A new take on Acoustic Treatment panels ?

[KevWind]

This was in my e-mail I have no idea how effective they are but the concept is interesting and the approach is sort of a Hybrid DYI and Manufactured
They do seem a bit on the spendy side

https://output.com/acoustic-panels

[ChuckS]

I couldn't find any absorption specs. It would be nice to compare their performance to more traditional materials.

[Brent Hahn]

Interesting concept. PET as in recycled soda bottles? Cool. And non-itchy.

If you click on "how many do I need," the diagrams and explanations are great, and they apply to "normal" treatment methods, too, such as the OC703 panels and traps DIYers (like me) would do. As for how much you need, scroll straight to that bottom diagram. That's how many, at least for reliable mixing.

[Bob Womack]

If all else fails you can hang tools on them.

Bob

[rick-slo]

Did not find any independent review. Could work well I guess but I don't care for how they look (industrial like).

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

If all else fails you can hang tools on them.

My first thought as well. Not an attractive look for a studio, imo. And the fact that they offer no specs at all regarding absorption, makes me skeptical about the efficacy of these peg boards.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by jim1960

My first thought as well. Not an attractive look for a studio, imo. And the fact that they offer no specs at all regarding absorption, makes me skeptical about the efficacy of these peg boards.

The only mention I found on the website about absorption was :::

" The air gap and perforations in our slim PET felt panels are engineered to reduce unwanted reflections and low frequency buildup at comparable RT60values to much thicker wall mounted materials "....... But no coefficient numbers ..

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by KevWind

The only mention I found on the website about absorption was :::

" The air gap and perforations in our slim PET felt panels are engineered to reduce unwanted reflections and low frequency buildup at comparable RT60values to much thicker wall mounted materials "....... But no coefficient numbers ..

If built and/or hung correctly, those "thicker wall mounted materials" also have an air gap. It's an interesting claim they're making but I'd have to see some third party confirmation because on it's face it just doesn't look feasible. I could be dead wrong about that but pro audio is an industry with more than its share of snake oil.

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by jim1960

If built and/or hung correctly, those "thicker wall mounted materials" also have an air gap. It's an interesting claim they're making but I'd have to see some third party confirmation because on it's face it just doesn't look feasible. I could be dead wrong about that but pro audio is an industry with more than its share of snake oil.

I've bought sound abatement panels for a commercial space (edit: non-studio), and many off-the-shelf models either have a plywood backing, or are supplied with clips that put them flush to the wall. Not that you can't do it differently, but that's probably the comparison they are making.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Chipotle

I've bought sound abatement panels for a commercial space (edit: non-studio), and many off-the-shelf models either have a plywood backing, or are supplied with clips that put them flush to the wall. Not that you can't do it differently, but that's probably the comparison they are making.

You may be correct and, if you are, that would be some deceptive advertising, imo. Controlling the extraneous sound in a commercial setting is a very different goal from what one would want in a recording environment. I'll continue to doubt this product but I'm open to being proven wrong should someone invest in it and show the results.

In the meantime, the two "much thicker wall mounted materials" I ordered from GIK arrived. I need to reorganize the very large 8'x6' "L" shaped desk in my studio to make room for them. I have an idea about how to lay it out to maximize the benefit of the new panels but it's going to be a lot of hours of pulling and rerunning cables for two computers and a lot of accessories.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by jim1960

If built and/or hung correctly, those "thicker wall mounted materials" also have an air gap. It's an interesting claim they're making but I'd have to see some third party confirmation because on it's face it just doesn't look feasible. I could be dead wrong about that but pro audio is an industry with more than its share of snake oil.

The GIK panels I have do have some gap between back surface of 703 and the back edge of the pine frame which does create maybe about an inch + air gap when hung flush on the wall

That said it seems to me the theory with these new panels is sound (pun). That being:: absorb/defuse and slow down the sound wave > pass thru air > reflect off wall > pass thru air > absorb/diffuse and again slow down wave > back out into room.
Or put another way (if) they work like 703 panels they do work in both directions


The question I see is how exactly do they get a "felt" texture with recycled plastic, and does it really absorb well enough to be as effective as say 3-1/2 or 4 inches of 703 ? I agree some actual 3 party test coefficient numbers would be nice

[dcn]

I'd be curious to see the numbers behind the tech. GIK has a ton of reference material on their products, for good reason.

