Looks to me like the RSIC-V is a RSIC-1 minus the rubber isolator.

The kicker (if I am reading correctly) is that they are 1/3 the price and get you STC 58 instead of STC 60.

For the amount of savings.. I think I would lose the 2 STC points.

Anybody use these yet? Am I reading the charts correctly?

Tim

Bump. Usually don't bump, but was hoping somebody had thoughts on it? Would save me a lot of $$ :)

Tim

I think this is the sheat you are refering to:

http://www.pac-intl.com/pdf/RSIC-V.pdf

Then I think the 'STC 58' is the model number not the rating. I do believe however that these still do a good job and are a good way to save money. My builder that is doing my HT construction says he has used these (ones without the rubber) in between Duplex type houseing to isolate sound from two separate living units before. He says they worked fine. Minimal difference from those with the rubber.

....There would be a minimal difference with in the frequency range of the STC testing. It's down lower where the bigger differences will be found.

Thanks for the info Dennis. If I am reading the report correctly, the STC testing begins at 125 Hz?

Looks like RSIC-1 is still the choice.

Tim

the rsic-v is interesting; but once again the details are left out of the discussion by PAC

RSIC-v the actual test was performed using Type C firecode drywall, weighs slightly less than type X, but the specimin wall weighed 9.63 lb/sqft AND the wall tested was 8' x 8', this is not standard dimensions at all

RSIC-1 type X drywall, heavier, standard opening 9' x 14', and the test wall weighed 8.6 lbs/sqft, less than the wall for RSIC-V test

where did the extra weight come from??
a smaller wall always test better than a bigger one, all things being constant
why use Type C drwall

one must assume that every change in the stanard practices was obviously done to trick up the results for the RSIC-V

does this sound strangely like Quiet Rock testing to anybody but me?

somebody needs to step up and require that all lab testing be published with any stated STC values

i wouldn't use anything from PAC

i wouldn't use anything from PAC

Is there something else you would prefer and recommend to use? Thanks.

kinetics has a nice clip, good easy to understand testing, quicker to install using a 4' level as you travel along the channel, instead of using a chalk line for all PAC products, ceilings or walls; use fewer clips for ceiling install, etc

i think you probably get what you pay for with the clips, and installation is a big part of the actual "cost"

green glue actually works better at low frequency than almost everything i've seen in the field. there's been so much positive feedback all over this site about Green Glue, and they seem to be the most honest of the group on testing, suggestions, etc

just my 2 cents, which is probably what it's worth

babyaj

Do you have any industry affiliations - as your opinions seem to be way more knowledgable than the DIY that participate here - especially when your first post critiques a product.

Never mind I found it in your profile. Sellers are not supposed to promote what they sell. Take out an ad. Yes it might cost you more than 2 cents.

krasmusik, I think you over reacted. Many people on this board promote the products the distribute. So long as the manufacturer isn't on the site. I would say that the MOST respected posters in this forum are selling products they promote here. I can think of two right now who sell Pac Int'l to the exclusion of competitive products and regularly recommend those products on this forum.

I think it's healthy. If you are in the business of theater design and you use one product to the exclusion of another, I want to know about it (and why). I thought he gave a good explanation.

Just my 2 cents.

There is a huge difference between promoting the concepts of sound isolation or acoustic treatment ... and promoting specific products and vendors.

The first is information - the latter is an ad.

The companies you speak of also spend much time on the forum promoting essentially free construction techniques like staggered studs - or telling people how they can make DIY acoustical panels. They also moderate and/or advertise on the forums....as well as give out much free design advice. Yes kharma says biz will come back to them, but without them - the forum would be full of theaters built out of mattresses like it was a decade ago. Sure they may argue amongst themselves why they use this or that - comes with the territory - but you at least know who they are and what their biases and preferences might be.

At first I assumed the poster was maybe a mechanical engineer working in a architectural engineering firm - and welcomed the information. Until I read the next post which marked it as classic shill - dont work...use this. But benefit of the doubt maybe it is a home theater designer who has used both and just relating their own experiences for your benefit....

Then I recalled a noob sometime ago in which every post about sound isolation was a link to what turned out to be their own site. Does not take a brain surgeon to realize babyaj is the same person in disguise because their old login is gone. Now I realize I've been had. Same person and same site or different person and different site or same person and different site really does not matter - its all the same SPAM to me.

The moderator's are very tolerant of vendors of services and products that add value to this place by playing by the rules. The forum owners are not at all tolerant of those looking to get free advertising at AVS expense. Those who are here are here because they have proven they can play by the rules - even if it took some of them getting booted before they figured out how to behave. Maybe babyaj can learn how to do that and be a contributing member - or maybe here just on monthly free advertising sojourn across the fora hoping to get a few hits before they are booted.

