, 2 x 2" panels 703 = 4" thick MINIMUM. 6" is better (3 panels per trap).
Correct.

Quote:
For broadband, a 2" thick panel of 705 works best but 703 will work fine.
I would really be more likely to consider a 4-inch thick panel (be it 705 or 703) a "broadband" panel.

2 inch thickness will only give you high and mid frequency absorption.

Quote:
Again, I would suggest that you spend a lot time researching the gearslutz forum. You'll find tons of great info, photo tutorials and friendly, free assistance from people who are professionals in the studio design and acoustic treatment world. In my view, its the best place I've found for this kind of stuff. http://www.gearslutz.com/board/bass-...nels-foam-etc/
Advice from myself included. ;-)
__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun sort of helps."

- Eddie Izzard

Last edited by scottdru; 05-07-2009 at 10:50 PM.
scottdru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 10:50 PM   #23
scottdru
Human being with feelings
 
scottdru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shockwave199 View Post
Will FBM be the best solution for complete acoustic treatment? No. Is it the best out there? No. Does it fair better than auralex? Well, the numbers say no. Should foam even be considered given all the other, more appropriate and beneficial acoustic treatment solutions available? No.

But does FBM look the same as auralex? Yes. Does it cut down on reflections and can it have a limited role in the grand scheme, like ANY foam? Yes. Does it keep it's color and last for years with no wear? Yes. Like choosing not to buy into the Monster cable bullshit, will it save you a bunch of money? Yes. Flex all the acoustic knowledge muscle you want. For looks and what it can do well, which is take care of some nasty reflections- it's great and saves a ton of money when you're talking foam.......in my opinion. Of course there's better options, but to answer the original question- can foam this cheap be good? Sure it can. Depends on what you ask of it.

Dan
I highly recommend you actually spend some time learning from those who are professionals in the industry. Your assessment of FBM doesn't square with lab tests or direct comparative experience between FBM and other legitimate acoustical products manufacturers such as Auralex, PrimeAcoustic and others. I f you are concerned only about "looks", then fair play to ye . . . off ye go!"

If you were to actually compare the effects (as experienced personally in the room, and as demonstrated in standardized lab tests) of various different acoustics treatments, you will most definitely see and hear a difference!!! But most people simply never get that far, to be able to make scientific and subjective comparisons amongst different treatment approaches to small room acoustics!

I personally have nothing to sell here . . . no products. I formerly worked for RealTraps as an acoustics consultant, but I no longer work for them. So I am free to speak honestly from direct experience with different products. And I only bother to post about this stuff if it is actually helpful, expresses honest, experienced, carefully considered opinion by someone in the industry, and not a completely redundant post.
__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun sort of helps."

- Eddie Izzard

Last edited by scottdru; 05-07-2009 at 10:55 PM.
scottdru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 11:03 PM   #24
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,955
Default

hi scott - you say 6" recommended for bass traps?

i've acquired some material and i'm going to build some traps very soon, as per http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=29648 . i was aiming to use 2/3rd of what i got to build some 4", floor-to-ceiling corner traps (with air gap behind) and use the remainder to make a roof trap and maybe some side traps.

would you instead recommend using most of the material to make 6" corner traps instead? or potentially making the corner traps a little narrower and keeping the ceiling trap?

cheers again.

--dan (off to a gig...)

Last edited by dub3000; 05-07-2009 at 11:05 PM.
dub3000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 11:11 PM   #25
scottdru
Human being with feelings
 
scottdru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,312
Default

Dub,

Once you get to the 3- to 4-inch thickness threshold, you are better off going with greater coverage with 3- or 4-inch traps, rather than fewer square feet of coverage with 6-inch-thick traps.
__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun sort of helps."

- Eddie Izzard
scottdru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 01:18 AM   #26
shockwave199
Human being with feelings
 
shockwave199's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 362
Default

Quote:
I highly recommend you actually spend some time learning from those who are professionals in the industry. Your assessment of FBM doesn't square with lab tests or direct comparative experience between FBM and other legitimate acoustical products manufacturers such as Auralex, PrimeAcoustic and others. I f you are concerned only about "looks", then fair play to ye . . . off ye go!"
I did Scott. That's why I spent the motherload for the motherload at realtraps- years ago. THOSE products do the work for me. I have 8 large traps from Ethan in my control room. Met him at AES some years ago and had a nice chat. The foam does a little and does more for looks. So...off I go.

Dan

Last edited by shockwave199; 05-08-2009 at 01:23 AM.
shockwave199 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 06:54 AM   #27
plgrmsprgrs
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 2,021
Default

I really appreciate all the posts this thread has generated. I have been doing a lot of reading from many different sources (including those suggested here). But, there are a few gaps in the information (at least to a layman such as I) that this forum helps to fill.

Another question that I have is this - are panels half as wide (+-) still effective. I have several corners that restrict the size of bass trap I can hang. What say you to that?

Kyle
__________________
"Same as it ever was . . . " - David Byrne
plgrmsprgrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 09:16 AM   #28
Bubbagump
Human being with feelings
 
Bubbagump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plgrmsprgrs View Post

Another question that I have is this - are panels half as wide (+-) still effective. I have several corners that restrict the size of bass trap I can hang. What say you to that?

Kyle
More is better... that is all there is to know. That said, if all you can get are like 1'x4'x4" to fit, then use them. They are better than nothing. Not ideal, but not worthless. We are of course speaking in ideals here, so don't NOT put in treatment if you can't get it 100% perfectly situated.

As for FBM... does it do SOMETHING to flutter echoes and slap back? According to realtraps data, yes. Does it do what it CLAIMS for slap back and flutter? No. It does significantly less. That is the key piece of info to take away. If you just want to look good with limited sound treatment value at a low price(as it seems Dan is really saying he is after) then you may be fine with FBM. If you expect dramatic sound treatment value from FBM, you will likely be disappointed.

Last edited by Bubbagump; 05-08-2009 at 09:23 AM.
Bubbagump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 11:14 AM   #29
smashaudio
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 28
Default

I bought some of this foam about four years ago. It holds up well, no crumbling. You can see and feel the difference between this and the Auralex. I bought the 4" thick wedge pieces and move them around for controling flutter echoes etc. The stuff is ok for the price.
smashaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 11:44 AM   #30
shockwave199
Human being with feelings
 
shockwave199's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 362
Default

Quote:
If you just want to look good with limited sound treatment value at a low price(as it seems Dan is really saying he is after) then you may be fine with FBM. If you expect dramatic sound treatment value from FBM, you will likely be disappointed.
That's all I'm saying. And I stand corrected- I have eleven realtraps in my control room, not just eight. I also I have another six in the live room for a ceiling cloud. What I invested in from Ethan at real traps is bass traps and 703/705 2x4 panels with white cloth on them, both in 2" and 1" thickness. These products do an amazing job, really. When this stuff is applied, there's really no further need for foam. I just like the look of foam, and there was a bit of a function for cutting flutter and reflections. It's interesting to note that back in the day, auralex was getting bashed like FBM does now. Maybe not quite like FBM, because auralex never had a rep for being inferior crap as a product- rather just what it could or couldn't really do to help acoustics . It was just foam in general that took a hit. I think it's still inferior compared to real traps products. But I do like the looks of it.

I am NOT suggesting FBM is or isn't acoustically sound as a product. That's up to THEM to prove. Put it this way- I have a Behringer headphone amp and it's worked perfectly for years. There are lines stretching around blocks to tell you how horrid Behringer is, but the darn headphone amp keeps firing up and doing it's job to this day. FBM keeps hanging on my wall looking pretty and doing the role I ask of it. That's all. Each individual will have to come to their own conclusions as to what they'll do.

Dan
shockwave199 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 05:14 PM   #31
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shockwave199 View Post
I have a Behringer headphone amp and it's worked perfectly for years. There are lines stretching around blocks to tell you how horrid Behringer is, but the darn headphone amp keeps firing up and doing it's job to this day.
i have a $40 behringer 4-output headphone amp, and it clips really badly (and painfully) on bass and transients if you're running to any more than 2 outputs. i think most of their stuff is fine but just totally underspec'ed.
dub3000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 05:14 PM   #32
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottdru View Post
Once you get to the 3- to 4-inch thickness threshold, you are better off going with greater coverage with 3- or 4-inch traps, rather than fewer square feet of coverage with 6-inch-thick traps.
awesome, that means i don't have to do as much cutting
dub3000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 01:13 PM   #33
scottdru
Human being with feelings
 
scottdru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,312
Default

Shockwave . . . your studio DOES look very nice!

Quote:
Originally Posted by shockwave199 View Post
. It's interesting to note that back in the day, auralex was getting bashed like FBM does now. Maybe not quite like FBM, because auralex never had a rep for being inferior crap as a product- rather just what it could or couldn't really do to help acoustics . It was just foam in general that took a hit. I think it's still inferior compared to real traps products. But I do like the looks of it.
Yes, you are correct that, as a result of some generalizations that got added along the way across the Internets, Auralex foam products did get some unnecessary drubbing -- as I explained in one of my earlier posts. And I posted that explanation primarily to put things in the most realistic perspective, so people can make *informed* decisions.


Quote:
I am NOT suggesting FBM is or isn't acoustically sound as a product. That's up to THEM to prove.
Technically, ANYTHING can be called "acoustically sound" if it truly contributes to an overall balanced acoustical environment.

