John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum Archive

Posted: **Wed Aug 04, 2004 8:57 am**

I have seen in Owens-Corning advertisements claims that glass fiber is better than mineral wool form NRC tests. The only comparison I have seen is in the CMHC document 02-108 where it is written:

• Generally, at low frequencies, the increase in the
transmission loss of a partition obtained by adding a
sound absorptive material inside its cavity is equivalent
regardless of the material used. Above 250 Hz, mineral
fiber and blown cellulose give the best results; mineral
fiber insulation provides slightly better transmission
losses than glass fiber, especially around the critical
frequency. Also, in the case of glass fiber, a greater
transmission loss can be achieved by using denser batts.

Does anyone have a source for OC's claim that glass fiber is better than mineral fiber for filling walls?

Posted: **Fri Aug 06, 2004 1:07 am**

No, but I question the statement "Also, in the case of glass fiber, a greater
transmission loss can be achieved by using denser batts" - USG have a page I'm sure you've seen -

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

This is the base research that led to their SAFB's being manufactured at 2.5 PCF... Steve

Posted: **Fri Aug 06, 2004 6:08 am**

No, but I question the statement "Also, in the case of glass fiber, a greater transmission loss can be achieved by using denser batts" - USG have a page I'm sure you've seen

Iy is interesting that you referred to that document. I was reading it (again!) last night. I am not certain, but I think that statement ties in with that the liberglass used in the study was all lighter than 2lb/ft^3. The meaning being that fiberglass would benefit from being denser that what was tested, or other words, that the general trend is material composition independent.

Of course this is only an educated guess.

Andre

John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum Archive

OC Claims

OC Claims