Coat Of Silence Paint?
#121
2nd May 2012
Old 2nd May 2012
  #121
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Central Village CT
Posts: 4,779

Quote:
Originally Posted by BriHar View Post
Rod,

I don't think I understand your argument.
Earlier in this topic it was stated that a couple of Db STC improvement could be had with almost any paint. It was also pointed out that the formulation of this paint resembles most any latex based paint. I therefore think it should be demonstrated that this paint yields a significant STC improvement when compared to a standard latex paint. If a typical latex based paint shows comparable results, then what's the point?
I see no use for this product in new construction - it is just so much more cost effective to design and construct an isolation system using standard construction materials that even considering this product in new construction just would not make sense.

So what we are now talking about is an existing wall assembly that is on the edge as far as isolation levels go.

Not looking for any huge gains here - just a small push to move things along.....

These are walls that already have the benefit of the sealing of the drywall that can be gained by using paint.

Once a wall has the sealer/prime coat of paint applied there is no benefit to additional layers of paint - but I firmly believe there is benefit to this product - which is really much more than a coat of paint regardless of what an analysis of the raw ingredients might be.

It is not just the raw ingredients - it is how those ingredients are combined.

For example - you could not walk into an paint store and walk out with a can of paint (water based or otherwise) that you could apply in the manner that you apply this product, paint would simply run down the wall and you would have huge puddles of paint covering the floor.

In addition - this is not a "typical" mixture of water based paints (regardless of what is stated in the free online encyclopedia.)

I looked (just for comparison) at both the Glidden and Sherwin Williams lines of paints (not an exhaustive inspection of all of their paints - just a random check because I have other things I need to do) and did not find any with the same chemical composition as this product.........

I am not an easy person to convince of anything - and I am still waiting to see the actual test data - however - this product - based on what I have seen - is much more than a simple coat of paint that achieves the sealing of the pores that John was referring to.......

I can see no applications where I would use it for either recording studios or new construction.

However, that is not the same as saying it has no value.

Rod
#122
2nd May 2012
Old 2nd May 2012
  #122
Lives for gear
 
Dange's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 930

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod Gervais View Post

It is not just the raw ingredients - it is how those ingredients are combined.
Exactly. I listed the ingredients and it looks alot like latex paint but Rod's quote is the important bit
#123
2nd May 2012
Old 2nd May 2012
  #123
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,863

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dange View Post
Exactly. I listed the ingredients and it looks alot like latex paint but Rod's quote is the important bit
As is Green Glue...

Well compounded,
Andre
#124
2nd May 2012
Old 2nd May 2012
  #124
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Central Village CT
Posts: 4,779

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
As is Green Glue...
Great point Andre - and in so few words...... kind of makes me want for the ability to say more with less..

Rod
#125
3rd May 2012
Old 3rd May 2012
  #125
Gear maniac
 
BriHar's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: Winterthur Switzerland
Posts: 286

OK, I see where you're coming from. Then we'll wait on the data.
#126
4th May 2012
Old 4th May 2012
  #126
Gear interested
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Santiago
Posts: 3

Thanks, Rod. That makes sense, and especially for the kind of work you do. I guess I was thinking more for studio builds, where as you point out this stuff doesn't have a lot of uses!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod Gervais View Post

Oh - one other thing - welcome to slutz heaven.....

Rod
Thanks! Gotta love that term: "slutz heaven"...


- Stuart -
#127
4th May 2012
Old 4th May 2012
  #127
Gear interested
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Santiago
Posts: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Welcome Stuart!

Andre
Thanks Andre!

- Stuart -
#128
6th May 2012
Old 6th May 2012
  #128
Gear interested
 
Coat of Silence's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Location: Tinley Park, IL
Posts: 9

Retraction Statement

I have to make a retraction in regards to a statement I made about Rod Gervais in specific. I made a comment about him being "biased" toward our product being ineffective prior to his viewing of the data. This comment was wrong, and I misread a comment of his comparing our product to a cellulose insulation. In speaking with Rod I found him to be very much NON-Biased towards any product, and having upstanding character. Quite frankly, the conversation was very educational and I realized that like the entire acoustical community, all he wanted was data, or "cause and effect" as opposed to just "effect. I am probably nowhere near qualified to comment on anything further in regards to acoustics, because in my conversation with Mr. Gervais I realized exactly how far out of my league I am playing. I am going to get some more data to Rod once I have it, AKA the official reports once they are generated. We will have some new data regarding "new builds" in the near future which I will also share with Rod Gervais. I am also going to send him some wet and dry samples so with his approval we can talk about getting the same to others on this thread that are US based(International samples will likely have to come from a distributor in the respective geographic locations).

He also spoke very highly about Mr. Ron Sauro to whom I also apologize to if I disparaged him in previous posts. This gentleman, as you likely know if on this thread, is nothing short of brilliant and I don't speak that word lightly. I had my disapproval of a situation in the past, but in retrospect after talking with Rod(who spoke very highly of him) Gervais I believe that Ron wasn't acting in an unethical manner, however checking the credibility of a report to which I should have been more specific in my request for him not to do so. I also had a very educational and beneficial review of the product sent from John Brandt, who also proved to be a very objective and credible acoustical professional.

Being an outsider to your community I have realized that many manufacturers don't take the necessary steps to prove the validity of their products, so that was the source of all the skepticism. I took it as an attack on Coat of Silence, when in actuality it was much more of a general response to the large array of products that have been brought to market without verification of performance. Thanks for listening, and let me know if I can provide anything further such as wet or dry samples. Kind regards to you all.
#129
6th May 2012
Old 6th May 2012
  #129
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Central Village CT
Posts: 4,779

I also have to print a retraction for an earlier statement I made.

When I spoke with John Finn today (twice to be exact) it became pretty clear to me that there was a misunderstanding on his part as to how things work in this industry, and a misunderstanding as to my remarking about the sample size used in a test of spray cellulose insulation where I found conflicting data in IR 761 with that provided to me by the manufacturer of that product.

John was under the impression (and I now understand the why of this) that I was making a direct comparison of their product to cellulose insulation - and was disparaging their product in the process.

I (on the other hand) did make a disparaging remark relating to marketing, which was not only off topic, but also out of line - and I should never have made it.

It is obvious (by the manner in which this has "turned around" and the fact that the additional testing that took place was so recent) that this company does in fact care about things being done right so they can market this product within the acoustic community as a whole - and the positive results prove the value of the product is real.

The entire exchange leading up to the point of the release of the review of the data by David Moyer was a huge misunderstanding on both sides of the fence - and for my part in this I offer my apologies.

I also wish to thank John for the post he just made - it speaks volumes about him.

Sincerely,

Rod
#130
7th May 2012
Old 7th May 2012
  #130
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,863

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coat of Silence View Post
I have to make a retraction in regards to a statement I made about Rod Gervais in specific. I made a comment about him being "biased" toward our product being ineffective prior to his viewing of the data. This comment was wrong, and I misread a comment of his comparing our product to a cellulose insulation. In speaking with Rod I found him to be very much NON-Biased towards any product, and having upstanding character. Quite frankly, the conversation was very educational and I realized that like the entire acoustical community, all he wanted was data, or "cause and effect" as opposed to just "effect. I am probably nowhere near qualified to comment on anything further in regards to acoustics, because in my conversation with Mr. Gervais I realized exactly how far out of my league I am playing. I am going to get some more data to Rod once I have it, AKA the official reports once they are generated. We will have some new data regarding "new builds" in the near future which I will also share with Rod Gervais. I am also going to send him some wet and dry samples so with his approval we can talk about getting the same to others on this thread that are US based(International samples will likely have to come from a distributor in the respective geographic locations).

He also spoke very highly about Mr. Ron Sauro to whom I also apologize to if I disparaged him in previous posts. This gentleman, as you likely know if on this thread, is nothing short of brilliant and I don't speak that word lightly. I had my disapproval of a situation in the past, but in retrospect after talking with Rod(who spoke very highly of him) Gervais I believe that Ron wasn't acting in an unethical manner, however checking the credibility of a report to which I should have been more specific in my request for him not to do so. I also had a very educational and beneficial review of the product sent from John Brandt, who also proved to be a very objective and credible acoustical professional.

Being an outsider to your community I have realized that many manufacturers don't take the necessary steps to prove the validity of their products, so that was the source of all the skepticism. I took it as an attack on Coat of Silence, when in actuality it was much more of a general response to the large array of products that have been brought to market without verification of performance. Thanks for listening, and let me know if I can provide anything further such as wet or dry samples. Kind regards to you all.
Wonderfully worded!

The

Quote:
I am also going to send him some wet and dry samples so with his approval we can talk about getting the same to others on this thread that are US based(International samples will likely have to come from a distributor in the respective geographic locations).
makes ask right now that you forward my contact information to your Canadian distributor for sending samples to me. While writing about "international" customers, please do the same for John Brandt.

