PAROC WAS 50 sound absorption?

[Humanlike]

I'm doing a basic acoustic treatment for a rehearsal room. I have possibility to get PAROC WAS 50 panels with good price, but it would still cost more then Rockwool sheets (which I've read are widely used).

Would Paroc WAS 50 be better for sound absorption? They would definitely be easier to work with because they are quite rigid.

[Jens Eklund]

Originally Posted by Humanlike

I'm doing a basic acoustic treatment for a rehearsal room. I have possibility to get PAROC WAS 50 panels with good price, but it would still cost more then Rockwool sheets (which I've read are widely used).

Would Paroc WAS 50 be better for sound absorption? They would definitely be easier to work with because they are quite rigid.

Do you know the density or better still, the “flow resistivity” (rayls/m or kPa•s/m2)?

If above approx 30-45 kg/m3 or 15000 rayls/m, absorption performance in the lows will drop.


/Jens

[Jens Eklund]

Ok, this thing looks like 45 kg/m3 so if not to thick it will probably be ok but if you want to absorb the low mids /high bass region, i.e. deeper build depth, you want to use something less dens (approx 15-30 kg/m3).

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5856327-post5.html


Sincerely Jens Eklund

[Humanlike]

Thanks for the replies!

Would 12cm (4-5") be ok?

Or would Rockwool with the same thickness and the following spec work better?

Density ~ 35 kg/m3
αw = 0.95, if thickness 100 - 200 mm

[Jens Eklund]

If 120mm and no air gap then it’s probably ok (although approx 30 gk/m3 would probably be slightly better):






If deeper or with air gap:





Please note that we’re only using density as a prediction for the actual performance and that the graphs show absorption for 0 degrees incident only (unlike random incident as for a diffuse field).


Sincerely Jens Eklund

[Humanlike]

Thanks for the help, appreciate it!

[Jens Eklund]

Originally Posted by Humanlike

Thanks for the help, appreciate it!

You’re welcome!

/Jens