newbie Q: sound absroption
|
|
Thread rating:  |
catsailor - 09 Feb 2006 14:19 GMT I have a newbie question and would be grateful for the benefit of your expertise. I moved my company to a new office. It's one room with high ceilings and plaster walls, and you can hear everything everywhere. My first step is to put up sound absorption panels on the walls. But it has to be pretty. So, I want to stretch nice fabric over frames and back the interior with foam. Does the fabric over the foam cancel the noise reduction benefit of pyramid foam such that it's not worth the extra money?
Thanks, SC
GregS - 09 Feb 2006 14:32 GMT >I have a newbie question and would be grateful for the benefit of your >expertise. I moved my company to a new office. It's one room with high [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >interior with foam. Does the fabric over the foam cancel the noise >reduction benefit of pyramid foam such that it's not worth the extra money? I think you can forget about pyramid foam unless its cheaper than other solid foam. Fabric does reduce some high frequency absorbtion. Use a breathable fabric. What to do about the ceiling? Probably need a contractor. Throw rugs on the floor or wall to wall is going to do wonders.
greg
Tony - 09 Feb 2006 14:34 GMT > ..... , I want to stretch nice fabric over frames and back the interior > with foam. Does the fabric over the foam cancel the noise reduction > benefit of pyramid foam such that it's not worth the extra money? Unless you use a very unusual fabric it won't make a significant difference. But shaped foam is not worth the money over plain foam, if it costs more.
Depending on the price of the foam and the cost of labour, it might well be cheaper to buy sound absorbent panels covered with fabric that are ready to install.
Don't overdo the coverage otherwise you will kill the mid and high frequency reverberation and leave lower frequency reverberation so that will make the place sound boomy. Covering the upper part of two adjacent (important - not opposite!) walls is usually enough.
 Signature Tony W My e-mail address has no hyphen - but please don't use it, reply to the group.
Chris Whealy - 09 Feb 2006 14:47 GMT > Does the fabric over the foam cancel the noise > reduction benefit of pyramid foam such that it's not worth the extra money? No. If you want to make the panels your self, use loft insulation (I would recommend something like Rockwool rather than a glass fibre based insulation) mounted inside wooden frames and held in place with chicken wire. Then stretch an open weave fabric such as Hessian over the face.
Alternatively, take a look at http://www.realtraps.com You could buy the products from there or see what they look like and build then yourself.
Chris W
 Signature The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long, But the words of the wise are quiet and few. ---
Angelo Campanella - 09 Feb 2006 20:05 GMT > My > first step is to put up sound absorption panels on the walls. But it has to > be pretty. May I presume that "is" really means "would be"?
> So, I want to stretch nice fabric over frames and back the > interior with foam. The heavier the "nice fabric", the better the sound absorption. Anywhere from 12 to 40 ounces per square yard (carpets) will do.
The most important parameter is the distance from the wall; the greater, the better, but in no case should it ever be less than one inch.
> Does the fabric over the foam cancel the noise > reduction benefit of pyramid foam such that it's not worth the extra money? Pyramid foam is pure hokum. You get more beneficial sound absorption (250 Hz, etc.) if the pyrimida are turned onto the wall!
Foam is not only a waste of money, it is also dangerous because of the fire load (pounds of combustible material) it adds into the room.
The heavier the fabric, the less important is the filler (fiberglass duct liner board, etc.).
A wide air gap and slightly heavier fabric are by far the more cost-effective measures. Such spacing from the wall is most readily achieved by mounting the fabric of stand-offs from the wall. Fireproof fabrics are preferred,
Edging or trim about the edges is another waste of money. They are pure vanity with no acoustic gain; they are actually an acoustical loss as they prevent sound from entering under the edges to be absorbed.
Angelo Capanella
Noral Stewart - 10 Feb 2006 00:17 GMT Sorry I accidentally sent this by email initially
You did not say what the ceiling is. If it is plaster or gypsum, that may be the most important place to start depending on the proportions of the room. Since you said the ceiling is high, the walls may be most appropriate, but I would want to know the overall room dimensions before offering an opinion.
