I do think glass wool is bad for your health, but when you say "Don't listen to the manufacturers, they are selling a product", I can't help but to think: Aren't you a manufacturer and aren't you selling a product?
Rockwool installed in your walls and ceilings isn't being inhaled, it sealed away behind drywall. Properly installed duct work won't be pulling in fibers from that insulation either.
@@malikto1 He is activity teaching and shearing knowledge out of the goodness of his heart, wanting people to be safe and get good acoustics.. God Bless Him and his healthy functional and accurate products
And that's a good thing. However, it's always necessary to be accurate in the advice given. Mineral wool is simply not a health hazard when properly installed.
Not all mineral wool products are alike. The most popular brand, Rockwool, does not have either glass nor ceramic in the material. It's also been deemed non-carcinogenic by the international agency of research on cancer. Fiberglass insulation, also a mineral, does have glass in it and poses greater risk of inhalation due to it's density and how easily it's disturbed or impacted. It also holds water, which creates a perfect breathing ground for bacteria and mold. Rockwool stays in place, repels water, and doesn't burn. The density deters rodent infestations, where as fiberglass can easily be pushed aside to create the perfect nesting place. Rockwool > fiberglass insulation I wouldn't recommend other manufacturers of mineral wool though, and would never recommend fiberglass. Foam would be the next best option in my opinion.
@@AcousticFields dude i feel like ur whole channel is just bitching on how something cannot be done and in general bitch on low budget options and making me feel like you need 10 000 dollars to just start and there are no other options.. Dude tell me please what would you recommend? i read like 5 comments asking you for budged suggestions and u just turn their question around without answering shit...
@@AcousticFields Sorry, rockwool is very good at blocking sound. I built a house with it, and it was very very quiet inside. OP is on the money. It's fantastic stuff.
I used to work with a bunch of researchers who did work in particulate monitoring as it related to human health. I spent quite a while quizzing them on fiberous particulates, since I spent a lot of time building parts out of carbon fiber and fiberglass. They told me the real thing to watch out for is inorganic fibers that are smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter. Those are the ones that make it past the natural defenses in the airway. Turns out most (but not all) woven fiberglass and all carbon fiber is well over that 2.5 micron diameter. Basalt not so much. It still isn't great to inhale anything, but it's that really fine stuff that we should probably avoid all together.
Correction: Asbestos was never "put on" baby powder. Baby powder is talc, which is naturally laced with asbestos. Nowadays, most baby powder is entirely corn starch to avoid this problem.
I dont know why people are still wasting time on this nonsense. This material type has health risks and poor acoustical performance. Where is the cost/benefit?
While the education on the dangers of these materials is appreciated, I think we'd all appreciate some ideas on what to use instead of mineral wool/fiberglass if we're on some sort of budget. Based on what you've stated in the comments, would open cell foam in acoustic panels be the best alternative? Is it effective for stopping reflections or as a corner bass trap?
There is no such thing as a corner bass trap. By definition and under our current laws of physics, small room low-frequency pressure issues are produced at a minimum using two parallel walls. It is the whole wall by definition that is producing the low-frequency issues. The definition of modal pressure requires two walls that are parallel, not two parallel corners. Every treatment type used within a room is frequency/amplitude/usage dependent. There is no one size fits all. Fill out the info in this think. Lets take a closer look at your room issues. www.acousticfields.com/free-room-analysis/
Foam can never be a corner bass trap. Foam does not absorb low frequencies. Low frequencies are a pressure wave that must be treated with a pressure based absorption technology. There are three main types to use depending on usage.
@@AcousticFields dude i feel like ur whole channel is just bitching on how something cannot be done and in general bitch on low budget options and making me feel like you need 10 000 dollars to just start and there are no other options.. Dude tell me please what would you recommend? i read like 5 comments asking you for budged suggestions and u just turn their question around without answering shit...
I have just chosen rockwool over fiberglass for my insulation because it is much less dangerous than fiberglass. Also,it is waterproof so no mold or fungi will grow on it if moisture penetrates the drywall. Mine was actually way more expensive than fiberglass. Roxul is a basalt rock base rockwool with slag being on the bottom end of the manufacturing. I am not saying run around and roll in this stuff though!!!
This material type is for BTU retention. It is designed to keep your room warm and cool. It was never designed as an acoustic tool. It lacks the proper rates and levels of absorption for music and voice.
@@narrator-timothymckean There is no better or best material type. You must look at the room usage, pressure levels used within the room, and frequency range. You must apply the proper rates andc levels of absorption to your room usage. There is no one size fits all room usages.
The recent research ive seen has that rock wool is more dangerous than glass wool. Either way ots not something id want floating around in the air in my studio.
@@scottsmith4145 "Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined glass filaments, glass wool, rock wool, and slag wool to not be classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans", and that's from www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-10/documents/fine-mineral-fibers.pdf What research did you do where you skipped over established science and peer-reviewed work tested by govt regulatory bodies in the US, the EU and China??? Literally, all the science has resulted in dis-proven myths and it's DECLASSIFICATION as a carcinogen. The fibers are NOT insoluble, they in-fact dissolve within 30-50 days. There are literal tons of microplastics casually flying around, particles from the clothes we wear, poly and nylon that take exponentially more time to breakdown in our lungs that no one seems to care about.
In 2019 I build myself lots of large bass traps for my home studio using dense rock wool the same way as promoted everywhere on the internet. Then around 1 to 2 years later I started to feel uncomfortable in the room, first it was unusual fatigue, then I noticed that breathing in the room was unpleasant. I felt that the air was "heavy" and dusty, plus I felt dehydrated and built the habit of drinking a lot more water. I started to wage a war against overall pollution, and thought that most of it came from the outside because I lived in a large city (but lightly polluted compared to some other cities). I bought air purifiers and tried all my best but the problem was continuing to aggravate day after day. At one point I even started to get heavy chronic migraines and it was harder than ever to get to work and enjoyed what I set myself to do in the studio. I also noticed that the "smell" of the panels were more and more pronounced compared to what is was initially and came to the conclusion that the rock wool fibers were somewhat disintegrating into smaller pieces and coming out the panels. I started to make deeper researches on the subject and found that it was a natural phenomenon of this material and that's why it is supposed to be encapsulated within thick walls and not in a room, even if it is "protected" with some sort of fabric, cotton or plastic like some suggest, while still arguing that it needs to be "breathable" so as not to block certain sound frequencies. Well I can assure you now that if the protective layer is even slightly breathable, then mineral particules will eventually come out because they are very small and light and will float in the air, and fill the room for you to breath. One day I decided I had to dismantle the whole studio, trash all the bass traps, and move somewhere else in order to get in a cleaner environment. And god I feel much more better ! I have reduced the power of my monitors for small but precise Genelecs 8330A SAM with corrective GLM software for a more near-field setup, two sofas which jinf of serve as panels and absolutely no other acoustic panels excepts furnitures here and there. Also have a pair of HD650 (flat and warm) and DT990 Pro X (bass extended and bright) which are awesome to alternate with my monitors (no acoustics problem with those). I'd like to get a better acoustics but when I look on the internet most professional brands actually make their panels from mineral wool as well which is crazy !!! Never ever will I put any of theses materials in my home / studio. I realised now I intoxicated myself for such a long time (for actually no better results compared to now sound wise), but moreover, how many musicians are intoxicating themselves all day everyday plus their families because of this. Like you said in your videos these are big companies with lots of influencing and lobbying power. I know that one days this whole shit will blow up, like Asbestos or tobacco did in the past, and we'll have a big public health issue with home musicians and content creators as first victims, but also workers in the building industry as well.
Thanks for sharing. Look into perforated plasterboards and wood panels for absorbing within a room. There are natural absorbing materials (like rice husks, buckwheat husks, coconut husks, etc.) but mold and humidity may be an issue as well as how to make a rigid panel out of them. I agree that the best value by far no comparison is 1) headphones 2) studio monitors with corrective software 3) open door or windows (if noise is not a problem) and then lastly 4) some absorption with the least offending materials. Wish you well.
I enjoy reading much of what comes out of Acoustic Fields, but this posting perplexes me. When someone offers medical advice without a basis in medicine, biology, or materials science, and that advice does not agree with the body of peer reviewed knowledge, one wonders why. Is fear, profit, or something else the motive? There are "double down" statements in the comments that cause concern as well, with Acoustic fields confusing mineral wool, glass wool, and other fibers in one comment, equating mineral wool to smoking, and in another stating that absorption of music and voice is not the same as absorption of noise . For a company engaged in acoustics, that is simply misleading. Noise is unwanted sound considered unpleasant, loud or disruptive to hearing. From a physics standpoint, noise is indistinguishable from sound, as both are vibrations through a medium, such as air or water. The difference arises when the brain receives and perceives a sound. There is no difference with regards to acoustics or the thermodynamics associated with absorption of noise and music or voice.
M, The difference between wave and ray energy treatment is the issue. Wave energy treatment requires a different material type, construction methodology, and a host of other variables. Ray energy is molecular velocity and its treatment is less complicated.
