Trying the ZR Acoustics Panels

[Carlos269]

Carlos, what's really interesting for me right now is that I've just listened to a totally exemplary sound in a room that on the surface could have been really challenging (small, square, bay window), totally untreated...and a sound to die for.

If you were listening, to the system in that challenging room, in the “near field” that may explain it. Listening in the “near field” reduces the effects of the room’s acoustics to a large extent. Nearfield listening is forming an equilateral triangle between the speakers and the listening position. That is how I listen for the most part and my various rooms have never really concerned me. I do have some artificial diffusion created by equipment about but these also reflect for a very spacious presentation.

This is an interesting hobby, and one where if some claimed that their system sounds better with one finger up their nostrils then you would see people at home and at audio shows with one finger up their nostrils. Many like to jump on the bandwagon and suffer from fear of missing out and I think this goes for room treatment and room acoustics and I will leave that at that.

On a related topic, I noticed that the spatial image is better defined with my eyes open than it is with my eyes closed; try it and check it out yourself.

 

[hemiutut]

The ZR panels aren't diffusers. How they actually work was addressed in the thread - I'm not interested n rehashing it. I know how much more effective they are because I bought a few and did head to head comparisons with RPG BAD and GIK 242 and 244 panels. Anyone who is interested can do the same. Short of trying them comments about their cost effectiveness are purely speculation.

Hello
Does this room have measurements made with Room Eq Wizard for example?
Just curious to see the acoustics of it.

Written with translator.

Greetings

 

[RichDavis]

With the pandemic keeping me in the house much more than I'd like, I decided to remove, replace, retry, and validate all of the various tweaks (including acoustical treatments) I've added to my system/listening room over the years. My conclusion as a result of doing this over many months was that room acoustics was the weakest link. The sound is much more natural and dynamic with all of the RPG BAD panels you see in my listening room photo on the walls and ceiling, but I still hear too much reflected sound at the listening position This is particularly true at higher volume levels. When I replaced the two BAD combination panels behind the listening seat with absorbing panels the reflections vanished but the room sounded completely dead. Note that I do not have any obvious bass mode issues and have not tried traditional bass traps because of the space they take up.
So I decided to try the DHDI ZR Acoustics panels on the wall behind the speakers (initially). The two photos are of one of the ZR panels I just received. I was surprised to see how complex and intricately "carved" they are (see the closeup photo). I have not seen any scientific studies that prove or disprove the "Quantum Acoustics" claims behind the design of these panels. My decision to try them was a function of the large and growing number of well known recording studios and mastering labs that are using them (see: https://deltahdesign.com/portfolio/). My layman's understanding of the science is that the many tiny non-parallel surfaces that you can see in the photo below essentially diffuse air at the molecular level, preventing the formation of reflected sound waves. I don't have to know if the science behind them is 100% accurate or not. There are many other tweaks we can hear working but can't explain the science behind. If my ears tell me that they work that will be enough for me. I will post the results of my experience with these panels.

I read their information on their website, I personally think it's 99% hogwash but I'd have to look at before and after measurements and do my own listening tests.

I would think that if those things actually did anything, you'd need pretty much 100% wall coverage, not the postage stamp sized squares they sell.. adding a couple in a room isn't going to do enough..

 

[RichDavis]

I'm sorry, but the claims made, numerous, mean I won't ever be a customer. And I'm actually looking for a potential room treatments system to replace my basic GIK package.

I read up on the ZAcoustic marketing and I was actually more confused. they don't show any measurements of any of their products.

I'd look at what Acoustic Fields is doing. I've been in a demo room of theirs about 8 years ago. I just don't have a decent sized/shape room worth treating at the moment. So, I'm a headphone listener presently.

They have lots of options on integrating their designs into a room. You can buy pre-built units, or buy the build plans to DIY, etc. LOTS of options.

What I found from my years of looking at all of the products on the marketplace, that AF does have the pinnicle in low frequency absorption. You aren't going find anything better, at any price, than theirs. Their acoustic foam is really well designed, so it has a really nice natural absorption coefficient curve, and they deploy quadratic diffusors, which have been around for decades and is tried and true diffusion…. But what separates them is the advice on what to use, and where to placed within the room is what really makes it worthwhile investment...

When I heard their demo room, it was the most natural, the low end was extermemely tight, excellent decay, and the room seriously disappeared sonically. It makes a low end system sound like a high end system.. It's remarkable how much room acoustics plays into the final sound we're listening to.. Some think that room acoustics is 50% of what we hear, I think it might be even more important.

But, if you are looking for something to replace GIK, the most logical choice to me would be Acoustic Fields. They do not use building insulation, which is what 98% of the entire acoustic treatment industry uses for absorption.. I"ve already gone down the Auralex/Sonnex road and wasn't happy with their proprietary foams. There's a surgence in the use of BAD panels, but think it's a monkey see monkey do situation. They do look cool, but I think they might not be the best solution, especially how I see people use them. Why people stick them in the corners is beyond me..

You can talk to someone on this forum that build their own room using AF's design and products. he can tell you first hand what it sounds like to have a full sized, custom built room floor to ceiling.

 

[RichDavis]

If you were listening, to the system in that challenging room, in the “near field” that may explain it. Listening in the “near field” reduces the effects of the room’s acoustics to a large extent. Nearfield listening is forming an equilateral triangle between the speakers and the listening position. That is how I listen for the most part and my various rooms have never really concerned me. I do have some artificial diffusion created by equipment about but these also reflect for a very spacious presentation.

This is an interesting hobby, and one where if some claimed that their system sounds better with one finger up their nostrils then you would see people at home and at audio shows with one finger up their nostrils. Many like to jump on the bandwagon and suffer from fear of missing out and I think this goes for room treatment and room acoustics and I will leave that at that.

On a related topic, I noticed that the spatial image is better defined with my eyes open than it is with my eyes closed; try it and check it out yourself.

Yeah, quantum got me too.

The thing with nearfield listening is you still have to have speakers/listening position away from any side walls and ceiling. And a lot of people don't realize that they are still too close to a wall surface when they are doing near field listening. I think the minimum distance should be at least 3 or 4 fat away from any wall surface, otherwise you are going to get some SBIE issues..

And when doing near field monitors, careful selection in the speakers is needed too, since you're going to be only a few feet from them.

 

[RichDavis]

Next step is adding another 16 sf of ZR Acoustics panels behind the speakers - this time the "Hybrid" panels which add a thin (1/4" - 1/2" thick) layer of absorptive material and fabric covering to panels like the ones in the photo of my listening room (on the left of this post). The hybrid panels may actually go directly behind the speakers with the original ones being moved higher up on the wall. As I understand the technical explanation the absorption acts on the air quantized by the underlying panels - not on sound waves like conventional panels. Ultimately I may also add ZR panels in the gaps in the middle of the wall and below the existing panels, and on the side walls next to each speaker. Studio implementations (the company's focus) all show a mix of the bare and covered panels (example below):View attachment 72925

Sounds like someone is just selling strange looking that's scattering the sound in a certain way.... I'd like to see measurements to see if they do anything to low frequencies below 100hz because I doubt a panel that's only an inch thick with grooves in them that are only less than an inch thick is going to do $%#@ to low frequencies which are pressure based…. I'm sure they do something to frequencies above 125hz, but what they do has to be proven with actual measurements. I would think one would need 100% wall coverage to really be effective, otherwise you're using standard reflections and quantum (being sarcastic) at the same time and that's just going to sound confusing. In the photo, they are doing near field monitoring, so they might be able to get away with less treatment.

 

[RichDavis]

Here is a photo that shows the side wall and ceiling panels that remain - the ZR Acoustics panels will be on the wall behind the speakers only at least initially. View attachment 72894

Have you done any room measurements? What's the dimensions of your room? LxWxH? I'm worried that your room might have a lot of low frequency problems below 100hz that those panels are not going to do anything to solve low frequency problems and the dimensions look like you might have a lot of coincidental modes because the width and height look almost the same dimensions.. Another obvious thing is having your gear in between the speakers. you want to have as much "free space" otherwise you'll get SBIE (Speaker Boundary Interference Effect) with your gear placed in between the speakers..