As others have said, foam is a potential fire hazard. Some is reasonably safe, but you have to be careful. Also, the pyramids and wedges are mostly marketing. Cloth covered fiberglass panels are readily available from many suppliers in 1 inch and 2 inch thicknesses, or for more durability slightly thicker with a higher density layer just behind the cloth. These are considered furniture for tax purposes. There are also companies that can build a frame on the wall, fill it with fiberglass and stretch cloth over it. This is considered a building improvement for tax purposes. Mineral wool can be used instead of fiberglass. Cloth must be fire resistant. Two inch thick panels are preferable if you are adding much to keep the lower range of voice sounds under control.Unless the room is relatively small and you intend to play and listen to music, you do not need to spend a lot of money on small thick panels intended to have strong low frequency absorption to treat problems that are common in small rooms.
>I have a newbie question and would be grateful for the benefit of your >expertise. I moved my company to a new office. It's one room with high [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks, > SC Tony - 10 Feb 2006 12:13 GMT > ... As others have said, foam is a potential fire hazard. Some is > reasonably > safe, but you have to be careful. You can get melamine foam that is I think non-combustible although it will char. Melamine foam is very expensive but easy to use as it is extremely lightweight.
I would agree with other posters that a sound absorbent ceiling is often the most cost-effective treatment for a room. Especially if there is already a grid installed and you need only to change tiles to an absorbent type.
However if the room is not very large, is carpeted, and has bare walls and not much furniture, adding an absorbent ceiling can make it sound rather strange and still quite live. Ideally you should have some absorption in each of the main directions: left-right, front-back, and up-down.
 Signature Tony W My e-mail address has no hyphen - but please don't use it, reply to the group.
ApeMan - 10 Feb 2006 17:24 GMT Will any of these sound absorbing techniques work under water? I want to do some Ultrasound experiments in a medium-sized fish tank and I need to minimize stray sound, (with frequencies of about 0.1-10Mhz). Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Stefan
The Ghost - 10 Feb 2006 18:15 GMT > Will any of these sound absorbing techniques work under water? I want > to do some Ultrasound experiments in a medium-sized fish tank and I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks, > Stefan You can find info on underwater ultrasonic sound absorbers at:
http://www.acoustics.co.uk/hama.htm
However, most people working in that frequency range use the HP3585A to implement the Time Delay Spectrometry measurement method, which utilizes sine sweep excitaiton and and a receive tracking filter to eliminate reflections.
Stefan - 11 Feb 2006 20:51 GMT ok, thanks for the info.
I have another question but I'll start a new thread for that one.
Stefan
Angelo Campanella - 13 Feb 2006 07:56 GMT > Will any of these sound absorbing techniques work under water? That's a totally different environment. Anything that contains entrained air will reflect underwater sound, though with a negative phase ("pressure release" mode). I think that sheet rubber does absorb.
Viscoelastic materials without air bubbles are the proper mode, I think. But others here may have better suggestions. Another method is to use reflectors to direct the likely offending reflecions to go elsewhere in the tank (the "stealth" object concept). A stream of bubbles risng in a column will be an extreme scatterer.
Angelo Campane;;a
Noral Stewart - 11 Feb 2006 00:28 GMT >> ... As others have said, foam is a potential fire hazard. Some is >> reasonably [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > char. Melamine foam is very expensive but easy to use as it is extremely > lightweight. Cost of melamine has come down some. It is more expensive than fiberglass. However, if someone likes the look of bare Melamine, and some do especially with the decorative wedges, it can be less expensive than fiberglass covered with a good fire resistant cloth.
> I would agree with other posters that a sound absorbent ceiling is often > the most cost-effective treatment for a room. Especially if there is > already a grid installed and you need only to change tiles to an absorbent > type. Even if you have to install a grid, ceiling material is usually less expensive than wall material. However, complications of lights, ventilation, sprinklers etc can drastically change this.
> However if the room is not very large, is carpeted, and has bare walls and > not much furniture, adding an absorbent ceiling can make it sound rather > strange and still quite live. Ideally you should have some absorption in > each of the main directions: left-right, front-back, and up-down. Agreed. Especially if you have parallel walls without windows or other irregularities you can waste material overtreating floor and ceiling and not getting the full benefit because reflections between the walls are dominant.
ttonon - 04 Mar 2006 15:53 GMT > Mineral > wool can be used instead of fiberglass. Doesn't mineral wool contain crystalline silica, which has been shown to cause cancer in animals, and is a suspected carcinogen to humans? If so, and if the building is "loose," winds might cause enough air movement to carry its particles to the breathing space.
Best regards, Tom
Salmon Egg - 04 Mar 2006 21:00 GMT On 3/4/06 7:53 AM, in article 1141487584.984041.246240@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com, "ttonon"
>> Mineral > wool can be used instead of fiberglass. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Best regards, > Tom Life is full of carcinogens! Don't eat cabbage and its relatives like mustard. Don't eat barbecue. No matter how careful you are, the chances are that you will die!
By the way, rock wool contains silicates not much silica.
Bill -- Ferme le Bush
Noral Stewart - 05 Mar 2006 13:02 GMT >> Mineral > wool can be used instead of fiberglass. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Best regards, > Tom Have you thought about what the main ingredient in fiberglass is? I think they have shown that mice forced to eat very large quantities of fiberglass develop cancer also. Question is whether the material can actually get into your system in sufficient quantity to do any damage. Fiberglass fibers are very large compared asbestos fibers, and thus do have have the same danger of inhalation into the lungs.
Salmon Egg - 05 Mar 2006 17:15 GMT On 3/5/06 5:02 AM, in article ejBOf.226$sL2.112@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Noral Stewart" <noral.stewart@ixdotnetcomdotcom> wrote:
> Have you thought about what the main ingredient in fiberglass is? I think > they have shown that mice forced to eat very large quantities of fiberglass > develop cancer also. Question is whether the material can actually get into > your system in sufficient quantity to do any damage. Fiberglass fibers are > very large compared asbestos fibers, and thus do have have the same danger > of inhalation into the lungs. Also, glass (sodium and calcium silicates) is more soluble in body fluids than silica.
Bill
-- Ferme le Bush
Kari Pesonen - 05 Mar 2006 19:06 GMT >>> Mineral > wool can be used instead of fiberglass. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Fiberglass fibers are very large compared asbestos fibers, and thus do > have have the same danger of inhalation into the lungs. Here you have information in Norwegian http://www.arbeidstilsynet.com/regelverk/veiledninger/pdf/normer22.pdf
Table 2.2 include limit values of fibers in air in some countries, including USA.
As fas as my memory serves me well, the animals used in experiments didn't eat fibers, but fibers were put under the skin of the animals (in bigger bunts in carcinogenic tests).
Kari Pesonen
Jay-atldigi - 10 Feb 2006 04:03 GMT The classic combo begins with Owens-Corning 703 rigid (compressed) fiberglass boards. They typically come in 1" or 2" thicknesses and are 2' x 4' rectangles. These are then usually covered with Guilford 701 fabric (the full company name is "Guilford of Maine"). You certainly want a fire rated fabric, or at least treat whatever you get with fire retardant. The fabric should be a coarse weave, not tight or shiny. You can build 1 x 2 wood frames to hold each fiberglass board and stretch the fabric over them and staple to the back. You can also trim them however you like if it makes your office cohorts happier. There are also other potential solutions to an office noise problem, but regarding absorptive panels, the above is a pretty typical construction. I'd pass on the foam.
 Signature Jay Frigoletto Mastersuite www.promastering.com
Noral Stewart - 10 Feb 2006 11:55 GMT Owens-Corning 703 has become legendary in some circles partially based on the books of the late F. Alton Everest. This is a 3 pound per cubic foot density board also available from the other fiberglass manufacturers though they do not use the 703 designation. It is acoustically acceptable. Commercially available wall panels are typically made with a higher density board in the range of 6-7 pcf for more rigidity and firmness. In the Owens-Corning line, this is OC 705.
By the way, there is currently a shortage of fiberglass at least in some forms with prices inflated as a result.
> The classic combo begins with Owens-Corning 703 rigid (compressed) > fiberglass boards. They typically come in 1" or 2" thicknesses and are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > absorptive panels, the above is a pretty typical construction. I'd pass > on the foam. catsailor - 11 Feb 2006 15:53 GMT Thank you all! You were very generous in your responses and I am grateful.
That's a lot to consider; I didn't realize it was so complicated. I looked at realtraps.com and some others and was surprised at the cost of these solutions. I thought we could make something in the $000's not thousands.
Some asked about the room. It's an old building -- open plan with moderately sparse furnishings. The room is roughly rectangular: 50'x25' with 14' ceilings. All surfaces are textured plaster (roughened on the walls and "stucco'd" on the ceiling) except the short ends of the rectangle are mostly windows. Lighting is suspended from the ceiling on tracks, so a tile grid won't work. We do have carpeting wall to wall.
It looks like some firms recommend putting the panels in the corners, on a diagonal. Would just treating the 4 vertical corners and a couple of the horizontal ceiling corners make an effective solution?
What about adding some white noise generators? Is that a good second step: masking the noise to make conversations and mp3 playing less noticable?
Thank you, SC
>I have a newbie question and would be grateful for the benefit of your >expertise. I moved my company to a new office. It's one room with high [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks, > SC bert stoltenborg - 11 Feb 2006 17:49 GMT For cheap DIY treatment solution you could visit www.studiotips.com or the recording.org of john sayers fora.
Bert
Noral Stewart - 12 Feb 2006 11:02 GMT > Thank you all! You were very generous in your responses and I am > grateful. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > these solutions. I thought we could make something in the $000's not > thousands. The realtraps information is misleading in your case. You have to realize there are small room acoustics and large room acoustics. Yours is a large room. Realtraps are very thick absorbers intended to absorb the low bass frequencies that are problems in small rooms. You do not need to have such thick panels and do not need to be worried about putting them in corners. One and two inch thick cloth-covered fiberglass panels are available from many suppliers in the range of $6-$10 per square foot depending on thickness and panel size. 4 by 8 foot panels are most economical but the premium for 4 by 4 is not much. Even less expensive, look at the Quiet Coordinates system at cmainc.net. You can get a two-inch thick system of fiberglass with a white finish and a white framing kit for less than $3.50 and I think less than $3 per square foot. They say both the fiberglass and frame can be painted if desired using their recommended paint.
> Some asked about the room. It's an old building -- open plan with > moderately sparse furnishings. The room is roughly rectangular: 50'x25' > with 14' ceilings. All surfaces are textured plaster (roughened on the > walls and "stucco'd" on the ceiling) except the short ends of the > rectangle are mostly windows. Lighting is suspended from the ceiling on > tracks, so a tile grid won't work. We do have carpeting wall to wall. This sounds like an open office situation. If your goal is to reduce distraction among workers, you need to be treating the ceiling to reduce the spread of sound. That is not the same problem as general reverberation control which most people think of initially. Consider the use of 2 by 4 foot baffles hung vertically as an option.
> It looks like some firms recommend putting the panels in the corners, on a > diagonal. Would just treating the 4 vertical corners and a couple of the > horizontal ceiling corners make an effective solution? No. That is for small room problems. You do not need to worry so much about the corners. Some people only work in small rooms and that is all they think about.
> What about adding some white noise generators? Is that a good second > step: masking the noise to make conversations and mp3 playing less > noticable? This now confirms that you have an open office problem. Three key elements for success: A very highly absorptive ceiling, adequate masking sound, and if you really want significant isolation of nearby people - barriers at least 5 feet high.
> Thank you, > SC [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> Thanks, >> SC catsailor - 12 Feb 2006 15:05 GMT That's exactly what I wanted to know. Thank you!
SC
>> Thank you all! You were very generous in your responses and I am >> grateful. [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >>> Thanks, >>> SC
|
|
|