All acoustic energy is in waves. Only at extremely high audible and ultrasonic frequencies are the wavelengths short enough to propagate so directionally that they can be simply regarded as rays. To differentiate noise from speech and music as being ray energy vs. wave energy has no basis in physics, acoustics, or fact. Show me a peer reviewed paper that supports this, and I will retract. You sell product and have customers. There is no need to assert things that are untrue. Not only is it not ethical if deliberate, but if not deliberate makes people doubt the accuracy of true things you say.
Please recite the definition of OSHA "Breathable Fiber" and tell me what percentage of mat'l is below that I understand you have 1st amendment rights, but really this has been the drumbeat since the 70's
@@AcousticFields 3 microns x 7 microns is the magic number I believe. I notice you didn't answer the question. Thing is, Some mineral has breathable fibers below that So some specialized pipe insulation, for instance, could be a concern for the installer. I can't believe if the product is used for plenums that 3x7 fact was ignored by the designer. Also the problem is too many people think fiberglas is mineral when in fact it is molten glass bottles spun into "cotton candy" with a thickness that exceeds the 7 micron value. There has been 50 years of misinformation about this and OSHA continues to allow it's use I think it would be helpful if you were to be more specific instead of condemning all products Well, recent debates had both sides not answering questions, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Please be honest and tell the whole story
Listen, there is way too much misinformation about the toxicity of fibrous minerals even among the "scientific" community. The danger from asbestos is because the airborne dust is acicular in shape (needle-like) and also of a very specific particle size which is both breathable and damaging to the cells in human lungs. There are a couple of other minerals which exhibit similar properties. However if the particles in a mineral product are not acicular OR are not in the the specified size range, they are no longer (as) dangerous. Vitreous materials are not crystalline and fragments are not generally acicular. All dust is bad for our lungs, but the information out there has to be scrutinized because a lot of it sounds sciencey but is wrong or incomplete.
Feel free to inhale as many fibers into your lungs as you desire. Here is the issue with these material types and many others. They all can produce health issues. If you are working with many material types then you have a cumulative effect of many materials over time that can add up to cancer or some other disease. I have seen this happen to my crews over the last 40 years. Liquids that we were told were safe, over time and consistent use turned out to be toxic due to their accumulative use. We do not allow these material types on any of our projects.
I feel like if you don't beat your absorbers with a baseball bat and inhale the fibers, you should be fine. Sugary foods are a much bigger long term health concern in my opinion. And, you can always wrap fiberglass in plastic to contain the fibers. Would still absorb the pertinent low end acoustics. Then put something 'safer' over it to absorb the high end if necessary.
@@AcousticFields . first, you didn't read their response and just went into defensive-mode. "All dust is bad for our lungs". the cumulative effects of the sun are also bad. same with petrochemicals like gasoline and oil. you're just another anti-science huckster selling snake oil.
Fiber Glass is bio-soluble, asbestos is indestructible. the micro phasha (probably misspelled ) that "eat" the outside stuff that goes into your lungs gets stuck open when it tries to consume the asbestos and the enzymes are caustic My simple understanding of the problem
@@AcousticFields this is such a disappointing reply to someone providing actual science. Why should I listen to someone who's counter argument is "feel free to breath fibres"....
Yes, I agree that any fibrous insulation is dangerous if used or installed without the proper protective gear. This is what should have been outlined. And him saying spray foam is ok is living in a fantasy world as in the example of a fire, the fumes given off by the burning spray foam will drop you like a bullet if inhaled. Yes, it is a good insulator and air sealer but if applied without the proper personal protection will kill you far quicker than rock wool or Mineral Wool. On top of that, uncured spray foam in your house can off-gas for a very long period of time making you feel ill all the time of this process.
I was just about to invest in a full studio acoustic treatment with rock wool fibres that I was planning on making myself. I stumbled upon this video by accident while on a forum about comparing the focal shape twins and twin 6s. thanks for this informative video, you really have seemed to save my life with this. thank you.
In the context of home design and health: it's generally always been the case that you don't want to mix fibrous insulation with conditioned space (including wall cavities), this is why exterior insulation with an air barrier is so useful (both from a physics and comfort level) and why all crawl spaces should be encapsulated instead of being passively vented. In this regard, fire and water resistant mineral wool boards are very useful for protecting the home on the outside while extruded foam boards like XPS and EPS serve to keep the roof warm and insulate crawl spaces without crumbling as the home settles. In the context of acoustics: it's insane that people are using rockwool, it's shocking that that's the case. Why not use sheep wool?
@@jrealm5464 Good to hear. Can you point to reasons that underpin the confidence of your assertion and and can you elaborarte on what you mean by "effective"? impact noise for exapmle?
@@jrealm5464 NOTE: Mineral wool was banned in the civil engineering of the USSR. It was regulated by law. Every construction engineer knew that mineral wool is a carcinogen and mineral fiber sticks inti lungs alvioles. Each building built for people in the civil sector underwent a state inspection before it was put into operation. This was an axiom. ***(I mentioned the USSR because the income of factories did not depend on the success of the sale of products. The entire economy was planned, all prices and wages were fixed. And that state needed healthy people).
Yeah this appears to be some fear mongering... there’s also a myth about naturally occurring vs man made products... naturally occurring can be just as dangerous as man made... just because something is natural doesn’t mean it’s safe and just because it’s man made it doesn’t mean it’s dangerous... these products have to meet government regulations the minimum thresholds are usually well below the point of danger.
Acoustic Fields lmao! People aren’t smoking their insulation🤣 It goes in the wall and never seen again, maybe there’s a extremely slight risk to installers... but after asbestos they don’t mess around with airborne pollutants these days... this stuff has been tested, and comparing it to the tobacco industry claims of the 40s and 50s really makes you guys lose credibility with me.
@@Paranimal86 Just read the handling and installation requirements to protect your health. That will tell you everything you need to know. You are "smoking" the fibers. If they get into your lungs its the same health risk.
Thank you so much. I bought my home that I’m renovating. Ripped some walls in the attic and was on the fence on rususing these mineral wool boards. You just made my mind clear. Thank you dearly
I wouldn’t buy what this guy is selling. If you use proper PPE during install, you should have nothing to worry about. I just insulated my entire garage and attics with the Rockwool. If installed properly there is no risk of inhalation.
You are not understanding the point. We are discussing building insulation types used as an acoustical tool. People believe that covering building insulation types with fabric will protect them from air borne fibers. This is not the case. The material that you use to cover the building insulation with allows for air flow in both directions.
@@AcousticFields You are ignoring differences between crystalline fibers like Asbestos and non-crystalline materials like clay and rockwool. Medicine is based on evidence, not feelings.
@@sammiller6631 There was a time when people thought asbestos was safe too. All yall going to be watching tv in 20 years with some shyster attorney having a late night informercial saying "were you exposed to Rockwool and mineral wool insulation because you may be entitled to compensation!"
From Knauf's ECOSE product brochure: _In the past, a label regarding the carcinogenic potential of insulation made from glass fibers was required on all packaging. Following forty years of research, glass mineral wool has been exonerated entirely. Glass mineral wool is comprised of fibers that are biosoluble, meaning that the fibers dissolve in the body in a short period of time and exit the body with normal bodily functions. The scrutiny glass mineral wool has undergone is now seen as proof of its safety._
H, You state: "fibers dissolve in the body in a short time period". What are these fibers doing inside our bodies in the first place? Are you stating that in order to insulate our homes for BTU retention we need to have fibers in our bodies?
@@AcousticFields In the case of thermal insulation-beyond the scope of this discussion-said fibers are safely trapped betwixt walls or beneath the exterior cladding. We're not talking about that. We're talking about dissipating acoustic energy with the panels semi-exposed, in which case there might cause for concern IF one was to beat the uncovered panels with a stick, shove one's head into the ensuing dust cloud and inhale repeatedly. But as these panels are inevitably wrapped in fabric and typically hang undisturbed how many fibers could possibly be floating their way into one's unsuspecting lungs? Not many, is my intuition.
H, Hermiel I have been in the building trades for 40 years and have built over 250 rooms. I have seen what that material type does to worker's health. You can believe what you wish. I will take my 40 + years of on - site experience as my reference point.
Hermiel best not open any windows or turn fans on. There are many seemingly innocuous ways that fibers can be exposed. There’s a reason fibrous insulation material, whether mineral wool or fiberglass, was designed to be isolated from indoor environments.
I'd love to look more into this. Are there any peer reviewed papers that discuss the transmission of microscopic particles through materials such as fabric? Admittedly, I am a from believer in insulation, and the effect it's had on my own personal studio has impressed everyone who has been in it. But I can't refuse good information. Thank you
@@jansensteve06 i thnk i've seen that manufacturing research too. It's outhere. But that's people working around this stuff moving in the air in the manufacture all day.
As long as it is not being agitated by touch or strong air currents, the fibers will not come off of the mineral wool batts. The faced side of the batt is already coated to prevent fibers from falling off. You can spray a mixture of water and PVA glue as a sealant on the sides and backs (non-faced) sides of the batt to prevent fibers from dropping. Wrap the whole batt (or any exposed surfaces) in two layers of fabric and you're good. There's no reason to be afraid of a product that is literally harmless if used correctly.
You may be correct about mineral wool, but I don't think saying carbon 12 is what your body is made of makes it safe. If your body is made of carbon 12, so is the cancer that would be in your body. There are plenty of things that are natural to the human body that can be harmful. I'm not saying your product is harmful. I'm just saying you are under a bias yourself. Being an expert in the physics of sound does not make you an expert in biology. In 20 years you might find someone like yourself bashing your products for causing cancer.
Any material type that has fibers that are made out of metal and fiberglass and those fibers are light enough in weight to be carried by air currents will go right into your lungs. Do your own research on these material types inside your lungs.
Carbon 12 is used to filter drugs from overdoses inside a human body. It is also used to filter air and water. Would you filter your drinking water through building insulation?
I watched the entire video waiting to hear your recommendation on what to use instead... but nothing. You also talk about "poor acoustical performance," I'd like to see more data on that. What do you use instead that has better acoustic absorption?
@@AcousticFields I do audiobook and elearning narration in a 4x4 vocal booth. Always looking for more efficient ways to absorb resonance in such a small space. Right now I have 3” Roxul panels that I’ve used for 8 years. But if there’s something that can perform better and be safer, that’s good.
@@narrator-timothymckean Building insulation was never designed as an acoustical tool. It is designed to keep your room warm and cool. It lacks the rate and level of absorption to make vocals sound natural. Try our foam technology. It was specifically designed for music and voice with the proper rates and levels.
I was about to put this in my damn studio thank god I look at this video before buying I’m going with a different alternative someone in the comments said getting some denim insulation is really the best bet so I got me some 😁
I still do not understand all of this banter regarding this material type. It lacks the proper rates and levels of absorption for music and voice. That's it. If it doesn't improve resolution, it must go regardless of other issues.
At the minute 4:25 he says that they put the insulation around the ductwork and it blew into the lungs of the children.. I guess if you put it inside of the ductwork but I figure he probably put it on the outside of the ductwork
Roxul (rockwoll) (mineral woll) also has the advantage of being a better sound dampener, more water resistant (as you mentioned), holds itself in place better (without staples in most cases), and is a slightly better insulator. When you say it costs more, it does; however, when the labor cost does not go up, it is a better investment. All of these products are bad if you inhale them. If you are not protecting yourself they you are at risk. Thanks for sharing.
@@AcousticFields Yes, they are both equally bad for that. The value is in time. In 30 years one will be clearly better than the other. Thank you for your insights.
@@AcousticFieldsYou know you can cover rockwool in materials that wont let fibers get through. For example firstly, wrap it up in foil, then wrap it in acousticly transparent material. Its literarly solution to everything you talk about in this video. I recommend searching for splutions instead of talking about anegdotical experiences casued by lack of proper preparation and safety.
Isn’t the point of covering rockwool that it needs to be work breathable materials so the sound goes into it , otherwise you are making it reflect sound by covering it with something non breathable
@@heythere6983 In the example provided, they are both covered and breathable; I believe the sound you are referring to is coming from the room you are in. I am referring to the sound coming from the other side.
Rock wool is heavier than air. You should wear a respiratory when cutting and installing is just like with any insulation, but all particals will drop to the floor. Fiberglass insulation fibers will floar in the air. I believe rock wool is one of the best and safest insulation in the market today
@AcousticFields 5he only danger is the partials are small enough that if they get into your lungs then your lungs have a difficult time expelling them just like dust. Rock wool is very fine partials of rock. As for acoustic value I'm sure there is a better product. For insulation value Rock wool is very good. Rock wool is safer and b3ter product than fiberglass insulation.
I'm about to take down my tile ceiling in my basement and though it's not asbestos, I'm still using a respirator and an air filter and will have the windows open with a fan when I do. I'm also sending my wife and kids out of town (I'm also painting the ceilings black for my HT too). Once I'm done I'm replacing the filters in the air filter just to be safe (ill prob even blow it out outside with an air gun too). The simple fact is nothing is bad for you when it's on the market, until the dirty truth comes out 20 yrs later and it's too late. There is never a bad time to err on the side of caution because the companies that tell you their products are safe only care if you believe it, not if it's actually safe. I'll take a little hit in sound quality over a shorter life. Foam might not be the best for sound but it wont get in your lungs either.
N, Building insulation was never designed to treat music and voice. They are designed to keep your room warm and cold sealed inside walls. Manufacturers have taken this highly toxic technology and termed it acoustical treatment. Nothing could be further from the truth. If it treats anything, it would be noise not music and voice.
What sort of foam? Foams off gas. Saying there’s no impact on the lungs from foams is misleading. Horses for courses; while using any sort of fibrous material in an uncontained manner has risks due to the potential of fibers becoming airborne and potentially inhaled it’s important to also acknowledge that VOCs are also not things you want to be breathing in. Ultimately, and sadly, we are surrounded by countless things that are harmful to long-term health in our daily lives.
I watched this video, weighed my options and purchased Mineral Wool anyhow. I used a face mask and clothing to protect myself, admittedly I took extra precautions because of this video. I got to admit, rock wool is amazing! I replaced R30 glass with r30 mineral wool in an attic with a room. I am not a sound guy but the attic went from being able to hear conversations below to not being able to hear those conversations at all. I'm reading mixed reviews for sound dampening but in my case it made an unquestionable difference. If you are concerned on weight, I would use something different as mineral wool is fairly heavy. As for your health, I suppose it's like anything else, just be cautious and aware of the risks. Asbestos is an awesome material, when used safely. That being said breathing loose asbestos fibers is a huge risks and should never be done.
Heath hazards and poor acoustical performance. Where is the win? This is a cheap fix for the uniformed. Music and voice have stringent rates and levels of absorption that must be met in order to achieve proper resolution standards. Building insulation can not meet those requirements. This scenario reminds me of the saying during the french revolution, "let them eat cake".
@@AcousticFields I'm not sure it was ever to meant to be sold as an acoustical product. I bet someone found it it does a little better on vocals than the pink stuff and everyone just made assumptions it would be great for everything acoustical. Rockwool safe and sound is just a tad bit denser than the rest of their products. There is no real magic there and I would guarantee there are better products to dampen sound. It's a great product to use in the bathroom, offices or conference rooms where you want to muffle the noises but it's probably not good for a theater room! It's easy to install and the health risks can be delt with pretty much exactly like we do with glass insulation. I really don't think it's a bad product if used correctly. But I also don't think its the correct product if you are buying it for it's acoustical performance.
@@1D10CRACY Of course it was never designed as an acoustical tool. It has an "R" value. Thermo conductivity and sound absorption are completely seperate processes.The material type does exhibt absorption rates and levels. So do my bath towels. However, people don't carry their thinking far enough for music and voice. All absorption coefficients are not created eqaully. Music and voice must have treatment types that are linear in their rates and levels of absorption. There can be no spatial irregularities when it comes to treatment performance. Performance parameters must focus on the 125 hz. - 500 hz. frequency range and do so with ultra smooth absorption curve. Look at our foam's performance. www.acousticfields.com/product/acoustic-foam/ This curve took 8 years and 2 M to achieve.This frequency range has the largest impact on speech intelligibility for vocals and the first four orders of harmonics for music. Music brings joy to many including myself. A joy that is something that can not be lived without. I want to hear all of it.
well obviously you ban it in your projects, when mineral wool is the number 1 in the acoustic market - i get it, but i really dont believe that theres millions of people using it, even acoustic engineers and yet it is so obviously toxic? i'd like some research on that part, because it sounds very unlikely...
C, A 100 million people smoke cigarettes in the USA. That does not make it right. Building insulation is designed to keep your room warm and cold. It was never designed for music and voice. It lacks the proper rates and levels of absorption and it is also toxic.
Unlikely? why do you think people that deal with fiberglass wear respirators? So their lungs don't get filled with fiberglass particles. Putting panels in your room of compressed fiberglass and covering it with an acoustic fabric (guilford is the most popular) is STILL going to allow fiberglass particles to become airborne. if you use it, then you are using it. if you don't, then you aren't. He's not talking about necessarily in one's home listening room or a production studio. Corning 703 is used in lots of places that are open to the public like offices, hotels, etc. and they wrap it in a Guilford fabric (quite common) and it allows tiny particles of fiberglass to become airborne.
@@Oneness100 Quick question on this. Im certainly no expert...but Ive noticed that these different insulating materials come in different densities, The rockwool Im using to make DIY panels is very dense. Unlike that cotton wool type insulation which IS to be fair very fibrous. Personally I wouldn't touch that stuff for sure. But wouldn't a denser material be safer?
Yes, I have been in professional recording studios that were plastered with Corning 703 wrapped in Guilford fabric or some used some other type of mineral wool wrapped in Guilford fabric. In my own home I had a few large Corning 703 panels with guilford fabric and a friend of mine told me not to use it for this very reason almost 20 years ago. I lightly banged on one of the panels and a lot of particles were becoming airborne, I then vacuumed the panel just to see if the particles were dust or not. even after vacuuming the panels I repeated the test and still a ton of tiny particles became airborne. Just because something is the most popular doesn't automatically mean it's the best. Typically the most common isn't the most expensive and that's why it's popular. Everyone's trying to save a buck, even if it means using something that's not very good to begin with compared to something else. The reason why acoustic engineers typically use these materials is because they haven't developed anything better or because they don't know about AF's products and they just use what was commonly touted, but sometimes a new material comes around that is in fact better, but it takes a while for the word to get out because companies like Acoustic Fields doesn't spend a kajillion dollars in advertising which is what it takes for their products to become well known. Personally, if you talk to any acoustic engineer, ask them if they have experience with AF's products, if they don't, then find someone that does. Most don't because they are either stuck in their own brainwashed mentality or they simply haven't done any investigation of their own. I know AF has tested pretty much every material commonly used in the acoustic treatment industry as that's what their initial research was based on, before they developed their own materials and designs. Something that is VERY rare in today's world of room treatment.
@@Oneness100 Im not familiar with that fabric but I would have imagined that a fabric covering would hold in any fibers? Again, considering the rockwool is quite dense I would have though an old sheet even would do the job. I only recently bought a whole pack of rockwool and am currently making DIY bass traps. The thought of just dumping it and buying panels are not really my first thoughts to be honest. Im not trying to play devils advocate...but aren't these acoustic treatment companies just trying to get us to buy their product instead of making our own? Personally I think I'll stick with what I have. Anyway, on a brighter note..its Friday so have a great weekend my friend. Enjoy the music wherever you are.
looks like I'm using plastic wrap around my rockwool because someone who does acoustics by trade said that it doesn't effect much except reflecting some high frequency so think covering it in some thin plastic wrap is good and the panels will still absorb low end and mids which the most important while high end is super easy to tame and you can put foam over your panels anyway.
You keep saying "Why take the health risks for poor acoustical performance." Some potential answers: A. It seems like "the health risks" are not as substantial as you suggest. B. The acoustical performance seems to be quite good... or at least "good enough" in a cost/benefit perspective. C. The cost of the solutions with "no health risk" and "superior acoustical performance" is so many multiples above the "risky" stuff that it is hard to justify.
You must minimize your health error rates in the materials that you surround yourself with and breath. If you are happy with high health risks and no real low end absorption solutions, then you have found your formula.
I used cellulose in acoustic panels I built, It was more work, but it was definitely worth not having irritating, airborne glass/mineral fiber everywhere in my studio area..
Agreed. Building insulation has health warnings along with poor acoustical performance. I do not see a win here except cost. Do you take cost over health and performance. Most do.
I saw a video a couple years ago where a guy tried and tested different materials to use as sound absorption on his studio walls. One of the best materials he found was a stack of old bath towels. He framed the stacks and covered them with some aesthetically pleasing material.
Careful with the word "tested" --he's a nice guy and all and extremely talented in electronics, but he was not treating a room for critical listening and definitely didn't do any acoustic measurements of the effect of the towels. Guaranteed they will not do what you want if you're talking studio acoustics. Kind of like how sticking carpet or moving blankets to the wall will "improve" a room--sure, some HF reflections will disappear but that's about it.
So I listened to the video, read through a dozen or so of the replies. What I am wondering is why an alternative was not suggested? If the Rockwool is "bad" then what should we be using instead?
There is no one size or material type that is used for all usages. What are you trying to accomplish? What is the size of your room? What is the usage of your room? What reverberation time in the room do you desire? What surface areas are you treating? What are your sonic goals for your room? You can not simplify this process.
@@AcousticFields All good questions. Primarily what I was asking is in the instances where people are using rock wool for absorption, first reflections, for example. What other material would be substituted. Thanks for responding.
Where are your NRC tests on your website, is that what the percent comparison graph is? Rigid mineral wool has an NRC of 1.11 at 125hz. Based on your product page, the Acoustic Foam has an NRC of .3 at 125 hz. That is a HUGE difference. Low frequencies are almost always the issue since high end can be blocked by something as sample as a moving blanket. I can speak from experience that a box of mineral wool 4" thick around a Vox AC30 at max volume will dampen the volume enough to have a quiet conversation next to it. Also a box of Mineral Wool that can fit an ac30 is only about $150 for 64 square ft of materials and frames and fabric. The price using your product would be astronomical.
These material types do not have the ability to absorb lower frequencies at the proper rates of absorption required for small rooms. Most offer no performance at 30 Hz. few have anything to speak of at 40 Hz. You could fill the room full of this material type and still not have enough coverage. Absorption rates must be taken into consideration, not just level (resonant frequency). With middle and high frequencies it is all about the rate of absorption for music and voice. You must be able to absorb at the proper rate, since music and voice in critical listening rooms must be carefully managed. Music and voice are different that noise. You can not use a noise comparison when dealing with music and voice .
@@AcousticFields Okay then what the absorption for your product at 40hz? All I'm saying is from experience, 4" of rockwool does an amazing job at isolating and absorbing. Down to at least 125hz, which is where yours declines. Reason would believe that rockwool at 80hz still absorbs a fair amount of sound. Rockwool is almost completely flat NRC across the spectrum which is great for producing a flat response. We know that density is what it takes to absorb sound, so if your foam is heavy enough then I believe it might work but at the prices of basic foam its just an awful lot of money in my opinion. Asbestos is dangerous not because of the lighter than air particles but because it can actually slice your DNA due to its makeup.
@@curtishustace There are a lot of DIY videos that show how to go about making a wooden diffuser. I found this video to be most helpful th-cam.com/video/ABACqbuBz-c/w-d-xo.html
Mark de Muze thank you. I believe my room is too small for a diffuser. 6x6x6.5. So I am going with sound adsorption. I was going to use 703 and mineral wool, but after this video I am NOT going to use those substances. Thx for the video. I was going to get a free consultation with you all but my budget is low so I’ll wing it until I can have some more $$’s to get your advise. Best to you. And yours.
@@curtishustace You're welcome Curtis, and even if you're on a budget, I'm sure you will find a good solution. ;-) Oh and by the way, the space I work in is only two and a half by two meters.
Rate is the amount of absorption at each frequency. Level is how low the technology absorbs down or up to. Look at the rates and levels of our foam compared to others. www.acousticfields.com/about/
Is it ok to use rock mineral fiber (Safe and Sound) inside the walls between the studs? Fully closed between drywall. Not for inside the rooms as absorbers.
Yes it is safe to use in wall cavities and attics. Eye protection, and work gloves and an N95 should be used during installation. No need for a body suit.
I have a question, you say rockwool is cheap and wont work and is poor for music snd voice. So what fabric should we use then thats good for music and voice and I listened to your measure video which make sense so you decide what you want as terms of what sounds to absorb then plan to build. What fabric would you recommend as a whole or is it all about “as long as it gets the job done” and is not toxic. I love your content. I hope to hear back from you
Fabrics are not a sound absorption technology. Fabrics are cosmetic in nature and reduce product performance. Use our foam technology which was specifically designed for music and voice. www.acousticfields.com/product/acoustic-foam/
I welcome research into this subject and enjoyed your video. But I do question why there's no apparent connection between audio engineers and musicians who spend time near these ubiquitous products and lung disease/other associated health problems? If mineral wool style products can become agitated and shed fibers, wouldn't the moving of gobos in studios be spreading these things all over the place?
Why take the health risks for poor acoustical performance. You spend less to get less performance and more health risks. I do not understand the risk/reward ratio. No one has to this day done a very good job of that one most important truth.
this man asking the real questions i've already packed the structural walls and built traps filled with rockwool and fibreglass and perforated panels that are covered in fabric. Now considering covering the panels with foil instead of going mad redoing the whole fucking thing all over again.
There is a noticable lack of evidence to backup your warnings. Rockwool is not cheap either, it costs 2x what fiberglass insulation costs. Fiberglass is a similar product to mineral wool is that dangerous as well? What do you suggest as a fire. pest and water resistent insulation product?
Evidence is present in two ways. You can examine the fibers riding on the air and getting in your lungs. Couple that health issue with some of the poorest rates and levels of absorption for music and voice, you get what you should get, building insulation used as an acoustical tool. Building insulation was designed to keep your home warm or cool. It was never designed as an acoustical tool. Its usage has been perverted in the name of cost. Music and voice are different than noise. You must use proper rates and levels that deal specifically with music and voice. Building insulation can never meet the strict acoustical requirements of music and voice.
Okay, so it's not a good choice for acoustical use and it is true that fibers in the air are not good, nor are most air particles used in construction. Wearing a mask and taking proper saefty measures mitigates the health risks of mineral wool. However, there are decades of health analysis where people that worked in the manufacturing and installation business using mineral wool were evaluated against people not in the industry for cause of death and they found no difference or evidence that long term exposure was a health risk. I think it's fine to avoid it in an acoustical panel on your wall, but it should not be demonized for insulation use with no actual proof that it is a danger to use.
Why are you talking about asbestos? And no, mineral wool is no longer classified as carsinogenic. From IARC: In contrast, the more commonly used vitreous fibre wools produced since 2000, including insulation glass wool, stone wool, and slag wool, are considered "not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans". Sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_wool publications.iarc.fr/99
Also, remember that normal people do not work with mineral wool - neither do they burn it, they keep it in the wall. For acoustics it´s put inside fabric. One could for sure speculate about this, but not conclude. The science does just not support it, and it´s since 2002 no longer classified as a casinogenic. Other than that, I like your videos and would like to see more comparisons (test data) of how your products compare to cheap mineral wool in real life scenarios. Foam is commonly known for being very bad at bass absoption compared to other solutions, and also creating bass ringing (because of unchanged reverbation time).
And one last thing. Several types of foam emit very toxic fumes during a fire, and is very flammable (mineral wool is not). Read all the classifications carefully. If you cant find classifications, stay away.
H, These material types replaced asbestos. Just because something is not classified as a toxic substance does not mean it is not. How about tobacco? These products are manufactured by large corporations that can buy a rating. I was in the building industry when asbestos was also not considered a carcinogen.
H, Fabric will not stop the fibers from getting through the fabric. Many people in the building industry work with this material type. Read the installation instructions on any of the insulation types. That should be enough to turn anyone with common sense away. from it.
Exactly the question I was going to ask! I have some natural wool insulation in my home now. I don't recall the brand. Here is a link that may begin to shed some light on the subject..... havelockwool.com/?Website+traffic-Search-3&hsa_src=g&hsa_kw=wool%20insulation&hsa_mt=e&hsa_cam=8264971907&hsa_grp=83302630297&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ad=413449749089&hsa_ver=3&hsa_tgt=kwd-599246547248&hsa_acc=3434447461&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI28L-lMzm5wIViobACh2f9g0NEAAYASAAEgJTWvD_BwE
How can rockwool that has been insulated by fabric be toxic? How can fibres travel through the fabric it has been sealed with? Rockwool on its own yes can release the fibres. Ofcourse they were never designed to be used as a sound absorption material. Most of us do not have nearly the required amount of money need to hire your company to treat our rooms, or a similar company. We have to use what we can afford. Most people have a room, or rented room, 2 cheap monitors and an audio interface. If you don't want people to use rockwool what is your solution at the same price? Or perhaps you can tell us what the difference between your pricing and using rockwool panels.
Sound absorption materials all have different rates and levels of absorption. You must define your usage, distance from sources to room boundary surfaces, seated position distances from walls and source and a host of other variables. There is no one size fits all or one material type solution for every usage. Just like rooms are all different types, so are absorption requirements.
If true, this is a big problem. This mineral stuff is being installed in large public places. My church is renovating a large performance hall that needs treatment, how do I convince them to spend triple on foam rather than cheap wool?
I did cover it with chunk of dacron over all sides. It work well in terms of that those fibers are not flying anywhere. Im sensitive for this type of material. It really work. Yes people dont use just fabric! But dacron do the work. Anyway thank you for your shared knowledge.
Think about how the product works. It works by air flowing through the fabric. Do you think that if a fabric allows for air flow into the inside of the box that the same fabric will not allow the fibers to be expelled back out. It's not a one way valve it works both with air in and air out.
@@AcousticFields Well dacron is not fabric.It is 100% polyester in reel. There is no way to blow thru that material. It just eats everything and nothing get out. I sleep in that room..
The particles that get emitted from the product is what he's talking about. Look at Corning's 703 panels, the panels are thick and highly compressed, but If you look at it in proper light and you bang on the panel, tiny little particles become airborne. Those are what he's talking about. I've had Corning 703 in my last room, but I don't use it anymore. I saw how much was becoming airborne and it's disgusting.
@@lauril1377 tiny particles that become airborne and float around in the air are lighter than air. The material itself isn't lighter than air, and Dennis isn't talking about that, he's talking about the little fibers that become airborne. Maybe you are using selective hearing and not really listening to what he said. He said the small, HENCE the operative word, SMALL fiber particles. He's not talking about the large panels themselves.
@Stimpy&Ren Well, they stay in the air an awfully long time, especially since people have air conditioning constantly stirring up the air particles to continuously floating much longer than I can follow how long it takes for them to reach the ground.. What you are talking about is some excuses for using building insulation as acoustic treatment and you've mentioned nothing about their performance. If you want to use building insulation for room treatment knowing the potential harmful effects and their absorption coefficients as not that great for music and speech, that's your decision. I've used some of this stuff and have been in many rooms that also use it and none of those rooms sounded very good and many of them were professionally built under the direction of an acoustic engineer. I've heard AF's foam and LF products in a room they had me visit. Best experience I've had to date. PERIOD. Maybe you should visit one of their rooms and listen for yourself. THEN make the decision.
No more cancer causing agents. My wife is already fighting cancer. I lost my Dad 7 years ago to cancer from exposure first to DDT and next 20 years later he had the 2nd bout of cancer when exposed to Roundup when he developed non-hodgkin's mantle cell lymphoma.
K, Agreed. One must error on the side of caution with so much toxicity in our environments today. I read some where that in 2040 there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. Well done humanity, well done.
Every accoustic treatment expert I've listened to recommended rock wool or glass fiber wool. What do you recommend instead for building accoustic panels for a home studio?
@@youtubewatcher2006 acoustic fields recommends and pioneers activated carbon low frequency devices, two diaphragms possibly of mass loaded vinyl or something and air spaces before a chunk of extremely porous and dense carbon material. Effective to 40hz
Hello, I stumbled on this video because I was trying to build an ICF house but realized it was too expensive. So I saw other videos on using mineral wool to insulate a home. If I use Mineral Wool on the external wall and Spray Foam Insulation on the internal there should be no issues with air contamination in the house?
R value is associated with thermal conductivity. It keeps rooms warm/cool. Building insulation has an r value assigned to it. You must do your research on the r value to use for your area of the country. Most city codes have minimums allowed. Thermal conductivity has nothing to do with sound absorption for music and voice.
I normally only write positive and encouraging comments on videos that I watch, but this one really bothers me - and has bothered me for a couple of days now. In my opinion, you would be better off sticking to your field of expertise and maintain credibility in that area rather than venture out a lose all credibility. Promote your products of their merit alone and not fear mongering or spreading misinformation about other products. Here is one video from an expert in his field: th-cam.com/video/MSJjipaPxUE/w-d-xo.html No lobbyists of governments. Yes, industry funded but I am assuming, like you, scientists also need to eat and don't like working for free and companies need to higher experts outside of their expertise. The 8 years and 2 million that you have spent developing your foam products certainly places you in a conflict of interest on this topic. As a consumer, these kinds of video actually drive me away from your product, which may be very good, because I do not want to support a company that uses these kinds of tactics to promote their own products.
You are free to make your own decisions regarding this material type. However, due to the toxic nature of the material type and the poor acoustical performance, we must ask once again, where is the win?
Hi, let’s say I use Rockwool as insulation and sound deadening for a camper van, install using a respirator, seal it behind plywood panels, and vacuum after. Are there any reasons then you still wouldn’t recommend it, and if so what would be my best alternative? Thanks
Great video, thank you for sharing it! For all of us DIY'rs what would you recommend as a healthy replacement for rockwool in a home music studio? Thank you!
It depends on the issues you are having within your room size/volume/usage. Remember there is no one size fits all. What issues are you having that require sound absorption technology?
@@AcousticFields Mostly early reflections as it's a 4.3m x 3.1m x 2.3m room. So like most small room recording/listening home studios. Absolutely I totally agree it always depends but most of small rooms can become manageable with some cleverly positioned absorption. If you could point us to a healthy Rockwool alternative the TH-cam community would be eternally grateful.
We do not subscribe to any of those material types. We have used them in the past but were dissatisfied with their performance. This is why I created our carbon and foam technologies that are designed specifically for music and voice and not to keep your room warm or cold..
@@AcousticFields Is there any DIY alternatives you can suggest? (There is no way i can purchase from you or find anything except foam absorbers scammer companies in my country).
We have not researched BTU retention material types. I am sure there are numerous types available. None of the ones we have seen have the proper rates and levels of absorption for music and voice.
@@AcousticFields Not referring to BTU retention specifically. I am curious what material type is a non toxic option. If your company strictly avoids these mineral wools im sure you have a preferred material type. What material types do you like to use?
you can always let them off gas for some months outside, problem is no matter how dense foam is, it will never serve as bass trap because of the low rates it has, and bass absorption is literally the most important one for untreated rooms.
Mineral wool is the BEST insulation a homeowner can use! I would tell someone installing mineral wool to use PPE, but I would have no problem having it in my walls of my home. I would use a barrier over the mineral wool before attaching the sheetrock. Mineral wool stops 100% air and moisture so no chance of mold growing in walls. Also, it's a certified fire and sound barrier. Fiberglass does NOT stop air and moisture needing a vapor barrier to stop mold. Still, I thank you for the video.
I'll still use rock wool cubes in my garden for now, but they are never dry. Now carbon I can make in my sand filled kiln then add steam to activate, that may be interesting. Good heads up video, thanks you.
