• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

"Acoustic Fields" on YT does the math

I Defend the idea that 30-300hz needs treating and most companies do not offer any products that do that, yeah sell 'bass traps'. Some that do like RPG have no youtube presence unfortunately.
I don't think anyone would disagree. It's really prevalent in a smaller room or when sitting much further away just how bad it can muck up the sound. Honestly, I'd take it a step further and treat all the way through the transition zone. The problem comes in when people just start throwing panels and trap everywhere and then they realize their top end is completely gone.
 
I just stumbled upon this guy today, although he's been around for a long time. This is his most recent vid. I know that he's selling a product, but he appears to understand the math and physics of room acoustics and how his products work within the numbers. I watched several of his vids in succession and seems sound and rational. I'm sure a lot of you guys are familiar with him, any thoughts? From my non tech perspective this doesn't seem like snake oil... unless it's buried in the science that is proposed I guess.
That activated charcoal looks an interesting product if it works as advertised, which sweetsounds post #16 suggests it does. Specifically with regards to the flat frequency response he shows below 500Hz, if the product works as advertised, than that could be the response. It sure is expensive and heavy though.

On the acoustics side of things, if your speakers/sub have a known flat response from their direct sound, any measured problems when used in your room are reflection related. If you prevent the reflections, you are only left with the direct sound, and thus a flat response. You can see this in REW Room Sim. Put a 2.1 system in a normal sized room with low/no absoprtion on the walls (=0.1) and there will be peaks and dips. Crank that number up to max (=0.9) to kill the reflections, and the response will become very flat.
 
Acoustics Fields only asks for a mere $750 for something like this. (And I'd trust BBC's measurements much more than Acoustic Fields'.)
View attachment 296770
He sells all his formulas for 30 bucks sale price or so for the DIYers. I DIYed his diffusion panels and it was an unbelievable upgrade to what i heard in my room.
Hence, it doesn't look like he's trying to steal from your precious purses.

If you're too lazy or lack the talent to do basic wood working or construction on your own, pay up and quit complaining.
 
He sells all his formulas for 30 bucks sale price or so for the DIYers. I DIYed his diffusion panels and it was an unbelievable upgrade to what i heard in my room.
Hence, it doesn't look like he's trying to steal from your precious purses.

If you're too lazy or lack the talent to do basic wood working or construction on your own, pay up and quit complaining.
Given the "information" he put out is generally garbage, I'd rather spend my money on Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusers 3rd Edition by Trevor Cox and Peter D’Antonio.

But your money is your money, spend it whichever way you wish.
 
Never mind, it is an important question, which materials suit best for low frequency absorption.

People measure the absorptivity (1 means 100% absorption) of all kinds of material like porous rubber or coconuts.

Let's check performance of tyical absorbers first:
I built some using homatherm flexCL cellulose, which is denser than glasswool or foam. Acoustic Fields/Dennis Foley use activated coal, which I had never considered.

There is a very good simulator on the net for diffuse sound http://www.acousticmodelling.com/8layers/porous.php.

Corner absorbers are different from wall absorbers, the best material depends on the absorber thickness: flexCL has a high flow resistivity 60000 kPa*s/m², so it works well on walls absorbers with ~100mm thickness, whereas in a corner with 400mm depth, foam with 10000 kPa*s/m² is more effective because sound is less reflected.
View attachment 296628
View attachment 296629

Now let's look at AF's ACDA panel. It's 200mm to 300mm thick for aroumd $1000 per panel, filled with activated carbon (which is used normally in air or water filters).
The hypothesis is that it's effective at low frequency, bc the carbon adsorbs air/gases/water and therefore has high flow resistance.
BTW if this is the case, it would work best in dry air below 60% humidity.

And yes, there is research that activated carbon indeed does absorb low frequencies:

So how much does carbon actually improve? Marin/Arenas in 2019 compared fiberglass and carbon and it showed a 2.5x improvement at low frequencies inside a resonator:

View attachment 296632

And Travenas showed, that different porosity of the carbon pellets can change the result slightly.

So Acoustic Fields' claim could be scientifically legit and the images in the video could be real. Active Carbon pellets can absorb more at low frequencies in dry air. And with less impact on high frequencies in the room. If this is due to porousity or adsorption is not 100% clear, but doesn't really matter.

How much is it DIY?
If you want to build one, you can order a ton of activated carbon on Alibaba for $1000 and build 8 ACDA10". Or use the rest in your Britta water filter :D

Data on the acoustic performance:
Acoustic Fields provides a Riverbank lab measurement. It shows 33% of absorption for the 200mm panel at 33 to 50Hz, compared to my simulated 25% of cellulose of same thickness.
Above 65Hz absorption drops to 13%. So ACDA helps for deepest modes only.
Above 1kHz a normal porous absorber would be >90%, where ACDA would be still 13%.

