AVS Forum banner

21 - 40 of 97 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,297 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin_Wadsworth /forum/post/0


Just a comment on this point. Knowing which material is which only matters when you are judging human response to an effect. The brain "knowing" a material is better can induce a placebo effect. Hence why drug studies (and some audio studies) are done in a double-blind manner.

Don't mind me. That was just one man's opinion and personal take on "unbiased" test results. See, I did it again



But back to the point, I'm very happy with my install using quiet glue. My house was old and the whole 15 foot wall would reverberate if you hit one end of the wall. It doesn't do it anymore after adding 5/8 and quietglue. I did put it on a wall that had been textured, so maybe it wouldn't have mattered what product I used. Whatever.


For you folks concerned about global warming, quiet glue has no VOCs, no noticeable odor, and it's water soluble. I'd say it has the consistency similar to that of elmers glue. As it dried, it is super sticky and it becomes something like contact adhesive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
WOW! I go away for a day and I start a fight (i mean civilized argument
) Anyway, it looks like I will be going with the green glue. I found 3 tubes of Quiet Glue on ebay for 7 bucks, so I will give that a try also. I will let all of you know how it goes. The sheet rock guys should be here this week
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,239 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobble /forum/post/0


Price was also a big selling point. If you enter "AVS" when purchasing quiet glue, they take another 20% off and get down to $111 per case. I found the 5% discount that green glue offered AVS members to be rather insulting. They get credit IMO for participating in these forums but lose most of it when they bend us over on the pricing of their product. I'd be shocked if it costs $65 more per case to manufacture green glue compared to quiet glue.

I really don't mean to rip on you, but to me your complaint is completely illogical. You're basically saying, "I'd rather get a great discount and pay a little less for a product - even if that product actually does little or nothing - than get "bent over" paying a higher price and getting less of a discount to buy a superior product which actually does perform (and has the test data and industry credibility to prove it.)


Further, why do you assume the price is out of line? Have you considered the possiblity that the GreenGlue Company actually makes less money on a tube of GreenGlue than the other guys do on a tube of their product? Seriously, you have no idea how much each company spends on marketing, R&D, materials and production, etc.


If you consider price AND proven performance (with data to back it up), GreenGlue is a bargain, and the other product is a waste of money at ANY price. It may not be "cheap", but neither are a lot of other excellent products.


SC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,297 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecrabb /forum/post/0


If you consider price AND proven performance (with data to back it up), GreenGlue is a bargain, and the other product is a waste of money at ANY price. It may not be "cheap", but neither are a lot of other excellent products.

SC

I seem to recall one of the guys that works for/owns (whatever) green glue that actually mentioned that Quiet Glue had some advantages over green glue on ranges below what was in the tests. I don't buy the notion that quiet glue is worthless like you and the GG guy says, because in tests do not always equate to success in a particular situation. Do you think quietrock which is highly regarded uses GG in the middle? HAHAHAHA yeah....YEAHHHHHH



But anyway... here's my real world example: I had a wall in my house that basically was "ringing" with vibration. After I added 5/8 sheetrock and quiet glue the "ringing" stopped, meaning problem solved.


Did the quiet glue help? Who knows, BUT WHAT IS A FACT IS THAT I WOULD HAVE WASTED OVER $50 IF I HAD DONE THE WALL WITH GREEN GLUE! YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH THAT!


I think y'all need to enroll in a 12 step program
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,239 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonDotCom /forum/post/0


But anyway... here's my real world example: I had a wall in my house that basically was "ringing" with vibration. After I added 5/8 sheetrock and quiet glue the "ringing" stopped, meaning problem solved.


Did the quiet glue help? Who knows, BUT WHAT IS A FACT IS THAT I WOULD HAVE WASTED OVER $50 IF I HAD DONE THE WALL WITH GREEN GLUE! YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH THAT!

Well, it's a nice anecdotal example, but that's all it is. I'd bet the "ringing" would have stopped (or at least become less noticeable) by simply adding the mass of the sheet of 5/8" gyp. In that case, the money you spent on the QuietGlue was wasted. With all the posts of people giving successful, yet anecdotal reports of simple double drywall assemblies with no other damping material used, you should feel the same about QuiteGlue as you do about GreenGlue... that the extra cost is a waste.


SC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
So I got a couple questions about this back and forth between GG and QG. But I'm more confused about the bottom line than anything else.


Quiet Glue has some dampening numbers here that says it is 0.45 to 0.65 (and why does NO ONE bother to label their X-Y axis on the damping graphs. A few flicks of a dial and a mole hill can be made to look like the rock mountains).