Who else is shocked a company that sells 1K panels don't want you to make your own for 30 bucks a piece. With the money I've saved I can afford treatment for the cancer they claim I'll inevitably get (without any properly controlled studies cited). Plus I can buy some nice speakers on top of that too.
T, Be careful what you wish for. I just got out of the hospital after battling cancer for 5 weeks. I would not wish that experience on anyone. Use common sense. Any material type that can enter your lungs and accumulate in your lung tissue can not be worth any type of cancer risk no matter what the economics are.
How about in Europe? No wooden houses only bricks and mineral wool is placed on outside walls and glued. Then covered with plastic mesh thing made for it and acrylic coats over it. Here we usually dont have central hvac systems and mineral wool is seen only when installing and never again. How about that? Would that be be dangerous?
Building insulation type materials that are used for BTU retention in a sealed structure will not produce fibers that can be transmitted through the air except during installation. Panels filled with building insulation covered with fabric that allows for air permeability are a completely different animal.
Good video Dennis. Cheap is a keyword here! There are also health friendly organic substitutions. For the low frequencies I have found al least 3 such wool types and mixed it with your diafragmic absorbers. My clients saying that Drums are breathing in my room)
I have read many comments on here about your motivation of this video being possibly profit driven. I don't know whether you are or not, and will refrain from forming an opinion on this matter right now. However there is a way to perhaps put some peoples suspicions at rest. Please advise of a product(s), that you can point people to (that you don't sell), or at the very least other companies sell as well, that are great products for sound absorption and safe. (To make absorption panels, etc.) That would be a good way to confirm one way or the other whether your motivations are (or are not) profit driven and are purely for safety concerns. I am sure many people in the comments section would welcome a generic recommendation that are effective and safe. Thanks.
I am not in the business of putting peoples' suspicions at rest. People who use this toxic material type should have no rest. We are in the business of achieving sound quality in small rooms.
@@AcousticFields Yes, I hear your position. I just thought it might be a way to quell some of the suspicions of some of the people making comments in that regard about your motivations. I honestly have read articles both supporting your position and also some taking the opposite stance. I am not going to take a chance on using the product because there are too many varied opinions on the subject in complete conflict with each other. I'd rather be safe then sorry so I am going to find an alternative for sound treatment.
@@uptownphotography Lets look at the cost/benefit ratio. It's toxic to handle, the rates and levels of absorption are not complimentary for music and voice, and you would need a box that is 36" deep to get any rate of absorption to speak of at 40 Hz. Forget about getting down to 30 Hz. What you are dealing with here is a belief system that is incorrectly founded from the beginning material type. Changing a belief system such as this one means starting with the truths and moving forward with the truth until the belief system dies on its own faulty volition.
Question. I only have about $200 for bass traps right now. That will allow me to purchase "fluffy" fiberglass insulation in large rolls. If I wrap each in garbage bags, then stack those in all the corners, then throw a large drape over them, will that get me decent Corner Bass Management for a very low cost? (I'm broke!)
The corners of your room are not your problem. It takes two parallel walls to produce an axial mode, not two parallel corners. Save your dollars to increase your budget to 5 K. This is the standard costs for our phase 1 of our DIY approach.
Thanks for this video, Dennis - it's important information you're providing. Unfortunately for me, I made my acoustic panels years ago before I heard about these dangers. But, I did wrap all those panels with heavy curtain material called "Blackout" which isn't what I would call a "breathable" fabric: I actually put the fabric over my face and tried to breathe through it, and found it quite difficult to breath thru. So, Dennis - I'm wondering if - since the wrap material is quite thick, and the fact that the panels are in place and undisturbed (and no hammers are falling on them - hopefully) - hopefully they are safe to leave in place?
You are putting sound energy into the material, this will help degrade it ever so slightly over time. Your sound creates pressure highs and lows that push and pull on the material - look at your woofer moving air, you get the idea. Mineral wool is not a discrete solid material, it's clusters of fibres, fluff basically that can come apart even wihout effort. Over time it degrades even witout being touched or moved. On occasion I've had to pull decades old rockwool, and it invariable had lost a lot of its integrity, it had fallen apart to some extent, actually much more than i expected. Since the fibres can be very small, they can potentially penetrate the fabric. Only airtight material would gurantee that you block the fibres. Not to scare you, you're probably fine, but since you asked I figured i'd put in my 2¢.
I'm gonna wrap mine in plastic tightly and then add some breathable cover on the front. Shouldn't affect the absorption too much and will give me a peace of mind.
I think fiberglass is not any better that mineral wool. But it is not used for sound absorption. Just for heat or cold insulation. I have looked and looked and after many hours the only product I can find to stop heat from affecting the electronics is the foil covered mineral wool. If there is another product that can stop the heat I would like to know about it.
We are discussing these material types as they pertain to sound absorption inside a small room. I do not see any need to stop heat from affecting the electronics. Please explain further.
Well, we can agree that Rockwool isn’t the best product for this purpose, but to say it is hazardous if handled right is simply not true according to studies. Asbestos fibers cause cancer because the body cannot break them down in 60 years. The fibers in rockwool do fully break down in the body after 82 days. Of course we must still wear a respirator or good particle mask when handling as a measure of common sense, but once the material is covered and hung, it does not break down and emit fibers into the air anyhow. Before anyone goes tearing through their walls removing the insulation, do the homework.
@@AcousticFields Can you provide test results with number of fibers, diameter, length, etc., vs. fabric type and pore diameter/shape/thickness and correlate them to medical studies showing that these are "toxic" as you claim? Such data would be extremely helpful in determining the need for PPE, ventilation, or other mitigating methods.
The IARC removed it from the list of carcinogens in 2001 because of new science and understanding according to this video: th-cam.com/video/MSJjipaPxUE/w-d-xo.html It would seem it is totally fine to use inside your wall as insulation like the intended purpose but it does make sense to avoid it inside vents and such like you say because of constant exposure.
Thank fir posting. You did say "they (rock wool) overabsorb".I'm trying to build something, an acoustic screen that also doubles as a fence, that interrupts, absorbs, reduces the racket from bastard barking dogs that spend their life shitting pissing and barking in next doors garden. So something that 'overabsorbs' sounds good to me. Anyone got any advice ?
You are confusing sound absorption technology with barrier technology. You must focus on barrier technology for your usage. To properly design a barrier, you must first measure the noise over a seven day time period. You then design the barrier for the highest pressure over that seven day time period. This will assure that you attenuate noise on the loudest day. We have processes to assist you with this design system.
I'm. Building the max I can get away with. An 8ft barrier. Constructed with 8x4 by 4in panels filled with rock wool, sheeted on the backside with twin wall cellular plastic sheeting and the working side covered with breathable roofing fabric that is also waterproof. So the sound has no barrier to deflect it as the fabric is microscopically perforated to be breathable and still waterproof. All cobbled together after many hours research into what might work. So desperate now to take back even a little control in a runaway problem. If nothing else it'll prevent these worthless animals seeing anything at all on my side and perhaps they'll go across to the other poor folks.
@@roontunes The material types you stated and the constrcution methodology you have described will not work for frequencies below 125 hz. What are the frequency and amplitudes of your noise issues?
It's very good of you to respond, thank you. As for specific frequencies etc these wretched animals are at the ear splitting high frequency level. We have German shepherds nearby that sound like polar bears barking in a subway tunnel and that's bearable ( no pun intended ).
I know guys who do insulation with mineral wool , they all having breathing problem and always coughs, I told them about dangerous of mineral wool but they don't care because they earn 3 times more then others in the construction sector.
They also do paint job, work with MDF, do wood finish, or metal finish etc. Almost all of them are hazardous to human, yet the construction people are still doing it.
If you are referring to r value, you will have to consult sources in your region. There is no "safe" building insulation considering the health hazards along with poor acoustical performance.
What is an acceptable alternative these days? I do know that if you go to supermarket insulation products do state "Safe friendly to skin, organic, . . . "
This guy sells his own products made of foam and he wants you to buy his stuff instead of rockwool or 703. Typical conflict of interest. I don't trust him at all.
@Acoustic Fields always says his product is the only one that works. He says any of his competitors stuff is worthless. I guess he thinks he is the only game in town. Then he will tell you over the phone that it would cost the same for him to sell you his product than you build it yourself, after you already bought his DIY kit.
For what it’s worth I appreciate the health consideration and him sharing the information. I hope he continues to do so. If you don’t like his video or products you should move on and choose something else 🤷♂️
do not use rock wool. I've been having severe health issues from long term exposure and I would have never used it if I knew what was going to happen to me. stay away and be safe please.
G, I am so sorry to hear my friend. Thank you for sharing. Its through repetitive sharing of personal experience that finally changes long held belief systems.
@acoutsic fields , Iv lived in in attic They had a furnace with a hole ontop of it in a closet on the side , this hole blows air out, ofcourse my luck, this closed area has exposed fiberglass)I believe that’s the insulation used) , it’s been like this since 2016. When I first moved in I told everyone my eyes and Lungs felt irritated in the house when the ac or heat went on . Do you think this could cause long term lung damage at this point? Or if addressed, this could be alright? Iv seen you mention you seeing health issues arise in some people , if you were to guess , would you say this is still within the realm of being fixable for long term health? Just curious what you think.
