John_C
formerly Skeksis268
Was just reading one of the white papers you linked to Eddy, really interesting stuff. The most important point I gained from it that hasn't been heard many many times before is that bass trapping is more effective when placed some distance away from the wall. I won't sully your glorious thread with nasty maths but it really does make sense
have you tried stacking the rockwool up further from the walls? It might not be a practical solution, just might be interesting to see what difference in room response you get.
Also, i thought i might attract your attention to this
"Finally, I'll explain an interesting problem that happens when relying on low frequency response only for assessing the effect of placing bass traps. Sometimes moving a trap to a better location, or even adding another bass trap, can appear to make the response worse even though this is not really the case. The low frequency response at any given location in a room is the sum of the direct sound from the loudspeakers plus a large number of competing reflections from all of the room's surfaces. Some combinations create peaks, and some create nulls, but sometimes a reflection that would have made a null combines with one that would have made a peak. So together the result is somewhere between the two. If a trap reduces a reflection that had negated a null caused by a different reflection from somewhere else, the null will then appear. The null-causing reflection was always present but was partially cancelled by another reflection that has now been trapped. This is another reason that ETF's waterfall plots are the best way to assess the improvement by adding or positioning bass traps. With this type of graph, adding traps will always show the ringing being reduced, even if the raw response happens to be worse where you measure" from realtraps.com
perhaps moving to waterfall graphs would be more effective for you when measuring the effect of moving bass traps around
have you tried stacking the rockwool up further from the walls? It might not be a practical solution, just might be interesting to see what difference in room response you get.
Also, i thought i might attract your attention to this
"Finally, I'll explain an interesting problem that happens when relying on low frequency response only for assessing the effect of placing bass traps. Sometimes moving a trap to a better location, or even adding another bass trap, can appear to make the response worse even though this is not really the case. The low frequency response at any given location in a room is the sum of the direct sound from the loudspeakers plus a large number of competing reflections from all of the room's surfaces. Some combinations create peaks, and some create nulls, but sometimes a reflection that would have made a null combines with one that would have made a peak. So together the result is somewhere between the two. If a trap reduces a reflection that had negated a null caused by a different reflection from somewhere else, the null will then appear. The null-causing reflection was always present but was partially cancelled by another reflection that has now been trapped. This is another reason that ETF's waterfall plots are the best way to assess the improvement by adding or positioning bass traps. With this type of graph, adding traps will always show the ringing being reduced, even if the raw response happens to be worse where you measure" from realtraps.com
perhaps moving to waterfall graphs would be more effective for you when measuring the effect of moving bass traps around
..
