1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Acoustic products

Discussion in 'Recording' started by Ethan Winer, Jun 19, 2003.

  1. Ethan Winer

    Ethan Winer Active Member

    Kurt,

    There are several errors in your assessment of acoustic products. [Is there a reason you keep opening and closing that thread?]

    First, to list data for wood panel bass traps at 1 KHz completely misses the point. The low-bass panel traps I've built have a peak center frequency at about 90 Hz. At that frequency they have a "perfect" absorption coefficient of 1.0. So listing the data at 125 Hz. is misleading. Even using 100 Hz third-octave data makes much more sense since that at least is a standard data point. Likewise for higher frequencies, where you make no distinction between the low-bass and high-bass trap types. Moreover, using octave data instead of the much more meaningful 1/3 octave misrepresents the true effectiveness of a panel trap. It also overstates the effectiveness of foam by a large amount.

    Moreover, you fail to account for the physical size of the products being compared. Absorption coefficients explain how much a material absorbs independent of size, so a product that is twice as effective as another but is only 1/8th the size has only 1/4 the effectiveness overall!

    I'm not sure what you mean by "diaphragm traps," but the data appears to be that of my company's MiniTraps. It's flattering that you show how much better MiniTraps are at low frequencies when compared to foam. But why you listed only 100 Hz and below rather than the same range as the other products is a mystery to me.

    You say, "$500 of DIAPHRAGM TRAPS will not do the same work that the same amount of foam will do in my room." Assuming you are in fact referring to MiniTraps, I wonder how you can make that assessment since you have never seen a MiniTrap let alone heard one in use. Also, how do you define "do the same work?"

    You wrote, "It is argued that foam is not as efficient as panel traps and absorbers made of ridged fiberglass and I have seen a lot of figures and data, in attempts to support this conclusion, all of which is questionable. Data that does not include any hard information regarding performance below 100 Hz. is useless."

    I'm not sure who you're criticizing here, but no acoustic products have published absorption data below 100 Hz. What exactly is the point of that comment? Indeed, it's not clear to me what point you're trying to make with that entire post, since the data presented is incomplete, misleading, and seemingly biased.

    Comments?

    --Ethan
     
  2. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    I only listed data I was able to obtain from foam and panel trap manufactures. I used the figures that were supplied to me. Please feel free to extrapilate any measurements if you wish to aid in comparisons.

    I agree. The 4" foam bass traps I specify covers 60 square feet times two for 120 square feet of coverage for $500.

    Once again, I used the figures that were supplied to me. If you want to add something to them I would be happy to include it.

    Will 2 of your DIAPHRAGM TRAPS do the same job as 8" x 6" and 3 corner 4" foam traps, in coverage, reflection treatment and bass trapping in two corners of the room?

    I was saying, as you have pointed out, that the data was at best not perfect and difficult to figure out. I don't know why everyone can't use a standard either.
     
  3. Ethan Winer

    Ethan Winer Active Member

    Kurt,

    > I only listed data I was able to obtain from foam and panel trap manufactures. <

    Simply go to the Auralex site where you can see the data for typical foam at 1/3 octaves. That is much more useful than octave band data. Also, you simply cannot compare absorption data for foam and panel traps unless you take into account how the foam is measured, and why the published data is greatly overstated. The published data for foam corners includes as many as five surfaces, even though only one surface is actually absorbing when the foam corner is installed. I realize you don't understand the importance of this, so I urge you to consult with someone more knowledgeable than yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.

    > If you want to add something to them I would be happy to include it. <

    Here is data that is much more meaningful, and which compares fiberglass-based MiniTraps on an equal footing with foam:

    mini-absco.gif

    > Will 2 of your DIAPHRAGM TRAPS do the same job as 8" x 6" and 3 corner 4" foam traps, in coverage, reflection treatment and bass trapping in two corners of the room? <

    It's not clear how much foam you are referring to, so please restate the question. But there is no question that a full complement of MiniTraps does a far better job than a full complement of foam. Do MiniTraps cost a little more? Yes and No - it depends on how much you care about the quality of your room's low end. A full complement of MiniTraps actually costs about the same as a full complement of foam - somewhere between $800 and $2000 for most rooms.

    --Ethan
     
  4. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Sorry that was a typo.. I meant,

    Will 2 of your DIAPHRAGM TRAPS do the same job as 8' x 6'(of 4"foam) and 3 corner 4" foam traps, in coverage, reflection treatment and bass trapping in two corners of the room?
    (or 12 pieces of 2'X4' 4" foam and 6 24" corner traps)?
     
