Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Audio and Video Talk
Acoustics & Room Treatment
Rockwool density for bass traps
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support AVForums:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Vince MacMahon" data-source="post: 975102" data-attributes="member: 17633"><p>I have the luxury of using both;</p><p></p><p>Rockwool I could get at 80kg per cubic meter and the glasswool I could only get 64kg per cubic meter (used two vendors that are a stone throw away from each other). They both measure the same ito size (1200mm x 600mm x 50mm). For obvious reasons, each Vendor punts their products over the other.</p><p></p><p>A popular acoustic shop used extensively by forum members on this forum tend to prefer Glass-wool. It?s better packaged (flatter, less fibers all over the show). Might have to do with greater margins? Easier to work with? I don?t know. </p><p></p><p>I found that Rockwool is better in absorbing lower frequencies than glass-wool (by lower I don?t mean low frequencies below 100hz as none of these are NOT good in absorbing those unless you build a huge stack). might have to do with density, as I have air gaps in both assemblies. My preference is Rockwool. </p><p></p><p>Either way, you won?t go wrong with either application. Much of muchness. </p><p></p><p>I?d Stay away from foam! I found them useless in my tests! Only useful for high frequencies. Another subtlety, which resulted in throw away cost! Please do not put a back board (it?s a reflective surface and defeats the purpose). </p><p></p><p>And if you are going to do this yourself, get a proper stapler! </p><p></p><p></p><p>Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Vince MacMahon, post: 975102, member: 17633"] I have the luxury of using both; Rockwool I could get at 80kg per cubic meter and the glasswool I could only get 64kg per cubic meter (used two vendors that are a stone throw away from each other). They both measure the same ito size (1200mm x 600mm x 50mm). For obvious reasons, each Vendor punts their products over the other. A popular acoustic shop used extensively by forum members on this forum tend to prefer Glass-wool. It?s better packaged (flatter, less fibers all over the show). Might have to do with greater margins? Easier to work with? I don?t know. I found that Rockwool is better in absorbing lower frequencies than glass-wool (by lower I don?t mean low frequencies below 100hz as none of these are NOT good in absorbing those unless you build a huge stack). might have to do with density, as I have air gaps in both assemblies. My preference is Rockwool. Either way, you won?t go wrong with either application. Much of muchness. I?d Stay away from foam! I found them useless in my tests! Only useful for high frequencies. Another subtlety, which resulted in throw away cost! Please do not put a back board (it?s a reflective surface and defeats the purpose). And if you are going to do this yourself, get a proper stapler! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Audio and Video Talk
Acoustics & Room Treatment
Rockwool density for bass traps
Top