No mic, I don’t want to bother with that. Will try 2 bass bluetone traps, and return if not satisfied.
Or should I go directly to the trip traps , twice more expensive, from GIK. ( just to try without no mic recording) ?
I do wonder what those sabines mean? @Thomas I´ve got absorbers from sounds of science and vicoustic and they have a different absorption measurment. Numbers for absorption rarely rise above 1 on their scales.
I also wonder about impact on environment, both indoors and from manufacture. Fibres made of glass or rock should not be released in your indoor environment since they are hazardous.
Mine are in very thin decorating dust sheets.
No effect on their performance but stop any particles
It is a measurement unit called after, or in honour of, Wallace Sabin.
In short, it is a coefficient of absorption (for 1 square meter of material) going from 0 to 1. Zero being 0% absorption, one being 100% absorption (an open window has a sabin coef. of 1).
So it is a unit relative to absorption including a factor of surface.
It always related to a particular frequency.
Sabins greater than 1 are due laboratory measurements conditions. These values should be taken with caution…
As for companies we may trust, it is not easy to discriminate them. Vicoustic, GIK Acoustics and Real Traps are serious companies.
I bought from Vicoustic and GIK Acoustics. Top quality and finish, specially Vicoustic.
If you wish to dig deeper into this particular subject chapter 5 of the following book provides it all (while sparing the math part, which is cool).
Thank you @Thomas. 0-1 was something I thought equal to percent but the gik measurements that @frenchrooster published above shows a result of 6 and up to about 14 sabines. The sounds of science measurmemts are between 0-1 and they top are a serious vendor. It’s a local compny, i.e. Swedish
Hmm I think I understand now. They give the coefficent/unit while other companies such as Vicoistic and Sounds of science give a coefficent regardless of surface area.
Regarding the companies being serious I have no doubts however it should be notes that making rock Wool starts with melting stone at 1600 degrees celsius which uses a lot of energy. For glass Wool it’s 1400 degrees.
Then there is the possibility of leakage of chemicals and micro particals (dust) through the fabric, which I presume isn’t woven to prevent leakage because it must let air pass through. However I noticed GIK had some sort of environmental thinking. Using rock Wool that doesn’t contain formaldehyd for instance.
That’s it! 
Here is the lab report for the GIK Acoustics Tri Traps
Difficult to compare when they use different systems when presenting results.
The link to SOFSCI didn’t work.
Does anyone know how to upload a pdf? That way I could post the test report here.
Just a question: do the GIK absorb much more vs Bluetone bass traps? Bluetone says their absorption is 50 Hz to 2500 Hz.
Absolutely.
You’ll have to rely on some knowledge.
- Porous bass traps should be made out of dense fiberglass or rock wool panels.
- Bass traps thinner than at least 6 inch of porous material aren’t bass traps.
- Bass traps made out of foam aren’t bass traps.
- Etc.
If cost is a concern, you could make them yourself, using top quality material. It would end up costing a fraction of a manufactured product. And you’d get the same or better result.
1 Like
Just post the link to the PDF, just like I did.
As far as I know, you can’t actually upload a PDF file.
Yes that was what I thought I did but it was a downloadable pdf.
In absolute terms maybe, but regardless of the units used it is immediately clear where in the frequency spectrum the units absorb most and relative absorption in other areas
Unfortunately Bluetone don’t publish the absorption curve, so there is no way of knowing even how they absorb at 50 relative to 150 or 250, let alone what their absorbance at any frequency is like vs any other trap. This is a classic case where measurements - of the room and published by trap manufacturers - would point you instantly towards the likely best solution: in the absence of measurements you simply have to try them all in turn.
1 Like
I found these Acoustimac DMD mesh fabric corner bass traps
Less expensive than GIK. Around 110 dollars each , from US.
What do you think think of their measurements?
Some more informations on them.
ECO-CORE WHITE DMD NOTE:
Our eco-core material has contrasting bits of colors from the different recycled products used in it’s composition which may be visible through our white DMD fabric.
IF YOU PLAN ON USING OUR ECO CORE WITH WHITE DMD FABRIC, WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND SELECTING OUR DOUBLE WRAP (RECYCLE SYMBOL) OPTION IN THE COLOR OPTION.
A 4" thick bass trap (48x24x4"). 13 colors to choose from. Packed with 4" deep of the best acoustic material available and wrapped in beautiful designer fabric, this bass trap is one of the best values out there.
Measuring 48"tall, 24" wide and x 4" thick. It absorbs super well at low frequencies and is equally good for the rest of the spectrum. They can be easily hanged with our Z-clips or just placed on the floor against room corners. Grab a few today! We guarantee you will love the way these bass traps will clear up and tighten up your sound.
They can also be used as high frequency absorption acoustic panels.
The measurements are very clear. The Acoustimas figures on a comparable basis to the GIK one you posted 5 days ago age given in the bottom row of the table below the chart (Sabins/unit). On the basis of these measurements you can get a fair idea of the relative effectiveness of the two absorbers:
The GIK is significantly more absorbent below 80Hz: 72% more absorbent at 63 Hz and more than 5x as absorbent at 50Hz by which point the Acoustimas’s absorbance is pretty low. if your problem frequencies are down there tge GIK one woukd be better. The Acoustimas has a fairly sharp peak absorbance around 125Hz, where it is 38% more absorbing than the GIK, so if you have an upper bass probem centred there but not below 80Hz the Acoustimas is likely to be better. Above 125Hz the Acoustimas remains more absorbent than the GIK, ranging from 6% more around 200Hz and up to around 30% more absorbent right through the midrange.
As a crude summary, , the GIK is better if you need absorbence below 80 Hz, the Acoustimas is better if you want it more above 80Hz.
3 Likes
A) It’s not a bass trap, it’s a wideband absorber.
B) It has very little low bass absorption, it only really starts to work in the mid bass, so it’s next to useless as a bass trap unless your room is <2.2m maximum dimension
2 Likes
Thanks you 3 ! I will go for GIK. However I was trying to find something less expensive and same efficiency as GIK.
but didn’t found .
There is also Hofa from Germany. But similar prices as GIK.