I would argue that FBM isn't particularly well balanced in this regard, because, among other things, even the corner wedges do VERY little to address the low frequency issues they are supposed to (believe me . . . I've done direct comparisons between FBM treatment and no treatment in the same spots, etc.).

The most important thing, I think, is to make it clear that not all foam is the same. And I will also mention that not all foam is acoustical foam either -- it must be open celled foam. Some people also make the mistake of thinking they can put standard upholstery foam (which is closed cell foam) up on their walls and get the same results as with proper acoustic foam. Such is not the case!

Futher still, if you are going to slap up a bunch of foam in your studio, you really would be wise to find out whether or not the foam you are using carries a class A fire rating. If it does not, you could be putting yourself and your clients or family at risk. That's what happened at the Whitesnake concert some years ago where people were killed as a result of a fire. The club owner had put up some cheap sculpted foam that he thought was proper acoustical foam, and, when it caught fire, it just went up in flames.

BUT . . . there are inexpensive, off-brand foams that ARE legit, and those companies that make such foam should supply you with copies of the original ASTM-certified lab test reports for their products. In these cases, BUYER BEWARE!


Quote:
Each individual will have to come to their own conclusions as to what they'll do.

Dan
The bottom line, here, though, is to keep things in perspective for someone who is looking to invest in acoustics treatment for the first time, especially on a budget. My main point is that buying cheap foam of questionable/unknown performance and fire ratings is NOT a good investment, especially when there are better alternatives out there, without having to spend and arm and a leg.

Had you known about FBM before (and knew more about what options were available to you, you *might* have chosen to do something different with the money you invested. Perhaps you would have still wanted some foam for the look, but you might have found a better company that offered better performing foam for the same money. But now that you have invested the money and put up the foam, it would seem a little silly to take it down if it isn't doing something overall detrimental to your sound. Certainly no criticism there (and that certainly isn't the point of my statements regarding FBM).
__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun sort of helps."

- Eddie Izzard
scottdru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 01:20 PM   #34
scottdru
Human being with feelings
 
scottdru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plgrmsprgrs View Post

Another question that I have is this - are panels half as wide (+-) still effective. I have several corners that restrict the size of bass trap I can hang. What say you to that?

Kyle
Bubba again speaketh truth on this matter.

ALSO . . . sometimes just using the same width panel, but slightly changing the angle of the panel (i.e., it doesn't have to be in a perfect equilateral triangle to the wall) can work too.

Can you post up some pictures of the corners in question (in case we might be able to come up with some alternative suggestions)?
__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun sort of helps."

- Eddie Izzard
scottdru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 02:54 PM   #35
shockwave199
Human being with feelings
 
shockwave199's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 362
Default

Quote:
Had you known about FBM before (and knew more about what options were available to you, you *might* have chosen to do something different with the money you invested. Perhaps you would have still wanted some foam for the look, but you might have found a better company that offered better performing foam for the same money. But now that you have invested the money and put up the foam, it would seem a little silly to take it down if it isn't doing something overall detrimental to your sound. Certainly no criticism there (and that certainly isn't the point of my statements regarding FBM).
There was auarlex, FBM, and others at the time. All the major foam players and acoustic providers were in place even then. Through studying to get enough of a grip on this to at least spend my money in the best way, I chose real traps. I knew I could have stopped right there. But I liked the looks and color choices of foam too. I don't believe that I knew about questionable specs of FBM though. I don't think they were challenged yet. But in all honesty really, I would have gone the same way becuase of how little I was asking of foam at that point. And absolutely, fire rating is a MAJOR concern too, although I think FMB meets typical requirements there, no? Packing foam does NOT and I wouldn't go that way for acoustic treatment. But anyway, thanks for the kind words on the studio pics. That was when the place was just done. It is now a typical messy studio!

Dan
shockwave199 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 03:18 PM   #36
plgrmsprgrs
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 2,021
Default

I'll see if I can't get some pics up early next week.

Thanks!
Kyle
__________________
"Same as it ever was . . . " - David Byrne
plgrmsprgrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 06:55 PM   #37
scottdru
Human being with feelings
 
scottdru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shockwave199 View Post
There was auarlex, FBM, and others at the time. All the major foam players and acoustic providers were in place even then.
Heh . . . actually, there was originally a mixup (for which Ethan somewhat justifiably took some rather serious heat on the Interwebs) in which Ethan used FBM (instead of Auralex) for comparative testing in the same labs with the RealTraps MiniTraps. At the time, FBM were publishing specs ripped directly from the Auralex site, so Ethan bought the FBM to use for the test, assuming it was exactly the same thing. He was taken to task by some other acousticians, including one of the head acousticians from Auralex. As a result, Ethan went back into the lab (if my memory serves me correctly) with actual Auralex products as well, and he thereafter clarified. This was, I believe, the way FBM's fraudulent claims were discovered.

