I just had a crazy idea. No idea if it will work. Wondering if anyone has any experience.
I was thinking, what about a 5 gal water container in each corner of the listening room to act as bass traps.
If I started with two, would it be best on front wall or back wall?
Thanks
TD
A few dozen of Wine and beer bottles (space them a few inches apart from each other of course) do not work either in case anyone wants to try.
I bet a larrge wine rack behind listening position would be a hell of a diffuser not to mention save a few paces and provide stress relief to boot 
The problem wouldnât be the water, but the container itâs housed in.
I think itâs an interesting idea. The responses show that absorbtion of bass and diffusion of higher frequencies are being conflated/confused. What works on long bass waves is large volumes of dense material that slows the bass down, so on the face of it, it seems like water might fit the bill. But there is that point about it being a good transmitter of soundđ¤ Could also end up becoming a resonator, which wouldnât be good. Somehow, though - Iâd think big containers of water should slow bass down more than nothing/air.
What form the containers take, and what they are made of might certainly impact reflection/diffusion of higher frequencies, but that could be mitigated by putting absorbtive panels or material in front of/around it. Whatever it might do to the bass would still happen through that.
To do a reasonable experiment that has a chance of efficacy though, I think would require say, (18) 5 gallon bottles, (2) sets of (9) stacked three high in sets of three in each front corner. Likely need a sheet of plywood between each, or some form of sturdy shelving, since all that water will get pretty heavy on the bottom layer. 375 lbs. or so total. Wouldnât want any accidents around the electronicsđł
So if you have access to lots of 5 gallon containers, or buy lots of your water in that form, go for it and let us know. I donât think the effect of a single container would be even measurable in terms of bass. You do need âextraâ real estate in your room to mitigate bass effectively. Thatâs why most use corners, not necessarily because it is the best spot for it acoustically, but because youâre often not using it, and big bass absorbers are inconvenient or impractical elsewhere. Your worst bass node might in fact be some distance out from the corner along the wall.
Having said all this, I would also think that if it did work, acousticians would have figured it out befoređ¤ˇđťââď¸ Still - Iâd be curious what the actual effect would be on bass absorbtion and room acoustics.
You would basically be constructing a drum as the water volume needs to be contained. The volume/container construction would have a resonant frequency. To be an absorber, I think that device would need to have a resonant frequency that matches the bass node that needs to be tamed and the medium (water) would need to absorb the sound energy (and convert it to heat). But water isnât easily compressed, so it doesnât absorb much energy⌠Low frequency sound waves travel for some distances in the ocean, for example. The water could, in theory, transmit the energy to some other material that would damp the sound energy.
Thanks
From what I hear, the best idea If I used water, would be in the form of wet insulation and that wouldnât be very appealing. I think I will skip it for now, but thanks.
I just have 20 gallons of emergency water in 5 gallon containers and thoughtâŚhmmmmmm
Thanks
Liquid is very hard to compress, so my half-baked hypothesis would be that it would behave more like solid objects of similar size. Bass traps work because gasses like air compress readily and the material in them, whether fiberglass, woolen materials or other solids that have a large capacity to contain air will convert mechanical energy, like bass sound waves, to heat and damp the low frequencies.
I was thinking similarly. The density of water depends on the temp it is. If I remember correctly colder water has less DO in it making it denser. So room temp water at about ~70 degs might not have as much absorption propertyâs pound for pound as other materials commonly used as damping material. The reason that foam or fiberglass works so well as a damping material is because it is a matrix of tiny air pockets that âtrapâ energy (heat or sound). Under most conditions I just donât think water could do this. Additionally water being, well water, it is susceptible to pressure like any fluid and with enough SPLs (bass energy)the water would move which I imagine would lessen the damping effects.
to some of the points above having 5 gallons jugs in your room would cause havoc for high frequencyâs, is just more reflective surface, like glass. So draping at least a quilt or blanket over it would help mitigate that effect.
Im really curious to find out what comes of this, as Iâm thinking about it and some others on this thread have brought up, I could see a situation were having large jugs of water and enough bass energy you could actually amplify the bass energy, creating more movement in the room.
All of this is to say Iâm not a expert on thermal dynamics. So these are just hunchâs.
Bottles full of water may not be ideal - but empty bottles would be (if of the correct volume and opening):
Well, varying the amount of water in the bottle will adjust itâs resonant frequency so maybe useful for fine-tuning the resonator after all.
Youâd be better of going to.home depot. Buy a cardboard sono tube for cement pouring. Drill holes in the card board and fill it up with insulation.
Or rolling some pillows in blankets.
Hereâs a thought: Why not combine your idea with a Helmholtz resonator? Drill hundreds of random holes all over the buckets before filling with water. I would suggest putting everything in the room up on cinder blocks first. Then open the windows so the water could wash out the offending bass. 
That is precisely what I did building a DIY tube trap. The 15â diameter trap built was basically a knock off of an ATS design. I made four of them, plus an additional four in half-circle fashion.
I subsequently replaced the tube traps with 17â soffit traps, a combination of GIK and my own build.
Those were a little better, but best improvement in bass handling and controlling room nodes are the PSI AVAA bass absorbers, as I am sure you are fully aware, and they pass the Asthetics Committee.
As a reseller of the C214 trap, this is also a selfish promotion, but one I believe in.
The Helmholtz resonator research paper, shown above, concludes that a couple DIY units were unsuccessful in reducing room nodes. No endorsement there.
I have an original SR Black Box and recently got a new Carbon model. I donât know if they are a Helmholtz design but seem to have some similar design approaches. I have not opened one up.
I like what the BB does. The new one, which sits underneath the old one and between the speakers, seems to have the same positive effect, just more of it. Images are better focused and more three dimensional and things just sound more settled.
No one unit can cure a crappy room, but a combination of passive and (especially) active devices can get a you a lot closer. The cool thing is that the footprint and mobility of these new toys keeps your room from becoming a commercial studio.
Another key feature of the C214 is its ability to adjust LF absorption based on volume level - itâs like having a constantly variable loudness switch for low level listening. Passive bass traps can make low level listening a juggling act with EQ settings or less enjoyable.