P, Watch the end result and the spectral balance achieved in his mixes. www.acousticfields.com/sam-small-studio-project/

Hi Jeff, Thanks, I think.

Hi Forestcat, Here is the link you were requesting, www.acousticfields.com/room-size-volume/

+Full Finger Official Thanks for your support.

Use sand, the next best thing to lead which we don't use anymore. It will decouple the speakers from the stand surfaces, like soffit mount speakers. (soffit mounts are completely surrounded with sand to decouple them)

The client did not install the burlap over the face of the pegboard.

Hi Paulo, Its best to extend the foam out from the existing surface about 2-3". We have a mounting system for foam that leaves foam installed 2" away from surface. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nLFlnMhimN69oqs.html

Seems scammish all of it - this company. The dude won’t even talk to you unless you’re ready to drop like 20k!

B, Yes, we still offer our carbon technology for DIY builds. Contact us at info@acousticfields.com for details. Send your ship to address for freight calculations.

No tuning required. They are broadband absorbers. They absorb from 30 hz. - 300 Hz. and then the foam face extends the response to 6,300 hz.

@@AcousticFields How? And where are the measurements showing/proving they do?

Speaker stands work on vibration management not sound pressure like the BDA.

J, The units absorb energy starting at 30 Hz. and going through 300 Hz. for low frequencies. If you add our foam to the face of each unit, you increase the range to 6,300 Hz. The carbon technology increases the rate of absorption by 40%. Room positioning depends on size, volume, and usage.

All performance data is available in the about us section of website

@@AcousticFields Your "technology" increase the absorption by 40%, but it cost 50 times more. So, I would suggest to take a cheaper alternative and use twice as much.

G, The BDA unit is all MDF

@@AcousticFields thx

S, No, you must have predictable rates and levels of absorption.

@@AcousticFields i see. too bad. Thank you for the reply though. Much obliged!

Minimum DIY carbon purchase is 8 units due to shipping costs. It is 450.00 / BDA for carbon and 75.00 for the foam face plus shipping. Most orders I see average around 4 K.

D, Yes, we have such a product. www.acousticfields.com/product/subwoofer-platform-absorber/

Yes, we offer a whole series of speaker and equipment platforms

​@@AcousticFields how would these subwoofer items effect the energy from a downward facing subwoofer?

D, Sand lacks the proper rates and levels of absorption to qualify as an agent in the diaphragmatic absorption process.

Sand is not a sound absorption technology type. It is a barrier material type to minimize vibrations.

Cabinets are MDF. Paint or veneer are options.

Hi Amiel, The ACDA-10 is broad band from 30 Hz. - 6,500 Hz. Average 25 % per octave absorption coefficient. The ACDA-12 is 30 - 50 Hz. with 30 % @ 30, 63 % @ 40 Hz. and 100 % @ 50 Hz. It is the most powerful low frequency absorber ever created.

@@AcousticFields How can I build the ACDA-12. What do I have to do different when building the unit?

@@MrZyrenda make cabinet depth 10" instead of 8"

@@AcousticFields Thx. Should I add depth between filter and mdf or filter and back wall? Or is it equal?

@@MrZyrenda did you ever do the project did you ever do the build if you did I'd like to hear from you

You are designing a pressure based absorption technology. Everything within the design is pressure based. Your goal for the front wall(s) is to provide the correct density / sq. ft. of the rigid wall. Every structure within the design of diaphragmatic absorber must have rigidity as a primary concern. Keep the wall rigid in connection and let its density work for you.

@@AcousticFields Thank you so much for your replay, and one question can I make this absorbers taller than 120 cm? For example 180 cm height?

Yes, planning for acoustical usage at the beginning of a project saves time and money down the road. People don't plan to fail acoustically, they fail to plan.

Hi G, Our carbon is a proprietary technology. It is processed a certain way to insure porosity count and size, material density, and many other variables. Over the counter carbons used for water and air purification will not work. We can sell you our carbon. We manufacture in London and LA. Costs are 350.00 USD / unit plus shipping to your location.

