It won't go a ton deeper but it will do some. It is also 25% more surface area - not just more depth. It's really more about getting more efficient absorbtion down low. So, instead of say a .5 at 50hz, you might go to a .65 or so (pure guessing here - just an example) rather than saying OK, now it's going to do 25hz instead of 30hz. Both will do something down that low, just a matter of how much.
The next logical step from a 17x17x24" solid triangle (8 pcs per 2x4 sheet) is a 24x24x34 triangle (4 pcs per sheet). This is almost 50% increase in facial surface area plus an additional 7" of depth - but at double the material cost and significantly more space out of the room.
Would 17" X 17" squares of absorbing material from floor to ceiling in a corner be twice as good as 17" X 17" X 24" corner chunks? It would have twice as much absorbing material, but it would extend 12" further into the room.
Twice as good? Probably not. You're getting 2 17" wide by X high sides as opposed to a single 24" wide by X high side. Yes, it will give you more exposure - and - it will reach deeper into the subwoofer range more effectively.
You could split the difference and get the same area and better absorption by doing a 12x12" square with the same amount of material it takes to do the17x17x24" triangles.
What about rotating the triangles 180 degrees to make a column with absorber in the outer half of each square. Would this have significantly more effectiveness, just a little more or essentially the same?
It would be more surface area and perform a bit deeper due to the absorption being farther from the corner. Never tried it this way. I wouldn't think it would be significantly better than the 12x12 solid.
Turning it like that still has the edges of the triangle without much thickness.
Thanks. That was what I thought. Since I prefer the appearance of the columns in the corners rather than the angle of the typical triangular chunks, I am now considering the use of columns with triangles in the outer half of each square vs. columns with the same dimensions completely filled. The second option is twice as expensive, but perhaps not quite twice as effective.