There is also a datasheet that shows a higher STC ratings than the GG.


These results are not consistent with those obtained by the GG study. Even though the testing was performed by the same labs, as indicated by the graph titles.


So who's numbers are real if they are both done by independent labs?



Now at this point my engineering and quality background is a bit curious. So I have a couple other questions as I have no other data to pick on
(I'll probably get flamed just for asking, but here goes)

1) why was the Quiet glue in the study not applied per recommended manufacture instructions? i.e. more than required. Quiet Glue is probably a different composition than GG, so the same "2-3 tubes can be better" may not be applicable to the quiet glue without something to back it up.

2) The Quiet Glue wall was performed once. The standard wall 3 times, GG multi times. If this is GG's biggest direct product competitor (and cheaper), why stop at one? Why not three times and something much more solid to quote? To be honest, in my current occupation, if an inspector saw that their first thought would be 'did they just get numbers they liked and so stopped the testing?'.

3) Question 2 is statistically pertinent. GG thru out a test at 53 "with the 53 being suspected of having a faulty seal", "therefore it is reasonable to consider that test fit for discarding". Is it reasonable to suspect that the QuietGlue test was also not performed to spec? Same inspector above 'did they just throw out a test they didn't like?'.

And yes, I know the QG test was video taped, but a 2D video camera from one angle doesn't show everything. I raise this question as the Quiet Solutions graph shows much higher numbers, and without more data my first impression would be to bracket the performance (low end results reported from competitor, high end results reported from source). I have a feeling at this point it becomes a marketing decision for most companies, and not an engineering one



Ok. So I work in the bio-pharmaceutical industry with engineering/quality/production. And EVERYTHING needs to be documented, proven, backed-up, no appearances of impropriety, no-bias, etc. ). "chemical prison" or disbarment await those who get caught. Gross negligence or otherwise.
So I hope you see where my questions are coming from.


To be honest, despite my being rough on GG, I would like to purchase GG. I'm starting my electrical so in the next month (ok, probably two at my pace
) I'll be ready for drywall. Even if both the GG graphs are true and QG graphs are true, the green glue seems to be a bit better. But a sale would definitely make my purchase come a lot sooner than later *hint hint, tax refund soon for luxury goods, Hint hint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,806 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonDotCom /forum/post/0


Did the quiet glue help? Who knows, BUT WHAT IS A FACT IS THAT I WOULD HAVE WASTED OVER $50 IF I HAD DONE THE WALL WITH GREEN GLUE! YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH THAT!

True, you would have wasted more money with GG than you would with QG. But the value of the products aren't evaluated based on using it in applications where it isn't needed.


You wouldn't (or shouldn't) say water is a better value than Draino based on pouring both down an unclogged drain. You can also dump Elmer's and GG down a drain and claim that GG would have been a bigger waste. It may be true, but it isn't relevant when evaluating value or performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
I remember reading the "independent" tests and the quiet glue was troweled on vs. the green glue being applied according to instructions. Why did they not apply quiet glue according to quiet solution instructions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by donatelloa /forum/post/0


WOW! I go away for a day and I start a fight (i mean civilized argument
) Anyway, it looks like I will be going with the green glue. I found 3 tubes of Quiet Glue on ebay for 7 bucks, so I will give that a try also. I will let all of you know how it goes. The sheet rock guys should be here this week

For fun, since you'll have both materials, just put a small ridge or bead of each somewhere and let them dry for 2 weeks.


And then post if you can tell which one is harder -vs- softer, etc.


It was once posted that the two are identical in mechanical propreties (they aren't).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiggers /forum/post/0


So I got a couple questions about this back and forth between GG and QG. But I'm more confused about the bottom line than anything else.


Quiet Glue has some dampening numbers here that says it is 0.45 to 0.65 (and why does NO ONE bother to label their X-Y axis on the damping graphs. A few flicks of a dial and a mole hill can be made to look like the rock mountains).


There is also a datasheet that shows a higher STC ratings than the GG.


These results are not consistent with those obtained by the GG study. Even though the testing was performed by the same labs, as indicated by the graph titles.


So who's numbers are real if they are both done by independent labs?

Well, FWIW, in a graph that shows damping as you find on our website doesn't require any labels or sense of scale on the vertical axis. What you are looking for when talking about damping is how fast the vibration decays. On the horizontal axis it does. In that axis - horizontal -the key is to show things in "cycle-time". So if you have 5 pictures stacked vertically the horizontal axis in each should reflect (as an example) the same # of cycles at the primary resonance of the panel. 100% of these things are presented apples to apples on the GG site.




Quote:
Now at this point my engineering and quality background is a bit curious. So I have a couple other questions as I have no other data to pick on
(I'll probably get flamed just for asking, but here goes)

1) why was the Quiet glue in the study not applied per recommended manufacture instructions? i.e. more than required. Quiet Glue is probably a different composition than GG, so the same "2-3 tubes can be better" may not be applicable to the quiet glue without something to back it up.

2) The Quiet Glue wall was performed once. The standard wall 3 times, GG multi times. If this is GG's biggest direct product competitor (and cheaper), why stop at one? Why not three times and something much more solid to quote? To be honest, in my current occupation, if an inspector saw that their first thought would be 'did they just get numbers they liked and so stopped the testing?'.

Actually, we have tested Quiet Glue twice. But the first time we ordered the QuietGlue and handled it, etc. And i have always assumed that when the reality of QuietGlues performance hits the street, there will be a neverending string of insults, accusatiosn of cheating, blah blah blah. The same thing happens from the limp-mass (MLV) camp quite a bit. But at the days end, perhaps a better question than "why were these choices made on these 5 or 6 MLV tests" would be "why don't they have any tests of their own stuff at all".



Quote:
3) Question 2 is statistically pertinent. GG thru out a test at 53 "with the 53 being suspected of having a faulty seal", "therefore it is reasonable to consider that test fit for discarding". Is it reasonable to suspect that the QuietGlue test was also not performed to spec? Same inspector above 'did they just throw out a test they didn't like?'.

And yes, I know the QG test was video taped, but a 2D video camera from one angle doesn't show everything. I raise this question as the Quiet Solutions graph shows much higher numbers, and without more data my first impression would be to bracket the performance (low end results reported from competitor, high end results reported from source). I have a feeling at this point it becomes a marketing decision for most companies, and not an engineering one



Ok. So I work in the bio-pharmaceutical industry with engineering/quality/production. And EVERYTHING needs to be documented, proven, backed-up, no appearances of impropriety, no-bias, etc. ). "chemical prison" or disbarment await those who get caught. Gross negligence or otherwise.
So I hope you see where my questions are coming from.


To be honest, despite my being rough on GG, I would like to purchase GG. I'm starting my electrical so in the next month (ok, probably two at my pace
) I'll be ready for drywall. Even if both the GG graphs are true and QG graphs are true, the green glue seems to be a bit better. But a sale would definitely make my purchase come a lot sooner than later *hint hint, tax refund soon for luxury goods, Hint hint.


Well, if you would, please forgive my "being rough" on your retort, i would appreciate it. But also accept this comment:


I would like to ask how is it at all possible for a guy stating scientific background as a basis to criticize the GG Company, and put the data presented by the two companies on an even playing field "how is anyone supposed to know who is right?"? Come on, tiggs. We have reports and documentation above and beyond the standard. They just state a number. I don't believe they have a test report for anything. Not for mold, not for fire, not for sound, nothing. And again, please excuse me, but a guy with a lab background writing a long post trying to put the test-credibility of these two products on a playing field doesn't seem entirely reasonable. No documentation, just a statement -vs- above and beyond the call of the standard.


For Qglue we ran a test (but we ordered the glue, etc., so we choose not to present it to the public) and got results that were very much in line with the test resutls for 5/8" board when one accounts for the changes that must occur with heavier/thicker/stiffer board.


So the test was repeated. And panel-property tests (i.e., stiffness/damping/etc.) have been repeated in our own lab gadzooks of times before getting basically the same results in an independent lab. And that will be repeated as well.


And eventually we'll just test them again. Same lab, different labs. And again for whomever's competitive product someone wants to market as the next big thing and on and on and on. My offer from this and the other thread stand - i will HAPPILY pay for a repeat of the test installed by QS provided that they build nominally the same wall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
As a bit of an aside, this is an interesting experiment anybody can do at home.


A) buy 2 or more glues

B) trowel some onto a piece of drywall or something and throw them in the corner, let dry for a month

C) see which one is stiffer



There is something called a coincidence dip that occurs in walls. For a wall built with all 5/8" drywall plus glue, this will occur at a frequency between the 1250hz band and the 2500hz band. The stiffer the glue the lower in frequency the coincidence dip will occur. The softer glue having the higher frequency of coincidence.


To get a "critical frequency" that is higher than you got with wahtever soft glue you utlized you can


A) use more fo said soft glue to drive the critical frequency up

B) test said soft glue before it thoroughly dries (it'll be softer when still wet)



But you absolutely, positively, cannot, cannot, cannot, get the critical frequency and associated coincidence dip to be higher in frequency when using a harder glue.



Again, this is purely an aside.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
How do you explain Quiet Solutions's claim on their website that their product gave the same test results as your product using the same lab?
http://www.quietsolution.com/QuietGlue_315_dsheet.pdf


Their test of Quiet Glue at a place called Orfield lab gave a number approaching 60 and your test of the same product at the same lab is 44? Do you have any inside knowledge of why the lab came up with significantly different results for the Quiet Glue?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobble /forum/post/0


How do you explain Quiet Solutions's claim on their website that their product gave the same test results as your product using the same lab?
http://www.quietsolution.com/QuietGlue_315_dsheet.pdf


Their test of Quiet Glue at a place called Orfield lab gave a number approaching 60 and your test of the same product at the same lab is 44? Do you have any inside knowledge of why the lab came up with significantly different results for the Quiet Glue?

Do they have an associated test report or just a picture?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Are you saying they made up numbers and a phony graph and cited a lab that didn't really test their product. This seems like a stretch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,297 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 /forum/post/0


True, you would have wasted more money with GG than you would with QG. But the value of the products aren't evaluated based on using it in applications where it isn't needed.

But that assumes that Quiet Glue doesn't work as intended, right? If you look at the product page for it it clearly indicates that it would work in a sitution with a "ringing" wall: http://www.quietsolution.com/html/quietglue.html


So, assuming Quiet Glue did it's job right in my application, I didn't waste my money, but actually saved $$ by NOT purchasing GG.


Like I've said many times, I intend to use GG on other parts of my home to make up my own mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobble /forum/post/0


Are you saying they made up numbers and a phony graph and cited a lab that didn't really test their product. This seems like a stretch.

I just asked is all, i didn't accuse anybody or anything else. I don't see a test report, but i'm not the worlds finest web surfer.



I do, though, state taht the tests we ran were conducted to the highest standard that we could, and consistent with the QGlue instructions at that time ( i saw this morning that they have since removed troweling as a recommended application method), and that the choices made were NOT to skew the test against QGlue but to ensure that a fair test was conducted.


As an example, and a bit aside, trowleing was selected because this would ensure perfect contact between the boards, and elimimnate the possiblility of 2 tubes being applied "wrong". Ironically, it was my thought that choosing this method (consistent with their instructions at that time, which offered roller, trowel, or tube application as ok), would AVOID accusatiosn being hurled at the GGCo, because if 2 tubes were applied, maybe they were applied in some magical bad pattern? Hence the choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
And Gobble,


as i said earlier in this thread, i wish nothing less than to step on someones toes or to make someone feel bad or whatever else can come of discussions with two "sides".


However, the claims that QuietGlue and Green Glue are almost identical, same properties, same results, simply aren't true. It has been said by QS on this forum that in their testing QuietGlue and Green Glue have no difference in damping or modulus. Well modulus, in essence, is ahrdness/stiffness, etc. I invite anybody anywhere to just dry the two glues and see for themselves that that statement is simply wrong.


And after a great deal thought, we simply share with the world what we have to share. I am not sure what a more appropriate choice would have been.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,806 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonDotCom /forum/post/0


But that assumes that Quiet Glue doesn't work as intended, right? If you look at the product page for it it clearly indicates that it would work in a sitution with a "ringing" wall: http://www.quietsolution.com/html/quietglue.html


So, assuming Quiet Glue did it's job right in my application, I didn't waste my money, but actually saved $$ by NOT purchasing GG.

In that specific case, GG would have been a waste. The unknown is whether the QG did anything or not. I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that assuming the QG is effective based only on that example is no different than saying the brand of shoes you were wearing when you applied the glue was instrumental in achieving successful results.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,712 Posts

Quote:
Are you saying they made up numbers and a phony graph

I don't think this was the intent; but, the report is just as, if not more, important than the numbers. The report would provide information such as:


1. Framing 16" oc, 24" oc, 30" oc ?

2. amount of product and how applied

3. curing time, if any

4. type and depth of any other materials (like insulation)


I can tell just from the differences between the coincidence dips and the resonance frequency that the wall built for the QS test was different from the wall built for the GG test of the same product. The wall built for the test I know about was built as a standard construction wall...I have no clue how QS built their wall for the test.
 
21 - 40 of 97 Posts
Top