Superchunks - Which insulation?

Ermz · 4th August 2009

Hey guys,

Sorry if this is beating a dead horse, but I'd love to get some first-hand advice on which of these two materials would be more ideal for superchunks.

Tontine AcoustiSorb (pg4)

OR

Tontine AcoustiSorb (pg6)

One is essentially 32kg/m3 and the other is 48kg/m3.

I've heard higher rigidity is good, but for something as dense as Superchunks it's sometimes preferable to get less rigid insulation material. If anyone could set that straight, it would be greatly appreciated.

Glenn Kuras · 4th August 2009

Either is going to work fine, so buy on price.

Which is better could only be told if tested in a lab. My guess is there both pretty darn close.

Ermz · 4th August 2009

Thank you, Glenn.

Price isn't so much of a factor to me these days, as I just want the room to sound the very best it possibly can. If one or the other might provide superior performance, even marginally, I would like to get the better product.

Glenn Kuras · 4th August 2009

Without testing in a lab there is no way to say 100% BUT I am thinking the denser stuff may provide a bit more low end absorption. Not really sure though if you would ever hear a difference though.

Ermz · 15th August 2009

There are actually absorption coefficients listed on those links. The denser material does appear to perform better. I was just concerned that for traps as dense as 600mmx600mmx850mm superchunks a less rigid material may be preferable.

Glenn Kuras · 15th August 2009

Well like I said there is no way to say for sure, BUT I can say with confidence that both are going to work.

4th August 2009	#1
Ermz Lives for gear Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 705 Thread Starter	Superchunks - Which insulation? Hey guys, Sorry if this is beating a dead horse, but I'd love to get some first-hand advice on which of these two materials would be more ideal for superchunks. Tontine AcoustiSorb (pg4) OR Tontine AcoustiSorb (pg6) One is essentially 32kg/m3 and the other is 48kg/m3. I've heard higher rigidity is good, but for something as dense as Superchunks it's sometimes preferable to get less rigid insulation material. If anyone could set that straight, it would be greatly appreciated. __________________ www.systematicproductions.com

4th August 2009	#2
Glenn Kuras Gear Guru Joined: Jul 2005 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 11,992	Either is going to work fine, so buy on price. Which is better could only be told if tested in a lab. My guess is there both pretty darn close. __________________ Glenn Kuras GIK Acoustics USA GIK Acoustics Europe 770 986 2789 (USA) +44 (0) 20 7558 8976 (UK) See the NEW Scopus Tuned Trap

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
superchunks - the lowdown?	infinitedreams84	Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc	10	18th June 2009 04:46 PM
mini superchunks / tri-traps	greenears	Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc	6	23rd April 2009 08:49 PM
Corners - Superchunks or Panels?	Rednose	Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc	51	9th February 2009 06:04 PM
My French style mid/high absorbers and superchunks	Driller	Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc	1	28th September 2008 09:20 AM
Polystyrene insulation as a sound insulation.	PhilE	So much gear, so little time!	17	14th February 2008 04:30 AM

15th August 2009	#5
Ermz Lives for gear Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 705 Thread Starter	There are actually absorption coefficients listed on those links. The denser material does appear to perform better. I was just concerned that for traps as dense as 600mmx600mmx850mm superchunks a less rigid material may be preferable.