John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum Archive

A friend of mine is planning on using a product called Wall Damp from:

http://www.asc-soundproof.com/

He's planning to use this on the ceiling only, from the bottom up:

3/4" gypsum board
Wall Damp (square patches)
3/4" gypsum
RC1 - attached to ceiling rafters
Roof is 3/4" ply with shingles

His goal is "reduce the energy coming out of the ceiling".... or soundproof the ceiling slightly. Nearest neighbor is far away. This product was recommended to him by some "pro" who is going to install it. He's not doing any attempt at "sound proofing the walls" no MAM construction.

I'm telling him to not bother with the product. Please help me confirm this advise for him.

BTW I'm still on break from working on my studio, it's to dang hot out.

Marc

guitardad72 wrote: BTW I'm still on break from working on my studio, it's to dang hot out.
Marc

Marc, ask Keith to install a AC unit for ya

Ro,

Good idea... Keith?

Well, I'd have to wait for Keith to take another vacation to Florida AND then SWAG with the amount of time I'm taking to build combined with the amount of time Keith is taking to build... it would be over a year before the AC gets installed.


Additional to the original question: My friend has been convinced to spend $2,000 on this Wall Damp Product. I'm sure he should not bother with this stuff. I just need a 2nd (or 3rd opinion) to confirm for him, I've not known him that long. b

Marc

Hey Marc,

I don't know your friend, so I can be more direct than you can be. Therefore, please deliver this message for me:

• Dear Marc's friend,
  
  In the name of all that is holy and righteous, DO NOT waste your money on that crap!
  
  I'm betting that virtually everything you think you know about soundproofing is wrong.
  
  Let's assume for the moment that this "wall damp" product works as advertised. (That's quite an assumption, too: I'd want to see the independent lab test results... ) You simply cannot "soundproof" one side of a box and expect any real benefit.
  
  A box that is waterproofed on only one of six sides will not retain water. A box that is soundproofed on only one of six sides will not retain sound.
  
  Listen to Marc. He has a solid grasp on what works and what does not. He may not always have good news, but he won't lie. Always remember that wishful thinking and money spent does not stop sound -- proven construction techniques, proven products, and attention to detail do.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Fred
  (Name changed to protect the brutally honest)

Sorry, Marc: my construction assistance services in Florida are limited to January!

--Keith

sharward wrote: Let's assume for the moment that this "wall damp" product works as advertised. (That's quite an assumption, too: I'd want to see the independent lab test results... )

Keith,

That's indeed a main problem. Not showing whatever data to compare with whatever doesn't give much trust in a material.
There are clever guys at ASC. I don't understand why they don't publish anything other than telling it's engineered.
I do wonder what these walls do. I have a PhD study which for long already made me wonder if these walls make use of a principle of a very narrow cavity, even without them being aware of it.
The study:
http://www.em.tue.nl/pdfs/Dissertations_2001.pdf
Check the Pages A3/A4 or the name BASTEN, T.G.H.
ISBN 90-365-1597-1
I have no clear answers here, but it leaves for me the possibility that there is something special with these ASC walls (principles related with that study), but for other arguments that they use themselves.
Anyhow you're right not to trust info not backed by serious data.
I'm just curious about these wall principles and Arthur M. Noxon seems like a guy aware of acoustics who publishes in JASA (not easy to get articles accepted there).

But based on the rest of the question, I can't see where this all refers too.
Isn't it possible that that roof is a main weak link in that construction (it often is)?.
Do you know more? Based on the content of this thread itself I should be anxious to write what you wrote.

Yes, Eric, you are correct that perhaps I am making assumptions about the roof -- that, indeed, overhead is often a weak link. But nevertheless, there's simply not enough information provided to make a recommendation.

Although recommending not to buy/do something is generally safer than remaining silent while someone buys/does.

--Keith

Thanks guys,

I have not been keeping up with the forum as much lately so the help in explaining this to my friend is apprietiated.

I got the 2nd and 3rd opinion for him

He will read this post himself and hopefully I can convince him to join this forum to share some pics of his "studio to be", ask some questions and read before he may make a few mistakes... like most of us would or would have if not for this forum.


Marc

Bottom line -- they appear to be trying to sell a product that would work under the same principles as Green Glue (viscoelastic dampening), but they fall short in providing credible evidence that it works.

The makers of Green Glue go to great lengths (and expense) to prove that their product works -- or, to be more precise, prove how it will work under various construction conditions.

I find this interesting -- QuietSolutions has a product they're trying to market against Green Glue, but the product's data sheet offers a dubious comparison of two very dissimilar walls to make it appear that their product has a lot to do with the performance difference, when in fact it is likely the doubling of the mass that is the real benefit.

The purveyor of the product your friend is interested in does not appear to take the job of proving product worthiness as seriously as the Green Glue people, and other "reputable" manufacturers. He needs to learn to be more skeptical because there is no shortage of crooks out there willing to steal large amounts of his money for a promise -- a promise that may not (and, I predict, will not) deliver.

One needs to grasp the basics of the science and be able to read and correctly interpret these performance charts in order to detect B.S. when it's being served. Promises, marketing hype, and customer testimonials are not credible evidence and is surely rejected in this court!

--Keith

Hi all,

I am guy. The guy building the studio that Marc is talking about. I have many decisions to make but the quick of it is that I will be splitting the room in half. One side will be the control room and the other the tracking room. I do not need full soundproofing but possibly some sound dampening will be sufficient.

Here is a quick walkthrough vid it is tno great qaulity but will give you and idea of what I am working with

http://www.stickam.com/editMediaComment ... =176149384

To help explain a little better as Marcs post was from a quick internet conversation.

As you can see there are 2 non-bearing walls that I will be removing as well as the carpet and put in a hardwood floor. As you can see the ceiling is where most of the energy would be escaping as it is open rafters and just plywood and composition roofing.

The room is 15' 1" X 27' 3"". I plan on splitting the room in half at the peak of the ceiling.

I was told that we could utilze the framing posts(1.53 in vid) that are on the inside to offset the walls.

Mount monitors in wall and sliding glass door to tracking room and window.

Well thats the basic idea---Let the relentless condemnation begin:)

Please feel free to start at and unlimited budget and we will go down from there. I do have some funds as I was planning this for a while and have not done anything yet but clear the room of the gear to start the demolition.

sharward wrote: I find this interesting -- QuietSolutions has a product they're trying to market against Green Glue, but the product's data sheet offers a dubious comparison of two very dissimilar walls to make it appear that their product has a lot to do with the performance difference, when in fact it is likely the doubling of the mass that is the real benefit.

Keith,

Without knowing (should be interesting to know more details), but looking at this, I shouldn't be surprised, that this product exists in some commercial relationship or license with Green Glue, and that we basically speak about the same stuff.
It's not uncommon that companies create there own competition under different names, unknown to the outside word. That way they control or at least part in the lot.
I knew a Earplugs producer (big name) who sold different colored, otherwise equal earplugs under a different name via a complete deviating distribution channel at a somewhat lower price. That way arbitrary customers could have the feel they had a choice between brands.
A lot of scenarios are possible.

They refer here to 2003. The application method is typically GG. I have the slight feeling the sold quantities they refer aren't theirs. And if technically the same they even don't lie, and possibly allowed to publish it that way.
If it are competitors, Brian and GG should be provoked (likely wrong word) to compare the application. I don't know if Brian is still that active on the net.

http://www.quietsolution.com/html/quietglue.html wrote:DAMPING PERFORMANCE
The damping performance of QuietGlue is unrivaled in the industry. Damping can be measured (and seen as in the examples below) by using an impact hammer and accelerometer to capture the decay of drywall as it is struck.

The above is Brian's way of thinking. If untrue GG should fight this and prove the contrary. If true, and it's competition, then indeed price pressure starts (good for consumer). But if true without being really competition it only expands the market.
And in function of damping GG doesn't leave much room for real practical improvement.

There are likely pro studios, owning small project studio(s) to cover a different market/target group. This isn't necessarily known by the outside world.
It's sometimes easier and better to own them than compete them.

Sometimes I wonder about acoustic companies, even in groups, having somehow the feel that they more complement than compete one another.