R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Foam vs other materials for acoustic treatment  (Read 1539 times)

Jack Schitt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Foam vs other materials for acoustic treatment
« on: September 03, 2006, 08:33:36 am »

I have been having a friendly debate with a friend of mine over the use of foam vs more rigid materials. The debate is in the context of treating small bedroom type project rooms, with cost and space considerations being important factors.

The argument against is that foam will soak up too much high and mid freq content leaving the room boomy. My view has been that mass and position are the more important consideration.

Opinions?
Logged

franman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 580
Re: Foam vs other materials for acoustic treatment
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2006, 08:16:33 pm »

Dan,

THe classic mistake with foam (or any other thin porous absorption) is using too much of it and deadening all the HF and midrange without addressing any LF thus making a muddy sounding room, as you say. So, limp mass traps like membrane absorbers, can be used and some folks like to cover the membrane with a thin porous treatments to soak up top end as well. You just have to be aware and take care to address not just the top end and midrange, but the LF as well.... Nothing wrong with foam, or other thin porous treatments, as long as they are not used a panacea and the LF is considered as well. Twisted Evil
Logged
Francis Manzella - President, FM Design Ltd.
                 - Managing Director, Griffin Audio
fmdesign.com
griffinaudiousa.com

Pages: [1]   Go Up