OC 703 Question
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:16 am
- Location: Austin, Texas USofA
OC 703 Question
Most advice I read on this and other forums suggests that 4" 703 is the way to go for building bass traps, but my local Specialty Products outlet says that neither 703 nor 705 is made in that thickness (2.5" is the thickest). I know you can double up 2" panels but does anyone know of a competing product that's made in thicker panels (I assume it must be cheaper than buying twice the amount of 2" 703, which is $1/s.f.). And would 5" (2.5" x 2) be even a better bass trap material?
"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
- Hunter S. Thompson
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:16 am
- Location: Austin, Texas USofA
Thanks, I suppose the clerk I spoke with was simply uninformed (though I insisted to her that the existence of 4" 703 was widely known among studio construction experts). I'll ring them up again and ask them to dig a little deeper in their records to find pricing/ordering info.
As a follow up question, how does the density (lbs/sf) affect absorption? I assume the denser material, having more mass, would be more effective but I just want to find the best value of bass absorption per s.f.
As a follow up question, how does the density (lbs/sf) affect absorption? I assume the denser material, having more mass, would be more effective but I just want to find the best value of bass absorption per s.f.
"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
- Hunter S. Thompson
-
- Confused, but not senile yet
- Posts: 2336
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Hanilton, Ontario, Canada
Ialready gave you the practical answer 2.5 - 5 pcf. IF you want dissertations, that can be arranged. For what you are doing, 2.5 - 5 pcf.Cojonesonasteek wrote:Thanks, I suppose the clerk I spoke with was simply uninformed (though I insisted to her that the existence of 4" 703 was widely known among studio construction experts). I'll ring them up again and ask them to dig a little deeper in their records to find pricing/ordering info.
As a follow up question, how does the density (lbs/sf) affect absorption? I assume the denser material, having more mass, would be more effective but I just want to find the best value of bass absorption per s.f.
Andre
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6976
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:11 am
- Location: West Coast, USA
Going much above 3 PCF for exposed traps can cause problems with uneven absorption - since very few sound waves in a room are perpendicular to the walls, you need absorption that's even at wider angles of incidence; the denser the material, the more sound will "graze" off the surface instead of being absorbed.
As to what thicknesses 703 is available in, this from Owens Corning -
http://www.owenscorning.com/comminsul/d ... Series.pdf
Check under Availability for available thicknesses, feel free to print this out for your doubting debutante... Steve
As to what thicknesses 703 is available in, this from Owens Corning -
http://www.owenscorning.com/comminsul/d ... Series.pdf
Check under Availability for available thicknesses, feel free to print this out for your doubting debutante... Steve
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:16 am
- Location: Austin, Texas USofA
Thanks, Andre, no dissertation needed. I just wanted to know if 5 pcf density 703 is more effective as a bass trapping material versus the cheaper 2.5 pcf version. No sense spending extra money on the denser version if there are diminishing returns beyond a certain density. I have a fairly large room to treat so am trying to get my arms around costs for our rebuild budget. Knightfly posted a useful response to that question so I'll take his advice and stick with the 2.5 pcf, which I already have several boxes of from a previous studio.AVare wrote:Ialready gave you the practical answer 2.5 - 5 pcf. IF you want dissertations, that can be arranged. For what you are doing, 2.5 - 5 pcf.Cojonesonasteek wrote:Thanks, I suppose the clerk I spoke with was simply uninformed (though I insisted to her that the existence of 4" 703 was widely known among studio construction experts). I'll ring them up again and ask them to dig a little deeper in their records to find pricing/ordering info.
As a follow up question, how does the density (lbs/sf) affect absorption? I assume the denser material, having more mass, would be more effective but I just want to find the best value of bass absorption per s.f.
Andre
"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
- Hunter S. Thompson
-
- Confused, but not senile yet
- Posts: 2336
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Hanilton, Ontario, Canada
No insult intended, but ask what you want, not a general query. If anything, 705 is slightly WORSE at lf than 703 at thicker sizes. Add to that Knightfly's remarks about HF grazing absorption of 5 pcf glass wool. The absorption of rock based mineral wool is slighter shifted to heavier materials. EG 3pcf glass wool is most similar to 5pcf rock wool. Hence the generic 2.5- 5 range.You are now starting to get the disseratation that you didn't want!Cojonesonasteek wrote:AVare wrote:Cojonesonasteek wrote:
Thanks, Andre, no dissertation needed. I just wanted to know if 5 pcf density 703 is more effective as a bass trapping material versus the cheaper 2.5 pcf version. No sense spending extra money on the denser version if there are diminishing returns beyond a certain density.
Don't forget, ANY brand in that density range. In other words what you buy additionally base on price, not name.
Andre
-
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Ontario, Canada
AVare:
703 - can be used on side wall first reflections without grazing angle reflection (i.e. it still absorbs)
705 - may work barely perceptibly better on the rear wall for axial modes and first reflections, although not as good at oblique modes. Since it's denser, it's much easier to edge bevel successfully. It shouldn't be used on side wall first reflections due to increased grazing angle reflections.
Both - we tend to use relatively small orders (a normal order of 703 is an 18 wheeler full i.e. about 2000 ft^3 or $30,000.00) so finding such a small quantity of two models in stock for a reasonable price is just one more hassle. Add to that the hassle of keeping the two separate at the job site and running out of one or the other.
I believe these comments are portable to Rockwool and other materials. Rockwool is denser for the same absorbtion, so perhaps a mid range Rockwool might be an optimal choice for edge bevel cuts, but I don't know.
703 - can be used on side wall first reflections without grazing angle reflection (i.e. it still absorbs)
705 - may work barely perceptibly better on the rear wall for axial modes and first reflections, although not as good at oblique modes. Since it's denser, it's much easier to edge bevel successfully. It shouldn't be used on side wall first reflections due to increased grazing angle reflections.
Both - we tend to use relatively small orders (a normal order of 703 is an 18 wheeler full i.e. about 2000 ft^3 or $30,000.00) so finding such a small quantity of two models in stock for a reasonable price is just one more hassle. Add to that the hassle of keeping the two separate at the job site and running out of one or the other.
I believe these comments are portable to Rockwool and other materials. Rockwool is denser for the same absorbtion, so perhaps a mid range Rockwool might be an optimal choice for edge bevel cuts, but I don't know.
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:16 am
- Location: Austin, Texas USofA