there is a different between Acoustic foam and Soundproofing foam

Rod Gervais said:
Sorry kiddo, anything that has been tested can be traced to a lab.... tis that simple.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not exactly a kid, but thanks for the compliment Dad. And you probably no a lot more than me about acoustics so if you say it can be traced to a lab, who am I to argue? I just find it hard to believe that they could create a foam, made out of completely different materials according to you, that would yeild nearly identical absorption properties as auralex without some kind of "lab" or testing facilities or something. I guess they just threw some crap together and got lucky???

Now you're making me feel guilty for thinking about buying from there. I hope you're happy. Maybe someday I'll have my own business too and I can afford better morals.
 
Whatsa matter Rod, are SOS, Studiotips, Johns, and your own place slow today or somethin Or did you finish all the "honey do's? :D Just kiddin...nice to see you here. Your info is always dead on. :)
 
Mach311 said:
I just find it hard to believe that they could create a foam, made out of completely different materials according to you, that would yeild nearly identical absorption properties as auralex
Click to expand...
I think that is the point. This stuff doesn't have the same properties as auralex, the company is just saying it does.
 
Farview said:
I think that is the point. This stuff doesn't have the same properties as auralex, the company is just saying it does.
Click to expand...

Did you read the whole thread? The 3" wedge foam has practically identical sound absorption numbers according to the test Realtraps did. I don't care if it's physical properties are the same, as long as it's sound absorption properties are. If 3" of FBM scores the same as 3" of auralex foam, they can't be that different, as far as sound is concerned.
 
Farview said:
I think that is the point. This stuff doesn't have the same properties as auralex, the company is just saying it does.
Click to expand...

Jason,

Actually the 3" foam is very close to the Auralex product when it comes to the acoustic properties.

Rod
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
Whatsa matter Rod, are SOS, Studiotips, Johns, and your own place slow today or somethin Or did you finish all the "honey do's? :D Just kiddin...nice to see you here. Your info is always dead on. :)
Click to expand...

Nice to see you too Rick,

Actually - as busy as I am right now I really don't have time for this - and it got way off the original post.

However - I always try to make time to keep the information real.

BTW - I am also moderating over at PMI now - so we add another one to the list...............

Take care,

Rod
 
Folks,

> The 3" wedge foam has practically identical sound absorption numbers according to the test Realtraps did. I don't care if it's physical properties are the same, as long as it's sound absorption properties are. <

Since I paid for the Foam By Mail tests I can shed some light on this. I also have other data I'll share, beyond what's currently on my company's site.

First, the 3-inch wedge foam on the Product Data page of the RealTraps site is not what we measured and reported for Foam By Mail. Rather, that is Auralex's data for their own foam. I'm sorry if this was not clear. That is completely separate from the tests we paid for to measure corner foam to compare it to our products.

The purpose of the tests we paid for were to see how MiniTraps compare with typical corner foam when mounted in corners. Corner mounting is not one of the standard ways acoustic absorbers are tested, yet it's the most reasonable way to assess products that are meant to go in corners. Since we have tested our traps in corners, we also needed to test corner foam in corners to get a valid apples-to-apples comparison. So we bought 16 pieces of corner foam from Foam by Mail for the same reason everyone else buys from Foam by Mail: They claim identical performance to the foam Auralex sells but for a much lower price.

After we tested the FBM corner foam and posted the data on our site, Auralex's chief engineer Jeff Szymanski told me the foam we measured must be inferior quality, because Auralex LENRDs are a lot better than that. So more recently we bought 16 genuine LENRDs and tested those in the same lab under identical conditions in corners.

My tests have now established beyond all doubt that Foam by Mail uses fraudulent data. It appears they simply copied Auralex's data and changed each number up or down by 0.01 to make it seem like they actually tested their foam and got "similar" numbers. However, it's now clear that this was intentional manipulation on the part of Foam by Mail - fraud with an intent to deceive.