Andre
#131
8th May 2012
Old 8th May 2012
  #131
Gear interested
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 13

Coat of Silence

I would like to state my appreciation for the general conduct of this group. My posting time has been reduced over the last two years with building and reopening of my research and testing lab.
Please take my word that many posting places are not so well mannered.
Rod, Andre and John Brandt,
There are times when I wish your cooler levels of discourse could be brought to other groups and your level of openness is what science is all about.
John Finn,
Thank you for apology and your kind words. A lab like ours only makes it in this world when it is looked as being independant and non biased. I work a great deal on that ideal but I also am an odd person in that most people in lab work come from a technical background and not a physics background.
Because of that I have a tendency to look at things a little more closely. In good physics nothing is "free", and everything has a cost in energy or mass.
The original claim of 52dB was the opening leadind to a lot of "free effect".
Normaly 52dB has an enormus cost in mass...like two walls back to back, with a space of twelve inches between the studs and two to three layers of sheet rock and fiberglass betwwen the two walls. THAT, is mass...grins. When I read the new claim of two or three dB....that was possible... But no matter what the claim...th necessary steps needed to be done. ?so they made sense.
I appreciate your company doing those steps and providing the correct data to the acoustic and electro-acoustic community. Good luck with your product.

To the rest of the acoustic...NEVER be afraid to ask questions about the science of acoustics. I, myself, have had to swallow many statements I have made in these many years while teaching acoustics. Most were quotes from many of the experts that later on were found to be mistaken.
I have told many old friends that they need to be carefull about allowing an acoustic consultant to have a lab...because with a lab...all of those little questions can be tested vs "things we all know is correct".
#132
8th May 2012
Old 8th May 2012
  #132
Gear interested
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 13

Coat of Silence

I would like to state my appreciation for the general conduct of this group. My posting time has been reduced over the last two years with building and reopening of my research and testing lab.
Please take my word that many posting places are not so well mannered.
Rod, Andre and John Brandt,
There are times when I wish your cooler levels of discourse could be brought to other groups and your level of openness is what science is all about.
John Finn,
Thank you for apology and your kind words. A lab like ours only makes it in this world when it is looked as being independant and non biased. I work a great deal on that ideal but I also am an odd person in that most people in lab work come from a technical background and not a physics background.
Because of that I have a tendency to look at things a little more closely. In good physics nothing is "free", and everything has a cost in energy or mass.
The original claim of 52dB was the opening leadind to a lot of "free effect".
Normaly 52dB has an enormus cost in mass...like two walls back to back, with a space of twelve inches between the studs and two to three layers of sheet rock and fiberglass betwwen the two walls. THAT, is mass...grins. When I read the new claim of two or three dB....that was possible... But no matter what the claim...th necessary steps needed to be done, so they made sense.
I appreciate your company doing those steps and providing the correct data to the acoustic and electro-acoustic community. Good luck with your product.

To the rest of the acoustic community,...NEVER be afraid to ask questions about the science of acoustics. I, myself, have had to swallow many statements I have made in these many years while teaching acoustics. Most were quotes from many of the experts that later on were found to be mistaken.
I have told many old friends that they need to be carefull about allowing an acoustic consultant to have a lab...because with a lab...all of those little questions can be tested vs "things we all know is correct".
#133
8th May 2012
Old 8th May 2012
  #133
Gear interested
 
Coat of Silence's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Location: Tinley Park, IL
Posts: 9

Upcoming Test

Hi all,

Ron, we have a new product, recently chem engineered, that we are considering bringing to market. I can't yet disclose the details, however I would possibly like to have it tested at your lab. We may even want to do a comparative test with another well known product. From what I hear, RAL, Orfield and your facility are the best in the business(in no particular order), and we only have testing done at 2 of the 3. Regardless of results, I feel it is important to source the best testing facilities to test the limits of our products. I also feel it brings credibility to a product when it has a diverse "set" of tests done at different yet capable facilities(and from what I hear yours is as good as any in the US or globally). I am hoping to have this testing done in the next 2 months or so, and will get you the details privately once I have them. I can't guarantee this will happen(still have to get approved from owners), but if things go the way I anticipate we will request the service of your facility for testing. Thanks for having an open mind and allowing me to try and repair this situation.

As for those with sample needs, I will do my very best to get you wet and dry samples to review our material.