BTW patrick - that is an odd exclusion you have against manufacturers not being here. What do you think RealTraps, ReadyAcoustics, GIK, GreenGlue are but manufacturers of acoustic products? bpape, Terry, Dennis are "manufacturers" of acoustic plans (as well as myself in my local market). They would not be here (some for many years) if the AVS owners thought it was just for the free advertising.

I am all for different experiences being brought to the forum by contributing professional members - but I don't want to read someone's idea of a free monthly ad budget. They need to put in their time before I tolerate that.

I don't think you will find any disagreement that the new clip was designed for minimal STC specifying architects looking to save their customers the bucks for the rubber piece - and a careful examination of the TL data and testing methodology will show which products are better alternatives for home theater use. It is not about the information - it is about what the information was being used for - guerrilla ads. I am sure I am not the only free click that babyaj garnered out of the posts.

patrick,

thanks for the feedback, I am not a regular contributor at all, have posted on two threads only and have been blasted both times

I intentionally don't mention who I am and my afffiliation, in an effort to not to gain any ancillary benefit whatsoever

i've been pushed to post twice, both times based on personally disagreement with what i read, and did have a slightly biased opinion on a product both times

apparently i am not in compliance with the purpose of this forum, in both cases

my apologies

i will forgo any other comments as i do actually get renumerated for products as a part of my daily business

Another one...

http://imgbolt.com/public/79799/clipGenie.jpg (http://imgbolt.com)

http://pliteq.com/products.php

A little less expensive than PAC RSIC-1 clips here in Canada...

JMG

Another one...

http://imgbolt.com/public/79799/clipGenie.jpg (http://imgbolt.com)

http://pliteq.com/products.php

A little less expensive than PAC RSIC-1 clips here in Canada...

JMG

Thanks for this, I just contacted these folks. I hope they get back to me fast. Trying to find a responsible retailer for either of the other two manufacturers of sound isolation clips in Alberta is brutal!

Thanks for this, I just contacted these folks. I hope they get back to me fast. Trying to find a responsible retailer for either of the other two manufacturers of sound isolation clips in Alberta is brutal!

I'm in alberta too, but was likely just going to order from bpape as he ships to us Canucks.

Any opinions on how these clips actually compare to RSIC clips?

An earlier poster commented that PAC might be fooling around with data. Using "heavier drywall", or some such thing. It's good to note that:

The PAC RSIC-V test wall weighed 9.63 lb / sq ft. Test Weal 06-504

The Kinetics Isomax test wall weighed 9.3 lb / sq ft. Test Riverbank TL02-35

About identical.

I was wondering if some one could comment a bit about the RSIC-V physics. Looking at the pics the "V" is like a grommet-less "1"

RSIC-V
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u129/dc_pilgrim/rsic-v.jpg
RSIC-1
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u129/dc_pilgrim/rsic_profile.jpg

Is the physics of the decoupling because the screw goes into the hat-channel, not the stud? If so, how is the RSIC-V different than using resiliant channel? Aside from short circuits or the like. The RSIC-V looks like a channel "holder"

I always imagined the decoupling benefit was in part in the rubber "grommet" section separating the RSIC-1 from the stud.

My version 2.0 room is small, with partially framed walls, so I am planning RSIC on both walls and ceiling than building staggered stud or the like. The price advantage is not small, so I am wondering how they work.

You have a degree of decoupling from the lack of drywall-to-stud contact, as you say. The Hat Track introduces resilience as well.

Fully loaded with drywall, these two clips perform similarly, with the RSIC-V not damping as much in the two main resonance areas. Those two resonance points is where you see the difference in performance between the two.

Having said that, the RSIC-1 doesn't damp much. Its primary function is to decouple.

Resilient channel is quite varied in performance. Easily short circuited. Ceilings with loaded drywall can sag, and lose resilience. Walls can be crushed and collapse the RC.

There are no standards for the resiliency in RC. I've seen some RC that is very stiff... too stiff. Others are way too floppy. That's one of the problems with RC. It gets specified in jobs based on old test data on RC that USG no longer makes. All cars don't get the same mileage, neither do all resilient channels.

This is why RC is one of the few soundproofing materials commonly involved in litigation. Doesn't generally perform properly in the field, and the architects and contractors get bit.

Thanks Ted. I was hoping you'd chime in, even though, of course its not your product. Don't worry, I'll be a repeat customer for GG also. Might be a while, of course.

<snip>
Resilient channel is quite varied in performance. Easily short circuited. Ceilings with loaded drywall can sag, and lose resilience. Walls can be crushed and collapse the RC.

There are no standards for the resiliency in RC. I've seen some RC that is very stiff... too stiff. Others are way too floppy. That's one of the problems with RC. It gets specified in jobs based on old test data on RC that USG no longer makes. All cars don't get the same mileage, neither do all resilient channels.
<snip>


Tell me about it. The RSIC directions state "22 gauge" channel. Around here, the choices are 25ga and 20ga. I went for the 20ga.

I'm curious if any other area has 22ga readily available?

Of course, you can get anything you want, if you're willing to pay.. and wait..

Tim