Would you get ASC Tube Traps or RealTraps


Hi, I am debating between ASC 16" Tube Traps and RealTraps Corner Traps. I am trying to understand the absorption data that both companies publish but I am a bit confused. I think sabines is the better measure (vs absorption coefficient) but admittingly I am a bit over my head in this area.

Any feedback that will help me pick one over the other would be greatly appreciated.
128x128tboooe

Showing 3 responses by shadorne

I'd go for broadband absorbers like RealTraps. Tube traps are frequency specific (tuned) and unless you are an acoustician you may end up with making things sound worse. Broadband absorbers installed across corners improve things 99% of the time - so that is the approach that I would take.
Take a look at GIK Acoustics Tri-traps or Real Traps "stands". Either of these may be both the ticket to WAF aesthetics and broadband absorption....frankly I don't like the awkward look of 4 inch panels straddling the corners either.

See my virtual system components for pictures of the GIK Tri-traps...you can order them in eight different colors. You need to purchase about 16 linear feet to make a modest improvement, as treating only one corner is unlikely to make an audible difference. I was in two minds whether to get these or Ethan's stand traps - no doubt they both work effectively if you get enough of them.
shadorne, thanks for the info. I had forgotten about the GIK! Do you know if the Tri traps work as well as Realtraps?

I don't think there is much difference. It is the volume of treatment that matters most in corner broadband absorption. 4 inches thick is a bare minmum and the Realtraps (although thinner) may work just as well becuase they straddle the corner. (Air particles don't move at a wall surface so absorption is highest a few inches off the wall.)

GIK are independently tested in Riverbank acoustic labs if I recall correctly and Ethan's are tested too....so I think you can be confident about either product.