there is a different between Acoustic foam and Soundproofing foam

[assmaster]

this is two different thing or its the same thing?

thanks

 

[HogansHiro]

TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS!!!

I can't count the gazillion times I hear of project studios talk about sound proofing and all they are doing is sound treatment. Soundproofing is just that....making to so no sound (ok a little) will be able to pass. Foam is not soundproof. What foam panels usually are used for is sound treatment...it deflects and diffuses sound wave so there are no flutter echos, anti-nodes...etc...etc. There are a GAZILLION posts on the topic that could give you the nuts and bolts of it...but whenever you hear the term sound-foam it is for soundtreatment and definatley not soundproofing.

ok...now everyone can clarify my overly simplified explanation.

 

[Rod Gervais]

this is two different thing or its the same thing?

thanks

There is no such thing as "soundproofing foam". It doesn't exist - never did.

Soundproofing requires mass - which foam doesn't have.

Foam is manufactured for a lot of things - but in the case of sound - it's an acoustic treatment.

I hope that helps,

Rod

 

[Track Rat]

I don't believe there's any such thing as soundproofing foam. As far as acoustic faom, there's a HUGE difference between that and packing foam.

 

[apl]

Read www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

 

[assmaster]

what i will need to buy to make a room that is 152 inch on 104 inch
acoustic for recording a vocal or instrumental
i see this on ebay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7322735084&rd=1&sspagename=STRK:MEWA:IT&rd=1
it will good for me?
thanks

 

[apl]

Read this. I wouldn't put that stuff on my walls. Ever.

 

[Rod Gervais]

Read this. I wouldn't put that stuff on my walls. Ever.

apl,

In regards to that fire - it had nothing to do with acoustic foam.

The foam that they had on the walls of that nightclub was packing foam, which is made exactly for that - packing and shipping materials.

Acoustic foam is treated with a fire retardant - and will not sustain fire on it's own.

I have personally tested both foams side by each - and the packing foam will burn very rapidly - the acoustic foam (on the other hand) stops burning the within a few seconds after you take the match away.

Thus one feeds the fire - and the other doesn't.

Rod

 

[Rod Gervais]

what i will need to buy to make a room that is 152 inch on 104 inch
acoustic for recording a vocal or instrumental
i see this on ebay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7322735084&rd=1&sspagename=STRK:MEWA:IT&rd=1
it will good for me?
thanks

This material has (to the best of my knowledge) never been tested and certified by the seller - the absorbtion numbers published by them are not real.

If you want to buy foam - then purchase it from reputable companies such as Auralex - they charge more money - but they do so for a reason.

If what you're looking for is the least expensive route - then do it yourself traps makes the most sense - and you can make these with 703/705 rigid fiberglass insulation.

Rod

 

[Mach311]

Rod, how do you know the product has never been tested and the numbers aren't real? Do you know the sellers or what? Just wondering.

 

[assmaster]

how can i do it myself with fiberglass insulation
you know a guide that shows how to do this?

or you just put fiberglass insulation on the wall?
thanks

 

[Rod Gervais]

Rod, how do you know the product has never been tested and the numbers aren't real? Do you know the sellers or what? Just wondering.

When a company HAS done testing - that testing ties to a real world lab and can be traced - I can find no way to tie the published numbers to an actual testing laboratory.

When you look at their numbers they look very much like they just copied the Auralex data.

Their products were purchased (recently) by another company (not Auralex) and submitted to IBM for testing - and the test results were nowhere NEAR their published numbers,

Their product and the Auralex product are 2 very different foams with completely different properties........

The only thing I have been able to verify is that their foam does appear to be flame retardant - for that they provide the back-up to their claims (this in the form of their MSD Sheets - Material Safety Data Sheets).

Sincerely,

Rod

 

[Mach311]

Their products were purchased (recently) by another company (not Auralex) and submitted to IBM for testing - and the test results were nowhere NEAR their published numbers,
Rod

Do you have access to these numbers? It would be pretty beneficial for all of us users here to have those real numbers so we could do our own comparisons and weigh the cost vs. performance for ourselves. I have seen other posts on this message board from people who have bought from foambymail who were pleased with the product. I'm just trying to get the best value for my extremely modest home studio.

 

[Rod Gervais]

Do you have access to these numbers? It would be pretty beneficial for all of us users here to have those real numbers so we could do our own comparisons and weigh the cost vs. performance for ourselves. I have seen other posts on this message board from people who have bought from foambymail who were pleased with the product. I'm just trying to get the best value for my extremely modest home studio.

Mach,

Take a look here,

http://www.realtraps.com/data.htm

Read through to the bottom and you will see that the tests are FBM products - who interestingly enough is also the Foam Factory (once you start looking at the 2 together - same address - same phone numbers......... same business - different names.).

That is why APL posted the link to Ethan's site in the 1st place.

