Login / Register
 
Pink fluffv vs. Rigid cost vs. Performance question....
New Reply
Subscribe
rms8
Thread Starter
#1
25th December 2011
Old 25th December 2011
  #1
Gear interested
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 6

Thread Starter
rms8 is offline
Pink fluffv vs. Rigid cost vs. Performance question....

Hi all !

I hope this will be a "simple" answer....

I will be building some bass traps in the corners of my room (floor to ceiling). Would filling them with the regular HD/Lowes pink fluffy stuff (read cheap) work fine vs. the rigid panels (OC703 or rock/mineral wool) ? If the cheaper stuff is acceptable, would using something like unfaced R30 work better just "layed in there" or compressed a bit (using more) ?

Thanks all for your advice/experience,
Rob
#2
26th December 2011
Old 26th December 2011
  #2
Lives for gear
 
amishsixstringe's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Athens, Ohio
Posts: 1,388

amishsixstringe is offline
There is no real simple answer, but I will try.

703 is glass fiber. So is R30. 703 is compressed to right about 3lbs per cubic foot. I believe most "fluffy" stuff is about 1.5lbs/ft^3. So, about half the density.

You need to know what you are trying to do. What frequency band you are trying to trap. It is a good idea to find out what you want to do, then decide how you want to do it. You don't just start treating all willy nilly and expect to solve unknown problems.

If you want to get r30, it is 9" thick. If you stack it up and squish it down to about 4-1/2" thick per slice, then you are getting close to making your own 703. It's just not rigid. You could simply, squish it into a frame, and then stretch some GOM over it and be set.

Probably what I would do.

Neil
rms8
Thread Starter
#3
26th December 2011
Old 26th December 2011
  #3
Gear interested
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 6

Thread Starter
rms8 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by amishsixstringe View Post
There is no real simple answer, but I will try.

703 is glass fiber. So is R30. 703 is compressed to right about 3lbs per cubic foot. I believe most "fluffy" stuff is about 1.5lbs/ft^3. So, about half the density.

You need to know what you are trying to do. What frequency band you are trying to trap. It is a good idea to find out what you want to do, then decide how you want to do it. You don't just start treating all willy nilly and expect to solve unknown problems.

If you want to get r30, it is 9" thick. If you stack it up and squish it down to about 4-1/2" thick per slice, then you are getting close to making your own 703. It's just not rigid. You could simply, squish it into a frame, and then stretch some GOM over it and be set.

Probably what I would do.

Neil


Thanks Neil!

You answered my question 100% !

By "GOM" I assume that means "Guilford of Maine" ?
#4
26th December 2011
Old 26th December 2011
  #4
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,835

avare is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rms8 View Post
Thanks Neil!

You answered my question 100% !

By "GOM" I assume that means "Guilford of Maine" ?
Did he? You did not clarify what your goals are. If it is low frequency absorption, R30 uncompressed is better than 4" 0f 703.

Andre
__________________
Good studio building is 90% design and 10% construction.
rms8
Thread Starter
#5
26th December 2011
Old 26th December 2011
  #5
Gear interested
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 6

Thread Starter
rms8 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Did he? You did not clarify what your goals are. If it is low frequency absorption, R30 uncompressed is better than 4" 0f 703.

Andre

Thank you too Andre.
So leaving R30 fluffy stuff uncompressed is better than compressing it? I wanted to use something less $$ for rear corner bass traps than the OC703. The fluffy stuff is vastly lower in price but I was concerned how much a difference (if any at all) in performance it would be.

BTW, Neils build thread is amazing!!!!!!
#6
26th December 2011
Old 26th December 2011
  #6
Lives for gear
 
kasmira's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,269

Send a message via AIM to kasmira
kasmira is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rms8 View Post
Thank you too Andre.
So leaving R30 fluffy stuff uncompressed is better than compressing it? I wanted to use something less $$ for rear corner bass traps than the OC703. The fluffy stuff is vastly lower in price but I was concerned how much a difference (if any at all) in performance it would be.

BTW, Neils build thread is amazing!!!!!!
R30 fluffy vs rigid fiberglass isn't better or worse. It depends on your situation. Andre said R30 uncompressed is better at absorbing lower frequencies. Rigid fiberglass is nice to use because its thin, easy to mount, and has similar properties to its uncompressed brethren. But lower density insulation with a lot of depth is usually recommended for low end problems over rigid boards.

What exactly are you looking to do in the room? What problems are you having? Have you measured your room at all? We don't know enough to evaluate what would be best for your room.
rms8
Thread Starter
#7
26th December 2011
Old 26th December 2011
  #7
Gear interested
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 6

Thread Starter
rms8 is offline
Thanks for all your answers/advice.

We'll be building a new home next spring and I will be building a HT once the house is complete. I am just on a data gathering mission at the moment. From the last few rooms I have had, I know that the bass tends to be pretty heavy and overpowering for the rear row of seats. I'm assuming that rear corner traps would help this out.
#8
27th December 2011
Old 27th December 2011
  #8
Lives for gear
 
boggy's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Belgrade
Posts: 2,087

Send a message via Skype™ to boggy
boggy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rms8 View Post
Thank you too Andre.
So leaving R30 fluffy stuff uncompressed is better than compressing it?....
I'm not Andre, but ... yes, that's true, fluffy stuff is better than compressed rockwool for low frequencies, because lower gas flow resistance, and I believe that low frequencies problems is what you need to solve, if you build corner traps...
__________________
-BP

Facebook: @MyRoomAcoustics
Email: boggy@myroom-acoustics.com
--"We can never see past the choices we don't understand." (Oracle, The Matrix Reloaded)
#9
27th December 2011
Old 27th December 2011
  #9
Gear Head
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 35

7thbass is offline
So, if I am building superchunk

Should I use Rigid or Fluffy for superchunk bass trap?
#10
27th December 2011
Old 27th December 2011
  #10
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,835

avare is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7thbass View Post
Should I use Rigid or Fluffy for superchunk bass trap?
Fluffy.

Fluffy soft,
Andre
#11
27th December 2011
Old 27th December 2011
  #11
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,835

avare is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rms8 View Post
Thank you too Andre.
You are welcome.

Quote:
So leaving R30 fluffy stuff uncompressed is better than compressing it?
Yes. IT is not material specific. At the full range absorber depths, any material less dense is better than the same material compressed. The material density goes up AND the material is less distant from the partition, where the sound velocity component is greater.

Andre
#12
27th December 2011
Old 27th December 2011
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,310

localhost127 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Fluffy.

Fluffy soft,
Andre
+1

if you're cutting and stacking layers of pink fluffy vertically, make sure to build horizontal supports every few ft such that the upper layers do not compress the layers at the bottom.
#13
27th December 2011
Old 27th December 2011
  #13
Lives for gear
 
boggy's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Belgrade
Posts: 2,087

Send a message via Skype™ to boggy
boggy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post
+1

if you're cutting and stacking layers of pink fluffy vertically, make sure to build horizontal supports every few ft such that the upper layers do not compress the layers at the bottom.
+1
Excellent advice!
#14
27th December 2011
Old 27th December 2011
  #14
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,835

avare is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by boggy View Post
+1
Excellent advice!
+2 to Boggy's +1 of localhost127s posts content regarding suport. Not +2 to the +1 of my post which would make it +3. that is +3 from me to me. That is I will stop trying to count hypothetically.

Andre
#15
27th December 2011
Old 27th December 2011
  #15
Gear Head
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 35

7thbass is offline
Wow

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Fluffy.

Fluffy soft,
Andre
Looks like building a superchunk may be cheaper than I thought.
#16
30th December 2011
Old 30th December 2011
  #16
Gear maniac
 
GoldenOne's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 213

GoldenOne is offline
#17
30th December 2011
Old 30th December 2011
  #17
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,835

avare is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenOne View Post
No. From all that we do know of them, the gas flow resistance is significantly greater than fibergalss. So much that low end absorption stopsnat significnt frequencies for thicker (> 4") materials.

