Fiberglass or Rockwool???

[thediscoking]

I apologize, in advance, if this is trite and redundant...

I'm building some absorption panels and I'm trying to decide between 703 fiberglass and rockwool. Which one performs better?

Thank yuh vurry much.

Jacob

[donkeystyle]

in reality you need a little of both, but I would go with 8# rock wool if I was only going to do just one one. This is just my thoughts after a bunch of reading and no actual experience, so someone with some actual experience should be able to to give you some bettert advice.....

so i guess this is a bump although it really didn't need it yet.

i also bumped the treatment thread.

l8er,
ben

[giraffe]

http://www.bobgolds.com/AbsorptionCoefficients.htm

http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=179563

neither is really better.
happy reading.

[donkeystyle]

oops, I had consumed a large amount of wine when I made my posts last night. this is what I meant/my reasoning.

when I said a little of both,I was assuming you weren't going to make real bass traps and were going to use the frk version of the rigid fiberglass to absorb more bass. In that case you could get just enough of the frk to treat some lows and then get rockwool to treat the low mids and highs.

I suggested just the 8# rockwool because i think it absorbs more low mids than 4#. (I could be wrong, I'm no pro and I haven't looked at any coefficients lately and am too lazy to follow the links in the previous posters post) Anyway, it's much cheaper and has similar absorbtion qualities to the 4 and 8# rigid fiberglass.

[PhiloBeddoe]

I used mineral wool because it's much cheaper than rigid fiberglass for me. From reading other posts, the prices seem to vary geographically so you may find fiberglass to be cheaper.

The materials also have different physical properties. The 703 is more rigid than mineral wool, which can crumble and doesn't cut as neatly. Not a problem, just different.