Best Acoustic Products for First Reflection Points

gian60

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2016
2,508
1,951
343
My friend that produce Kuro cable tell that the best material,for him is the felt of pure wool and he produce column with this felt in every colour that you can put near or behind the speaker
He modified also speaker putting this felt
I will post photo to let you understand
My friend with WE and Kondo has this column and the result is very good and who listen his room told sound and image is very very good
Than I think Rpg and Smt are better but this can compete with panels
 

gian60

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2016
2,508
1,951
343
I told my friend that the result is good but I don't like
One my friend has 4 column red
 

the sound of Tao

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2014
3,641
4,896
940
I've seen a lot of strange things through the years with this hobby, but this is up there with the most memorable of them.
I think your pics needs a caption:
"HELP, I'm a prisoner in an acoustic fabric origami factory and I can't get out!"
Lol... true art is about knowing how far to go and just when to stop. Crazy stuff. Perhaps a tad too funky but points for passion, enthusiasm and spirit. This hobby can lead to some moments of madness and fun.
 

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,142
495
Thats great... I've made some felt stars to surround my drivers but this is some next level felting! :)
 

Mark Seaton

WBF Technical Expert (Speaker & Acoustics)
May 21, 2010
381
141
390
47
Chicago, IL
www.seatonsound.net
Thank you for this Keith Yates article, Francisco. You are correct -- it is absolutely essential reading!

Keith's listening room experiences described in the article leave him arguing for wall-papering all four walls with RPG diffusors.

One slightly puzzling element of the article, however, is that after spending most of the article explaining how great it was to have RPG diffusion on all four sides of the listening room, towards the end of the essay, in the "Recalibrating the Listening Room" section of the article, Keith suddenly recommends absorption at the first reflection points: "At [the first reflection] points attach Sonex . . . or similar [absorption] products." I cannot reconcile this with his broader conclusion in the article.

Hi Ron,

I think this might be more a matter of context. For those who didn't click the link:

Sonex and ASC Tube Traps are perhaps the best-known acoustical treatments. But the successful recalibration of most listening rooms will require more diffusion than broad-range absorption (Sonex) or low-frequency corner attenuation (Tube Traps). Before spending dime one, it’s imperative that you understand just what you’re trying to accomplish. The goal of room makeovers is generally to remove the room’s characteristic small acoustic “fingerprint” and replace it with the space, warmth, envelopment, and liveness of a very good concert hall.

These—the removal of one “layer” and the installation of another—are two separate tasks. Broad-range absorbers like Sonex’s sculpted open-cell foam can remove the cues that cry “small” by killing the early reflections from nearby surfaces that tip off the ear-brain as to the real size of the room. The best locations of these absorbers are typically arrived at by placing a mirror on the front and side walls and moving it until, from the listening position, one or both speakers are visible. At these points, attach Sonex, Owens-Corning, Armstrong SoundSoak, or similar acoustical products.

The second task, the setting up of a soundfield that cries “big,” requires diffusion, especially in the areas flanking and directly behind the listening position. The ideal diffusor takes broad-range acoustical energy and scatters it in a non-frequency and non-temporally related way throughout the room, regardless of the angle at which the energy initially impinges on it.

By eliminating hard “specular” reflections and flooding the listening environment with ambient energy, the diffusor fosters the smooth, logarithmically decaying reverberation that marks the best concert halls. Poor concert halls and most all domestic listening rooms have erratic energy/time curves as a result of inadequate diffusion and/or unfavorable ratios of room dimensions. Ideally, reverberation will ramp down to -60dB in approximately 500ms (RT60=0.5s).

There is an audiophile wrinkle to this classical prescription. Many, perhaps most, audiophiles own or at least hanker for speakers that happen to have polar patterns that assume a reflective, not absorptive, area behind and around them. Most planars—e.g., those from Quad, Magnepan, Apogee, Martin-Logan, Eminent Technology, Acoustat, Sound Lab, Infinity IRS, and old-timers like the KLH 9s and the Dayton-Wright XG series—are configured as dipoles, meaning they direct as much energy backward as they do forward. Many others, like the Ohm Walsh units, Bose 901s, dbx Soundfield series, ESS/Heil air motion transformers, and dozens of others similarly not on the current “best-dressed” list, also rely heavily on broad polar shaping to achieve their characteristic sounds.

By installing too much absorption in the areas around planars and these latter devices, you disrupt their intended tonal and spatial properties, as the foldback of the rear and side waves figures prominently in establishing the speaker’s “musicality.” For these reasons, it is often desirable either to replace the absorbers with diffusors (which are, after all, a special kind of reflector) behind and around the speakers, or to mix diffusors with broad-range absorbers. Consider experimenting with absorption by constructing an absorbent “muffler” to go around the back side of the speaker, varying its distance (or angling it) to allow more or less rear-radiated sound into the room. (If you’re not a do-it-yourselfer, look into a set of Watkins “Echo Muffs.”)

Keith is well known to get a bit wordy, especially with references and anecdotes. What I think wasn't clearly communicated here was the relevance to the previous and following paragraph. I believe this is also a fairly aged article. He clearly noted much more effort and space should be put to diffusion, and then qualified where/how soft absorbing materials might be used to achieve the desired sound/presentation. The full quote noted... "Broad-range absorbers like Sonex’s sculpted open-cell foam can remove the cues that cry “small” by killing the early reflections from nearby surfaces that tip off the ear-brain as to the real size of the room. The best locations of these absorbers are typically arrived at by placing a mirror on the front and side walls and moving it until, from the listening position, one or both speakers are visible. At these points, attach Sonex, Owens-Corning, Armstrong SoundSoak, or similar acoustical products." The intent being to attack nearby / early reflections that give aural cues to make a space sound small. This would also suggest that in rooms where surfaces are relatively far from the speakers, you might not want any high frequency absorption. Looking at Keith's designs I have seen, they use exceedingly little amount of "soft stuff."
 

Mark Seaton

WBF Technical Expert (Speaker & Acoustics)
May 21, 2010
381
141
390
47
Chicago, IL
www.seatonsound.net
Folsom, My listening position will be close to the back wall. I will have to experiment with pulling the listening chair toward the speakers in an equilateral triangle to get the listening position more than three or four feet from the back wall. In the past I have used absorption on the back wall because my listening position has been close (too close) to the back wall.

caliaripaolo, In my particular set-up I place no treatment behind the speakers. I want a clean, unadulterated rear wave bouncing off the front wall. This is one reason I am inclined to use absorption at the first reflection points rather than diffusion -- I want an unadulterated reflected back wave so I want to make sure no first reflection mixes with that back wave.

As you probably noticed, Keith's article on diffusion directly addressed the matter of not squashing the rear wave reflections too much. This does make good sense, although some diffusion may be desired to scatter strong higher frequency reflections, but the concept is certainly to not loose that energy. At the same time, remember that your Pendragons are monopole/columns below ~250Hz, and this is a range where reflections are in no way beneficial. I recall your room having significant openings to the rest of the house and being fairly spacious, so this can greatly help reduce the build-up of low frequency energy, which is the only range you will likely want to consider absorption. Something to think about would be having someone pull out a microphone while placing a pair of subwoofers or full range speakers into the ballpark location where you might place the woofer towers, and see what's going on in the room before any treatment. Above 250-500Hz you are going to predominantly want diffusion, with the option to have panels that absorb more on the sides depending on the relative distances of the speakers to the side walls and the seat to the speakers. Absorption can also come into play when you have to deal with asymmetry in a room. It can be hard to simulate a reflective surface which is non-existent on one side, but strong on the other, and here you may find you want to absorb the lateral reflection to maintain symmetry. Ultimately the balancing act comes down to how you get the lateral spaciousness you desire. Listening angle to the speakers plays one major part, as does the lateral reflections from the side walls. The narrower the listening angle between the speakers, the more important the side wall reflections become, and the more important it is to have them highly symmetrical.

Very much along the lines of the considerations Mike Lavigne highlighted earlier in the thread, you *shouldn't* find experts giving you absolute answers and direction until many more details and variables are defined or clarified.

Depending on how much the openings to the room control the lower frequencies, for the area behind your seat, I would consider using this area to control the lower bass range, especially below 250Hz. Similar to how products such as the abfusor's work, GIK has some rather popular and effective panels with what they call scatter plates over them which help maintain diffusion and liveliness vs a soft panel, yet the thick panels they offer also allow effective treatment to much lower frequencies than 2-3" thick panels which are nearly useless below 250Hz. Take a look at how products like the GIK Alpha Series function in concept. In talking with the owner at shows, he has even discussed larger 4x4' and 4x8' scatter plates for custom installations to allow more flexibility and unique look. Finally, when looking at any treatment remember that they don't have to remain naked, but could always be covered with some of the very popular, photo or artwork printed fabrics so readily available these days. With fabric track systems you can even conceal any type of acoustic treatment entirely behind fabric and only show it off when you want to by flipping on some concealed back lighting.
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,219
13,682
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Thank you very much, Mark! This is all terrific advice!

For low frequency absorption I will first try in the corners the ASC Tube Traps I already have. I will not be installing a whole acoustic treatment built-in from the get go. I will start with a couple of things I know I want to do, and then I will get a couple of pairs of RPG Modfractals and a couple of pairs of SMT V-wings and play around with different combinations in different locations.

Maybe I will try a pair of SMTs at the first reflection points and maybe flank each pair of SMTs with a Modfractal. Each of these can be made 8' high and 2' wide. Together these would cover about 8' of horizontal space of each side wall.

The ribbon panels go inside of the bass towers. Each base tower will only be about 2 feet or maybe a little more from the side wall. This puts the ribbon drivers about 4' from the sidewalls. Like Mike's MM7s, the bass tower blocks some of the side reflection from each ribbon panel.

I also have 8' X 4' absorption panels. It will be interesting to hear the difference between the absorption panels and the diffusors at the first reflection points.
 

sbo6

VIP/Donor
May 18, 2014
1,679
606
480
Round Rock, TX
Hi Ron,

Lots of good advice above. My room uses custom made front, side and ceiling diffusors built from pine planks and lined with differing types of fiberglass specified by my acoustic plan. The front and side wall diffusors are at a specific angle and built from 8ft x 18inch pine planks.

My dealer and I used Rives audio to build my acoustic plan. My dealer is using Vicustic to build and spec out his treatment methodology right now. I am sure their are several others to consider. My advice, hire someone to acoustically measure your room and spec out the types and placement of treatments. Rives cost me $2800 at the time and was money incredibly well spent.

Here is one of the drawings they output:

View attachment 36654

Interesting, are the speaker placed not equidistant to side walls in that drawing? Looks like the Left speaker is further from its side wall.
 

flyer

VIP/Donor
Dec 16, 2012
423
179
1,160
Belgium
Thank you very much, Mark! This is all terrific advice!

For low frequency absorption I will first try in the corners the ASC Tube Traps I already have. I will not be installing a whole acoustic treatment built-in from the get go. I will start with a couple of things I know I want to do, and then I will get a couple of pairs of RPG Modfractals and a couple of pairs of SMT V-wings and play around with different combinations in different locations.

Maybe I will try a pair of SMTs at the first reflection points and maybe flank each pair of SMTs with a Modfractal. Each of these can be made 8' high and 2' wide. Together these would cover about 8' of horizontal space of each side wall.

The ribbon panels go inside of the bass towers. Each base tower will only be about 2 feet or maybe a little more from the side wall. This puts the ribbon drivers about 4' from the sidewalls. Like Mike's MM7s, the bass tower blocks some of the side reflection from each ribbon panel.

I also have 8' X 4' absorption panels. It will be interesting to hear the difference between the absorption panels and the diffusors at the first reflection points.


Hi Ron, I can't seem to find what RGP Modfractal is on the web, is this the diffractal unit? So basically QRD (or Schroeder) panels. If so, I would not recommend to put these next to an SMT wing, there is no advantage to be gained from that.
If I may be critical, you would need to choose: either go with QRD's all the way or with wings, but i am doubtful the hybrid solution will get you best results.


Beware, good results you will get, but for the money spent, just not the best. Also aesthetically they are hardly complementary.
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,219
13,682
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Hi Ron, I can't seem to find what RGP Modfractal is on the web, is this the diffractal unit? So basically QRD (or Schroeder) panels. If so, I would not recommend to put these next to an SMT wing, there is no advantage to be gained from that.
If I may be critical, you would need to choose: either go with QRD's all the way or with wings, but i am doubtful the hybrid solution will get you best results.

. . .

Of course you may be critical; I am here to learn what I do not know! :)

RPG Mondractal is a slightly more advanced version of RPG Diffractal.

I understand that experimenting by mixing different products does not make sense to you, but why do you think it is inferior to using either all scattering diffusion products (Modfractal) or all time delay diffusion products (SMT)?

Why technically, in theory, is mixing diffusion products -- mixing types of diffusion -- a bad idea?

(I am not arguing you are wrong -- I have no idea. Staying flexible, and mixing products while experimenting, does make some sense to me, absent a technical theory why this is an inferior approach.)
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,646
13,683
2,710
London
So, will SMT wings or RPG work with conventional corner bass traps?
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,219
13,682
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Well the manufacturers (RPG and SMT) of these products might say no, but I believe the diffusion products are working at different frequencies than are the ASC Tube Traps.
 

flyer

VIP/Donor
Dec 16, 2012
423
179
1,160
Belgium
Well the manufacturers (RPG and SMT) of these products might say no, but I believe the diffusion products are working at different frequencies than are the ASC Tube Traps.

I did not intend to question the Tube Traps, just the QRD's next to the wings.

Hope that clears up.
 

flyer

VIP/Donor
Dec 16, 2012
423
179
1,160
Belgium
...

I understand that experimenting by mixing different products does not make sense to you, but why do you think it is inferior to using either all scattering diffusion products (Modfractal) or all time delay diffusion products (SMT)?

Why technically, in theory, is mixing diffusion products -- mixing types of diffusion -- a bad idea?

I will not state here that one is better than the other by themselves, i do think that each panel has to be used in the best setting.

For the QRD-panels this is in rooms that are wide and deep enough to avoid the lobing effect (hence the relatively large distance you have to be from the panel for the lobing to become sufficiently attenuated). Also, the QRD's are determined in bandwith by their pattern and maximum depth. Some panels are quite shallow and hence will have limited bandwidth effect, others are quite deep, so you will have a lot wider effect (compared to the shallow ones) but loose a lot of space at the same time.

For the SMT wings this distance requirement is not applicable as you can literally sit or position them as close as 40-50 cms from your ears or speakers. Now, the effect of the wings, by the way they are built, is further improved by positioning them one next to the other as they connect in the time delay propagation. Positioning one single of them at first reflection points is already very good, but more is better. Is it worth to put multiple of them? I would just recommend to order a few of them and see (hear) if you like them, if so, putting more will only make your joy greater.

Having had QRD panels in my small room and having done a direct comparison, I clearly favour the SMT wings, reason also why I became a kind of audition point for them. So that is my disclaimer.

Your room is considerably larger than mine, I understand if you hesitate and get drawn in different directions... I am afraid, to make this particular choice, no measurement will help you, reason why I didn't mention it.
 

caliaripaolo

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2012
492
192
950
Italia
So, will SMT wings or RPG work with conventional corner bass traps?

Yes, why not!!!
I use a couple of AA DAAD 4 and a Realtrap mondo panel for bass tuning in the corner.
There is nothing more empirical than solving acoustic issues (obviously starting from some basic assumptions such as bass latencies on the corner or first reflection points, etc...)

IMG_1983-30.jpg
 

flyer

VIP/Donor
Dec 16, 2012
423
179
1,160
Belgium
Yes, why not!!!
I use a couple of AA DAAD 4 and a Realtrap mondo panel for bass tuning in the corner.
There is nothing more empirical than solving acoustic issues (obviously starting from some basic assumptions such as bass latencies on the corner or first reflection points, etc...)

+1

Except that I use helmholtz resonators for the bass but that is another discussion.
 

caliaripaolo

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2012
492
192
950
Italia
Of course you may be critical; I am here to learn what I do not know! :)

RPG Mondractal is a slightly more advanced version of RPG Diffractal.

I understand that experimenting by mixing different products does not make sense to you, but why do you think it is inferior to using either all scattering diffusion products (Modfractal) or all time delay diffusion products (SMT)?

Why technically, in theory, is mixing diffusion products -- mixing types of diffusion -- a bad idea?

(I am not arguing you are wrong -- I have no idea. Staying flexible, and mixing products while experimenting, does make some sense to me, absent a technical theory why this is an inferior approach.)

IMHO, the best result will only be achieved by means of various experiments.
In my system/room, the best result I have achieved has been adding the SMT's Wing panels.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing