Quote:

I actually see a good improvement to Mr. Helms results, the range from high to low dB's has been reduced across the entire spectrum. Many of the severe drops/nulls have been tamed.


SirQ, this is what from a scientific perspective one may call significant results without any significance.
Yes, he's changed something in his graphs since he added those traps, but tamed? Hardly. He even created a dip while eliminating another (see the 85-110Hz range).
There is still a huge spread >10dB for several points. The fact this may have decreased from a 15dB spread means little. If he had taken a 5dB dip and turned it into a 2dB dip, or at least chopped each of those major dips in half, then i would be far more inclined to agree about the significance of his efforts.
My point is that for the time, money and effort spent using these traps. he could've bought a Berhringer FD instead and made the line alot more flat. Maybe he just likes to build things for his HT, like a project that never ends. I certainly would not point anyone looking to fix up their room sonically towards ideas that really are not effective or concepts for which a great deal of work is required to utilize the idea correctly.

There is a ton of time spent on determining things like nodes and lulls in a room. People bang their heads over it for years and come up with tons of hypothetical solutions, but if this is the level of effectiveness one can expect from bass traps, sound bars, [insert name of product here], i think the solutions need alot more work.
I had a grandfather who used to like to paint his barn every year. It didn't need the paint, he just wanted to paint it.

"Those who preach the myths of audio are ignorant of truth."