Summary: this corresponds to a deep bass trap: you can filter out lowest modes without impacting high frequencies. You can add a foam in front of it to absorb high frequencies as well. Interesting stuff, but too expensive vs my cellulose DIY solution.
Realistically, you need at least one wall of absorbers, so about 8 panels for $8400 and a ton of weight to carry.
why did you waste time with graphs that start at 200Hz? the AF ACDA -12 products are for the 30Hz to 50Hz range and the ACDA 10 are for the 30Hz to 200Hz range, but it's the foam front that they use that adresses 100Hz and above so these products are more full range dual process (Pressure and Velocity) based absorption. Personally, I think the guy is a genius for designing these products.

I don't work for the company, I don't care about the guy's past behavior. I'm just here to discuss the actual products.

I have been in several demo rooms and was actually floored by the sound quality in the room. Now, after discussions with Dennis, he said that the Activated Carbon is chemically treated so it doesn't absorb moisture, a key reason why his products will work better than if you just went to the store and bought generic activated carbon used in a fish tank or air purifier. Also, if anyone has done ANY amount of research on Activated Carbon. the term Activated Carbon is just a category of products on the market. If you did any deep research on the different types of Activated Carbon, there are many different types of Activated Carbon. Some are designed for water filtration, some are for air purification, more on VOC absorption, and then there are types of activated carbon for use in other products. Activated Carbon is not one single product that can be used like a Swiss Army knife. they put Activated Carbon in soap, oral care products, and even capsules to absorb toxic chemicals ingested by humans. the main problem with Activated Carson for acoustic absorption is moisture absorption, but if they are chemically treated, then that problem is nullified. Because they are in sealed boxes, I don't know how much moisture is going to get into the Activated Carbon, once they're built.

what Dennis had explained to me is that he was first making their own, but the demand increased past their own mfg. capabilities, and then he had to outsource it from China as they made it to the specs he gave them, but over time, the costs increased, And he later said that he bought new equipment to not rely on outsourced from China, which makes complete and logical sense. He also indicted that he recently bought bigger equipment to make his own.

Now, I haven't been able to verify any of this with first hand by working for the company.. but everything he told me made perfect sense.

Now, whatever he did in the past is his situation, if he served time for it, then he served time. Aren't people allowed a second chance in this world?

As far as his foam? I've held it in my hands and I have owned other brands of foam and it's QUITE different. It definitely has a different cell structure and a different density.. ANYONE, that says that it's just open cell foam and they all perform the same is COMPLETELY ignorant and should NOT be trusted to explain absorption materials.

As far as Dennis Foley's hatred for "Building Insulation"? He's not the only one that can't stand using "Building Insulation" as an acoustic absorption material. I've had and have been in plenty of recording studios that has used various types of building insulation and I didn't like the sound either.

For what it's worth, unless someone has actually tested the AF products under proper test conditions and test procures, and has actually been in a room with the products set up according to the company, then anything they say is full of it.

if you are just looking at how much something costs and weights as the factors and ignore performance, then you are dismissing a products not based on how it performs, but how much you can afford and how much they weight. If you can get past those aspects of cost, size, and weight, then it comes down to whether or not your room is big enough as small rooms have limited space and simply can't put that much treatment in those rooms.

But to think for one second that a couple inches of building insulation alone is going absorb much below 125 Hz, need psychiatric treatment. It just isn't going to happen. Standard walls in most homes that use building insulation, sheet rock and 2x4 studs are only designed for low to only moderate sound pressure levels of 125Hz and above. they are NOT designed for music applications that are 20Hz to 20K Hz. Homes are designed for Human speech at normal speaking loudness.
 
I would like to address your post in detail but I don't have the time now. My basic point will be that AF bass traps are junk.
don't forget using a dual wall Diaphragmatic cabinet that's deep enough to go after 30Hz to 50Hz pressure problems and don't forget that dealing with low frequencies that are below 80Hz are omnidirectional so surface coverage is also a factor. If you only use a couple of small boxes in a room, it's not going to do as much as 20 or 30 of them in a room. but it all depends on the size of the room, what type of sound source, the application and volume levels one is dealing with. You just have a small par of bookshelf speakers that only go down to 60Hz, and you only listen to them at relatively low dB levels in a near field 3' equilateral triangle that has several feet from any surface, then you don't even need any acoustic treatment.
 
don't forget using a dual wall Diaphragmatic cabinet that's deep enough to go after 30Hz to 50Hz pressure problems and don't forget that dealing with low frequencies that are below 80Hz are omnidirectional so surface coverage is also a factor. If you only use a couple of small boxes in a room, it's not going to do as much as 20 or 30 of them in a room. but it all depends on the size of the room, what type of sound source, the application and volume levels one is dealing with. You just have a small par of bookshelf speakers that only go down to 60Hz, and you only listen to them at relatively low dB levels in a near field 3' equilateral triangle that has several feet from any surface, then you don't even need any acoustic treatment.
Dennis Foley does not have formal education in engineering or acoustics. His videos and other content are a mix of fact and nonsense.