Sincerely,

JF
#134
8th May 2012
Old 8th May 2012
  #134
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,863

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Sauro View Post
I would like to state my appreciation for the general conduct of this group. My posting time has been reduced over the last two years with building and reopening of my research and testing lab.
Please take my word that many posting places are not so well mannered.
Rod, Andre and John Brandt,
There are times when I wish your cooler levels of discourse could be brought to other groups and your level of openness is what science is all about.
John Finn,
Thank you for apology and your kind words. A lab like ours only makes it in this world when it is looked as being independant and non biased. I work a great deal on that ideal but I also am an odd person in that most people in lab work come from a technical background and not a physics background.
Because of that I have a tendency to look at things a little more closely. In good physics nothing is "free", and everything has a cost in energy or mass.
The original claim of 52dB was the opening leadind to a lot of "free effect".
Normaly 52dB has an enormus cost in mass...like two walls back to back, with a space of twelve inches between the studs and two to three layers of sheet rock and fiberglass betwwen the two walls. THAT, is mass...grins. When I read the new claim of two or three dB....that was possible... But no matter what the claim...th necessary steps needed to be done, so they made sense.
I appreciate your company doing those steps and providing the correct data to the acoustic and electro-acoustic community. Good luck with your product.

To the rest of the acoustic community,...NEVER be afraid to ask questions about the science of acoustics. I, myself, have had to swallow many statements I have made in these many years while teaching acoustics. Most were quotes from many of the experts that later on were found to be mistaken.
I have told many old friends that they need to be carefull about allowing an acoustic consultant to have a lab...because with a lab...all of those little questions can be tested vs "things we all know is correct".
+1.

Slightly self-promoting,
Andre
#135
13th May 2012
Old 13th May 2012
  #135
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Central Village CT
Posts: 4,779

OK folks,

time for an update.....

I received a package from the company containing 1 sample each of the fully cured base and finish coats - both of which appear to have been applied to a glass surface, then removed after fully curing, as well as a small can of each of the products in their raw state for me to apply to a test surface so I can examine directly how they affect a panel.

I have not yet worked on a sample as am currently quite busy with keeping some paying clients happy, but I will get to that.

However - am examination of the cured products is pretty surprising, and i will say (rather emphatically) that this is not what you would think of when someone speaks of paint.

It is paint only in the sense that it covers a surface.......

When fully cured it is more like a relatively dense rubber compound,

And I can see a couple of ways his would work to help stop sound transmissions through a wall.

There will be some (small) benefit due to the mass - this is miniscule in nature - but my initial thought (having now seen the samples) is that the largest benefit from this is going to be the damping that will take place on the surface of the wall.

Picture this as dealing with a drum head....... essentially when we build wall/floor panel assemblies this is what we are constructing - huge drum heads.

When you have a drum that has a lot of resonance you will use any number of methods to control resonance by damping the head.

My preference is Moon Gel - others use rings - some use mechanical mufflers (either internal or external) but the goal is all the same regardless of the preferred method.

As we damp the head we achieve 2 things, the first being a decrease in the length of any ringing that will take place - the 2nd is a decrease in the volume (meaning amplitude) of the drum given exactly the same strength of the strike in either case.

This material - when fully cured - is essentially rubber - it is very elastic - has a strong tendency to return to it's natural state when it relaxes after stretching - and even in it's fully cured state it has great adhesion when pressed against it's counterpart.

It is (as indicated on the website) very VERY thick - and I'm actually pretty amazed at the condition of the finished product once curing is completed.

So picture this from the perspective of placing a thick rubber mat on the entire surface of a drum head.

Now - that having been said - as I mentioned I have not yet tried this on a drywall sample - and once doing so I might well modify my description of what seems to be taking place (although I doubt this seriously) - however simply examining the finished product I can see where this would have a definite benefit for other than low frequency isolation.

I will have to get a sample made up before I will be able to determine the amount of reflection that might take place with this product.

I will keep you appraised as my examinations continue

Rod
#136
13th May 2012
Old 13th May 2012
  #136
Lives for gear
 
John White's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 526

Thanks Rod. How does it compare to white elastomeric roof coating?
#137
14th May 2012
Old 14th May 2012
  #137
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Central Village CT
Posts: 4,779

Quote:
Originally Posted by John White View Post
Thanks Rod. How does it compare to white elastomeric roof coating?
John,

I would have to say that there is no comparison in that regard........ just as I would never use your product for waterproofing - I would never use that for isolation.

Rod
#138
14th May 2012
Old 14th May 2012
  #138
Lives for gear
 
John White's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 526

Rod, I was just curious about the product. No one mentioned using it to coat roofs.

