Yes, specifically in the low frequency absorption coefficient. Anytime there is an acoustical test being done, regardless of the specific material, the test results with an air gap unanimously have a better low frequency absorption coefficient. This is why our corner straddled bass traps are built with an air gap as part of the design. Also, we tend to build our standard Acoustic Panels a bit bigger with the frame than the inner core - to achieve a similar effect - although less dramatic. Ultimately, if you made your acoustic panels thick enough, used the right materials and have them placed in effective positions you shouldn’t have a massive or dramatic reduction in performance (by not having an air cavity). Hopefully that helps clarify some things and gives you some peace of mind. Feel free to book a consultation if you ever want to start on another DIY project (just incase you have any questions beforehand) if anything just to make sure you’re going in the best possible direction before getting in too deep!
Thanks! So long as the inner core is made from the correct material, either thickness would work wonderfully at the first order reflection point! The main differentiation between a 6 inch thick and 4 inch thick panel is going to be in your frequencies below 200 Hz. However, they should both provide full spectrum coverage at that depth! The audible difference between the those depths may even be completely negligible, depending on your room. You might find my new short video helpful on this topic. It covers how acoustic panel thickness affects frequency absorption: ua-cam.com/video/rj6XfXOia_Y/v-deo.html
You do need 6 inches for the bass notes in a piano room. It does significantly better than 4 inches at very low frequencies. On the other hand, It seems there is no reason to use any panels thinner than 4 inches unless your budget is tight. Why use 2 inches that selectively absorbs mid and high frequencies? That would distort the sound.
There are many scenarios in which a thinner panel is desired, even necessary! We don’t offer thinner panels on our website, but there are companies who do 1/4 inch thick panels, 1/2in thickness etc. and they are commonly used for day-to-day and commercial purposes. Often times for spaces such as classrooms, conference rooms, living spaces or anything else where they just need the excessive reverberation addressed and there is no need for the extra thickness. In these cases the extra thickness equates to extra unnecessary costs added on (to the shipping price, installation requirements, and unnecessary material expenditure). Not to mention, it’s very hard to discreetly work a panel that thick (such as 6in depth) into the architecture/aesthetic of many commercial spaces.
in essence, it is a bit more complicated. If broadband absorbers (porous absorbers) are the topic of this discussion, it is true, some might benefit solely from the use of thin panels which are targeted at "speech" frequencies (and above), whilst others would require a further coverage of the entire audible frequencies (Studio/home theater and such applications). Thickness is indeed an important parameter when planning a treatment strategy, but it is merely one factor of the equation. The material used, it's impedance, enclosure, spring (air gap) and angle of incidence (placement and positioning) would surely contribute to the overall effectiveness of the absorber. A futher suggested read about the quarter-wavelength (λ/4), Gas flow resistivity (GFR), porosity (pore diameter) and tortuosity would shed much light at the subject, and if already delved into it, a read of Viscosity, Friction, vibration and transmission in a porous medium would definitely assist in decision making. In short, usually, bigger is "better" for an application that requires it... Please keep in mind that broadband absorbers aren't the only option, and the combo of pressure/resonance treatment with porous/fibrous absorption could yield the desired results as well.
Wish I knew this information when I built this panels. having a cavity behind the panels help?
Yes, specifically in the low frequency absorption coefficient. Anytime there is an acoustical test being done, regardless of the specific material, the test results with an air gap unanimously have a better low frequency absorption coefficient. This is why our corner straddled bass traps are built with an air gap as part of the design. Also, we tend to build our standard Acoustic Panels a bit bigger with the frame than the inner core - to achieve a similar effect - although less dramatic. Ultimately, if you made your acoustic panels thick enough, used the right materials and have them placed in effective positions you shouldn’t have a massive or dramatic reduction in performance (by not having an air cavity). Hopefully that helps clarify some things and gives you some peace of mind. Feel free to book a consultation if you ever want to start on another DIY project (just incase you have any questions beforehand) if anything just to make sure you’re going in the best possible direction before getting in too deep!
Hey man, you just saved me a lot of money. This was a very well crafted video. Thank you!!!
Awesome thanks! Really glad it helped you!
Hi, thanks for video. However, which do you prefer, 4 inch or 6 inch think on first reflection point?
Thanks! So long as the inner core is made from the correct material, either thickness would work wonderfully at the first order reflection point!
The main differentiation between a 6 inch thick and 4 inch thick panel is going to be in your frequencies below 200 Hz. However, they should both provide full spectrum coverage at that depth! The audible difference between the those depths may even be completely negligible, depending on your room. You might find my new short video helpful on this topic. It covers how acoustic panel thickness affects frequency absorption:
ua-cam.com/video/rj6XfXOia_Y/v-deo.html
Thank you soo much!!!!
No problem!!
Glad the information was helpful for you!
You do need 6 inches for the bass notes in a piano room. It does significantly better than 4 inches at very low frequencies. On the other hand, It seems there is no reason to use any panels thinner than 4 inches unless your budget is tight. Why use 2 inches that selectively absorbs mid and high frequencies? That would distort the sound.
There are many scenarios in which a thinner panel is desired, even necessary! We don’t offer thinner panels on our website, but there are companies who do 1/4 inch thick panels, 1/2in thickness etc. and they are commonly used for day-to-day and commercial purposes. Often times for spaces such as classrooms, conference rooms, living spaces or anything else where they just need the excessive reverberation addressed and there is no need for the extra thickness. In these cases the extra thickness equates to extra unnecessary costs added on (to the shipping price, installation requirements, and unnecessary material expenditure). Not to mention, it’s very hard to discreetly work a panel that thick (such as 6in depth) into the architecture/aesthetic of many commercial spaces.
in essence, it is a bit more complicated.
If broadband absorbers (porous absorbers) are the topic of this discussion, it is true, some might benefit solely from the use of thin panels which are targeted at "speech" frequencies (and above), whilst others would require a further coverage of the entire audible frequencies (Studio/home theater and such applications).
Thickness is indeed an important parameter when planning a treatment strategy, but it is merely one factor of the equation.
The material used, it's impedance, enclosure, spring (air gap) and angle of incidence (placement and positioning) would surely contribute to the overall effectiveness of the absorber.
A futher suggested read about the quarter-wavelength (λ/4), Gas flow resistivity (GFR), porosity (pore diameter) and tortuosity would shed much light at the subject, and if already delved into it, a read of Viscosity, Friction, vibration and transmission in a porous medium would definitely assist in decision making.
In short, usually, bigger is "better" for an application that requires it...
Please keep in mind that broadband absorbers aren't the only option, and the combo of pressure/resonance treatment with porous/fibrous absorption could yield the desired results as well.
Thank you so much
Glad it helped!
Thank you, very clear! :)