great info about resilient channel
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:48 am
- Location: Denver via NYC
great info about resilient channel
Found this cool article about the history of resilient channel and it copy cat versions. Very interesting. Sorry if already posted.
http://www.pac-intl.com/rc_update_12-02.html
http://www.pac-intl.com/rc_update_12-02.html
Taco taco, burrito burrito, taco taco
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:48 am
- Location: Denver via NYC
I found another really good link on aurlex's website. Check out the pdf files. I read a pdf file of the Noise Control Manual for Residential Buildings by David A. Harris. This guy basically says the hat channel and resilient channel have about the same STC ratings. My local Home Depot only sells hat channel. I've always wondered if it would work as well as RC. Anyone got an opinion on this?
Here's the link to the aurlex page
http://www.auralex.com/sound_isolation_ ... ussion.asp
Here's the link to the aurlex page
http://www.auralex.com/sound_isolation_ ... ussion.asp
Taco taco, burrito burrito, taco taco
-
- Confused, but not senile yet
- Posts: 2336
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Hanilton, Ontario, Canada
There has been much written here and on other forums about how STC is not appropriate for studio applications. There is also a thread where I compared several wall systems from IR-761 on LF TL with and without RCs.This guy basically says the hat channel and resilient channel have about the same STC ratings.
-
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 12:03 pm
- Location: North of Montreal, Quebec
Resilience is only good if you do it right.
That apart, STC ratings should have a "studio grade" quality. I mean if you have good STC rating stopping at 125Hz, this meaningles to studios. It is much easier to get rid of low-mid/high freq. but the 50 to 125Hz is much harder to get rid of.
Same thing applies when you have STC 50 with 2 layers of 5/8 gypsyum then you add 2 other layers (4 in total) and only have 2 DB more of TL. This doesn't translate the same in the bass departement.
We should have a new STC Studio Pro classification
That apart, STC ratings should have a "studio grade" quality. I mean if you have good STC rating stopping at 125Hz, this meaningles to studios. It is much easier to get rid of low-mid/high freq. but the 50 to 125Hz is much harder to get rid of.
Same thing applies when you have STC 50 with 2 layers of 5/8 gypsyum then you add 2 other layers (4 in total) and only have 2 DB more of TL. This doesn't translate the same in the bass departement.
We should have a new STC Studio Pro classification
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:48 am
- Location: Denver via NYC
-
- Confused, but not senile yet
- Posts: 2336
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Hanilton, Ontario, Canada
For studio applications, the differences are unknown. RC reduces the LF isolation of walls. The lack of test data on the different channels makes it difficult to make objective evaluations.OK. But, what about hat channel vs. resilient channel?
Consider though the last paragraph in the following:
http://www.dietrichmetalframing.com/pro ... log_46.pdf
and the similarity in the dual-lip RC to hat channel.
Andre
[edit] What is prompting the query? There is test data on RC wall systems, but none on hat channel systems that I am aware of. Why are you so interested in the hat channel?
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:48 am
- Location: Denver via NYC
I'm interested in hat channel because they sell it at my local Home Depot but they don't sell RC. So, I was just wondering. I'm sure I can find RC though. Just curious really. I did find this, though, from an acoustics engineering company site. They say don't use hat channel, use RC.
"It is important to distinguish acoustically effective resilient channels from hat channels, z-channels, and other lightweight metal furring systems. These other systems may resemble resilient channels, but they afford no movement and are simply too rigid to be effective. Only resilient channels have any acoustical benefit."
Heres the link
http://www.ta-inc.com/newshtml/rc.htm
"It is important to distinguish acoustically effective resilient channels from hat channels, z-channels, and other lightweight metal furring systems. These other systems may resemble resilient channels, but they afford no movement and are simply too rigid to be effective. Only resilient channels have any acoustical benefit."
Heres the link
http://www.ta-inc.com/newshtml/rc.htm
Taco taco, burrito burrito, taco taco
-
- Confused, but not senile yet
- Posts: 2336
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Hanilton, Ontario, Canada
Okay. Think of everything that has been presented in this thread. RC vaies wildly in acoustic performance from company to company, even within companies. Hat channel provides much greater fastening stiffness of the wallboard to the studs. It is less effective, if effective at all in increasing TL.Hummarstra wrote:I'm interested in hat channel because they sell it at my local Home Depot but they don't sell RC.
Andre
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:48 am
- Location: Denver via NYC
-
- Confused, but not senile yet
- Posts: 2336
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Hanilton, Ontario, Canada
Absolutely nothing to apologize for. Good acoustic building is 90% design and 10% construction. Where it problematical is when money has been spent on the wrong product (a current thread in this forum), or the wrong product has been installed by supposed professionals ( a thread on Avsforum).Hummarstra wrote:Sorry, I'm just a little slow when comes to construction. But, I get the point now.
Good luck with your construction!
Andre
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:56 am
- Location: Denver, Colorado
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6976
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:11 am
- Location: West Coast, USA
On standard Hat channel - read through this thread for reasons to RUN AWAY from this -
http://www.recording.org/modules.php?na ... ic&t=22469
I spent a few HOURS trying to figure out what went wrong with this install, til Bob finally posted the pix here -
http://www.pbase.com/jnazzz/gallery/inbox
Note in a couple of the pix that his "resilient channel" is really just standard, NON-perforated wall, hat channel.
Haven't heard back from him, I hope he SUES the contractor or gets him to completely RE-DO the job CORRECTLY... Steve
http://www.recording.org/modules.php?na ... ic&t=22469
I spent a few HOURS trying to figure out what went wrong with this install, til Bob finally posted the pix here -
http://www.pbase.com/jnazzz/gallery/inbox
Note in a couple of the pix that his "resilient channel" is really just standard, NON-perforated wall, hat channel.
Haven't heard back from him, I hope he SUES the contractor or gets him to completely RE-DO the job CORRECTLY... Steve