 

[RichDavis]

Listened extensively last night and my wife provided a test of the panels beyond anything I had conceived. She plugged her i-phone into the usb port on the front of the Modwright-Marantz SA8005 and played/danced to Hip-Hop and R&B at foundation shaking volume levels for several hours. I would say that she had the volume at least twice as high as I've ever had it and to my surprise the sound quality was good (given the source). More significantly everything stayed balanced and the reflection-induced distortions that would have made the music un-listenable at that volume level with the RPG and Gik Acoustics panels were absent. The ZR panels on the wall behind the speakers are incredible - in a whole different league from any conventional absorptive/diffusive treatment I've tried, and better than with the ASI resonators.View attachment 72923

That's not a lot of wall coverage for treatment. With just 4 panels, you're just treating a VERY small percentage of the wall surfaces in the room. How close to the front wall are your speakers? Have you tried puling them out about 3 to 4 feet away from the rear wall? Those panels aren't going to do anything below 100hz, either…. Have you done any room measurements using something like Room Wizard or other similar software to see what's going on in the room?

 

[RichDavis]

With the pandemic keeping me in the house much more than I'd like, I decided to remove, replace, retry, and validate all of the various tweaks (including acoustical treatments) I've added to my system/listening room over the years. My conclusion as a result of doing this over many months was that room acoustics was the weakest link. The sound is much more natural and dynamic with all of the RPG BAD panels you see in my listening room photo on the walls and ceiling, but I still hear too much reflected sound at the listening position This is particularly true at higher volume levels. When I replaced the two BAD combination panels behind the listening seat with absorbing panels the reflections vanished but the room sounded completely dead. Note that I do not have any obvious bass mode issues and have not tried traditional bass traps because of the space they take up.
So I decided to try the DHDI ZR Acoustics panels on the wall behind the speakers (initially). The two photos are of one of the ZR panels I just received. I was surprised to see how complex and intricately "carved" they are (see the closeup photo). I have not seen any scientific studies that prove or disprove the "Quantum Acoustics" claims behind the design of these panels. My decision to try them was a function of the large and growing number of well known recording studios and mastering labs that are using them (see: https://deltahdesign.com/portfolio/). My layman's understanding of the science is that the many tiny non-parallel surfaces that you can see in the photo below essentially diffuse air at the molecular level, preventing the formation of reflected sound waves. I don't have to know if the science behind them is 100% accurate or not. There are many other tweaks we can hear working but can't explain the science behind. If my ears tell me that they work that will be enough for me. I will post the results of my experience with these panels.

With diffusion, there are something like 5 or 6 requirements for a true diffused sound, but to get anything that's going to do anything in the low frequency range, they have to be rather deep. I can only see these things being effective (at some level) to more higher frequencies than lower mid range to low frequencies.

I just think this Quantum Acoustics is more nonsense than actual science and physics, plus room coverage is another issue. Sound reflects off of all of the room's surfaces, and surface coverage is important.

How do you know you don't have any bass mode problems? The size of the room shows otherwise, unless you have really thick walls where the low frequency absorption is built into the walls and ceiling, but you'd have to have walls that were at least 12 or more inches deep.

 

[Cellcbern]

Not rehashing this - addressed what I did and didn't do, and what I heard and learned in the 11 page thread.

Read it...or don't.

 

[benito]

I was looking with a scientist browser (sciencedirect.com) about Quatum Acoustic. Yes that exists for some frequencies over 3GHz, far away that we are able to hear. ZrAcoustic writing is just bullshit. Nevertheless during my surfing, I discovered MetaSurface. As everyone here, I supposed that a device that will be able to influence sound must be of the order of the size of the wavelength. With MetaSurface, they work a subwavelength scale. On the following link (Metasurface Schroeder Diffuser is 10 Times Thinner Than Usual) the depth of the diffusor is the wavelength divided by 20. Unfortunetly, the width of the pseudo Helmotz generator is the wavelength divided by 2 and the Metasurface Schroeder diffuser are more frequency selective that a classical one.

Another paper of interest is a review in Nature (Here, and the full paper here) where the authors show what cab be achieved with subwavelength devices, awesome!!

Coming back about ZrAcoustic panels, ZrAcoustic are not able to speak on what they are doing. I guess that they designed their panels by try error strategies. That is not mean they do not work for me (Internal combustion engine has been developped without any computations). Compared to the computations made by Schroeder to design his diffusor (plane incoming waves), interaction between spherical waves (speakers in contact with the diffusor) and a simple wall is quite more difficult to compute. I read about and I ve got a headache. I do not think what will be with a panel like the ZrAcoustic or a classical Schroeder diffusor.

Anyway,Cellcbern have you been able to record?

 

[RichDavis]

Not rehashing this - addressed what I did and didn't do, and what I heard and learned in the 11 page thread.

Read it...or don't.

What's in the panels they have covered with fabric? What material are they using?

 

[Cellcbern]

What's in the panels they have covered with fabric? What material are they using?

Not doing any more explaining or describing with regard to the ZR panels. Read the thread or check the links below.

The Fifth Element #90

As a film title, Quantizing Hanson Hsu might not rank up there with Kissing Jessica Stein, but we work with what we have to work with. Hanson Hsu is the principal designer at Delta H Design, Inc., an acoustics and architecture firm based in Marina del Rey, California. Though he dabbles in some...

www.stereophile.com

Technology - Mixonline

True WMAS technology simplifies live audio productions by putting multichannel system into a 1U rack unit.

www.prosoundnetwork.com

McGill University

Multi Grammy Award-winning Engineer and Producer Richard King, and recording engineer program founder Wieslaw Woszczyk of McGill’s schulich School of Music chose ZR Acoustics’ quantum technology for the renovation of control room A. One of the oldest and well-respected Tone-Meister inspired...

deltahdesign.com

 

[RichDavis]

Not doing any more explaining or describing with regard to the ZR panels. Read the thread or check the links below.

The Fifth Element #90

As a film title, Quantizing Hanson Hsu might not rank up there with Kissing Jessica Stein, but we work with what we have to work with. Hanson Hsu is the principal designer at Delta H Design, Inc., an acoustics and architecture firm based in Marina del Rey, California. Though he dabbles in some...

www.stereophile.com

Technology - Mixonline

True WMAS technology simplifies live audio productions by putting multichannel system into a 1U rack unit.

www.prosoundnetwork.com

McGill University

Multi Grammy Award-winning Engineer and Producer Richard King, and recording engineer program founder Wieslaw Woszczyk of McGill’s schulich School of Music chose ZR Acoustics’ quantum technology for the renovation of control room A. One of the oldest and well-respected Tone-Meister inspired...

deltahdesign.com

That doesn't mean there aren't better alternatives. Lots of well name recording studios use building insulation based products, which I can't stand having had many years of experience with various types of rooms (recording studios, listening rooms), yet they are widely used.. Listening a Grammy Award winning engineer means absolutely nothing to me. Grammy's isn't exactly what I would consider anything other than a big marketing fest for the music industry and it's based on who actually votes, and nothing more.. I can list other Grammy Award winning engineers that don't use their products that use building insulation., Which I don't care for either...

Those that are using ZR Acoustic probably haven't tried everything on the market….

As Benito eloquently said, Quantum Acoustics is really for VERY high frequencies in the 3Ghz range, hardly anything we can hear in our listening rooms.

I'm sure their products does something, and for me or others to actually have an idea of what they are doing, they would have to provide measurements. For absorption, there are absorption coefficient measurements that most legitimate companies provide……. One can compare products based on their absorption coefficient curves. As far as midrange/high frequency absorption in the 125hz and above, the major difference from one product to another Is in the 125hz to 500hz, most products are relatively equal above 500hz, and below 125hz, you need a pressure band absorption and that's where there are major differences in product to product.

As far as low frequency absorption, based on the depth of their products, I highly doubt they are doing anything in the 100hz and below range….. Their carved products are doing some sort of scattering, but I would have to see if they comply with a true diffusor as there are requirements to create a true diffused sound field and the only ones that I know of that do meet those requirements are quadratic… Example. to go down to 100hz Diffusor, a Quadratic Diffusor would have to be something like 3ft deep. Something 99% of the rooms simply don't have enough room to have large diffusors like that. But they can have diffusors up to Prime 23, which are about 17 inches deep, but they go down to about 185hz. But the ZR Acoustic product is less than 2 inch deep, which tells me it's NOT doing anything in the lower frequency range. I'd have to see some sort of measurement that PROVES what frequency range it is designed for..