[KevWind]

I understand how some may not like the look (they are different to say the least ) But I kinda like the look, but then agin I often find myself liking the more modern industrial style home designs also ( even though I live in sort of a Mountain Chalet style home) go figure ???????

Humm took some searching to find some NRC numbers (and this appears to be the companies own stats) not third party
But here is the page

https://support.output.com/hc/en-us/...l-Design-Specs

Here is a chart from the page... I don't have any 703 NRC numbers in front of me for comparison

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Humm took some searching to find some NRC numbers (and this appears to be the companies own stats) not third party
But here is the page

https://support.output.com/hc/en-us/...l-Design-Specs

Here is a chart from the page... I don't have any 703 NRC numbers in front of me for comparison

This is from the page you linked (the bold is me highlighting something)...

Tech Specs

The effectiveness of acoustic treatment is measured using the Noise Reduction Coefficient rating. On this scale, 0 represents no sound being absorbed, and 1 represents all sound being absorbed at a certain frequency range.

However, due to testing parameters and conditions, you will sometimes see ratings higher than 1. In general, a higher number is better.

When you see a single NRC number for a product that does not show corresponding frequencies, it’s usually the average NRC of the product between 100Hz to 5kHz. This average number gives you an overall indication of how the product will perform, but it’s important to check the response curve. A product with a lower NRC may actually perform better in the real world if it has a broader range, since a very high NRC at a single frequency will skew the entire average upward.

A single stack Absorber has an NRC of 0.8, which is what most 2” thick foam solutions are rated. A double stack Absorber — with six panels instead of three — has an NRC of 0.9, which is equivalent to most 3” thick foam solutions.


If I'm understanding the first bolded part correctly, the freq chart is saying that 500Hz upwards, all sound is being absorbed because the chart shows those hitting the 1 mark. Now either I'm totally misunderstanding that or that's just a ridiculous claim.

But the more troublesome part to me is the second bolded part. They're not comparing this to GIK type traps; they're comparing this product to foam, which we know has very low efficacy so far as studio treatment is concerned. Telling me their panels are as good as 3" foam isn't a good selling point because 3" foam is pretty useless.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by jim1960

If I'm understanding the first bolded part correctly, the freq chart is saying that 500Hz upwards, all sound is being absorbed because the chart shows those hitting the 1 mark. Now either I'm totally misunderstanding that or that's just a ridiculous claim.

But the more troublesome part to me is the second bolded part. They're not comparing this to GIK type traps; they're comparing this product to foam, which we know has very low efficacy so far as studio treatment is concerned. Telling me their panels are as good as 3" foam isn't a good selling point because 3" foam is pretty useless.

Ridiculous ? It seems many companies say basically the same thing that a NRC rating of 1.0 will absorb all the sound or will block all the reflected sound .

Here is an excerpt from the Acoustical Surfaces website

"By definition, the NRC rating is a mathematical coefficient and should range only from 0.0 to 1.0. A 0.0 rating might represent something like a smooth-finish concrete wall, where sound is completely reflected off the surface. A 1.0 rating might represent something like an open window, where all the sound passes through the window opening and doesn’t reflect back into the space."

Or The Residential Acoustics web site

The NRC figure ranges from 0.00—perfectly reflective—to 1.00—perfectly absorptive. NRC is always expressed as a decimal that is rounded to the nearest 0.05. For example, an unpainted brick that absorbs very little sound may have a rating of .05 while 1-inch-thick cork wall tiles may be extremely absorptive, with a rating of .70.

While I agree comparing to 3" of foam is ambiguous at best But a blanket dismissal of foam as useless (which was arguably the case 10 or 15 years ago) BUT may not be entirely accurate currently depending which foam, or who's foam, one is talking about

Now personally I think Owens Corning 703 is the "Standard Bar" for absorption as we can see in the charts below

It does appear that companies like Auralux (one of the best know purveyors of foam studio products ) have made substantial advances

Quick side note apparently NRC ratings themselves can be problematic and there is a push to move to new standard ratings

Here are some tests made by a 3rd party lab on Auralux

This is their studio foam wedge mid frequency absorber
not much below 250 but not useless from there up


This is Auralux bass trap




But this is why I think 703 is the standard above 1.0 from 250 on up





That said it looks to me like this new Outlook product is being compare to the Auralux numbers ?