Auralex differs from the various 'Foam-by-mail' outfits?
Mike -- Wed, 10/11/2006 - 11:22
Does anyone know what the foam in auralex's studiofoam is made of.
I recently moved and the bare walls were plain hideous to hear. Moving is expensive and with my budget I ordered a bunch of inexpensive wedge foam that did have a NRC rating. It certainly was a big improvement over the echoing walls and as I think about getting some more I wonder if I'm in fact buying something less expensive but sub-par. Maybe the higher priced Auralex is the better value.
Thanks for any info into this matter.
Mike,
> Does anyone know what the foam in auralex's studiofoam is made of. <
Yes, much better foam than what Foam By Mail sells!
I paid to measure Auralex LENRD corner foam and also Foam By Mail's cheap knock-off that claims identical performance. The tests were done at IBM's acoustics lab, to provide a reference comparison with the bass traps and acoustic panels my own company makes. The graph below show the results. You can see that the Foam By Mail stuff is a fraud, plain and simple. You can also see that there are other products that work a lot better than either of those foam brands. 8)
--Ethan
www.realtraps.com
The acoustic treatment experts
blow_166 wrote: The graph below show the results. You can see that the Foam By Mail stuff is a fraud, plain and simple. You can also see that there are other products that work a lot better than either of those foam brands. 8)
--Ethan
Thanks for the reply Ethan.
It is as suspected that there are better products out there, or also, you get what you pay for. I don't feel too badly about this particular foam-by-mail which scored a clear fourth on the graph. At $1.50 per square foot for two inch wedge it doesn't look too bad next to the $35 per square foot of the MiniTrap 2' by 2'. I don't know how to read sabins but they'd have to be read like the Richter Scale for fraud to be taken seriously in a hobby where multi-thousand dollar cables measure (and may sound?) pretty much the same as hundred dollar cables.
I laid two square feet ($6) on either side of my TV and the improvement in soundstage was quite apparent. Had I hung some wool socks there, there might have been an improvement as well. :)
My listening area is not dedicated (I put up and take down the treatment as required) and wanting to check a track listing tonight, I was dismayed by the sound without the foam in place. That would be the bottom line in value I figure.
If budget permits in the future, I'll probably experiment with a section of better performing material. I'm just too curious not to. :)
Mike,
> I don't feel too badly about this particular foam-by-mail which scored a clear fourth on the graph. <
The issue for me is not so much that FBM performs poorly, but rather that they faked their data and claim to be as good as Auralex. It's like a power amp claiming 200 watts RMS continuous power per channel and really delivering only 50 watts peak. That's clearly illegal as per the FTC, and they could be subject to fines etc. I don't know why the same sort of fraud should be tolerated for an acoustic materials vendor.
> At $1.50 per square foot for two inch wedge it doesn't look too bad next to the $35 per square foot of the MiniTrap 2' by 2'. <
Understood. Though I don't understand why audiophiles obsess over very high-end gear, and demand nothing but the best, but then not care at all about their room acoustics which have far more impact on what is heard than any "gear" choice.
> I laid two square feet ($6) on either side of my TV and the improvement in soundstage was quite apparent. Had I hung some wool socks there, there might have been an improvement as well. :) <
The wool socks would probably be better. I am serious! If you have a few large thick bath towels, try folding / layering them four thicknesses deep and hang them over the foam. I bet you'll hear an improvement. And then you'll know how much better it would be with real acoustic treatment! :)
Even modest absorption can make a big improvement at mid and high frequencies. What separates the men from the boys, so to speak, is how well a material absorbs at bass frequencies. That's much more difficult to achieve. And that's where the difference between a poor product and a good one is the difference between "I think it's a little better" and "Wow, that's great!"
--Ethan
www.realtraps.com
The acoustic treatment experts
blow_166 wrote:"The issue for me is not so much that FBM performs poorly, but rather that they faked their data and claim to be as good as Auralex."
"Though I don't understand why audiophiles obsess over very high-end gear, and demand nothing but the best, but then not care at all about their room acoustics which have far more impact on what is heard than any "gear" choice."
"Even modest absorption can make a big improvement at mid and high frequencies. What separates the men from the boys, so to speak, is how well a material absorbs at bass frequencies. That's much more difficult to achieve. And that's where the difference between a poor product and a good one is the difference between "I think it's a little better" and "Wow, that's great!" "
--EthanI agree that if their stuff isn't as good as claimed, and they do indeed use the same NRC rating graphic plus colour scheme, then they certainly are in the wrong.
Yeah it would be pound foolish to FBM a room which houses Kharma and Lamm. If it makes you feel better I was unaware of the foam controversy and at the time of my equipment purchase I elected to disregard popular fashion and aesthetics, needing maximum bang for the buck, and chose ATC amplification and speakers at total of about $5,000 (discounted prices due to a discontinued speaker model at one dealer and another dealer dropping the line). And these indulgences were only possible due to having a very understanding wife. She understands the disease! :lol:
Presently with a shiny new mortgage astride my back, were my gear to be gone, I guess I'd be going Rotel.
Mine was a case of "Wow, this room doesn't totally suck anymore". I'm making musical ends meet. I will be sure to mention to friends the foam situation when they ask and point them in your direction for a higher quality product.
Thanks again Ethan. :)
Mike,
> Yeah it would be pound foolish to FBM a room which houses Kharma and Lamm. <
Exactly. But even budget gear benefits greatly from good acoustic treatment versus the cheap stuff.
> I will be sure to mention to friends the foam situation when they ask and point them in your direction for a higher quality product. <
Thanks.
--Ethan
www.realtraps.com
The acoustic treatment experts
I just purchased over $300 of foam from Foam by mail. I read their ratings and they seemed legit. I just stumbled upon this. What should I do? I absolutely cannot afford Realtraps even though they are incredible. Should I cancel my order? The max I can spend is $400. Please let me know.
I recently purchased $300 worth of tiles an traps from FBM. I have noticed a vast improvement from the bare walls of my new studio. I have a few pieces of Auralex foam that I got used on craigslist. I can tell that they do feel different to the touch. In the future, I will probably opt for a the higher end stuff, but for now, I think FBM is sufficient.
I have to note that the FBM has a terrible odor! I have had my window open with a fan for a couple of days and the smell is still prettey strong. Anyone have any tips to improve on the stink of the fumes?
Frankly, I can't see why it should make a difference if the open cell 2 lb pcf Ureathane foam comes from one company or another. Does the fancy box and marketing intensive graphics from Auralux somehow alter the nature chemistry and the laws physics? Provided both shapes are the same in size, dimension, density, composition, cell structure and topigrahical features, what possible characteristic (Mojo perhaps?) could be creating the so-called "Auralux Magic", and therfore justifying the high price.
Industrial companies buy raw polyurathane as little hard plastic pellets in bulk, which are then melted down into a liquid state, and injected into a mold for curing and forming. Does Auralex somehow hae access to magic urethane pellets, like Jack bought magic beans?
Sorry, I just don't buy the hype and fancy graphics. I believe this company is trading on the ignorance of the general public, and using their intensive graphics and fancy packaging to create the illusion in the consumers mind that there is "Something" special going on here with their foam, as oppossed to the "other guys foam".
One other thing, perhaps if the buying public would actually look at the REAL MARKET PRICE of industrial UR, they just might discover that the so-called "Cheap Foam" is actually priced fairly, and the "Magic Foam" itself created the confusion with disinformation and marketing tactics to HIDE the fact the their product is nothing more than "Overpriced Foam in a fancy box", and some smoke and mirrors thrown in for good measure.
Perhaps, I'll take money out of my own pocket and hire a witch doctor to perform an excorsism on some Auralux foam, and discover which evil spirit is operating inside the foam which contributes to the "Aurlux Difference", and endore their claims while promoting my personal products at the same time (this is know as a "ruse" folks). But then again, I am not using this forum to endore or sell anything.
COMMON SENSE is a FREE, but scarce commodity.
Post new comment