Owens Corning 705 and 707 and is king!

[T800]

Originally Posted by latestflavor

also (chart attached) - let us not forget that since the title of the thread included OC 705 as being "king", that Owens Corning's own published data shows that 703 has a higher absorption coefficients in nearly every frequency than 705, including the lows, low mids, mids that were the subject of OP's thread premise.

If I would have titled this thread - "OC 705/707 sounds more musical in absorbtion/reflection balance" then this would have been over on the first page.

What does this have anything to do with this thread? You seem to not understand that higher numbers are not always the ideal objective, perhaps a more balanced listening experience for the human ear might be the objective. Therefore your referencing is mute unless you make some correlation to how the human ear percieved differences between the same room that would have 705 vs 703. And you fail to understand that this correlation is what P & S already has likely made - hence their usage of the 6lb density material as their main go to paneling material.

Originally Posted by The Vulture

I am kind of shocked by the lack of respect the thread starter is displaying.
You get free advice by some of the best experts around and you behave like this.

Shame on you!

Now stop this nonsense and don`t take everything so personal.

Stop what nonsense? The only nonsense is that you fail to synthesize the advice from my visit to P & S as well as lengthy phone calls to acoustical solutions with the advice and its significant difference of opinion given to me here. This is a serious problem you do not account for because the 705 board is twice as dense as the 703 board. So somebody please enlighten me.

[T800]

Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson

False! tutt

Let me Quote a little freind of mine by the name of Ethan Winer () who also, as a matter of fact, generally advocate a little denser material for the general absorber. Here's nevertheless what he says regarding that advocation:

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer;
However, it is important to understand that a material's density is but one contributor to its effectiveness as an absorber. Obviously, if the density is made too high the material will reflect more than it absorbs, so it's a mistake to conclude that higher densities are always better.

You just don't get it do you. What you dont understand at all is that the Owens Corning 705 board sounds more musical when covered by panel fabric than does absorbtion characteristic/reflection from the 703 board in comparing the characteristics that these two materials introduce into rooms.

The error that Ethan Winter made in that passage you shared there is by implying that the material that absorbs more would be the preferred material. This is a total error in this industry. He exemplifies this error by stating -"Obviously, if the density is made too high the material will reflect more than it absorbs, so it's a mistake to conclude that higher densities are always better. "

The real mistake is to conclude that the lower densities which absorb more are better. Nothing could be further from the truth. More is not always better. And this is why the starting one size fits all board upon consultations from professionals I listed are the starting materials I have been 100% correct about.

And this is where that author's argument burys itself into its own coffin:

For this reason, test data must be the final arbiter of a product's effectiveness.

Effectiveness of what. Perceived tonal musicality and pleasantness of rooms with just the right amount of absorption - not too much / not too little? I don't think so.

By the way thats the yardstick thats popular at the center that builds the greatest studios on earth.

What you are failing to grasp T800, is that how a room is designed depends on the nature of the premises. How an absorber needs to act in order to complement the system in which it is placed, depends on all the other variables of that system. And how a porous absorber will act depends not only on it's density, but on it's porosity, mounting
and thickness... and let's not forget that cost is a big factor when choosing the material and/or absorber design.

You also miss rear air spacing, if any.

But I fail to grasp nothing. The 705 board is more pleasant for room characteristics - any room - for the audio spectrum that the human ear hears.

Earlier i gave you a reading recommendation:



I recommend you at least read the following passage (page 111-112): Recording Studio Design - Philip Newell

You still don't get it. Because this is simply irrelevant.

(bolded by me)

Psycho Acoustics?? Please elaborate....

Sure, the 705 board makes the room sound not too absorbtive and simply more musical. Ask the experts why. I am not a scientist or a philosopher on the human ear. I am just merely pointing out observations.

If you want maximum effectiveness of absorbtion, go record and mix in a room loaded with 50 inch thick foam everywhere. Lets see who comes up with better recordings and mixes. You or me. Chances are I would because your recording would sound drier than my grandmother's voice.

Yes indeed... I'm very interested in being educated on the subject! I would also like to know how one subjectively verifies the succes of ER treatments, carried out by the aid of a mirror???

Alas the tactics behind your distortions of my position is now evident for all. As you frame me to have assumed the mirror technique was used for determining effectiveness when it was clear from the context that I was using them to determine placement.

As for you and Rod's "Shifting of the burden of proof" fallacy - that is really all that it is - placed on me incorrectly to somehow be expected to explain the psychoacoustics of the materials i compared merely because I observed that the 705 board is more conductive to the recording studio's more musically pleasant mixing and recording for their tonal characteristics caused in the room - absorptive or (or lack thereof).

Most probably... Because it was a general recommendation to your unspecified situation. Not an optimal solution to a certain part of a specific system!!

Wrong on all fronts. It is the board that is more musical and therefore a better one size fits all scenario.

Most probably... Because it was a general recommendation to your unspecified situation. Not an optimal solution to a certain part of a specific system!!

Again, wrong on all fronts. It is the board that is more musical and therefore a better one size fits all scenario.

[latestflavor]

i gotta bow out at this point in time. there's so much crap the sewer is backing up. cleaning it is not in my job description

[Rod Gervais]

Originally Posted by T800

: What you dont understand at all is that the Owens Corning 705 board sounds more musical when covered by panel fabric than does absorbtion characteristic/reflection from the 703 board in comparing the characteristics that these two materials introduce into rooms.

Folks - I know I said I was done with this - however sometimes things are just to hard to resist.....

800 old boy........... we keep trying to tell you - and you continue to not get - absorptive materials don't have a "sound" - they don't sound anything - they do not sound musical - they do not sound unmusical - they do not sound at all........

Rooms have characteristics - they are a sum of all of the materials in the space- coupled with the geometry of the room.

There is no one single element that makes up the manner in which the room interacts with the sound produced within the space.

It is here where your argument fails.

We have been trying to point this out to you since the very beginning of this thread - and it is this that you fail to grasp.......

Sure, the 705 board makes the room sound not too absorbtive and simply more musical. Ask the experts why. I am not a scientist or a philosopher on the human ear. I am just merely pointing out observations.

It's quite apparent that you are not a scientist - because a scientist realizes that observations do not necessarily result in correct conclusions (take for example the belief that the earth was the center of the universe because it was observed that the universe rotated around it - a correct visual observation of the (apparent) movement of the universe - an incorrect conclusion drawn from the observation).

In the rooms you've been in where this material was used - it is but one part of why the room works the way it does - it is but one part of a complete design..... one small part of the whole.

No one here has ever stated that this material cannot be used as a part of a whole room design - but your understanding of the whole concept of room treatments is simply so flawed that it's unbelievable.

Wrong on all fronts. It is the board that is more musical and therefore a better one size fits all scenario.

Again an example of a lack of understanding on your part - absorptive material are not musical - and there is no one size fits all (better) when it comes to treating rooms.....

The real mistake is to conclude that the lower densities which absorb more are better. Nothing could be further from the truth. More is not always better. And this is why the starting one size fits all board upon consultations from professionals I listed are the starting materials I have been 100% correct about.

Not even 1% correct - in fact this is a contradiction in terms - if more is not better than a material with absorbs more is better because you will need less of it to achieve the same goals - which would result in a more lively room - not a more dead room........

The companies whose products you shout (loudly to the world) are the best are simply companies trying to make money.

For every satisfied client they have - there are a ton of other companies who have as many or more.... GIK customers sing their praises (about that company and their products) as loudly as you. Do you really believe - for even a moment - that you are just smarter than their clients - that somehow they have been duped - that their rooms suck and only your room sounds good?

You suggest that Ethan doesn't have a clue - that he somehow just doesn't understand - yet here's a short list of some of his clients - you might recognize some of the names:

Herbie Hancock,
Bob Clearmountain,
Atlantic Records,
NBC's Universal Studios,
Telefunken USA,
M-Audio,
TASCAM-Nemesys,
NASA,
Universal Mastering,
Berklee College of Music,
MIT,
Bose Corp,
Paramount Recording,
Warner Brothers Records,
Roy Hendrickson, chief engineer at Avatar Studios in New York.

Perhaps this would interest you (it demonstrates that Ethan is not quite as clueless as you would have us believe)

Barry Gibb purchased RealTrap products to do the room treatments for the recording of Barbra Streisand's CD "Guilty Pleasures" at Barbra's home.

The Co-producer (John Merchant) sent Real Traps some photos and told them:

"We were able to use a combination of MiniTraps and MicroTraps to tame down the reflections and even out the low frequency response. She [Barbra] was very happy with the vocal sound ... the mixes translated beautifully with no ugly surprises."

I wonder what it is that all these people know that you haven't figured out? Or are you seriously suggesting to us that the people and companies listed above are not quite as smart as you - and wouldn't know the difference between a good product and a bad one?

BTW - what is your claim to fame? I see famous people - famous (world class) studios, ect. that indicate Ethan knows what he's about when it comes to these things - people who certainly have golden ears - some of the best in the world - what (exactly) makes you smarter than those people - how is it you know the secret to success that they have somehow never figured out?

You are just unbelievable.......

Rod

[amishsixstringe]

So...you're not even in a real studio, but what sounds like a bed room or guest room... Nothing against that, but it just proves what level you are on.

Also, why would you treat first reflection points with a material that intentionally allows more reflections back into the room?? That makes absolutely no sense to me. The whole point of treating that area was to eliminate reflections at the listening position which result in comb filtering.

You simply have no concept of physics, science, or logic. That's ok though. I don't really understand nuclear power plants on more than a basic level. I will leave it up to the experts. As should you.

Purely speculation, but I bet my control room that is treated with a mix of 703 and roxul 3pcf 'sounds more musical' and tests better than your L shaped guest room with 705. I also would bet that it is not because of the materials used, but the knowledge that went into using them.

I don't know if you have counted, but there is not one person on this forum that can vouch for you--on any level...not a client, not an engineer, not a scientist...nadda.

I would be very interested to see a waterfall and rt60 of your L shaped room.

I really hope non members and lurkers who are reading this are not buying into any of your udder garbage. There is enough shit all over the internot that contributes to awful rooms.

Even my girlfriend has been laughing at you, T. We actually read your thread together at night before bed to see what ignorant shit you have said that day.

Neil

[DanDan]

I would like to formally request that this thread be closed.
DD

[Brainchild]

But...just when we were really starting to get somewhere!

[T800]

Originally Posted by Rod Gervais

800 old boy........... we keep trying to tell you - and you continue to not get - absorptive materials don't have a "sound" - they don't sound anything - they do not sound musical - they do not sound unmusical - they do not sound at all........

I can give you an experiment to make you believe otherwise. Take 6 acoustic panels - 2 of them made of Owens 703, 2 of them made of FabRock LT, and 2 of them made of OC705. With each pair put them on a table into a V-shape kind of forming your own little Flexi-booth with the ends touching. (by the way the real flexibooth is also 705). Go in and do some test speaking and listening. Then I would like to see if you would still come back on here and dare say the materials all have no sound or "no sonic response".

Rooms have characteristics - they are a sum of all of the materials in the space- coupled with the geometry of the room.

There is no one single element that makes up the manner in which the room interacts with the sound produced within the space.

It is here where your argument fails.

We have been trying to point this out to you since the very beginning of this thread - and it is this that you fail to grasp.......

I never said rooms and the sum of all their materials or the geometry of the room had no influence on the overall sound of the room. Please do not begin inserting concepts into my head that I never denied.

But at this point I have no reason to believe that the 705 panels should not be preferred of over the 703s. There has been no indication given of such things since the 705s clearly have a nicer musical sonic characteristic about them.

It's quite apparent that you are not a scientist - because a scientist realizes that observations do not necessarily result in correct conclusions (take for example the belief that the earth was the center of the universe because it was observed that the universe rotated around it - a correct visual observation of the (apparent) movement of the universe - an incorrect conclusion drawn from the observation).

With music or the sonic arts this is not a fair analogy. Otherwise with that train of thought, now we all of a sudden need to judge the recording and mixing environment, and the music and audio arts made inside it into empirical quantifiable data what tells us nothing at the end of the day about the humanly perceived characteristics of the room.

In the rooms you've been in where this material was used - it is but one part of why the room works the way it does - it is but one part of a complete design..... one small part of the whole.

No one here has ever stated that this material cannot be used as a part of a whole room design - but your understanding of the whole concept of room treatments is simply so flawed that it's unbelievable.

I understand treatments quite well. But at the end of the day, I and other recording artists and mixers and engineers prefer the boards that give the room a better character. And if the room has not been built yet, then we would prefer the room be designed for the use of 705s. But if it were anm existing room, we would have more effective use of 705 boards.

Again an example of a lack of understanding on your part - absorptive material are not musical - and there is no one size fits all (better) when it comes to treating rooms.....

I never said absorptive materials were musical in and of themselves, I clearly was pointing towards the fact of how music sounds like recorded and listened to (as well as other audio listened to in the room) when those materials are switched.

Apparently at P & R there is a general starting point which corroborates my claims.

Not even 1% correct - in fact this is a contradiction in terms - if more is not better than a material with absorbs more is better because you will need less of it to achieve the same goals - which would result in a more lively room - not a more dead room........

This is not where I was going with that. Sure you could use less of the same material that is more absorptive, with less square foot coverage... but then you might get other acoustic anomalies if the room is an undesired geometric shape if you dont have those materials where you should have them. Or you could use the same amount of the other material and just get better overall room tone. As the expert you should grant some of the points I have been making about the desired characteristics of those boards I mention and you should be helping other home studio enthusiats in here reach goals that I know exist that although one might be close to achieving with the 703 board, would be achieved even better with the 705 board - such as the designs of the rooms I have referenced.

The companies whose products you shout (loudly to the world) are the best are simply companies trying to make money.

Then why don't they suddenly take your advice and make even more money by saving more money by paying half price of 705 boards by purchasing 703 boards for their production?

For every satisfied client they have - there are a ton of other companies who have as many or more.... GIK customers sing their praises (about that company and their products) as loudly as you. Do you really believe - for even a moment - that you are just smarter than their clients - that somehow they have been duped - that their rooms suck and only your room sounds good?

I would not suggest that they have been duped. And I would not at all suggest their rooms suck. I am just saying their rooms can be better for the audio arts.

You suggest that Ethan doesn't have a clue - that he somehow just doesn't understand - yet here's a short list of some of his client - you might recognize some of the names:

Herbie Hancock,
Bob Clearmountain,
Atlantic Records,
NBC's Universal Studios,
Telefunken USA,
M-Audio,
TASCAM-Nemesys,
NASA,
Universal Mastering,
Berklee College of Music,
MIT,
Bose Corp,
Paramount Recording,
Warner Brothers Records,
Roy Hendrickson, chief engineer at Avatar Studios in New York.

Perhaps this would interest you (it demonstrates that Ethan is not quite as clueless as you would have us believe)

I congratulate Ethan for his successful clients. I never said he was clueless. I was responding to the post another member Soren made who was referencing Ethan's quote in an unsuccessful attempt to somehow use this quote refute my claims to preferring the 705 board for valid sonic reasons.

Barry Gibb purchased RealTrap products to do the room treatments for the recording of Barbra Streisand's CD "Guilty Pleasures" at Barbra's home.

The Co-producer (John Merchant) sent Real Traps some photos and told them:

"We were able to use a combination of MiniTraps and MicroTraps to tame down the reflections and even out the low frequency response. She [Barbra] was very happy with the vocal sound ... the mixes translated beautifully with no ugly surprises."