If to cover rockwool with breathable material , but it is not let particales let through? For example Tyvek ? Let me know please. I think it would be not harmfull if made for example pannel for standing behind recording place , and when it is no need - just take it away from the room. Let me know what do you think please.
L, We do not allow that material type on any of our build projects. The fibers are toxic and enter your lungs. Material types will not prevent the fibers from getting through. To test this, take a black light and tap on the existing panel with fabric and watch the fibers come through the fabric.
Shop vac noise is full range noise. To block 85% of it, you will need to use a permanent construction barrier. You can use absorption at 8" depth as a start to lower amplitudes or strength of middle and high frequencies. Keep sound absorption as close to source as you can.
@@AcousticFields Thanks for your reply. Right now I’m planning a roughly 2 ft cube box with walls consisting of 2.5” concrete sandwiched between plywood. Final measurements to be determined. Outside the concrete section would be some kind of continuation of the box as a baffle system through which the exhaust would pass. Inside, just a little extra space to experiment with non-toxic liners. Also entries and exits for hoses & power, and cooling air for the motor. This contraption will be rolled outside the garage when in use to save space and separate me from the noise. Thank you again. I would have bought that rock wool today had not seen your video this morning.
so this is fun and all i might get rid of all my rockwool panels now you had a nice convincing story but what in the world do we diy builders replace it with i mean what kind of material would you consider save and works for a diy project and yeah i know there is no perfect material it depends on everything but we diy builders dont care that much we build our own so we can atleast afford any kind of treatment everything is better then hearing one snare drum hit a 100 times becouse of a very bad echo please give us some options
Your issue is not echo. Echo is a repeating signal. Your issue is reverberation. You must lower the reverb times in your room using the proper rate and level of absorption for music and voice. Building insulation lacks that important response curve. Use our proprieatry foam sheets and build yoirv own units that have the proper rtae and level of absorption for music and voice.
Please get educated on this topic. The key determinant as to the potential for harm is the fiber diameter and the composition of the glass in the fiber.
Q, All you have to do is look at the installation requirements for each material type. Most require full body suits and respirators. That should tell you all you need to know about its toxicity.
@@AcousticFields I've noticed a build up between 100-260 Hz. A calculator I found indicated the Schroederfrequency was 217 Hz with an RT60 of 0.6. I'm comfortable mixing at very low volumes (60-80db). So that helps. Basically it's a 12x12 room with a 3' deep closet & hallway door at one end. I leave both doors open to lengthen the reflections. So, in theory, the room ends up being 12x15+hallway. I also have a 4' rack of outboard gear on the right of my mix position and amplifiers to the left. (And attempt to narrow the room by 4'.). It is less than ideal. But temporary. Unfortunately, just before COVID lockdowns I sold my home & well treated studio building to relocate to Nashville. On the way I stopped in Austin to do mixes for a client. Then we got stuck in. - I'm planning to purchase a property & do a full build out when things clear up,. So I really don't want to spend a lot to treat this space. Hopefully I'll only be in it for the next 6months or so.(And the market for used acoustic treatment isn't great) - Regardless, I still have corporate work to crank out & could conceivably pick up singer/songwriter mixing to tide me over. Anyway, the reason I made the comment was because the "cheap & reasonably effective" method everyone reaches for in a case like this are products like Owens Corning & (lately) Rockwool. - I've yet to find an acoustic foam solution that is comparable in price. But I'd be happy to be corrected.
@@AcousticFields Now that Kitty replied to your question (about a year ago) maybe you can tell us what are some alternative materials people could use for sound absortion? I keep seeing your replies to this question and you keep saying that it depends on our roomsize but why not just name some materials that you sometimes use or recommend in a few examples of small/medium/large rooms or whatever makes the difference according to you?
What is the rate and level of absorption? What is the usage of the room? What are room dimensions? What are average pressure levels used within the room? Nothing is easy.
so essentially do not use 'rock wool' as a bass trap wrapped in fabric, but it is safe (or as safe as it can be) to be used as some degree of soundproofing? If you built a 4ft x 6ft vocal booth and used Rockwool between two sheets of ply, is this ok? I'm trying to figure out if you are opposed to this type of insulation all together, or only when it is used as sound panels withs improper coverings? Thanks.
What is room size? What is your room usage? What are your reverberation goals? What is your peak SPL levels? There is no one size fits all usages. You must develop an acoustic stratedgy first and then apply tactics to treat the stratedgy objectives.
rehabbed a house 8 years ago. Put rockwool in walls and ceiling to soundproof the lower level from the upper level. Duct work is old and leaky. Even gaps in supply ducts grab the rockwool particles and drag them into the ducts, into the house and our lungs. I got sick. Just torn out a section of the ceiling by ducts and removed the rockwool. Nasty stuff! Why do they make this stuff that we will Inevitably inhale so toxic. Almost makes me think it is by design. I am going to try hemp insulation - not toxic at all.
I do think glass wool is bad for your health, but when you say "Don't listen to the manufacturers, they are selling a product", I can't help but to think: Aren't you a manufacturer and aren't you selling a product?
We do not sell products where materials from our products are inhaled by our customers.
Rockwool installed in your walls and ceilings isn't being inhaled, it sealed away behind drywall. Properly installed duct work won't be pulling in fibers from that insulation either.
@@malikto1 He is activity teaching and shearing knowledge out of the goodness of his heart, wanting people to be safe and get good acoustics.. God Bless Him and his healthy functional and accurate products
And that's a good thing. However, it's always necessary to be accurate in the advice given. Mineral wool is simply not a health hazard when properly installed.
@@juanpablogomez9122 thats very naive, lol.
Not all mineral wool products are alike. The most popular brand, Rockwool, does not have either glass nor ceramic in the material. It's also been deemed non-carcinogenic by the international agency of research on cancer.
Fiberglass insulation, also a mineral, does have glass in it and poses greater risk of inhalation due to it's density and how easily it's disturbed or impacted. It also holds water, which creates a perfect breathing ground for bacteria and mold. Rockwool stays in place, repels water, and doesn't burn. The density deters rodent infestations, where as fiberglass can easily be pushed aside to create the perfect nesting place.
Rockwool > fiberglass insulation
I wouldn't recommend other manufacturers of mineral wool though, and would never recommend fiberglass. Foam would be the next best option in my opinion.
Why would you recommend a material type that has poor acoustical performance?
@@AcousticFields dude i feel like ur whole channel is just bitching on how something cannot be done and in general bitch on low budget options and making me feel like you need 10 000 dollars to just start and there are no other options.. Dude tell me please what would you recommend? i read like 5 comments asking you for budged suggestions and u just turn their question around without answering shit...
@@AcousticFields Sorry, rockwool is very good at blocking sound. I built a house with it, and it was very very quiet inside. OP is on the money. It's fantastic stuff.
I used to work with a bunch of researchers who did work in particulate monitoring as it related to human health. I spent quite a while quizzing them on fiberous particulates, since I spent a lot of time building parts out of carbon fiber and fiberglass. They told me the real thing to watch out for is inorganic fibers that are smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter. Those are the ones that make it past the natural defenses in the airway. Turns out most (but not all) woven fiberglass and all carbon fiber is well over that 2.5 micron diameter. Basalt not so much. It still isn't great to inhale anything, but it's that really fine stuff that we should probably avoid all together.
All of these health hazards, poor acoustical performance, but cheap. Pick your poison.
@@AcousticFields - foam is looking better every day. Layer up!
Correction: Asbestos was never "put on" baby powder. Baby powder is talc, which is naturally laced with asbestos. Nowadays, most baby powder is entirely corn starch to avoid this problem.
I dont know why people are still wasting time on this nonsense. This material type has health risks and poor acoustical performance. Where is the cost/benefit?
Does it really matter what the source of the toxicity is? Stay focused on the material type, installation instructions, and health warnings.
@@AcousticFieldsI don’t know why you spread misinformation and are referring to asbestos at all.
While the education on the dangers of these materials is appreciated, I think we'd all appreciate some ideas on what to use instead of mineral wool/fiberglass if we're on some sort of budget. Based on what you've stated in the comments, would open cell foam in acoustic panels be the best alternative? Is it effective for stopping reflections or as a corner bass trap?
There is no such thing as a corner bass trap. By definition and under our current laws of physics, small room low-frequency pressure issues are produced at a minimum using two parallel walls. It is the whole wall by definition that is producing the low-frequency issues. The definition of modal pressure requires two walls that are parallel, not two parallel corners. Every treatment type used within a room is frequency/amplitude/usage dependent. There is no one size fits all. Fill out the info in this think. Lets take a closer look at your room issues.
www.acousticfields.com/free-room-analysis/
Foam can never be a corner bass trap. Foam does not absorb low frequencies. Low frequencies are a pressure wave that must be treated with a pressure based absorption technology. There are three main types to use depending on usage.
