Are GIK Acoustic's Sound Blocks really a revolutionary concept?

[abdo123]

I haven't said anything about diffusion in the lows. That's not needed. You have misunderstood abdo123.

How low are we talking?

 

[krabapple]

They advertise this panel as a "broadband bass trap" and declare that it is active even below 50Hz. How? Their own charts show that below 60Hz, there is sharp drop in efficiency. Besides, the wavelength of 50Hz is 6.8m how can a 25cm panel absorb that wave?

Well they claim it's 'still active' below 50Hz . I.e. it isn't zero. That gives them some rather shady rhetorical wiggle room.

 

[sarumbear]

Well they claim it's 'still active' below 50Hz . I.e. it isn't zero. That gives them some rather shady rhetorical wiggle room.

Not really because the same sentence also says "great performance". Not to mention that we have no proof whatsoever that those charts are even valid. There is no reference to their authenticity other than a signature on one of the charts, which is ruler flat and does not tally the other chart.

 

[krabapple]

Look, I don't disagree this is shady marketing. I'm imagining what their response would be. 'Still active' is a measurable claim and doubtless technically true (...albeit insignificant), and 'great performance' is pure subjectivity. So they can still wiggle.

 

[sarumbear]

Look, I don't disagree this is shady marketing. I'm imagining what their response would be. 'Still active' is a measurable claim and doubtless technically true (...albeit insignificant), and 'great performance' is pure subjectivity. So they can still wiggle.

I didn't post this to to say that I am going to sue them, I posted this to show their "shadiness" to ASR members.

 

[Ciobi69]

Pourus materials have their limits and even with a membrane you know the results, a 25cm thick panel can't do miracles , i am planning for my living room a false wall of absorption and i am going with 60cm of pourus materials and even that you don't tame them in the very low end

 

[sarumbear]

Pourus materials have their limits and even with a membrane you know the results, a 25cm thick panel can't do miracles , i am planning for my living room a false wall of absorption and i am going with 60cm of pourus materials and even that you don't tame them in the very low end

Have you considered a Helmholtz absorber?

My acoustically treated Home Theatre (updated)

Most recent update is here. I have been posting about benefits of acoustic treatment of a room, especially in larger rooms. I believe that if done right it is a better, and if you have basic carpentry skills, a much cheaper option then using multiple subwoofer setups. I have the degree to do it...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Ciobi69]

Have you considered a Helmholtz absorber?

My acoustically treated Home Theatre (updated)

Most recent update is here. I have been posting about benefits of acoustic treatment of a room, especially in larger rooms. I believe that if done right it is a better, and if you have basic carpentry skills, a much cheaper option then using multiple subwoofer setups. I have the degree to do it...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Yes I know the resonators but this is a false wall that I have to make because it's a new home and if I don't make it this way with the acoustic property i have to make it with a classic wall Soo i thinked why not

 

[sarumbear]

Yes I know the resonators but this is a false wall that I have to make because it's a new home and if I don't make it this way with the acoustic property i have to make it with a classic wall Soo i thinked why not

The issue is, at best you will get a wide-band absorption that reaches the bass but what about the standing waves? They will still exist if you don’t absorb selectively.

 

[Bjorn]

How low are we talking?

I was talking about an even dispersion as the opposite of polar lobing. But don't worry about it as it's off topic.

With a 30 cm Helmholtz resonator one can achieve very broadband absorption in the lows. A VPR bass trap like the Model plate with a 5-8 cm panel on the outside with a total depth of 16-19 cm will be very broadband with the choice of either absorption or diffusion in the highs. However, this solution is expensive.

 

[Ciobi69]

The issue is, at best you will get a wide-band absorption that reaches the bass but what about the standing waves? They will still exist if you don’t absorb selectively.

It's a living room sadly, i can't go full treatment, understand me... Doing the best I can with some panels and libraries books, i am studying the situation with an help of an acoustician, and he already told me that i am good more than good for the average living room

 

[Yannick Willox]

I think you are being to harsh on GIK. I do not have any product of them, nor do I have any links. But I see posts by the owner of the company since more than a decade, and see their products and prices.

the diffusers are questionable, but all the rest seems VERY cost effective. Before uttering critisism I would try to construct just ONE panel, with the same performance, DIY, for less then their asking price !

It is my understanding they do use tuned panels, not just fluffy materials. If that tech is also in these traps IDK, but this system as a whole, with the freestanding modular blocks, scattering plates and wooden back fnishes seems like a great thing - especially at those prices.

Even if some of these units do nothing for FR below 50 Hz, but do reduce ringing at eg. 45 Hz just a few tenths of a second, their claim is entirely valid…

 

[sarumbear]

the diffusers are questionable, but all the rest seems VERY cost effective. Before uttering critisism I would try to construct just ONE panel, with the same performance, DIY, for less then their asking price !

You may read my various posts about various acoustic treatment elements having been built for me in a DIY way.

Besides, misleading data with no reference on how it is measured can never be compensated with low price.

 

[Trell]

All acoustic treatment for low frequencies are bulky and not at all suitable for a domestic living room. What is your point? We are discussing the situations where people use them.

Why are they "not not all all suitable for a domestic living room"?

 

[Yannick Willox]

You may read my various posts about various acoustic treatment elements having been built for me in a DIY way.

Besides, misleading data with no reference on how it is measured can never be compensated with low price.

I have nothing against DIY. My DIY polys are 35 euro each. They are quite big and dirt cheap.

But again, how is data misleading when the tests have been done at a well established facility ? I admit, the website seems to be quite disfunctional (black friday updates ?), but I am 100% sure normally all the info is there.

GIK Acoustics has submitted our products to an independent, third party acoustic laboratory for testing. The value of the testing is to illustrate and substantiate the effectiveness of GIK Acoustics products. To locate the Riverbank Acoustical Laboratories results, simply look for the “Test Results” tab next to the description of the product. There you will find an overview of the performance along with a link to the lab’s report. If you should still have any questions about the effectiveness, please feel free to contact us at [email protected]

 

[sarumbear]

Why are they "not not all all suitable for a domestic living room"?

They are mostly bigger than most living room furniture's, that's why.

 

[Trell]

They are mostly bigger than most living room furniture's, that's why.

That depends how low frequency you want to go as well as how much of the walls/ceiling is covered by panels (and thickness of course). But from there just claiming all of it is not suitable at all for a domestic living room at all is more than a stretch.

Below is from my small living room with flat panels 10cm thick both front and back wall, with the those on the back having a 9cm air gap. The layout is the only practical one for the 5.2 setup in a room that is not great at all. It helps but there are still issues, of course.

The scatter plates are to avoid over dampening higher frequencies when I have so many panels, and I'd say it looks nice as well.

The dimensions of the room is:

Length: 530 cm (17.4 feet)
Width: 346 cm (11.4 feet)
Height: 248 cm (8.1 feet)
Volume: 45,5 m^3 (1607 ft^3)

 

[sarumbear]

That depends how low frequency you want to go as well as how much of the walls/ceiling is covered by panels (and thickness of course). But from there just claiming all of it is not suitable at all for a domestic living room at all is more than a stretch.

Below is from my small living room with flat panels 10cm think both front and back wall, with the one on the back having a 9cm air gap. The layout is the only practical one for the 5.2 setup in a room that is not great at all. It helps but there are still issues, of course.

View attachment 247460
View attachment 247461
View attachment 247463

Nice room but you have proved my point that acoustic treatment elements are larger than the furniture in a room

 

[sarumbear]

But again, how is data misleading when the tests have been done at a well established facility ? I admit, the website seems to be quite disfunctional (black friday updates ?), but I am 100% sure normally all the info is there.

May I ask you to please read my opening post? Also, can you point me to the product page where they give reference to the facility that made the test, please?

 

[Trell]

Nice room but you have proved my point that acoustic treatment elements are larger than the furniture in a room

Thanks! And to be effective much of the surface areas has to be covered as well, and most people will not install that in their living room.