Login / Register
 
Rank these rockwool types
New Reply
Subscribe
hugohuijer
Thread Starter
#1
19th November 2012
Old 19th November 2012
  #1
Gear Head
 
Joined: Oct 2012

Thread Starter
hugohuijer is offline
Rank these rockwool types

Hi,

Very soon I will be building DIY acoustic panels. Unfortunately, I am only able to chose out of the following rockwool types:

Rockwool 201 (density: 35 kg/m3)
Rockwool 433 (density: 45 kg/m3)
Rockwool 204 (density: 34 kg/m3)
Rockwool 504 density (140 kg/m3) !!

I am just asking for your opinions. Please rank them from best to worst!

Thank you!
#2
19th November 2012
Old 19th November 2012
  #2
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,834

avare is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugohuijer View Post
Hi,

Very soon I will be building DIY acoustic panels. Unfortunately, I am only able to chose out of the following rockwool types:

Rockwool 201 (density: 35 kg/m3)
Rockwool 433 (density: 45 kg/m3)
Rockwool 204 (density: 34 kg/m3)
Rockwool 504 density (140 kg/m3) !!

I am just asking for your opinions. Please rank them from best to worst!

Thank you!
Rank in terms of what? There is no "opinion" involved. The appropriate Gas Flow Resistance (GFR) varies with the density of the material, all other factors being kept the same. How deep are your panels? The deeper the panel, the less GFR is optimum. I do not recommend porous absorbers less than 100 mm deep. For that, the 433 would be best. For 150 -300 mm, either 201 or 204 should be fine.

Well ranked,
Andre
__________________
Good studio building is 90% design and 10% construction.
#3
19th November 2012
Old 19th November 2012
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Rank in terms of what? There is no "opinion" involved. The appropriate Gas Flow Resistance (GFR) varies with the density of the material, all other factors being kept the same. How deep are your panels? The deeper the panel, the less GFR is optimum. I do not recommend porous absorbers less than 100 mm deep.
+1 although I usually recommend even greater depth * if velocity based absorber.
#4
19th November 2012
Old 19th November 2012
  #4
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,834

avare is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund View Post
+1 although I usually recommend even greater depth if velocity based absorber.
Agreed. That is why I wrote minimum.

Andre
#5
19th November 2012
Old 19th November 2012
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,692

Jens Eklund is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
Agreed. That is why I wrote minimum.

Andre
* ... as minimum.
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
lanmonkey / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
47
thong / Electronic Music Instruments & Electronic Music Production
34
Fleabaggins / Studio building / acoustics
6
FredYeah / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
30
Disjointed / So much gear, so little time!
1

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.