[JDUBS]

Link doesn't say why he thinks John is wrong, nor the second question. Just curious.

The link is just a thread to a basstrap.

   " " indicates that the poster is "joking" followed by a reference to a product that he owns or has an ownership (or other) interest in.

Your second question is irrelevant in the context of a thread about the Black Hole.

-Jim

[Rclark]

So quite a bit more money for similar performance, better slightly in one area, worse in another.

 Seems like the active trap is a better deal.

[JohnR]

I'm not sure there's enough information to really judge relative performance.

[Rclark]

Alright, gotcha. Hopefully we can see more details on both. Options are good.

[Glenn Kuras]

Link doesn't say why he thinks John is wrong, nor the second question. Just curious.

The link is just a thread to a basstrap.

You know you are right. I was just trying to show that passive can help lower frequencies. Sorry for posting the test here. As I said I can see active but using it alone would not be my pick. I want to tame the room as a whole. As I said we did look into another type of active so I am not "against it" per say.  As I have learned over many years in the acoustic business "there is no silver bullet".

[Ethan Winer]

I was just trying to show that passive can help lower frequencies.

Agreed, and as you know our Hearing is Believing video shows passive bass traps making a real improvement to below 40 Hz. And those aren't even "chunk" style traps, and they weren't even straddling corners.

I really hoped Clayton would address my concern from Page 1 of this thread, where I questioned whether the improvement from an active trap is positional. I don't see how it couldn't be, but I'd be glad to be proven wrong. This requires measuring at several locations around the room with and without the trap engaged, to see if at some locations the response and ringing are made worse. I even tried to talk a friend into buying an active trap so I could test it, but no luck. 

--Ethan

[Glenn Kuras]

Agreed, and as you know our Hearing is Believing video shows passive bass traps making a real improvement to below 40 Hz. And those aren't even "chunk" style traps, and they weren't even straddling corners.

I really hoped Clayton would address my concern from Page 1 of this thread, where I questioned whether the improvement from an active trap is positional. I don't see how it couldn't be, but I'd be glad to be proven wrong. This requires measuring at several locations around the room with and without the trap engaged, to see if at some locations the response and ringing are made worse. I even tried to talk a friend into buying an active trap so I could test it, but no luck. 

--Ethan

I can't find the post right now but I saw someone DIY one with a sub and a mic. Can't remember though how they totally did it but basically the mic picked up the sound from the source (speakers) then that went through the sub it was hooked into. I guess you would need some kind of filter along with it?

[Rclark]

 It's obviously natural that you guys are going to pan this device, you are both competing owners of bassttrap companies, of course this device can't be any good.

 To me, looking at what's been shown, I think I would prefer this active trap, and a couple traps for HF reflection, and still come out ahead money wise.

 And then you can put up art instead of basstraps. That's just me.

 This device produced those curves for $1295. Beat that price. (without doctoring it!)

[neekomax]

I dunno man, you can buy a whole helluva lot of bass traps for $1295 last time I checked.

[poseidonsvoice]

It's obviously natural that you guys are going to pan this device, you are both competing owners of bassttrap companies, of course this device can't be any good.

 To me, looking at what's been shown, I think I would prefer this active trap, and a couple traps for HF reflection, and still come out ahead money wise.

 And then you can put up art instead of basstraps. That's just me.

 This device produced those curves for $1295. Beat that price. (without doctoring it!)

As you finalize your decision making, be sure you understand that there were 2 subs in the measurements that Clayton provided. One was a home theater sub (I incorrectly didn't realize that at first!). See here. Also if we could know where the mic was placed during these measurements, that would be helpful as well.

I think it is a great product, but I would be a fool to think that it is a silver bullet. It is yet another great tool to deal with modal issues inherent in all rooms.

Best,

Anand.

[Ethan Winer]

It's obviously natural that you guys are going to pan this device

That's simply not true. I really do want to know the answers to the questions I posed. Hey, if active trapping really works without limitations, I'll be right there selling one too. 

But I will say that I've asked these questions many times, not just here, and never got an answer.

--Ethan

[Glenn Kuras]

It's obviously natural that you guys are going to pan this device, you are both competing owners of bassttrap companies, of course this device can't be any good.

 To me, looking at what's been shown, I think I would prefer this active trap, and a couple traps for HF reflection, and still come out ahead money wise.

 And then you can put up art instead of basstraps. That's just me.

 This device produced those curves for $1295. Beat that price. (without doctoring it!)

Rclark. I said I was sorry for posting that link (I mean it). My response was only to show what normal treatment can do. Once again I am sorry to you and or any member if I came off any other way. Most know that I am not out to slam a product just to sell my own.    

[Rclark]

Neekos, I think you can build a lot for that much, maybe I'm wrong buy I don't think you can spend that much on retail traps and get the same performance. Maybe you can?

I just want to see it is all rather than "oh we tried active harumph harumph".

Because as a layman, it seems to me that this device gets a lot done, and doesn't take up real estate. I'm not a rich guy! So things like this have to be planned for. If traps are better for the same money it would be nice to see.

 that's all. Not trying to start anything .

[neekomax]

I agree, I'm all for exploring the active approach. But $1295 isn't exactly nothing. No one thing in my system, not even my beloved speakers, cost that much. So it would have to be really great for me to consider it. I spent $180 on used bass traps and I think they improved my room a good deal, btw.

[Rclark]

I agree. You can build nearly 32 traps with super corner chunks for about $500. Pretty? The DIY ones tend to look a bit frumpy in pics. But hey, you're good to go.

Retail units are obviously nicer looking, and you can get them custom. And I assume they perform better than DIY. But they are pricey. However, for a long term system that you want to be able to show people, and if building traps doesn't sound very appealing, def the way to go.

 $1295 certainly isn't cheap, but I would assume that Augmented with a handful of passive traps, you've got a nice classy system.

[JDUBS]

Let's please try to stay on topic....which is the Spatial Black Hole.  I don't care about passive alternatives.  My room isn't exactly conducive to them so they don't represent an alternative to me.

A comparison thread could be started but that discussion should not be here.

Thanks,
Jim

[JohnR]

A friend of mine with a serious problem at 29 and 32 Hz wants to know if it will work in a cupboard. Interesting question, I thought... I suspect it will, but I think I will go and measure what's happening inside there to get an idea.

It would be interesting to know what measurements would be needed to send to Clayton to get an idea of whether and by how much a Black Hole would be effective in a given room.

[Spatial Audio]

A friend of mine with a serious problem at 29 and 32 Hz wants to know if it will work in a cupboard. Interesting question, I thought... I suspect it will, but I think I will go and measure what's happening inside there to get an idea.

It would be interesting to know what measurements would be needed to send to Clayton to get an idea of whether and by how much a Black Hole would be effective in a given room.

Hi JohnR,

If you have an impulse-based measurement system such as OmniMic or Fuzzmeasure, take some frequency response shots at and around the listener position and at the rear of room using the Long (10 second) Sweep. Then import them into the Waterfall and Reverb plug-ins. Or, just email me the long sweeps and I can do the rest. Then, I can provide some feedback as to what he might expect from the Black Hole in that room.

Clayton Shaw
Spatial Computer LLC / Clayton Shaw Audio Technologies LLC

[jtwrace]

Hi JohnR,

If you have an impulse-based measurement system such as OmniMic or Fuzzmeasure, take some frequency response shots at and around the listener position and at the rear of room using the Long (10 second) Sweep. Then import them into the Waterfall and Reverb plug-ins. Or, just email me the long sweeps and I can do the rest. Then, I can provide some feedback as to what he might expect from the Black Hole in that room.

Clayton Shaw
Spatial Computer LLC / Clayton Shaw Audio Technologies LLC

....then post the data here for all of us to see.      

[JDUBS]

....then post the data here for all of us to see.      

Yes!  Please do. 

-Jim