Hi everyone,
I was really interested in doing a comparitive study of the two types of velocity based corner trap designs we see all the time - the triangular v/s cube shaped.
I did not find a detailed comparison anywhere and I understand that what is needed and works best is subject to the behaviour of a room. But is there a way we can compare the efficiency of velocity based absorbers by their shapes - Triangular v/s cube, both being superchunks, kept in corners, and of the same volume, height and material? Is this something comparable? How efficient will the 1/4 wavelength depth rule be in both cases? Somehow feels that a box will be much more effective than a triangle.
And because of the cube's constant depth, it will work the 1/4 wavelength rule for the axial modes (the strongest) across its entire front surface for a particular frequency, where as the triangle will work the 1/4 wavelength rule for the same modes across a bunch of frequencies because of variable depth. This can be interpreted as the cube being a more focussed axial mode absorber, which are the strongest. And the depth is variable for tangential modes (weaker) in both cases anyways.
But the triangle does provide a good angle for the direct sound from the speakers unlike the cube (arrow hitting the front edge of the cube), in case that matters.
Can anyone help me compare them better? Really new to acoustics and enjoying it!
Thank you. Glad to find this place.
I was really interested in doing a comparitive study of the two types of velocity based corner trap designs we see all the time - the triangular v/s cube shaped.
I did not find a detailed comparison anywhere and I understand that what is needed and works best is subject to the behaviour of a room. But is there a way we can compare the efficiency of velocity based absorbers by their shapes - Triangular v/s cube, both being superchunks, kept in corners, and of the same volume, height and material? Is this something comparable? How efficient will the 1/4 wavelength depth rule be in both cases? Somehow feels that a box will be much more effective than a triangle.
And because of the cube's constant depth, it will work the 1/4 wavelength rule for the axial modes (the strongest) across its entire front surface for a particular frequency, where as the triangle will work the 1/4 wavelength rule for the same modes across a bunch of frequencies because of variable depth. This can be interpreted as the cube being a more focussed axial mode absorber, which are the strongest. And the depth is variable for tangential modes (weaker) in both cases anyways.
But the triangle does provide a good angle for the direct sound from the speakers unlike the cube (arrow hitting the front edge of the cube), in case that matters.
Can anyone help me compare them better? Really new to acoustics and enjoying it!
Thank you. Glad to find this place.
Last edited: