AVS Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey all,


I'm interested in seeing if room treatments will improve the audio quality of my ht setup.


I know very little about the subject.


I found a sale on Amazon for 24 1x1 2" auralex foam tiles for $99. I'm looking to spend upwards of 200 on this add on to my ht room. Would adding these tiles have a noticeable impact on the audio quality of my system? Here's a diagram of my room (ignore the subwoofer stuff as that was a question for another thread
) It's a pretty small place so I thought having some treatments would help out. Besides the auralex tiles, I'd have artwork (no glass frames) on the walls, would that affect anything?

http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/i...a22f0bbd2d.jpg


Also, I have a floormat under my hsu vtf 3 mk 3 turbo. Would I see any improvements using an auralex pad under the sub if its side firing?


Thanks for the help!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,250 Posts
Yes, this subforum is fine. While I HAVE heard of someone claiming improvement with such a modest addition of treatments, it's usually said that more significant amounts need to be added to hear significant improvements. YMMV. While I don't know nearly enough, I do not expect foam to be very "broadband". You need stuff like fiberglass or mineral wool.


Check out GIK, a 3 pack of 242s is $165. Maybe two of these 3packs might be nice. First reflections on side walls, maybe two panels on each side wall. You can maybe try corner trapping the sidewall/frontwall for bass if you wanted. Or the front wall.


Its best to ask the real experts here though. Ethan Winer has been chiming in as of late. His RT products are very nice, but most likely too expensive for you. I've got a lot of both RT and GIK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
while i cant comment on room treatments because I feel that unless im spending over 5k in audio its not going to worth spending 1k on room treatments anyway. So far ive only spent about 2k on my stuff. I can comment on an auralex sub dude however. Decoupling the sub from the floor has been the biggest improvement in sound quality for my system and it only cost like 50 bucks. No longer do I feel a muddy bass going through my walls and floor, I just feel a tight low bass going right through my chest possibly at times stopping my heart. I would get one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,250 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by notoriousmatty /forum/post/15546745


while i cant comment on room treatments because I feel that unless im spending over 5k in audio its not going to worth spending 1k on room treatments anyway.

I hear ya, understand, and others would agree.


I spent as much on acoustics in the HT as I did on all of my 7 PSB speakers combined.


Others have disagreed with me before, for sure, but I'll take mid level speakers in a well treated room over high end speakers in a completely untreated room any day of the week, and twice of Sundays.


Coming from someone with dedicated HT and separate stereo, having tried them in multiple scenarios and rooms over the last two years. IMO, room is everything. Everything. BTW, my stereo speakers cost more than the 7 HT speakers combined as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
ok so ill definitely pick up a subdude. right now im in an apartment, ill be moving out in the summer to a house. are there any non-permanent solutions like the subdude or are these worthwhile treatments staying on the wall for good


also, do these treatments just "work" or do you need to go through recallibrations again for them to add improvement
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,550 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by samsam7 /forum/post/15547220


ok so ill definitely pick up a subdude. right now im in an apartment, ill be moving out in the summer to a house. are there any non-permanent solutions like the subdude or are these worthwhile treatments staying on the wall for good


also, do these treatments just "work" or do you need to go through recallibrations again for them to add improvement


A subdude is portable. It sits under the sub and absorbs some low frequency shock waves. It's dependent on where you place the sub with it. It will not add to a solution to the room itself. It will treat the sub.


Since you are moving I would start spending much more time researching threads in the dedicated theater forums, less time worrying about the room that your at presently.


I would take this time to learn and try and setup the room as best you can.. That is just my opinion from my experience..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
So I've been checking out realtraps and gik. Why are the realtrap 2' x 4' panels so much more than the gik 244? The giks are thicker as well. Looking at some auralex panels, they also cost more than gik.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,250 Posts
Well, the OC 705 fiberglass costs a lot more than mineral board, firstly. The fit n finish is really nice on RT, and mounting options are a lot more flexible/easier IMO. I have 244s, 242s, HF Mondos, and HF Minis. The Mondos are very large.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
So then I take it that fiberglass has better properties than mineral board? How big is the improvement between the two? Btw my system consists of 2 RTA A7s, 4 A1s, a CSiA6 center and a hsu vtf 3 mk 3 turbo. Checking out those acoustic boards, I saw that they just hang on a nail, so now I'm definitely interested in picking something up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,162 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jostenmeat /forum/post/15556533


Well, the OC 705 fiberglass costs a lot more than mineral board, firstly. The fit n finish is really nice on RT, and mounting options are a lot more flexible/easier IMO. I have 244s, 242s, HF Mondos, and HF Minis. The Mondos are very large.

Thanks for the kind words, and I'll add just a bit. The 705 rigid fiberglass we use is a very stable material that does not sag or get lumpy over time. It's also literally four times more expensive than mineral wool. This video shows how RealTraps products are built:

Made in Connecticut


--Ethan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
But performance wise, is there a difference in using fiberglass other than longevity (not that its not important)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,250 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by samsam7 /forum/post/15565870


But performance wise, is there a difference in using fiberglass other than longevity (not that its not important)?

I don't know, but mineral wool/board is the better bang for buck. Here are some #s from the mftrs. HOWEVER, these #s are more useful in comparing the differences between one mftr's own products. The only real way to compare to different brands is using the same testing procedures in the identical room. Also please note that RT makes both HF and normal style traps, and their performance specs vary accordingly. I use HF exclusively from RT, and there does not appear to be any data at this page for the HF Mondos. GIK now has some info as well, which I will link, but I don't think they even had this up at their webpage when I first started buying panels. No info on the 242s, just 244s and Monster traps.

http://www.realtraps.com/data.htm

http://www.gikacoustics.com/absorption.html


A couple of my photos. They are 242, 244, and HF Mondo.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Hmmm, well the realtraps are definitely expensive (albeit a great looking product). I was looking to spend around 600 bucks or so for a solution that would offer a definite improvement, so I'm probably going to send in pics of my room to gik.


I've got one question though, I found this on the gik website in the general no nos section.


"- Don't put a sub in a corner if you can help it. Almost never is this even close to the best place for a sub. While it will yield the most sheer output, it will also yield the least smooth frequency response curve."


I don't think I've ever came across a post somewhere where people have said to not put the sub in the corner. Could someone help me understand why is it so popular to put the sub in the corner when so many people here strive to get perfect SQ? Is it that the difference truly isn't worth losing the output because its minimal?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,250 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by samsam7 /forum/post/15569277


I don't think I've ever came across a post somewhere where people have said to not put the sub in the corner. Could someone help me understand why is it so popular to put the sub in the corner when so many people here strive to get perfect SQ? Is it that the difference truly isn't worth losing the output because its minimal?

In addition to Ethan's excellent articles, I'll just add my own experiences (albeit much more limited). I've never once, not a once, ever heard a corner loaded sub that did not excite modes that are high enough in frequency to essentially become localizable. Even in the rooms that I've tried, even with a healthy amount of traps, though not on the order of 44.



As the article suggests, the more you treat your room, the more flexibility you should be given in sub placement. This is also true of speaker placement as well. You ought to play with with placements of treatements and sub/speakers in conjunction. Also consider your LP, and don't be right up against the back wall as many persons are. Lastly, for icing on the cake, apply room correction like Audyssey XT, Trinnov, MCAAC, YPAO, etc. YMMV.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top