All I can say is, when a company makes a acoustic treatment product that's designed for architecture, it usually doesn't mean it's going to be best for room acoustics. The room doesn't care about esthetics, only women (WAF) and people that are into architecture care about esthetics, but one is going to take precedence over the other.. RPG makes a lot of esthetically pleasing products now after Peter D'Antonio sold the company, because they want to cater to customers that aren't going critical listening, ie. a hotel, restaurant, etc. They aren't critical listening environments.

what really disappoints me is ZR's lack of measurements on their products and reading the information just oozes of BS, and word salad to confuse and impress those that are gullible. I heard some of their YouTube recordings and some did NOT impress me at all, especially in the low frequency range….

Sorry if I am bursting your bubble. I just don't care for companies that sell and market BS products that don't provide measurements.

 

[benito]

I'm sure their products does something, and for me or others to actually have an idea of what they are doing, they would have to provide measurements. For absorption, there are absorption coefficient measurements that most legitimate companies provide……. One can compare products based on their absorption coefficient curves. As far as midrange/high frequency absorption in the 125hz and above, the major difference from one product to another Is in the 125hz to 500hz, most products are relatively equal above 500hz, and below 125hz, you need a pressure band absorption and that's where there are major differences in product to product.

To defend ZrAcoustic, I guess that measurements when the speaker (source) is close to the diffusor are more difficult to achieve than when speaker is far away. The small drawing below explain it easely.

I wrote on MetaSurface because the recent works on them show that a subwavelength devices can really affect the sound and let me think that ZrAcoustic panels work. I just regret that their explanations are completly wrong.

I can not resist to show what I found on metasurface absorbers:

 

[Cellcbern]

That doesn't mean there aren't better alternatives. Lots of well name recording studios use building insulation based products, which I can't stand having had many years of experience with various types of rooms (recording studios, listening rooms), yet they are widely used.. Listening a Grammy Award winning engineer means absolutely nothing to me. Grammy's isn't exactly what I would consider anything other than a big marketing fest for the music industry and it's based on who actually votes, and nothing more.. I can list other Grammy Award winning engineers that don't use their products that use building insulation., Which I don't care for either...

Those that are using ZR Acoustic probably haven't tried everything on the market….

As Benito eloquently said, Quantum Acoustics is really for VERY high frequencies in the 3Ghz range, hardly anything we can hear in our listening rooms.

I'm sure their products does something, and for me or others to actually have an idea of what they are doing, they would have to provide measurements. For absorption, there are absorption coefficient measurements that most legitimate companies provide……. One can compare products based on their absorption coefficient curves. As far as midrange/high frequency absorption in the 125hz and above, the major difference from one product to another Is in the 125hz to 500hz, most products are relatively equal above 500hz, and below 125hz, you need a pressure band absorption and that's where there are major differences in product to product.

As far as low frequency absorption, based on the depth of their products, I highly doubt they are doing anything in the 100hz and below range….. Their carved products are doing some sort of scattering, but I would have to see if they comply with a true diffusor as there are requirements to create a true diffused sound field and the only ones that I know of that do meet those requirements are quadratic… Example. to go down to 100hz Diffusor, a Quadratic Diffusor would have to be something like 3ft deep. Something 99% of the rooms simply don't have enough room to have large diffusors like that. But they can have diffusors up to Prime 23, which are about 17 inches deep, but they go down to about 185hz. But the ZR Acoustic product is less than 2 inch deep, which tells me it's NOT doing anything in the lower frequency range. I'd have to see some sort of measurement that PROVES what frequency range it is designed for..

All I can say is, when a company makes a acoustic treatment product that's designed for architecture, it usually doesn't mean it's going to be best for room acoustics. The room doesn't care about esthetics, only women (WAF) and people that are into architecture care about esthetics, but one is going to take precedence over the other.. RPG makes a lot of esthetically pleasing products now after Peter D'Antonio sold the company, because they want to cater to customers that aren't going critical listening, ie. a hotel, restaurant, etc. They aren't critical listening environments.

what really disappoints me is ZR's lack of measurements on their products and reading the information just oozes of BS, and word salad to confuse and impress those that are gullible. I heard some of their YouTube recordings and some did NOT impress me at all, especially in the low frequency range….

