The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Is Ultratouch Denim Insulation superior; Bass Buster
Old 25th June 2014
  #1
Gear nut
 

Thread Starter
Is Ultratouch Denim Insulation superior; Bass Buster

I have a discussion topic that seems to get some talk but I think deserves more. Should we all be using Ultra Touch Denim by Bonded Logic insulation with any acoustical applications in a studio build were high and low frequencies are to be addressed, if we have a decent supplier. It costs less than rock wool and fiberglass, and from what I see out performs all other insulation, even in the lower frequencies. It almost seems like it would be a standard in builds if you can get it due to the incredible results. I will post what I have found so you can see for yourself below.

Price comparison for my suppliers in Ca.

Ultra Touch and Rock wool is equal in price for me
$.83/sqf

BUT, ultra touch performs better in the low end by far! Seems like a winner by ultra touch


They call Ultra touch here; Bass Buster!

http://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/wa.../AS_SA1949.pdf

Another Link I found worth checking out.

Acoustical Materials and Acoustical Panels
Old 27th June 2014
  #2
Lives for gear
If you search on here, the running consensus has been that ultratouch has too high of a GFR to be effectively used in thicknesses over ~4"...it is interesting to see some actual data on it though...too bad they didn't measure that down to 20hz.

If you download and play with the porous absorber calculator:

Porous Absorber Calculator V1.59

You can see by messing with the GFR numbers that unfortunately a higher GFR material (estimates for ultratouch are around 15-20k/rayls?) will work well above 100hz at lesser depths, at the expense of being less effective below ~100hz.

It could still be a good choice for situations where 4" is all there is to work with, clouds and ER points etc, but probably not the best choice for superchunk/corner traps where the goal would be to absorb the deep stuff.
Old 27th June 2014
  #3
Gear nut
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
If you search on here, the running consensus has been that ultratouch has too high of a GFR to be effectively used in thicknesses over ~4"...it is interesting to see some actual data on it though...too bad they didn't measure that down to 20hz.
Ok, I see, so thicker then 4", the denim becomes more reflective, correct? That is what I conceptualize according to you GFR argument if true.

We want GFR to be low as to allow E to pass through the medium and lower the E value.

Quote:
You can see by messing with the GFR numbers that unfortunately a higher GFR material (estimates for ultratouch are around 15-20k/rayls?) will work well above 100hz at lesser depths, at the expense of being less effective below ~100hz.
Ok, I see, but, you said this is an "estimate", but how can we determine this value for sure so we know we are more precise on what the GFR value is? Do you have a link on different acoustical medium GFR values (rockwool, 703 etc.)? also, we would like to see some test results with ultratouch below 100Hz to confirm this.

Quote:
It could still be a good choice for situations where 4" is all there is to work with, clouds and ER points etc, but probably not the best choice for superchunk/corner traps where the goal would be to absorb the deep stuff.
Right, we definitely want the most low end absorption as possible from as little material as possible if we are on a budget.

I am trying to three large gobos (really for bass trapping, NOT isolation) and trying to build the most effective bass trapping in the gobo design as possible with a limited budget of course.
Old 27th June 2014
  #4
Gear Maniac
 
calzone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionzeye View Post
Ok, I see, so thicker then 4", the denim becomes more reflective, correct? That is what I conceptualize according to you GFR argument if true.
This aspect of acoustic treatment, specifically with regard to this Denim based insulation, confuses me.

How do you measure 4" of thickness in a product that is lumpy, clumpy, fluffy and easily compressed or expanded?

And what if you used 4" of demin then X inches of air, then another 4" of denim?
Old 27th June 2014
  #5
Gear nut
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by calzone View Post
This aspect of acoustic treatment, specifically with regard to this Denim based insulation, confuses me.

How do you measure 4" of thickness in a product that is lumpy, clumpy, fluffy and easily compressed or expanded?
Yes, there is a lot of conditions in scientific testing that disregard much of reality. We have to create conditions that are "perfect" and nothing is perfect. This is why at some point you are going down the rabbit hole.

Quote:
And what if you used 4" of demin then X inches of air, then another 4" of denim?
That is exactly what I was thinking before I read your post.

What if instead of two layers of 5.5" in one trap in the rear of a room (as in my case and what I am trying to acheive), you use one layer in the front of room and one in the back.

Here is a quote from Andre in this thread were ultratouch is mentioned

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/studi...y-numbers.html

Quote:
Yes, the Rockboard 40 is 4 lb/ft³ (64 kg/m³) product. That is the nominal non-silicon wool density material that we take as being equivalent to OC 703. So much for across the baord generalizations. It should be noted that in the same manner, Ultratouch insulation (cotton*) appears to have significantly higher gas flow resistivity.

Andre
Andre quotes Ultatouch insulation as "cotton" medium. BUT is Denim the same as Cotton, I ahve to double check, but, I don't see any mention of cotton mentioned on the ultatouch insulation I have around here.
Old 27th June 2014
  #6
Gear nut
 

Thread Starter
Ok, here is more critical thinking for the topic, this was quoted by Jens in the same thread

Quote:
The absorption properties of a porous material is determined by the flow resistivity and the depth of the absorber (and possible air gaps). A high flow resistivity does not automatically mean "better performance". Actually, if used at normal depths (about 200 mm or deeper, or you´ll just "EQ" the reflections removing the mids and highs as demonstrated by your examples); the opposite is true. Also, random incident values are not usually of interest since broadband absorbers used in studio design are primarily intended to absorb first order reflections and these arrive at specific incidence.
no one argued his point at all
Old 27th June 2014
  #7
Gear nut
 

Thread Starter
Ok, here I ran the calculation with 15-20k rayls at 4" thickness, and the 20k rayls line on the graph displays better absorption up to 25Hz. This does not correlate with higher GFR, the better absorption in the low end!




Ok, here is 5k rayls versus 20k rayls - same conclusion with larger GFR value difference, same thickness!



Different Thickness same GFR value - 4" Vs 8 " at 5k rayls and 20k rayls with same conclusion





If it is not an ideal way to determine for anyone out there, I am just using science and math here unless I have made a mistake.
Old 27th June 2014
  #8
Gear nut
 

Thread Starter
Ok, increasing the thickness did reduce the critical intersecting values (were the two lines intersect at which 5k rayls becomes a higher absorption coefficient) at 240 Hz (see last graph) at 20k rayls from 700 Hz. But I am only concerned about really low end. I will test again at 12" for the two.
Old 27th June 2014
  #9
Gear nut
 

Thread Starter
Absorption Calculation

4" vs 12" at 20,000 rayls



Same critical point for the two
Old 28th June 2014
  #10
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
14000 rayls (Roxul Safe n Sound) performs better than all of the above. Multi-layer Absorber Calculator

You should be using the Komatsu model btw. Remember though, the models used by the PAC are often inaccurate in predicting what configurations will perform best. Always take it with a grain of salt.

Also, stop using 4" specs/predictions for guidance in building bass traps! Everything changes when you go to the proper (thicker) sizes.
Old 28th June 2014
  #11
Gear nut
 

So whats the deal with ultratouch? Good or not?

Good for first reflection panels but not for deep bass traps?

From the specs I have seen comparing apples to apples ultratouch was more effecient that 703 at same thickness. How does varying the thickness change things in terms of effeciency?
Old 28th June 2014
  #12
Gear nut
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
14000 rayls (Roxul Safe n Sound) performs better than all of the above. http://www.acousticmodelling.com/mli...=305&v31=20000
Cool, Thank you for that valuable information, That saved me some time.

Quote:
You should be using the Komatsu model btw. Remember though, the models used by the PAC are often inaccurate in predicting what configurations will perform best. Always take it with a grain of salt.
Yes, of course, I am fully aware of making predictions based on such models, I wasn't really using these calculations to determine what I conclude to build. So I am def. taking it with a grain of salt. Many conditions in scientific calculations exclude many REAL world conditions. But also, can point us in the right direction to experiment, or build and test - the ultimate lesson

I was more so illustrating a point, that I discovered the opposite to be true of what I was reading out there with regards to GFR and peoples conclusions based off of the PAC's and GFR values, so I focused on what numbers the calc. spits out with just ultratouch thickness as the example. It didn't take much time to do this and post.

Quote:
Also, stop using 4" specs/predictions for guidance in building bass traps! Everything changes when you go to the proper (thicker) sizes.
Again, I was just trying to model Ultratouch alone, I did do thicker calculations and did see the trends with thicker material and also with air space etc. Just looking at ultratouch and trying to see if numbers here match to the claims that a higher GFR, Abs Calcs. are going to be reduced. But as you said, the modeling should have been different.
Old 28th June 2014
  #13
Gear nut
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
So whats the deal with ultratouch? Good or not?
As a backer or filler at 4", certainly yes, but It may be a good choice for for many other applications. We need quantitative and test results here and this is the thread to post it if you got the evidence.

I have first hand experience with UT in my REAL studio so, I have proved to myself of it's performance and ability to balance peaks and nulls low to high Hz, and shorten RT. It performed exactly as I predicted and intended to use it, using REW and a high end A/D. TRUE!

Quote:
Good for first reflection panels but not for deep bass traps?
That's the current claim as of now.

Quote:
From the specs I have seen comparing apples to apples ultratouch was more effecient that 703 at same thickness.
Yep correct, that is what I found as well. Say it is the superior insulation for DIYers, one aspect that can be less attractive it's lack of rigidity necessitating more materials. Many add rigid 703 or the likes of it, to make for a clean install as well as increase absorption performance. See below

Quote:
How does varying the thickness change things in terms of effeciency?
So materials with higher GFR values, become less effective at low frequencies the thicker you get. But, THIS IS exactly the point I was bringing to the table by posting up the graphs above based on GFR calculator. I show that a high GFR value similar to UT, increases it's absorption as thickness increases (assuming that my model is fine, as NMS suggest I should be using a different model), which is not accurate with the claim that higher GFR values decrease effectiveness to absorption in the low end spectrum even at 12". So, many companies claim that the higher the density the better the absorption, and density is a function of GFR values; density goes up, GFR value goes up, and this makes sense, but what about at common bass trap thickness, not just 2-4" or so. Many people believe companies claims and make it reality . But, the denser, and therefore higher GFR value, the material may not allow low E sound to pass through beyond 12". So then what happens to the low E, does it reflect back and slap us in the face, or reflect back at an inaudible energy to the human ear?? The same physics and math that the pros use to design their high end and very effective acoustic products, can also be used to determine if UT is so dense it's not worth considering for applications past , say 12".

Quote:
by Etahn Winer - I never tested this myself, so I can't say for sure. But it's my understanding that when absorbing material is 12 inches thick or more, a lower density is in fact a little better. So for a large corner "chunk" trap you can use fluffy fiberglass, which is also less expensive than rigid fiberglass and more readily available. You could add a layer of 1- or 2-inch thick rigid fiberglass as the front surface, for a better smoother appearance.
--Ethan
quoted by a pro, "a little better". But so much better that we should pass up good performance and cost for something we cannot afford and never even realize a tiny loss of performance by a fraction (maybe tiny) Exactly the point I was supporting possibly with my graphs.

At the grass roots level we are just trying to create music and make it sound our best while putting food on the table for our children. So post test results here that UT is not good past 12" please. Quantitative and real world results. I will not wait for it. Lets build!
Old 3rd July 2014
  #14
Gear nut
 

Well im building some panels right now out of UT, some 2" and a 4", will be posting my before and after measurement as I am making progress. I have designed a way of dealing with the flopiness.
Old 3rd July 2014
  #15
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionzeye View Post
We need quantitative and test results here and this is the thread to post it if you got the evidence.
I've said it before, UT is awesome in single layer use. Better than most alternatives.

At 5.5" you already see Ultratouch stops adding LF gains. Absorption coefficients for Ultratouch in 3.5" vs 5.5":

R-13 3.5" (mm) 125hz: 0.95 250hz: 1.30
R-19 5.5" (mm) 125hz: 0.97 250hz: 1.37

And that's not getting anywhere near the 50-100hz range where we have the most difficulty treating.
Old 5th July 2014
  #16
Gear nut
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
I've said it before, UT is awesome in single layer use. Better than most alternatives.

At 5.5" you already see Ultratouch stops adding LF gains. Absorption coefficients for Ultratouch in 3.5" vs 5.5":

R-13 3.5" (mm) 125hz: 0.95 250hz: 1.30
R-19 5.5" (mm) 125hz: 0.97 250hz: 1.37

And that's not getting anywhere near the 50-100hz range where we have the most difficulty treating.
Right, agreed. In extrapolating that graph down to LF, we can see the trend will continue and LF gains will stop, most likely, though there is still a very small chance it will go up. I agree at this point, it is a an awesome single layer use, I will stick with that for now as well.
Old 5th July 2014
  #17
Gear nut
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by SatelliteSP View Post
Well im building some panels right now out of UT, some 2" and a 4", will be posting my before and after measurement as I am making progress. I have designed a way of dealing with the flopiness.
Great look forward to see. It would be nice to compare 4" vs. 12" as well if possible, Maybe one day I will, just too busy with my current build. But I will post my results with my project as well.

I am interested in your design to address floppiness if you can please share it here, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Sat!
Old 7th July 2014
  #18
Didn't realize how recent this discussion was, I am wondering about building bass traps with this stuff as I can get it from my local hardware store.

Should I go for it or am I wasting my time?
Old 7th July 2014
  #19
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionzeye View Post
Right, agreed. In extrapolating that graph down to LF, we can see the trend will continue and LF gains will stop, most likely, though there is still a very small chance it will go up.
No, there really is not. High GFR is the wrong choice for thick absorption. This is nothing new. The gains have stopped already by 4".

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERRL View Post
Should I go for it or am I wasting my time?
There's no way you could possibly know. At least not unless you read my last post.
Old 7th July 2014
  #20
I'm guessing it's not going to work for those super low bass frequencies but anything over 100hz it will? Sorry I'm not the smartest dude when it comes to acoustics nor do I claim to be. I'm here really trying to find the most environmental friendly option, fiberglass insulation with it's formaldehyde and fiberglass isn't appealing to me in the least while I know it's great for acoustic treatment of LF. There has to be a safer alternative. Is there?

Thanks,
ERRL
Old 7th July 2014
  #21
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
Of course there is. You can use knauf ecose products or rock wool.

Also, they phased out formaldehyde use in fiberglass and you'll see all the new stuff is marked formaldehyde free.
Old 7th July 2014
  #22
Old 8th July 2014
  #23
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERRL View Post
would i frame two batts of this stuff in a frame or should i use more?
That depends what you're trying to do and how important it is to you. Are you just looking for a moderate improvement or aiming for serious results? What speakers are you using? How big is your room?

Quote:
thanks for your replies, this stuff is a total headache and what caused me to run away last time
Acoustic treatment will change your music experience. Definitely important to do! You can always avoid the research & headache and just hire someone to do design a treatment plan for your room.
Old 8th July 2014
  #24
Lives for gear
 
jhbrandt's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
That depends what you're trying to do and how important it is to you. Are you just looking for a moderate improvement or aiming for serious results? What speakers are you using? How big is your room?

Acoustic treatment will change your music experience. Definitely important to do! You can always avoid the research & headache and just hire someone to do design a treatment plan for your room.
+1

It's important to know that the data provided from testing facilities is not always useful for the average guy. Knowing and comparing the absorption testing data of materials is only one small part of the puzzle.

But when you change ANY parameter from the configuration used in testing, EVERYTHING changes... and also, as noted above, there is considerable resonance and interplay involved with different materials, including air that must be taken into account when designing.

As a rule - I recommend: Thin panels should be higher density - up to 26000 mk/rayls or 48kg/m3 or 3pcf.
Deeper than 8" (20cm) you should use about 5600 mk/rayls or 10-16 kg/m3 or .8-1pcf.

my two cents.

Cheers,
John
Old 8th July 2014
  #25
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
That depends what you're trying to do and how important it is to you. Are you just looking for a moderate improvement or aiming for serious results? What speakers are you using? How big is your room?

Acoustic treatment will change your music experience. Definitely important to do! You can always avoid the research & headache and just hire someone to do design a treatment plan for your room.
My room is 12 x 14 x 10 . I'm using a set of JBL LSR305's.

I stand in one corner of my room and that's where all the bass is going, I know this because I stand in that corner and it's 2x as loud as the other corners.

I was reading about making 9 in thick bass traps from safe n sound, and from what I've read online that does the trick.

I am a student with no job, so I am trying to keep this is a minimum.

I'm just trying to figure out what to do.

Last night I was looking for a mix engineer when I realized, I'm not going to like the song if I don't have control over the mix and master. I want that creativity in the mixing process.

Ho hum...

Thanks again.
Old 17th July 2014
  #26
Gear interested
 
christuffa2000's Avatar
Old 24th July 2014
  #27
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionzeye View Post
Great look forward to see. It would be nice to compare 4" vs. 12" as well if possible, Maybe one day I will, just too busy with my current build. But I will post my results with my project as well.

I am interested in your design to address floppiness if you can please share it here, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Sat!

Its pretty simple actually. Just start with 4 pieces of wood and do a regular frame but make slight thicker then needed (1" or 3/4") to leave place for 2 extra pieces of wood running down the lenght of the frame. I spaced them evenly so that theres about same distance bettween the 2 added pieces and the sides of the frame. Drop in the insullation and use appropriate lenght finishing nails trough the UT. You can also you some staples around the edges for extra support but it might not be needed. Then just cover with fabric as usual.

I will post some pictures when I get the time
Old 25th July 2014
  #28
Gear nut
 

Old 20th August 2014
  #29
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhbrandt View Post
+1

As a rule - I recommend: Thin panels should be higher density - up to 26000 mk/rayls or 48kg/m3 or 3pcf.
Deeper than 8" (20cm) you should use about 5600 mk/rayls or 10-16 kg/m3 or .8-1pcf.
Well UT has density of 19.2 kg/m3 so according to John it would seem it would fit better for thicker panels and not thinner ones as suggested earlier.

http://bondedlogic.com/pdf/denim-ins...n/ESR-1134.pdf

either way it seems that the according to bob golds list the UT works better at lower frequency at equivilant thickness, yet the density of UT is less then half of the 703

703, plain 4" (102mm) on wall 3.0 pcf (48 kg/m3)

125hz 250hz 500hz 1000hz 2000hz 4000hz NRC
0.84 1.24 1.24 1.08 1.00 0.97 1.15


R-13 3.5" Bonded Logic Inc's UltraTouch Cotton (19.2 kg/m3)

125hz 250hz 500hz 1000hz 2000hz 4000hz NRC
0.95 1.30 1.19 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.15


Seems there is alot of conflicting info on what works and what doesnt, what numbers are important or not.
Old 20th August 2014
  #30
Lives for gear
 

The density does not correlate to flow resistance between different materials.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • 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.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump