Caulk and Insulation

Aaronw I look forward to your comparison. Two quotes from another website "I would not recommend the Lepage PL Acousti-Seal product. If it the old black stuff people used year's ago to seal vapour barrier. It's evil to work with, gets everywhere, makes a real mess, does not clean up with any know cleaner. To be avoided. The newer products must be better." The reply was: "Actually it cleans up with "Varasol". Although you are right that it is messy and sticks to everything. It is a solvent based caulk, I believe. It is used for vapour barrier purposes too."

So far, the OSI appears to be OK. There's a couple spots I've got to go back and refill, but that was due to a large gap of about 1/2" in one spot. And it cleans up easy. It just rubs off your hands when it dries, unlike the Titebond. The thing I liked about the Grabber too, was when you release the pressure on the tube, it didn't keep pushing the caulk out the end. All the others have. But this is really all irrelavant to how the stuff actually performs. I don't know if anyone has any statistical data on performance of each brand, but I think they all pretty much do the same job, providing the person who uses it, takes the time to do it right and not leave any holes or gaps in the application of it. I think that is the bottom line. :D Aaron

Has any one tried the Tremco brand acoustic sealant? Any comments on performance? I am on my fouth case of the stuff. It is the thick and tar like. I have taken to keeping mineral spirits in the shower along with the soap, shampoo, etc to get it off me when the day's wark is done. Not exactly a hit with my wife as trace amounts have shown up all over the house, dog and car. My quality of life will get better when this phase of the studio build is over.

Just pulled the spec sheet on this stuff... http://www.tremcosealants.com/product_d ... =32&bhfv=5 This sounds like some nasty stuff. Contains Silica and all sorts of other health hazards... Hope you're wearing a respirator... :shock:

Hi everyone, Though QuietSound products are more expensive then Titebond etc. - if you dig into the specs etc. - they are not apple to apple products as I understand it. Or are they? QuietSound products are based off turning sound into heat (basically) and dissipating the energy of the sound waves. Do all these "caulks" (some seem pretty stone age) do that following the same principles? I have met with these folks as I live in the Silicon Valley area where they are located - and their products are impressive. I am getting the impression though that we are aiming for the dirt cheap products vs. if you get 10db or whatever more for x more dollars - for some it might really be worth it. Especially when considering what can leak out is our worst enemy. As a test I would be happy to lather myself up in QuietSeal and see if there is a 25db drop in the volume of my posts. I am kinda trying to see if and where I can use QuietSound products in my garage conversion that will really have the extra dollars provide good bang for the buck as I do not believe any old cauk gives the same results. Applying QuietSeal now... Best, David

Though QuietSound products are more expensive then Titebond etc.

It's about 9-10 times the price compared to all the acoustical sealant I've purchased. They want $9.95 a 10oz tube. I'm paying $3.25 for a 29oz tube for something that does the same thing. It's called "marketing". I'll leave my opinions at that. Steve will have a better objective point to this. :D

Scientific evaluation and or scientific principles are not marketing. I am just saying that - we can see marketing as marketing (i.e. - these studios that are like big foam blocks inside and someone thought this would SOUNDPROOF has bought into marketing)... Mass loading vs. transfering vibration (sound) into heat is not just marketing Though, the achieved results are what matters - if the perceived change or improvement is done for less mass or less money then great... perfect. I just wonder what do those other cauks use as their principles? Do they become hard and harder over time? Do they reflect or absorb or what? QuietSound says this: "It is critical in every noise reducing application that all air gaps are filled. Otherwise, noise will always take the path of least resistance, which inevitably will be the air. In construction, a good acoustical sealant (one that never skins over… i.e. never dries) is the best bet. Every wall seam must be completely airtight, between panels, and between floor and ceiling, as well as around wall outlets." I want to spend less and achieve beyond reality results. But, if the perceived difference in sound transmission through the various cracks of my modestly 50 year old framed garage would benefit by spending more - then to me its worth it... or is it? An A - B test would be ideal. Maybe cauk is just cauk... :roll:

the physics never change - sound energy to heat energy is what were after. the more of that going on inside the studio the better. got to say this foum is priceless. just aquired a 2 floor premises, 1st floor and basement and plan to build a studio in the basement. ive already been like :shock: till 4 or 5 am engrossed in all this stuff. i want to know, our premises has residential flats above it, will we actually be able to build a proper studio in the basement where we can crank up the marshall valves and have the kit banging at 3 am ?? will all these methods of reducing leakage really get us to that stage of pure heaven??

Davy, welcome to the board; you should probably start your own thread on this, so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle; I have a hard enough time sorting out who said what where and why as it is, and don't like to miss anyone's questions - Basically, your concern depends on the amount of space you can dedicate to isolation methods (including ceiling height) and your budget - If you like, start a thread on your situation and include as much info as you can. We'll soon be able to sort out whether you can "let the dogs out" at night after gramm's asleep with her warm milk and cookies or not... Steve

cheers man, i shall start a thread...

This was interesting by Eric from here

Silicone will do the job but will also transfert vibration more and give less edge damping. So depending on the application this phenomenon becomes more or less important. If I have to connect 2 window panes I will use transparant silicone for obvious reasons. However if a window is critical I will mount it in a butyl or comparable caulk. And in labs they will systematically use visco-elastic, not elastic materials. Silicone is elastic and gives its stored energy back.

Regarding the Lepage and Mono caulking, On the tube of these two brands it states specifically that they are not for use in exposed applications, and neither are paintable. Not really useful for between drywall sheets in that case... Thanks for all the info, you guys rock!!

in my knowledge of physics i'd say that it'd be a tad better to have a purely elastic sealent rather than one that's viscous. my reasoning i guess comes from the fact that although you say that the sound is converted into heat, it is also converted into the kinetic energy of a resonating resiliant wall. it takes a good bit of energy to get a resonating wall even of an amplitude of a few mill. the damping of this motion wouldn't (i'd say) have much to do with the nodes of vibration being damped themselves. if they were allowed to move about more freely along with the vibration itself, then this would optimise energy loss as the wall would "move" more.

OK, I have read all the "caulk talk" and my mind is scrambled (and I need to caulk soon) - Can one of the resident gurus break it down for me: Best Caulk regardless of cost: Acceptable caulk if money is tight: What cr*p won't do anything:

okay you're getting what steve told me (hope i got it right). basically you have two types of caulk: 1. Construction 2. Acoustic construction is just the regular silicone sealant and that. from my understanding Acoustic sealant remains semi-wet to allow the wall to "move" so as to dissipate the dB you're hammering into it. silicone sealant is all well and good for a while cos it has an airtight seal, but eventually that seal will be broken cos the wall is gonna want to move (especially if the wall is resiliant). so after a while the seal will break (saw three months). and all your hard work will be wasted cos you will have no airtightness anymore. in short DO NOT "settle" for anything less viscous than Acoustic Caulk itself. it simply will not do in the long run. and as Steve says, it actually works out cheaper than the construction stuff cos it comes in industrial tubes. is that right steve?

Pretty much, although "skinning over" by itself doesn't make a particular caulk BAD - only if the entire bead of caulk hardens and shrinks away from what you are trying to SEAL. Several of the acoustic rated caulks will skin; what they can NOT do, and still be considered OK, is to get completely hard or shrink away from surfaces... Steve

A great deal of info on caulk, awesome. I suppose the reference thread for caulk and insulation would be the best place to post this question: A lot of folks are using Roxul and mineral wool for their insulation between studs. I like (and my wallet loves) Steve's suggestion in the Complete Section thread about using fiberglass batts that are slightly thicker than the stud cavities. Would there be any drawback to using the fiberglass batts instead of 703/Roxul/mineral wool in the stud cavities? Assume I won't be using 703 between frames (described by Steve to be used along with the oversized fiberglass batting in the Complete Section). However, this is only a preface-question to the one I've been really curious about: If one were to use the non-rigid fiberglass batts for insulation (the owens corning pink stuff is just the first thing that comes to mind), should you get it with or without the paper facing? Would the answer to that question vary depending on the use of the insulation (ie: floors or walls or ceilings)? Thanks! Hope I didn't rudely interrupt caulk talk. Gordon

Within walls, there doesn't seem to be more than a dB or two difference between rockwool, mineral wool, rigid fiberglass or the "fluffy stuff", with a few cautions - this assumes that the cavities are mostly full, or (in the case of the softer, "fluffy stuff" insulation) slightly overfilled - letting the insulation touch the wallboard surface tends to help damp the panels, which improves wall performance. IF you use OVERLY dense rigid board insulation, you run the risk of problems - one, a compression fill will "short out" the wall and lower performance. Two, if you DON'T fill the cavities, the rigid board can act like a third leaf (bad) especially if it's denser than about 3 PCF (48 kG/m^3) - this shows up as slightly better TL in mids/highs, but a few dB WORSE TL at low frequencies. NONE of this applies to the FOAM board insulations you see at Home Depot; these are all CLOSED CELL and are NOT usable in sound construction. If you have any of this stuff already in place, it either needs to be glued to one of your mass leaves while still leaving an air gap between leaves, or it needs to be REMOVED. Preferably removed. Facing on standard fiberglass batts - for EXTERIOR walls, you need a vapor barrier - in climates where cooling is more prevalent (like Florida) this barrier needs to be nearest the OUTSIDE wall surface, so the paper would go out - in cooler climates where HEATING is more prevalent, the barrier goes to the INSIDE surface. For INTERIOR walls, no vapor barrier is needed - so batts should be UN-faced for these walls. If you MUST use faced batts, put the paper against one wallboard surface or the other - but do NOT put TWO batts in a wall that BOTH have paper, and do NOT put paper ANYWHERE but against the wallboard - either will create somewhat of a THIRD LEAF, which may improve wall performance at MID range but WORSEN it at low frequency. If using any of the rigid board insulations (rockwool, mineral wool, rigid fiberglass) and all you can get is the FRK types (membrane glued to one side) this is best removed for IN-wall use, except for the earlier mentioned EXTERIOR walls... Steve

knightfly wrote:

NONE of this applies to the FOAM board insulations you see at Home Depot; these are all CLOSED CELL and are NOT usable in sound construction. If you have any of this stuff already in place, it either needs to be glued to one of your mass leaves while still leaving an air gap between leaves, or it needs to be REMOVED. Preferably removed.

When you mention this foam, are you talking about the rigid styrofoam? Like Owens Corning's FOAMULAR insulation at Home Depot, etc.? Just want to make sure I never pick up any of the stuff.

Yes, exactly; building foams all are closed cell, partly so they don't absorb moisture and can act as a vapor barrier; just the opposite of what's needed inside or outside of walls for acoustics/sound isolation. If you can't blow through it, don't use it. That's the easiest test I know of... Steve

z60611 wrote:

For insulation, anything on this page will do: http://www.bobgolds.com/AbsorptionCoefficients.htm

Wow.. It seems that Lowes carries NONE of this stuff. Unless I'm mistaken.. They carry Owens Corning.. but its all "R-" stuff.. Unfortunately, the bulk of my materials must come from Lowes, due to the credit card.. btw, 1st post here! Great forum, guys. Nice job! I'll soon begin soundproofing 20'x10' (not counting control room area), for use as a studio and practice room (i have to be able to play at odd hours.)

Arsenic wrote:

Wow.. It seems that Lowes carries NONE of this stuff. Unless I'm mistaken.. They carry Owens Corning.. but its all "R-" stuff..

Hi newguy. Insulation, as a rule is made for the thermal aspects that it can produce. It all has an "R" value, no matter who makes it or where it comes from. Owens Corning is what Lowes may carry, depending on where you live. But as a rule, you will have to get outside of the big box stores and spend some real cash in order to get the rigid type panels or the more acoustically specific types of insulation, rockwool, etc. Someone may could give you a location in your neck of the woods, if we knew what neck of what woods you live in. Like I might suggest looking for a dealer near you by pointing your browser to this link :http://www.distributionintl.com/locations.htm But it may not be of any value to you, but me not knowing where you live, wouldn't know that directly. Good Luck

Sorry. I've updated my user profile. So they're all R-types, huh? Well then.. don't i feel dumb. ha. Thanks! hmm.. Since it seems my insulation cost will be coming out of pocket, rather than put on the 'ol Lowes card, which has been found to be the best bang for the buck? or does that vary? Thanks again!

Read the Stickies, read this one too : viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2125 The link in my signature is the best place you can start for this forum...