DIY diaphragmatic bass absorbers

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

buildafriend

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
1,392
Location
Omnipresent NYC
Hi,

Has anyone attempted to DIY these? Saving space is nice in small studios where coming several feet off of the wall isn't practical..

All the best,
 
Offerings from primacoustic still look about a foot thick.

If your ceilings are 14ft or lower, cut  2' x 4' x 4" roxul sheets into 8 triangles and wedge stack them floor to ceiling in the corners.  Works very, very well.

When done, just make a simple frame for the face with 1 x 2's and wrap it in muslin. Screw some rubber grommets to the top for tight fit. Cheap, easy and maximum un-boom for buck.

If you want clean lines, miter the inside edges of the frame 45deg for flush fit with walls.

dxj52s3.jpg

1nXmjeQ.jpg
 
Hey Boji,

I'm glad that worked for you! I'm curious about diaphragmatic approaches though. The space I'm setting up is pretty small with low ceilings.

All the best,
 
Have you looked into the VPR design? I haven't built one,  but it seems very effective.  Some of the info is scarce,  and a lot of it is in German,  but basically it is a large metal plate with a  foam backing (4"?) mounted against a wall.

The more mass of the plate the lower the effective frequency.
 
john12ax7 said:
Have you looked into the VPR design? I haven't built one,  but it seems very effective.
A diaphragmatic absorber is a resonant system where the compliance of the suspension acts againt the panel's mass; the system is usually damped in order to extend its bandwith (at the detriment of absorption). VPR's are no different, only the materials are a tad fancy, hence the name (Verbund Platten means composite plates).
 
buildafriend said:
Hi,

Has anyone attempted to DIY these? Saving space is nice in small studios where coming several feet off of the wall isn't practical..

All the best,
In the design of diaphragmatic absorbers, there is a compromise between depth and efficiency; decreasing depth decreases the resonant volume, hence requiring smaller holes for a given tuning frequency, but in turn efficiency (absorption) is proportional to the hole area.
 
abbey road d enfer said:
In the design of diaphragmatic absorbers, there is a compromise between depth and efficiency; decreasing depth decreases the resonant volume, hence requiring smaller holes for a given tuning frequency, but in turn efficiency (absorption) is proportional to the hole area.

Do you mean holes in the sense of a helmholtz resonator or perforated panel?  I've also seen lots of diaphragmatic designs with solid front panels.

The issue with a lot of these in general seems to be getting the tuning frequency correct and the need of an airtight box. I brought up VPR because it seems easier to DIY and get right. Airtight box not required and fairly wide range of low frequency absorption.
 
john12ax7 said:
Do you mean holes in the sense of a helmholtz resonator or perforated panel?  I've also seen lots of diaphragmatic designs with solid front panels.
That's correct: in the VPR the compliance of air is replaced by the compliance of a foam material

The issue with a lot of these in general seems to be getting the tuning frequency correct and the need of an airtight box.
Tuning is usually achieved by weighting the resonating panel; anyway it seems most of the times they are heavily damped so as to have a fairly wide bandwidth, which makes tuning less critical.

I brought up VPR because it seems easier to DIY and get right.
I'm not sure; tuning is dependant on the elasticity of the foam, which is a fairly uncontrollable parameter for DIY. Indeed fine tuning can be achieved by weighting.

fairly wide range of low frequency absorption.
Indeed foam is inherently more dampening than air, and the perforated grill also increases damping.
 
CurtZHP said:
Do what Boji suggested.  Anything else will end in tears.

Cutting insulation seems an unpleasant mess, although very effective if you can tolerate it.

An alternative could be 16" soffits in the ceiling wall corners.
 
abbey road d enfer said:
I'm not sure; tuning is dependant on the elasticity of the foam, which is a fairly uncontrollable parameter for DIY.

The actual foam of the original design is available which eliminates some variables.

https://www.don-audio.com/acoustic-absorbers
 
john12ax7 said:
Cutting insulation seems an unpleasant mess, although very effective if you can tolerate it.

An alternative could be 16" soffits in the ceiling wall corners.


Cutting rock wool is pretty easy if you use an electric knife.  (The kind you carve a turkey with, and can pick up cheap just about anywhere...)  Goes through it like butter.  Not as bad as fiberglass, but as you say, it can be unpleasant.  If you do the measurements first, then cut the pieces outside, you should be able to keep the mess to a minimum.

 
The space I'm setting up is pretty small with low ceilings.
Yes you mentioned small studio; direct absorption is not fancy, but in this case simplicity is quite effective. This is why I suggest 4 corner LF absorption.  Who records in corners?

Fire bat is crazy good at transferring sound to heat without the maths. ;)
 
I made 15 flat panel absorbers for my home studio, really simple design actually. And it worked really well.

Size is 120*60*12cm. They're made of wood and high density wood fiber.

Acoustic treatment really changed my studio from 'barely usable' to 'actually quite good'.

If there's interest, i'll post some pictures of them.
 
totoxraymond said:
I made 15 flat panel absorbers for my home studio, really simple design actually. And it worked really well.

Size is 120*60*12cm. They're made of wood and high density wood fiber.

Acoustic treatment really changed my studio from 'barely usable' to 'actually quite good'.

If there's interest, i'll post some pictures of them.
Making flat panel absorbers is not very difficult; what is difficult is installing them and tuning them in accordance with the room's properties.
The common trend is making them wide band (so that there is no need to precisely tune them) by damping them too much, which often results in a lack of low-mids.
 
which often results in a lack of low-mids.

In one fairly poor sounding mix room with plaster walls (12 x 14 x 8 ) after tinkering, found two floor to ceiling triangle stacks were sufficient to  cut down on nodal boom without ruining MB response. I think some hardwood dispersion helped.
 
Cutting insulation seems an unpleasant mess, although very effective if you can tolerate it.

table saw + throwaway big-box blade (i.e. not your nice Freud) + long sleeves + mask works very well.
 
abbey road d enfer said:
A diaphragmatic absorber is a resonant system where the compliance of the suspension acts againt the panel's mass; the system is usually damped in order to extend its bandwith (at the detriment of absorption). VPR's are no different, only the materials are a tad fancy, hence the name (Verbund Platten means composite plates).

That´s only half of the truth. VPRs additionally work as frictional resonator due to the time delay for the rear sound which has to move through the absorbent material (sides are open!). Both mechanisms make VPRs more effective and more broadband than standard plate or Helmholtz resonators. DIY is fairly simple if done right. I have yet to find a more effective broadband LF absorber with 10cm depth.
 
jensenmann said:
That´s only half of the truth. VPRs additionally work as frictional resonator due to the time delay for the rear sound which has to move through the absorbent material (sides are open!).
Dissipating energy by friction is the basic principle of an absorber; that friction can be due to the damping of a resonating panel, by constricting air circulation (by forcing it throuch a porous material or a perforated plate), or any combination thereof.
AFAIK, VPR's use exactly the same principles as any diaphragmatic absorber; I would be curious to see what they have patented. My search for a patent just gave one hint related to the use of a compound material for realization of the diaphragm.

Both mechanisms make VPRs more effective and more broadband than standard plate or Helmholtz resonators.
Efficiency and bandwidth tend to be mutually exclusive in a resonant absorber.
I believe the strength of the VPR relies on the fact that the Fraunhofer institute has worked hard to find a good compromise and applied thorough quality control of their subcontractor to achieve consistency.
It is not that hard to make a better product than those that are commonly available, because they are designed primarily to look nice.
 
The big danger with foam on a hard surface is that it could create a triple leaf system.

Besides, getting foam that is actually useful is next to impossible. You would need high density open cell foam and that's not common in the marketplace. I tried to get some, but the manufacturer told me it would need to be made, or I could wait for leftovers from another order. Even those leftovers were expensive.

That's why I use mineral fiber board. Thickness 4 to 6". Less than 4" is useless. Easy to handle and cut and not as nasty as glass fiber. Frame and cover with textile to your liking. I've used prints for that, opens up possibilities for visual integration.

I tend to treat large, even surfaces first.

But most important for me are measurements. I can't hear everything, like people with golden ears can. But I can see what's wrong in a graph and, more importantly, I can see where it's coming from.

And sometimes, it comes from the desk, not the walls. If it's the desk and the speakers are also on the desk, sliding them a few inches to the left or to the right could be enough to solve reflections. If it's bad, replace the desk surface with a perforated one.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top