@@AcousticFields where can I see the science of this method? I can't for the life of me figure out how it would be at all useful, but I'm no expert

@@kniferideaudio5145 Diaphragmatic absorption, sound pressure wave absorption

Our carbon technology improves the performance (rate) of absorption by 40%. You can use other fills but will have to build twice as many units. Our carbon technology is proprietary and is ordered from us. We have manufacturing in LA and London. If you wish a price quote, send your data to info@acousticfields.com

Hi Buck, Low frequency energy is a pressure that needs special technology to deal with its characteristics. Having a panel shorter or longer distances from a wall has nothing to do with energy below 100 Hz. Live end dead end technique is all about Rt-60 or reverberate energy which is above 125 Hz.

I agree. It's a dead room with two shelf speakers in it. I didn't see a sub (which still wouldn't convince me there was that much of a problem). Why would that room have a bass problem? My only conclusion is that those are the only frequencies that can move around the room. Which in turn would be the only frequencies you could truly hear I love the big untreated window on the side wall. That makes for some serious imaging and stage problems, I'd guess. You have one huge untreated piece of glass on one side, and a heavily treated wall on the other (opposite both of your ears, no less). That can't be a good situation. I still can't believe those two tiny speakers created that big of a low frequency problem. I just scratched my head. I've never listened in such a heavily treated small room like that. Can you even accomplish a true stereo image in a room such as that? I am honestly curious.

​@@mustardketchup Hmmm....great question and as you see, no answer. No charts, no before and after. This whole thing smells like the marketing scam he rails against. "Noo, you cant use anything but ouir special scientifically developed pellets" Right.

A, In the states it is called pegboard. Internationally, perforated board.

Acoustic Fields thank u Dennis

Our carbon is a proprietary technology only available through us. We process raw materials to produce proper density, porosity, and pore count. Over the counter carbons used for air and water filtration will not work for sound.

Our carbon technology is proprietary and only available through AF. We process raw materials to insure granule density, porosity count and diameter. We also process for moisture retention. Over the counter carbons used for air or water filtration will not work.

Over the counter carbons used for air and water will not work for sound absorption. We process our own technology to insure porosity size and count along with granule density. We also add a moisture retardant. We can offer you the carbon and foam for your DIY build. Contact us at info@acousticfields.com

K, Here is the link to our DIY section: www.acousticfields.com/product-category/d-i-y-acoustic-treatment/,

It would depend on the monitor stand dimensions.

Hi Miesn, Most builds take between 50 - 60 lbs of our carbon which is our proprietary technology. We have two manufacturing facilities: Los Angeles CA. and London, England.

Hi Yoyo, Larger surface areas are not conducive to the absorption processes we use in our technology. We control size, density, porosity count, and quantity for each specific application of our carbon.

That is a load of crap. Sorry. I went to science class. Activated carbon has high surface. That's why it called ACTIVATED CARBON. You're a sham, and your listening room is a joke. Sorry, just gotta call 'em like I see 'em

@@mustardketchup if you heard the guy in the video, he said it removed around 40 - 50 % of the bass build up in the room. nice troll though.

@@violentgrey7144 Put the gin bottle down and go to bed

@@violentgrey7144 You're drunk, go to bed

Hi Arnie, We do. It is called the BDA for broadband diaphragmatic absorber. Here is the link: www.acousticfields.com/product/diy-bass-absorber-build-plans-bda-broadband-diaphragmatic-absorber/

yes go to shop section of web site

+MrButteryRounds AC does absorb middle and high frequencies with a linearity I have not seen in over 40 years of research and development.

Doesn't the activated carbon have to be processed in a special way to absorb sound as compared to over-the-counter AC?

@@Desert_Cruiser I asked him the same question a while ago and he said that the activated carbon that's on the market is for air purification or water purification or some other usage. Dennis said that he had to create his own activated carbon for this specific application….. So if you don't use his, it won't work quite a well.

+John Asche Hi John, The activated carbon is a proprietary technology and must be manufactured in a way to achieve maximum porosity and granule size. Over the counter water and air filtration carbons will not work. We can license the technology to you for your builds. Contact me at info@acousticfields.com for pricing.

Why those will not work since i can't see any significant difference ? I mean it is just active carbon that is being manufactured by thousands of companies by more/less same specifications. Thanks

Yeah this is when the conversation ends usually. Once people realize this is crap. And is basically snake oil, they can look into making real bass traps...he tries to throw real science at you on a chalkboard, and then wants you to believe his magic activated carbon will take care of your bass response problems in a room. He wants you to believe that his activated carbon is just the right porosity and density, and that other charcoal pellets wouldn’t be just as effective...

@@matthewward5813 www.intechopen.com/books/scanning-electron-microscopy/a-study-of-the-porosity-of-activated-carbons-using-the-scanning-elctrom-microscope

Hi Jonas, Our carbon technology is a proprietary technology and manufactured in London and Los Angeles. The average cost for carbon inside a BDA unit is 350.00 USD . This price does not include shipping costs.

@@AcousticFields Wow, that's interesting. So how are your activated carbon pellets any different from all the other activated carbon pellets that are available?

@@synct We use a different granule density to begin with. We control the porosity count (how many holes / granule), the hole diameter or size and moisture retention. Over the counter carbons used for air and water filtration lack the proper porosity size, density, and count to absorb sound. We also process our carbon so it does not retain moisture. Over the counter carbons are designed to retain moisture. Once each granule fills with moisture, it loses performance quickly.

Matching speaker manufacturers to acoustic treament makes no sense. You must look at the energy you will place within the room with your intended usage. The room only sees energy.

@@AcousticFields These bass traps have a bright green trim inset from the front edge. Mackie CR-X speakers have a bright green trim inset from the front edge. Matching green trim to green trim makes perfect sense.

@@helmanfrow It makes no sense.

No, over the counter carbons will not work inside a diaphragmatic absorber. You must increase the porosity count, size, and granule density using special manufacturing techniques. You also must process each granule to avoid moisture absorption.

@@AcousticFields thankz for clearing it up, I'm from India and no where can I afford ur technology, but thanks for the reply, 🍻 cheers

X, The carbon is available for purchase and ships from London.

S, We can assist you with your room. Fill out the information in this link: www.acousticfields.com/free-room-analysis/

Yeahno- don’t get robbed - this is not the only way to go!

Low frequency sound waves are pressure based. They go through the MDF. Middle and high frequency ray energy is reflected and absorbed at certain frequencies with the MDF.

F, Some engineers add subwoofers to their system. Study the term subwoofer on the net.

Acoustic Fields I have focal twins with a sub. And Dynaudios, and ATC's. NS!0's are for engineers that mixed too loud in the 80's and can only hear 400-2.5k.

F, Not my favorite speaker either. However, I do not believe that this is their design frequency range.

He uses Yamaha HS series (looks like HS5 maybe bigger) speakers. Sound completely different than the old hifi speakers, NS10.

Fd Schuler ...sorry, didn’t catch that. Been mixing rock since 1987. Ya got me!

R, There is no such thing as "best" anything. You must match the density of the cabinet, the density and distance of the two front walls, the cabinet depth, and the porosity and density of the internal fill material. We have tested cotton. It does not provide the rates and levels of we require in our performance design parameters.

P, Product test results are available on our web site.

Hi Scott, Our carbon technology is a proprietary technology. we manufacture it to ensure proper density, size, and porosity count. Carbons used for air and water filtration will not work inside our units.

I think you say it so that others wont make the absorbers but buy from you instead.

this is the definition of 'proprietary' - same reason Coca-Cola won't tell us exactly what's in that formula. Can't have us running around making (and selling) their invention, right?

Activated carbon is activated carbon. It's dense with a very high surface area for absorption. Google is your friend - NOT this guy.

We have the treatment rates and levels of absorption to treat any size room.

