Help bulding bass trap?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dresta187
  • Start date Start date
D

Dresta187

New member
Hey i was looking to build a cheap but very useful and absorbent bass trap.

can anyone help me with the how to ?
and exactly what materials i would need and where i could find the materials?

im mostly concerned with what type of insulation for inside the trap.

thanks and appreciate any help
 
Hey dude...

As far as the material, the one folks check out the most is OC703, like you can get from these fine folks...

http://www.gikacoustics.com/gik_oc700.html

Another choice is mineral wool board type stuff like this...

http://www.atsacoustics.com/item--Roxul-Rockboard-60-Case-of-6--RB60.html

I just built some super chunks for my corners outta the mineral wool. Pretty easy but time consuming.

Do a search and you'll see quite a few that have built their own with frames or super chunk like I did.

:drunk:
 
Dogbreath said:
I just built some super chunks for my corners outta the mineral wool. Pretty easy but time consuming.

Do a search and you'll see quite a few that have built their own with frames or super chunk like I did.

:drunk:
Click to expand...
An even simpler and less expensive solution is to simply build a frame for each 4" panel and wrap in fabric. It won't quite be a superchunk, but will provide really good results, cheaper and easier.
 
Go look at the construction articles and forum over at www.ethanwiner.com

Ethan has published in major magazines and knows more about acoustics than most people on this board put together....
 
:spank:
pandamonk said:
An even simpler and less expensive solution is to simply build a frame for each 4" panel and wrap in fabric. It won't quite be a superchunk, but will provide really good results, cheaper and easier.
Click to expand...

Wont 'quite be' a superchunk, ya.... 4" panels are decent, no doubt, and that is the standard.. But a superchunk is triangles cut and stacked up in the corner, so it's solid material all the way to the inner corner. Yeah you need cases of 703 per corner, but it's the ultimate insanely awesome bass trap. If 4" panels are snappy v-8 camaros, superchunks are the veyrons and enzos. (Where did i leave my skateboard now?? :D )

DB, how big did you cut yours, 4 or 8 triangles per 4'x2'? how long have u had those, I don't remember seeing those before. I'd love to listen to something in your place man, damn..
 
Last edited:
suprstar said:
:spank:

DB, how big did you cut yours, 4 or 8 triangles per 4'x2'? how long have u had those, I don't remember seeing those before. I'd love to listen to something in your place man, damn..
Click to expand...

Hey dude...c'mon over. We'll drink beer n shit. :D :D
I just got thru with those chunks this past weekend. I'm diggin it.:)

About the triangles.....
I took a 2X4 sheet, cut it in half so ya have two 2X2 pieces...
Cut from corner to corner on each of those. Total of 8 per sheet.

This gives you 17 inches down each wall side and 24 inches across the front face.

So total, you'll get 8 triangles from each 2X4 sheet.
One box of 6 sheets gets you 48 triangles.
48 triangles at 2 inches thick gives you 96 inches in height.

So one box of 2" thick will give you an 8 ft trap.

A lot easier to do if ya don't have a room full of equipment already. :o

:laughings:
 
pandamonk said:
An even simpler and less expensive solution is to simply build a frame for each 4" panel and wrap in fabric. It won't quite be a superchunk, but will provide really good results, cheaper and easier.
Click to expand...

True, but it order to get the same results that you'd get from a superchunk the panels have to be 6" thick.

Frank
 
Much appreciateed everyone.. im planning on starting my bass trap bulding in about a week so wish me good luck! ha

ill post pictures of how they came out
 
Dogbreath said:
Hey dude...c'mon over. We'll drink beer n shit. :D :D
I just got thru with those chunks this past weekend. I'm diggin it.:)

About the triangles.....
I took a 2X4 sheet, cut it in half so ya have two 2X2 pieces...
Cut from corner to corner on each of those. Total of 8 per sheet.

This gives you 17 inches down each wall side and 24 inches across the front face.

So total, you'll get 8 triangles from each 2X4 sheet.
One box of 6 sheets gets you 48 triangles.
48 triangles at 2 inches thick gives you 96 inches in height.

So one box of 2" thick will give you an 8 ft trap.

A lot easier to do if ya don't have a room full of equipment already. :o

:laughings:
Click to expand...
And 4 sheets for a normal panel trap. The superchunk should outperform the panel, but will be 50% more expensive.

Now, I'd like to see a comparison of a 6" panel trap and superchunk like this. Yes the superchunk is thicker (17" at it's thickest points) but the panel is 6" thicker, if you include the spacing, and if built correctly has more absorptive area (both sides at 96"x6" which are 24" thick). :p
 
This is to the experts, Ethan, Frank, etc.

Instead of cutting into triangles to make a superchunk, wouldn't cutting into squares provide better results?

A normal superchunk at its thickest point is 17" and this effectively reduces to 0", but a square at it's thickest point is also 17", but this only reduces to 12". It has more surface area at a constant 12" thickness.

Also if you turn the square around and make use of the airgap, wouldn't that further improve its performance?

The only downsides I can see in both cases is that it protrudes further into the room (bad in small spaces) and doesn't extend as far along the walls.

...Just throwing the idea out there.
 
pandamonk said:
This is to the experts, Ethan, Frank, etc.

Instead of cutting into triangles to make a superchunk, wouldn't cutting into squares provide better results?

A normal superchunk at its thickest point is 17" and this effectively reduces to 0", but a square at it's thickest point is also 17", but this only reduces to 12". It has more surface area at a constant 12" thickness.

Also if you turn the square around and make use of the airgap, wouldn't that further improve its performance?

The only downsides I can see in both cases is that it protrudes further into the room (bad in small spaces) and doesn't extend as far along the walls.

...Just throwing the idea out there.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, but then you get into the situation of making a 34" wide trap, then a larger square, then a wider triangle and so on. From an *efficiency* standpoint (not a raw-numbers standpoint) the triangle shape is best.

Frank
 
pandamonk said:
And 4 sheets for a normal panel trap. The superchunk should outperform the panel, but will be 50% more expensive.

Now, I'd like to see a comparison of a 6" panel trap and superchunk like this. Yes the superchunk is thicker (17" at it's thickest points) but the panel is 6" thicker, if you include the spacing, and if built correctly has more absorptive area (both sides at 96"x6" which are 24" thick). :p
Click to expand...

I was wondering this last night too, since they have equal amounts of material. Does the air space behind help? It would take up more of your studio space, exactly the volume of the superchunk if you mount it 45º to the corner, since it can only be set back to that 2' front face of the superchunk.
 
I've used office dividers (used-pennies on the dollar) as bass traps and they work out just fine.
You should be able to find them at any used office supply outlet. At different shapes and sizes.



:cool:
 
Weasel9992 said:
You're absolutely right, but then you get into the situation of making a 34" wide trap, then a larger square, then a wider triangle and so on. From an *efficiency* standpoint (not a raw-numbers standpoint) the triangle shape is best.

Frank
Click to expand...
But the square uses the same amount of material, just more efficiently...
 
pandamonk said:
But the square uses the same amount of material, just more efficiently...
Click to expand...

but wouldn't you use twice as many? :confused:

I mean, mine were squares until I cut em corner to corner so it seems like you'd need twice as many to cover the same distance.

Or maybe I'm missing what you're sayin. :confused:

oh....and beer. :drunk:
 
Dogbreath said:
but wouldn't you use twice as many? :confused:

I mean, mine were squares until I cut em corner to corner so it seems like you'd need twice as many to cover the same distance.

Or maybe I'm missing what you're sayin. :confused:

oh....and beer. :drunk:
Click to expand...
You said you made 8 triangles by cutting the 4'x2' in half, then diagonally into quarters. I'm talking about doing the exact same thing, just cutting horizontally and vertically rather than diagonally. You use the same amount of material, but it may be more effective (large surface area, constant 12" thickness, and still 17" at thickest point).

Only acoustic benefit I can see to triangles is that they extend further along the wall, however this is just 5" more and it's thin (0"-5"). On the squares, instead of being thin at the edge, they add to the overall thickness. I'll draw what I mean. Red is normal triangular, Black is what I'm talking about, and Yellow is what you could do to improve its performance further. Get it? :p
 

Attachments

  • superchunk.webp
    superchunk.webp
    3.7 KB · Views: 139
Is there any software that simulates waves in which you can add walls, corners, absorption, etc?
 
ahhh....I see what yer sayin. Makes sense.

Seems like havin the square out from the wall giving you air space behind it would help with the trapping too.

....seems reasonable to me. :drunk:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top