John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum Archive

I found an alternative to super chunks, I can't see why it wouldn't work almost as well. Great if you can't afford lots of insulation..



i found it on another site.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... gle.com.au

what you think? the solution would suit me, I have enough 32kg , a mixture of batts and panels.

Yup, that style works fine too. It basically is a superchunk, except not built as triangles. IT should perform about the same as a superchunk that has the same width across the front.

If I recall correctly, there are a couple of examples of that style right here on the forum, somewhere...


- Stuart -

Thanks Stuart,
I figured it would work.

I've got a tiny room that needs fixing, I'm going to get to work now

Eric Desart tested the Super Chunk when they were designing it. Based on the width and depth.

This design is not like it (Eric's super chunk)and most likely will not produce the same results.

Granted, it is better than a hollow broad band absorber..but it will take as much 703 insulation to do this as it would to do the Super Chunk.


And to be fair...the picture you show is inverted....so you have different issues with that as well.

thanks Eric.
I may be able to 'super' chunk' yet.. depends on my off cuts after making some corner traps.
I've got a bunch of different sizes here. it would make sense if you could see it all

It'll work, sure. As Brian mentioned, this method uses LESS which means less absorptive. A full super-chunk will perform slightly better.... I think. I say "think" cuz I never really measured or tested it.

the only problem I see is the installation; how are you gonna keep those rigid slaps in place. Especially when you're gonna stack two on top of each other. in my opinion a full sc absorber is much easier to build and will perform better. It'll only cost a fraction more if you look at the wool only. dunno about the other materials you wanna use.

It'll work, sure.

Yup! It sure will.

A full super-chunk will perform slightly better.... I think. I say "think" cuz I never really measured or tested it.

The guys at StudioTips did measure it. That's where I recalled seeing the designs and tests, and they call it a "nested" bass trap. There are several threads over there. Here is one of them.

http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=534

Compare that with their tests on superchunks, and there really isn't much difference.

- Stuart -

thanks for the info

I've got two 6 inch standard corner broadband bass traps, two 4 inch standard, corner broadband bass traps.
One 6 inch cloud
I had enough to put super chunks about half way up the wall on 2 traps.

I've got loads of funny sized offcuts, I wonder if I could put random shapes stacked up behind the corner traps.

The main purpose is to stop the walls 'meeting' isn't it

What do you guys use to draw3d rooms etc on here. I might try whip up a drawing

SketchUp. From Google. Free!

- Stuart -

thanks, i'll try and work it now

I may have fixed my horrible un-usable room.
Just did a quick recording. Seems the bass notes might be fixed up.
the recording does sound a little boxy most likely due to the very small room.
Will have a proper listen when i get a chance and see if the 'wolf tone' bass notes are gone.

I have no idea how to 'hide' the sound of a small room

the recording does sound a little boxy most likely due to the very small room.

Maybe you over-did the absorption, and are killing the highs too much? Maybe you could think about slot walls, or even just plastic sheeting in front of the bass trapping?

Then again, it might just be the typical small-room sound...

It really would help to have photos and an accurate model of your room!

- Stuart -

i'll try get some pics up.

i heard about plastic sheeting but havn't looked into it
i looked into slot walls but got confused