| Author
|
Owens Corning 703, shipping to Austria (no kangaroo´s)?
|
orgytime
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
120
Posts :
1703
Posted : Jul 4, 2008 18:39:56
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Jul 4, 2008 21:09
|
orgytime: You could look at "Rockwool" products but basicly, go to any building supplier and see what they have. OC is an American brand and will be more expensive in Europe.
Go to a place that supplies real builders, not a consumer DIY shops. The pro shops will be quite a bit cheaper!
UnderTow |
|
|
Trip-
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
101
Posts :
3239
Posted : Jul 5, 2008 00:45
|
You can use rockwool too as UnderTow mentioned - http://www.rockwool.at/sw16665.asp
There's no point in ordering OC 703 since you can find basicly the same quality product in your country.
(for ex. in Israel we use a Turkish product named Izokam.)
 Crackling universes dive into their own neverending crackle...
AgalactiA |
|
|
|
dtd
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
17
Posts :
490
Posted : Jul 5, 2008 00:49
|
hi orgytime,
you do not need owens corning brand material. check what is available in your country and, as undertow said, better check the pro shops which supply building companies.
what is very important though: be sure to buy _high density (kg/m^3)_ fiberglass, the usual consumer shop fiberglass has a too small density for acoustic treatment purposes.
i'm sure you already know ethan's website (otherwise, read it twice  ):
http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html
there you will find some densities listed, to give you a rough idea what to look for.
good luck in your building project.
$ exp(j*pi) + 1 = 0. $ |
|
|
|
Get-a-fix
Getafix
Started Topics :
147
Posts :
1441
Posted : Jul 5, 2008 11:14
|
|
Trip-
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
101
Posts :
3239
Posted : Jul 5, 2008 14:06
|
45kg/m3 for a fiberglass batt is very high, I'm not even sure I could find higher than 36kg/m3 easily here.
It's been a good practice to absorb higher frequencies with a denser material when lower frequencies with less denser material but more mass.
a 36kg/m3 fiberglass would have very similar absorbtion coeficients to a >90kg/m3 rockwool.
Crackling universes dive into their own neverending crackle...
AgalactiA |
|
|
|
orgytime
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
120
Posts :
1703
Posted : Jul 5, 2008 16:48
|
wow thanks, you guys are really 200% competent, im amazed^^
am i getting the same results with rock-wool, or has it to be fiberglass.
and if it doesnt matter, have the desity of the rockwool to be the same like the fiberglass wool?
ill ask my grandfather, he is leader of a isolating company.
another question,
i heard its needed to cover the fiberglass with cotton stuff beacause of its micro-dust. my girlfriend is paperhanger, so that would be no problem^^ how important is the material of the cover? can i take the cheapest material?
greetings
www.soundcloud.com/orgytime |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Jul 5, 2008 17:03
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-07-05 16:48, orgytime wrote:
wow thanks, you guys are really 200% competent, im amazed^^
am i getting the same results with rock-wool, or has it to be fiberglass.
and if it doesnt matter, have the desity of the rockwool to be the same like the fiberglass wool?
|
|
See Trip-'s answer. Mineral wool (rockwool) is heavier than fiber glass so you need a higher density to get the same kind of absorption.
Quote:
|
another question,
i heard its needed to cover the fiberglass with cotton stuff beacause of its micro-dust. my girlfriend is paperhanger, so that would be no problem^^ how important is the material of the cover? can i take the cheapest material?
|
|
Anything that is fine enough to keep the particles in but not so fine that it starts reflecting high-frequencies. (For instance silk would reflect some of the high frequencies). For the rest, just choose something that looks good.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
orgytime
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
120
Posts :
1703
Posted : Jul 5, 2008 17:09
|
|
vegetal
Vegetal/Peacespect
Started Topics :
19
Posts :
1055
Posted : Jul 5, 2008 18:43
|
I have a thought that i´ve wanted to try out for some time when it comes to room treatment, my theory goes like this:
Wouldn´t it be better to minimize the amount of absorbents and instead go for diffusors since you want to increase the area of your sweetspot instead of minimizing it which you do when you start to absorb the room. Considering that diffusors not only spread the soundwaves but also absorb at a certain limit depending on what material that are used.
A combination of helmholtz-resonators and diffusors sounds to me like the optimal sollution instead of ending up with a rather "dead" room i mean you do want some impact from your room acoustic otherwise you could might as well mix in headphones.
Demand recognition for the Armenian genocide 1915
http://www.devilsmindrecords.org/
http://www.myspace.com/vegetalmusic
http://www.checkpoint-music.com/ |
|
|
|
Trip-
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
101
Posts :
3239
Posted : Jul 5, 2008 19:46
|
diffuser active field is rather far from the diffuser itself. You would need a larger room for that, larger than let's say a regular bedroom, for the effect you desire - which is a critical issue in a mixing enviroment.
More over, treating lower frequencies with a diffuser is rather mechanically expensive, as in theory.
Preparing a Helmholtz resonator for your room is also tricky, since tuning to a specified frequency might either solve/create a problem - of course I'm not against it, but i'd use it only when there's a problem to fix. When using a broadband absorption field in a small space, it can refine room's freq response, yes at the sweetspot - much less expensive, and rather easy.
actually for a control room, i'd use a more damped room... of course not what I'd be expecting in a recording room.
btw, those of us who mixed in headphones knows it just doesn't work
vegetal, not trying to let you down, it's good to have an acoustic theory.
Crackling universes dive into their own neverending crackle...
AgalactiA |
|
|
|
vegetal
Vegetal/Peacespect
Started Topics :
19
Posts :
1055
Posted : Jul 5, 2008 19:56
|
It would be interesting to prepare two rooms and let the subject A/B listen and see if a room that uses Diffusors or a room that is absorbed is prefered.
To bad those things are so ridiculously expensive
I´ve been into many different studios which uses diffusors and has few straight angles.
I´ve also been into completely isolated dead rooms that has no reverb what so ever and thats something you don´t want.
And i meant ofc a basstrap when i was referring to Helmholtz resonator ( not enough coffe today)
Demand recognition for the Armenian genocide 1915
http://www.devilsmindrecords.org/
http://www.myspace.com/vegetalmusic
http://www.checkpoint-music.com/ |
|
|
|
Trip-
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
101
Posts :
3239
Posted : Jul 5, 2008 20:09
|
needa find someone with funds 
Crackling universes dive into their own neverending crackle...
AgalactiA |
|
|
|
vegetal
Vegetal/Peacespect
Started Topics :
19
Posts :
1055
Posted : Jul 5, 2008 20:11
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Jul 5, 2008 21:00
|
more density is better only in the bass and i m not even sure ... if i remember well the best density for a absorber (all freqs, not a basstrap)is 60 for rockwool and 35/40 for fiberglass ,correct me if i m wrong.
http://www.bobgolds.com/AbsorptionCoefficients.htm |
|
|
|
