I just finished checking out the Green Glue website, and I am still scratching my head.
Will Green Glue work like acoustic caulk as well as a sound barrier between surfaces?
GREEN GLUE
Originally posted at johnlsayers.com, topic 8815.
Paul, Green glue, neither works as caulck, nor is it a sound barrier. It's meant to glue (or stick) board layers together thereby increasing damping and increasing insulation of the whole wall combination by surpressing vibration, mainly at resonance. It uses CLD (constraint layer damping). But in fact the site self gives the best explanation possible, supported by graphs, pictures, measurements, comparisons, whatever. In order to feel what it does: If you knock on a normal drywall it sounds a bit like a drum skin. If you knock on a Green Glue treated wall it sounds dead. Have you ever heard the difference by knocking on a standard window pane versus a laminated pane? The laminated pane sounds dead as well. That's what Green Glue does, but better since they don't need to worry about the transparency needing to be preserved in window panes. That pvb foil in laminated glass is no sound barrier either. It just makes the pane better.I just finished checking out the Green Glue website, and I am still scratching my head. Will Green Glue work like acoustic caulk as well as a sound barrier between surfaces?
Indeed. It's an awesome site and keeps getting better. There's a lot of information to absorb there. Give your brain a chance to suck it all in. :-) --Keith :mrgreen:But in fact the site self gives the best explanation possible, supported by graphs, pictures, measurements, comparisons, whatever.
So, if I use it between layers of drywall, it helps but doesn't stop AND I will still need to buy acoustic seal/caulk for the seams....
Thanks guys.
A lot cheaper to look like a fool here than learning the hard and expensive way.
Indeed. It's an awesome site and keeps getting better. There's a lot of information to absorb there. Give your brain a chance to suck it all in. :-) --Keith :mrgreen:But in fact the site self gives the best explanation possible, supported by graphs, pictures, measurements, comparisons, whatever.
Two layers of drywall with Green Glue sandwiched between them perform about the same as four layers of drywall without Green Glue.
So I wouldn't say Green Glue "doesn't stop sound." It does.
It's not for everyone, but it's very good for what it is and its maker does an excellent job of documenting the results.
--Keith :mrgreen:
That would make it a 'soundproofing' material correct?
Now once I have my 'magic little voice studio' built, I will still have to treat the room for sound quality.
After reading and seeing all the great stuff here, I have adjusted my ideas.
Originally, it was just a portable booth idea (but it would not really be portable - just modeled after the 'Whisper booth' dimensions.
Now, I am thinking of an isolated room that would have the mic (mics) in the same room with the control booth. This would be specifically for recording voice talent projects (my own and anyone else that wants to play - possibly pay). I won't need all the really intricate stuff that some of you experts are using for sure.
Based on the little research I have had the chance to do, and stealing some advice from what I see here a booth and recording in one room can be done as long as:
1. The noise from the recording equiptment is reduced somehow (panels/iso box).
2. Mics are positioned properly (I was thinking mics should face corners, possibly with a free standing 'wall' between it and the recording equiptment.
If one wall is 12' long, what would good dimensions for the rest of the space, though?
Is there a ratio that could calculate to any size?
Two layers of drywall with Green Glue sandwiched between them perform about the same as four layers of drywall without Green Glue. So I wouldn't say Green Glue "doesn't stop sound." It does. It's not for everyone, but it's very good for what it is and its maker does an excellent job of documenting the results. --Keith :mrgreen:
Paul, No, it helps soundproofing, it's no soundproofing in itself. It's a damping material. If you put the same Green Glue on the outside instead of between 2 gypsum boards, the effect will be close to nothing ( :) with the exception that you get an incredibly sticky wall). The gypsum boards are the soundproofing materials. The Green Gloe surpresses the nagative effects in these gypsum boards, making them more efficient resulting in higher soundproofing. Acoustically: It impoves the transmission loss value of the sandwich panel by increasing the internal loss value of that sandwich. And that extents towards the resonance in the wall itself. If you put low density fibreglass in the cavity of a gypsum board wall it will significantly improve soundproofing of that wall. Take it out that wall and the soundproofing effect of that fibreglass will be very minor. This fiberglass is absorption material, no soundproofing material. Still it contributes to the soundproofing of that wall. If you feel safe calling it soundproofing material it's OK for me, but not distinguishing between these concepts will further block you if you want a more in-depth understanding. And if you call it towards others soundproofing, it only helps distributing wrong concepts. Brian Ravnaas the designer of the product and the Author of the technical content of that site, spent a lot of his time, certainly in the beginning to put these concepts, very often wrongly used in forums in the right context. It's as wrong as calling standard fibreglass soundproofing or acoustic isolation rather than absorption. This is really well meant.That would make it a 'soundproofing' material correct?
Eric, and all:
Thank you for the clarification. I know well the problems created by inaccurate language, especially in a techincal field.
Any help on the dimensions questions?
Paul, No, it helps soundproofing, it's no soundproofing in itself. It's a damping material. If you put the same Green Glue on the outside instead of between 2 gypsum boards, the effect will be close to nothing ( :) with the exception that you get an incredibly sticky wall). The gypsum boards are the soundproofing materials. The Green Gloe surpresses the nagative effects in these gypsum boards, making them more efficient resulting in higher soundproofing. Acoustically: It impoves the transmission loss value of the sandwich panel by increasing the internal loss value of that sandwich. And that extents towards the resonance in the wall itself. If you put low density fibreglass in the cavity of a gypsum board wall it will significantly improve soundproofing of that wall. Take it out that wall and the soundproofing effect of that fibreglass will be very minor. This fiberglass is absorption material, no soundproofing material. Still it contributes to the soundproofing of that wall. If you feel safe calling it soundproofing material it's OK for me, but not distinguishing between these concepts will further block you if you want a more in-depth understanding. And if you call it towards others soundproofing, it only helps distributing wrong concepts. Brian Ravnaas the designer of the product and the Author of the technical content of that site, spent a lot of his time, certainly in the beginning to put these concepts, very often wrongly used in forums in the right context. It's as wrong as calling standard fibreglass soundproofing or acoustic isolation rather than absorption. This is really well meant.That would make it a 'soundproofing' material correct?
Quietrock? Worth the cost? Does it really save money overall?
QuietGlue: Comparable stats to Green Glue?
Not worth the cost - you can acheive more by just adding more layers of cheap drywall. Obviously not if it isn'tworth the cost. NOTHING COMPARES TO GREEN GLUE........... RodQuietrock? Worth the cost? Does it really save money overall? QuietGlue: Comparable stats to Green Glue?
Do a search for "quietrock" and you'll see it's been debunked as "a horrible value" here quite consistently.Quietrock? Worth the cost? Does it really save money overall?
Same idea, but last time I checked, the manufacturer didn't post any specs or third party test results, so it's most certainly not comparable in terms of credibility. --Keith :mrgreen:QuietGlue: Comparable stats to Green Glue?
That seems to be the general opinion here and from a google search.
Thanks
Not worth the cost - you can acheive more by just adding more layers of cheap drywall. Obviously not if it isn'tworth the cost. NOTHING COMPARES TO GREEN GLUE........... Rod
Ok maybe I'm off base here but I've been looking at the 'lab tests' on the gg site and I find most if not all of the tests are doubious comparisons.
Ex. try looking at the 'comparison' of gg vs mvl and what they've done is compared an mvl wall with 2 total layers of 1/2 dw total and 1 of mvl to a gg wall with 3 layers total of 5/8 :?: I couldn't find a comparison of mvl/gg with the same wall construction IE same dw layers/thickness.
or how about the gg vs soundboard 'comparison'? the soundboard wall has only 2 total layers of 5/8 dw and 2 total of soundboard while the gg has 2 layers of 5/8 and 2 layers of 1/2 as well as gg between each layer. How is this an accurate comparison??? Let's see how the soundboard does if you added anouther 2 layers of 1/2" drywall? How bout a comparison of gg vs whatever with all else being equal? Anything else is not scientific and makes me question the product in general if the company has to post unfair tests to prove it's better.
Most if not all of the tests on their sight have these discrepencies so it really makes me wonder. I'm surprised that noone mentions this, mostly just how great their site is with all their 'independent' testing. Although I haven't used the product myself so maybe it does do what it claims, I don't know.
What I'm saying is I don't have an issue with the product just the testing methods, maybe someone knows of other comparitive tests available?
Erik,
Correct is that these comparisons are done or possible resulting from the commercial interests of the company.
What you find on that site are for a small fortune of measurements.
However we do know the designer of this stuff which is relative recent.
