Acoustic wall panels - air gap or thicker panel?...
Gadget13769
Thread Starter
#1
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #1
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Acoustic wall panels - air gap or thicker panel?...

I have some 50mm thick fibreglass panels to go on my walls.

I have been told that fitting these with a 50mm air gap behind will increase their performance. That I understand.

However, when I asked whether simply fitting a 100mm thick panel - without an air gap - would give me even better performance, I was told "no". The figures from the manufacturer say otherwise though... EQ Acoustics

What are your thoughts - 50mm with air gap, or 100mm without?...
#2
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #2
Rockwool = thick is good and a bit of air is good

50 mm x 2 or 100 mm = happier life

one 50 mm = not enough
Gadget13769
Thread Starter
#3
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #3
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
It's a small room, so I can't really afford more than 100mm away from the wall total.

So you'd say 100mm panel, no air?
#4
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #4
Gear interested
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gadget13769 View Post

So you'd say 100mm panel, no air?
Assuming you use OC703, 100mm panel and no air gap will be more effective below about 350Hz than 50mm panel and 50mm air, based on this:

Porous Absorber Calculator - Results

Play around there with "Amend Parameters
Gadget13769
Thread Starter
#5
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #5
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Hmmm, thanks - looks like 100mm may be the way to go then.
#6
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #6
Gear interested
 

For sure. Have a look at what happens with 100mm panels AND a 50mm air gap though just out of curiosity, and also see what happens with a 100mm air gap:

Porous Absorber Calculator - Results

Well worth pulling them out as much as you can, up to their own depth or a bit more. Much ore than that (~200mm+) makes them even better at lower freq. (below ~100Hz) but less useful above that.
Gadget13769
Thread Starter
#7
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #7
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
That's an intriguing graph.

Whilst 100mm will obviously extend my absorption lower, it isn't necessarily as capable as the 50mm plus air gap and 100mm no air gap in the 250hz - 800hz frequency range.
#8
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #8
Gear interested
 

Right you are, it's all a compromise

The lowest room modes are always the biggest problem in my opinion though so generally I think the more absorption you can get down low the better. I admit that it is just a generalization though.

However, maybe you might need more absorption in the 250 - 800 Hz range than down lower.

It's best to measure then treat accordingly even though it's a hassle at first.
Gadget13769
Thread Starter
#9
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #9
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Yeah, I think I'm going to have to measure.
#10
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #10
Gear interested
 

Yep that's a good idea, good luck!

Steve.
#11
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #11
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gadget13769 View Post
That's an intriguing graph.

Whilst 100mm will obviously extend my absorption lower, it isn't necessarily as capable as the 50mm plus air gap and 100mm no air gap in the 250hz - 800hz frequency range.
???

Andre
#12
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #12
Gear interested
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
???

Andre
I guess if you need lots of absorption at 500Hz, you would be best to use 50mm OC703 and a 50mm air gap, compared to the other options on this graph I made?

Porous Absorber Calculator - Results
Gadget13769
Thread Starter
#13
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #13
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenkelby View Post
I guess if you need lots of absorption at 500Hz, you would be best to use 50mm OC703 and a 50mm air gap, compared to the other options on this graph I made?

Porous Absorber Calculator - Results
Yes - thanks.
Gadget13769
Thread Starter
#14
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #14
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
???

Andre
Sorry, we're referring to the graph linked in stevenkelby's posts...
#15
8th December 2012
Old 8th December 2012
  #15
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenkelby View Post
I guess if you need lots of absorption at 500Hz, you would be best to use 50mm OC703 and a 50mm air gap, compared to the other options on this graph I made?
I see what you are referring to now. Reality is that the upper range bumps and the gradual slope at the high end, implying .9 @ 1 kHz does not occur. Also for frequencies above low order room modes, random incidence is appropriate.

Lest you take the above as rather terse, the work you did in putting together that graph is great!

More than theoretical,
Andre
#16
9th December 2012
Old 9th December 2012
  #16
Gear interested
 

Thanks for the info Andre, I still have a lot to learn!

Up to what frequency (approx) are the traps effective then? How can you tell, can it be calculated or is it a rule of thumb?

Here is the graphs with random incidence ticked, I have to read about what that means now!:

http://www.stanleyhallstudios.co.uk/...&s42=1&d42=100

It looks like the thicker panels with more air gap are more effective at all frequencies then, with no down sides apart from the size/cost. Is that right?

Thanks,

Steve.
Gadget13769
Thread Starter
#17
9th December 2012
Old 9th December 2012
  #17
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
From that latest plot, I reckon 100mm solid might be my best compromise.

I don't really have room to go more than 100mm total from the walls, and 100mm solid seems to have an obviously better performance than 50mm panel + 50mm air.
#18
9th December 2012
Old 9th December 2012
  #18
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenkelby View Post
Thanks for the info Andre, I still have a lot to learn!
You are welcome!

Quote:
Up to what frequency (approx) are the traps effective then? How can you tell, can it be calculated or is it a rule of thumb?
For high frequency absorption, look at absorption tests. Bob Golcs has a fantastic list of them.

Quote:
It looks like the thicker panels with more air gap are more effective at all frequencies then, with no down sides apart from the size/cost. Is that right?
Thicker panels are better at low end. As panels get thicker, the best materials are lighter, with ~12" and thicker being best with regular insulation, dirt cheap compared to 703 etc. The downside is the size.

Welcome to the world of acoustics, where aspirin is drug of choice for learning!

Andre
Quote
1
#19
9th December 2012
Old 9th December 2012
  #19
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gadget13769 View Post
From that latest plot, I reckon 100mm solid might be my best compromise.

I don't really have room to go more than 100mm total from the walls, and 100mm solid seems to have an obviously better performance than 50mm panel + 50mm air.
IF 100 mm is the depth you can use, then solid of ~64 kg/m3 mineral wool type material IS BEST. Not a compromise.

Good luck!

Andre
#20
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
IF 100 mm is the depth you can use, then solid of ~64 kg/m3 mineral wool type material IS BEST. Not a compromise.

Good luck!

Andre
Roxul Safe and Sound is 72 kg/m³. Would that be considered good material for 4" bass trap?
#21
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #21
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by solarplexus311 View Post
Roxul Safe and Sound is 72 kg/m³. Would that be considered good material for 4" bass trap?
My recollection is that Safe n Sound is 40 kg/m³.

Andre

Last edited by avare; 14th December 2012 at 05:16 PM.. Reason: Corrected spelling error.
#22
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
My recolelction is that Safe n Sound is 40 kg/m³.

Andre
On their website it is posted 72 kg/m³.
#23
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #23
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by solarplexus311 View Post
On their website it is posted 72 kg/m³.
This is interesting. The datasheet which I just D/Led (attached) indicates 40 kg/m³. This value is consitent with the acoustic absorption characteristics of the material.

Interestingly,
Andre
Attached Files
File Type: pdf SafenSound.pdf (25.2 KB, 52 views)
#24
13th December 2012
Old 13th December 2012
  #24
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
This is interesting. The datasheet which I just D/Led (attached) indicates 40 kg/m³. This value is consitent with the acoustic absorption characteristics of the material.

Interestingly,
Andre
Ok, they should update their website then. So Safe 'n Sound no good then?
#25
14th December 2012
Old 14th December 2012
  #25
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by solarplexus311 View Post
Ok, they should update their website then. So Safe 'n Sound no good then?
Did you tell Roxul about the error so that it can be corrected?

It is good, 703 is better AT 4" depth.

Andre
#26
14th December 2012
Old 14th December 2012
  #26
Thanks Andre. Any suppliers in Canada for 703?
#27
14th December 2012
Old 14th December 2012
  #27
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by solarplexus311 View Post
Thanks Andre. Any suppliers in Canada for 703?
All across the country. Look under HVAC suppliers and insulation in the phone book. 703 is a generic term in the studio acoustics field for 48 kg/ft³ fiberglass and 64 kg/m³ mineral wool. Many companies make and sell such products.

Good luck!

Andre
#28
17th December 2012
Old 17th December 2012
  #28
I can't find anything that is of 64 kg/m³ mineral wool anywhere around my home. The only other thing I found was this Roxul AFB:

Roxul AFB®

Please help me find something!
#29
17th December 2012
Old 17th December 2012
  #29
I found some Knauf Insulation Rigid Plenum Liner with ECOSE® Technology in 1" and 2". It has a PCF of 3.0 on the website (but the salesman told me it was 1.5, I think maybe he is mistaken). Is it a good product for insulation?
#30
17th December 2012
Old 17th December 2012
  #30
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by solarplexus311 View Post
I can't find anything that is of 64 kg/m³ mineral wool anywhere around my home. The only other thing I found was this Roxul AFB:

Roxul AFB®

Please help me find something!
The AFB is acsoutically equivalent to 703. Call the 800 numbers that Owens-Corning, Roxul and otheres have on their websites and ask for the dealers in your area witht he rpoducts you are interested in.

Andre
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
clusterchord / So much gear, so little time!
17
Dxsound / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
2
Switchcraft / So much gear, so little time!
17
mrbowes / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
2
amino / So much gear, so little time!
13

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.