I have all the data, and plan to put it on the RealTraps web site soon, so people can see in one place the absorption of MiniTraps, MondoTraps, Auralex LENRDs, and Foam by Mail's corner foam. In the mean time, to address this post, I just put the same data as a graph on my personal site, shown below.

--Ethan

4traps.gif
 
Ethan Winer said:
Folks,

> The 3" wedge foam has practically identical sound absorption numbers according to the test Realtraps did. I don't care if it's physical properties are the same, as long as it's sound absorption properties are. <

Since I paid for the Foam By Mail tests I can shed some light on this. I also have other data I'll share, beyond what's currently on my company's site.

First, the 3-inch wedge foam on the Product Data page of the RealTraps site is not what we measured and reported for Foam By Mail. Rather, that is Auralex's data for their own foam. I'm sorry if this was not clear. That is completely separate from the tests we paid for to measure corner foam to compare it to our products.

The purpose of the tests we paid for were to see how MiniTraps compare with typical corner foam when mounted in corners. Corner mounting is not one of the standard ways acoustic absorbers are tested, yet it's the most reasonable way to assess products that are meant to go in corners. Since we have tested our traps in corners, we also needed to test corner foam in corners to get a valid apples-to-apples comparison. So we bought 16 pieces of corner foam from Foam by Mail for the same reason everyone else buys from Foam by Mail: They claim identical performance to the foam Auralex sells but for a much lower price.

After we tested the FBM corner foam and posted the data on our site, Auralex's chief engineer Jeff Szymanski told me the foam we measured must be inferior quality, because Auralex LENRDs are a lot better than that. So more recently we bought 16 genuine LENRDs and tested those in the same lab under identical conditions in corners.

My tests have now established beyond all doubt that Foam by Mail uses fraudulent data. It appears they simply copied Auralex's data and changed each number up or down by 0.01 to make it seem like they actually tested their foam and got "similar" numbers. However, it's now clear that this was intentional manipulation on the part of Foam by Mail - fraud with an intent to deceive.

I have all the data, and plan to put it on the RealTraps web site soon, so people can see in one place the absorption of MiniTraps, MondoTraps, Auralex LENRDs, and Foam by Mail's corner foam. In the mean time, to address this post, I just put the same data as a graph on my personal site, shown below.

--Ethan

4traps.gif
Click to expand...

Nice work Ethan! Now Ron Gervis and Mach311 can shut up!! LOL! I think this is what everybody needs anyway, proof. Both Ron and Mach had valid arguments but I think your tests showed us all...you get what you pay for. I've learned the hard way that you have to do things right the first time. If you can't afford it, wait until you can.
Cheers!
 
This is kind of a different question, but while we are on the topic of acoustic foams:

Me and my band were looking into putting acoustic foam tiles on the walls of our practice space to dampen the sound a bit. We want to keep the budget kind of low and I have heard that when it comes to doing acoustic foam doing 50% of the wall space does a great job (considering how much cheaper it is than doing the whole room.)

Is this true or not?
 
RussEdison said:
This is kind of a different question, but while we are on the topic of acoustic foams:

Me and my band were looking into putting acoustic foam tiles on the walls of our practice space to dampen the sound a bit. We want to keep the budget kind of low and I have heard that when it comes to doing acoustic foam doing 50% of the wall space does a great job (considering how much cheaper it is than doing the whole room.)

Is this true or not?
Click to expand...

Read www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html
 
Ethan Winer said:
First, the 3-inch wedge foam on the Product Data page of the RealTraps site is not what we measured and reported for Foam By Mail. Rather, that is Auralex's data for their own foam. I'm sorry if this was not clear. That is completely separate from the tests we paid for to measure corner foam to compare it to our products.
Click to expand...

Ethan,

Thanks for clearing that up, it makes a lot more sense now.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add the Auralex name to that column - just so there isn't confusion on this in the future.

I look forward to seeing the new data.