  5. Ethan Winer

    Ethan Winer Active Member

    Kurt,

    > Will 2 of your DIAPHRAGM TRAPS do the same job as ... <

    At what frequency?

    At 100 Hz MiniTraps are far more effective than foam, as you can see in the graph above. And as an overall solution for a reasonable price, MiniTraps again win over foam every time. Do MiniTraps cost more per square foot of coverage than foam? Of course. But in the larger picture they are a better value because they do a more complete job at all low frequencies. And since they absorb low frequencies so much more effectively than foam, you can install enough of them to truly solve the LF problems without making the room too dead as usually happens with foam.

    If boominess and lack of definition below 125 Hz. don't matter to you, then by all means buy foam and save a few bucks. But if accurate monitoring at all low frequencies is important to you, then using real bass traps - MiniTraps or wood panels - is the only acceptable solution.

    Thanks. I really do appreciate you giving me the opportunity to explain why RealTraps products are better than foam.

    --Ethan
     
  6. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Ethan,
    I still don't accept that Wood Panel Traps are better than foam. Some points.....,

    Yes, when placed across a corner..
    You are saying that 2 mini traps will do the same work in a room as $500 of 4” acoustic foam?
    You are making a comparison to 3” foam. Why don’t you compare them to 4” foam? 4” foam is as efficient as a piece of 2” 705.. The best performance for your minitraps is across a corner. Once you use them any other way the performance falls off rapidly. The same thing can be said for foam. If I stretch a piece of 4” foam across a corner, the coefficient goes way up.
    In some rooms yes, and in some rooms no. In a larger room where some coverage is needed for absorption, the foam may be as effective and less expensive, as well as much easier to install.
     
  7. Ethan Winer

    Ethan Winer Active Member

    Kurt,

    > I still don't accept that Wood Panel Traps are better than foam. <

    First, you need to understand the difference between wood panel membrane traps, fiberglass-based broadband absorbers with a membrane, and plain fiberglass and foam. These three types of absorbers work on three different principles!

    > Yes, when placed across a corner <

    Panel traps give their best performance when mounted flush against a wall because they work on wave pressure. Foam, fiberglass, and fiberglass with a membrane act on wave velocity, and thus work worst when flat against a wall. These are important fundamental concepts that you must understand before you can assess acoustic absorbers and fairly offer opinions on their performance.

    One important reason that panel traps are so much better than foam or fiberglass is they achieve optimum absorption when mounted on a wall. A room has only so many corners. So when the corners are all treated and bass problems still exist, panel traps can be mounted on the walls where they do a much better job than foam.

    It would be great if you could just look at data and pick the product with the highest numbers. But it's not that simple. To use your logic, why spend $35 for a meal at a nice steak house when you can get the same number of calories for only $4.25 at Taco Bell?

    > You are saying that 2 mini traps will do the same work in a room as $500 of 4” acoustic foam? <

    Yes, absolutely, at 80 to 100 Hz. In fact, two MiniTraps work much better than foam at those frequencies.

    > You are making a comparison to 3” foam. Why don’t you compare them to 4” foam? <

    Because MiniTraps are three inches thick. This lets people make a direct comparison between the effectiveness of one material versus another, because they are the same size and thickness.

    > 4” foam is as efficient as a piece of 2” 705 <

    Not from 250 Hz and lower! And those are the frequencies we're talking about.

    > The best performance for your minitraps is across a corner. Once you use them any other way the performance falls off rapidly. The same thing can be said for foam. <

    "Falls off rapidly" is relative. At 250 Hz a MiniTrap on the wall is three times more absorptive than the same volume of foam on the wall. So even though the absorption falls off, it continues to remain more than three times more effective than foam down to the data cutoff at 100 Hz.

    > If I stretch a piece of 4” foam across a corner, the coefficient goes way up. <

    So please show us a comparison between four inches of foam across a corner and a MiniTrap across a corner.

    --Ethan
     
  8. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Ethan,
    I just don't believe that 2 of your mini traps will do the same amount of absorption and bass trapping as 120 sq. ft. of four inch foam..

    Originally posted by Ethan Winer:
    Kurt,

    > You are saying that 2 mini traps will do the same work in a room as $500 of 4” acoustic foam? <

    Yes, absolutely, at 80 to 100 Hz. In fact, two MiniTraps work much better than foam at those frequencies.


    You are saying that 2 minitraps will be more effective in a room than 120 square feet of 4" foam?

    > You are making a comparison to 3” foam. Why don’t you compare them to 4” foam? <

    Because MiniTraps are three inches thick. This lets people make a direct comparison between the effectiveness of one material versus another, because they are the same size and thickness.

    I am discussing 4" foam only. Anything less, IMO doesn't work as well. I know that and so do you. That is why you choose to use 3" foam for the purpose of comparison. This is what I mean when I say you are skewing the data. The only foam I have been referring to through all of these threads is 4" foam. I haven't been scaleing down the size of your product to make comparison. Please don't scale back the foam products. 4 inches Ethan!

    > 4” foam is as efficient as a piece of 2” 705 <

    Not from 250 Hz and lower! And those are the frequencies we're talking about.


    4” FOAM...............……..PANEL TRAPS....…………..700 series 2”/ 705
    125Hz.....0.32.................0.77 ............................0.16
    250Hz.....0.87.................0.33 ............................0.71
    500Hz.....1.23.................0.27 ............................1.02
    1000Hz....1.11................0.23 ............................1.01
    2000Hz....1.08...............no rating........................0.98
    4000Hz....1.10...............no rating........................0.98

    These figures show 4" foam as more effective than 705 at those frequencies. This is why you deleted the thread in the Acoustics forum. You don't want people to see this data.

    > The best performance for your minitraps is across a corner. Once you use them any other way the performance falls off rapidly. The same thing can be said for foam. <

    "Falls off rapidly" is relative. At 250 Hz a MiniTrap on the wall is three times more absorptive than the same volume of foam on the wall ...

    Once again, 4 inches Ethan, not three! ... So even though the absorption falls off, it continues to remain more than three times more effective than foam down to the data cutoff at 100 Hz.

    > If I stretch a piece of 4” foam across a corner, the coefficient goes way up. <

    So please show us a comparison between four inches of foam across a corner and a MiniTrap across a corner. --Ethan
    I can quote the article in EQ where you mounted foam on a lattice to place it off the wall to increase it's coefficent if you wish ... .... Kurt
     
  9. Ethan Winer

    Ethan Winer Active Member

    Kurt,

    > I am discussing 4" foam only. Anything less, IMO doesn't work as well. <

    Fine. In that case, I'm discussing only 4-inch 705-FRK because anything less, IMO doesn't work as well.

    > That is why you choose to use 3" foam for the purpose of comparison. <

    I explained why we use three inches for comparison. But since you're intent on giving foam a handicap like in golf - which it so desperately needs - go ahead and compare the data with four inches of foam. Instead of being a full three times better at low frequencies, MiniTraps will compare only 2-1/2 times better than foam. That's fine with me too.

    > These figures show 4" foam as more effective than 705 at those frequencies. <

    You compared foam with 705, but 705-FRK is what RealTraps sells and what we use in our MiniTraps. Two inches of the FRK type has an absorption coefficient of 0.60 at 125 Hz versus only 0.32 for four-inch foam. So in fact 705-FRK is four times more effective at 125 Hz than the same volume of foam. I suppose you now want to compare two inches of 705-FRK with eight inches of foam?

    Note that MiniTraps are built with much more than just 705-FRK, so the above applies only to foam vs. 705-FRK and not vs. MiniTraps which are much better than just 705-FRK.

    > This is why you deleted the thread in the Acoustics forum. You don't want people to see this data. <

    This is becoming a real trend with you. Rather than address the issues you instead choose to attack my motives. You called me a used car salesman, and accused me of convoluting my answers and skewing the data. I don't have to fudge the data. The data stands on its own!

    In fact, you are the one who intentionally skews the data, in a desperate attempt to make foam appear as effective as fiberglass, panel traps, or MiniTraps. Your inclusion of absorption data for wood panel traps at 1 KHz proves that you are either totally clueless or you have a vendetta.

    EW: >> So please show us a comparison between four inches of foam across a corner and a MiniTrap across a corner. <<

    KF: > I can quote the article in EQ where you mounted foam on a lattice <

    I won't let you wiggle out of this one. Please address my point. Show me the data for four inches of foam mounted across a corner compared to a MiniTrap mounted across a corner.

