Panel or Tube Absorbers?

[Nordo]

I built my home theatre around 15 years ago.
After researching on the internet, I fitted out the home theatre using panel absorbers I built myself, including diagonal panels in the corners.
I was always happy with the sound that I had created (and waterfalls looked good), although I have never been in another home theatre to hear a comparison.

We are now moving house (downsizing) and I am looking forward to creating a new home theatre in the new home.
This time, the room dimensions will be a compromise, as I will have very little say in the room's dimensions.

The room treatment this time will be based on current research, but I am wondering whether I should try tube traps this time.
The feedback on the internet, even from DIY tube traps, is very impressive.

What experience and advice can you guys give regarding panel vs tube sound treatment in a small room?

 

[DanDan]

The regular panel trap 600x1200x100 mm works really well. It has been extensively tested both DIY and commercially. Bigger, thicker, is better. If you have the space in your corners, the SoffiTrap design is bigger, better, and it uses the cheapest fibre, attic insulation or partition blankets.

 

[Nordo]

Thanks DD.
I've always used panels for the various types of absorption I've needed.
I was more curious as to the effectiveness of tube traps vs the more traditional flat panels.
There are people who think tube traps are fantastic, but I don't know if they have experienced the effectiveness of panel traps (or compared one with the other in the same room).

Not sure about the big square GIK corner traps.
100 or 150mm thick x 600mm wide panels diagonally across the corners I believe would be far less obtrusive.

 

[DanDan]

I am not aware of any comparative tests. Generally people who invest in something tend to proudly say how great it is!
Tube Traps can not benefit from the strong damped resonance of a batt trap straddling a corner. http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=534 On the other hand I guess they do place a a double layer of fibre within the corner area.
But if you wanted to do that, why not fill the corner with low density cheap fibre, i.e. the Studiotips SuperChunk.
The wide version of that works very well here on a 35Hz Mode.

 

[Nordo]

That's probably a fairly easy thing to test.
Build and place rigid panels across the corners.
Test the room.
Add cheap fluffy insulation behind the panels and test again.
However I don't see any value in placing absorption against a wall when trying to implement bass trapping.
First reflections is a different approach.

 

[VinceHoffman]

In my 4 room corners I have a mixture of authentic TubeTraps along with a couple of DIY pipe insulation knockoffs I built years ago floor to ceiling. The former were VERY expensive. The DIY versions were cost effective but difficult to make look professional in appearance. With the benefit of hindsight and accumulated knowledge, today I would build Superchunk floor-to-ceiling corner base traps skinned with slat diffusers. If you choose to use porous absorption for bass traps, wood framed Superchunks using stacked triangles of pink fluffy fiberglass batts are simply the most efficient, cost effective way to go as they completely fill the corners.

 

[Mike-48]

Square or round bass traps (e.g., Tube Traps, Soffit Traps) often are larger physically, so absorb lower in the spectrum. You can go to GIK's Web site, which includes test results, and compare absorption properties of flat panels and, e.g., their Tri-Trap and Soffit Trap.

 

[VinceHoffman]

A DIY Superchunk corner trap will always enclose more volume than either a round or square columnar trap of the same depth @Mike-48. Therefore it will offer the best performance when compared to columnar base traps like my Tubetraps pictured a few posts up.

The upside of the commercial columnar products is that they are modular and portable whereas a Superchunk is a built-in DIY affair. Of course the other difference is that ASC Tubetraps and the GIK bass trap products you mention will be more expensive. In the case of my 16" and 20" diameter Tubetraps, WAY more expensive. While my Tubetraps certainly work, I spent in excess of $5k on the 6 traps at time of purchase almost a decade ago. A significant chunk of that bill was shipping costs which are even more dear today. To do it over, a wiser me would build Superchunk today without a second thought.

 

[Mike-48]

A DIY Superchunk corner trap will always enclose more volume than either a round or square columnar trap of the same depth @Mike-48.

Well yes, that's simple geometry. And the GIK TriTrap I mentioned is similar to the Superchunk. My point (maybe not clear) was that a non-flat trap that's large and fills space will absorb at lower frequencies than typical flat panels. Of course, it all depends on the configuration (size, mainly).

P.S. I notice the Superchunk is called a "panel" on the website I saw, but I would not call it that.

 

[phillihp23]

I used tri-traps floor too ceiling in front corners.