or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Soundproofing master thread - Page 12

post #331 of 352
Anybody ever try these: http://www.cascadeaudio.com/commercial_residential/speaker_and_lighting_enclosures.htm

claim an NRC of .75 and STC of 17

RG
post #332 of 352
stc of 17 is pretty whimpy
post #333 of 352
I thought the same thing Big but just thought I would throw it out there. I was looking at building some out of mdf and cement board as you did and stumbled on these.
RG
post #334 of 352
So I am totally new to room treatment. I started getting interested because I want to reduce noise exiting my theater room and entering into the rest of the house. I understand that this would be quite invasive and/or costly, and so it has become less of a focus. So, instead, I am trying to tighten up the acoustics with the hope of perhaps lowing the volume just a tad for everyone else in the family on Halo night. My plan at this point is to buy foam tape for the single door frame as well as a noise isolating door sweep (anyone have a recommendation?)

In addition, I am looking to purchase twelve 3" 1'x1' wedge tiles and one large 3" 6'x4' wedge tile. I am looking to print out my favorite album covers on fabric and use pins to attach them to the foam. I figure this would be aesthetically pleasing while not disrupting the utility of the wedges. Would this work? I am worried about what cloth to use - obviously a high density fiber will render the foam wedges totally useless, so I'm looking to find a place to print that has something very thin to print on. Again any tips would be awesome.


Would this all make any noticable difference in acoustics? What about volume reduction for the rest of the house? The room is about 12x12x12 with carpeted rugs.
Looking for a cheap non-invasive solution as I will be moving within a couple of years
post #335 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by granroth View Post

FWIW, acoustic tests have shown that it doesn't matter at all where the insulation is situated in an air cavity. So Roxul+Air, Air+Roxul, and Air+Roxul+Air are all the same.

Roxul(against the floor) + Air + Ruxol (at the bottom of the joist)+ Air + 5/8" fire rated tile worked for very nicely for me.

No ceiling / canlights.
post #336 of 352
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtf612 View Post

So I am totally new to room treatment. I started getting interested because I want to reduce noise exiting my theater room and entering into the rest of the house. I understand that this would be quite invasive and/or costly, and so it has become less of a focus. So, instead, I am trying to tighten up the acoustics with the hope of perhaps lowing the volume just a tad for everyone else in the family on Halo night. My plan at this point is to buy foam tape for the single door frame as well as a noise isolating door sweep (anyone have a recommendation?)

Be a little careful about referring to soundproofing and acoustics or room treatment in the same breath. They are related topics but they are not the same. Soundproofing a room will not help the acoustics (in fact, it'll make them worse in some ways) while acoustic treatments will make a room sound better, but will not soundproof it to any measurable degree.

Sealing a door will absolutely help. if it's done with a solid core door, then you will have essentially removed the door as a weak point, since it would likely perform better than your walls.

A solid recommendation for an automatic door sweep would be a model from Zero International. I hesitate to say a specific model because they have a number and they tend to cover various use cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtf612 
In addition, I am looking to purchase twelve 3" 1'x1' wedge tiles and one large 3" 6'x4' wedge tile. I am looking to print out my favorite album covers on fabric and use pins to attach them to the foam. I figure this would be aesthetically pleasing while not disrupting the utility of the wedges. Would this work? I am worried about what cloth to use - obviously a high density fiber will render the foam wedges totally useless, so I'm looking to find a place to print that has something very thin to print on. Again any tips would be awesome.

Check out this thread for tons of great info on making aesthetically pleasing panels: DIY Custom Printed Movie Poster Acoustic Panels
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtf612 
IWould this all make any noticable difference in acoustics? What about volume reduction for the rest of the house? The room is about 12x12x12 with carpeted rugs.
Looking for a cheap non-invasive solution as I will be moving within a couple of years

Placed properly, the acoustic tiles will absolutely make a very noticeable difference in sound quality in your room -- it's a definite WOW factor. It won't help with sound reduction for the rest of the house by any measurable amount, though. I see those tiles marketed as "soundproofing" tiles every so often and that's just wrong.