Sorry if I am bursting your bubble. I just don't care for companies that sell and market BS products that don't provide measurements.

How could you be "busting my bubble"?

1) As I've documented, I already satisfied myself as to what the ZR panels can do and I am THRILLED with their performance in my listening room.

2) I don't give a rat's ass what you think (based on no experience with their technology) about DHDI/ZR or what you "care for from a company".

By the way, the issues you raise were raised previously and responded to in the thread. Nothing new - just another pointless attempt to apply conventional acoustical concepts and terminology to a new technology that doesn't absorb, trap, or diffuse.

 

[Cellcbern]

To defend ZrAcoustic, I guess that measurements when the speaker (source) is close to the diffusor are more difficult to achieve than when speaker is far away. The small drawing below explain it easely.
View attachment 84872
I wrote on MetaSurface because the recent works on them show that a subwavelength devices can really affect the sound and let me think that ZrAcoustic panels work. I just regret that their explanations are completly wrong.

I can not resist to show what I found on metasurface absorbers:
View attachment 84873
View attachment 84874

Not interested in speculation about how the ZR panels might work, and don't have a need to try to force fit the concepts and terminology of conventional room acoustics on what is clearly a completely different and disruptive technology as many posters who can't get their head around it seem to. By the way, it doesn't look like DHDI needs defending. If you look at the client list it looks like they are pretty successful. In fact it looks like they are the leading and most sought after firm in the field right now.

 

[spiritofmusic]

How could you be "busting my bubble"?

1) As I've documented, I already satisfied myself as to what the ZR panels can do and am THRILLED with their performance in my listening room.

2) I don't give a rat's ass what you think (based on no experience) about DHDI/ZR or what you "care for from a company".

By the way, the issues you raise were raised previously and responded to in the thread.

I guess having your bubble busted is better than the same happening to your arse Lol.

 

[cal3713]

To defend ZrAcoustic, I guess that measurements when the speaker (source) is close to the diffusor are more difficult to achieve than when speaker is far away. The small drawing below explain it easely.
View attachment 84872
I wrote on MetaSurface because the recent works on them show that a subwavelength devices can really affect the sound and let me think that ZrAcoustic panels work. I just regret that their explanations are completly wrong.

I can not resist to show what I found on metasurface absorbers:
View attachment 84873
View attachment 84874

Given that ZR acoustics has a pliable membrane solution that can be used in drapery, it would be beyond easy for them to put a curtain treatment directly over the speaker and give us before and after measurements. If the product really does what it says, there should be a substantial drop in dB across the frequency spectrum.

As I suggested in an earlier comment, shooting a youtube video in which the drape is repeatedly dropped onto the speaker and then removed would allow viewers to directly experience the product's efficacy. A super simple and easy marketing video. Assuming it worked, such a video would surely sell the product.

 

[Cellcbern]

Given that ZR acoustics has a pliable membrane solution that can be used in drapery, it would be beyond easy for them to put a curtain treatment directly over the speaker and give us before and after measurements. If the product really does what it says, there should be a substantial drop in dB across the frequency spectrum.

As I suggested in an earlier comment, shooting a youtube video in which the drape is repeatedly dropped onto the speaker and then removed would allow viewers to directly experience the product's efficacy. A super simple and easy marketing video. Assuming it worked, such a video would surely sell the product.

You may be right. Perhaps you should suggest that to DHDI. However keep in mind that they are an architectural firm that works based on signed contracts and NDA's. While there is a price list on their website and they will sell you some of their panels in small quantities if you call them, their business is overwhelmingly in the commercial/pro audio space. Again, I stumbled on their panels, bought a few to try, and shared my experiences on this forum. Given their huge, high end client list (95 customer summaries currently on their web page) I suspect that much of their business comes word of mouth at this point so I'm not sure they'd have any motivation to pursue the kind of marketing demonstration you've described. I also don't see why, given their business model, they would have much interest in providing measurements of their products' perofrmance to anyone other than clients who've signed NDA's. Why provide insights into trade secrets if you don't have to?