The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
1 week ago
#1

Green Glue math?

Not wanting to start a debate on Green Glue but I haven't able to find this with a search and was wondering if anyone knew the answer.

From what I've heard from multiple sources (at least the proponents), I gathered two main claims about GG. One, it helps lower resonant frequency in a wall assembly. Two, it's roughly equivalent to another layer of drywall, which is often cheaper -- but may be prohibitive due to space or structural issues.

So... if the calculation for MAM resonance is as follows:

f0 = C [ (m1 + m2) / (m1 x m2 x d)]^0.5

Where:
C=constant (60 if the cavity is empty, 43 if you fill it with suitable insulation)
m1=mass of first leaf (kg/m^2)
m2 mass of second leaf (kg/m^2)
d=depth of cavity (m)
I'm guessing GG will help by lowering the C value. The lower it is, the lower your resonant frequency. So the question is, does anyone know what that value might be?

I can see this being a less than simple answer since one may use the proscribed amount of GG for just one wall or both walls -- and that probably makes the equation more difficult...

I can always check with the manufacturer. But, I figured I might get a straight answer here, or more than likely, no answer. This stuff has been around for years so I have to assume this question has been asked and answered at some point along the way.
1 week ago
#2
Lives for gear
Hello,

it's in french but by Jean-Pierre Lafont.

http://www.cinetips.com/viewtopic.ph...0576260d0ce34b
1 week ago
#3
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by thechrisl

From what I've heard from multiple sources (at least the proponents), I gathered two main claims about GG. One, it helps lower resonant frequency in a wall assembly. Two, it's rou ghly equivalent to another layer of drywall, which is often cheaper -- but may be prohibitive due to space or structural issues.
Wrong and wrong.
It dampens the MAM, not lower it.

It is equivalent to 2 layers of drywall, not one. So actually it saves space, not use up more.
1 week ago
#4

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare
Wrong and wrong.
It dampens the MAM, not lower it.

It is equivalent to 2 layers of drywall, not one. So actually it saves space, not use up more.
Doesn't the dampening effect result in lowering resonant frequency? I mean that's the overall goal, right? It sounds like tomato tomato...

2 layers sounds good to me. I've also seen arguments from reputable folk that it does nothing at all. Amazing that it's still such a controversial subject.

So, to get back to the question, Avare, are you suggesting that, if 1 layer of 5/8" firecode drywall is around 10.8 kg/m2, I should add 21.6 to any leaf (m1 and/or m2 in the equation) in order to account for the effects of GG on resonant frequency?
1 week ago
#5

At resonance you have none to very little isolation.
If you can damp the resonance you get a little more isolation.
Don't expect marvels and Brian always said you don't have to expect much from GG under 80 Hz.
If constructions get more heavy the effect of GG diminishes.
Putting it between two stone walls gives no profit.

And it has to do with soundlevel.
If you exceed someting at a certain level thing start to rattle.
A wall with loose glass has, when the glass starts to ratlle, a sound reduction that is non-lineair.
When you dampen the glass the wall will behave more lineair.

Which reputable people say GG doesn't work? It is no problem for you to come up with a large number of examples.

Last edited by bert stoltenborg; 1 week ago at 09:45 PM..
1 week ago
#6
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by thechrisl
Doesn't the dampening effect result in lowering resonant frequency? I mean that's the overall goal, right? It sounds like tomato tomato...

2 layers sounds good to me. I've also seen arguments from reputable folk that it does nothing at all. Amazing that it's still such a controversial subject.

So, to get back to the question, Avare, are you suggesting that, if 1 layer of 5/8" firecode drywall is around 10.8 kg/m2, I should add 21.6 to any leaf (m1 and/or m2 in the equation) in order to account for the effects of GG on resonant frequency?
What part of no it dampens the
MAM is not clear?

Adding mass will not dampen the MAM. It would be adding 3 layers. You are adding one to put Green Glue between.
1 week ago
#7

@ avare , I appreciate the response but, as is typical, you're answer doesn't provide any answer. If your goal is simply to point out the ignorance of the one asking, you're doing great. Usually it's only when addressing someone you consider a peer, that you do otherwise.

Reluctantly I will reiterate my point another way. The MAM formula is used to determine the resonant frequency - which most would agree they want to be as low as possible. It can be lowered in three ways:

Lower the constant

I was trying to understand how GG affects this equation in mathematical terms so I can come close to predicting it. I was guessing it affects the constant - similar to the way insulation does. Which is, to my understanding, a dampening effect.

So maybe what you are saying without saying, is that GG adds an influence not covered by the equation. So the MAM equation by itself is insufficient to predict the effect. And if true, that's would have been a fine answer.

@ dinococcus , after reading 8 pages of translated French discussion, I think he was saying something along the same lines:

Quote:
Message by Jean-Pierre Lafont Jan 31, 2011

If we only consider the resonance , the screwed plates will tend to behave as if they were independent (whereas the mass weakening must take account of the 2 plates). When glued, they behave like a single plate.

We can caricature this way:
If the two plates are connected by a single screw we actually have 2 side by side plates which vibrate in parallel and slide one over the other.
If the 2 plates are held together by 360 screws or glued, there is only one thicker plate left.

With Green Glue we are in a third case where we have both the shear of the stress layer and the mass.
@ bert , maybe you are saying the same thing as well? MAM determines f0. Then GG can lower it by an additional damping effect. Although that's exactly what I thought C was doing (commonly with insulation).

Although your comment about not having much effect below 80Hz is discouraging. That's precisely what I was hoping for. In this case, GG enabling a resonance of ~25Hz instead of ~37Hz.

So it sounds like my answer -- again with the major assumption that I understood avare, is that GG is roughly equivalent to adding 2 more sheets of drywall mass. I guess I can live with that -- I was just trying to understand what kind of performance I can expect by playing with the variables. That's what people do, right?

Also, @ bert , there are lots of examples & I've probably spent too much time on my response already, but I'll just provide a recent one:

Quote:
- Skip green glue. It's a waste of your budget and time.

Thomas Jouanjean Nov 8, 2019

And here I wasn't trying to start a debate.
1 week ago
#8

1 week ago
#9
Lives for gear

The way i understand it is like this... think of a bell. It rings out at x frequency. If you add something to dampen the bell, ie insulation, greenglue, whatever, it reduces the bells ability to make/transfer sound. It doesnt make the bell ring lower. GG dampens the assembly, increasing TL, but not lowering Fc. At least that's how it works in my head.
1 week ago
#10
Gear Nut

I found this interesting on the topic of Green Glue as explained by Dennis Foley of Acoustic Fields.

2.Acoustic Fields: https://www.acousticfields.com/use-d...oom-acoustics/
Attached Thumbnails

Last edited by Roll Tape; 1 week ago at 08:30 PM..
1 week ago
#11
Lives for gear

I believe than the green glue will be finished near the spike, sorbotane, stand, support...

other

Jean-Pierre Lafont http://www.lafontaudio.com/

https://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/...tml#p174093868

Green Glue is made in the United States and very popular worldwide (25,000 pages on the web). Developed at the request of a home theater manufacturer, it has been around for fifteen years, but until now it has not been imported into France.
I have been using it for a year, with excellent results.
There are other similar non-imported products like Quiet Glue.

At my left it works, at my right is not works.

Hopeless.
1 week ago
#12
Lives for gear

There's abundant test reports done in INDEPENDENT test labs, not associated with any competitor (!) . The results are very clear: it works. The results in those 25,000 real-world cases are also clear: it works. It's rather strange that the only source saying it DOESN'T work, is on the questionable website of a place trying to promote it's own questionable, competing (and untested) stuff for sale. How curious...

- Stuart -
1 week ago
#13
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundman2020
The results are very clear: it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare
It is equivalent to 2 layers of drywall, not one. So actually it saves space, not use up more.
Do you guys have a link to any third party data which shows GG is more effective below 100hz vs adding even a single sheet of 5/8" gypsum? Certainly I've never heard it claimed to be equivalent to 2 layers of 5/8". I typically advocate for another layer of mass rather than GG.
1 week ago
#14
Gear Nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundman2020
There's abundant test reports done in INDEPENDENT test labs, not associated with any competitor (!) . The results are very clear: it works. The results in those 25,000 real-world cases are also clear: it works. It's rather strange that the only source saying it DOESN'T work, is on the questionable website of a place trying to promote it's own questionable, competing (and untested) stuff for sale. How curious...

- Stuart -
To each their own,... but frankly, I wouldn't spend a dime on the product. However, since so many are buying into this snake oil perhaps I should invest in some Green Glue stock.

Yeah, right,... Dennis Foley knows nothing after working 30+ years in the acoustic design and treatment industry. Here's what the real pros are saying about his, as you have said, questionable and untested stuff.

Robert Vosgien: Mastering Engineer - Capitol Records, Los Angeles, CA:
https://www.acousticfields.com/capitol-records/

Adelio Lombardi: Side 3 Studios, Denver,CO & Los Angeles, CA:
https://www.acousticfields.com/side-3-studios/

Donavan Stark: Master Bedroom Home Studio:
https://www.acousticfields.com/donovan-stark/

Carbon Absorption Wall Technology:
https://www.acousticfields.com/carbon-absorber-wall/

See attached data test sheets for the ACDA-10 & ACDA-12 Activated Carbon Diaphragmatic Absorbers.
Attached Files
ACDA-10.pdf (1.46 MB, 7 views) ACDA-12.pdf (2.35 MB, 5 views)
1 week ago
#15
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roll Tape
Here's what the real pros are saying about his, as you have said, questionable and untested stuff.
"The real pros"?

I wouldn't say those 3 testimonials on his website carry a lot of weight here. If we're being accurate, I can spot several issues in those rooms enough to state that not one of them is as well designed as Stuart's rooms. He also refers to a 1" thick sheet of MDF as "barrier technology".

Have you seen his video on mineral wool? Makes me think his target market is the totally uneducated who don't know better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Nb2EhxvgM

Let's not go further down the Acoustic Fields rabbit hole here
6 days ago
#16
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by nms
"The real pros"?

Have you seen his video on mineral wool? Makes me think his target market is the totally uneducated who don't know better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Nb2EhxvgM
one
Let's not go further down the Acoustic Fields rabbit hole here
Hilarious!

I just searched IARC and there is one insulation "Insulation glass wool." Not even a Rockwool´s product. The classification is Group 3 "Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans."

Last edited by avare; 6 days ago at 02:05 PM..
6 days ago
#17
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by nms
Have you seen his video on mineral wool? Makes me think his target market is the totally uneducated who don't know better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Nb2EhxvgM
That was fun! Cringe-worthy, but fun! I love watching a good comedy show before bedtime.

I really can't imagine why they warn you against all the scary and grave dangers of using all the "toxic" products that the entire industry uses, and then tell you about the products that only they can sell you instead.... Strange, that...

I guess he never saw this:

The Comparative Safety of Rockwool, Fiberglass, and Organic Fibers (a review)

Quote:
Let's not go further down the Acoustic Fields rabbit hole here
Yup. NOBODY knows how deep and twisted that hole goes...

- Stuart -
5 days ago
#18
Gear Nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare
Hilarious!

I just searched IARC and there is one insulation "Insulation glass wool." Not even a Rockwool´s product. The classification is Group 3 "Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans."
Information from WHO (World Health Organization-2000) and IARC (International Agency For Research On Cancer-2002) with regards to Man-made Vitreous Fibres (MMVF).

Evaluation Of Human Health Risks

Exposure evaluation
Airborne concentrations during installation of MMVF insulation are in the range 105–2 ×106 fibres/m3, which is generally higher than the concentrations of about 105 fibres/m3 reported for production plants. Little information is available on ambient concentrations of MMVF. A few limited studies of MMVF in outdoor air have reported concentrations ranging from 2 fibres/m3 in a rural area to 1.7 ×103 fibres/m3 near a city. These levels are estimated to represent a very small percentage of the total fibre and total suspended particulate concentrations in the ambient air.

Health risk evaluation
MMVF of diameters greater than 3 μm can cause transient irritation and inflammation of the skin, eyes and upper airways.
The deep lung penetration of various MMVF varies considerably, as a function of the nominal diameter of the material. For the MMVF considered here, the potential for deep lung penetration is greatest for refractory ceramic fibres and glass microfibres; both of these materials are primarily used in industrial applications.
In two large epidemiological studies, there have been excesses of lung cancer in rock/slag wool production workers, but not in glass wool, glass microfibre or continuous filament production workers. There have been no increases in the incidence of mesotheliomas in epidemiological studies of MMVF production workers (72,77). Although concomitant exposure to other substances may have contributed to the observed increase in lung cancer in the rock/slag wool production sector, available data are consistent with the hypothesis that the fibres themselves are the principal determinants of risk. Increases in tumour incidence have not been observed in inhalation studies in animals exposed to rock/slag wool, glass wool or glass microfibre, though they have occurred following intracavitary administration. Available data concerning the effects of continuous filament in animals are limited.
Several types of refractory ceramic fibre have been clearly demonstrated to be carcinogenic in inhalation studies in animal species, inducing dose-related increased incidence of pulmonary tumours and mesotheliomas in rats and hamsters (40,45,78). Increased tumour incidence has also been observed following intratracheal, intrapleural and intraperitoneal administration in animals.
Though uses of RCF are restricted primarily to the industrial environment, a unit cancer risk for lung tumours for RCF has been calculated as 1 ×10–6 per fibre/l (for fibre lengths > 5 μm and aspect ratio of 3:1 as determined by optical microscopy) based on inhalation studies in animals (79).

 WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2000 13
Chapter 8.2 Man-made vitreous fibres Air Quality Guidelines – Second Edition

Guidelines
IARC classified rock wool, slag wool, glass wool and ceramic fibres in Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) while glass filaments were not considered classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans (Group 3). Recent data from inhalation studies in animals strengthen the evidence for the possible carcinogenicity of RCF in humans.

Though uses of RCF are restricted primarily to the industrial environment, the unit risk for lung tumours for RCF is 1 ×10–6 per fibre/l. The corresponding concentrations of RCF producing excess lifetime risks of 1/10 000, 1/100 000 and 1/1 000 000 are 100, 10 and 1 fibre/l, respectively.
For most other MMVF, available data are considered inadequate to establish air quality guidelines.

Mineral Wool(Rock Wool/Slag Wool) may not be that of a health hazard for those who only use it once or twice for installation on a build but for the people who work with it everyday in plants and commercial installations, well,... they may not find the data so,... Hilarious!
Attached Thumbnails

5 days ago
#19
Gear Nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by nms
"The real pros"?

I wouldn't say those 3 testimonials on his website carry a lot of weight here. If we're being accurate, I can spot several issues in those rooms enough to state that not one of them is as well designed as Stuart's rooms. He also refers to a 1" thick sheet of MDF as "barrier technology".

Have you seen his video on mineral wool? Makes me think his target market is the totally uneducated who don't know better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Nb2EhxvgM

Let's not go further down the Acoustic Fields rabbit hole here
Of course not,... Dennis Foley is running the biggest all-time scam and even those 25+ year Mastering Engineers at Capitol Records are falling for it!,...

I see what I've run into here. That small percentage of individuals on gearslutz who feel threatened when an outsider comes in with a new approach or technology directly challenging some 40 year old methods of studio building. Now, I love gearslutz for the wide array of shared information that is practical and useful,...but, there have been advancements with regards to room construction and acoustical treatments that produce better results outside the four walls of these forums.

I wish I would have known about the Carbon Diaphragmatic Stud Space Absorbers when I did my build. Could have tuned the room right from the get go and significantly reduced the low frequency issues while saving space. Also, not using 2"x4" or 2"x6" studs due to there rigidity and tensile strength making them susceptible to vibration makes sense. If I ever do another build in the future I will use the new technology with a 2"x12" stud wall.

Also, how much time have you spent on Dennis Foley's website researching his methods, products, results along with the satisfied customers that have used his technology and approach to studio building and room treatment? He spent 8 years and \$2 million developing his ideas.

Listening Room-Atlanta Georgia:
Attached Thumbnails

5 days ago
#20
Lives for gear

Thank you for the clarifying data.

With regards to my point, in the video says that it is "classified as a carcinogen by the IARC." As you wrote it is classified as group 2b, not group 1.

What you researched makes it obvious that he is lying.

Interestingly he implies glass wool by having 703 and 706 on the blackboard,

Last edited by avare; 5 days ago at 11:41 AM.. Reason: Corrected typing errors
4 days ago
#21
Here for the gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roll Tape
Of course not,... Dennis Foley is running the biggest all-time scam and even those 25+ year Mastering Engineers at Capitol Records are falling for it!,...
Just one engineer @ Capitol that you linked.. in a very dated room with plenty of design flaws. I don't think anyone is here saying the modules he uses simply don't work. As far as I'm aware, they do work, just not to the sort of revolutionary degree he claims and he hasn't invented anything new here.

Quote:
I see what I've run into here. That small percentage of individuals on gearslutz who feel threatened when an outsider comes in with a new approach or technology directly challenging some 40 year old methods of studio building.
You really believe that? Sounds a bit silly doesn't it? In reality it has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the validity of his claims and all the red flags people spot. Using 1" MDF sheathing on your room shell and calling it "barrier technology" (which I assume was installed using "fastening technology", or screws as the rest of us call them) just comes off as greasy salesman tactics, which are not well regarded around here. I think that's understandable. In another thread someone commented "while it got my interest in the beginning - the more videos I watched, the more the guy looked like a fraud. Or maybe just a cheeky marketer, who tries to sell his products to uneducated musicians."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roll Tape
He spent 8 years and \$2 million developing his ideas.
Interesting. I wonder where that money went (or came from, for that matter) given that he didn't invent anything and there are no patents registered to his name. People were building acoustic absorbers using activated carbon well before he came along, as seen in this one from 2005: https://patents.google.com/patent/JPWO2006106854A1/en

Quote:
I noticed in the comments he claims that room has "a +/-1 dB response from 30 - 300 Hz", yet the acoustic treatments haven't been built or speakers installed. Do you at least understand enough about acoustics to know that's a spec most speakers (or best designed rooms in the real world) don't meet, and that his claim has no base in reality given the state of the room at the time he posted that?

Anyway, I do think we need to be careful about the day where Dennis Foley & Hanson Hsu team up and produce a bass trap made of quantum acoustic activated carbon technology which accidentally swallows our entire solar system. I can only hope someone from the future intervenes and saves us all before it's too late
4 days ago
#22

"Anyway, I do think we need to be careful about the day where Dennis Foley & Hanson Hsu team up and produce a bass trap made of quantum acoustic activated carbon technology which accidentally swallows our entire solar system. I can only hope someone from the future intervenes and saves us all before it's too late"

4 days ago
#23

Whelp, this conversation definitely went in a different direction. But, what the hell, I started looking into the Acoustic Fields stuff (and I had asked about Foley not long ago in this thread but didn't get any answers). I don't have a dog in this fight -- other than the fact that I'm obviously working on a room design which is why I bothered to start this thread in the first place. So it never hurts to investigate options.

He posted third party test results on his website. Which you can download (and thus I'm assuming they are legit and not forgeries) but are summarized here:

Now here is a "garden variety" MAM wall from IR761 with 2x 5/8" X drywall on each side and an 8" gap:

Which, incidentally (back to the original topic), I've been planning on building, but was wanting to know how this curve would be enhanced by 1 or 2 layers of GG.

Now, I realize one graph is expressed in Absorption Coefficient and the other in dB. I tried to figure out how to convert from one to the other but concluded that it would take at least the rest of the day to do this... I'm assuming they are somewhat correlated. If not, I hope someone will point that out.

Thus, it appears the fancy ACDA-12 wall has very nice performance in 50Hz range but is otherwise rather mediocre except for another bump around 250Hz.

Meanwhile the double wall is mediocre in the very low range but does very well above that.

I don't have a price on the Foley materials but my hunch is that they are much more expensive than the MAM wall -- maybe even with the pricey GG. The other wall ACDA-10, doesn't even seem all that worth doing.

Am I missing something? It seems that ...maybe... all the fuss about the fancy Foley wall is to achieve that nice 50Hz performance but at the expense of the rest of the spectrum? Unless the idea is that one would build the double wall and incorporate Foley's technology into it (by using 2x12 studs and his diaphragmatic carbon absorption panels) - thus achieving the best of both worlds.

But... if that's the case, isn't this just a juiced up double wall with garden variety tuned resonators thrown into the mix?
Attached Thumbnails

3 days ago
#24
Gear Nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare
Thank you for the clarifying data.

With regards to my point, in the video says that it is "classified as a carcinogen by the IARC." As you wrote it is classified as group 2b, not group 1.

What you researched makes it obvious that he is lying.

Interestingly he implies glass wool by having 703 and 706 on the blackboard,
If IARC & WHO are categorizing Rock Wool & Slag Wool as 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) that indicates to me that they are sitting on the fence on this one and I'll err on the side of caution. All in all common sense and critical thinking would suggest that Rock/Slag Wool and Glass Wool and other similar products will have some sort of negative effect of the human body if exposure to inhalation of fibres is high over an extended period of time.

When I worked in the Forestry and Fish & Wildlife departments in Canada we had forest spray programs using the herbicide Round-up(industrial strength) which contains Glyphosate.I remember a Monsanto representative giving us an overview of the herbicide chemical on what it did, how it worked and the toxicity of the product. He made the claim that the stuff was so no-toxic to humans that you could drink a shot and it would have no negative effect. So, I half jokingly asked him to do so and back up his claims,... no ,he didn't. Anyways, fast forward 20+ years and three of my co-workers from 1988 to 2010 have since died from Hodgkin lymphoma cancer,... the same illness that the current Class Action Law Suits against Monsanto the product Round-Up have been filed in, Canada, USA and many other countries around the world.

So, I tend not to believe all the print disseminated by multi-national corporations along with some of the governing health organizations that are responsible for keeping the public safe,... it's a dirty world out there and lots of grease to go around for some palms.

Now, when it came to Dennis Foley at Acoustic Fields of course I had some doubts,... but I went a step further and contacted him to satisfy my skeptical side. After conversing with him I was satisfied with his explanations of his approaches, theories and products. He's easy to talk to and more than willing to discuss and answer any questions.

Last edited by Roll Tape; 3 days ago at 08:20 AM..
3 days ago
#25
Gear Nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomStevens
Just one engineer @ Capitol that you linked.. in a very dated room with plenty of design flaws. I don't think anyone is here saying the modules he uses simply don't work. As far as I'm aware, they do work, just not to the sort of revolutionary degree he claims and he hasn't invented anything new here.

You really believe that? Sounds a bit silly doesn't it? In reality it has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the validity of his claims and all the red flags people spot. Using 1" MDF sheathing on your room shell and calling it "barrier technology" (which I assume was installed using "fastening technology", or screws as the rest of us call them) just comes off as greasy salesman tactics, which are not well regarded around here. I think that's understandable. In another thread someone commented "while it got my interest in the beginning - the more videos I watched, the more the guy looked like a fraud. Or maybe just a cheeky marketer, who tries to sell his products to uneducated musicians."

Interesting. I wonder where that money went (or came from, for that matter) given that he didn't invent anything and there are no patents registered to his name. People were building acoustic absorbers using activated carbon well before he came along, as seen in this one from 2005: https://patents.google.com/patent/JPWO2006106854A1/en

I noticed in the comments he claims that room has "a +/-1 dB response from 30 - 300 Hz", yet the acoustic treatments haven't been built or speakers installed. Do you at least understand enough about acoustics to know that's a spec most speakers (or best designed rooms in the real world) don't meet, and that his claim has no base in reality given the state of the room at the time he posted that?

Anyway, I do think we need to be careful about the day where Dennis Foley & Hanson Hsu team up and produce a bass trap made of quantum acoustic activated carbon technology which accidentally swallows our entire solar system. I can only hope someone from the future intervenes and saves us all before it's too late
Eaaaaasy now boys,... I don't want any trouble here now see, . Just let me slowly slip out the back way and you'll never again hear me speak of these Activated Carbon Diaphragmatic Absorbers or Foley again,...eaaaaasy now fellas.

Hey all, perhaps we'll meet on another thread where we'll see eye to eye. Best Regards.

thechrisl, apologies for taking your thread of the rails. The last thing I'll say on the Foley approach is that I see the benefits after spending many hours on the site and having conversations with Dennis. He never claimed he invented the Activated Carbon Diaphragmatic Absorber technology,... he even states it in one of his videos. He just tweaked it and exposed it as an option once again.

All the best and success with your project.
Attached Thumbnails

Last edited by Roll Tape; 3 days ago at 08:15 AM..
3 days ago
#26
Lives for gear
Car accidents kill more people than Rockwood and co. Did you throw your car away? With people like you, 0.1 and 10e7 is the same. Fascinating
3 days ago
#27
Gear Nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinococcus
Car accidents kill more people than Rockwood and co. Did you throw your car away? With people like you, 0.1 and 10e7 is the same. Fascinating
Sounds like a low information comment,... fascinating.
But I admire the effort. Take a deep breath cowboy.
3 days ago
#28
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roll Tape
Sounds like a low information comment,... fascinating.
But I admire the effort. Take a deep breath cowboy.
The use of thermal insulation in fiberglass or mineral wool is so widespread that one should note a multitude of patients.
a plot by the wool manufacturers surely, they hide the epidemiological data.
3 days ago
#29
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roll Tape
But I admire the effort. Take a deep breath cowboy.
You are insulting
2 days ago
#30
Moderator

Mod hat on: guys, keep it civil. Thanks.

## Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

###### Registration benefits include:
• The ability to reply to and create new discussions
• Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
• Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD \$20/year
• Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.