Diy Acoustic Panels Advice

[oldguy223]

Morning all

I have a need for room treatment in my theatre room and would like to investigate DIY acoustic panels, i was wondering if any of you had experience with making your own panels and do they work well? I have done a a bit of reading but all from over seas where they have different products, so i thought i would be better asking the locals what they have used

Any help will great , thank you

[brodricj]

My advice is don't do it. Just buy them. Save yourself a whole load of effort and heartache. And cheaper too. If you search the forum here you should find this topic has been covered in detail before.

[buddhamus]

Quite easy to make absorption panels mate...but diffusion panels are very time consuming and for that I'd just buy them ready made.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

[CAVX]

I've made both and yes absorption is easy, diffusion is harder, but not impossible.  And of course DIY is cheaper and why I did my own.  

The most common absorption is acoustic foam (convoluted foam) that you can buy at Clarks Rubber and other places.  Clarks are not the cheapest, but they do cut to size and they always have stock.  Some of the industrial places like Dunlop Foams require you to commit to a minimum monthly spend (which might be OK if you were making and selling a commercial product).  I believe the grade is known 28/400 and feels medium density.  It is generally a medium grey.  The other colours are either harder or softer foi  A 25mm piece is effective down to at least 600Hz.  If you need to absorb lower, then you need to layer them up or use a higher density foams.

If you want to build bass traps, you need very high desity foam or even move to fibreglass.    

Diffusers are normally made from wood and are considered to be a bit of science.  Truth is, a diffusier can be any random surface.  Its purpose is to break up sound waves without absorbing them too much. They help keep the room "live" without being  "reflective".  A book shelf full of books is an example of diffusion many of us already have in the home.  There is this belief that we need to treat a room all the way down to 20Hz.  Not always the case, especially diffusion which is aimed at mids and highs.  .  

Some of the commercial diffusers are simply made from injection molded plastic.  They are hollow behind, so given they are only a few mm thick, make you wonder what frequencies can actually pass through them.  

   

 

[Red Spade Audio]

DIY acoustic panels can be very worthwhile. Yes, the pre made foam panels are quite cheap and very easy to install. However, with a little more effort you can build better absorbers that are effective down into the low midrange. The rooms I've tested that perform the best have better performing panels and are usually DIY.

Polymax or rigid fibreglass are some of the better materials. With fibreglass, you need to wrap in fabric. With polymax, it's just a matter of aesthetics.

Diffusers are a lot of work to build but they are also generally expensive to buy. A Primacoustic QRD is around $1.6k each. You can build a DIY equivalent for peanuts. DIffusers are the icing on the cake when it comes to treatment - nice to have but not essential. DIY diffusers will tend to be big and heavy, therefore needing some effort to install. You can buy commercial units that are light weight, easy to install and suited to putting on a ceiling. Looks like Mark has a panel like that. We sell Vicoustic Multifusors which are a polystyrene panel. No issue mounting them to a ceiling but you would not want to do the same with a heavy MDF QRD. A falling diffuser could kill someone!

Bass traps. They tend to be expensive and nearly all of them are almost useless. DIY stands out here.

 

 

 

 

[YourMateDyl]

On ‎23‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 6:56 PM, Red Spade Audio said:

DIY acoustic panels can be very worthwhile. Yes, the pre made foam panels are quite cheap and very easy to install. However, with a little more effort you can build better absorbers that are effective down into the low midrange. The rooms I've tested that perform the best have better performing panels and are usually DIY.

Polymax or rigid fibreglass are some of the better materials. With fibreglass, you need to wrap in fabric. With polymax, it's just a matter of aesthetics.

Diffusers are a lot of work to build but they are also generally expensive to buy. A Primacoustic QRD is around $1.6k each. You can build a DIY equivalent for peanuts. DIffusers are the icing on the cake when it comes to treatment - nice to have but not essential. DIY diffusers will tend to be big and heavy, therefore needing some effort to install. You can buy commercial units that are light weight, easy to install and suited to putting on a ceiling. Looks like Mark has a panel like that. We sell Vicoustic Multifusors which are a polystyrene panel. No issue mounting them to a ceiling but you would not want to do the same with a heavy MDF QRD. A falling diffuser could kill someone!

Bass traps. They tend to be expensive and nearly all of them are almost useless. DIY stands out here.

 

 

 

 

This is a subject I've been researching for the last two or three years so I may be able to help a bit.
We looked at the Primacoustic stuff and I just couldn't bring myself to spend that kind of money on what was essentially rigid fibreglass in a frame. They look good but you can build your own for a fraction of the cost (tools included) if you have some DIY skills.. So that's exactly what we did. (I'll post some photos tonight) 

There seems to be a lot of misinformation on the market when it comes to absorption and there are a lot of snake-oil sale tactics - much like high-end speaker cables and HDMI cables, and it hugely depends on the application; 2ch audio or Multi-Channel Home Theatre on how to treat the room.
New(er) research has found most people actually prefer a bit of reflectivity in a room rather than absorbing as it makes vocals and spacial effects clearer and much more prominent - which makes the room feel larger than it really is. 
I haven't had much experience with diffusers at all. I know they can be made - but from what I've read, there's some mathematics involved and it doesn't really seem worth the work involved when you can buy them off the shelf relatively cheap.
CSR Ultratel is the highest density rigid fibreglass board you can get (that I've found) and it works a treat. In-fact it works so well, that we had to take a few panels down due to the over-deadening effect it gave in the room we tested in. The reality was we only needed about 2x panels either side of the walls (1200x600mm) rather than the original 4x, and only 1x on the ceiling at the 1st reflection point. This will obviously depend on the room. 
I've found foam for broadband acoustic panels can work - but it's nowhere near as cost-effective or performance effective as Rockwool/fibreglass. (I should mention here to wear gloves when it comes to this stuff too! I'm currently typing this with nasty rashes on the tops of my hands which has been extremely itchy for the last 3 days and resulted in a few small blisters)...

As you already mentioned, using fibreglass or Foam for bass-traps is a common misconception and does virtually nothing for lower sub-bass frequencies below 100hz. You need mass for those frequencies. I haven't tried and I probably won't try to make a bass-trap because it seems there's a bit of a fine line to getting it right and getting it wrong when it comes to making them - and there are many different types which will depend on the problematic frequency being targeted. Plus I like the look of those Vicoustic bass-traps available - as expensive as they are.
But even then, building/buying bass-traps should be a last resort and should be used in conjunction with multiple subs, which is now the commonly accepted method to overcome problematic bass frequencies within a room (Floyd O' Toole - The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Sound Reproduction) 
Floyd proved that multiple subs appropriately placed in the room either centred or corner loaded - used in conjunction with some EQ is more cost effective, more predictable and is easier to control across the lower frequency spectrum than hanging bass traps and acoustic panels everywhere.

I haven't read his book for a while (I'm reading it again now) so if someone spots something I've said that is off, please correct me.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Dylan86.exe
spelling

[Red Spade Audio]

On 11/25/2016 at 9:21 AM, Dylan86.exe said:

This is a subject I've been researching for the last two or three years so I may be able to help a bit.
We looked at the Primacoustic stuff and I just couldn't bring myself to spend that kind of money on what was essentially rigid fibreglass in a frame. They look good but you can build your own for a fraction of the cost (tools included) if you have some DIY skills.. So that's exactly what we did. (I'll post some photos tonight) 

There seems to be a lot of misinformation on the market when it comes to absorption and there are a lot of snake-oil sale tactics - much like high-end speaker cables and HDMI cables, and it hugely depends on the application; 2ch audio or Multi-Channel Home Theatre on how to treat the room.
New(er) research has found most people actually prefer a bit of reflectivity in a room rather than absorbing as it makes vocals and spacial effects clearer and much more prominent - which makes the room feel larger than it really is. 
I haven't had much experience with diffusers at all. I know they can be made - but from what I've read, there's some mathematics involved and it doesn't really seem worth the work involved when you can buy them off the shelf relatively cheap.
CSR Ultratel is the highest density rigid fibreglass board you can get (that I've found) and it works a treat. In-fact it works so well, that we had to take a few panels down due to the over-deadening effect it gave in the room we tested in. The reality was we only needed about 2x panels either side of the walls (1200x600mm) rather than the original 4x, and only 1x on the ceiling at the 1st reflection point. This will obviously depend on the room. 
I've found foam for broadband acoustic panels can work - but it's nowhere near as cost-effective or performance effective as Rockwool/fibreglass. (I should mention here to wear gloves when it comes to this stuff too! I'm currently typing this with nasty rashes on the tops of my hands which has been extremely itchy for the last 3 days and resulted in a few small blisters)...

As you already mentioned, using fibreglass or Foam for bass-traps is a common misconception and does virtually nothing for lower sub-bass frequencies below 100hz. You need mass for those frequencies. I haven't tried and I probably won't try to make a bass-trap because it seems there's a bit of a fine line to getting it right and getting it wrong when it comes to making them - and there are many different types which will depend on the problematic frequency being targeted. Plus I like the look of those Vicoustic bass-traps available - as expensive as they are.
But even then, building/buying bass-traps should be a last resort and should be used in conjunction with multiple subs, which is now the commonly accepted method to overcome problematic bass frequencies within a room (Floyd O' Toole - The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Sound Reproduction) 
Floyd proved that multiple subs appropriately placed in the room either centred or corner loaded - used in conjunction with some EQ is more cost effective, more predictable and is easier to control across the lower frequency spectrum than hanging bass traps and acoustic panels everywhere.

I haven't read his book for a while (I'm reading it again now) so if someone spots something I've said that is off, please correct me.

HI Dylan, you've obviously done quite some reading and picked up a great deal. Great to hear that you've put that study to good use and are now benefiting from it. A couple of points that come to mind:

Quote

Primacoustic stuff and I just couldn't bring myself to spend that kind of money on what was essentially rigid fibreglass in a frame.

Yes, they are generally outside the price range most are prepared for, even in many studios that are generating an income.

Quote

New(er) research has found most people actually prefer a bit of reflectivity in a room rather than absorbing as it makes vocals and spacial effects clearer and much more prominent - which makes the room feel larger than it really is. 

I'd guess that you're referring to Toole's work with Harman where they found most listeners preferred side wall reflections to all others and that they can serve as an enhancement. Both imaging and the sound stage are strongly influenced here. There is generally a trade off. Absorption tends to improve clarity but at the same time it can also tend to reduce the sound stage. Too much absorption and you will have great clarity but with a reduced sound stage and the sound becomes quite dry. Imaging becomes more precise but the sound stage small. It's always a balancing act.

Quote

I haven't had much experience with diffusers at all. I know they can be made - but from what I've read, there's some mathematics involved and it doesn't really seem worth the work involved when you can buy them off the shelf relatively cheap.

They are not as difficult as you think. Look up "QRdude" which is a free program for designing Quadratic diffusers. The main obstacle is a fair amount of work to build them. For those who want a lot of diffusion on a budget, who can spare the time to build, they are quite attractive.

On the other hand, Vicoustic Multifusors are quite affordable and much easier to install. Most listening rooms would do quite well with just a pack of 6.

Quote

I've found foam for broadband acoustic panels can work - but it's nowhere near as cost-effective or performance effective as Rockwool/fibreglass. (I should mention here to wear gloves when it comes to this stuff too! I'm currently typing this with nasty rashes on the tops of my hands which has been extremely itchy for the last 3 days and resulted in a few small blisters)...

Foam panels are where many start. They are the easiest to install and that can be handy for renters.

