You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Anybody familiar with "acoustic paints?"

Gonna have a tabula rasa room, and was wondering about using these paints.

Maybe the "ultra" at reflection points and the "geluar" all around?

Ultra

Regular

Apparently, you can use latex based colored paint over the top....

An invisible start to a good room, or pathway to sonic damnation?

Anybody ever heard of Quiet Rock sheetrock?

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 7 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Re: Anybody familiar with "acoustic paints?"

Well, I notice absolutely no tests/specs for the paints but I do see this statement: "Considering that most conventional sound deadening products available are 3" thick or greater, one can only expect so much from an application that is 30-40 thousands of an inch thick. " I could not have said it better.

I wouldn't bother since there are products that we know do work.

As for "Quiet Rock," it is designed, apparently, for isolation rather than in-room acoustical treatment. Those are two very different goals and require two quite different approaches.

Kal

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Anybody familiar with "acoustic paints?"
j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 2 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Anybody familiar with "acoustic paints?"


Quote:
You need to consider both absorption and diffusion. To much of the first and your room will sound very 'dead'.

Exactly, then you can hear what kind of ambience is in the original recording, instead of some false, small-room ambience instilled by your listening space.

Is this a bad thing?

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 2 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Anybody familiar with "acoustic paints?"


Quote:
Well, I notice absolutely no tests/specs for the paints but I do see this statement: "Considering that most conventional sound deadening products available are 3" thick or greater, one can only expect so much from an application that is 30-40 thousands of an inch thick. "

Given that absorbent material absorbs volume velocity, and a wall is a velocity minimum, that seems like a very accurate statement, to say the least.

I don't see any mention here of menbrane pressure to velocity abosorbers, but even if this was the case, something that thin would have to have a substantially mismatched acoustic impedence, and it would reflect rather than absorb much.

Sigh. Physics continues to work. Funny that.

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading