R1 Roundffusor: Does it live up to it's enormous claims?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 89gtsleeper
  • Start date Start date
8

89gtsleeper

New member
R1 Roundffusor: Does it live up to it's enormous claims???

I have been doing some extensive research regarding the negative effects and various treatment methods of reflections in a studio. I stumbled across this product, and as far as I can tell, it may be the overall best method of diffusing a broad range of frequencies, while also absorbing lower frequencies way down in the frequency spectrum.

the guys at http://studiooutfitters.com/ are really helpful and spent about 30 minutes on the phone with me just giving me pointers and explaining their opinion of how I can best spend my money. Basically he said with a room as small as the one I am going to be using 10 x 12 x 8 foot ceilings, trying to absorb everything is going to leave me with a dead room, whereas I should try to only absorb the first reflection points, then focus on diffusing the rest of the room.

He says these panels are extremely useful, but only if you cover a large portion of the room with them. They come in 2'x2' squares, and he recommends using typically 9 of them in a 3 x 3 configuration so you will end up with a 6'x6' square. Anybody tried these things, and had luck using more or fewer of them??? Thanks.
 
89gtsleeper said:
it may be the overall best method of diffusing a broad range of frequencies, while also absorbing lower frequencies way down in the frequency spectrum.
Click to expand...

I admit I'm biased, but this is the best combination absorber / diffusor I know of:

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

> he said with a room as small as the one I am going to be using 10 x 12 x 8 foot ceilings, trying to absorb everything is going to leave me with a dead room, whereas I should try to only absorb the first reflection points, then focus on diffusing the rest of the room. <

That's bad advice. You cannot diffuse bass problems away, and those are the biggest issue in a small room. Especially in a small room like yours, absorption is a better choice.

--Ethan
 
well, he wasn't exactly saying I could diffuse the bass away, but what he was getting at was that their product will diffuse the mids and highs while absorbing the lows.... and that in a room that small, using 2" 703 or even 2" 705 would still not absorb enough bass to get a specular effect, so I was better off diffusing the sound, while absorbing a little bit of the bass.
 
Damn, those things are expensive. You're looking at spending over a grand to treat one wall with 9 tiles.
 
A 'dead room' is not evil. Sure you don't want a dead finished product, but that is what adding reverb in the mix is for.

A few traps, inteligently placed, can tame a room. The problem is that a lot of people are more interested in making a pattern on the wall than what is needed accoustically. Others will try to throw a ton of absorbtion in just one corner and ignore the others.
 
89gtsleeper said:
R1 Roundffusor: Does it live up to it's enormous claims???
Click to expand...

Well, it would be better than a flat, untreated wall. I wouldn't spend a lot of money on them, however. I'm personally quite well served by my ASC Studio Traps and some homebrew absorbers. The Studio Traps are also not cheap, even when you find them on the used market, but they provide a lot of flexibility, portability and a lot of options both for setting up a mix space and a recording space.

I'm in agreement with Ethan about the need for absorption first, especially in a small room, but diffusion is desirable, too if you can manage it in the right way.

For mixing, of course, you want to kill off all first order reflections, expecially those that would reach the listening spot within about 20 msec of the direct sound. I use the Studio Traps to do that when mixing, using the "dead" side toward the mix position, even for the traps to the rear of the mix position. The diffusion on the back side helps to keep some delayed diffuse sound present, rather than killing off everything.

When recording, OTOH, I usually rotate the live side toward the mike to create the live, dry sound they call the Quick Sound Field.

I still need to do more corner and edge trapping than I have done so far and may need to make up some more broadband absorbers.

Cheers,

Otto
 
I went ahead and decided against this product for now, due to cost... I spent a bunch of money a few days ago on my 24 track, and I'm going back to get my speakers, mics, and cables next week sometime, so I'm building my own diffusors. I'm just using the basic quadratic formula to make up a 4'x4' panel to go on my back wall. The only concern I have for this is weight, as altogether it is going to be about 100 lbs... It's not going to be wall mounted, I'll have to build some kind of stand for it, because otherwise it will be way to heavy. I built the first of 4 2'x2' diffuser last night, and I'm pretty pleased with how it came out with the limited supplies I had, and for how cheap it was. I have to build the second one tonight, and paint the first one. I'll probably be doing one a night after work for the rest of the week, and paint the dry one from the night before. Then, once they are all built, I can attach them together, and build the stand, which I still have to figure out how that will work. I think I'll be starting a new thread for suggestions on that, with pictures of the four panels I'm putting together.
 
89gtsleeper,

How are the homemade diffusors working for you? 16 square feet of surface treatment in a room that size is not very much. If you aren't hearing much, try using a 3x3 instead of a 2x2 grid. And be aware that a quadratic diffusor of that size is operating over a limited frequency range. Have you also incorporated some method to control the bass?

A 3x3 grid of Roundffusors gets you 36 square feet of smooth diffusion, PLUS (3) 6' long air columns which absorb bass. For a very small room (around 1000 cu ft) this will have a dramatic effect on the bass, as well as make the room sound larger and make the sweet spot larger.

In a room that small, you're fighting physics. You can't fit in enough absorption to truly tame the room modes. And any absorption you add will reduce the highs so that while the bass is getting flatter, the room still sounds boomy. So in very small rooms it's a losing battle to use broadband absorption (anything that absorbs above a few hundred Hz).

Basically, a "diffuse" room design requires more diffusors as the room size gets larger, because you have to cover more surface area. So the larger the room, the higher the expense. Conversely, absorption costs about the same for a small room as a larger room. I've seen it require about 80 cubic feet of fibrous absorber to tame a room of 5000 cu ft. It still takes nearly the same amount in a smaller room, and you incur a lot of expense trying to keep from absorbing the highs faster than you absorb the lows. So very small rooms benefit from a diffusive design with modest bass absorption, then as the room size gets larger there is a point where corner traps become more cost effective. However some people still feel a diffusive room sound is worth achieving regardless of cost. (there are several high-profile studios in Nashville that are highly diffuse)

Regarding the original post, the inventor of the Roundffusor does make some outrageous claims but the basic, patented idea is sound: the front of the roundffusor has a very high scattering coefficient, and the back is a bass absorber. And the hard plastic does not absorb mid or high frequencies. For what it does, it is _very_ cost effective.

-Ben Loftis
Studio Outfitters
 
Did anyone find on their tests and specs how much they are actually absorbing on the low end?
 
mixsit,

The Roundffusor was tested at NWAA labs in Santa Clarita, CA. You will not find the results online. Feel free to contact us for more info.

-Ben Loftis
Studio Outfitters
 
89gtsleeper said:
well, he wasn't exactly saying I could diffuse the bass away, but what he was getting at was that their product will diffuse the mids and highs while absorbing the lows.... and that in a room that small, using 2" 703 or even 2" 705 would still not absorb enough bass to get a specular effect, so I was better off diffusing the sound, while absorbing a little bit of the bass.
Click to expand...
4", and especially 6", 703 or 705(or equivalent), mounted straddling the corners, would definitely absorb enough bass to get a spectacular effect. It would be a lot cheaper! Diffusion is good, but for smaller rooms, absorption is best, imo. Although, with at least 6' behind the mixing position, diffusion should work well.

EDIT: just realised this in a old thread.
 
StudioOutfitter said:
89gtsleeper,

How are the homemade diffusors working for you? 16 square feet of surface treatment in a room that size is not very much. If you aren't hearing much, try using a 3x3 instead of a 2x2 grid. And be aware that a quadratic diffusor of that size is operating over a limited frequency range. Have you also incorporated some method to control the bass?

A 3x3 grid of Roundffusors gets you 36 square feet of smooth diffusion, PLUS (3) 6' long air columns which absorb bass. For a very small room (around 1000 cu ft) this will have a dramatic effect on the bass, as well as make the room sound larger and make the sweet spot larger.

In a room that small, you're fighting physics. You can't fit in enough absorption to truly tame the room modes. And any absorption you add will reduce the highs so that while the bass is getting flatter, the room still sounds boomy. So in very small rooms it's a losing battle to use broadband absorption (anything that absorbs above a few hundred Hz).

Basically, a "diffuse" room design requires more diffusors as the room size gets larger, because you have to cover more surface area. So the larger the room, the higher the expense. Conversely, absorption costs about the same for a small room as a larger room. I've seen it require about 80 cubic feet of fibrous absorber to tame a room of 5000 cu ft. It still takes nearly the same amount in a smaller room, and you incur a lot of expense trying to keep from absorbing the highs faster than you absorb the lows. So very small rooms benefit from a diffusive design with modest bass absorption, then as the room size gets larger there is a point where corner traps become more cost effective. However some people still feel a diffusive room sound is worth achieving regardless of cost. (there are several high-profile studios in Nashville that are highly diffuse)

Regarding the original post, the inventor of the Roundffusor does make some outrageous claims but the basic, patented idea is sound: the front of the roundffusor has a very high scattering coefficient, and the back is a bass absorber. And the hard plastic does not absorb mid or high frequencies. For what it does, it is _very_ cost effective.

-Ben Loftis
Studio Outfitters
Click to expand...
I think with 4" or 6" rigid fiberglass(oc703 or 705) mounted straddling the corner, you can acheive good bass absorption. 6" with the gap behind amounts to a maximum depth of around 18"(0.45m), which has a theoretical absorption down to 185Hz, but practically, it can work really well down to the lowest frequencies.

Then with absorption in the first reflection points, and back wall(with gaps between panels), this should provide a good mixing environment, for a lot less money than would cost for diffusion.

If you want diffusion, then building a few of these for the back wall would work, imo.

I also don't understand how it is patented when Ethan has patented the same idea.
 
pandamonk said:
I also don't understand how it is patented when Ethan has patented the same idea.
Click to expand...

neither does the patent office... the patent process in the US is pretty much broken with people having patents that sometimes are nothing more than a variation on an existing patent, or worse, something never patented but commonly used or already significantly in existance. some patents have lists of "prior art" that is longer than the patent itself.

"a device to convert electrical signals into acoustic energy"
"a device with a curved face to reflect sound energy in different directions"
"a number used as an id in the URL"
:eek:

when i was helping people document patents (in the early 80s) you were still heavily scrutinized, now, with the huge number of submissions, the PTO is overwhelmed and has nowhere near the skill needed to vet applications so much stuff get approved without regard for the consequences (whereas in the past it tended to get pushed back).

very bad state of affairs.

plus patent violation prosecution is virtually defeated by simply have a front company do imports for China - and when the lawyers show up, just drop it, form a new one, and start over in about 24 hours...
 
pandamonk said:
I also don't understand how it is patented when Ethan has patented the same idea.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I own no patents and likely never will. The QRD design we use for the RealTraps Diffusor is based on established knowledge and is not patentable. The very clever feature we added, making it from bass trap material with reflective well covers, probably is patentable. Just as RPG owns patents for specific construction aspects of their diffusors.

Patents are expensive and a nuisance to obtain. It seems to me the better way to grow a business is to sell great products at affordable prices. Versus wrapping yourself in patents and threatening to sue anyone who dares copy your design.

The only patent I'm sorry I didn't pursue is the side openings on our bass traps, because another US company now sells cheap Chinese-made knockoffs of our traps using metal frames with side slots.

--Ethan
 
Ethan Winer said:
Just to be clear, I own no patents and likely never will. The QRD design we use for the RealTraps Diffusor is based on established knowledge and is not patentable. The very clever feature we added, making it from bass trap material with reflective well covers, probably is patentable. Just as RPG owns patents for specific construction aspects of their diffusors.

Patents are expensive and a nuisance to obtain. It seems to me the better way to grow a business is to sell great products at affordable prices. Versus wrapping yourself in patents and threatening to sue anyone who dares copy your design.

The only patent I'm sorry I didn't pursue is the side openings on our bass traps, because another US company now sells cheap Chinese-made knockoffs of our traps using metal frames with side slots.

--Ethan
Click to expand...
Is that Ghost acoustics? They don't seem to have very good absorption coefficients, especially at bass frequencies. Even their corner trap:
Hz absorption
100 0.28
125 0.30
160 0.34
200 0.37
250 0.40
315 0.44
400 0.42
500 0.40
630 0.42
800 0.41
1000 0.43
1250 0.42
1600 0.42
2000 0.41
2500 0.42
3150 0.42
4000 0.41
5000 0.41
 
pandamonk said:
Is that Ghost acoustics?
Click to expand...

No, but I agree that stuff is not very impressive. It's also very expensive. And it is made in China.

I'm talking about Ready Acoustics. First they ripped off our name, changing one letter in RealTraps to be ReadyTraps. When I rightly complained they agreed to change the company name but not the product name ReadyTraps. No other acoustic treatment company I know of has "traps" in their name other than us. And now them.

Those guys have made a career out of following me around from one web forum to another just to call me names and insult my products. Then they stole our idea of a metal frame with side slots. But they did a lousy job! The slots on theirs are too small to be useful, and they didn't think to steal our superior mounting system and cross-bracing. Which is why it's a cheap knock-off. :(

--Ethan
 
StudioOutfitter said:
mixsit,

The Roundffusor was tested at NWAA labs in Santa Clarita, CA. You will not find the results online. Feel free to contact us for more info.

-Ben Loftis
Studio Outfitters
Click to expand...

I'm confused. If this is a product that you're genuinely proud of and fully satisfied that it behaves the way you describe it, why are the test results not online?

Strikes me that's the best way to convince customers that the product is worth buying..
 
Ethan Winer said:
No, but I agree that stuff is not very impressive. It's also very expensive. And it is made in China.

I'm talking about Ready Acoustics. First they ripped off our name, changing one letter in RealTraps to be ReadyTraps. When I rightly complained they agreed to change the company name but not the product name ReadyTraps. No other acoustic treatment company I know of has "traps" in their name other than us. And now them.

Those guys have made a career out of following me around from one web forum to another just to call me names and insult my products. Then they stole our idea of a metal frame with side slots. But they did a lousy job! The slots on theirs are too small to be useful, and they didn't think to steal our superior mounting system and cross-bracing. Which is why it's a cheap knock-off. :(

--Ethan
Click to expand...
I've heard all about it Ethan, and witnessed people like Eric(good acoustician, a bit mental though) badmouthing you.
 
Last edited:
Hi MessianicDreams,

If you Google for ISO-17497-1 reports, you won't find many examples online. This information is provided to acousticians who plug it into their high-end software, but is generally not available to consumers. For business reasons I have followed the same policy.

Subjectively it was easy to determine the effect of the Roundffusor. However, as an audio professional, I wanted to make sure that I could never be accused of selling "snake oil" so I paid for 3rd party testing myself.

Hope this helps,

-Ben Loftis
Studio Outfitters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top