Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    Gik Acoustics - Comparing Foam To Gik 244 Bass Traps

    Uploaded by

    Matia Campora
    The document compares foam bass traps to GIK 244 bass traps through frequency response and waterfall graph tests. In the frequency response tests, the GIK 244 bass traps performed well from deep bass up, while the foam traps did little until 250 Hz. In the waterfall graph tests, 16 foam wedge bass traps had almost no effect on decay times below 200 Hz, while the GIK 244 bass traps decreased decay times significantly from 65 Hz and up, with some effect even at 45 Hz. Proper bass trapping like the GIK 244 bass traps is important for controlling low frequency decay times throughout a room.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gik Acoustics - Comparing Foam To Gik 244 Bass Traps

    Uploaded by

    Matia Campora
    81 views4 pages
    The document compares foam bass traps to GIK 244 bass traps through frequency response and waterfall graph tests. In the frequency response tests, the GIK 244 bass traps performed well from deep bass up, while the foam traps did little until 250 Hz. In the waterfall graph tests, 16 foam wedge bass traps had almost no effect on decay times below 200 Hz, while the GIK 244 bass traps decreased decay times significantly from 65 Hz and up, with some effect even at 45 Hz. Proper bass trapping like the GIK 244 bass traps is important for controlling low frequency decay times throughout a room.

    Original Title

    gik acoustics_comparing foam to gik 244 bass traps

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document compares foam bass traps to GIK 244 bass traps through frequency response and waterfall graph tests. In the frequency response tests, the GIK 244 bass traps performed well from deep bass up, while the foam traps did little until 250 Hz. In the waterfall graph tests, 16 foam wedge bass traps had almost no effect on decay times below 200 Hz, while the GIK 244 bass traps decreased decay times significantly from 65 Hz and up, with some effect even at 45 Hz. Proper bass trapping like the GIK 244 bass traps is important for controlling low frequency decay times throughout a room.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    81 views4 pages

    Gik Acoustics - Comparing Foam To Gik 244 Bass Traps

    Uploaded by

    Matia Campora
    The document compares foam bass traps to GIK 244 bass traps through frequency response and waterfall graph tests. In the frequency response tests, the GIK 244 bass traps performed well from deep bass up, while the foam traps did little until 250 Hz. In the waterfall graph tests, 16 foam wedge bass traps had almost no effect on decay times below 200 Hz, while the GIK 244 bass traps decreased decay times significantly from 65 Hz and up, with some effect even at 45 Hz. Proper bass trapping like the GIK 244 bass traps is important for controlling low frequency decay times throughout a room.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    27/2/2019 Comparing Foam to GIK 244 Bass Traps

     Free Advice My account £ 0.00 

    ARTICLES

    Comparing Foam Bass Traps to GIK 244


    Bass Traps – Test Analysis
    POSTED ON FEBRUARY 9, 2012 BY DAVID SHEVYN

    09
    Feb

    We are frequently asked how our products compare to corner foam bass traps that you see all over the internet. So
    we did a comparison test in our lab at GIK Acoustics.

    To present a fair comparison, we purchased (16) 18″ x 24” foam bass traps and used only (8) GIK Acoustics 244 Bass
    Traps that are 24″ x 48″. All products were placed to use the same linear length (32 feet) in the corners. No attempt
    was made to achieve a perfect frequency response. The objective was to show the effect of low end control with
    typical corner mounted foam vs our 244 Bass Trap. Again, the products were placed in corners around the room and
    both products were in the same places for the test (see sketch up drawings).

    GIK Acoustics vs Foam

    Test setup with foam wedges

    https://gikacoustics.co.uk/comparing-foam-to-gik-244-bass-traps/ 1/6
    27/2/2019 Comparing Foam to GIK 244 Bass Traps

    GIK Acoustics

    Test setup with GIK Acoustics 244 Bass Traps

    Frequency Response
    Test 1 is the frequency response of the lab/room empty

    Test 2 is the frequency response with the 16 foam corner bass traps vs. the empty room.

    https://gikacoustics.co.uk/comparing-foam-to-gik-244-bass-traps/ 2/6
    27/2/2019 Comparing Foam to GIK 244 Bass Traps

    Test 3 is the frequency response with 8 GIK 244 Bass Traps vs. the empty room.

    As you can see from the test results the 244 Bass Traps did a great job from the deep bass and up, while the foam
    wedges seem to do very little to nothing until you reach 250 Hz.   Proper bass trapping in the corner can improve
    frequency response, but  trapping in the corners will have a  large, if not larger,  impacted on decay times as we will
    show next.

    Waterfall Graphs
    Before we move on to the next set of tests, here is a little background on decay times and waterfall graphs and why
    they are so important to view (if not more important then frequency response).  As sound plays through your
    speakers it doesn’t just get to you and stop but continues to bounce around the room and slowly fades away over
    time.  This is sometimes referred to as ringing or reverb.  A waterfall graph allows you to visualize how quickly or
    slowly a given frequency decays over time.

    Low frequencies tend to be stronger and stay more intense longer than higher frequencies.  Higher frequencies are
    also easier to control. Things like people, furniture, carpet, curtains, and even air tend to have a much more
    signi cant impact on the higher frequencies than lower ones.  In addition, high frequencies are much more
    directional where low frequencies tend to spread like a sphere in 3 dimensions.  In a bare room, there really isn’t
    much that has any signi cant impact on low frequencies which is why it is critical to have proper bass trapping .  As
    the low end keeps bouncing around the room there are other things that you are trying to hear but the frequencies
    that are ringing are masking imaging cues, harmonic textures, and even cancelling and/or reinforcing themselves.

    When someone refers to a room that sounds “tight” or “clear” they are most likely in a room where the low end
    decay times are under control with bass traps.
    Test 4 is the waterfall graph of the empty room

    https://gikacoustics.co.uk/comparing-foam-to-gik-244-bass-traps/ 3/6
    27/2/2019 Comparing Foam to GIK 244 Bass Traps

    Test 5 is with the 16 corner foam wedge bass traps

    Test 6 is with 8 GIK 244 Bass Traps

    You can see that 16 of the foam wedge bass traps had virtually no effect on the decay time below 200 Hz  while the
    GIK 244 Bass Traps decreased the 65 Hz decay time and up by a signi cant amount; with even some effect at 45 Hz. 
    The goal of bass trapping, which the 244 Bass Traps indicate, is to have a controlled decay time throughout the low

    https://gikacoustics.co.uk/comparing-foam-to-gik-244-bass-traps/ 4/6

    You might also like