Good for them. For low frequency problems I did not say using the lower density materials were bad or did not work better than 705 (minus the membrane).

I wonder what it is that all these people know that you haven't figured out? Or are you seriously suggesting to us that the people and companies listed above are not quite as smart as you - and wouldn't know the difference between a good product and a bad one?

Ms. Streisland woould have been even happier if the real traps would have been left for the corners for the low frequenncy behavior, and instead 6lb density boards used for the main panels on the walls assuming they were 2 inches.

BTW - what is your claim to fame? I see famous people - famous (world class) studios, ect. that indicate Ethan knows what he's about when it comes to these things - people who certainly have golden ears - some of the best in the world - what (exactly) makes you smarter than those people - how is it you know the secret to success that they have somehow never figured out?

You are using a fallacious argument that somehow the level of fame that the people I have helped has anything to do with the validity of my claims. I find this even more unbelievable and am having a hard time believing what I just read from you.

[Brainchild]

Originally Posted by T800

And if the room has not been built yet, then we would prefer the room be designed for the use of 705s.

Why? There is no legitimate reason in the universe for that preference.

Originally Posted by T800

But if it were an existing room, we would have more effective use of 705 boards.

False.

Originally Posted by T800

Ms. Streisland woould have been even happier if the real traps would have been left for the corners for the low frequenncy behavior, and instead 6lb density boards used for the main panels on the walls assuming they were 2 inches.

False. Or, at the very least, you have no reason to back up that claim.

I have to say, this is the best troll in a long time.

[T800]

Originally Posted by amishsixstringe

So...you're not even in a real studio, but what sounds like a bed room or guest room... Nothing against that, but it just proves what level you are on.

No it does not prove jack and thats simply an unfair claim because this room is just temporary. I have worked in other rooms before.

Also, why would you treat first reflection points with a material that intentionally allows more reflections back into the room?? That makes absolutely no sense to me. The whole point of treating that area was to eliminate reflections at the listening position which result in comb filtering.

They do eliminate those reflections.

You simply have no concept of physics, science, or logic. That's ok though. I don't really understand nuclear power plants on more than a basic level. I will leave it up to the experts. As should you.

But apparently you have not even the simplest conception about how those materials affect the overall timbre of the room or how they actually absorb, or for that matter the diffuse nature in which they reflect.

Ask the companies I listed why they choose not to save more money and build their panels from the lower density materials you believe more strongly in.

Purely speculation, but I bet my control room that is treated with a mix of 703 and roxul 3pcf 'sounds more musical' and tests better than your L shaped guest room with 705. I also would bet that it is not because of the materials used, but the knowledge that went into using them.

They may test differently, but they will not sound better than if you would have 705 as the main panels. Not in a million years. And nice try to compare two rooms of different shapes. Its a fallacy that demonstrates the level you reside on. Because your room would also sound better than that temporary L-shaped room even if my room was treated with the same materials yours is. Proving your argument has just come from the backed up sewer someone mentioned above.

I don't know if you have counted, but there is not one person on this forum that can vouch for you--on any level...not a client, not an engineer, not a scientist...nadda.

Apparently you only choose to engage in selective reading.

I would be very interested to see a waterfall and rt60 of your L shaped room.

I would be interested in hearing your useless coffin.

I really hope non members and lurkers who are reading this are not buying into any of your udder garbage. There is enough shit all over the internot that contributes to awful rooms.

Like the fallacious nature of your reasoning above that would use your selected materials in the better shaped room to compare to a horrible shaped room with the better materials inside it. Your reasoning is simply bankrupt.

And by the way your room is no good. You probabily are satisfied with the rectangle shape whereas I admitted I am only temporarily using my L-shaped room. But my pentagon shaped room in development will kill yours.

[T800]

Even my girlfriend has been laughing at you, T. We actually read your thread together at night before bed to see what ignorant shit you have said that day.

You actually make use of reading forums with your girlfriend for kicks? Wow.

Anyways, tell your girlfriend the same portable booth experiment I offered to others with placing two panels each of the lower density materials and 2 of the 705 compared on a table - in a V-shape with the tips touching - like the Flexi-booth concept - testing vocals. And then even she will come back here admitting that what I have been saying is true - and will start laughing at you.

[Rod Gervais]

Originally Posted by Brainchild

Why? There is no legitimate reason in the universe for that preference.

True that.........

False.

True that........

False. Or, at the very least, you have no reason to back up that claim.

I am quite sure that Barbra Streisand, who has been nominated for over 57 Grammy Awards; won 15 including two special awards., and has been inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame three times, knows the difference between good and bad.

As do the rest of the people/facilities/organizations in that list.

There is a room in a studio in Manila where the string section for the China Philharmonic Orchestra recorded - the owner (of the studio) told me that the musicians said they had never played in a studio where their instruments sounded as good as they did in that room......... their director said that he never heard their instruments recorded sounding as good as they did when he listened to them in the control room...... and to think there was not a single piece of 705 in either of those rooms.

I have to say, this is the best troll in a long time.

Well if not "the best" - it certainly is in the top 5...

Rod

[T800]

Originally Posted by Brainchild

Why? There is no legitimate reason in the universe for that preference.

Yes there is - because they have a nicer sonic response to better shape more pleasant sonic characteristics within the room.

False.

