GIK bass traps?

vsr600 · Post by **vsr600** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:37 pm

I knew I wasn't crazy....

Electro-Voice 664 · Post by **Electro-Voice 664** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:39 pm

With the GIK Monster bass kicks, becoming clear and easy to mix. No more guessing on bass levels during mix down. Cleaning up those nasty nulls and spikes that are present in all rooms. With new certified lab tests the GIK Monster has a rating of 3.00 absorption coefficient at 80 hz. There is no other product that comes close to these numbers. Most products hit half that number or don't post any numbers at all.

http://www.gikacoustics.com/product_info.html#3

Is this what you mean?
Edit>nevermind

jebjerome · Post by **jebjerome** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:53 pm

Flammability?

vsr600 · Post by **vsr600** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:06 pm

"With new certified lab tests the GIK Monster has a rating of 3.00 absorption coefficient at 80 hz. There is no other product that comes close to these numbers. Most products hit half that number or don't post any numbers at all. "

ehrm most companies know that you can't have an absorption coefficient (which is the ratio of intensity absorbed to intensity incident) greater than one... these number's aren't physically possible.... ridiculous even. if they did have coefficients greater than one, I think I would have my dissertation... possibly a nobel prize if i could figure out how this material can absorb more energy/intensity/pressure (whatever) than what goes into it. That just violates causality.
Sorry to rant but I'm a grad student studying acoustics and doing research at National Center for Physical Acoustics so I have to worry about the numbers...

Cellotron · Post by **Cellotron** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:26 pm

vsr600 wrote:"With new certified lab tests the GIK Monster has a rating of 3.00 absorption coefficient at 80 hz. There is no other product that comes close to these numbers. Most products hit half that number or don't post any numbers at all. "

ehrm most companies know that you can't have an absorption coefficient (which is the ratio of intensity absorbed to intensity incident) greater than one... these number's aren't physically possible.... ridiculous even. if they did have coefficients greater than one, I think I would have my dissertation... possibly a nobel prize if i could figure out how this material can absorb more energy/intensity/pressure (whatever) than what goes into it. That just violates causality.
Sorry to rant but I'm a grad student studying acoustics and doing research at National Center for Physical Acoustics so I have to worry about the numbers...

Also check out the numbers posted at http://www.realtraps.com/data.htm -
again in the chart headed by "Absorption Comparison - values are Absorption Coefficients per 4-foot unit" -
again we see listed numbers that exceed 1.00!

Even though on http://www.realtraps.com/art_measure.htm it states (what I presume is correct} that:
"the standard way to specify the effectiveness of absorbent materials is with an absorption coefficient. This number ranges from zero (no absorption) to 1.0 where 100 percent of the sound is absorbed."

So - what is this measurement on both of these sites?
It would be nice if both Glenn & Ethan could chime in here and correct the info on their pages if it has been presented incorrectly or unclearly.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

MASSIVE Mastering · Post by **MASSIVE Mastering** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:52 pm

Read down the rest of the page...

Cellotron · Post by **Cellotron** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:20 am

MASSIVE Mastering wrote:Read down the rest of the page...

for those of you like me who might have missed it earlier - here we go:

You may notice that absorption coefficients sometimes have a value greater than 1.0. Although it is impossible for any material to absorb more than 100 percent of the sound, measurements can yield a value greater than 1.0. The main reason this occurs is that all material has a finite thickness, and the edges - which are not included in the stated surface area - absorb some of the sound. So for an acoustic panel two by four feet and four inches thick, the real surface area includes the four-inch thick edge around the material. If included in the measurements, this would add four square feet to the stated surface area of eight square feet - a 50 percent increase! (See The Numbers Game below for a more detailed explanation.) Even when the edges are included in the total surface area, values slightly greater than 1.0 are still possible due to diffraction effects at the material's edges and corners. When the edges are rounded, this effect is reduced.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

vsr600 · Post by **vsr600** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:42 am

oh i see.
It seems like there's a better method than the reverb time approximation. I guess that's why I'm a physicist not an engineer hehe...

I just remember a question on an acoustics test last year that went something like: "You contract an acoustical engineer to lower the noise in a factory by 6dB.... He says he can lower it by 10dB using 4x2 foot acoutic panals with an absorbtion coefficient of 1.03 at 1kHz... Why do you not hire him?"
And the answer was because nothing can have an absorbtion coefficient greater than one even though if you used the numbers that were given in the problem it gave the correct reverb time.

myfipie · Post by **myfipie** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:23 pm

I guess I missed all the fun!!! ha ha ha
You have to remember that when tested it is also picking up the sides of the panel.. That is the reason for the numbers being so high (and other things that I can't talk about

)

With that said that is part of the reason I get on people who build there own and cover the sides with wood.. It still will work but you just took 50% away frin area that could have been absorbing sound.

Thanks,
Glenn

Sculli · Post by **Sculli** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:59 am

Glenn,
Can you answer the flammabilty question? Other than that I'm sold.
Peace,
Kevin

myfipie · Post by **myfipie** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:09 am

Sculli wrote:Glenn,
Can you answer the flammabilty question? Other than that I'm sold.
Peace,
Kevin

Oh man sorry I did not reply to you.. In the past the flammabilty was never a question, but due to more schools and public places ordering our product we are treating the panel with http://www.natfire.com/flame.retardant_fxpf.htm for a small up charge.. If you want email me and I can work up that price for you..

Thanks,
Glenn

Message Board

GIK bass traps?

Who is online