Properly sealing your door should make a difference. How much of a difference can't be predicted, though, since there are so many other factors that can come into play. It's entirely possible that your biggest noise leakage component is completely unrelated to the door and so sealing it won't appear to do anything. You won't know until you try.
post #337 of 352
I was just reading this article, and found this statement interesting "The amount of absorption in the cavity has a significant effect on the sound transmission ‐ the 
greater the fraction of the cavity filled with absorption, the higher the sound transmission loss. The sound transmission loss continues to increase with increasing thickness of the absorptive material. With the cavity half‐filled with absorptive material, the sound transmission loss was 
about 5 dB less  than that obtained by filling the cavity completely. ‐ the greater the fraction of the cavity filled with absorption, the higher the sound transmission loss. ". If I am understanding this correctly by filling the cavity with insulation you are increasing the effectiveness of the soundproofing. This also makes me wonder about what would happen with a double wall construction if you fill the whole cavity with insulation versus having a gap.
post #338 of 352
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellisr63 View Post

I was just reading this article, and found this statement interesting "The amount of absorption in the cavity has a significant effect on the sound transmission ‐ the 
greater the fraction of the cavity filled with absorption, the higher the sound transmission loss. The sound transmission loss continues to increase with increasing thickness of the absorptive material. With the cavity half‐filled with absorptive material, the sound transmission loss was 
about 5 dB less  than that obtained by filling the cavity completely. ‐ the greater the fraction of the cavity filled with absorption, the higher the sound transmission loss. ". If I am understanding this correctly by filling the cavity with insulation you are increasing the effectiveness of the soundproofing. This also makes me wonder about what would happen with a double wall construction if you fill the whole cavity with insulation versus having a gap.

Ah.. it turns out that this was the second question asked in this thread. Start here and read the next four or five posts: Post #10

The TL;DR is that when they talk about a "cavity", they are not referring to the space between the walls, but rather the space between the studs within a wall... so filling that gap will not help by any measurable amount.

FWIW, I tried asking a related question here and elsewhere that I never got a solid answer to -- does filling the gap hurt performance. That is, it's well established that it doesn't help soundproofing, but I haven't found any definitive proof on whether or not it would actually make things worse.
post #339 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by granroth View Post

Ah.. it turns out that this was the second question asked in this thread. Start here and read the next four or five posts: Post #10

The TL;DR is that when they talk about a "cavity", they are not referring to the space between the walls, but rather the space between the studs within a wall... so filling that gap will not help by any measurable amount.

FWIW, I tried asking a related question here and elsewhere that I never got a solid answer to -- does filling the gap hurt performance. That is, it's well established that it doesn't help soundproofing, but I haven't found any definitive proof on whether or not it would actually make things worse.

When we were doing our walls we did our studs on 24" centers (inner walls)... When I went to get the insulation for it I found out that it was for at least a 6" stud and we had 2x4s. I called the Soundproofing Company and was told not to worry about the insulation touching the outer wall insulation as it was not dense enough to link the 2 together. I just found this article to be very interesting and it seemed to me to reinforce that it was not a problem to worry about and actually made me think that it might be better to do. BTW, the link I provided has a lot of excellent articles on everything for Studios (it is very good reading IMO). I guess we will see if it does hurt the STC rating on my room when it is completed. My thinking on this is I am doing the best that I can and that it will still be better than maybe 75% of the HT rooms people build, as I have read that even some of the Pro built HT rooms are not built properly when using clips and channels. If I can reduce sound by 50-60db I will be very happy. smile.gif
post #340 of 352
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellisr63 View Post

When we were doing our walls we did our studs on 24" centers (inner walls)... When I went to get the insulation for it I found out that it was for at least a 6" stud and we had 2x4s. I called the Soundproofing Company and was told not to worry about the insulation touching the outer wall insulation as it was not dense enough to link the 2 together. I just found this article to be very interesting and it seemed to me to reinforce that it was not a problem to worry about and actually made me think that it might be better to do. BTW, the link I provided has a lot of excellent articles on everything for Studios (it is very good reading IMO). I guess we will see if it does hurt the STC rating on my room when it is completed. My thinking on this is I am doing the best that I can and that it will still be better than maybe 75% of the HT rooms people build, as I have read that even some of the Pro built HT rooms are not built properly when using clips and channels. If I can reduce sound by 50-60db I will be very happy. smile.gif

Well, that's good to hear that the guys at the Soundproofing Company aren't concerned about fiberglass bridging the gap. I strongly suspected that that was the case, but it's nice to hear confirmation. I'm going to be doing a tiny bit of that in my own build, so that eases my mind a bit.

An yeah, JH Brandt has some excellent stuff on his website. He's also very active on a few forums. I'd say that JH Brandt and Rod Gervais are the two most prolific and helpful tier-one acoustic experts out there now, so anything that they say I essentially take as gospel truth. They do sometimes leave some notable gaps in their descriptions of things, though, and it's not always clear to non-experts if the gaps are due to things that don't matter or if it's something that they expect us to know! The whole semantics about a "cavity" is one of those gaps. Handily, this is the age of the Internet and so we can simply ask for clarification and get it :-)
post #341 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by granroth View Post

Soundproofing a room will not help the acoustics

That's not quite right.