Why is my claim to a more sonically agreeable use of 705 boards in the same room more false? You make claims with nothing to back them up. Those are called unsupported claims.

False. Or, at the very least, you have no reason to back up that claim.

I gave plenty of reasons above. Such as the room would be more inviting aurally.

I have to say, this is the best troll in a long time.

You are rather late. And also incorrect. I already pointed out that you are the troll for showing no regard whatsoever for the fact that my question of why all these companies, consultants as well as the retailers selling their products on the front lines - would not instead recommend the lower density materials (which they also) sell as their first go to products? Especially if what I have said is not valid. So thanks TROLL.

[johndykstra]

Sometimes they reflect and sometimes they kill reflections? Intelligent absorption?!?!?!?

Let's assume for a minute that commercial acoustic retailers by and large make basic treatments... That's to say not custom... They can work anywhere. They ship them everywhere. If it were my business, I'd want the panels to be able to not only stand up to the abuses of shipping, but I'd also want them to look nice on the wall around rowdy musicians. Does it not make sense this would be a reason they use such a rigid material? Coefficients between different rigid glasses are so minute, I think it's far more likely they build their products more for durability than for some magical one scenario reflective and full of life material, but when placed at first reflection points knows to seek and destroy.

If you want an absorbent material to not be a coffin, you aren't going to point to a few hundredths of an absorption coefficient to gain this "life". You are going to face the absorbent with reflective surfaces, place it judiciously, angle it when appropriate, and use a trapping strategy that gives you the proper frequency(ies) affected while using the amount of space you are willing to allocate. Sometimes it will be 705 or 703. Sometimes R22, ... Sometimes hangers, sometimes panels, sometimes membranes, sometimes helmholtz.

[T800]

Originally Posted by Rod Gervais

I am quite sure that Barbra Streisand, who has been nominated for over 57 Grammy Awards; won 15 including two special awards., and has been inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame three times, knows the difference between good and bad.

Its as if Barbara Streisland is the be all and end all of the universe all of a sudden.

Your reasoning now used the association to fame as a valid argument. Thats a logical fallacy called the Appeal to Celebrity.



Type: Appeal to Misleading Authority

Form: Celebrity C endorses Brand X (or Candidate Y, or Cause Z).
Therefore, Brand X (or Candidate Y, or Cause Z) is good.

Exposition:

Appealing to celebrity is one of the most common forms of fallacious appeal to authority. Celebrity endorsement of products is so common that we hardly notice it or wonder why Michael Jordan is trying to sell us underwear. Moreover, in addition to products, celebrities often endorse political candidates, and during every presidential election year each candidate rounds up his own stable of famous supporters. In addition, celebrities publicly espouse every political, religious, and charitable cause, and some has-beens build second careers in the public eye as spokespeople for causes.

What is wrong with appealing to celebrity? There are two problems:

1. Since most celebrities are actors or sports stars, they are seldom experts on the products or causes that they endorse. Sometimes the advertisers even attempt to exploit confusion between fantasy and reality by selecting actors to endorse products based on the fictional characters they play. Famously, one old television commercial for cough syrup began with an actor saying: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV." Similarly, the actor Robert Young, who was best known for his television role as "Marcus Welby, M.D.", was a spokesman for decaffeinated coffee. These were not real doctors, but make-believe ones, who did not have real medical expertise, just make-believe expertise.

Of course, sports celebrities often endorse athletic shoes and other equipment, and it is at least plausible that they have expertise with these products. However, they raise the second problem with celebrity appeals:
2. Most celebrities who endorse products are paid to do so, and thus the endorsement is not a disinterested one. Celebrities who endorse charities or political candidates probably are not paid money, but they often benefit from the association with a good cause or the publicity that comes from controversy.

Some advertisers attempt to use doublespeak to disguise the fact that their spokespersons are paid. They put the words "compensated endorsement" in small print at the bottom of the screen, apparently hoping that the viewers will not understand that these eleven-letter words mean that the spokesperson is paid.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Celebrity

As do the rest of the people/facilities/organizations in that list.

It doesn't matter. I am still hiring P & R for drafting a design schematic for the new studio and they will be using 705 as the main material (plus my ideas vinyl bass trap concept off the max trap) to come up with a very ultimate sounding room.

There is a room in a studio in Manila where the string section for the China Philharmonic Orchestra recorded - the owner (of the studio) told me that the musicians said they had never played in a studio where their instruments sounded as good as they did in that room......... their director said that he never heard their instruments recorded sounding as good as they did when he listened to them in the control room...... and to think there was not a single piece of 705 in either of those rooms.

I would not suggest that their testimony is in anyway invalid. But this is irrelevant. I believe they can maybe experience even more sonically pleasing treatments.

[amishsixstringe]

They do eliminate those reflections.

You JUST told everyone that 705 allows more reflections into the room. Now it does absorb all of them??

They may test differently, but they will not sound better than if you would have 705 as the main panels. Not in a million years. And nice try to compare two rooms of different shapes. Its a fallacy that demonstrates the level you reside on. Because your room would also sound better than that temporary L-shaped room even if my room was treated with the same materials yours is. Proving your argument has just come from the backed up sewer someone mentioned above.

