Cheap Soundproofing

  • Thread starter Thread starter notredamer0789
  • Start date Start date
notredamer0789

notredamer0789

Nashville Rocker
Hey guys, just want an opinion here, but what do you think the cheapest way to go about acoustical treatment and soundproofing are?

We went to Lowes and got some insulation board for like 10 bucks for a 4 by 8 footer and just cut it into 4 pieces and put clothe on it. It seems to work OK.. but just wanted to know what you guys think...

Thanks! :)
 
I'm quite the noob, but for what it's worth, this is my understanding for the most effective bang for your buck in acoustic treatment:

* Any insulation at all is better than none

* But it's generally recommended to use at minimum 2'x4'x4" of 705 across each of your corners to assist with bass response.

* Above and beyond that, 2" a few panels of 703 on your walls strategically placed will help with the higher frequency reflections.

* You can't have too much bass trap treatment, so if you can spend more money, buy more of the 705 panels and put them up as you can.

* Wrap them in cloth and if possible mount on a light wood frame.

* They don't sell 705 or even 703 in Lowes or Home Depot. Look at I think the top post in this forum for hints about where to find the stuff and what other manufacturer equivalents there are out there. Roxul and Johns Manville seem to be the most frequently referred to alternatives. Look for a rigid panels or "boards" having a 6lb/cft rating.

QUESTION: I bought 8lb/cft 4" thick Johns Manville, thinking 8lb would be even better than 6lb. Now I'm not so sure. Can someone confirm or let me know if I chose unwisely?
 
calzone said:
QUESTION: I bought 8lb/cft 4" thick Johns Manville, thinking 8lb would be even better than 6lb. Now I'm not so sure. Can someone confirm or let me know if I chose unwisely?
Click to expand...

I believe 3-6 lb is preferable, and 8lb will reflect higher frequencies somewhat. I'm sure one of the experts will chime in and confirm or correct this though.
 
It seems to work OK
Click to expand...
:confused: What tells you "It seems to work OK"?:confused:
just want an opinion here, but what do you think the cheapest way to go about acoustical treatment and soundproofing are?
Click to expand...
:confused:Thats like saying "whats the cheapest way to build a road and make it strong".

The cheapist way to treat a room is to have no walls. Or cieling. One square foot of open window is equal to ONE SABINE of absorption.;) If on the other hand you have a space defined by six boundarys, the next question is HOW MUCH absorption does it need and at what frequency? Now all you have to do is find a product that has absorption coeficients quantified by a lab, and calculate it by cost per cubic foot as per your required absorption per frequency band.:)

The problem is....HOW MUCH absorption does the space in question need? If you can find someone to tell you that in scientific terms, P U L L E E E S EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE introduce him to me.:D In fact, if you can find someone to calculate the absorption requirements in terms of SABINES, for a given space, and when the room is tested and the response is flat across the spectrum, I'll eat a cubic foot of 703.:p

Now, as far as "soundproofing" is concerned....well, HOW soundproof" Enough to isolate a sleeping mother in law in the next bedroom while Ozzie is playing full blast in the adjacent bedroom? Or how bout... isolating a full throtled 747 from a sleeping baby at 20 feet? Or how bout a 20 megaton nuclear detonation above a bunker? Get my drift?;)
fitZ:)
 
notredamer0789 said:
Hey guys, just want an opinion here, but what do you think the cheapest way to go about acoustical treatment and soundproofing are?

We went to Lowes and got some insulation board for like 10 bucks for a 4 by 8 footer and just cut it into 4 pieces and put clothe on it. It seems to work OK.. but just wanted to know what you guys think...

Thanks! :)
Click to expand...


Our local Lowes here doesn't sell OC 703 or any comparable product. What is this "insulation board" to which you refer?
 
Cheap Soundproofing is an

Oxymoron.

I sheetrocked with 1/2 in ch soundboard (that sawdusty stuff) and 5/8ths sheetrock. I got a decent reduction, but then I play jazz. It cost well over a grand, and I consider that relatively cheap.
 
Is Roxul Rockboard 60 much different acoustically then OC 703 2 inch? according to the acoustic numbers, it is almost virtually the same amount of absorbtion across the board except the at 125 hz it was even better than the 703. Why is Roxul Rockboard much cheaper? Will it still do the trick?
 