Fibreglass is nasty stuff and there is also the extra cost and effort of fabric wrapping them. I've used it in the past but now have moved to Polymax Absorb XHD which comes in black. Being a polyester panel there are no issues with itchiness, rashes or getting fibres in your lungs. Some might even find the finish is good enough to use as a raw panel. After using it on a studio job, I was impressed with it enough to start offering it to customers.

Quote

As you already mentioned, using fibreglass or Foam for bass-traps is a common misconception and does virtually nothing for lower sub-bass frequencies below 100hz. You need mass for those frequencies. I haven't tried and I probably won't try to make a bass-trap because it seems there's a bit of a fine line to getting it right and getting it wrong when it comes to making them - and there are many different types which will depend on the problematic frequency being targeted.

Both fibreglass and foam can be used for broadband resistive bass traps - that's not a misconception. However, one must have realistic expectations. 1 ft foam bass traps are far too small. 2 ft wide foam bass traps are better described as low midrange bass traps, keeping in mind we typically need to cover 40 - 400 Hz. Foam is not ideal but as the dimensions become larger they can actually become effective. Most can't accept traps that are large enough to work well and this is the real problem.

Vicoustic make a number of bass traps and I've tested them in various jobs. The better ones work well for their size. However, there are many situations where you need more bass trapping in a room than you can get affordably with commercial units.

Some rooms don't need bass trapping since the existing decay performance is already decent.

Quote

But even then, building/buying bass-traps should be a last resort and should be used in conjunction with multiple subs, which is now the commonly accepted method to overcome problematic bass frequencies within a room

As you say, the two strategies work together - this is because they address different parts of the bass challenge. Multiple subs primarily help with providing a smooth bass response in multiple seats. The benefit is not automatic. I've seen some go backwards when they add a second sub as they were not correctly integrated - it's harder than people think. In some situations the benefit is actually minor.

Bass traps in many systems are actually essential, not a last resort. Where they are really needed and adequately implemented they can transform the bass - it can be a dramatic difference.

Quote

Floyd proved that multiple subs appropriately placed in the room either centred or corner loaded - used in conjunction with some EQ is more cost effective, more predictable and is easier to control across the lower frequency spectrum than hanging bass traps and acoustic panels everywhere.

People often tend to prefer one over the other but I suggest it's best to be agnostic about them.

The best solution for one person might be a single sub in a particular position and they might not need bass traps. For another it might be one sub and many large bass traps. For another again it might be four subs and no bass traps.  Once the specifics of a particular system are known, the best approach can deviate from expectations.

Bass traps improve decay performance. The subjective impact is that bass becomes much tighter and better controlled. As you keep adding damping, you get a sound that starts to resemble an outdoor system.

Multiple subs tend to benefit a larger seating area where you get more consistency. In a single prime seat, the primary benefit might be that you can optimise placement to avoid a deep null that you might have with just one sub. In that instance, you get a clear and obvious benefit. On the other hand, you might only get a signficant benefit when you are looking at the performance in many seats. Some people just have two seats next to each other. In that situation, you may not need more than one good sub.

Remember, Toole took a more democratic approach where he was looking at the problem of treating all seats in a multi row HT room as equal.

[YourMateDyl]

Wow thanks for clearing that up! I don't mean to spread any misinformation. I'm reading Toole's book again because I have to admit, the first time I read it, there were areas I skimmed over and only read briefly. There's that much information in there, it's hard to process it all. It's a pretty broad and complex subject but also a fascinating one. Audioholics.com was initially the website that got me onto the book, which then lead me to delve a bit deeper and start testing in my own room.

Quote

I'd guess that you're referring to Toole's work with Harman where they found most listeners preferred side wall reflections to all others and that they can serve as an enhancement. Both imaging and the sound stage are strongly influenced here. There is generally a trade off. Absorption tends to improve clarity but at the same time it can also tend to reduce the sound stage. Too much absorption and you will have great clarity but with a reduced sound stage and the sound becomes quite dry. Imaging becomes more precise but the sound stage small. It's always a balancing act.

Yes! I know this too well. We treated my first room (about 4x5m) before I knew much at all about absorption, and just treated everywhere for the sake of it thinking the room would automatically sound "better". And it was horrible! It was incredibly dry like you mention. There was no brightness to the room at all. Of course there were no flutter echoes or any reverb either, but it wasn't a nice room to be in until we started taking down those absorbers.

 

Quote

They are not as difficult as you think. Look up "QRdude" which is a free program for designing Quadratic diffusers. The main obstacle is a fair amount of work to build them. For those who want a lot of diffusion on a budget, who can spare the time to build, they are quite attractive.

On the other hand, Vicoustic Multifusors are quite affordable and much easier to install. Most listening rooms would do quite well with just a pack of 6.

I like those Vicoustic Multifusors. I'd like to test them at first reflection points as opposed to absorbing and see what the difference is. I'd assume it would be brighter while maintaining the soundstage. Didn't Toole also mention these would be most beneficial at the rear of the room?

 

Quote

Polymax Absorb XHD

I hadn't heard of this product up until now. I used to sell CSR products so this must be relatively new. Interesting they don't provide any acoustical data on their product though. There's no mention of how dense it is or it's performance other than R-value. I'd like to see it though if it comes in black.
Fibreglass is pretty horrible to handle - but it's been the best product I've used so far in terms of absorption.

Quote

Both fibreglass and foam can be used for broadband resistive bass traps - that's not a misconception. However, one must have realistic expectations. 1 ft foam bass traps are far too small. 2 ft wide foam bass traps are better described as low midrange bass traps, keeping in mind we typically need to cover 40 - 400 Hz. Foam is not ideal but as the dimensions become larger they can actually become effective. Most can't accept traps that are large enough to work well and this is the real problem.

Vicoustic make a number of bass traps and I've tested them in various jobs. The better ones work well for their size. However, there are many situations where you need more bass trapping in a room than you can get affordably with commercial units.

Some rooms don't need bass trapping since the existing decay performance is already decent.

The misconception I was talking about was the "one size fits all" approach that I've seen people tend to adopt. Google DIY bass traps and you'll see what I mean. There are literally hundreds of threads of people trying to build those  "super chunk" porous type bass traps with little consideration to the room or the type of trap needed. I mean unless you're willing to sacrifice 500mm - 1m of space on each wall of course. That's a lot of room space to sacrifice!
I have no experience with the membrane type traps on the market (which I believe some of the Vicoustic types are) but I'm very interested in them. They're the best looking traps I've seen so far. I'd hope they perform well if I were to shell out some $$ for them.

Quote

The benefit is not automatic. I've seen some go backwards when they add a second sub as they were not correctly integrated - it's harder than people think. In some situations the benefit is actually minor.

Bass traps in many systems are actually essential, not a last resort. Where they are really needed and adequately implemented they can transform the bass - it can be a dramatic difference.

Interesting. Were these room layouts rectangular where the modes could be predicted? I can understand that if the room layout were say, an "L-type", shaped or have some other irregularity.
My understanding was that the best way of achieving good bass is by reducing the modal peaks and nodal dips by utilizing passive room treatments, multiple subs, proper speaker/subwoofer and seating placements and setup, and active equalization..
 

Quote

Once the specifics of a particular system are known, the best approach can deviate from expectations.

Couldn't agree more. This of course is all good for a base starting point. But one person's couch for example, could throw a different acoustic result if another person had the same room with a different couch.
 

Quote

In a single prime seat, the primary benefit might be that you can optimise placement to avoid a deep null that you might have with just one sub. In that instance, you get a clear and obvious benefit.

Do you think the typical half room distance null that people try to avoid can be overcome with multiple-subs? Having heard this in my own room where space is limited, I can see a massive benefit if it can be overcome...

[Red Spade Audio]

1 hour ago, Dylan86.exe said:

I like those Vicoustic Multifusors. I'd like to test them at first reflection points as opposed to absorbing and see what the difference is. I'd assume it would be brighter while maintaining the soundstage. Didn't Toole also mention these would be most beneficial at the rear of the room?

You can actually see this in the measurements. Let's say you put a single multifusor to pick up a first reflection point on the rear wall. You can actually see in the impulse response that an easy to identify reflection now disappears. Yet you've retained ambience.

The interesting thing about diffusers is that whilst you clean up the room, there is more energy remaining in the room. You can actually hear the impact when you are in the room talking. You don't get that dead sounding hush.

It's a bit unfortunate that diffusers are more expensive and often less practical.

Quote

I hadn't heard of this product up until now. I used to sell CSR products so this must be relatively new. Interesting they don't provide any acoustical data on their product though. There's no mention of how dense it is or it's performance other than R-value. I'd like to see it though if it comes in black.
Fibreglass is pretty horrible to handle - but it's been the best product I've used so far in terms of absorption.

http://www.csrmartini.com.au/sites/default/files/download/Martini-Absorb-0416.pdf

Quote

The misconception I was talking about was the "one size fits all" approach that I've seen people tend to adopt. Google DIY bass traps and you'll see what I mean.

 

It's a problem I come across all the time. People have been given advice on forums, or read advice that is true in certain situations, but may be completely wrong in their situation. The details can make a huge difference.

Quote

Interesting. Were these room layouts rectangular where the modes could be predicted? I can understand that if the room layout were say, an "L-type", shaped or have some other irregularity.

It's difficult to give a reasonably short answer here as there are so many different situations, each with different issues. I also want to avoid a situation where my clients are wondering if I'm talking about their system! So I'll keep this general.

Where multiple subs don't deliver the expected benefit, it's generally related to integration and the lack of the right process. The most common situation is that placement has not been optimised (they are in the wrong positions) and they have sub optimal calibration.

Quote

My understanding was that the best way of achieving good bass is by reducing the modal peaks and nodal dips by utilizing passive room treatments, multiple subs, proper speaker/subwoofer and seating placements and setup, and active equalization..

There are different approaches here but I have developed my own process over time. Ideally the process I use looks like this:

1. Bass assessment - taking measurements to work out the best strategy in a particular room. What are the optimal sub positions? How many subs? How does the room perform in terms of decay? Are bass traps required? The first step is working out what you are dealing with and working out a plan.

2. Bass traps - if you need them, they will be big!

3. Installing subs in their optimal positions.

4. Calibration - this is where you apply EQ and set up high and low pass filters and assign delays.

Each step is like working with a different tool. They are not all the same. Bass traps improve the decay but some of the changes to the frequency response might not seem like an improvement despite the clear improvement you will hear. The bass stops much quicker. EQ improves the frequency response - generally its main achievement is that you can bring down the dominant peaks that will tend to make the bass sound boomy and overblown.

Quote

Do you think the typical half room distance null that people try to avoid can be overcome with multiple-subs? Having heard this in my own room where space is limited, I can see a massive benefit if it can be overcome...

Usually to optimise one prime seat, only one or two subs are needed. I suggest people find out what works best for their room with measurements. You can figure out exactly what you need.

If you have a problemmatic null, sometimes it's a good idea to try adjusting the listening position as well. The solution can be as simple as moving your seat, if that's an option.

 

 

[YourMateDyl]

Quote

http://www.csrmartini.com.au/sites/default/files/download/Martini-Absorb-0416.pdf

Interesting product. Comparing it to Ultratel, I'm not sure what the numbers they're listing are in their results - whether it's the reverb time or if it's a damping coefficient. There's no UOM to tell and they're not even listing all the information that the standard calls up anyway. And both products are using two different Australian Standards. It's impossible to tell.
It probably doesn't matter anyway. You've used it so you'd know if it works or not. I'm sure the difference in negligible. I'd take a black Poly over yellow Fibre glass any day.
 

Quote

If you have a problemmatic null, sometimes it's a good idea to try adjusting the listening position as well. The solution can be as simple as moving your seat, if that's an option.

Yes, at exactly half way. Ideally the best seating position (visually) is about half way - the room is only 5m long. But this is obviously the worst spot for any room acoustically. I'm trying to figure out a way around it...

[Guest Peter the Greek]

My 2 cents on polyester v glass. I love the polyester product for all the reasons Paul mentioned.

BUT - its a bastard to cut cleanly and quickly. Ultratel on the other hand can be cut and shaped with ease. Once its covered in fabric you dont have to worry about the fibres....but I assume there is some VOC emissions?

its a trade off. I'm thinking of doing new panels from polyester and just making them the same size as the standard size (600 x 1200)

BUT if you need to cut it, it takes forever to do with precision and any minor errors will show through in most fabrics typically used

[Red Spade Audio]

Yes, they are a pain to cut if you are trying to use a stanley knife. That's why I offer them cut to size.

[Guest Peter the Greek]

@Red Spade Audio 

Paul will they do any size? Chances are 1/3 of the panels will be slightly different to account for ceiling heights etc?

....and then there is this sort of thing which is a right PITA (this one wrapped around the stage)

See the panel here, middle right. I took that down and cut it again, but show's how particular you need to be:

 

[Guest Peter the Greek]

31 minutes ago, Red Spade Audio said:

Yes, they are a pain to cut if you are trying to use a stanley knife. 

I find a bread knife is best. Or better still and electric carving knife

[Red Spade Audio]

1 hour ago, Peter the Greek said:

@Red Spade Audio 

Paul will they do any size? Chances are 1/3 of the panels will be slightly different to account for ceiling heights etc?

We order them in bulk as full sheets and then sell them, either as full sheets or cut to size. There is a degree of variation that can't be avoided, so if someone were counting on the accuracy to fit neatly, we'd need to have a conversation about tolerances and allowances.

[rifat1984]

Making own panels is a good idea. But honestly speaking, they don't work well. Rather I would like to suggest you wooden perforated acoustic panel. MDF used substrate & melamine laminated panels are very effective, attractive, eco-friendly, safe & cost effective also. You may visit http://www.acousticmanufacturer.com/Wooden-Perforated-Acoustic-Panels.html for different types of panels.

[Red Spade Audio]

On 1/6/2017 at 7:40 AM, rifat1984 said:

Making [your] own panels is a good idea [because] honestly speaking, they work well.

There, fixed it for you!

I've tested rooms using both DIY and commercial panels. Very often the better performing rooms have DIY acoustic panels.

The panels you linked are not the type that I would suggest for home theatres.

[CAVX]

On 23/08/2016 at 6:56 PM, Red Spade Audio said:

Polymax or rigid fibreglass are some of the better materials. With fibreglass, you need to wrap in fabric. With polymax, it's just a matter of aesthetics.

 

 

 

 

Whilst in Bunnings the other day, I found sheets of what looked like compressed fibreglass for about $90.  I didn't pull the sheet right out, but it looked almost 2400 x 1200 x 15mm.  I did not feel irritated or itchy after touching it, so it be polymax, not fiberglass.  

Anyone else seen this, had experience with this?  

[Red Spade Audio]

On 1/7/2017 at 10:44 AM, CAVX said:

Whilst in Bunnings the other day, I found sheets of what looked like compressed fibreglass for about $90.  I didn't pull the sheet right out, but it looked almost 2400 x 1200 x 15mm.  I did not feel irritated or itchy after touching it, so it be polymax, not fiberglass.  

Anyone else seen this, had experience with this?  

I believe you are talking about very high density polyester - they are more like a pinboard than an acoustic absorber, far too thin to be useful unless you wanted to make some kind of hybrid panel with an air gap behind.

[CAVX]

I am looking at having an air gap behind.   

[Guest Peter the Greek]

On 1/10/2017 at 9:50 PM, CAVX said:

I am looking at having an air gap behind.   

Could work nicely behind an AT screen. Can you take a photo of it and the barcode next time you're in bunnies? would be interested to know

[CAVX]

Sure I can do that.