My room will sound better than yours because I was designed as a complete system. I didn't decide what materials I wanted to use and then design the room around them. I decided what I wanted the room to sound like, and then used the appropriate materials that would achieve that sound. I did use OC705, actually. I used it to line the HVAC mufflers I made. It just doesn't have anything to do with the acoustic model of my room.



[QUOTE=}Apparently you only choose to engage in selective reading. [/QUOTE]

I must have been, because I just went back and looked again. NOT one person on this thread has been in support of anything you have vomited onto your keyboard. Please show me. And "this person I talked to on the phone agrees with me" doesn't count.

I would be interested in hearing your useless coffin.

You are more than welcome to come see and hear it at any time. My 'coffin' however, has only about 5% coverage of absorption. It is quite live. The most common surface is oak.

Like the fallacious nature of your reasoning above that would use your selected materials in the better shaped room to compare to a horrible shaped room with the better materials inside it. Your reasoning is simply bankrupt.

My room would sound (and test) worse with OC705 used in place of the materials that I have specified for construction. This is because it was DESIGNED for a certain material. It is part of a system. You can't just substitute a material for another because it is "better". Better, is the material that works best for the situation. My specs use low density porous absorption.

And by the way your room is no good. You probabily are satisfied with the rectangle shape whereas I admitted I am only temporarily using my L-shaped room. But my pentagon shaped room in development will kill yours.

Oh man, you got me now. Wait you got 5 walls!? That's so much better than the measly 4 that I have. I am going to design a room with 12 walls that will kill your room!

You have finally said something correct. I AM satisfied with my room. Mostly because I had a design concept and followed strict guidelines to achieve a goal. My room has a very linear bass response, with no early reflections and a diffuse return at about 19ms at the listening position. I have a very warm aesthetic and clear sight lines to my tracking room and iso room.

Neil

[DanDan]

Ms. Streisland woould have been even happier if the real traps would have been left for the corners for the low frequenncy behavior, and instead 6lb density boards used for the main panels on the walls assuming they were 2 inches.

Hard to tell what her feelings might have been.
AFAIK RealTraps are 6lb density. The Minis are 3.25 inches, the Micros just 1 inch or so. The Minis have a membrane, front for LF, back for MF.
And yes, they do have a 'sound' when installed as designed, and in large numbers.
I believe when they are hanging, they resonate quite audibly. Thump one to hear this. This appears to suck out the lower mids in the room. Furthermore, I believe the facings, without the membrane, are quite reflective at grazing angles. This leads to a strangely lengthened HF bloom.
Overall a kinda Hi Fi effect.
I cannot imagine that any of this applies to a simple comparison of the same material at different densities. It is about the facing mounting and location.

DD

[T800]

Originally Posted by DanDan

Hard to tell what her feelings might have been.
AFAIK RealTraps are 6lb density. The Minis are 3.25 inches, the Micros just 1 inch or so. The Minis have a membrane, front for LF, back for MF.

Now I am confused because people have been arguing in favor of 3.5 pound. Are they rockwool or fibreglass?

And yes, they do have a 'sound' when installed as designed, and in large numbers. I believe when they are hanging, they resonate quite audibly. Thump one to hear this

Thanks for corroborating something I mentioned about the materials having a sound. That these so called "absorbtive" materials can resonate that thumps. Chances are these are rockwool because that thump in the room actually increases. I have not noticed this problem with 6lb fibreglass, only 6lb rockwool and lower density fiberglass.

I agree with some of the people in that room dimensions have an influence on this. But I know from my experience as well that certain materials resonate that unwanted thump more than others. I do not find this with 705. I find them to be the most balanced.

[localhost127]

Originally Posted by T800

They do eliminate those reflections.

how are you validating the reflections are attenuated? to what gain? at what angle of incidence?

earlier, you prided yourself on using the mirror technique. do you believe a mirror is a measuring tool?

[T800]

Originally Posted by amishsixstringe

You JUST told everyone that 705 allows more reflections into the room. Now it does absorb all of them??

The main point I have been making is that 705 is the perfect balance... does not absorb too much, and not too little. Causes the fewest problems.

It absorbs and anything it reflects it does so in a diffuse way as not to cause the acoustical problems.

My room will sound better than yours because I was designed as a complete system. I didn't decide what materials I wanted to use and then design the room around them. I decided what I wanted the room to sound like, and then used the appropriate materials that would achieve that sound. I did use OC705, actually. I used it to line the HVAC mufflers I made. It just doesn't have anything to do with the acoustic model of my room.

You need to open your mind to other possible scenarios that could possibly give you a more pleasant sounding room. But who knows what you prefer or what the purpose of your room is.

I must have been, because I just went back and looked again. NOT one person on this thread has been in support of anything you have vomited onto your keyboard. Please show me. And "this person I talked to on the phone agrees with me" doesn't count.

See my previous post in quoting the previous member Dan Dan who corroborated the so called vomit emitted from my mouth that yes certain panels consisting of certain materials can indeed resonate and "sound". Despite the disagreements from others.

Please do not spread falsehoods about acoustical materials.

You are more than welcome to come see and hear it at any time. My 'coffin' however, has only about 5% coverage of absorption. It is quite live. The most common surface is oak. My room would sound (and test) worse with OC705 used in place of the materials that I have specified for construction. This is because it was DESIGNED for a certain material. It is part of a system. You can't just substitute a material for another because it is "better". Better, is the material that works best for the situation. My specs use low density porous absorption.