Sincerely,

Rod
 
Ethan Winer said:
Folks,

> The 3" wedge foam has practically identical sound absorption numbers according to the test Realtraps did. I don't care if it's physical properties are the same, as long as it's sound absorption properties are. <

Since I paid for the Foam By Mail tests I can shed some light on this.

4traps.gif
Click to expand...

What about DIY panels Ethan? How do they match up?
 
I wish I would of seen this thread before I ordered some 4" wedge foam from foambymail last month. Living in an apartment I didn't really have the means to build any 703 panels, so in the meantime I wanted something quick to kill the first reflection points.

The foam by mail stuff arrived, I immediately noticed it looked and felt different from the Auralex stuff I checked out at GC. I seemed less pourous, like the bubbles in the foam were smaller. To be fair, it did do an excellent job of clearing up the stereo image in my monitoring position, so I guess it does have some value as a an absorber. Based on this thread, I'm guessing the Auralex stuff would have performed better and with less thickness. Considering the price though, I still dont' think I got totally ripped off.
My 2c I guess.
 
Resh,

> To be fair, it did do an excellent job of clearing up the stereo image in my monitoring position <

There's no question that FBM foam absorbs something. The real issue is that it absorbs a lot less than "good" foam, so you could have gotten similar results from heavy blankets. And at low frequencies where maximum absorption is really needed, the FBM stuff is all but useless.

--Ethan
 
Rod Gervais said:
LOL,

OK Cobra - point taken............ I'll try to tone it down a bit in the future........ :o :o :o

Sincerely,

Rod
Click to expand...

Hey Rod,
I'm just giving ya a hard time. You do have very good information and I like reading what you post. I'm amused sometimes on the arguments that take place here and it's interesting how all the information comes out.
We all appreciate the time you spend on the board helping everyone out. :) :o
 
Folks,

I don't know how I missed the outstanding questions here!

Rod:

> Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add the Auralex name to that column - just so there isn't confusion on this in the future. <

Good point. I'll probably do that when I reorganize our Product Data page. We're announcing a new bass trap soon (mostly for audiophiles and home theater types), and I need to add that too.

Hookie:

> What about DIY panels Ethan? How do they match up? <

It depends entirely on what they're made of and how thick they are. The main point of the graph I posted above is to show how RealTraps compare to both brands of foam, and of course to also prove that Foam by Mail faked their data. What surprises me is that Auralex (and Sonex and RPG, etc) haven't hauled FBM into court since the fraud is blatant and easy to prove. In fact, if any of those companies want a copy of the original report we received from IBM I'll be glad to give it to them.

--Ethan
 
Ethan, you are a gentleman, and proof of your ethics is right there. I'm SOOOOOOO glad to see snake oil salesman exposed. If only they could be tarred and feathered..and run out of town on a beam..old fashioned punishment used to keep con artists at bay for a while :D Maybe a jail term for blatant theivery is in order cause thats EXACTLY what it is. :mad: :p
 
This is great information, Ethan thanks for sharing it and doing the test in the first place. I'll never buy from FBM again.

Having said that, however, there's a couple of things I'm not clear on.

1) It appears the tests you commissioned were for corner foam only; is that correct? So the numbers could potentially be closer between Auralex and FBM for the flutter echo/wall treatment type foam?

2) I've already purchased FBM for wall treatments and IMHO they've done the job in helping imaging and curing flutter echo. As to whether Auralex would've done a better job, I can't say, and I didn't totally deaden my room. I am using rigid fiberglass - based panels for corner bass traps (that I bought before I found about Real Traps...damn ;) ). I took a couple of trips to local music stores to compare the consistency of Auralex 2" wedge foam with my initial FBM purchase of the same, and could find no difference in consistency, shape, hardness, size of the cells, etc., between the two foams. To be fair, I didn't compare them side by side, but I did do this a couple of times and checked my foam just prior to and after each trip. So my question is, if there's no noticeable difference in the makeup and consistency of the foam, can it still sound different?

Thanks for your input in this area, you've made a great contribution, especially to us home and project recordists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top