+Tommaso Giannessi Hi Tommaso, The carbon is 350 / unit and the rest of the materials run around 300 USD. You supply the labor.

300$ for the four cabinet right?! activated carbon is 5€/kg here in italy, i think i can spend a little less for the carbon, as i think it will contain less than 70kg(155pound) Thanks

Hello Tommaso, did you tried the carbon from Italy? I'm thinking the same to get it from Spain also... did it work for you? Thanks!

@@AcousticFields not too bad.

Alex Font did it work for you?

Sand is not a sound absorption technology. Sand is a barrier technology. Two completely different functions.

M, Four reasons: Granule density, porosity count, pore diameter, moisture retention

Hi Bogdan, One must always weigh the cost / benefit ratio to any project especially with sound in small rooms. Most of the time my clients do not have another space to use even though that is usually my first recommendation. A lot lack budget to acquire a new room and move to different locations. They do however, have budgets to treat low, middle, and high frequency issues by acquiring materials and then using their own labor and carpentry skill set. I would estimate that Sam had 3,000 USD in material costs contributing his own labor. He took his "cube" and treated it using my materials and his labor. He turned a mix done in a "cube", into a mix that had good spectral balance. I think any of us in the music business that work in small rooms would consider that effort well done and take our hat off to Sam for his efforts.

The magic cost/benefit ratio... Indeed!!! So much in this game is subjective, I guess with so much bad sound & bad/terrible acoustics even small improvements are appreciated... What I don't agree with is the placement, wouldn't placing the absorber where the velocity propagation is minimum & the pressure wave maximum be more effective? I mean every physics & acoustics book that I've come across is consistent on this point, it's easily measured & explained. And how can a single bass absorber deal with the issue in a cuboid room? engineering.purdue.edu/ME513/animations/room.htm How would you deal with a client, who would say "look I did what you recommended spent $3-5k & the end result is still unsatisfactory" ? I think you're a very brave man ;-)

He could easily reply to that question with, "look I told you this room is too small; I can't rearrange the laws of physics but we can work with what you have and you'll just have to deal with 'unsatisfactory' until your situation improves". I mean who can argue with that? You can't expect perfection from even the most "ideal" size room, since such a thing doesn't exist. It's just a game of do the best you can with your current circumstances, and chill the heck out about the rest, u know?

@@BogdanWeiss You blurt pure shit exactly like your first name.... Put up a video of your perfection or stfu keyboard wiki hero!

@@brettus9115 hey dickhead!!! It's called measurements!!!

I was also wondering what an English man is doing in Texas 😀

D, In a diaphragmatic pressure reducing device you must control density, porosity count, porosity size. This is a strict requirement Of the DA process. Sand is not a material that would produce the required absorbent coefficients needed in a diaphragmatic sound absorbing technology. You are confusing barrier material technologies with absorption technologies.

@Jawbone Rodeo Why do people always ridicule what they dont understand?

What he fail so explain with NORMAL words is this - Yes you can use normal carbon BUT the density , porousity ect ect will be unpredictable because all the pieces from not being sme size will vary in all details / specs . The ''' activated '' ( call it what you want ) benefit from all being in same size , density ect ect . This makes it possible to predict how it will behave and it's now possible to make real calculations. If you just use any type carbon ( yes it will work ) you will end with more random results and risk of ending with a finished product that simply doesnt do what you needed is really high . You can use other materials as well instead of activated carbon , but again you MUST be able to have something where the data doesnt vary so you can take advance of it and calculate what you need . So for most people it's easier to simply just buy a material where all data is guarantied to be equal in the whole product . Materials that can be used is an extremely long list and some better than others ( more precise data ect ) Yes you can use ordinary carbon , but data will vary extremely from little piece to piece . Yes I agree with you that he should have used sand in the stands . You want the speaker stands to be as '' dead '' and heavy as possible , but I guess he use the stands to also function a absorbers too and that can explain why using those carbon ( after my opinion a bad choice but i see the idea )