Acoustical Solutions or Auralex LENRD bass traps


I would like to hear from someone regarding the effectiveness of Acoustical Solutions or Auralex LENRD corner bass traps?
Thanks in advance.
csericks
I have been doing lots of research like yourself...tons and tons of reading. Broadband absorption is probably the safest bet...unless you are aiming at a particular issue. As Bulldogger points out, there is a risk to make a room worse sounding if you go for something that absorbs mainly in one region. Products that absorb in one region are generally meant to be used to tackle a specific problem or to be used in conjunction with other products. (For example tube traps can be very specific in their absorption)

From my research, foam can be excellent too....especially the Auralex LENRD traps as Stevecham reports (others mail order foams may not be as good...be warned!)....but you will probably need more foam than fibreglass treatments to achieve the same impact. Dow Corning 703 or 705 fibre has higher density (roughly double) than foam and this gives it an edge in the LF absorption per unit of treatment. Realtraps web pages is another good resource to read up on.

Placement is another crucial factor. You can "tune" to a certain extent using the quarter wavelength rule in distance away from a wall (often this is impractical in most domestic settings) If you can't tune by going far from a wall then placement a couple of inches away helps and straddling corners works good too.

I have ordered four of the new type GIK triangular corner traps - so I'll let know my findings when I set 'em up. I believe this is a bare minimum of treatment in order to have some small impact. In theory they should work quite well but I have not seen many reviews, as the triangular versions are new. I liked their prices, which is probably why I took the leap. I won't lose much if they dont work well in my particular room setting.

For the moment, what I am telling you is all based on extensive research and thats it....and we all know the value of first hand experience - so take my comments for what they are worth...two cents!

G'luck and thanks to let us know how many you installed, where they were added, and what was the impact.
Check these out.
http://www.thefoamfactory.com/acousticfoam/acousticfoam.html

They are the identical(as far as I can tell) to Auralex but MUCH cheaper. I paid $96 for 16 linear feet of the corner traps.

FYI- I'm not affiliated in any way, just passing on a deal.
Ecruz,

Good suggestion. These are 2 Lb density which I believe is equivalent to Auralex. These Agon threads are so handy!
Check out http://www.auralex.com/testdata/test/lenrd.pdf

for technical data on the absorbtion band distribution of the Lenrd traps
Stevecham,

I looked the numbers compared to these

Tri-traps

Test were made in the same laboratory but sample size was different and one was corner tested and the other against a wall.

Here are the results at 100HZ;

64 linear feet of Auralex LENRD Bass traps = 60 Sabins (A test)
32 linear feet of GIK Tri Traps = 98 Sabins (J Test)

The Tri-Traps are slightly bigger 17" by 17" on the triangular sides versus 12" by 12" for the LENRD's.

The J test is done in the corners = relative advantage to Tri-Traps test.

The A test is done simply against a wall = relative disadvantage to LENRD test results

Very roughly speaking the A Test (against wall) has HALF the absorption compared to a corner at 100 Hz, as the corner is a more advantageous position for bass trapping. (This is a gross approximation)

Normalizing the above data (very very roughly) - here is the conclusion;

One linear foot of GIK Tritrap is very roughly equivalent to 1.6 linear feet of Auralex LENRD in absorption at 100Hz. (when both placed in corners)

It is probably the higher density of Tri-Traps and the fact that they are slightly bigger, which gives them the edge.

Obviously the difference can be evened out by applying 60% more LENRD coverage than Tri-Trap for a given room.

=> the implication is that both options can work equally well and choice comes down to aesthetics/practical issues. In reality, neither will do much for sub 100 Hz room modes for which I think the only practical option is room design and a PEQ. Both should help dramatically with reverberation above 100HZ when appropriate corner coverage is implemented(all four corners treated).

Of course, other absorption designs from other reputable acoustic companes such as Realtraps will work very well too. These are certainnly not necessarily the best options....just a couple of examples. I do not endorse either product and have absolutely no affiliation with either. (Caveat my math might be rusty....so don't take this too literally)