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

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

http://www.rpginc.com/products/badpanel/index.htm
http://www.jocaviacousticpanels.com/uk/faq/index0.shtml
http://www.atkar.com.au/
http://graigmarkelmusic.com/?p=356
http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/vicoustic/dual-foam-wood-sound-diffusion-panel-61478-209273.html
http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/vicoustic/dual-foam-wood-sound-diffusion-panel-61478-209273.html

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?

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.