Oh man, you got me now. Wait you got 5 walls!? That's so much better than the measly 4 that I have. I am going to design a room with 12 walls that will kill your room!

You have finally said something correct. I AM satisfied with my room. Mostly because I had a design concept and followed strict guidelines to achieve a goal. My room has a very linear bass response, with no early reflections and a diffuse return at about 19ms at the listening position. I have a very warm aesthetic and clear sight lines to my tracking room and iso room.

I never said your room would be acoustically bad or not preferred. But perhaps you can get better sonic characteristics if the treatment and its placement in the room was redesigned for the accommodation of 705 for a more pleasant sonic experience. But if you already believe the sonic experience is satisfying for you, then you would not need to do that. But that does not mean the room cannot be improved. But I have no reason to think it cannot be.

[amishsixstringe]

Right. The mirror will not tell you what angle of incidence will not just skid right off the face of an absorber. It works in normal cases, but not always....funny this seems to be a theme. There isn't a one size fits all for much of anything in acoustics. It is very complex...it's that simple.

Neil

[T800]

Originally Posted by localhost127

how are you validating the reflections are attenuated? to what gain? at what angle of incidence?

I do not have the time to start a study on psycho acoustics in comparing tibral room characteristic differences between the degree to which frequencies are attenuated and which reflected in what manner. I have contacted P &R to refer me to any such studies if they exist.

I just said the way the 705 board sounds/absorbs is more preferable and pleasant for the overall studio acoustics experience.

earlier, you prided yourself on using the mirror technique. do you believe a mirror is a measuring tool?

Once again outright distortion of my position which does not indicate that mirrors are ever used for measuring absorption/reflection characteristics.

[amishsixstringe]

The main point I have been making is that 705 is the perfect balance... does not absorb too much, and not too little. Causes the fewest problems.

It absorbs and anything it reflects it does so in a diffuse way as not to cause the acoustical problems.

Dude, porous absorption does not 'diffuse' anything. The POINT of first reflection absorption is to absorb ALL reflections. Not just some of them. Arguably, absorbing only a portion of the offending bandwidth can cause more problems than it can help.

You need to open your mind to other possible scenarios that could possibly give you a more pleasant sounding room. But who knows what you prefer or what the purpose of your room is.

Look. I have an open mind. I used the materials that made my room the best I could make it. You are the one with a closed mind (choosing a material as a blanket 'end all' material before even knowing the scenario).

See my previous post in quoting the previous member Dan Dan who corroborated the so called vomit emitted from my mouth that yes certain panels consisting of certain materials can indeed resonate and "sound". Despite the disagreements from others.

Please do not spread falsehoods about acoustical materials.

Look, Dan is a good dude, and knows his shit. I won't speak on his behalf, but I do believe he's just trying to calm this situation a bit. I also believe that you are trying to find support, where it really isn't there. The 'thump' he was speaking about was the physical act of flicking the absorber and hearing that sound resonate. He did not, however say that 705 is BETTER or WORSE than anything. They are tools. Simple.

I never said your room would be acoustically bad or not preferred. But perhaps you can get better sonic characteristics if the treatment and its placement in the room was redesigned for the accommodation of 705 for a more pleasant sonic experience. But if you already believe the sonic experience is satisfying for you, then you would not need to do that. But that does not mean the room cannot be improved. But I have no reason to think it cannot be.

Yes, you did say that. You called it a 'useless coffin' without knowing a single thing about it (seems to be a theme with your logic). Then you made a blanket statement saying "Your room is no good." The addition of 705 in MY room would hurt the response. I am saying this objectively. It's not an opinion. If I have a design goal, design a system that will create that goal, and then change components of that design, while leaving other parts of the system in place....I will fail. It is that simple.

I honestly have never met someone as self righteous and dense as you. Almost to the point that I have thought that you may be someone who does know your stuff and just came on here for a super early April fool's joke. I can only hope.

[DanDan]

Now I am confused because people have been arguing in favor of 3.5 pound. Are they rockwool or fibreglass?

MiniTraps are Fibreglass I believe, very likely 705.
Rigid fiberglass density tests

703 is around 3pcf. Everest has called it almost perfect.
He only meant in terms of balanced absorption across the fairly narrow band and dimensions and mounting measured. It would not exhibit great LF absorption if it were 4 feet thick.

These OC materials are convenient to use because they are slightly rigid and don't shed much. On the other hand they are simply not available to most of us outside the USA and if available are incredibly expensive.

Roxul products on the other hand perform better, can have chosen rigidity, and have very good 'green' credentials.

I wouldn't over-egg the sound thing. This is semi rigid panels of 705 mounted in rigid metal frames, hanging on wires and such. It is hardly surprising that they resonate. And whether that resonance, coupled with odd surface reflectivity, is good, is a matter of taste.

Speaking of which. To say 'I like 705' is incontrovertible. To say it is the best is likely to cause a perpetual motion thread of disagreement.
Because there is no best.

DD

[DrFrankencopter]

In case anyone missed some of the earlier posts in this thread, there's actually been some good information coming out in spite of the mud-slinging.

I've attempted to compile this information onto a single graph attached to this post. NOTE: The graph on this post has incorrect legend entries for the MHOA data. These have been corrected in the version in this link: Owens Corning 705 and 707 and is king!

The graph shows absorption coefficient versus frequency (from 125 to 4000 Hz) for 1" thickness materials (there was more data available at this thickness). The data is sourced from the Master Handbook of Acoustics (Alton F. Everest), the Newell publication, and Owens Corning data.

I've tried to show similar densities as similar colours. Red is low density (under 2 lb per cubic foot), Blue is medium density (3 to 4 lb/cubic foot), and Green is high density (greater than 5 lb per cubic foot). Different variations are shown as different line types (e.g. plain versus FRK).

You can interpret the graph however you want, but what I see tends to correspond to the oft published claim (*) that density has minimal effect on absorption performance. Note the significant difference in FRK vs plain fiber to see a real change in absorption performance!

Cheers

Kris

* - See Master Handbook of Acoustics, or National Association of Broadcasters Engineering Handbook, or "Factors Influencing Acoustic Performance of Sound Absorptive Materials"-> linked by Avare here:http://www.gearslutz.com/board/attac...617-seddeq.pdf

[DrFrankencopter]

I had made a slight error in the legend on my previous graph. It has been corrected in the version attached here.

Cheers

Kris

[andrebrito]

I can point out several studios and even designers (not including me) who don't use Owens Corning stuff and their rooms sound fantastic.

[T800]

Originally Posted by amishsixstringe

Dude, porous absorption does not 'diffuse' anything. The POINT of first reflection absorption is to absorb ALL reflections. Not just some of them. Arguably, absorbing only a portion of the offending bandwidth can cause more problems than it can help.

not in this case. you just dont want too much absorbtion. and yes the sound of some reflective portion of certain materials can justifiably be described with words such as "diffuse". Because the nature of their reflective portion has a more multi-directional sort of diffuse reflection. And this is what i meant by the panels having what the human ear describes as warm and pleasant - and the 705 board serves this effect to a greater degree. and hence better sounding rooms.

Look. I have an open mind. I used the materials that made my room the best I could make it. You are the one with a closed mind (choosing a material as a blanket 'end all' material before even knowing the scenario).

the 705 board will always sound more pleasant. and you have not sufficiently answered why those high end companies i listed are not following all this wisdom by switching to 703. The music-friendly and audio-friendly nature of these boards are certainly the main reason that companies selling more expensive density boards are not switching to carry 703- based boards - which can also be chemically hardened around the edges to make such edges sturdy. the overall strength of the 705/707 boards is not the reason.

(and fyi, people have told me that their boards from primacoustic are too rigid and break too easy, so the previous case about strength made is invalid).

Look, Dan is a good dude, and knows his shit. I won't speak on his behalf, but I do believe he's just trying to calm this situation a bit. I also believe that you are trying to find support, where it really isn't there. The 'thump' he was speaking about was the physical act of flicking the absorber and hearing that sound resonate. He did not, however say that 705 is BETTER or WORSE than anything. They are tools. Simple.

There has been situations i have heard about where the rockwool materials have increased percieved midbass in the room. speak with some 'umpphh' into a 3 inch RHT60 board and then go speak into an OC705 3 inch board to confirm unwanted midbass resonance. this can be verified by any human ear or perception of hearing.

theres even a local contractor here in my area who had complaints from engineers i know who bought 3 inch rockwool panels off him and complained of increased midbass in the room. perhaps some room dimensions amplify this characteristic about them more than others, but this is why i keep telling you that the 705 has no such problem - or at least the least of it. perhaps 707 is even better. i also experienced that issue with 703. and same with someone i know who has a home theatre. the only differencie was he liked what it was doing to his room yet for me it was not proper to mix bass from 80 to 150 hz in. as well as the majority of producers.

Yes, you did say that. You called it a 'useless coffin' without knowing a single thing about it (seems to be a theme with your logic). Then you made a blanket statement saying "Your room is no good." The addition of 705 in MY room would hurt the response. I am saying this objectively. It's not an opinion. If I have a design goal, design a system that will create that goal, and then change components of that design, while leaving other parts of the system in place....I will fail. It is that simple.

i responded with the same level of nastiness you presented in the previous response to that. do not quote things with no proper reference to the situation. i never said 703 is causing problems for you. i am telling you that you need to open your mind that 705 could possibly be of greater benefit to the pleasantness of your room. i have every reason to believe that the case for that improvement is likely.

I honestly have never met someone as self righteous and dense as you. Almost to the point that I have thought that you may be someone who does know your stuff and just came on here for a super early April fool's joke. I can only hope.

Please account for the problem you have ignored with your argument - which is that most pro acoustics panel companies are not offering lower density panels than 705 (NOT EVEN AS AN OPTION AMONGST THEIR SELECTION CATALOGUE). so why would they not want to appeal to more home studio enthusiasts if your reasoning has any chance of being rational? see? you are making no sense.

[The Vulture]

Wtf is this?

T800, you seem completely delusional.
Too the point where I am starting to wondering if you are with "good health".
If you don`t understand why everyone is reacting you HAVE to take it as a wake up call.

There is NO use at all for anyone to reply to your statements.
Because either you are to stupid to understand it or to stupid to care

Nothing personal.
I am just trying to be objective

[Jeffrey Hedback]

a detail from document set from a certain design firm often mentioned in this thread...hmmmmm