The end of the end of the rainbow
- Thread starter fazer
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Hello,
can anybody explain what basic physical principle (Absorption, Diffusion, Damping...??) these tube traps are based on?
To me it's not clear how (why) they work ...
... beside the effect that they shrink the room ...
How can they effect, calm a 50Hz Air-Wave in a room...??
ROCK-ON!
can anybody explain what basic physical principle (Absorption, Diffusion, Damping...??) these tube traps are based on?
To me it's not clear how (why) they work ...
... beside the effect that they shrink the room ...
How can they effect, calm a 50Hz Air-Wave in a room...??
ROCK-ON!
k brown
Well-known member
https://www.acousticsciences.com/product/tubetrap-bass-trap/Hello,
can anybody explain what basic physical principle (Absorption, Diffusion, Damping...??) these tube traps are based on?
To me it's not clear how (why) they work ...
... beside the effect that they shrink the room ...
How can they effect, calm a 50Hz Air-Wave in a room...??
ROCK-ON!
totoxraymond
Well-known member
They are basically super-hyped pourous absorbers.
They don't give any real advantage. I watched almost all the series of videos (not that last one though), some parts are very interesting, but i wonder why a guy like Eric, building such a big studio didn't hire an acoustician. Or even bought a few books about acoustics... Just by looking at Ethan Winer youtube videos, he could have avoided a lot of mistakes.
My feeling is he lost himself a bit there.
Thomas
They don't give any real advantage. I watched almost all the series of videos (not that last one though), some parts are very interesting, but i wonder why a guy like Eric, building such a big studio didn't hire an acoustician. Or even bought a few books about acoustics... Just by looking at Ethan Winer youtube videos, he could have avoided a lot of mistakes.
My feeling is he lost himself a bit there.
Thomas
... in one episode he explained his option on „professional“ acoustics; i’ll share his opinion. He although explains his journey, pure interest. I wonder too about a bit of lack of theories.
I know the link above, there’s no physical explanation in there.. i’m looking for the “real” maths behind it. I’ve worked a time in the field of automotive acoustics and published some research papers... i’m trying to find the link...
Rock-On!
I know the link above, there’s no physical explanation in there.. i’m looking for the “real” maths behind it. I’ve worked a time in the field of automotive acoustics and published some research papers... i’m trying to find the link...
Rock-On!
john12ax7
Well-known member
The tube traps had a patent (now expired?), so you could probably get some info from that.
k brown
Well-known member
The link i posted explains pretty them thoroughly, I thought.
john12ax7
Well-known member
Previous poster was asking for the actual math, didn't see any equations in the link.
You would need more than just the link to design your own. That link, the patent, and an acoustics text like Fundamentals of Acoustics by Kinsler et al should get you there.
totoxraymond
Well-known member
Found this patent:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5444198A/en
Didn't see any math though. The claim is quite bizarre. It says that the rear of the tube should be made of porous material covered with fabric, the other half should be empty with a port on the top for tuning. But i don't see how this would make a resonator of any sort. since the cavity is closed by porous material.
If anybody has any clue, i'm all ears.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5444198A/en
Didn't see any math though. The claim is quite bizarre. It says that the rear of the tube should be made of porous material covered with fabric, the other half should be empty with a port on the top for tuning. But i don't see how this would make a resonator of any sort. since the cavity is closed by porous material.
If anybody has any clue, i'm all ears.
totoxraymond
Well-known member
By the way, Eric's version of the tube trap are basically rolls of porous material. So basic porous absorbers shaped as tubes.
@ 16' 49", of that video, you can see the interior of these tubes, they aren't even filled with porous material. I think they would have been more efficient if they were filled.
Also, i noticed a few things that are just wrong. for example, there was a video showing measurements of his VPR panels, he points a change of about 2 dB at 60Hz and concludes that they are effective while saying his microphone might have moved a bit and he added lots of panels between the two measurements. I don't think that 2 dB for about 20 (expensive) panels is really effective acoustically speaking, but that could be me.