    --Ethan
     
  10. Treeline

    Treeline Guest

    Both you guys should switch to decaf.
     
  11. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Originally posted by Ethan Winer:
    Kurt,

    >I am discussing 4" foam only. Anything less, IMO doesn't work as well.<

    Fine. In that case, I'm discussing only 4-inch 705-FRK because anything less, IMO doesn't work as well.

    >That is why you choose to use 3" foam for the purpose of comparison.< Let me state for the record, from the beginning, I was speaking of 4” foam. Ethan is the one who keeps trying to compare 3” foam.

    I explained why we use three inches for comparison. But since you're intent on giving foam a handicap like in golf - which it so desperately needs - go ahead and compare the data with four inches of foam. Instead of being a full three times better at low frequencies, MiniTraps will compare only 2-1/2 times better than foam. That's fine with me too.

    But you never specify 4” FRK. I always refer to 4” foam.

    >These figures show 4" foam as more effective than 705 at those frequencies.<

    You compared foam with 705, but 705-FRK is what RealTraps sells and what we use in our MiniTraps. Two inches of the FRK type has an absorption coefficient of 0.60 at 125 Hz versus only 0.32 for four-inch foam. So in fact 705-FRK is four times more effective at 125 Hz than the same volume of foam. I suppose you now want to compare two inches of 705-FRK with eight inches of foam?

    No I am willing to concede the point. I was not aware of the figures on FRK. I was using the data that I could find at the Owens Corning site.. I choose the figures available that gave the fiberglass product the best performance. But that still doesn’t mean that 4” foam doesn’t work at all. In some cases it may be plenty to do the job. You don’t have to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. You say you use FRK in your minitraps. Do you also use it in your realtraps and your panel absorbers? Is FRK what you recomend everyone to buy when they are building bass traps?

    Note that MiniTraps are built with much more than just 705-FRK, so the above applies only to foam vs. 705-FRK and not vs. MiniTraps which are much better than just 705-FRK.

    I think your minitraps are marvelous Ethan. It’s just that they are so freakin’ expensive, as are all of your products. Regardless if I can afford them or not, I don’t see why I am expected to spend more money on treating my room than necessary just to satisfy your sense of aesthetics, so you won’t look down your nose at me and I can get on the ootie tootie train ... Your comments about what I can afford are very condescending and I take offense. It’s none of your business what my finances are.

    >This is why you deleted the thread in the Acoustics forum. You don't want people to see this data.<

    This is becoming a real trend with you. Rather than address the issues you instead choose to attack my motives. You called me a used car salesman, and accused me of convoluting my answers and skewing the data. I don't have to fudge the data. The data stands on its own!

    Then why did you delete the thread? No one was even talking to you. You could have just kept out of the conversation. I often do not contribute to a thread in the forums I moderate. I don’t consider it to be the “Kurt Show”… I'll say why I think you deleted the thread. You did it because you don’t want any voice of dissention, or anyone saying that there are other alternatives to your products and designs. Face it Ethan, you have to live in a world where there is foam rubber..

    In fact, you are the one who intentionally skews the data, in a desperate attempt to make foam appear as effective as fiberglass, panel traps, or MiniTraps. Your inclusion of absorption data for wood panel traps at 1 KHz proves that you are either totally clueless or you have a vendetta. [/b]

    Those figures I posted were simply the data I could collect on the items that were being compared. I don’t remember where the 1 K data on the panel traps came from but I believe it came from the source of all the data on them. I didn’t just make that up. I have no interest in skewing data. All I want to do is get the room treated without spending a couple of grand if possible. I do have a problem with people who insist that their way is the only way and there are no other viable options. One thing I have learned is, there are always options. You don’t have a corner on the world of bass trapping and acoustics.


    So please show us a comparison between four inches of foam across a corner and a MiniTrap across a corner.

    >I can quote the article in EQ where you mounted foam on a lattice.<

    And that’s all I have to offer on that. I do take your comments and accept them in many cases. I however do not accept that you are the final word in acoustics.

    I won't let you wiggle out of this one. Please address my point. Show me the data for four inches of foam mounted across a corner compared to a MiniTrap mounted across a corner.

    I am not trying to wiggle out of it. I have no way to generate that kind of data. But you have repeatedly said that leaving air space behind an absorber will increase its efficiency. I am simply taking your word on it. You seem to have a problem with me when I accept your points and well as when I reject them. I have never said that your traps and absorbers don’t work well as you have never really said that foam doesn’t work. But by insinuation you do seem to say that foam is no good. I don’t believe that. I think in many situations, foam may be plenty good to do the job.

    ***********************

    Why do the acoustics products manufactures such as Acoustics First, Acoustic Sciences, Acoustical Solutions and Illbruk to name a few offer foam products? Because in some cases they work just fine. Why do they also offer other options? Because in some cases foam isn’t enough or isn’t right for the application. Does Ethan know something they don’t? I don’t think so.

    I hope this is the last of it as it seems the members are tired of it but I am going to put up foam in my room. I will do some measurements before and after and I will post the results. I welcome Ethans input. Knightfly lives reasonably close to me so pehaps he will consent to assist me in this undertaking.
    Kurt
     
  12. Bobby Yarrow

    Bobby Yarrow Guest

    Lookit, no kidding, Ethan Winer should have a shred of dignity about this. It's shameless. He's hawking this stuff. He's unhappy with something someone said about it, maybe thinks the facts are wrong, whatever. Lump it. He should sit on his hands and lump it. I don't care if Kurt's right or wrong, I bet he's right but I have no idea, but it's darn ugly to say anything at all, let alone to put a black eye in the game, turn the thing agressively personal. Man. How about a little shame . . .
     
  13. Ethan Winer

    Ethan Winer Active Member

    Kurt,

    I agree with treeline and his :td: icon. This is becoming a big time waster for me and I'm sure for you too. I have said all I can possibly say on these issues, and proven beyond any doubt that a full complement of MiniTraps will give far better results than a full complement of foam.

    Does foam absorb sound? Of course it does. Does it absorb low frequency sound? Sure, but not very well unless it is extremely thick. Can you treat a room with foam and get acceptable results? Sure, as long as your expectations are not very high.

    > I was not aware of the figures on FRK. I was using the data that I could find at the Owens Corning site. <

    This is exactly why you are not qualified to make pronouncements on acoustic products. No offense, but you don't know anything about acoustic treatment. Heck, just a few months ago you were arguing that bass traps are a nonsense product that nobody needs! You made many other gaffs at that time about acoustic principles, such as the behavior of low frequency waves within a small room. You may be a fine recording engineer, but you have no business offering opinions on the worth of one acoustic product versus another.

    > I think your minitraps are marvelous Ethan. It’s just that they are so freakin’ expensive, as are all of your products. <

    MiniTraps are less than half the cost of a tube trap of similar size. Our wood panel traps are about the same cost as a pair of RPG's membrane traps, but they're four times larger for a net cost of half. Do you not have any high quality gear in your studio? Do you not understand that sometimes high performance costs more? Did your best microphone cost $89? Nobody is more of a consumerist than I am, and I abhor high prices when one product is no better than another. But sometimes one product really is better.

    > why did you delete the thread? <

    I deleted the thread because you were making a fool of yourself, and trying to drag my company's products along with you.

    > You did it because you don’t want any voice of dissention <

    In fact that is exactly why you posted your silly "foam is better than panel traps" announcement and then locked it from comment. I watched in amazement the other night as you locked it, unlocked it, let in a couple of messages, locked it again, deleted the messages, etc.

    I can take all manner of dissention. My products and statements stand on their own. If you can't understand why having 2.7 times more absorption at 100 Hz is a valuable attribute for a bass trap, that is your problem, not mine.

    > I am not trying to wiggle out of it. I have no way to generate that kind of data. <

    Then you had no business making that original statement. This is exactly my objection to your posts. You make wild assertions about things you know nothing about, and most of the time you are wrong.

    > Why do the acoustics products manufactures such as Acoustics First, Acoustic Sciences, Acoustical Solutions and Illbruk to name a few offer foam products? <

    Why does any company offer any product? To make money! Foam retails for many times its original cost, which is very attractive to a vendor. If you want a real eye opener, and you have a friend who's an audio dealer, ask them what their markup is on foam products. If you didn't begrudge the retail channel before, you will now!

    Over and out.

    --Ethan
     
  14. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Ethan,
    I still have issues regarding small rooms but I did my best not to bring them into this discussion and I absolutely don’t want to go there. That horse has been beat to death twice and I have seen that we simply need to have a gentleman’s agreement to agree to disagree.

