Acoustical Solutions or Auralex LENRD bass traps

You may want to check out the following links. If you're in to simple DIY you can equal or better about anything commercially available.

http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=536

This one illustrates the relative cost of room treatment normalized to the effectiveness of the absorber.

http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=534

http://forums.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=535

http://www.bobgolds.com/AbsorptionCoefficients.htm

TONS of info here for those so inclined.

Thanks Shadorne for extensive analysis. In my room, the Lenrds work well and I found them conveninet and ost effective for my set up. I certainly realize there were other options and for me it was a matter of conveneience and experience with Auralex's products in my home recording studio that led me in that direction. I'm a happy camper in any case. They certainly do make a positive difference in my listening room. Could it be better? Of course! That's one of the reasons why I enjoy this hobby.

I really appreciate the very useful information that all of you have provided. You have helped me a great deal!
Craig

Fishboat,

Thanks. Great links!

Reading further, to summarize;

It seems foam or mineral wool or fibreglass (or many other materials) of similar density, size and placement can do equally well (assuming appropriate framing)

In theory the higher density materials (up to 8 lbs per foot mineral wool/fibreglass) should get better absorption lower down towards 50 Hz. A slight advantage but seeing as ultra LF is always a significant problem area it is unrealistic to expect miracles.

The size/volume/coverage of bass traps seems the most important.

Corners treated with 16 linear feet of bass trap appears to be a bare minimum and probably brings the largest improvement. Twice that treatement or 32 feet is probably a better but smaller improvement and above this diminishing returns start to kick in (although improvements are still possible, they just won't be as noticable).

Would you agree?

Fishboat,

BTW: The reason I am trying to summarize is that there is quite a minefield of opinions on the subject of acoustic bass trap treatments.

Clearly some suppliers are heavy handed in trying to influence the community through comments that are intended to convey that their products are better (fibreglass is better than foam, heavy mineral wool is better than 703, 705 is better than 703, and vice versa, foam is better than fibreglass, 703 is better than heavier mineral wool...etc ad infinitum)

My conclusion is that

1) it is the linear coverage and thickness (at least 6") of materials used that counts far more than anything else; so many products should work quite well...

2) Unless you are an acoustics expert or have hired an expert, it is safest to go for the broadband absorbers rather than tuned devices.

I am trying to share findings with other Audiogoners because, frankly, I found the minefield of opinions quite boggling. Hopefully the acoustic treatments won't head the way of cables/interconects....imagine oxygen free rock wool or gold fibres in acoustic panels (sadly all too plausible). Yikes! Anyone want to form a new company? Perhaps I should be in marketing, LOL.