Andre
#18
31st December 2011
Old 31st December 2011
  #18
Gear maniac
 
GoldenOne's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 213

GoldenOne is offline
Thanks avare. From what i read about the ultratouch it seemed like it wouldnt be the best choice for taming low frequencies but i was curious if the r8 would have more favorable gas flow resistance. I know i need to read more but I'm assuming that density and the insulation material are factors which contribute to GFR.
#19
31st December 2011
Old 31st December 2011
  #19
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,835

avare is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenOne View Post
Thanks avare. From what i read about the ultratouch it seemed like it wouldnt be the best choice for taming low frequencies but i was curious if the r8 would have more favorable gas flow resistance. I know i need to read more but I'm assuming that density and the insulation material are factors which contribute to GFR.
Density in and of itself tells us very little about the GFR. Porous absorbers are made up of fibres, which the level at porous absorbers absorb sound.
There could be two materials identical in all othere characteristics except density, because one is made from an intrinsiclly heaveir material that the other. The absorption characteristics could be identical.

Similarly there could be two materials with all charcteristcs identical except for fibre lenght, and the one with shorter fibre length would have greater absorption.

Continuing on a roll, there could be two materials identical except t for the orientation of the fibres and, yes you guessed it, the absorption characteristics will be different.

We density as an indicator of the absorption characteristics of materials, because it is about the only descriptor we can get from makers. The closer a materials physical properties are to an absorption tested product, the better our extrapolation of the actual properties.

For more look a the Roxul Marine and Offshore Acoustics Manual, available off my Acoustics/Treatement Guide sticky suggested reading link.

Andre
#20
31st December 2011
Old 31st December 2011
  #20
Gear maniac
 
jacobq's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 159

jacobq is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Fluffy.

Fluffy soft,
Andre
Avare
So it is ok to use the fluffy soft r30 in all bass trap corner locations? The reason I ask this is because I see so many being built using the stacked rigid 703. This seems like a waste of money to use 703 to me now.

In what case would you want to use the 703 rigid Fiberglass? I would asume the 703 is much better at high frequencies than the r30.. This could be another advantage to using the fluffy r30. The room would not be to dead I am assuming and it is controlling the low end better as a bonus ...

Thank You
#21
3rd January 2012
Old 3rd January 2012
  #21
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,835

avare is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobq View Post
In what case would you want to use the 703 rigid Fiberglass? I would asume the 703 is much better at high frequencies than the r30.. This could be another advantage to using the fluffy r30. The room would not be to dead I am assuming and it is controlling the low end better as a bonus ...
The first factor is the available depth. For absorbers ~4" thick 703 like materials are just about ideal. For deeper absorbers, up to ~12", 4" of 70s 703 like material with the balance being an air gap, is great. Mineral and glass insulation of the R30 thickness and density is in the same class at thicknesses of ~8" and up. The deciding factors should include: ease of handling during construction, any additional mechanical support for softer material, surface durabiolity, and of course, cost.

Multi-factorially,
Andre
#22
19th January 2012
Old 19th January 2012
  #22
Gear maniac
 
M.Brew's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 279

M.Brew is offline
I was just reading through some of these threads on super chunk traps and was wondering if putting a panel of 703 frk on the front of the trap while filling the rest with r30 would be more effective?
#23
19th January 2012
Old 19th January 2012
  #23
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,835

avare is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Brew View Post
I was just reading through some of these threads on super chunk traps and was wondering if putting a panel of 703 frk on the front of the trap while filling the rest with r30 would be more effective?
Who knows? I would not do any guessing. Keep to the simple (and cheapest in this case).

Emphatically a great value,
Andre
#24
19th January 2012
Old 19th January 2012
  #24
Lives for gear
 
JulianFernandez's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 596

JulianFernandez is online now
So, what´s the smaller superchunks are worth building? (to work along with my 4" panels) Thanks Andre!
#25
19th January 2012
Old 19th January 2012
  #25
Gear maniac
 
M.Brew's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 279

M.Brew is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Who knows? I would not do any guessing. Keep to the simple (and cheapest in this case).