Another example, in this latest video (the end of the end of the rainbow) he begins by stating that there is not yet a door between the control room and the machine room. So he's telling us that he spent months (according to him) treating and measuring a room that is acoustically coupled to another room... This is basic acoustic. I consider myself the degree 0 of acoustic engineering but one of the first things i learned was you have to isolate your room first, treat second.
Ho and I think he's so focused on the 50Hz problem that he forgets that he just doesn't address his 200Hz problem. I would be more concerned about the mid range than the very low end if it was me. Especially if you don't mix much of electronic music (which i think is his case).
Well, again there is also some good things about his videos, and in the end he seems happy with the result. I just think he took a really long path to get there. He could have make it shorter.
@ 16' 49", of that video, you can see the interior of these tubes, they aren't even filled with porous material. I think they would have been more efficient if they were filled.
Also, i noticed a few things that are just wrong. for example, there was a video showing measurements of his VPR panels, he points a change of about 2 dB at 60Hz and concludes that they are effective while saying his microphone might have moved a bit and he added lots of panels between the two measurements. I don't think that 2 dB for about 20 (expensive) panels is really effective acoustically speaking, but that could be me.
Another example, in this latest video (the end of the end of the rainbow) he begins by stating that there is not yet a door between the control room and the machine room. So he's telling us that he spent months (according to him) treating and measuring a room that is acoustically coupled to another room... This is basic acoustic. I consider myself the degree 0 of acoustic engineering but one of the first things i learned was you have to isolate your room first, treat second.
Ho and I think he's so focused on the 50Hz problem that he forgets that he just doesn't address his 200Hz problem. I would be more concerned about the mid range than the very low end if it was me. Especially if you don't mix much of electronic music (which i think is his case).
Well, again there is also some good things about his videos, and in the end he seems happy with the result. I just think he took a really long path to get there. He could have make it shorter.
Last edited:
First of all - I love this place!
I was thinking about putting a post about this tube traps ... and wow FAZER opens one.
I’m still struggling. To me there are only 3 physical principles to tame acoustics: A) Absorbion, B) Diffusion, C) Damping.
A) Absorption simple eats the wave energy by friction, transferred into heat. Works good > 1kHz (As higher the frequency as better)
B) Every change of the direction, due to a rebound, eats energy. We all know higher frequencies are more directional as lower frequencies are more omi-directional. (Works good >500Hz)
C) Daming is basically the same as Absorption; the movement energy hits friction, friction transfers the energy into heat - gone. Works good up to 1kHz.
I’m still can’ explain why his tube improvements work??
Besides he’s just shrinking the room...
Maybe will have to ask my old colleagues...
Rock-On!
I was thinking about putting a post about this tube traps ... and wow FAZER opens one.
I’m still struggling. To me there are only 3 physical principles to tame acoustics: A) Absorbion, B) Diffusion, C) Damping.
A) Absorption simple eats the wave energy by friction, transferred into heat. Works good > 1kHz (As higher the frequency as better)
B) Every change of the direction, due to a rebound, eats energy. We all know higher frequencies are more directional as lower frequencies are more omi-directional. (Works good >500Hz)
C) Daming is basically the same as Absorption; the movement energy hits friction, friction transfers the energy into heat - gone. Works good up to 1kHz.
I’m still can’ explain why his tube improvements work??
Besides he’s just shrinking the room...
Maybe will have to ask my old colleagues...
