owens corning quiet zone

floatius · Post by **floatius** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 11:46 pm

is this a good insulation to use, is it better than roxul or 703, please help, thanks

giles117 · Post by **giles117** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:49 am

Not as dense if I recall.

So not as effective.

knightfly · Post by **knightfly** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:59 am

For in-wall sound control, open cell insulation between about 2-3 pounds per cubic foot (PCF) is best - most of the "fluffy stuff" runs around 3/4 to 1 PCF, which may slightly help low frequency loss but unbalances overall isolation.

Owens Corning tends not to publish these specs for other than their rigid fiberglass stuff, but I'd say you're looking at maybe 1 PCF stuff there. If you can't find or afford the heavier stuff, it will help but not as much as the correct density... Steve

ejbragg · Post by **ejbragg** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:59 am

Owens Corning does have a mineral wool insulation (also known as rock wool) quite effective for this purpose. It was originally made for industrial (intensive heat) applications, such as insulation against 700 degree molten metals and such. Consequently, it is much denser than fiberglass, although looks similar. It is not as effective as a thermal insulator, actually, because of the fact that it IS denser. However, it is more effective at sound insulating than its counterpart, and is very affordable. You will not find it in the average hardware stores, though. You may have to special order it directly from a distributor. I believe Owens Corning has a website that will help you find a distributor closest to you.

One word of warning: One of the application methods is to blow this stuff in with a blower, like the way attic blow-in insulation is done. Be careful, though, not to let this stuff get packed tightly during intallation, which is easier said than done. The trouble is, it IS heavy stuff and will pack easily. You might put some narrow "shelving" in the gaps to be filled. This should help. If this stuff gets packed, it will NOT insulate so well against sound, but will help transmit it. This is true about any insulation you use for this purpose. In other words, even if you decide to go with common fiberglas insulation, as some people do, packing more R13 insulation (for example) into a space than was meant to go there, means you have compressed it to a tighter space than it was made to fill. This will work against you, rather than with you.

giles117 · Post by **giles117** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:05 am

OC's Mineral wool is Fibreglas based. I know I bought some

knightfly · Post by **knightfly** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:20 am

EJ, first let me welcome you to the board - I'm also involved with heavy industrial stuff, instrumentation/control in a rare metals plant - I have to be careful not to recommend things I see at work, because of just what you said - nobody outside that environment can usually get the stuff -

Also, the bridging thing is a good reason to stay away from products - sprayed cellulose insulation can work well for sound also, but can cause big problems with bridging if not applied correctly.

Here's a study done by USG on density vs. sound performance, which is probably responsible for the majority of in-wall batts for sound control being the density they are -

http://www.usg.com/Design_Solutions/2_3 ... onperf.asp

Again, welcome; there's quite a bit of info here, although I admit it could be better organized; all it takes is time

- Now, if I could just GET some... Steve

ejbragg · Post by **ejbragg** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:03 am

Thanks for the info, guys. Wow, what an article that is! One question I have to ask myself is whether the university's research was funded by the "said" company whose insulation they have touted as highly rated? I have to be a little reserved about jumping right in there!

Thanks for the welcome.
A buddy of mine just passed the link to this site to me.

I've been involved in studio designing for a few years, not as a full time profession, but for myself and helping others. Presently, I am sitting on about 5000 sq ft of old church property which I am renovating for studio use. At this point, I am still repairing foundations and trying to get the funding for a new roof. This, in itself, is a hefty expense, as the area is large and the materials I am borrowing for are the thickest I can get my hands on (such as 3/4" tongue and groove sheathing, 50 year dimensional shingles, non-hardening caulk, etc.). I have quite a ways to go before I get to the interior. Although I have already come up with my own design, I am quite entertained at some of the ideas I've found here (truck tires, etc.)! Yet, I will not put anyone down for these ideas, as they are quite thought provoking, and after all, if I set my design in stone before I build, am I not cutting my own throat?

Cool site.

Eric

knightfly · Post by **knightfly** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:26 am

Yeah, even the truck tire thing could work, provided you cut them into strips and used them like U-boats - it would entail some "rube goldberg" engineering though, to ballpark the compression factor of that particular rubber - then, when you changed to another tire it wouldn'b necessarily be the same, so some of your pucks might be supporting more or less than their fair share of the weight - still, as you said, thought provoking.

Materials-wise, this is a crappy time to be building - 5/8 sheet rock at my local Home Depot went from $5.25 for 4x8 sheets to $9 in the last 6 months, 1-1/8 TG flooring ply last year was $32, last week it was $54 - yecchh!!?!

Anyway, welcome - if this place gets much busier, we may have to get some more volunteers; fortunately, some of the regulars help out a lot... Steve

giles117 · Post by **giles117** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:35 am

If that is bad enuff, I saw 5/8" for 10 bucks at Lowes

knightfly · Post by **knightfly** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:46 pm

I'm starting to think the only way we can keep up is to buy building supplies futures so we can afford to buy building supplies...

giles117 · Post by **giles117** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:15 pm

LOL . Sounds like a plan to me.

At least flooring is still cheap.

Found a company that lays out real wood like the pergos are done. In sheets.

They Have maple (very pretty) for 3.98 sq ft.

Think I will lay that in my lobby.

floatius · Post by **floatius** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:12 am

thanks for the replies. i will not go with quiet zone. should i use roxul, 703? or stuff i can find at home depot like R-13 (the r series ) if the r series stuff which number and thickness. im just trying to get as much info as i can because i want to start soundproofing walls in the next couple of weeks, thanks again

z60611 · Post by **z60611** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:55 am

floatius:

You can use anything on this page for absorbers, and inside out walls.
http://www.bobgolds.com/AbsorptionCoefficients.htm
You can telephone around to get local availability & prices, and then use this web page for effectiveness comparisons.

I believe you're talking about soundproof walls though.
I lean towards Roxul "Safe n Sound" because it's good anti-bang for the buck locally.

How thick is the cavity between your walls? (i.e standard 2x4 walls ~ 3.5", 2x6/2x4 staggared studs ~ 5.5", double stud walls ~ 8" )?

BTW, where on the planet are you (country/city/state)?

I harken from:
Oakville, Ontario
Canada
Sol-3
Milky Way

AVare · Post by **AVare** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 1:09 pm

One question I have to ask myself is whether the university's research was funded by the "said" company whose insulation they have touted as highly rated? I have to be a little reserved about jumping right in there!

The article is quite clear in that a series of densities were tested. Mineral wool is mineral wool. Bob's site provides detailed acoustic performance. NRC test reports avoid trademarks as much as possible.

Andre

giles117 · Post by **giles117** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:43 am

Roxul is the least expensive between OC and Roxul.