I swear that I am a lot less helpful now than I used to be. These OP's just disappear without so much as a thank you. It happens all the fucking time.

This is not a society. It's THUNDERDOME!!!!!:(:mad:

:eek:
 
Soundproofing and cheap do not go together, or so i've learnt.

hanging up some carpets helps SLIGHTLY, bu insulation and all the expensive stuff is always gonna be the best option
 
Sound proofing requires adding mass, adding mass to an existing structure doesn't come in cheap. Reducing sound transmission (soundproofing if you prefer to call it that) and acoustic treatment of a room are two very different subjects. Room treatment is for making a room sound better, stopping reflections, boominess, etc... but does little or nothing to reduce sound transmission.
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
The problem is....HOW MUCH absorption does the space in question need? If you can find someone to tell you that in scientific terms, P U L L E E E S EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE introduce him to me.:D In fact, if you can find someone to calculate the absorption requirements in terms of SABINES, for a given space, and when the room is tested and the response is flat across the spectrum, I'll eat a cubic foot of 703.:p
Click to expand...

Rick,

hey buddy - please define "flat across the board" And, should we use the whole room to determine or just the listening space?

Your friend

Rod
 
i buried my basement... put a room inside a room JUST to be able to stop the sound from coming out.

i heard hotel rooms are insulated with double walls with a styro foam substrate in the middle. that could work but the main thing there is "double wall"

-------------------------------------------------
because music is what you make it
-------------------------------------------------
 
djfontana said:
i heard hotel rooms are insulated with double walls with a styro foam substrate in the middle. that could work but the main thing there is "double wall"
Click to expand...


Uh-Oh........ someone's in trouble now - cause they lied to you........

either that or you heard wrong..........

iso walls are not constructed like that - not even in hotels. There is no styrofoam in the cavities.

Rod
 
Rod Gervais said:
Rick,

hey buddy - please define "flat across the board" And, should we use the whole room to determine or just the listening space?

Your friend

Rod
Click to expand...

Re-read Rick's statement. I don't think he's saying what you think he's saying. :)
 
Jaaaaamie said:
Soundproofing and cheap do not go together, or so i've learnt.

hanging up some carpets helps SLIGHTLY, bu insulation and all the expensive stuff is always gonna be the best option
Click to expand...

Carpets don't really help, even slightly. They suck up some HF, and leave all the LF running rampant. In a small room, LF is going to be the biggest problem - and carpet makes it worse.

Broadband absorbtion is what you're looking for - the most even absorbtion across the frequency spectrum that you can manage. OC 703 isn't magical, it just works better than most other materials for broadband absorbtion.

That said, if carpet is what works for you, go with it. If you're happy I'm happy.
 
hey buddy - please define "flat across the board"
Click to expand...
Hey Rod, how ya doin buddy? Haven't seen you around this neck of the woods lately.:D

Well, what I "really" said was "flat across the specturm"...as in "the flattest room response you can achieve".;) And I still stand by my statement. Maybe you know someone who can predict the absorption requirements and placement in a room PRECISELY, and AFTER measuring with ETF or something, NO tuning is required. THAT is what I mean. And if there is someone who can do it....I'll eat a cubic foot of .....:eek::rolleyes::p well, let me protect my self and say...pussy.:D;)
fitZ:)
 
RICK FITZPATRICK said:
Well, what I "really" said was "flat across the specturm"...as in "the flattest room response you can achieve".;) And I still stand by my statement. Maybe you know someone who can predict the absorption requirements and placement in a room PRECISELY, and AFTER measuring with ETF or something, NO tuning is required. THAT is what I mean. And if there is someone who can do it....I'll eat a cubic foot of .....:eek::rolleyes::p well, let me protect my self and say...pussy.:D;)
fitZ:)
Click to expand...

OK,

Fair enough - no one is perfect - and thus no one can predict that closely.

But what would you say if I were to tell you that rooms can be designed to this tolerance:

At the designed mix position - even across the board with the exception of a 3 dB dip at 125Hz and a 1.5dB peak at 80Hz

In the back of the room - even across the board for mids, highs and most lows - with a 3 to 4 dB peak at some of the lowest frequencies.

A room this tight with all treatments as a part of the original design. (Note that the back of the room is the worst location in the entire room).

Would that classify as a "flat" design in your mind?

Rod
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top