|
Post by micline on Sept 29, 2019 18:03:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rock on Sept 29, 2019 21:29:46 GMT
I don't know if insulation rolled up in packaging has been tested but I believe that it will work, even if it's not the most effective way to deploy it. If you want to go this route, what you should look for is rolls with the largest diameter you can find and stack them in the corners. I don't think the 2 x 16 x 48 dimensions are the size of the package so the item you have listed probably won't work very well unless you put a bunch of them in each corner. In the end, you're probably better off building traps like ones discussed here.
|
|
|
Post by micline on Sept 29, 2019 23:16:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rock on Sept 30, 2019 3:19:29 GMT
The thicker, the more effective at lower frequencies. Thick=Good. My suggestion is to read the sticky at the beginning of the forum. This will give you a pretty good understanding of how bass traps work. After that, you can decide what might work better for you. My recommendation for bass traps is either super chunks or corner straddling panels but if you fill your corners with bales of mineral wool packs, I imagine that will do the trick. Go for the 24" wide rather than the 16" www.menards.com/main/building-materials/insulation/insulation-rolls-batts/owens-corning-reg-thermafiber-reg-r-16-8-safing-mineral-wool-insulation-batt-24-x-48-40-sq-ft/900538/p-1445972380160-c-5780.htm?tid=-6244557387297938224&ipos=3For two reasons: 1. This bale or package is 20" x 24" x 48" and is much bigger than the 16" panels you sent in your last post, and 2. The 4" x 24" x 48" batt is a good size if you decide to build "regular" panels later. If you have not done so already, search this forum for other threads regarding bass traps. Most questions can be answered simply by reading previous threads. Just about everyone has questions that boil down to the same solution: More bass traps and more and thicker first reflection panels. I personally don't have a problem with with irritation from cloth covered panels but I am irritated temporarily from fibers from rough handling of fiberglass or mineral wool so wear a dust mask when working with it but after covered, you should be fine. Hyper-sensitive persons exist so if you're one of them, you'll have to take extreme measures, for the rest of us, covering with cloth is enough.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Sept 30, 2019 5:31:49 GMT
Coverage beats thickness so making actual frames is more effective. 2' fluffy equals 8" rigid on paper absorbing everything down to about 65Hz, iirc. That's really only relevant, however, if you have enough coverage to make a difference. Leaving the plastic on is going to reflect above around 1kHz and, for aural clarity, you need to absorb some of that - more reason that studios don't have bales of insulation stacked up.
|
|
|
Post by micline on Sept 30, 2019 13:32:05 GMT
The thicker, the more effective at lower frequencies. Thick=Good. .. i've been reading around.. and multiple people have said that too thick is bad though, as it will begin reflecting sound.. as it is too dense, and basically acts like a wall at a certain point..
|
|
|
Post by micline on Sept 30, 2019 13:38:37 GMT
Coverage beats thickness so making actual frames is more effective. 2' fluffy equals 8" rigid on paper absorbing everything down to about 65Hz, iirc. That's really only relevant, however, if you have enough coverage to make a difference. Leaving the plastic on is going to reflect above around 1kHz and, for aural clarity, you need to absorb some of that - more reason that studios don't have bales of insulation stacked up. thanks.. so.. if i go with these: www.menards.com/main/building-materials/insulation/insulation-rolls-batts/guardian-r-6-7-unfaced-fiberglass-insulation-2-x-16-x-48-5-3-sq-ft/511100/p-1444437006851-c-5780.htm?tid=8898562179517004163&ipos=1and stack them up 1 by 1 in the corner (by the way.. my vocal booth is only around l=6.5' w=4.5' h=6.5') and i have other absorbent material all around to capture highs already.. (so i'm thinking the plastic might not be too troublesome).. so if i stack the guardian r-6.7 1 by 1 in corners.. u think it will be thick enough, but not too thick, to be effective? thanks
|
|
|
Post by rock on Sept 30, 2019 19:48:18 GMT
Micline said ".. i've been reading around..
and multiple people have said that too thick is bad though, as it will begin reflecting sound..
as it is too dense, and basically acts like a wall at a certain point.."