    I have a different approach to setting up a room than you do. I am sure your way works but so does mine. I have set up several very good sounding LEDE rooms that have turned out a lot of good work. Records that have charted top 10 in Europe and Japan. You say I am not qualified to make statements regarding acoustics but you seem to discount diffusion as an aspect of room treatment. I know there are three elements in acoustic treatment. Absorption, diffusion and bass trapping. For some reason you seem to discount diffusion. Is this because you don’t sell diffusers?

    I don’t think I ever said “bass traps were a nonsense product that nobody needed”. I have been aware of the importance of bass trapping for quite some time now. “Having 2.7 times more absorption at 100 Hz is a valuable attribute for a bass trap” is not as much of importance if you are in a room that doesn’t need that much bass trapping. If one starts with a decent room, there is no need to “polish the turd”. Once again, sledgehammer/gnat principal. In some instances, foam will work just fine. Not all rooms need all that much bass trapping. Some rooms are pretty good to start with and have enough volume that a lot of low end control is not needed. In those cases a few foam traps and some foam absorption and a couple of diffusers is all that is needed. When $500 of foam will do the trick, what is the point in spending more? To be able to say “I have the best, even though I don’t really need it”?

    I don’t have any vendetta against you. I do wish that once in a while you would recommend something other than your products or designs. To not do so, only smacks of commercialism on your part. I think that may be what bothers me the most.
     
  15. jdier

    jdier Active Member

    I have tried to stay out of this, but "polish the turd" is one of my all time favorite sayings (behind "$*^t sandwich") and your reckless misuse of the phrase is killing me.

    “Polish the Turd” should be used when you have something BAD or INFERIOR as a starting point and you then make small changes, which may make something 'look' better, but not actual perform or function better.

    My first introduction to said phrase was as I was literally polishing or buffing some rust off the rear quarter panel of my 1972 Cutlass Supreme. I was all of 16-1/2 and my Father pulled in from work and looked at me and uttered “Son, You can’t polish a turd.” In a fit of angst I remained silent and stewed in my juices. Turns out I really did not know what he meant by the phrase. Over dinner I asked. He returned with “That car is a broken down piece of $*^t (read: turd) and no matter how much bondo and wax you put on the outside (read: polish), it will still be a piece of $*^t.”

    So, your use of the phrase is wrong, and is a gross disservice to an otherwise witty and clever phrase.

    If one starts with a decent room, there is no “Turd.” If one starts with a poor room and then begins to treat it (following the advice of either yourself of Ethan) it is really not ‘Polishing,’ because (as you each contend) those treatments would be making a true improvement to the room.

    If, by contrast, one was presented with a bad sounding room and decided that they were going to paint it a different color, that, my friend, would be “polishing the turd.”

    There are only a handful of truly creative, grin inducing phrases that have not lost their original luster. Please do everything you can to make sure that this phrase remains among the few.

    Regards,

    Jim

    PS: Proper use of “$*^t sandwich” (which, by the way, is not the usage most are familiar with; Shark Sandwich: $*^t Sandwich) is when referring to a less than pleasant situation where you are getting paid. For instance, my job sucks, but I am very well paid, thus, when queried about my employer I am able to reply: “It is like a $*^t Sandwich… The more bread they give you, the less you taste the $*^t.” Note that ‘Bread’ in this example is MONEY, and ‘$*^t’ is the general unpleasantness that I am greeted with every day of my working life.

    You may be able to use it to describe a high paying gig tracking someone whose music you are not too fond of. “Hey Kurt, how is the tracking on the MegaMetal Satanic Death Musical Soundtrack going?” I think you know the reply…
     
  16. golli

    golli Active Member

    Hmmmm..... wery informative, Jim, thank's for clearing that up for us ;)
     
  17. jdier

    jdier Active Member

    glad to help
     
  18. Lionard

    Lionard Guest

    <I don’t have any vendetta against you. I do wish that once in a while you would recommend something other than your products or designs. To not do so, only smacks of commercialism on your part. I think that may be what bothers me the most. >

    My friend Kurt, I think everybody noticed that! Everybody knows this is something personal you have against Ethan. I don’t believe this is about foam, and It seems to me that it’ll be better for you to say directly what’s going on. Because in the way you are loosing the logic and the true. I have tried to stay out of this, but I’m tired of “seudo-expert” in this matter.

    I’m only 1 ½ year in this and have spend a lot of time and money trying to learn, but in the way I founded a lot of equipment, a lot of books, a lot of advicers that are $*^t! Now I take care of everything I read.