Soundproofing lowers the masking noise from outside the room. In addition to lowering car traffic and walking traffic and plumbing noises through the walls/ceiling, it should include lowering the HVAC noise. And equipment should be placed so that it's soundproofed as well, again lowering the masking noise from their fans.

With a lower noise floor (NR rating) -- or to say the same thing another way, a lack of masking noise -- you don't have to constantly be turning the volume up and down [up so you can understand the voices, and down because it hurts], because the effective dynamic range of the room is increased so you can still hear the quiet bits. That's an obvious acoustic benefit.

There are two lesser side effects of this:
a) acoustically - because you don't have to turn up the volume, you can play everything at a lower volume and still hear it, and the loud parts won't be excessive, such loud parts which may damage your hearing, affecting the future perceived acoustic quality, and
b) soundproofing - because you don't have to turn up the volume, you won't be surprised by a loud part, and being quieter reduces the amount of noise outside the room.

On a related note, running a jackhammer in your basement to break up the entire floor, so that you can build a floating room to get 3 more STC points, isn't going to help if you loose 3 dB sensitivity in your ears as a result, and after the room is built you have to turn the volume up to compensate.
post #342 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by granroth View Post

does filling the gap hurt performance.
No, provided the insulation doesn't couple the leaves.
If you're using fluffy fiberglass pink, its pretty much impossible to couple the leaves.
If you're using open cell foam, its fairly easy to couple the leaves.

I think you're probably fine even with rigid rockwool touching both leaves, but I don't recall an experiment for walls about it. The reason I think it's probably fine, is because some people use rigid rockwool to float a room on top of. (the rockwool becomes the 'spring') It's not as good as an engineered material (Solymer, or springs like Kinetics or those in Galaxy), and I'm not sure if it lasts more than a couple decades, but it used to be done.
post #343 of 352
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BasementBob View Post

That's not quite right.

Soundproofing lowers the masking noise from outside the room. In addition to lowering car traffic and walking traffic and plumbing noises through the walls/ceiling, it should include lowering the HVAC noise. And equipment should be placed so that it's soundproofed as well, again lowering the masking noise from their fans.

With a lower noise floor (NR rating) -- or to say the same thing another way, a lack of masking noise -- you don't have to constantly be turning the volume up and down [up so you can understand the voices, and down because it hurts], because the effective dynamic range of the room is increased so you can still hear the quiet bits. That's an obvious acoustic benefit.

There are two lesser side effects of this:
a) acoustically - because you don't have to turn up the volume, you can play everything at a lower volume and still hear it, and the loud parts won't be excessive, such loud parts which may damage your hearing, affecting the future perceived acoustic quality, and
b) soundproofing - because you don't have to turn up the volume, you won't be surprised by a loud part, and being quieter reduces the amount of noise outside the room.

On a related note, running a jackhammer in your basement to break up the entire floor, so that you can build a floating room to get 3 more STC points, isn't going to help if you loose 3 dB sensitivity in your ears as a result, and after the room is built you have to turn the volume up to compensate.

That's quite true -- the intro post to this thread even brings up that crucial point, so thank you for clarifying that.

I do want to expand a bit on what I said, though, since it was clearly incomplete and not very well worded... but I think there might be an important point hiding in there.

We almost always think of soundproofing a room and acoustically treating a room as two very separate things (even though they are both technically all about acoustics) since they address completely different aspects of sound. You soundproof to reduce sound leakage in and out and to lower the noise floor in the treated space. You acoustically treat a room to control reflections and flutter and ringing and all the fun stuff like that. Put another way, soundproofing keeps sound waves from leaving or entering the treated space and acoustic treatments treat the sound waves that are already in the space. Those are complementary but non-overlapping concerns.

If you think of it in that way, then it follows that soundproofing can actually make the sound in the room (temporarily) WORSE.

Okay, I started thinking about this after watching a Home Theater Geeks podcast with Keith Yates (HTG#197). Keith has some very strong opinions on various acoustic topics that he shared in that episode and one of his more jarring ones was here: Home Theater Geeks 197: How low can you go? - 20:08. In this section, he refers to people who soundproof a room as being "misguided souls". Why? Well, he's talking about the differences in sound levels for various modes on a seat by seat basis. In a room with massive walls, defined as two or three layers of drywall or concrete, then you might see differences on a seat by seat basis of up to 50dB. That is, you might hear the sound at 100dB in one seat but that same sound is only 50dB in the next seat over.

