Trying the ZR Acoustics Panels

RockinRobin

New Member
Apr 4, 2023
1
0
1
34
What's the consensus on DHDI products, 2 years later? They still seem quite obscure, which reminds me of the SMT wings panels.

Anyone has had new epxrience with it to share?
 

Cellcbern

VIP/Donor
Jul 30, 2015
1,222
727
585
70
Washington, DC
What's the consensus on DHDI products, 2 years later? They still seem quite obscure, which reminds me of the SMT wings panels.

Anyone has had new epxrience with it to share?
Consensus? I remain the only one to post that I've fully deployed them (i.e., to DHDI's mimum recommended sf coverage) and continue to be thrilled with their performance. Plan to add a few more panels as resources permit. I recall that one other person posted that they had tried a few but well short of minimal coverage, and an audio dealer posted that he had used them with good results in his shop. That's it - if anyone else has tried them they haven't reported on it, or I missed it. Surprising to me - I would have expected that more people would have experimented with them. They are obscure in the home audiophile market which DHDI doesn't market to - obviously not obscure in the pro audio market they were designed for.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Link

Tim Link

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
271
182
128
55
Consensus? I remain the only one to post that I've fully deployed them (i.e., to DHDI's mimum recommended sf coverage) and continue to be thrilled with their performance. Plan to add a few more panels as resources permit. I recall that one other person posted that they had tried a few but well short of minimal coverage, and an audio dealer posted that he had used them with good results in his shop. That's it - if anyone else has tried them they haven't reported on it, or I missed it. Surprising to me - I would have expected that more people would have experimented with them. They are obscure in the home audiophile market which DHDI doesn't market to - obviously not obscure in the pro audio market they were designed for.

They should send these things up to NWAA labs in Washington and get them tested. If they absorb bass the lab report will undoubtedly show it. They can't lose. A pro client list is great, but what's the harm in getting some performance data?
 

Cellcbern

VIP/Donor
Jul 30, 2015
1,222
727
585
70
Washington, DC
They should send these things up to NWAA labs in Washington and get them tested. If they absorb bass the lab report will undoubtedly show it. They can't lose. A pro client list is great, but what's the harm in getting some performance data?
Again, DHDI is an architectural firm who developed the ZR panels for use in the recording, mastering, and other facilities they design or retrofit. My understanding is that clients who engage them get all of the measurements they could want. Clients also have to sign an NDA which suggests that DHDI may feel that sharing measured data may reveal trade secrets. A pro client list is more than "great" for them - it is the focus of their business. And at the risk of repeating myself it is pretty obvious that if their technology didn't work they wouldn't have the pro client list that they have. Since they don't market to audiophiles it appears they have no interest in providing the kind of performance data that audiophiles would like to see. Again, I stumbled on the review in Stereophile (which they did not share performance data with), ordered a couple of their panels to experiment with, and was surprised at how much better they were than the conventional room treatments I had been using. It appears that my willingness to experiment in this way is rare among audiophiles. I shared my direct experience with the ZR panels with this forum and received nothing but naysaying and skepticism from people with no direct experience with them. I repeatedly had my intelligence insulted by people who felt the need to review "Room Acoustics 101" with me. I am happy with the DHDI products and at this point don't care if anyone else tries them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Link

Tim Link

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
271
182
128
55
I think I agree with you, after reading a long post by someone who read and seemed to understand one of his patents. The measurements won't impress in the bass region for sure - I'd bet money on that, hence no need to measure. Their mid and treble scattering have got to be pretty decent by the numbers, so the exact quality of the sonic effect of the curving the wells, their specific shape, and material porosity is probably best heard. I trust your description of the subjective improvements they are making. No doubt these improve the sound in ways people need them to, and their professional clients get the information they need. What I don't see are any clients of theirs that are raving about the products. Do they get any unpaid endorsements from famous industry people who are so pleased they just can't stop talking about it? I know of an acoustics company that does get those kinds of endorsements. It may be that they don't work so much directly with musicians and mixing/mastering artists, but more with contractors and technicians.
I will admit that most of our professional and amateur clients don't request product measurements. Some do though, and we like to see solid numbers to back up our predicted response, so we have been getting our products tested up an NWAA labs, which is an amazing facility. They also can test speakers and subwoofers up there - not in an anechoic chamber but a free field chamber, all the way down to 20Hz. It's that big!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkusBarkus

Cellcbern

VIP/Donor
Jul 30, 2015
1,222
727
585
70
Washington, DC
I think I agree with you, after reading a long post by someone who read and seemed to understand one of his patents. The measurements won't impress in the bass region for sure - I'd bet money on that, hence no need to measure. Their mid and treble scattering have got to be pretty decent by the numbers, so the exact quality of the sonic effect of the curving the wells, their specific shape, and material porosity is probably best heard. I trust your description of the subjective improvements they are making. No doubt these improve the sound in ways people need them to, and their professional clients get the information they need. What I don't see are any clients of theirs that are raving about the products. Do they get any unpaid endorsements from famous industry people who are so pleased they just can't stop talking about it? I know of an acoustics company that does get those kinds of endorsements. It may be that they don't work so much directly with musicians and mixing/mastering artists, but more with contractors and technicians.
I will admit that most of our professional and amateur clients don't request product measurements. Some do though, and we like to see solid numbers to back up our predicted response, so we have been getting our products tested up an NWAA labs, which is an amazing facility. They also can test speakers and subwoofers up there - not in an anechoic chamber but a free field chamber, all the way down to 20Hz. It's that big!
 

cal3713

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2020
350
384
135
45
youtube.com
I don't think people are doubting your successful experience, just that they're turned off by the company's misleading marketing materials.

For example, I never recommend Coincident products to people, despite loving some of their gear... just because the owner often lies in his product literature. For me there are just too many options out there to support people with business practices like that.

Regardless, it's great that you've had such a good outcome. And like I said, I don't doubt your experience at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkusBarkus

Cellcbern

VIP/Donor
Jul 30, 2015
1,222
727
585
70
Washington, DC
FYI - DHDI "ZR Screens" (similar geometry and thickness as the "Sample Rate" and "Hybrid" panels in my listening room) being used with huge stadium speakers/subwoofers at the demo of the "Aerowave" system at NAMM:




 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Link

Cellcbern

VIP/Donor
Jul 30, 2015
1,222
727
585
70
Washington, DC
I think I agree with you, after reading a long post by someone who read and seemed to understand one of his patents. The measurements won't impress in the bass region for sure - I'd bet money on that, hence no need to measure. Their mid and treble scattering have got to be pretty decent by the numbers, so the exact quality of the sonic effect of the curving the wells, their specific shape, and material porosity is probably best heard. I trust your description of the subjective improvements they are making. No doubt these improve the sound in ways people need them to, and their professional clients get the information they need. What I don't see are any clients of theirs that are raving about the products. Do they get any unpaid endorsements from famous industry people who are so pleased they just can't stop talking about it? I know of an acoustics company that does get those kinds of endorsements. It may be that they don't work so much directly with musicians and mixing/mastering artists, but more with contractors and technicians.
I will admit that most of our professional and amateur clients don't request product measurements. Some do though, and we like to see solid numbers to back up our predicted response, so we have been getting our products tested up an NWAA labs, which is an amazing facility. They also can test speakers and subwoofers up there - not in an anechoic chamber but a free field chamber, all the way down to 20Hz. It's that big!
The patent I am aware of is for an earlier version of the panels (link below). The current panels (as in the photo of my listening room) are a 2nd (3rd?) generation advance over what was patented (i.e., a different and more effective geometry for creating large numbers of non-parallel surfaces in a small area):

FYI: https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/9845598

Note that the DHDI website's explanation of how the panels work, that so many posters seem to have trouble with (including that they act on the air that sound rides on at the molecular level), is from the patent - not just marketing spin unrelated to the invention.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Link

Tim Link

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
271
182
128
55
The patent I am aware of is for an earlier version of the panels (link below). The current panels (as in the photo of my listening room) are a 2nd (3rd?) generation advance over what was patented (i.e., a different and more effective geometry for creating large numbers of non-parallel surfaces in a small area):

FYI: https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/9845598

Note that the DHDI website's explanation of how the panels work, that so many posters seem to have trouble with (including that they act on the air that sound rides on at the molecular level), is from the patent - not just marketing spin unrelated to the invention.
I did my best to read and understand this patent. The part about the acoustic resolution being increased 7,000 to 15,000 times is something I don't understand the meaning of, as is the comparison of 48kHz sampling rate to 192kHz sampling rate being conservatively rated as a 100% increase by industry professionals. I assume this means perceptually since the actual informational resolution is 400% more. Whether any DAC can actually produce all that potential resolution, and any speaker can reproduce it with a decent dispersion pattern is another question. At least there's some kind of performance claim being made, which is what I am most curious about. The wall to wall sweet spot is a term I've seen before, but the term "sweet spot" is not well defined here. I assume this to mean the room will not be coloring the response over the claimed area, since obviously the timing and level of the left and right speakers is going to be off if not directly between them.
 

