![]() | All Advertisers |
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Merch | Tips & Techniques | Video Vault | Books & DVD's | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
| | #1 |
| Gear addict Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 378
| UK equivalents to 703 and 705 and density Q I often hear 703 and 705 mentioned on this board but, as these aren't standard types in the UK, what exactly IS the exact equivalent to these?. I found this site which seems to sell a varied choice of options: Dense Fibre Matting Acoustic Slab - The Sound Solution, York, UK Comes in different thicknesses and densities of rock mineral wool slabs all the way up to 140KG/m3!. But I think I remember reading somewhere that if the density is too high and you're having something 3-4 inches thick, that it can start to reflect the sound as well as absorb, rather than just absorb :/ So lets say I was buying some material from this place for a bass trap to deal with the lowest frequencies (everything under 100hz), what out of those options would be the most ideal thickness and density to absorb without reflecting?. Something like 100mm 80kg/m3 or 75mm 100kg/m3 ?? |
| | |
| | #2 | |
| Gear addict Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 452
| Quote:
703 data sheetI believe it is better to use thicker lighter stuff than thinner denser stuff. You'll probably have more luck with rockwool in the UK. Paul P | |
| | |
| | #3 |
| Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: southampton
Posts: 477
| something like Rockwool: 2 x RWA45 4 pack (1200x600x100) code 107524 theres a thread here I think My new cheap bass traps (pics, prices, suppliers in London)
__________________ 'We've made no plans, so nothing can go wrong'- S Milligan 'The art of good management is to keep the people who hate you away from the ones who haven't made up their minds yet' |
| | |
| | #4 | |
| Gear addict Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 378
| Quote:
At that lower density, could I even double that up, two slabs making it 200mm thick for corner traps? Am I right in also thinking that, being a bass trap and not so much for broadband use, that it doesn't matter if the material is a bit thicker than normal? (concerned about the health side of things, dont want fibres escaping). | |
| | |
| | #5 | ||
| Gear addict Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 452
| Quote:
Quote:
Thicker can't hurt anything. Paul P | ||
| | |
| | #6 |
| Gear addict Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 378
| Cool, so for triangle shaped corner traps, if the fibre was cut as triangle cuts, they could just be stacked on top of each other so the thickness could extend all the way to the corner. Was a right in thinking that the much higher density stuff would indeed have a detrimental effect at greater thicknesses? |
| | |
| | #7 | |
| Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: southampton
Posts: 477
| Quote:
There is a good video on youtube about building traps - certainly worked for me
__________________ 'We've made no plans, so nothing can go wrong'- S Milligan 'The art of good management is to keep the people who hate you away from the ones who haven't made up their minds yet' | |
| | |
| | #8 | ||
| Gear addict Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 378
| Quote:
Hmmm, interesting reading a few other threads would suggest that perhaps for mineral wool, a higher density is required to match 703. Rockwool for bass traps? Scott states that: Quote:
| ||
| | |
| | #9 |
| Lives for gear Join Date: May 2004 Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 1,304
| Several things are getting discussed here. Rockwool is broady equivalent at slightly denser at around 48 kg/m^3 fiberglas at 64 kg/m^3. the relationship acoustically is not linear. For thick bass traps, lighter is actually better. 48 or less kg/m#. Andre
__________________ Good studio building is 90% design and 10% construction. |
| | |
| | #10 | |
| Gear addict Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 378
| Quote:
Although I'm starting to realise making a triangle shaped box might be a little tricky. Leaving either doing more traditional rectangle slab or square column. Is a more square shaped column a bad idea for standing in the room corner, ie, would a wider straddled thinner (200mm x 600mm) bass trap be more affective than a less wide (but same m2 area) solid square column (say 400mm x 400mm) which would have 90 degree surface areas instead of a larger single diagonal surface area for handling the lowest of low freqs?. Or are the angles and positions of the exposed surface areas not so important for a bass trap?. | |
| | |
| | #11 |
| Gear interested Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10
| I'm in the UK and I have been trying to find equivalents to 703 and 705 Owens-Corning in the UK. Take a look at this datasheet for Rockwool: http://www.sheffins.co.uk/Literature...xible_slab.pdf on page 2 you have a list of "types and densities" on page 3 there is a table of "absorption coefficients" in a nutshell: Rockwool RWA45 = 45 kg/m3 Rockwool RW3 = 60 kg/m3 Rockwool RW5 = 100 kg/m3 Rockwool RW6 = 140 kg/m3 You can buy all of these types off ebay UK, just do a search for "Rockwool RW6" for example. All I need to do now is work out which type of basstrap to build and which desity to use ![]() Hope this helps |
| | |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 703/705 Alternatives for acoustic traps? | SK1 | Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc | 40 | 23rd October 2009 05:39 AM |
| 703/705 with or w/out FRK for drop ceiling | JeffK | Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc | 3 | 22nd January 2009 05:32 PM |
| is it FRK? density of 703? | alternative4 | Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc | 6 | 16th September 2008 03:26 PM |
| Covering ENTIRE room with 703 or 705...? | 666666 | Studio building / acoustics | 25 | 26th July 2008 04:43 AM |
| Where to buy 703/705 fiberglass in Canada? | Matthew Murray | So much gear, so little time! | 9 | 17th May 2006 06:38 AM |