Who are these people? Do they have measurements they can share with us? I'd like to learn more because that goes directly contrary to what I understand and I don't what to keep repeating incorrect statements. In the meantime, I'll stick with "The thicker the porous absorber, the lower it's effective frequency."
|
|
|
Post by micline on Sept 30, 2019 23:18:39 GMT
Micline said ".. i've been reading around.. and multiple people have said that too thick is bad though, as it will begin reflecting sound.. as it is too dense, and basically acts like a wall at a certain point.." Who are these people? Do they have measurements they can share with us? I'd like to learn more because that goes directly contrary to what I understand and I don't what to keep repeating incorrect statements. In the meantime, I'll stick with "The thicker the porous absorber, the lower it's effective frequency." i was surfing around to find where i read that, i saw a couple hints of it but nothing strong.. so.. if i come across something i'll try to let u know.. i also contacted some people asking the question, so hopefully i get a reply
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Oct 1, 2019 7:47:26 GMT
That's why we treat 8" of rigid as the max. Fluffy has no practical limit in thickness. But let's be real - almost no one has too much absorption in their room. Warning people about insulation thickness is like warning them about the perils of financial overabundance - just start tracking your expenses. As far as stacking rolls of insulation - you'll just have to try it. My guess is that getting rigid insulation is more efficient. I've never seen any measurements with wrapped fluffy rolls as the variable but it'll probably be better than nothing.
Unless you follow a conventional path, you're never going to find many corroborative sources. Either follow a pre-established path or take a chance; not sure how to grab that bull by the horns.
|
|
|
Post by micline on Oct 1, 2019 15:40:57 GMT
That's why we treat 8" of rigid as the max. Fluffy has no practical limit in thickness. But let's be real - almost no one has too much absorption in their room. Warning people about insulation thickness is like warning them about the perils of financial overabundance - just start tracking your expenses. As far as stacking rolls of insulation - you'll just have to try it. My guess is that getting rigid insulation is more efficient. I've never seen any measurements with wrapped fluffy rolls as the variable but it'll probably be better than nothing.
Unless you follow a conventional path, you're never going to find many corroborative sources. Either follow a pre-established path or take a chance; not sure how to grab that bull by the horns.
some people are saying that simply putting up a bag of batts in your corner, unopened, isn't effective.. because the batts (although thick) are compressed.. and for some reason i'm not sure of.. i guess this issue of compression makes them not effective (although thick).. is that even right in the first place, i don't know, but, some people are saying that.. and that's why i said initially that some people were saying it's possible to have too-thick of bass traps.. well.. i might have been confusing the two topics (1 being compression.. 2 being out-of-the-box insulation and its thickness).. so.. anyway.. i really want to avoid opening a product.. for health reasons.. and also i'm not handy with making things.. so.. i'm thinking about rolls of insulation now.. they have less square footage than batts.. so.. the compression - if any - i'm guessing might not be as severe (i don't know, maybe it still is).. so yeah... any thoughts on placing unopened rolls of insulation in corners? thanks
|
|
|
Post by micline on Oct 1, 2019 23:58:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rock on Oct 2, 2019 0:29:18 GMT
OK, those of us that have replied have shared our opinions and I can't speak for anyone but myself but I'd like to emphasize that this forum is primarily for DIYers that want to build traps similar to Ethan's "Real Traps" or at least use similar acoustic principles.
We do talk about other things audio but the idea of putting packs of insulation in the room is usually considered a joke as the very least you can do. Hanging a washcloth on the wall is another example of something that will "work"...just not all that well. (Ha Ha)
I'm sorry that I can't answer your questions with anything but "well it might (or might not) work" probably because it's really not what many people, if anyone does so AFAIK we really don't have any data to go on.
Your perception that the fibers are somehow dangerous is apparently based on opinion and not medical science so I suggest you rethink that idea. I suggest you read all Ethan's writings on his absorbers and build and implement them like most here may suggest. If you can't build your own, I know they can be purchased.
If you insist on pursuing the "bale" thing, you should seriously consider doing your own acoustic tests to determine the acoustic qualities of various packages. Who knows, you might be on to something, if so please share your results with the forum, I'm sure we'll all be happy to see how they work. BTW, Ethan has writings on how to test materials too so please read if you have not already...Start with the stickies.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Oct 2, 2019 3:45:23 GMT
I agree with rock. You read too much and practice too little. Maybe I'm guilty of that too.
So - whattya say - let's practice more and read less, mm?
|
|