So it's not white and rubbery? Then what is it?
#139
14th May 2012
Old 14th May 2012
  #139
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Central Village CT
Posts: 4,779

Quote:
Originally Posted by John White View Post
Rod, I was just curious about the product. No one mentioned using it to coat roofs.

So it's not white and rubbery? Then what is it?
John,

LOL......... I tend to believe that companies market their products to their strengths.......

Thus roofing products like this (although they will mention improvements in sound isolation) are not marketed in that vein because they do not excel in that regard.

However - this is an unfair comparison in any regard........

For example - those products are not warranted for applications over a drywall substrate, not even over an exterior gypsum product......

Which I why I make mention of the specific application the product is manufactured for - if I can't get a warranty if I use those products for an application similar to that which your product is manufactured for - I would have to be crazy to purchase those products to compare with yours......

Everything in the industry has to be kept in a certain perspective........ I would never consider specifying a product for anything that was not it's intended use - even if I thought it might work........ the liability if it didn't is just too great........

So I am back to not using theirs for soundproofing - and not using yours for waterproofing........

Rod
#140
14th May 2012
Old 14th May 2012
  #140
Lives for gear
 
John White's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 526

Rod do you get paid by the word here?

This is (was) a simple question.

I appreciated you taking the time to relate your experience (as always) with the product and have found the discussion fascinating. I am generally interested in all products designed for said purpose and am sponge for new information.

You mentioned the product was rubbery (much like elastomeric compound) and I just wanted to get a better sense by comparing it with something with which I am familiar.

I don't sell "sound proofing" or roofing material so they aren't "my" products.

You've successfully sapped all my curiosity out of me. Thread unsubscribed.

Curiously,
John
#141
14th May 2012
Old 14th May 2012
  #141
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Central Village CT
Posts: 4,779

John,

Sorry - did not mean your product as in a product you manufacture - but rather in the sense of just the product comparison.......... worded that badly

I understand the curiosity - but the roofing product - while rubbery - is not manufactured for that purpose which is why I have never examined it in that vein.

All of the manufacturers of these roofing products make mention of some isolation benefits for their products - however this is a (small) side effect that they apparently do not consider a driving force.

Quote:
This is (was) a simple question.
I will apologize for being so long winded - but I am generally concerned with making certain that there would be no misunderstanding of my meaning - thus always try to be thorough with my responses.

The short story is that I don't spend my time trying to examine product use for anything other than that intended by the manufacturer.

Just verifying that products work as they should takes up a ton of time in my life - this so I can always feel comfortable that I am specifying the right products.

I suppose if I made my living in a lab I might be more inclined to experiment - but I do not and therefor am not.

But I can appreciate the whole sponge for information thing - so stick with it..

Have a great day,

Rod
#142
18th May 2012
Old 18th May 2012
  #142
Gear interested
 
Coat of Silence's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Location: Tinley Park, IL
Posts: 9

NEW Comments

In regards to John White's comments, I would have to say Rod is absolutely correct about his assessment of the COS coating system compared to an elastomeric roof coating, like Uniflex(now a sherwin williams product I believe) for example. If one were to create two draw down samples on glass(just as Rod mentioned in his earlier post) you will find glaring differences but also some similarities... COS Finish Coat is white and Elastomeric, as is UNIFLEX, but that's about the extent of it. The UNIFLEX roof coating that I physically sampled has approx 3 times the VOC content(18 g's per L if I'm not mistaken) so wouldn't likely be a suitable interior finish for Children and Schools due to the off gassing and the corruption of indoor air quality, therefore it wouldn't likely get spec'd in large commercial applications as an interior finish. Rod would likely know better than I, however the actual raw material that UNIFLEX or other elastomeric roof coatings consist of would not likely be a suitable indoor solution, which is obviously why they don't market such... Those products including the aforementioned are effective exterior protective coating/waterproofing solutions and are engineered for outdoor use. The Formeldhyde content(used as a preservative) alone of most of the elastomeric coating products is over 7.3 PPB(parts per billion) so they wouldn't even be allowed in California and possibly other states starting in 2013. If you sent COS and UNIFLEX to an emulsion lab with capable and experienced chemical engineers, they would likely have no problem distinguishing the variances in microemulsions and nanoemulsions between the products. So in short, they are similar but different.

I could elaborate in further detail regarding those similarities and differences but Rod already did a better job than I could ever hope to(resiliency being the most noticeable difference, COS finish coat is far more resilient or "stretchy" in my observations). However I don't have much to offer that would be of value to this group so I won't comment, but I have sampled UNIFLEX and did notice differences for whatever its worth...

With all of that stated, I have had several experts in the building trades who HAVE physically sampled our material make the exact same inquiry as John White("Why isn't it being used as a roofing material??"), whom I'm quite impressed with his ability to make this comparison without actually physically sampling the material as Rod was able to. Mr White, I must congratulate you, because every other expert whom suggested roofing had the benefit of a physical sample. Your comments are well deserved and highlight your strong building materials acumen. The comments by Rod echo what mine will be regarding this common question. We don't market the coating system as a roofing solution because this is not the intended use of the product and we aren't in a position to offer warrantees for long-term exterior roofing apps. Although the waterproofing capability is very, very good for COS, and people have used our material for outdoor use with success, we simply have not done enough due diligence to be able to make valid statements about this product as a roofing material. If someone could "sell" me on COS being a viable solution for outdoor apps, we would likely do a different product specifically for that industry and alter the chemical composition. Also, one major weakness of COS in a roofing capacity would be the lack of UV inhibitors, which would be essential for a successful roofing product because of the large majority of the end use being outdoor applications. Although we could easily add this, we don't have roofing suppliers banging down the doors looking for us to perform more R&D for roofing apps, so we won't be adding it anytime soon to COS. Possibly a private label in the future, which has been discussed and we could do it if the situation were right, but not for now. Our applications and intended uses are acoustical in nature, so that is what we are trying to focus on. As I've mentioned many times, I am not an acoustical expert by any means(however many on this thread are) but I do believe that is where our product will be most effective based on our current testing. We DO have lab testing for fire rating, R Value, mold/mildew/fungus and acoustics so we try to focus the marketing efforts within the acoustical umbrella and also market a few "ancillary" benefits such as waterproofing, mold/mildew resistance, increased energy efficiency, Class A fire rating ect..., HOWEVER, acoustics is intended use of the product so that is where we will continue to focus.

On a completely different note, if you'll please allow me to do some self promotion(lol)... COS now has a decorative line with 12 designer colors called Serenity. This product is spearheaded by our trusted partners who are some of the best decorative and faux artists in the world, launched this week with much success at the Hospitality and Design Expo in Las Vegas. They have the breadth to combine world-class Faux and Decorative designs WITH the sound reduction coating technology to create some incredible wall coverings for commercial and residential use(hospitals, hotels, condominium developments ect..). If you know anyone with custom design needs, they are the best resource you will find with incredible creativity. They also have a dry erase coating(Remarkable is the name of the product) which is far superior than any on the market so please let me know if you need any info. Sorry to turn this into a commercial, that wasn't the intention, but there are a lot of experts on this thread so I wanted to get that information out there. Thanks for your time, please let me know if anyone has any further questions.
#143
8th August 2012
Old 8th August 2012
  #143
Gear interested
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1

Ponzi scam

coat of silence is the biggest scam going. They pay people off to make their product look like its legit. They order mass product from china and relabel it as sound reduction paint.. DONT FALL FOR THIS SCAM report them
#144
8th August 2012
Old 8th August 2012
  #144
Lives for gear
 
johndykstra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,766

read the thread
#145
9th August 2012
Old 9th August 2012
  #145
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Central Village CT
Posts: 4,779

Quote:
Originally Posted by rprp122 View Post
coat of silence is the biggest scam going. They pay people off to make their product look like its legit. They order mass product from china and relabel it as sound reduction paint.. DONT FALL FOR THIS SCAM report them
It is unfortunate when a person who does not have a clue about whatever he/she is talking about speaks as though they were an authority on any particular subject.

This would be one of those cases in point......

We have "vetted" this product - it is not possible for them to "pay off" a reputable testing lab in order to entice them to produce a false report.....

The lab they had the tests performed at is a certified lab - and it must maintain that certification or else it will never get any government contracts - which would cost them a hell of a lot more money than this company could ever afford to put i their pocket.

The tests results are real - the person who wrote the analysis of those tests is held in the highest regard in the industry - and if you knew anything about the subject at hand you would already know this - but then again - you don't.

They make no claims of magic here - there is no shell game - no one hiding behind the curtain - they produce a product that can make some reasonable gains in isolation when used as directed - it's just that simple.

Where the product is manufactured has no bearing on how it preforms........

Rod
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
thenewyear / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
201
Dave Derr / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
138
pethenis / Post Production forum!
33
Remoteness / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
62
rnt_u_listnng / Work In Progress / Advice Requested / Show & Tell / Artist Showcase / Mix-Offs
0

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

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.