We know how this guy (a chemist) learned about vibration and acoustics in a record speed based on his real scientific attitude/background.
Brian, that designer hates acoustic nonsense and is a man as a scientist is supposed to be.
He's always objective.
You can be sure if Brian, isn't sure or doesn't know, he will tell so.
A lot of these test are executed besides wanting to understand/know the effect of this material in itself, basically on the numerous comments and requests by people on the net, and possible beyond that, who confronted the company with all these magic described by competing products.
If Brian does a test, you can be sure he's looking for answers, to know. That's just how he is.
I wished there were more companies like that.
And indeed they are not free from commercial motives in doing these testing. And logically a company will not share all there know-how either which is an asset to protect.
The theory behind Green Glue as a damping material isn't new. It's described in very old courses and books.
What is new is that Brian designed a product, which causes that high internal damping, that only few people (if any) ever saw before in comparable applications.
Before Green Glue, I found all these related products a bunch of cost ineffective solutions more based on theory and derived magic.
The damping values shown on that site speak for themselves and are rather unique.
I've worked with it, and recently a guy I'm helping out with a test/listening/recording room for 2 grand pianos (Bosendorfer and a Steinway D concert) bought another 144 tubes via UK.
I've played with the product, and
1) It looked and felt new to me, and indeed is completely designed in function of visco-elasticy as one could expect a perfect related product should feel.
2) It does work in a degree I never encountered with anything else before.
Whether it is cost effective, necessary or not, I leave to individuals to judge for their individual circumstances.
I wished it was cheaper as well.
But that it works is beyond doubt.
As an acoustician for 30 years I find it even fun to play with, just because of the effect we knew but hardly ever encountered in that degree for such applications.
If you want to read about this stuff, you should look for the effect of internal damping in materials on TL.
Whatever your feelings about it, what you can't do is doubting Brian's objectivity as a scientist. And these measurements are made with the same discipline as Brian is.
They can permit themselves these numerous comparisons, since the material/application justifies them.
For me that site, apart from the material itself, is one of the best simple and clear educational sites existing with respect to this specific topic.
And no I don't have any commercial or whatever other band with them.
But check what you call as being objective:
MVL is mass in itself and sold as such, having additional CLD (Constrained Layer Damping) effects. Soundboard is sold as mass, a panel in itself (as substitute for gypsum board) with some additional decoupling or damping effects.
And adding layers you can find on GG's site and the NRC/IRC documents.
How do you compare Green Glue, which is a kind of glue (poetic license), without any TL value whatsoever in itself with Soundboard or MLV as mass?
Green glue doesn't add any mass (worth mentioning) to the wall.
I also know MLV and what it does very well. I once sold the stuff for the industry in several types and tasts. But never for applications as often suggested in the studio world for drywall.
But if you want Brian is certainly prepared to explain these build-ups here in the forum. He's a member here.
I'm told that BBC, standard using soundboard in the 80ties in what they called Camden walls, doesn't use that principle anymore. This seems also confirmed by more recent BBC docs about drywall .
And MLV was never seen as a cost effective solution in the acoustic world for such applications in drywall.
Have you ever wondered why nobody ever asks for MLV comparison data from all these companies selling it suggesting magic properties? For one or the other strange reason this magic seems accepted as an axiom.
It shouldn't be necessary for a company as Green Glue to show how MLV really behaves in such walls.
That should exist, published and payed for by the companies earning money on it.
And you can be sure that some or a lot have such measurements, which is exactly why you don't see them.
MLV is an efficient mass, but cost-effective for such specific applications?
I haven't checked lately, but have you ever wondered why Auralex substitutes objective relevant data by soundfiles telling nothing, on their site when related to MLV?
Very rough: With MLV you add an efficient mass (expensive per weight unit) with relative high internal damping. The CLD effect is minor, it's meanly the added mass.
With Green Glue you make from the gypsum boards themselves an efficient mass with extreme high internal damping.
What I find fun about Green Glue that it is a practical thing to solve from these annoying weak points at edges where one has to isolate something without having the option for easy decoupling etc.
In fact it helps to solve difficult things which are mostly present, by making everything dead, making the construction less sensitive to construction errors/limits.
I still should like it to be cheaper. ( :twisted: Must be that much too high salary of Brian)
Thanks for the reply Eric.
Thats cool, as I said I don't have an issue with the product just the comparisons. I read a post where someone said to check the gg site to see how inefective mvl is and that is where I started seeing the apple vs orange comparisons. I was only using mvl as an example.
Check out the this comparison: http://www.greengluecompany.com/greenGlue-vs-MLV.php
The only comparible wall assemblies are the middle two and look closely and you'll see the mvl wall uses 1/2 drywall while the gg uses 5/8 :roll:
then notice the nice graph below showing the "effects of green glue" I mean com-on, looks like planned deception or exageration to me. I mean they even threw the 4th wall in there which uses 4 layers of drywall and 2 gg to compare how much better gg is than a mvl wall of almost half the construction. :roll: :roll:
If your going to show how effective gg is compared to other products everything but the two products in question must be identical otherwise it tells you nothing.
Don't get me wrong, I hope it is a good product and cheeper as well. The main reason I didn't use it in my latest build.
Erik.
Erik, Then describe exactly what you see as objective comparison, and why. And what isn't objective about these. Your description of objective comparisons wasn't exactly comparable either. You can only compare exact the same circumstances when you compare two types of Green Glue. One the known Green Glue and call the other Blue Glue if you like. Since we're comparing different things by the very nature of it, we need to define what should be objective. Calling something not objective is a bit too easy for my taste. If you really mean that you have a convincing argument to compare another combination, which by the lack of it, can mislead or confuse people I'm rather certain Green Glue can be convinced to do such measurement(s) in a future session. I should support such request. Note that I'm not interested in convincing people to use Green Glue which isn't cheap and probably often not needed. Good walls, fulfilling their purpose are build for ages already, before glue turned green.Just seems to me that if your going to show how effective gg is compared to other products everything but the two products in question must be identical otherwise it tells you nothing.
What I see as an objective comparison would be ex:
If you were to compare the tl effects of mvl vs gg as stated on the gg site then an objective comparison would be to compare the exact same wall construction in each example, only diff being one has gg the other has mvl. What is the point of comparing gg vs mvl only to use 5/8 dwall in one and 1/2 in the other???? This is my main beef, I don't think I'm off base here, their site clearly shows it.
From the gg site:
"At the primary low frequency resonance (around 80Hz or so), the Green Glue wall outperforms the MLV assemblies by as much as 9dB – the equivalent of tripling the mass of the wall."
now if you look at the graph that this statement is taken from http://www.greengluecompany.com/greenGlue-vs-MLV.php you'll see that the "9db" difference comes from a gg wall that has 2 layers of 1/2 dw sandwiching gg on one side and 2 layers of 5/8 dw sandwiching gg on the other, this is in comparison to the mvl wall which uses only 1 layer of 5/8 dw on one side with no mvl and 2 layers of 5/8 dw on the other sandwiching mvl.
"Your description of objective comparisons wasn't exactly comparable either. "
I'm not sure where my comments of gg unobjective comparisons aren't comparible. I'm only going by what's on the gg site, if the site says "gg vs soundboard" http://www.greengluecompany.com/greenGl ... dboard.php and the first comparison shows the soundboard example using half the amount of drywall I say it's not a fair comparison. It's gg comparison not mine.
"You can only compare exact the same circumstances when you compare two types of Green Glue. One the known Green Glue and call the other Blue Glue if you like. "
I think I see what you mean by this, you are saying because gg principals are different than other/different products then the gg behavior dictates certain constructions of walls. which may be different than the construction of wall using other products. Am I reading you right?
If I am then using your comment of only comparing gg to other types of 'constrained damping layer" glues then the gg site shouldn't have any comparisons at all on their sight with other products, only maybe tests to show how adding gg to a wall assembly as opposed to no gg at all can improve tl loss.
BTW I'm only talking about mvl to illustrate my point, I'm not particularly interested in mvl specifically.
Erik,
I can see that you partly have a point (checked the MLV page), while for me the data/graps are clear.
I really don't bother that in one wall a 1/2" and in the other 5/8" is used, almost certain that measurements result from different dates and comparisons.
I see the graphs and see the effects playing, which have nothing to do with the difference between 1/2 and 5/8".
But your conclusion is also uncertain. The measurement referred in the graph is unequal to the drawing higher up. Hence we have to check the original measurements.
I'm going to make for myself a better overview of all this (when having time).
Correct is that indeed you're comparing different things (CLD versus mass).
The reason that GG does not only mention the effect of using GG, but comparing with other solutions is both:
1) They were regular confronted with people on the net, asking the same questions over and over again. Basically these measurements exist triggered by users on the net (and probably elsewhere).
That they have commercial interest to respond to such questions is clear. But anyhow, any of these measurements are really expensive.
2) A company who has to fight for there design/product, which is physically substanciated has to fight as hell against clouds/air, because a lot of products they compete with, do wittingly not publish related relevant data substituting it by the , O SO COMMON, used magic sounding stories where this studio world seems so sensitive for.
The only reason that they don't get in trouble with such graphs by competing producers/suppliers (and I can asure you that lots happens behind the screens) is that they know they better do if they don't bother them or are non-existing in public. If they had valid legal grounds you can safely asume they use them, certainly the big players.
Eric
"I really don't bother that in one wall a 1/2" and in the other 5/8" is used, almost certain that measurements result from different dates and comparisons."
Your telling me that it doesn't matter that one wall used 1/2" and the other 5/8"??????? 5/8" drywall doesn't have a higher tl value than 1/2"??
"I can see that you partly have a point (checked the MLV page), "
Thank you.
Erik
Erik, I can see that you rather select usable sentences than listening to the spirit. I will check these pages and graphs, which you didn't bother to check yourself. You assume that that graph or picture on page x refers to page y. Indeed when I see these graphs then I recognize the MSM AND the constructional resonance of that wall. That shows beyond any doubt that MLV can't surpress this resonance, which will not change by altering 1/2" to 5/8" board, even not by adding an additional board. Hence the indeed existing difference caused by 1/8" gypsum board thickness difference is almost negligible compared with the effect shown there. And that only confirms what can be expected. Hence you can search for things to question the whole, rather than trying to understand the principles, but that's your choice. At a first glance for most picturs and data they link to the official measurements and are clear what they show. Hence I will check these pages, but for me the spirit of these pages is correct."I really don't bother that in one wall a 1/2" and in the other 5/8" is used, almost certain that measurements result from different dates and comparisons." Your telling me that it doesn't matter that one wall used 1/2" and the other 5/8"??????? 5/8" drywall doesn't have a higher tl value than 1/2"?? "I can see that you partly have a point (checked the MLV page), " Thank you. Erik
"I will check these pages and graphs, which you didn't bother to check yourself. You assume that that graph or picture on page x refers to page y."
why do you assume I haven't checked them when you state that you haven't either?
You'll never convince me that a 1/2 compared to 5/8 leaf won't affect the tl values.
I understand the principles, you are making assumptions about me now.
I'm not trying to make any enemies here, I only brought it up because alot of people are being directed to gg and their site.
You're good, very good, so clever. I hope others noticed it as well. It has no sense to reply since you're not interested to read it anyway. CongratulationsYou'll never convince me that a 1/2 compared to 5/8 leaf won't affect the tl values.
Thank you :wink:
Eric D., I think that's out of line. I really don't believe the other Eric is picking a fight here. I believe he is sincerely trying to understand the comparisons and assess their legitimacy -- something we all should encourage, just as we encourage manufacturers to conduct such tests and publicize their results. We should all accept having our points being respectfully challenged. Let's all be fair to each other. It's OK to disagree and to respectfully challenge each other. Let's be especially careful not to make assumptions about motives or levels of intellectual honesty. I'm going to leave this thread open because I think there is the potential for some good discussion here... But, fair warning: the next time anyone takes a personal swipe, even if it's passively aggressive, I'm shutting it down, regardless of who swiped first.You're good, very good, so clever. I hope others noticed it as well. It has no sense to reply since you're not interested to read it anyway. CongratulationsYou'll never convince me that a 1/2 compared to 5/8 leaf won't affect the tl values.
Sharward: The above is what I wrote.Indeed when I see these graphs then I recognize the MSM AND the constructional resonance of that wall. That shows beyond any doubt that MLV can't surpress this resonance, which will not change by altering 1/2" to 5/8" board, even not by adding an additional board. Hence the indeed existing difference caused by 1/8" gypsum board thickness difference is almost negligible compared with the effect shown there.
I did not say that there is no difference. If there are 2 different numbers they will respond differently.You'll never convince me that a 1/2 compared to 5/8 leaf won't affect the tl values.
And Erik said he understood the principles.I understand the principles, ....