What is the life of acoustic foam?

Cryptic eh...
1-2" foam/fiberglass with airspace behind becomes broadband and is just as efficient as say 3-4" material mounted on hard surface.
Cost savings can be significant.

More likely mom living in my basement at this stage in life.

G
 
More likely mom living in my basement at this stage in life.

I'm calling social services....

:D


I'm getting ready to do an expansion/addition to one side of my house so my mom can have a complete apartment-style setup on one level all to herself.
She has some mobility issues and can't do the stairs easily, plus she will need more room for walker use, and possible wheelchair in the future.
She officially moved in with me a month ago...she can't live alone anymore down in her FL condo. Mom and dad use to come up and spend the summers with me for the last 30 years, then my dad passed back in '05, and she was on her own, doing good...but now that's over.

I tell you...these parents, you move them out...and then years later they're back! :p
 
The science behind what works and what does not is seriously only for those who have a masters degree in physics.

I do not have that. I only have discussions with people that do and go and went with what works from the conversations.

Typical rooms like a 10x12x8' are a nightmare for square waves. Even numbers are the worst from my research. Almost impossible to efficiently treat acoustically because of the standing waves that reinforce themselves. But we have to deal with it when needed. So...

Corner traps made of rockwool, OC703/5, even the pink fluffy stuff can all work well at reducing frequencies below 500Hz. But there needs to be an air gap behind to make them work efficiently. There lies the issue with a small room. The space itself.

You can place standing 6" thick/2' wide rockwool panels from floor to ceiling on the 4 vertical corners, but you lose a bunch of space.

I have seen a couple guys with small rooms actually place bass traps between ceiling and wall. That is also a corner that bass trapping can be useful. All corners are culprits of low end buildup.

Then there is the typical reflection issue. 2" traps I hear can work on side walls ok, but the thicker the better. Gap between the trap and walls exponentially increases the efficiency. But then there again is the amount of space in the room to do such. Or whether you own the home and can tear out walls/ceiling and hide/enhance the ability of the absorption material.


So, bottom line here is that there are more important things to deal with than just the high end reflections that foam products can help with. OC703 1" thick panels will likely perform better than foam products, but you have to spend some DIY time covering them. Or buy them from a reputable manufacturer of such. 2" will always be better than 1" for reflections, but your space. 4" even better, but your space. Gap between the wall and the absorption panel equal to it's depth most efficient (don't quote me here as I think 2" may be the best for any thickness), but your space. Thick panels in corners with air gap or just a mesh screen 3' across vertical corners with cheap fluffy standard insulation will do the job. For bass traps it is the air gap filled with acoustical absorbing material that performs the task. Side reflections are easy and cheaper to do with things other than foam.

But the foam stuff does look cool and has a purpose. Just not for the main problems a small room has. I am surprised Auralex hasn't come up with a option having both. Well, maybe they have, but I bet it would be so expensive that we would likely not be talking about it on this forum.


And to add, this is just my advice from what I have learned and used myself in my studio. It may not be completely accurate. Just sharing what I know. :)
 
Last edited:
My gosh. Another foam discussion.

Well, i don't have a Masters in Physics, but I gotta lotta Physics.

Let's start with two immutable truths that stand beyond the opinion of anyone on the internet.

1. it is possible to design and build something that only a very few, if any, can "hear beyond the space." That is, you can make it 'deader' than you can detect with most instruments and WAY beyond what your ears -- or the ears of anyone you've met -- can detect. If that's whatcha want.

2. Studio acoustic qualities are subject to the whims of fashion. The architectural requirements for decoupling and deadening have been known longer than anyone around here has been alive. Learned largely in the labs of the 1800s and simply refined when the Talkies showed up. In the 50s, they were scared of making rooms 'too dead'. Remember, this was when tube amps ruled and a Neuman 47 was no big collector's item. They had the circuits.
Then some pretentiousness showed up (with money) and it all became about copy-cat equipment. Golden Ears like Clearmountain and Nichols wanted rooms dead, dead, dead! Then, one day, somewhat mysteriously, Nichols started complaining about how rooms were just too darned dead and the trend started to reverse (1980? 82?) It has a tendency to see-saw.

So, that said, the life of foam is simple: it just hangs there until you want it different.

Sound is absorbed by Mass. Nothing more; nothing less. Foam has *some* mass, so it absorbs *some* sound, but as you might guess, not much. Shaped foam, like Sonex, clusters up the reflections and works well for that. After all, no matter HOW much mass your surfaces have, they will still reflect. If you want things dead - that means decoupled from the world - you're gonna need some mass in the form of many options. Lots of good books on this.

Rockwool is a favorite because it *sounds* like it works. It does. It sounds pretty good in the average studio - or even above average room. So that's why it's used in laboratory anechoic chambers at NASA and stuff, right? Nope. They don't use it. They use foam (with lots of lead behind it). Panels, however, do command an advantage, explained at the end.

There's been many materials in and out of favor in sound control including foam, wool, horsehair, cotton batting,fiberglass, etc. Obviously, wool is in-fashion right now. You can tell from the catty remarks that mention of the other materials receive. And it does work, certainly for project studios and limited budget installations. But it's far from alone. Heck, you can still get a LOT of the same effect, sometimes better, by simply hanging a carpet from your wall with a little air behind it. Just learn some basics and use your head -- then your ears.

I can argue theory about 'standing waves' and 'reflections' all day long, including rebound vector and phase cancellation with anyone, even the YouTube crowd. That's hardly the point. There's a few general rules that produce generally acceptable results and this list has plenty of expertise to guide you that way. There are NO hard-and-fast "gotta do this" rules; and darned few "don't do this" rules.

Oh, and I almost forgot the third immutable truth: No one, even with a Doctorate in Physics, can tell you what your treated space sounds like until they've been in it. You can harvest sweep data and timed reflections, and that might give the very-qualified expert solid ground for an absent opinion. But up to that, you can only count on getting comments like "it will sound small" or "it probably rings" which, duh, you probably already knew.

One bit of advice I'd give to you (or any other builder) is to go with changeable treatments. If you put up foam with a staple gun, great. If you put up hardwood frames of wool, great. If you put up lots of ceiling tiles in a random array, super. Now, after using it a week or two *change it*. Move the panels around. Don't get used to it... or you'll get used to it. Unless you can have someone (like my buds) come in and make acoustic datascapes of the entire volume, with people, gear, etc., which, okay, might be overkill, you don't REALLY know whatcha got but only what "sounds good". This is the fatal flaw of the "Bose Syndrome". But a few sweeps are not beyond anyone's expertise - if you're assembling a studio, anyway.

I'm gonna stick with that: Don't get used to it... or you'll get used to it. Seen that one many times. Your eyes can often fool your ears, believe it or not. Color alone. Had to have that one proved to me. Our senses are a fickle lot. Even the big money producers know this. Of course, they don't tear out treatment, they just move the goods to a studio down the road, and sometimes back again. Then an unfortunate side effect are things like Pro Tools being "required".

Oh, if we're still on the OP: I've got Sonex from 1983. Some of it is like new, other panels are eroding like sand. Why? Quien Sabe?? No idea. Manufacturing defect is all i got. But it does a lot in the right place so i always keep spares around. I've got 'pyramid' from 1990. The blue stuff is still solid - but never really worked well -- and the black stuff erodes like sand. Again, never really worked well, anyway. But i don't wanna burn it or put it in a landfill, so i put it up in the Generator Room to impress the uninitiated.

Candidly, that's what a LOT of gear seems to be about.
 
I find it amazing how the OP asked "What is the life of acoustic foam?" and we get onto a whole discussion about the acoustic properties of foam LOL.

Alan.
 
