Acoustic foam results

homestudioguy said:
I cant say that GIK or RT are using membranes on anything but you do make a point in regards to Foam.
Foam is efficient at certain frequencies as you state.

I believe folks here see the low-frequency issues to be of higher importance primarily due to its existence in a standard designed room in most houses which most of us record in.

My big AHA moment in all of this was to equate sound-waves with thermal energy.
That made a big difference as to how I look at absorption.
Click to expand...

That is true but often times the one thing that is under rated is moving the listening position. Even a few inches can make a much much bigger impact than even a substantial amount of broadband absorbtion. If someones in a bad spot and won't move its arguably a waste of time to even try to tackle acoustics in a small room. One of my wall to ceiling (16' long) corners was filled with 13" of faced fiberglass/sns insulation and for aesthetic purposes i covered it with 2" foam and it made a big difference it got me thinking maybe as a system this foam can work better than on paper? The reduction is consistent in different areas of the room. *edited to prevent a flame war*
 
Last edited:
David Cooke said:
That is true but often times the one thing that is under rated is moving the listening position. Even a few inches can make a much much bigger impact than even a substantial amount of broadband absorbtion. If someones in a bad spot and won't move its arguably a waste of time to even try to tackle acoustics in a small room. One of my wall to ceiling (16' long) corners was filled with 13" of faced fiberglass/sns insulation and for aesthetic purposes i covered it with 2" foam and it made a big difference it got me thinking maybe as a system this foam can work better than on paper? The reduction is consistent in different areas of the room. *edited to prevent a flame war*
Click to expand...

You described exactly why the foam made a difference for you - FACED insulation. The facing (paper I assume) reflects the higher frequencies. You then added foam to absorb them. Could have saved some money by using unfaced insulation.
 
mjbphotos said:
You described exactly why the foam made a difference for you - FACED insulation. The facing (paper I assume) reflects the higher frequencies. You then added foam to absorb them. Could have saved some money by using unfaced insulation.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the paper was reflecting 90hz and the foam was absorbing the 90hz? I find that hard to believe. This isn't foiled frk oc703 its basically construction paper if even that thick i wouldn't think that it would reflect that much. When i tested the 6" panels wrapped in cheap non breathable bed sheets it was transparent up until 4khz seems kind of odd that the paper would reflect 90hz. Maybe when I get home I'll flip the fiberglass around and see if having the backing faced in makes a difference.
 
David Cooke said:
Rigid fiberglass density tests
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you are pointing at Ethan's page about rigid fiberglass (with and without foil facing). From your description, you've used 'fluffy stuff' fiberglass with a kraftpaper facing.
You seem set on insisting that your foam works as everyone knows it doesn't, so I'm done with this thread, as I guess most others have decided, too. believe what you want to believe.

Here's Auralex's product info: http://www.auralex.com/images-index/Auralex 2014 Product Guide.pdf

The 'StudioPro' foam sound absorption numbers are given down to 125Hz (where the number is down to 0.23)
 
Whatever I'm done with this entire site. All i asked for was graphs and everyone asked why and I told them why I was getting a 5db reduction at 90hz after using foam I wanted an explanation why. The page was to show you how stupid your theory was that a piece of
paper was reflecting 90hz. Go pich that one up there at an AES convention and see what happens. The foam made a difference i have an mdat file and
Graphs to prove it I don't know why and I thought someone here could explain why I guess not. Keep piching your ideas mile
Your recordings and your work clearly
Speaks for itself.
 
I'm building a new studio right now and using Rock Wool 3" doubled for 6" depth. There will be a cloud right over the mixing station, the wall directly behind the mixing station will be treated with 6" rock wool. Three 6" by 16" x 47" panels on the wall in the back with a soft fireproof absorbent wool fabric pinned to the wall between the panels covering the whole wall.and the wall to the right will be bookshelves with spacers behind the books to create some diffusion. The books will be arranged so their depth is varied and there will be diffusers placed in four spots throughout. The wall to my left has a 14" deep narrow work bay and a closet so by opening the closet there is clothing absorbing to some degree and the little desk and work bay will have 3" rock wool in the backs of the shelves. The ceiling will have dense foam cylinders hanging down about 6" at most and some at 4" and 3" There will be bass traps in the corners with a 3200k florescent lights standing behind them for soft illumination. All in all that should render the room sufficiently balanced for the monitors. I will have two upholstered tub chairs, a table with drawers and a small fridge for drinks. There's one standing lamp for reading magazines.
I'm not a fan of the foam since its effect is limited but it is better than nothing. My budget works out to about $300, just about what I would spend on the Auralex products.
Rod Norman
Engineer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top