Anyhoo . . . not being argumentative for the sake of it; rather, just filling in some of the details, since I was around for some of that. Most of this stuff has been debated ad nauseam, ad infinitum, on the various forums over the last bunch of years, and there has been much fall-out from this, including some misinformation (coming from both sides of a very nasty ongoing Internet brawl, which has mercifully come to a much needed end, finally).

I personally feel that this kind of clarification is needed, as there are plenty of people who will chime in and say "I have some in my studio and it seems to work well", without ever having had the chance to compare with anything else, or without having done any acoustics measurement in their room, etc. (Not saying that you are doing this, Dan!)

Either way, for your situation, Dan, the main thing is that your studio looks great and, more importantly, you are happy with the sound.
__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun sort of helps."

- Eddie Izzard

Last edited by scottdru; 05-09-2009 at 07:00 PM.
scottdru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 07:05 PM   #38
scottdru
Human being with feelings
 
scottdru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupeT View Post
It finally worked perfectly down to one of my resonances at 166 Hz and to some degree down to 83 Hz and did NOT change the 41 Hz main mode of the room (SPL-wise). But still the low bass *precision* is much improved by that. Maybe by cutting reverb time down there - just a guess - I cant measure that.
Yes, sometimes it is easier to cut decay times than to reduce the peaks . . . especially at those lower frequencies. Sometimes those really low frequencies require a tuned trap to really pull down a really stubborn peak like that.

Quote:
Maybe by cutting reverb time down there - just a guess - I cant measure that.
Actually, you CAN! And you can do it for free! There is a great free application called Room EQ Wizard.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/
__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun sort of helps."

- Eddie Izzard
scottdru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 10:45 PM   #39
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,955
Default

+1 vote for Room EQ Wizard

anyway. a couple of hours of DIY (i'm not very good at this) and i've got my traps built: two 2400x600x100mm corner traps. they reach up to within ~300mm of the ceiling, that's the best i could do (is that going to be punishing me? should i get some foam stuff in the ceiling corners?)

no time to run proper tests at the moment, but i ran a quick sweep and found:

* it still hasn't completely sorted out my loud points (~130Hz, ~170Hz) - improved a bit, but still. which is a pain. i worry that maybe they're resonances in my (wooden) desk or something.
* does seem to have fixed the nulls. well, they're kinda at ~90% now, which is fine.
* subjective testing: sounds great. imaging is a lot better. but that's subjective testing, so maybe i'm fooling myself. either way, the sweep was pretty good apart from the two main nodes.

i still have one sheet of 2400x1200x50mm left. right now it's bundled up in a corner but i'm going to do something with it. probably half on the ceiling, half at the back of the room. any thoughts?

also, how the hell do you attach ceiling traps?!?

thanks again to all the experts on here for their excellent advice.
dub3000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2009, 06:35 AM   #40
drbam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Prescott
Posts: 443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dub3000 View Post
+1 vote for Room EQ Wizard

anyway. a couple of hours of DIY (i'm not very good at this) and i've got my traps built: two 2400x600x100mm corner traps. they reach up to within ~300mm of the ceiling, that's the best i could do (is that going to be punishing me? should i get some foam stuff in the ceiling corners?)

no time to run proper tests at the moment, but i ran a quick sweep and found:

* it still hasn't completely sorted out my loud points (~130Hz, ~170Hz) - improved a bit, but still. which is a pain. i worry that maybe they're resonances in my (wooden) desk or something.
* does seem to have fixed the nulls. well, they're kinda at ~90% now, which is fine.
* subjective testing: sounds great. imaging is a lot better. but that's subjective testing, so maybe i'm fooling myself. either way, the sweep was pretty good apart from the two main nodes.

i still have one sheet of 2400x1200x50mm left. right now it's bundled up in a corner but i'm going to do something with it. probably half on the ceiling, half at the back of the room. any thoughts?

also, how the hell do you attach ceiling traps?!?

thanks again to all the experts on here for their excellent advice.
The "loud points" you're getting are in the range that is typical for small rooms and yes, these things can be extremely difficult to eliminate and I would say, in some rooms, pretty much impossible.

In terms of subjective, you can only do the best you can with the resources you have will simply need to learn to work with the specifics of your room and trust your ears. Even when a mix "translates well" in a variety of listening environments, it is still a subjective experience and opinion. There are many, many recordings and mixes by top engineers for really superb artists that I personally think sound like crap. But that's purely a subjective call from my perspective and it doesn't make my opinion the correct one, even if I think I'm right.

Regarding ceiling clouds/traps, again I refer you to the gearslutz forum I previously posted. Lots of suggestions and tutorials there.
drbam is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.