This is necessarily going to be worse the more soundproofed a room is. In a non-soundproofed room, a lot of the sound waves "escape" the room -- if they aren't there, then they can't be reflecting and causing any standing waves or nulls or anything of the sort. The more you soundproof a room, the more the waves will reflect in the room, and the more problems you are going to have.

Bass, in particular, is going to be notably worse. This is because the high energy and wide frequencies of lower frequencies are tougher to control in a small room than higher frequencies. If you have a room that puts up no real barriers to bass, then a lot of that energy will escape and you won't need to control it.

So that was my intended point -- that the more you soundproof a room, the more the sound being generated in the room is going to reflect in itself and the worse it is all going to sound as a result (until you acoustically treat the room).

Thoughts?
post #344 of 352

I had an idea on electric wiring which, I wondered what people's thoughts were on it.... this may well have been discussed already, but thought I would throw out there anyway.

 

I am doing my walls & ceiling with OSB, then green glue, then 5/8" drywall.  


On my wall's, I'll likely be doing some fabric frames/ acoustic panels, but plan to mount electric onto some 4/4" x something materials (maybe 2 sheets of 1/2" MDF made into a 'flattish' column).  I am leaning towards a new LED 'recessed' light that mounts in a shallow depth box, i.e., no backer box - just a normal circular mounting box.

 

So, my thought is stubbing out the electric wire through the OSB, putting an electric box on - screwed into the OSB for support, and then adding the drywall, and in the case of walls with 1" column'ish' type mounting.  In the case of the ceiling doing very shallow depth boxes.  This minimizes the 'hole' in the structure, and only requires then filling the one small penetration with acoustic caulk vs putty pads, etc.

 

Here are some pictures of what I am considering:

 

First, stub electric wire through OSB... LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

 

 

Put wire through box... LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

 

Then mount box itself onto OSB..LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

 

Then put drywall on... LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

 

 

Obviously not pictured is the ~ 1" deep solid column like material (may be horizontal strips vs vertical columns, but either way).  I would think if mounting fabric panels, this could still be done, but I would need to put structural support around the electric box for the fabric to attach to anyway.

 

Any thoughts on whether this would help reduce sound transmission?   I was also thinking this then also gets around the need to 'build out' the electric box based on depth of the wall, so, 2 birds with one stone type of idea.

 

Thanks for your thoughts!

post #345 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmhvball View Post

I had an idea on electric wiring which, I wondered what people's thoughts were on it.... this may well have been discussed already, but thought I would throw out there anyway.

I am doing my walls & ceiling with OSB, then green glue, then 5/8" drywall.  

On my wall's, I'll likely be doing some fabric frames/ acoustic panels, but plan to mount electric onto some 4/4" x something materials (maybe 2 sheets of 1/2" MDF made into a 'flattish' column).  I am leaning towards a new LED 'recessed' light that mounts in a shallow depth box, i.e., no backer box - just a normal circular mounting box.

So, my thought is stubbing out the electric wire through the OSB, putting an electric box on - screwed into the OSB for support, and then adding the drywall, and in the case of walls with 1" column'ish' type mounting.  In the case of the ceiling doing very shallow depth boxes.  This minimizes the 'hole' in the structure, and only requires then filling the one small penetration with acoustic caulk vs putty pads, etc.

Here are some pictures of what I am considering:

First, stub electric wire through OSB... LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01



Put wire through box... LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01


Then mount box itself onto OSB..LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01


Then put drywall on... LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01



Obviously not pictured is the ~ 1" deep solid column like material (may be horizontal strips vs vertical columns, but either way).  I would think if mounting fabric panels, this could still be done, but I would need to put structural support around the electric box for the fabric to attach to anyway.

Any thoughts on whether this would help reduce sound transmission?   I was also thinking this then also gets around the need to 'build out' the electric box based on depth of the wall, so, 2 birds with one stone type of idea.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Are you going to caulk the hole the wire goes through before you put the box on? I think it would be ok if you do for acoustics (but I am not an electrician)... I have seen some pictures where the clay sheets were put on the inside of the outlet boxes to shield for fire too. I would think as long as there is no way for the air or or noise to escape through the outlet you would be ok.
post #346 of 352
I've been bringing wires into the theater for some time and caulking around them with acoustical caulk. Yes it does help with soundproofing. Behind the screen wall you can mount a surface mounted box, no problem. In the open theater I often stick the outlets in the side of columns. On the side least visible.
post #347 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellisr63 View Post


Are you going to caulk the hole the wire goes through before you put the box on? I think it would be ok if you do for acoustics (but I am not an electrician)... I have seen some pictures where the clay sheets were put on the inside of the outlet boxes to shield for fire too. I would think as long as there is no way for the air or or noise to escape through the outlet you would be ok.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGmouthinDC View Post

I've been bringing wires into the theater for some time and caulking around them with acoustical caulk. Yes it does help with soundproofing. Behind the screen wall you can mount a surface mounted box, no problem. In the open theater I often stick the outlets in the side of columns. On the side least visible.

 

I will definitely be using Caulk for these boxes & along other locations.  I'll likely use OSI SC175, as I think it maintains its' flexibility, and is less expensive than 'labeled' acoustic sealant.  My understanding & Hope is that this works essentially just as well as long as I don't get something that turns rigid.


I am about to place my order with Ted White/John Hile, likely today, for 6, 5 gallon tubs, some sound clips, door sill/surround, etc.   There is~ $2,500 I didn't have in my original budget.... darn this Forum for educating me (at least a little bit!).   I guess better $2,500 now than having to re-do it later.    That of course, is before the actual doors & extra drywall/osb layers and installation.   I hope it all works out!!!

post #348 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmhvball View Post
 

I will definitely be using Caulk for these boxes & along other locations.  I'll likely use OSI SC175, as I think it maintains its' flexibility, and is less expensive than 'labeled' acoustic sealant.  My understanding & Hope is that this works essentially just as well as long as I don't get something that turns rigid.

 

 

I've been using OSI SC-175 on my build.  Planning on caulking the hell out of every little peep hole I see.  I can't attest to its effectiveness vs other acoustic sealants out there, but the stuff that has already "cured" for a few weeks is solid enough to hold in place, but you can bend it and it does remain flexible.  Seems like it should do the trick.

post #349 of 352
I have been using 40year caulk from Ace Hardware (store brand)... I hope it lasts 20 years. smile.gif
post #350 of 352
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by panino View Post

I've been using OSI SC-175 on my build.  Planning on caulking the hell out of every little peep hole I see.  I can't attest to its effectiveness vs other acoustic sealants out there, but the stuff that has already "cured" for a few weeks is solid enough to hold in place, but you can bend it and it does remain flexible.  Seems like it should do the trick.

Yep, OSI SC-175 is definitely a good one. There was a discussion about acoustic caulk on the first page of this thread. I tried to summarize the discussion here: Acoustic Caulk Summary

Basically, any caulk advertised as "50 year guarantee" will be fine. Also, expect it to cost less than lots of caulk sold at the big box stores -- that was a surprise to me.

While I'm at it -- there was also a discussion on the proper way to use caulk in a theater. The actual start was on the first page, but I re-started the thread (with great drawing by BasementBob) here: Proper Caulking Technique
post #351 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by granroth View Post

Yep, OSI SC-175 is definitely a good one. There was a discussion about acoustic caulk on the first page of this thread. I tried to summarize the discussion here: Acoustic Caulk Summary

Basically, any caulk advertised as "50 year guarantee" will be fine. Also, expect it to cost less than lots of caulk sold at the big box stores -- that was a surprise to me.

While I'm at it -- there was also a discussion on the proper way to use caulk in a theater. The actual start was on the first page, but I re-started the thread (with great drawing by BasementBob) here: Proper Caulking Technique

Do you think the 40 year would be good too?
post #352 of 352
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellisr63 View Post

Do you think the 40 year would be good too?

Don't take anything I'm about to say as the gospel truth -- depend on somebody like @BasementBob for that.

BUT, let's look at that caulk gives us and what makes acoustical caulk "acoustical". Caulk's purpose in a theater environment is to block airflow from traveling from a treated space to an untreated space. It essentially adds mass to an area where there previous was none (a gap of some sort). For it to really work, it needs to completely fill the gap, or else air will still be able to travel back and forth and sound will travel along with it.

Any caulk will fill in a reasonable sized gap and so from that perspective, any caulk would do.

Alas, that would be a short-sighted view. Regular caulk will eventually become hard and when it does, it will invariably shrink or crack. So if you fill in a gap fully with normal caulk, it may stay full for some amount of time, but it will eventually shrink or crack and air will get through.

50 year caulk is named thus because it gives a 50 year guarantee against shrinking or cracking. That's likely going to be the life of the theater, and so it's essentially "lifetime" caulk. Since it'll remain pliable and fully filling the gap for the foreseeable future, we call it acoustical caulk.

So now let's look at 40 year caulk. If it's giving you a 40 year guarantee against shrinking or cracking then yes, I'd call that acoustical caulk as well. That is, it'll keep that gap filled for likely as long as you have the theater.

But... I'm not going to guarantee that. The reason why is because you have to be a little suspicious why it has a 40 year guarantee rather than a 50 year one. That seems like an odd distinction to make. It could just be my paranoid nature, though.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home