MinWool 1200 - Safing vs. SAFB

ersatz · Post by **ersatz** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:29 am

I've recently come across a local supplier (near Philly, PA - I'll post the info in the suppliers listing) for the following products:

http://www.intelligentinsulation.com/pdfs/IIG-403.pdf ("Safing")
and
http://www.intelligentinsulation.com/pdfs/IIG-405.pdf ("SAFB")

I originally called this supplier inquiring about Roxul RHT 40. They indicated they didn't carry Roxul any longer, but that the Safing product was most like it.

The Safing (4.0pcf) data sheet does not have any absorption specs. The SAFB (2.5pcf) data sheet does have absorption specs (which, btw, look exactly the same as Fibrex SAFB listed on Bob Golds site - so I'm guessing these are the same products and just sold in this region under a different name as a result of some corporate acquisition/consolidation/licensing thing).

So, I guess my questions are:

1. Would the Safing product be a viable option? If so, does anyone have thoughts as to which product on Bob Golds site it most closely represents as the 'IIG Min-Wool 1200' is not listed?

2. Whereas the Safing is available in 4" thickness, the SAFB is only available in 2" and 3" thickness. I'm assuming I can sandwich (2) 2" panels together to get similar absorption spec as a 4" panel? I'm assuming also that (2) 3" panels (i.e., 6" thick) sandwiched would be even better?

3. Would the industrial products be even better?
http://www.intelligentinsulation.com/pdfs/IIG-402.pdf

Any help greatly appreciated.

Jeff

AVare · Post by **AVare** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:15 am

1. Would the Safing product be a viable option? If so, does anyone have thoughts as to which product on Bob Golds site it most closely represents as the 'IIG Min-Wool 1200' is not listed?

Yes it ts a viable option. Any of the materials with similar density and raw material.

2. Whereas the Safing is available in 4" thickness, the SAFB is only available in 2" and 3" thickness. I'm assuming I can sandwich (2) 2" panels together to get similar absorption spec as a 4" panel? I'm assuming also that (2) 3" panels (i.e., 6" thick) sandwiched would be even better?

Yes you can sandwich two panels together and get similar performance.

This ones a little tricky to explain clearly so read until you understand it, or at least I understand what I wrote.

As you make thicker panels (thicker material, or sandwiching thinner panels together, the low frequency absorption improves. The sound absorption is a function of the location of the material to the peaks and nulls in the air particle velocity and the total resistance of the panel. AS you make an absorber thicker, you need lighter (read cheaper!) material. If you have space to make 6" absorbers then you can easily use the SAFB, of any other similar type of product. In my neck of the world, the Safe n Sound product through the Home Despot type stores is less than a quarter of the cost of industrial product!

Good luck:
Andre

edit 11.17 corrected spelling.

ersatz · Post by **ersatz** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:53 am

Thanks, Andre! I'm still reading up on all this - and trying to grasp it. The info here has been fantastic.

In my excitement of finding a local supplier who would actually sell small quantities (and pretty cheap!!!) direct to a consumer, I didn't find the information on the industrial boards until after speaking with them.

In any regard, the specs attached below for said industrial version of the MinWool 1200 look better than the SAFB version at lowest frequencies - also attached - but NRC for SAFB seems better - what is the difference between the absorption coefficient vs. the NRC? Also, what role does density play in all this? pcfs for the different MinWool 1200 products as follows:

Safer - 4.0pcf
SAFB - 2.5pcf
Indust 1240 - 4pcf
Indust 1260 - 6pcf
Indust 1280 - 8pcf

Would there be significant performance difference between the two products? Moreover, any significant difference between SAFB and Safing mentioned above?

My room is incredibly small (10'8"x10'0"x7'8"H) - so I'm needing low end absorption.

Jeff

AVare · Post by **AVare** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:33 am

NRC is an average of absoption at several frequencies.

Look at the figures for the 4-8 density materials. Thinner materials have more absorption for greater density as less sound can go through the material. At thicker sizes, the lighter material acually has better absorption because it reflects less of the sound. Thicker materials also reflect at higher frequencies, although this isn't always present in the absorption data. Trying to make generalizations (which are never correct):

For thinner absorbers, denser is better, and
For thicker absorbers, lighter is better.

Pricing on insulation is all over the map, but one guideline is that lighter batts have less material, so they are cheaper, all other things remaining the same. Shipping/handling is constant, so that doesn't hold strictly true.

I hope this helps. IF you have any more questions, ask! You can get some excellent performnce and value with knowledge.

Andre

edit 11.17 corected spelling errors.