Rock-On!
shabtek
Well-known member
with the tube treatment some AB&C is going on as well as some diffraction reducing resonant/room modes--
how efficient/effective is attenuatio for 7meter wavelength is the question
how efficient/effective is attenuatio for 7meter wavelength is the question
These are only tube traps to the extent that they are tubes and porous absorbers. They aren't sealed and don't have reflective surfaces like Tube Traps. I'm not advocating or dissing Tube Traps, but we are basically dealing with porous (velocity) absorbers. These types of absorbers will effectively absorb frequencies whose wavelengths are 1/4 wavelength or less of the thickness of the panel from the nearest boundary. For instance, to effectively absorb 100 Hz (11-foot wavelength) a velocity should be placed 11/4 feet (2.75 feet) from the wall or ceiling. In practice, less depth will still be effective due to the random incidence of sound waves, so maybe even as shallow as 1/10 wavelength will have some effect, given enough panels.
These tubes could just as well be flat panels mounted at a distance from the ceiling equal to their diameter. In fact, flat panels at that distance would likely be more effective since the tubes have varying depths from the ceiling. Filling the tubes with more porous material would only slightly increase their effeciency. so that's not really necessary. The lenght of the tubes will help with axial modes in that direction, but as others pointed out, only below the Shroeder Frequency (around 250 Hz), and that room looks extremely well controlled below 250 as it it.
Eric certainly went down a rabbit hole here - basically re-discovering basic principles that are well-defined. I love his energy and go-for-it attitude, but a serious conversation with an acoustician or even a visit to the Acoustic Insider YouTube channel would have set him on a more straightforward path.
I often see YouTubers using hanging "waveguides" and all kinds of things they've seen in use, but in practice, we want to treat a room in a way that we can predict the outcome, without a crazy amount of trial and error. Eric could have done a lot of prediction with velocity absorbers, installed them, then measured and determined what modes were still problems and then built pressure absorbers to handle the remaining issues. It would have taken less space, less time, less experimenting, and probably much less cost all around.
For many, though, the journey is the goal....
totoxraymond
Well-known member
I couldn't have said it better.
And by the way, i really like the acoustic insider channel. Lots of good info, especially for low budget projects.
And by the way, i really like the acoustic insider channel. Lots of good info, especially for low budget projects.
ubxf
Well-known member
I was skeptical when I went to a demo given by Mr Noxon (ASC) at RSPE they had the attack wall set up and it was great but inside a professionally designed room already. Then he talked about the studio traps and set them up in the stairwell, when you get in the middle you can hear what it does it's pretty amazing. Something else that works and seems strange at first is
https://deltahdesign.com/zr-acoustics/
https://deltahdesign.com/zr-acoustics/
Nobody says Tube Traps don't work - they are very effective. They are, however, expensive. A similar result can be achieved with standard flat porous absorbers, at a much lower cost. If you have the money and like the aesthetics of the tube traps, by all means, go for it. There are also plenty of DIY examples of tube-trap-type devices that will perform well.
I have yet to experience the Delta H products, but the descriptions of the physics behind their products are quite something... something questionable, that is...
The people I have met who have been to Delta H's showroom were required to sign an NDA, so, there's that, too.
ubxf
Well-known member
I have a bunch of Delta H ZR wooden panels. They work really well even though like a lot of people I thought that the sales pitch was questionable
Barry Hufker
Well-known member
I was put off by the website. I'd like to believe the product is as good as is claimed, and I have to consider the number of well-regarded people who have given testimonials… but I think the “ad copy” sounds like snake oil…. Having said that, I’d like to be proven wrong.
@ubxf: how much were the panels? I couldn't find price info on the site.
@ubxf: how much were the panels? I couldn't find price info on the site.
ruairioflaherty
Well-known member
Well, now you've met someone who's been who didn't sign an NDA
Hanson is a nice man, his products are for the most part not legit.I worked with Thomas at Northward Acoustics for a few years and also had my own partnership designing studios (our latest design was a $500k build). I'm now out of that game and not a competitor to anyone so I feel free to say that I would strongly advise against both Tube Traps and Delta H. I've heard everything from the Showroom, to Trade Show installs to multiple real world studios to Hanson's former flagship Universal Mastering (I listened in every room for extended periods).
With Tube Traps I have heard and used many many installs and spoken at length to Art Nixon in what was a completely science free conversation.
Similar threads