Rod

 

[Mach311]

Unless I'm misinterpreting the test results, which is very possible, it looks like they are honest about the 3" foam anyway.

RealTraps
Test
NRC at 125 HZ 0.23
NRC at 250 HZ 0.49
NRC at 500 HZ 1.06
NRC at 1000 HZ 1.04
NRC at 2000 HZ 0.96
NRC at 4000 HZ 1.05

FBM Claims
NRC at 125 HZ 0.22
NRC at 250 HZ 0.48
NRC at 500 HZ 1.04
NRC at 1000 HZ 1.07
NRC at 2000 HZ 0.94
NRC at 4000 HZ 1.08

Am I missing something?

 

[Rod Gervais]

Unless I'm misinterpreting the test results, which is very possible, it looks like they are honest about the 3" foam anyway.

Yes you are missing something.......... they are not honest about anything if they are presenting that they did tests and they didn't.

Does the fact that one of their products tests out as reasonably comparable to a company whos data it appears they "aquired" without permission somehow change the fact that they pretend to have tested product which was not tested?

Am I missing something here?

Rod

 

[Mach311]

Am I missing something here?

Maybe you are missing something. You don't know for a fact that they didn't test it, you are just assuming they didn't because you can't trace it to a lab. It appears the results for the bass absorbers is way off, but I'm only trying to figure out if their 3" foam is comparable to Auralex. And it appears it is, according to the test that RealTraps did. So I don't really care if they did test it or didn't test, as long as somebody tested it. Apparently it does the job for a lot less than the Auralex.

You said "Their product and the Auralex product are 2 very different foams with completely different properties". If that's so, then why does 3" of the Auralex and 3" of the FBM yeild practically the same test results?

 

[Rod Gervais]

Maybe you are missing something. You don't know for a fact that they didn't test it, you are just assuming they didn't because you can't trace it to a lab.

Sorry kiddo, anything that has been tested can be traced to a lab.... tis that simple.

It appears the results for the bass absorbers is way off,

Appears????????????? It's so far off it's pathetic - another proof that it was never tested - or perhaps you think that the testing lab made a mistake?

but I'm only trying to figure out if their 3" foam is comparable to Auralex. And it appears it is, according to the test that RealTraps did. So I don't really care if they did test it or didn't test, as long as somebody tested it. Apparently it does the job for a lot less than the Auralex.

Well that's your choice - me - personally - I only do business with reputable companies - when I realize that they cheat I don't do business with them - period. But I guess I could attribute that to the fact that I have been doing business in my field for a long time and have developed morals along the way.

Cost is less important to me than my reflection in the mirror.

So if a truck shows up on one of my my job sites selling brand new spereo speakers, or brand new televisions - or brand new tools at 25% of the cost in a store - I immeadiately call the police and report them along with liscense plates - and also forbid anyone working on my site to do business with them for the time it takes to make them gone.

I know the crap they're selling is hot - and thus don't want any part of it.

By the same token - if I know company "A" would be ripping me off by misrepresenting product "B" I could care less if another one of their products is a decent buy - I don't do business with ripoffs.......... period.

Your money - spend it how you want - me I do business with reputable companies only.

You said "Their product and the Auralex product are 2 very different foams with completely different properties". If that's so, then why does 3" of the Auralex and 3" of the FBM yeild practically the same test results?

1st of all - forget the "if that's so" part of the question - it's a fact.

As I said - simply go look at their MSD sheets and those of the Auralex products - they are 2 completely different products.

2nd - so what? DO you suppose that 2 totally different foams - 2 products with completely different chemical compositions - couldn't have very close to the same absorbtion coefficiencies if they had the roughly the same densities?

I don't know the depth of your knowledge - but I am certain I could find many products with different materials of construction - all of which acted reasonably the same with one another from an absorbtion point of view.

It isn't that difficult to understand.

Sincerely,

Rod

 

[mixmkr]

There is no such thing as "soundproofing foam". It doesn't exist - never did.

Soundproofing requires mass - which foam doesn't have.

Foam is manufactured for a lot of things - but in the case of sound - it's an acoustic treatment.

I hope that helps,

Rod

there IS a foam with a layer of lead in it that I use a fair amount to shield engine noises and stuff like that on boats. Quite a common product, actually. I will knock 20 dB off or so...but still lets the "rumble" through! When soundproofing generators in smaller sailboats, it is well worth its use, especially if you can bring the overall noise level down to "tolerable"!!

 

[Rod Gervais]

there IS a foam with a layer of lead in it that I use a fair amount to shield engine noises and stuff like that on boats. Quite a common product, actually. I will knock 20 dB off or so...but still lets the "rumble" through! When soundproofing generators in smaller sailboats, it is well worth its use, especially if you can bring the overall noise level down to "tolerable"!!

Mix,

won't argue with that - however - the foam is not soundproofing - the lead is........... and my guess would be that it is VERY expensive........

Sincerely,

Rod