His low frequency carbon-based absorbers are less effective than competing products, and there is only one academic paper I've seen which concludes that carbon is only potentially useful for low frequency absorption. Carbon also has the unfortunate property of becoming saturated over time when exposed to air and humidity, so it's likely that those products have an undisclosed expiration date.

RPG and a few other companies have set the standard. Acoustic Fields is mostly sales aimed at the uninformed.
 
Dennis Foley does not have formal education in engineering or acoustics. His videos and other content are a mix of fact and nonsense.

His low frequency carbon-based absorbers are less effective than competing products, and there is only one academic paper I've seen which concludes that carbon is only potentially useful for low frequency absorption. Carbon also has the unfortunate property of becoming saturated over time when exposed to air and humidity, so it's likely that those products have an undisclosed expiration date.

RPG and a few other companies have set the standard. Acoustic Fields is mostly sales aimed at the uninformed.
first off, having a formal education is nice, but not mandatory. I've known people that didn't have an education that were asked to join the Xerox PARC's group. when he said he didn't any degree, he was told, "Oh, you're one of THEM". sarcastically. I usually would agree that having a degree makes you more credible. But I've met many that were total BS too.

As far as his videos, you didn't go into any specifics with any valid evidence to counter argue anything, so your comment is nonsense.

Please name ONE thing he said that was nonsense and provide tangible proof it was nonsense. THEN we can have a discussion about what he says in his videos.

if you are talking about Activated Carbon, there's more than just one type of AC on the market. According to him, he had to figure out what materials would be used, he had to figure out the size of the pellets and the porosity levels AND he had to chemically treat the pellets to avoid moisture absorption. He even admits that untreated Activated Carbon can, depending on the conditions, absorb moisture thus rendering the AC useless. That he has admitted to, but that's why he has the AC chemically treated to avoid moisture absorption, and to further prevent moisture absorption, the. AC is in a filter that's placed inside a sealed cabinet and they are designed for using inside a home rather than letting them sit outside in the rain.

So, I just obliterated your comments.

Now, yes RPG is a big corporation that's been around a long time and yes the founder of RPG came up with the first commercialized Quadratic Diffusors, but QD's were designed originally by Schroeder in the '70's. But in terms of low frequency absorption, they didn't use Activated Carbon because they didn't think of it first. it just so happens that Dennis did, and he'll be the first to admit it was by accidents, which in the past accidents have produced industry changing products in a wide range of industries. Heck, Penicillin, Post It notes, Coca Cola, the Slinky, Play-Doh, Potato Chips, Silly Putty, Popsicles, x-Rays, Microwave Ovens were all created BY ACCIDENT.

Acoustic Fields has solid designed diffusers and he uses proper calculations to determine that dimensions, which other companies like GIK uses horrible dimensions and are made out of very cheap materials and construction methods.

I don't know why you are so down on Acoustic Fields products. I've been in a variety of listening rooms, some with expensive equipment to recording studios of various sizes and my own experience, the first demo room I heard that Acoustic Fields had blew me away. Never heard anything better in terms of small room acoustics.

his foam is DEFINITELY different than anything else on the market.

I have used Tube Traps in my last home and they don't hold a candle to what AF has.

RPG doesn't have anything that special in terms of Low Frequency absorption.

Dennis as a person, and his past, take that out of the equation. I'm just only looking at the products.

Yes, they are expensive, no argument.
Yes, their ACDA products are heavy, no argument there either.

But in terms of effectiveness? show me with actual test measurements something better. I had gone to every website of other products on the market and haven't seen anything with better measurements than his products.


I saw the original paperwork Dennis got back from Riverbank Labs so his absorption curves posted on his website are consistent with what came from Riverbank Labs, which Dennis also verified by his own measurements.

You can certainly buy the build design of his product because he sells a version of his diaphragmatic low frequency cabinets on-line and make several cabinets and use THEIR Activated Carbon that's been chemically treated and then use other materials you choose to see how "effective" his are in your own setting to prove or disprove what he's selling, but until you do, and you show FACTUAL proof to disprove what he claims, I suggest you run along and stop bothering people with your claims that aren't validated and only YOUR opinion with nothing to validate them.
 
Dennis Foley does not have formal education in engineering or acoustics. His videos and other content are a mix of fact and nonsense.

His low frequency carbon-based absorbers are less effective than competing products, and there is only one academic paper I've seen which concludes that carbon is only potentially useful for low frequency absorption. Carbon also has the unfortunate property of becoming saturated over time when exposed to air and humidity, so it's likely that those products have an undisclosed expiration date.

RPG and a few other companies have set the standard. Acoustic Fields is mostly sales aimed at the uninformed.
Untreated carbon can absorb moisture, but the carbon AF uses has been chemically treated, that aspect is largely ignore by opponents of his products. That's why you have to thoroughly understand what he's selling. He even ADMITS that untreated Carbon doesn't work on one of his later videos.

 
It is difficult to go through his videos and point out what is 'wrong', because as Curvature says, it is complete nonsense, meaning it makes no sense(!).

"Clutter is phase". What does that mean? Explain phase. Explain minimum phase and excess phase. Explain clutter. Is it something subjective?

"The room sees us as the ocean and the sun. Ocean waves are seen as pressure". What are you talking about.

"The wave does not fit in the room, when there is a mode". What?? This is not how to explain eigenmodes.

It is utter garbage, and as always, you cannot infer from having okay products, that the manufacturer understands basic theory. If you try to go through some of his statements, you can perhaps point out that it is not a good idea to compare ocean (surface) waves with acoustic waves as phase and group velocities don't have the same relationship between the two situation, or that the problem with a mode is opposite in that it actually fits "too well" in the room near a mode, but again, without any concrete statements, it is a waste of time to try and make sense of his videos.

The board should show something like
- A linear approach viewing all components as LTI systems
- Causality limitations on sound absorption
- What is an eigenmode
--- Eigenfunction, eigenvalue
--- Cubic room, analytical solution
--- Are modes always excited by some source configuration?
--- If excited, what is the consequence on the pressure output in a point?
- Foam (Poroacoustics)
--- Empirical and semi-empirical models
--- JCA, Delany-Bazley, ...
----- Tortuosity, density, ...
----- Limp vs rigid models
- Thermal and viscous effects (micro and macro modelling)
- Mechanical resonance and vibroacoustics couplings
.
.
.

If he laid it out like this, we could attack each point at a time. Perhaps some would be correct, but likely many would be incorrect. However, he waffles on and on without having anything of substance to offer. It is fine to use analogies and simplifications, if one can do it without losing the overall point. His videos at surface could be on religion or some kind of awakening, with the "room only seeing energy. Become the room" and other crap. They are some one of the worst science communication in acoustics that is available on YouTube. But again, the products work whether you understand the theory or not, so you can get away with this. REL subwoofer videos are also awful, but the operating principle being the same among (almost) all subs makes it so that the videos don't have to be correct at all for the product to work. And Paul from PS Audio can spout absolute nonsense about the topic of phase, clearly with a poor understanding of it, but the phase of the loudspeaker is what it is regardless.
 
@DRB Do you really think chemical treatment of carbon is safe? AF products have no certifications, while professional companies are required to abide by strict testing to meet building code. And then what does "sealed" mean? Hermitically sealed wooden cabinets are impossible without further treatment and new materials, since wood is porous. It's likely that whatever chemical treatment was used on the carbon would be absorbed by the wood and emitted into the air over time.

That aside, here's a comparison of low-frequency absorbers by a few companies. AF only has Riverbank documents available for two products, the ACDA 10 and 12, so unfortunately I can't compare the foam or anything else, but I bet nothing interesting would come of that, either.

1763301138008.png


The ACDA 10 does almost nothing (I'll give a little more context in a moment), while the ACDA 12, despite being a panel-based design, acts like a high Q Helmholtz resonator, useful only at 50Hz. The performance of other products far exceed anything offered by AF. The cost of GIK Monster and Acoustics First LFC panels is in the hundreds of USD, compared to the thousands for the ACDAs.

Now let's compare the ACDA products to a few ordinary wall materials.

1763302991611.png


Zooming in a little, are AF products better than an untreated wall? Kind of, sort of.

1763303137821.png
 
why did you waste time with graphs that start at 200Hz? the AF ACDA -12 products are for the 30Hz to 50Hz range and the ACDA 10 are for the 30Hz to 200Hz range, but it's the foam front that they use that adresses 100Hz and above so these products are more full range dual process (Pressure and Velocity) based absorption.
I'd like to ask in a similar manner, why waste space and money for something that has average absorption coefficient of just 0.3?
Scattering 2'x2' 1" thick steel plates on a floor with 2' gap between the plates gives you AbsCo of 0.2 due to edge effect/diffraction.

One thing I find a bit interesting is that the test datasheet shows "Low frequency diffusers" and the tested device doesn't even have the same dimensions(30"x60"x16") that is mentioned on the ACDA-10 product page. Those dimensions are closer to his QD-13 diffuser.
Acoustic fields riverbank lab.jpg


Edit: This quote from their special foam product page made me chuckle "Foam that finally lets you hear the intimate timbre of the singers voice in every recording."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom