"Acoustic Fields" - Mystery? Myth? Legend? Scam? Valid? You decide...

Maybe you've heard of "Fake News"? The same happens in the world of acoustics! Here's a place for discussing acoustic myths, legends, mysteries, "questionable" treatment, scams, hoaxes, and just plain old bad information about acoustics, sound, and audio.

The information and products promoted by the place mentioned in this post are:

Questionable: Sounds strange. Not convinced.
0
No votes
Mystery: I can't even understand him!
0
No votes
Myth: From the Twilight Zone! Not believable.
0
No votes
Snake-oil: Just out to make $$$. Not real acoustics
2
33%
Fake Acoustics!: Pure garbage. Total bunk.
0
No votes
All of the above.
4
67%
Fantastic! This is valid, solid, good acoustic stuff: Best place on the web! I plan to do everything they say when I build my studio, and I'll buy all of their products.
0
No votes
Undecided: Hard to say. I really don't know...
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 6

User avatar
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu, 2019-Sep-19, 22:58
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

"Acoustic Fields" - Mystery? Myth? Legend? Scam? Valid? You decide...

#1

Postby Soundman2020 » Thu, 2020-Jan-16, 16:56

Let's just throw this one out there, to see what people think.

https://www.acousticfields.com/

Suffice it to say that this is not held in high esteem by experts in the industry. I would say it's a good example of advice that you probably should NOT follow. Take a look around that place, and see how much actual valid real acoustic test information you can find on the products and videos. For example, see if you can find actual technical reports of tests done in reputable, independent acoustic test labs, that show how the devices work (or even if they work!). And see if you can find references to recognized research principles and established theory, regarding their advice and products. If you do find any of that, then post a link here: I'd be intrigued. I've looked and looked, and haven't found anything remotely like that... but maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places! :D




- Stuart -




User avatar
Starlight
Active Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed, 2019-Sep-25, 12:52
Location: UK & Slovakia, Europe

Re: Mystery? Myth? Legend? Scam? Valid? You decide...

#2

Postby Starlight » Sat, 2020-Jan-18, 09:52

Trying to list all the web sites and videos that contain bad science could drive you mad as there will be a never-ending stream of them. Debunking myths and mysteries in general is a positive thing.

John Brandt said, "I used to have a page on my site called the VooDoo page where I would expose bullshitters. The list got too long and it took too much of my time so I left it off the latest version of my website."



User avatar
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu, 2019-Sep-19, 22:58
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: "Acoustic Fields" Mystery Myth Legend Scam Valid You decide

#3

Postby Soundman2020 » Thu, 2020-Feb-06, 22:17

Jamesufus wrote:Sorry Stuart… pestering you for further advice here; and Ive only been on there forum for a day or so

You mention that my room has:
Soundman2020

? Your post seems to be incomplete!

- Stuart -



User avatar
Wheresthedug
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon, 2019-Sep-30, 13:43
Location: Glasgoe, Scotland

"Acoustic Fields" - Mystery? Myth? Legend? Scam? Valid? You decide...

#4

Postby Wheresthedug » Mon, 2020-May-18, 14:01

I have tried to watch a few of his videos but have never made it the whole way through any of them as they always sound like total BS.



User avatar
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu, 2019-Sep-19, 22:58
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

"Acoustic Fields" - Mystery? Myth? Legend? Scam? Valid? You decide...

#5

Postby Soundman2020 » Thu, 2020-May-28, 00:18

Wheresthedug wrote:I have tried to watch a few of his videos but have never made it the whole way through any of them as they always sound like total BS.
Can't argue with that! I think you'll find a lot of people that share your opinion. :)

- Stuart -



SoWhat
Active Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue, 2020-Jun-09, 12:13
Location: USA: Philadelphia

"Acoustic Fields" - Mystery? Myth? Legend? Scam? Valid? You decide...

#6

Postby SoWhat » Tue, 2020-Jun-09, 17:05

Reminds me of that great line in the Marx Brothers film Duck Soup:

Chico (on trial for treason) to Groucho (prosecuting him): "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes??!!"



terminator1987
New Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue, 2020-Jun-09, 20:36
Location: Poland

"Acoustic Fields" - Mystery? Myth? Legend? Scam? Valid? You decide...

#7

Postby terminator1987 » Mon, 2020-Jun-15, 05:22

Great news - they're hiring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwU_Hh5RItk
you can bring in some "fresh ideas", like real acoustic know-how for example :idea:

I was going to try and defend them a bit that, aside from marketing BS ("our technology is the best", "we didn't get a single return in 14 years" and "building insulation is unequivocally bad for your health unlike our organic carbon tech"), there are some truths and good advice from their videos, at least that I couldn't see A MAJOR hole in what they were basically saying through most videos (because small errors and inonsistencies were evident).