Emphatically a great value,
Andre
Ok thanks, for the advice. I've heard of people doing this before but Wanted to know if anyone had noticeable improvement.
#26
25th February 2012
Old 25th February 2012
  #26
Gear nut
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 141

Tango4Cash is offline
So would we need to take this product and unwrap it, loosening it up so its "not compressed" and frame it with chicken wire or soemthing, or just leave it in the bag and stick it in the corner? At $70 bucks a pop, it seems MORE expensive than the panels.
EcoTouch R-30 Kraft 9-1/2 in. x 24 in. x 48 in. Batts in Bag Insulation-BF71 at The Home Depot


Also, what about this product? Its only 3 bucks a roll!!!
R-6.7 Unfaced 2 in. x 16 in. x 48 in. Multi Purpose Continuous Roll Insulation-A85P at The Home Depot
#27
17th April 2012
Old 17th April 2012
  #27
Gear interested
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Location: South Central, Ohio
Posts: 3

anarchoic is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
The first factor is the available depth. For absorbers ~4" thick 703 like materials are just about ideal. For deeper absorbers, up to ~12", 4" of 70s 703 like material with the balance being an air gap, is great. Mineral and glass insulation of the R30 thickness and density is in the same class at thicknesses of ~8" and up. The deciding factors should include: ease of handling during construction, any additional mechanical support for softer material, surface durabiolity, and of course, cost.

Multi-factorially,
Andre
Andre,

This is really the exact information I've been looking for, but I'd like to ask a more specific question, covered in my very lengthy first post in my recent thread, "Please Help pick correct insulation for my SuperChunk Build & Placing GIK 244 Panels" that hasn't, as of yet, provided a specific response to this question.

I have a large room, for HT use, at 20.4' x 26.66' x 8.66' wlh.

My front/screen wall is a poured concrete foundation (room is in basement) and my actual screen and front "wall" (nothing more than black thin curtains covering the width of the room to the left and right of the centered screen) is exactly 12" in front of the actual concrete wall.

This leaves me a 12" gap.

I was thinking of using this product, available from my local Lowe's, called, "Johns Manville 300"L x 15"W x 9-1/4"D R-30 Fiberglass Insulation Roll" at only $15.87 per roll.

I cannot find any specific gfr #'s/info on it though.

My plan is to use one layer, 9.25" deep, hung vertically from the ceiling to the floor, all across the entire width of the room (it's unfaced) at 20.4'.

In addition, I was thinking of making corner traps out of this, too.

I have the room to do 15" (the width of this stuff) x 18.5" (2 layers deep) which would simply be two pieces, hung vertically from the ceiling to the floor, so as not to have to use any netting or shelf support as it won't be able to compress on itself this way.

I could also pretty easily use four pieces, making a 30" x 18.5" rectangle trap, again, each of the four pieces hung vertically and this would be extremely cheap and easy.

The Question is, would using this material, in this configuration, be "effective?"

Would either/both sizes be as effective (looking for broadband bass absorption, don't care what it does to the highs since this is just for corners and room is so big) the way I plan to "hang" them as using Roxul or OC703 and building SuperChunks with a 34" face, triangles in corner?

That is what I really need to know. I've read about 200 threads over the last few weeks and just cannot seem to get a feel for whether this is a good idea.

I find it strange that I would be the first one to come up with this extremely simple and cheap way of making these, so I've been assuming it's probably just not an effective bass trap, but I'd like to call on your expertise and ask your direct opinion.

Thanks so much for all you offer here!

--Jason
#28
25th April 2012
Old 25th April 2012
  #28
Lives for gear
 
Gdupproductions's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,538

Gdupproductions is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by anarchoic View Post
"Please Help pick correct insulation for my SuperChunk Build & Placing GIK 244 Panels" that hasn't, as of yet, provided a specific response to this question.
For chunks Fluffy insulation (the rolls, slabs are a mess to workwith im talkin out off expierience).

The 244 @ Reflection points (left and right off you).
__________________
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Gdupproductions

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/GdupProductions
_______________________________________________
#29
3rd June 2012
Old 3rd June 2012
  #29
Lives for gear
 
jim1961's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,102

jim1961 is offline
10" of Pink Stuff seems the clear winner when you have 10" of depth down to 80hz.
Attached Thumbnails
Pink fluffv vs. Rigid cost vs. Performance question....-703-vs-pink-10.gif  
#30
3rd June 2012
Old 3rd June 2012
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Jens Eklund is offline
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
yetanotherjosh / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
9
SunnyOctopus / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
2
BrandRecordingCo / So much gear, so little time!
2
johnbeam21 / Music Computers
4
korce / Music Computers
2

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.