    I spend US $460 in auralex, because the auralex “expert” says so, and what I got? An f** boomy room. You have no idea what is that for newbie. Listen, No body is going to put foam in my room! I know that foam is good for HF but why use foam if fiberglass works good too (better).

    I know Ethan has his company but he never has tried to sell thing to me. What I see is that he is telling the true. When he doesn’t know something, he just say “I don’t know”, and I like that.

    For me Low bass absorption is separate of high absorption. The really experts says so. I’m worry down 125 hz. ( I don’t know why you don’t understand that)

    I’m afraid about my learning, there are to many “experts” in this industry. I don’t know whom to believe anymore. Too many bull sh**. It’s the same with mixing, eqing, mic, pre, tracking… I have so many books. The big companies are trying to convince us that in any living room we can record like Sweeden just to sell us their stuff.

    In the last 2 month I’d read almost every document about acoustics in the net, as many books, and now I know that companies market me. I even don’t believe in magazines, because I see the reviews are no serious. They have advertisement to keep. So many pseudo-expert writing articles. The marketing is so big in this industry.

    But what I am worry is the others newbie who you say foam is good enough, because they are going to lose money and time. You know what happen, for a new guy everything is new and he believe in you and he want to hear the sound like you do, then he use foam in his room. The problem is that he doesn’t like what he hears, but he thinks he is the wrong one, because you know more than he knows. In this, a newbie can spend years, because after the years his ears are customized to that sound. A bad sound.

    Kurt, I’m tired of pseudo-experts, I want serious people who tell me the true. If you have something against Ethan go directly don’t confuse others talking about foam. Foam is sh*** fiberglass is better (I’m sorry I’m frustrated with foam).

    I’ll give you all Auralex foam I have for Us$150 ($460 Value) you paid the shipment.

    Lionard
    (Now I fell better…)
    Excuse my English… learning…
     
  19. realdynamix

    realdynamix Well-Known Member

    Lionard, I prefer panel traps for the aesthetics. If I wanted the same results, I can achieve it with foam, that's just not the look I want.

    With less than 2 years of experience, I would say the result of any boom in your recordings has little to do with acoustic treatments at this point.

    Your Auralex purchase didn't make your mixes better, so now they are crap. If that were the case for all, there simply would be no market for foam in audio. With your limited experience, I rather doubt a full compliment of Ethan's traps would help either.

    My opinion at this point for you, my inexperienced friend, is to spend more working on the other 90% of what is involved in recording.

    --Rick
     
  20. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    I agree wholeheartedly with this. This has been a point of contention for me all along. I believe that some rooms are not worth trying to “fix”, while Ethan implies any room can be made accurate if you purchase enough of his products.

    I think one should start with a room that doesn't need a lot of correction in the first place. If you will go back and read all of my comments you will see that this is what I have been alluding to all along. I personally don't think that a bad room can be made to be accurate with any type of treatments. No I am not a math wizard, and I am not an acoustics expert. I freely admit this. I am also not so arrogant to think that only I know the answers and that I am always right. I don’t think I am smarter that everyone else. But I have set up several rooms that sounded good and that produced good mix’s, using my poke and hope methodology. I stand on my record credits and my body of work. My records are commercially available world wide. You can listen to the results anytime you wish. Just buy one of the CDs I have produced. I have learned some things along the way. Excuse me for trying to share them with all of you. From now on I will keep my experiences to myself.

    But please keep in mind that I am not selling anything either. I have nothing to gain from arguing this point. Actually, I have taken quite a beating over all this. My credibility has been questioned and I am about to tell all of you to just do what you want to do. You want to spend $2000 plus to try to make a silk purse from a sows ear, be my guest. I don't give a rats ass anymore. I have $500 worth of FOUR INCH foam on its way here now and I will take some measurements of my room before and after I put it up. If I am lucky, this will solve what problems I have. But I can tell you already, I don't have a huge bass problem to start with. I have NEVER said that foam would work in all applications. I have always contended that it was in situations like mine, where the room is reasonable in the first place, that foam would do.

    In closing please don’t address anymore comments or questions to me about this. I have reserved comment now, for almost a week hoping this thread would die but it keeps resurfacing. Those of you who have cash to burn and who want to engage in conspicuous consumption just so you can say “I have the best” , good for you. Myself, I would rather save the money and use it to purchase a nice mic, compressor or preamp.
     

Share This Page