And then I encountered this recent video explaining their take on a $ 2M build of a home theater: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAIN3xTv8BI
There is so much wrong in this design both regarding desired sound isolation (the wall design ca. 3:30) and even the basic room dimensions (40x20x60' !!!). And those amroc room modes calculation shown without any knowledge about it on different frequency scales and those clueless answers to people pointing that out in the comments... I am instantly cured and disillusioned :mrgreen: However many people there in the comments still aren't... :? And that poor rich bastard who's gonna spend 2 mln dollars on that shit. Furthermore - with such amount of treatment, channels and space it will probably work decent enough so that most people won't know it could've been better (and cheaper).

Aside from all that - what do you all think about using activated carbon in bass traps? For me it of itself makes some sense - such an absorber would be of relatively high density (ca. 1/2 of the water, about 5 - 50 times more than fibrous insulation), while retaining low airflow resistivity and porosity (idk the actual number here, but we know you one breathe or vent air through activated carbon filters).

So the question is: Is it worth to invest in activated carbon absorber to treat axial modes of low frequency (30-50 Hz; the concept being of DIY'ing a MAM MDF cabinet of a desired resonance frequency and filling it partially, lets say 4" thick with carbon and the rest with low GFR insulation instead of filling the whole cabinet with insulation)? Comparing my local prices for materials it would be ca. 10x more expensive (for a volume of a 4" thick sheet - $10 vs. $100, even more for larger volumes).

Any thoughts on that?



User avatar
Soundman2020
Site Admin
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu, 2019-Sep-19, 22:58
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

"Acoustic Fields" - Mystery? Myth? Legend? Scam? Valid? You decide...

#8

Postby Soundman2020 » Mon, 2020-Jun-15, 16:21

aside from marketing BS ("our technology is the best", "we didn't get a single return in 14 years" and "building insulation is unequivocally bad for your health unlike our organic carbon tech"),
Yup. If somebody would blatantly lie about such obvious things, it's hard to trust them on anything else either! The only organization who never got a single return in 14 years, is probably the KGB... :)

Or maybe what they actually mean, is that no customer ever returned for a second purchase? That is rather more believable. Maybe I was just misunderstanding it...

...small errors and inonsistencies were evident
Very much so. A company that sells acoustic products and states on their plans that "MDF" stands for "Multiple Density Fiberboard" (I kid you not....) is likely going to be inconsistent about other things too.

And then I encountered this recent video explaining their take on a $ 2M build of a home theater
You made my day! I needed a good comedy show to watch this morning, and there it is...

There is so much wrong in this design both regarding desired sound isolation (the wall design ca. 3:30)
That was fun, wasn't it! And despite their claim that they never use building insulation, that curious "sandwich" specifies Owens Corning Sound Absorption Batts ("SAB") in the middle. Hmmmm...

And those amroc room modes calculation shown without any knowledge about it on different frequency scales and those clueless answers to people pointing that out in the comments... I am instantly cured and disillusioned
Congratulations! :) It doesn't take long for that to happen, when you start "looking under the hood", so to speak.

However many people there in the comments still aren't...
Unfortunately, there are a lot of misinformed people out there that just don't know enough to realize what the issues are here... it's not their fault: that's why the go to "acoustic" places! They WANT to find out stuff they don't know. It's just sad that the first place they find, they get mislead by such incredibly wrong information, instead of find the place that provide good, solid, correct information.


Aside from all that - what do you all think about using activated carbon in bass traps? For me it of itself makes some sense
Activated carbon actually does have some useful acoustic absorption properties. That much is true. Somewhere I have a couple of papers and some research on that. It is even used in some types of "ear defender" headsets, for industrial hearing protection. It's better than foam for that. However, in studios, it does not perform better than more traditional bass traps, and doesn't even get to the same level of efficiency. Then there's the cost, and the weight... it would have to be much, much better than other types of bass trap to be justifiable.

Comparing my local prices for materials it would be ca. 10x more expensive
And there you have it! It mostly certainly will not be ten times better, nor five times, nor even twice... To justify an increase of ten times in the cost, one would expect to have a rather substantial increase in performance. That isn't the case. There are already very good bass traps that can do the same job for a fraction of the price, and at a fraction of the weight: panel traps, limp membrane traps, Helmholtz resonators, even plain old porous absorption. All are proven to work at low frequencies, and to work effectively, at lower cost and lower weight. So there's no real benefit here... except to the pocket of the manufacturer!

Most home studio builders are looking for the lowest cost methods for implementing their studios: activated carbon is not in that category.

- Stuart -




  • Similar Topics
    Statistics
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests