R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion  (Read 2545 times)

brett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1114
Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« on: July 16, 2009, 06:53:22 pm »

I made 12 panels using Roxul. It is a semi rigid mineral wool product. I made them using Ready Bags. The Roxul is 8lbs per sf. But it falls apart easy and flexes. The clouds I made curve when hung.

Was pricing Rigid Fiber glass. The Foil Backed John Mansville is $1.81 sf and the plain is $1.05. Is the foil going to really help. I rememebr Ethan talking about the Foil helping with below 250hz. Is that correct? I have 12 more panels to make and will it matter that half used in the rear are Foil Backed Rigid Fiber Glass at 3lbs and the Front half of the Room is 8 lbs Roxul?
Logged

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2009, 09:14:04 pm »

Just curious, is there enough room in the ReadyBags to slide in a piece of thin (1/8"?) wood paneling behind the mineral wool so that the whole assembly stays more rigid?  Is your goal to displace the cloud from the ceiling?
Logged

brett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1114
Re: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2009, 11:45:34 pm »

Na, I just don't think it looks very good sagging. There is plenty of room in the bags. the stretch. I have a good air gap in there. About 4" on the wall. The ceiling gap is more like 7" but it is sagging in the middle and that is about 10". Wood in the bag wouldn't work without adhesive. The back would stay flat and since the bags stretch, the heavy roxul would still curve. 703/spinglass is much lighter and more rigid. Its also twice as expensive and the foil back is twice that. So Roxul si $.5 sf, spinglass is $1.05 sf and the foil backed spinglass is $1.81 sf.  

My concern is less about the aesthetics of the ceiling sagging and more about symmetry. Is it OK to have 12 Roxul panels on my front wall and then have 12 foil backed spinglass panels on the rear?
Logged

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2009, 10:28:50 am »

Thanks for the heads-up on mineral wool & ReadyBags.  I was going to try that myself!  How does that material work in a ReadyBag on a wall?

I would think the differences between the two absorption products in your room would be acoustically undetectable, other than gross performance differences which might exist due to different absorption characteristics across the spectrum.
Logged

brett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1114
Re: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2009, 03:17:48 pm »

Ready bags are great. The Roxul is very dense and very heavy but crumbles easily so the finished look in the bags is a bit lumpy in places and on the edges. But the 12 bags went together in about an hour. Hanging them is an absolute breeze as they ship with hooks that you push right into the wall in about 2 seconds. they only work if it is a hollow spot. I had to use screws where studs were. On the ceiling, I used platic butterfly type anchors that support up to 80lbs. In the corners I used zip ties to secure them to hooks And instead of inserting screws into them I used threaded hooks.

I'll post a picture of the front wall. Total cost was around $425. So each panel cost about $35. They are a birght red micro fiber. Very professional looking for $35. and the cheepest option out there.

Would suggest building a balsa frame inside the bag for the cloud though. I plan to do to address the sagging. A couple of peices of wood glued down the sides of the back would work and then some adhesive in between the two pieces of Roxul. At 8lbs I beleive it is more effective than 703 or 705. But as Ethan has pointed out on his web site density doesn't make as much as a diference as thickness does. They also make 6" thick bags.  
Logged

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2009, 03:59:44 pm »

Would a balsa frame help tighten up the wall-mounted bags, too?  At that point, I bet the cost difference between mineral wool and 703/705 is virtually nil, though.

I'm fine with OC products on the ceiling to keep things looking tight.  I might just do it all around.

Thanks so much for the tips, Brett.  I know you came on here looking for help, but sometimes, it just goes the other way!
Logged

brett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1114
Re: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2009, 07:21:30 am »

No problem. I think I am splitting hairs anyway. I just need to do the rest of the room and move on. The bags come with plastic corner pieces with adhesive. I think If you use 703 or 705 they would look plenty tight. The Roxul looks fine too, they just don't have the smooth edges... but it is nominal. Roxul is much cheaper than 703/705 and a more dense... less itchy too!    
Logged

Steve Hudson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1013
Re: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2009, 08:35:52 am »

We looked at using 703, 705 and rockwool to stuff our Ready Bags and the 705, being the most rigid, was essential to getting a clean, professional looking panel. For traps (4-6" deep) we used a 2" sheet of 705 sandwiched with 703 behind so that the front of the panels are tight and crisp. Sure, 705 is priced higher than the other two materials but IMO it was well worth it.
Logged
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs.  There's also a negative side."

- Hunter S. Thompson should have said this, but didn't

http://www.myspace.com/steventoddhudson

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2009, 06:33:49 pm »

Why did you combine the 703/705 instead of just going all 705 in your traps?
Logged

Steve Hudson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1013
Re: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2009, 08:04:20 pm »

Price was the main reason. We aren't using these so much as bass traps as broadband absorbers (they're 4" off the side walls and first reflection points in the CR, not in wall-ceiling corners where we have other treatments) so we wouldn't benefit sonically by using all 705; we just saved about a buck per s.f. by using 703 on the back of the 4" sandwiches. And since the panels in the CR are not meant to be removed (like the panels in the tracking room, which are intended to be moved around), we weren't concerned about the rear of the panel getting bumped into like the front of the panels will.
Logged
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs.  There's also a negative side."

- Hunter S. Thompson should have said this, but didn't

http://www.myspace.com/steventoddhudson

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2009, 12:10:05 am »

Got it.  I need to swing by your place one of these days . . .
Logged

brett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1114
Re: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2009, 07:24:04 pm »

The edges are not clean looking with Roxul, and they are much heavier so the fabric streaches more and the hooks on the walls are visible because they hang lower than if using Corning.
Logged

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2009, 06:52:03 pm »

Oh, wow, I see what you mean.  That's a definite cost/aesthetic tradeoff!  Thanks.
Logged

Steve Hudson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1013
Re: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2009, 06:46:38 pm »

That's exactly why we went with 705 - it looks totally tight and finished when paired with the Ready Bags, and in the end a lot cheaper and faster to install than framed panels.
Logged
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs.  There's also a negative side."

- Hunter S. Thompson should have said this, but didn't

http://www.myspace.com/steventoddhudson

brett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1114
Re: Foil Backed vs plain Rigid Absorbtion
« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2009, 07:09:55 pm »

Ya, I plan on getting frames for the cloud. Even with Ready bags and Frames you are looking at only $70-$80 for a panel using Roxul and that is half of what a retail unit would cost. they are pretty nice looking too.

I would also like to build a difsusor /absorber using the Ready frames, one peice of roxul for the abck and then glueing the foam RPG Skyline in front. Also considering using the auralex Q'fusors for some of the side pannels.  
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up