Real Traps-Mondo Traps

[scottdru]

I love it when two vendors fight on the forum; makes me look for a third vendor to buy items from...

Greg, unfortunately, I have to say I absolutely understand and agree with your point here. I too hate to see vendors fight publicly on forums, and I've also spent a number of years as a forum moderator, so I've had the experience of dealing with it from that angle too (including some fights that are FAR worse than this, and that have raged for YEARS). It is ALWAYS bad, and invariably BOTH vendors end up looking like schmucks . . . even if one is more "in the right" than the other (which I'm not trying to imply is the case in this instance!). Nobody wins (even when one or the other "wins" the immediate argument), and EVERYBODY loses.

This entire thing got WAY out of hand, and I sincerely apologise for my part in that. For Glenn and I to argue publicly like we've done here is ENTIRELY inappropriate (Glenn and I agree 100% on this), and I think we were both out of line in various ways.

Glenn and I have now spoken on the phone, and worked this out between us; and we have agreed to work together from here on out to make sure something like this NEVER happens between us again.

I truly did not come here with any intention whatsoever to attack Glenn or his products, but I now understand a bit more why he took offense in the way he did. And at the same time I felt a little blindsided by having Glenn dig into me, especially in my first couple of posts here, and particularly given that there are some other sensitive issues here related to Ethan. So each of us were put in an awkward position. That's not an excuse, but it is basically what happened, and I think we both have a bit more understanding of each other's position now.

So once again, for my part in this, I apologise to Glenn, to the original poster, and to everyone else reading or taking part in this thread and having had to endure this garbage from us. And I promise I'll make all reasonable efforts on my part to make sure this NEVER happens again. And I'm confident Glenn will too.

And I will also point out that, despite our frustration with each other, when Glenn and I spoke over the phone I felt we were able to have a VERY good, healthy dialogue with an honest, two-way interaction. And that is something that a LOT of people don't do well. Glenn is a good guy, and, as I said before, my personal and professional experiences with him have otherwise been exemplary. And for those reasons I wouldn't hesitate to recommend him as someone who is good to do business with.

 

[ParadigmDawg]

Ok Glen and Scott; just send me 2 panels each and I will forgive you.

Glen, make certain you send me the new ones with the oak frame.

 

[Audioholics]

You guys keep writing these book-length, multi-post responses and having sissy fights and nobody's going to take acoustics seriously. Please don't take our willingness to allow commercial posting on the site for granted and don't abuse it.

 

[kiwiaudionut]

Hopefully, now those two have stopped arguing , we can get back to discussing the vagaries of building our own traps and diffusers. I'm interested in what people have tried as a "membrane" on the front surface of OC705. If I understand a post I read somewhere, there is a version called 705RK I think. This version has one face that is different and works somewhat like a panel with a membrane? - Do I have this right ?

 

[Glenn Kuras]

Hopefully, now those two have stopped arguing , we can get back to discussing the vagaries of building our own traps and diffusers. I'm interested in what people have tried as a "membrane" on the front surface of OC705. If I understand a post I read somewhere, there is a version called 705RK I think. This version has one face that is different and works somewhat like a panel with a membrane? - Do I have this right ?

Yep the fight is over. Scott and I planned the wedding for late spring.

Yes using something like FRK on the front of 705 will indeed act as a limp membrane. Not only will it keep some of the life in the room by reflection some of the highs, but will absorb a bit lower.. FRK though should not be used on early reflection panels.

Glenn

 

[scottdru]

Yep the fight is over. Scott and I planned the wedding for late spring.

We've even managed to agree on the china! We'll let everybody know next week where we're registered . . .


XOXOXOXO (I can't wait, Sweetcheeks!)

 

[Savant]

All,

I'm not looking to prolong this thread, but, for the sake of clarity, I would like to make it clear to all that both materials are mineral fibers. Glass is a mineral. Provided either material is (a) covered and (b) not placed in any sort of harsh chemical environment, neither will give home theater users any troubles...ever.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but they don't involve longevity and none of them are going to matter (at all) to the average purchaser of prefabricated home theater acoustical treatments.

If you're going to build your own acoustical panels, you may find that the mineral fiber is a little less prone to giving off airborne fibers, but both need to be handled with care. You're going to need a breathing mask and gloves either way. You may also find that the glass fiber panels are easier to cut and wrap, but if you're framing and covering the panels it probably won't matter. I could go on: There are advantages and disadvantages for each material for the DIY person consider, but longevity is not one of them.

Bottom line: Whether your acoustical products are made from rocks or glass, they will provide you years/decades of excellent acoustical control.

 

[Highlander]

...Glass is a mineral.

Actually, glass is a synthetic material whose principal constituent is a mineral.

 

[Savant]

Actually, glass is a synthetic material whose principal constituent is a mineral.

Um, no. Glass is a mineral. It can be natural or synthetic. It's "principal constituents" are silicon and oxygen, which are naturally occurring elements.

 

[Highlander]

Um, no. Glass is a mineral. It can be natural or synthetic. It's "principal constituents" are silicon and oxygen, which are naturally occurring elements.

I agree that glass can be naturally occurring or synthetic. However, leaving aside naturally occurring glass since in terms of room treatment I'm guessing it's the synthetic form being discussed here, then glass cannot be a mineral because it's a synthetic material. The principal constituent used in the production of glass is quartz, which is a mineral, though as you rightly note, quartz itself is chemically composed of the elements silicon and oxygen.

 

[Savant]

Robbie,

I am inferring from what you wrote that your issue is because the glass in question is synthetic, it cannot be classified as a mineral. My dictionary defines a mineral as natural or synthetic. I have never understood it to be otherwise.

Additionally, I spent close to a decade working the acousitcal product manufacturing biz. In that specific industry, glass fiber has always been considered a subset of mineral fiber materials. At least IME.

Additionally, the "mineral" in "mineral fiber" is also synthetic, which would make it not a "mineral" by your definition.

 

[Highlander]

I am inferring from what you wrote that your issue is because the glass in question is synthetic, it cannot be classified as a mineral.

Whether occurring naturally or otherwise, glass is the end result of a process. It is formed from the fusion of various materials, principally the mineral quartz with, in the case of synthetic glass, soda, lime and trace amounts of magnesia. Glass may be found in nature, but it is not a raw material. Hence the reason I do not consider glass a mineral.

...the "mineral" in "mineral fiber" is also synthetic, which would make it not a "mineral" by your definition.

Correct.

My dictionary defines a mineral as natural or synthetic.

Mine defines it as "any of the species into which inorganic substances are classified".

Does this mean I lose?

 

[Savant]

Mine defines it as "any of the species into which inorganic substances are classified".

Does this mean I lose?

Dunno. Look up "loser" in your dictionary and see if you qualify.