Lots of advice and spoiled for products to use. But one video from the past is a bit confusing and there are lots more if I can remember them.

How did they do it in the olde days? I suppose we had better ask them as most are still alive. Looks like 4 bare concrete block walls and open ceiling. You can see at about 10 seconds .... YouTube
 
Looks like 4 bare concrete block walls and open ceiling.


Look closer...that's some kind of acoustic tile on the walls.
This song came later in their carreers...so I doubt they wouldn't be in a quality recording studio...and yes, they had them even back in 1975. :)
 
Lots of advice and spoiled for products to use. But one video from the past is a bit confusing and there are lots more if I can remember them.

How did they do it in the olde days? I suppose we had better ask them as most are still alive. Looks like 4 bare concrete block walls and open ceiling.

The walls are probably acoustic tiles not concrete, and what you can't see is the height of the ceiling and what the ceiling is like. Makes a big difference.

Alan.
 
Looks like plain old what we call in the UK .... 'Breeze Block' which I believe are made from ash and cement. Standard internal wall building product. Haven't a clue on acoustic qualities. Dunno could be something else?

But anyway not a foam tile, cloud, bass trap, or wall Rockwool/fibreglass panel in sight.:) Perhaps they were only making the video?
 
Last edited:
Really?

Ok, I never once said any one way is right. In fact I made sure not to do so.

Small rooms are hard to deal with, hence the point of my post. There is no 'absolute' way to deal with room acoustics because every room is different. Especially in a recording room. Much more of an issue in a mixing or mastering room that needs to have control of the acoustics so that a mix can be had without guessing so much as to how it translates to other environments/systems/formats.


As to the video above, hell yeah! Record in an open room with high ceilings or wherever. This is not a typical environment most home recording folks deal with. Unless they are all 4' tall, that room is at least 12' high. And who knows how big the room is...

That is not my point.

And also if any of my product sounded as thin as that Frankie Valli recording, I would not be able to support my recording hobby.. Just saying... It is a different time and different needs. Especially for the guy in a 10 x 10' bedroom.
 
I'd bet that video was shot in a room paneled with asbestos tiles. Now *that* is something you'd want to avoid, but it's dense and absorbed all kinds of energy so was everywhere.
 
Looks like plain old what we call in the UK .... 'Breeze Block' which I believe are made from ash and cement. Standard internal wall building product. Haven't a clue on acoustic qualities. Dunno could be something else?

But anyway not a foam tile, cloud, bass trap, or wall Rockwool/fibreglass panel in sight.:) Perhaps they were only making the video?

Looking at the video again I but it was set up and was probably their rehearsal space. The video budget back then was probably about $20, not like now where the video budget is 4 times the recording budget LOL.

Alan.
 
But anyway not a foam tile, cloud, bass trap, or wall Rockwool/fibreglass panel in sight.:) Perhaps they were only making the video?

You do realize that bigger, pro studios (old and new) don't really bother with bass trap panels and foam in the way you see them in home studios.
Usually the pro studios have all the treatment built-in, rather than added after the fact, like you might do to a bedroom or basement that's been converted to a studio.
Often, in the pro studios the traps are massive, sometimes deep behind "false" walls and ceilings...so to the untrained eye, it looks just like a room, but the treatment is actually there, massively.

Not saying there weren't any less than stellar pro studios going back to the '60s and early '70s...but I think your looking at it from a home studio perspective, what might be used and how, which would not necessarily be in a pro studio....and above all, often the size of the pro rooms makes a big difference to how much treatment is needed to "fix" things....which is usually less than small, home studios, where the size is working against you.
 
Actually if you look at my drum area (corner) there is no obvious trapping as its behind the wall, there is a layer of plaster with a bass trap behind. There is a strip of Foam (oh my goodness not foam) at head hight that I put in after the build to just talk a little cymbal splash out but the wall look solid. By the way the corner is not 90 deg as I built the bass trap into the angled wall.

Alan
 
Back
Top