Bass Trap Design: Panel w/ Air Gap versus Solid/Superchunk

keganheiss

New member
Hello all! I'm finally getting around to doing some much needed sound treatment to my tracking/mixing room. My first order of business is getting the perceived bass under control. Pouring through the posts on this site the two most common recommendations for DIY bass traps seem to be one of these two:

1) Panel of rigid fiberglass (owens corning 703) or sound-absorbing mineral wool (roxul safe & sound), 4" deep or more mounted at 45 degrees in corners, with a triangular air gap behind

2) Superchunk of stacked layers of triangles of the same materials, filling the corners completely

Bass Trap Birds Eye.jpg

The simple version of my question is this: Is one better than the other?

I imagine the answer is 'it depends'. There's a ton of variables, of course. Room size, shape, other treatment to the room, room purpose (tracking, mixing), details of the traps' construction (choice of material between the two, thickness, facing material, length/width, etc.) All of that notwithstanding, will one design make a substantial difference over the other? Would one design have better results in certain applications than the other? Or do those other variables make equal or greater difference in the performance of the trap than the difference between the two designs does?

Forgive me in advance for posting a question about a topic that seems to pop up every third post or so... if I've missed a point-by-point comparison of the two designs on here or elsewhere I'd love a link!

Thanks!
 
AFIK...all the true *bass* traps (not your typical broadband traps) have some sort of air gap, and many also have some type of membrane in addition to the fiber and air gap. I believe the two work to accentuate low-end trapping.
 
You can even have one on the wall where space is tight, within this article link, this design would also work across a corner.

Alan.
 
The more insulation, the better. A superchunk will absorb more than a 4" panel with the same face dimension with airspace behind it.
 
So from the responses so far I've got one vote for superchunk, one for trap-with-gap. Miroslav, are both the options I described more for broadband treatment, and neither of them really bass traps so to speak?

This was one of the informative articles I found thanks to this site:

Bass Traps 101 - Your Guide to Corner Bass Trap Placement

This article describes both of the designs but doesn't seem to favor one over the other. The air gap is certainly the more affordable due to the relative cheapness of air...

With either design, how critical is the angle of the trap relative to the wall?
 
So from the responses so far I've got one vote for superchunk, one for trap-with-gap. Miroslav, are both the options I described more for broadband treatment, and neither of them really bass traps so to speak?

This was one of the informative articles I found thanks to this site:

Bass Traps 101 - Your Guide to Corner Bass Trap Placement

This article describes both of the designs but doesn't seem to favor one over the other. The air gap is certainly the more affordable due to the relative cheapness of air...

With either design, how critical is the angle of the trap relative to the wall?


Actually filing the corners rather than having an air gap will produce better low end absorption every time. Our site has test results for every product, go and check out our standard broadband panels and compare it to the tri traps and then to the soffits and you will see the difference in the results
 
Of course a completely filled space has more effect, but the inner material is less effective. I placed them even further away from the wall and have place behind for storage.
 
If cost is an issue then go for a panel trap - if not then go for the chunk as it absorbs more energy.

If you ever have to move/remove the trap for any reason a panel is going to have an advantage.
 
As I understand it, an absorber works "best" at a thickness 1/4 of the length of the wave form. So, thicker is better for reducing low end but spacing a panel out from the wall gives an opportunity for the waveform to return and be absorbed again thereby increasing efficiency from a cost perspective. A 4" thick absorber mounted flat to the wall will have nearly the same absorbing abilities as a 2" piece spaced 2" from the wall. Of course the 4" thick piece will absorb more because there is more mass but will cost twice as much. Really what we are looking for is to convert air movement (sound) into heat by passing it through a mass with a given density. As with most things, more is actually better but some is better than none. Google Ethan Wiener if you rally want to find out what you don't know about acoustics.
 
Back
Top