Cellcbern

VIP/Donor
Jul 30, 2015
1,222
727
585
70
Washington, DC
I did my best to read and understand this patent. The part about the acoustic resolution being increased 7,000 to 15,000 times is something I don't understand the meaning of, as is the comparison of 48kHz sampling rate to 192kHz sampling rate being conservatively rated as a 100% increase by industry professionals. I assume this means perceptually since the actual informational resolution is 400% more. Whether any DAC can actually produce all that potential resolution, and any speaker can reproduce it with a decent dispersion pattern is another question. At least there's some kind of performance claim being made, which is what I am most curious about. The wall to wall sweet spot is a term I've seen before, but the term "sweet spot" is not well defined here. I assume this to mean the room will not be coloring the response over the claimed area, since obviously the timing and level of the left and right speakers is going to be off if not directly between them.
"Wall to wall sweet spot" means there isn't a traditional sweet spot, i.e., a small area where everything sounds best. Rather, it sounds consistently good in almost every part of the room. I experienced this with just 16 sf of "Sample Rate" panels up in my room, and the Stereophile reviewer found the same thing. That 16 SF of ZR panels also gave me tighter, more articulate bass and outperformed my Tube Traps which I sold as a result. DHDI isn't sharing low frequency measurements, but again, I don't think their pro audio clients have decided to live with bass modes. What I've heard is that the panels themselves deal with frequencies down to below 40 hz. In studio applications they are mounted over fiberglass and/or acoustic drywall which is needed for soundproofing anyway, so this probably helps with frequencies below 40 hz. The implication is that in these studio applications the 1" ZR panels on top of several inches of acoustic drywall and/or fiberglass (less than 7" total) matches the low frequency performance of 12"-14" bass traps.

FYI: https://pabcogypsum.com/resources/project-showcase/universal-music-group/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Link

Tim Link

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
271
182
128
55
"Wall to wall sweet spot" means there isn't a traditional sweet spot, i.e., a small area where everything sounds best. Rather, it sounds consistently good in almost every part of the room. I experienced this with just 16 sf of "Sample Rate" panels up in my room, and the Stereophile reviewer found the same thing. That 16 SF of ZR panels also gave me tighter, more articulate bass and outperformed my Tube Traps which I sold as a result. DHDI isn't sharing low frequency measurements, but again, I don't think their pro audio clients have decided to live with bass modes. What I've heard is that the panels themselves deal with frequencies down to below 40 hz. In studio applications they are mounted over fiberglass and/or acoustic drywall which is needed for soundproofing anyway, so this probably helps with frequencies below 40 hz. The implication is that in these studio applications the 1" ZR panels on top of several inches of acoustic drywall and/or fiberglass (less than 7" total) matches the low frequency performance of 12"-14" bass traps.

FYI: https://pabcogypsum.com/resources/project-showcase/universal-music-group/
So the imaging stays the same everywhere in the room? They may indeed have a breakthrough, disruptive product here, but it's going to be up to them to decide how much of an impact they want to try to make with it outside of professional recording venues. I think you've done your part in spreading the word about it's efficacy in a home listening environment. Maybe they're like Spectral, not particularly interested in growing their market much. Not all companies try to grab a huge market share. There's a lot of risk in trying to grow.
 

Cellcbern

VIP/Donor
Jul 30, 2015
1,222
727
585
70
Washington, DC
So the imaging stays the same everywhere in the room? They may indeed have a breakthrough, disruptive product here, but it's going to be up to them to decide how much of an impact they want to try to make with it outside of professional recording venues. I think you've done your part in spreading the word about it's efficacy in a home listening environment. Maybe they're like Spectral, not particularly interested in growing their market much. Not all companies try to grab a huge market share. There's a lot of risk in trying to grow.
Pretty much.

No more than token efforts (e.g., the Stereophile review) on the home audio side to date. And of course DHDI is an architectural firm which probably results in a different perspective than a straight acoustical consultant/manufacturer.
 
Last edited:

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing