They also cite 3rd party testing as GIK & Real Traps do/have done.
I don't usually comment on products from other vendors, but I see a few things on that company's site that need to be clarified.
"Riverbank test results showed absorption data
below 40hz. They certify at 40hz. and above."
This is simply not true. No US labs that I know of are certified to report absorption below 80 Hz, and most are certified down to only 100 Hz. However, labs will gladly tell you what they measured below 100 Hz, even though it's not necessarily accurate. In that case they will not report the absorption as coefficients, but rather as sabins.
But here's the kicker:
"Our test data, using the same test samples as
Riverbank, in the same size room and at the same
test pressure levels, produced this data."
As I read this, what they're saying is "We didn't actually test these bass traps at Riverbank. We used a normal room of about the same size and tested ourself."
I could be wrong, but that's how I read it. Maybe someone here can email Acoustic Fields and ask for clarification, or invite them to join this discussion.
The best way to assess comparative absorption of different products, as Acoustic Fields attempts to do on their data page, is with room testing software as described in this article from Sound & Vibration magazine:
Alternative Test Methods for Acoustic Treatment Products--Ethan