Real Sheeps wool
@@AcousticFields dude i feel like ur whole channel is just bitching on how something cannot be done and in general bitch on low budget options and making me feel like you need 10 000 dollars to just start and there are no other options.. Dude tell me please what would you recommend? i read like 5 comments asking you for budged suggestions and u just turn their question around without answering shit...
I have just chosen rockwool over fiberglass for my insulation because it is much less dangerous than fiberglass. Also,it is waterproof so no mold or fungi will grow on it if moisture penetrates the drywall. Mine was actually way more expensive than fiberglass. Roxul is a basalt rock base rockwool with slag being on the bottom end of the manufacturing. I am not saying run around and roll in this stuff though!!!
This material type is for BTU retention. It is designed to keep your room warm and cool. It was never designed as an acoustic tool. It lacks the proper rates and levels of absorption for music and voice.
@@AcousticFields What do you use instead that has better absorption?
@@narrator-timothymckean There is no better or best material type. You must look at the room usage, pressure levels used within the room, and frequency range. You must apply the proper rates andc levels of absorption to your room usage. There is no one size fits all room usages.
The recent research ive seen has that rock wool is more dangerous than glass wool. Either way ots not something id want floating around in the air in my studio.
@@scottsmith4145 "Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined glass filaments, glass wool, rock wool, and slag wool to not be classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans", and that's from www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-10/documents/fine-mineral-fibers.pdf
What research did you do where you skipped over established science and peer-reviewed work tested by govt regulatory bodies in the US, the EU and China???
Literally, all the science has resulted in dis-proven myths and it's DECLASSIFICATION as a carcinogen. The fibers are NOT insoluble, they in-fact dissolve within 30-50 days. There are literal tons of microplastics casually flying around, particles from the clothes we wear, poly and nylon that take exponentially more time to breakdown in our lungs that no one seems to care about.
I used Rock wool for my walls. It worked well and I don’t see a problem with a well sealed wall
I hope you used a respirator when installing it.
@@AcousticFields no? Took like 5 mins to put it in the wall. We used foam spray for air flow leaks and filled in the gaps in the outlets
@@mattjrk5679 RIP
In 2019 I build myself lots of large bass traps for my home studio using dense rock wool the same way as promoted everywhere on the internet. Then around 1 to 2 years later I started to feel uncomfortable in the room, first it was unusual fatigue, then I noticed that breathing in the room was unpleasant. I felt that the air was "heavy" and dusty, plus I felt dehydrated and built the habit of drinking a lot more water. I started to wage a war against overall pollution, and thought that most of it came from the outside because I lived in a large city (but lightly polluted compared to some other cities). I bought air purifiers and tried all my best but the problem was continuing to aggravate day after day. At one point I even started to get heavy chronic migraines and it was harder than ever to get to work and enjoyed what I set myself to do in the studio. I also noticed that the "smell" of the panels were more and more pronounced compared to what is was initially and came to the conclusion that the rock wool fibers were somewhat disintegrating into smaller pieces and coming out the panels. I started to make deeper researches on the subject and found that it was a natural phenomenon of this material and that's why it is supposed to be encapsulated within thick walls and not in a room, even if it is "protected" with some sort of fabric, cotton or plastic like some suggest, while still arguing that it needs to be "breathable" so as not to block certain sound frequencies. Well I can assure you now that if the protective layer is even slightly breathable, then mineral particules will eventually come out because they are very small and light and will float in the air, and fill the room for you to breath. One day I decided I had to dismantle the whole studio, trash all the bass traps, and move somewhere else in order to get in a cleaner environment. And god I feel much more better ! I have reduced the power of my monitors for small but precise Genelecs 8330A SAM with corrective GLM software for a more near-field setup, two sofas which jinf of serve as panels and absolutely no other acoustic panels excepts furnitures here and there. Also have a pair of HD650 (flat and warm) and DT990 Pro X (bass extended and bright) which are awesome to alternate with my monitors (no acoustics problem with those). I'd like to get a better acoustics but when I look on the internet most professional brands actually make their panels from mineral wool as well which is crazy !!! Never ever will I put any of theses materials in my home / studio. I realised now I intoxicated myself for such a long time (for actually no better results compared to now sound wise), but moreover, how many musicians are intoxicating themselves all day everyday plus their families because of this. Like you said in your videos these are big companies with lots of influencing and lobbying power. I know that one days this whole shit will blow up, like Asbestos or tobacco did in the past, and we'll have a big public health issue with home musicians and content creators as first victims, but also workers in the building industry as well.
th-cam.com/video/KGkLPUXbPYE/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for sharing. Look into perforated plasterboards and wood panels for absorbing within a room. There are natural absorbing materials (like rice husks, buckwheat husks, coconut husks, etc.) but mold and humidity may be an issue as well as how to make a rigid panel out of them. I agree that the best value by far no comparison is 1) headphones 2) studio monitors with corrective software 3) open door or windows (if noise is not a problem) and then lastly 4) some absorption with the least offending materials. Wish you well.
I enjoy reading much of what comes out of Acoustic Fields, but this posting perplexes me. When someone offers medical advice without a basis in medicine, biology, or materials science, and that advice does not agree with the body of peer reviewed knowledge, one wonders why. Is fear, profit, or something else the motive? There are "double down" statements in the comments that cause concern as well, with Acoustic fields confusing mineral wool, glass wool, and other fibers in one comment, equating mineral wool to smoking, and in another stating that absorption of music and voice is not the same as absorption of noise . For a company engaged in acoustics, that is simply misleading. Noise is unwanted sound considered unpleasant, loud or disruptive to hearing. From a physics standpoint, noise is indistinguishable from sound, as both are vibrations through a medium, such as air or water. The difference arises when the brain receives and perceives a sound. There is no difference with regards to acoustics or the thermodynamics associated with absorption of noise and music or voice.
M, The difference between wave and ray energy treatment is the issue. Wave energy treatment requires a different material type, construction methodology, and a host of other variables. Ray energy is molecular velocity and its treatment is less complicated.
All acoustic energy is in waves. Only at extremely high audible and ultrasonic frequencies are the wavelengths short enough to propagate so directionally that they can be simply regarded as rays. To differentiate noise from speech and music as being ray energy vs. wave energy has no basis in physics, acoustics, or fact. Show me a peer reviewed paper that supports this, and I will retract. You sell product and have customers. There is no need to assert things that are untrue. Not only is it not ethical if deliberate, but if not deliberate makes people doubt the accuracy of true things you say.
Please recite the definition of OSHA "Breathable Fiber" and tell me what percentage of mat'l is below that
I understand you have 1st amendment rights, but really this has been the drumbeat since the 70's
You are free to believe what you like. material types that can be inhaled can not be welcome for lung tissue.
@@AcousticFields 3 microns x 7 microns is the magic number I believe.
I notice you didn't answer the question. Thing is, Some mineral has breathable fibers below that So some specialized pipe insulation, for instance, could be a concern for the installer.
I can't believe if the product is used for plenums that 3x7 fact was ignored by the designer. Also the problem is too many people think fiberglas is mineral when in fact it is molten glass bottles spun into "cotton candy" with a thickness that exceeds the 7 micron value. There has been 50 years of misinformation about this and OSHA continues to allow it's use
I think it would be helpful if you were to be more specific instead of condemning all products
Well, recent debates had both sides not answering questions, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Please be honest and tell the whole story
Listen, there is way too much misinformation about the toxicity of fibrous minerals even among the "scientific" community. The danger from asbestos is because the airborne dust is acicular in shape (needle-like) and also of a very specific particle size which is both breathable and damaging to the cells in human lungs. There are a couple of other minerals which exhibit similar properties. However if the particles in a mineral product are not acicular OR are not in the the specified size range, they are no longer (as) dangerous. Vitreous materials are not crystalline and fragments are not generally acicular. All dust is bad for our lungs, but the information out there has to be scrutinized because a lot of it sounds sciencey but is wrong or incomplete.
Feel free to inhale as many fibers into your lungs as you desire. Here is the issue with these material types and many others. They all can produce health issues. If you are working with many material types then you have a cumulative effect of many materials over time that can add up to cancer or some other disease. I have seen this happen to my crews over the last 40 years. Liquids that we were told were safe, over time and consistent use turned out to be toxic due to their accumulative use. We do not allow these material types on any of our projects.
I feel like if you don't beat your absorbers with a baseball bat and inhale the fibers, you should be fine. Sugary foods are a much bigger long term health concern in my opinion. And, you can always wrap fiberglass in plastic to contain the fibers. Would still absorb the pertinent low end acoustics. Then put something 'safer' over it to absorb the high end if necessary.
@@AcousticFields . first, you didn't read their response and just went into defensive-mode. "All dust is bad for our lungs". the cumulative effects of the sun are also bad. same with petrochemicals like gasoline and oil. you're just another anti-science huckster selling snake oil.
Fiber Glass is bio-soluble, asbestos is indestructible. the micro phasha (probably misspelled ) that "eat" the outside stuff that goes into your lungs gets stuck open when it tries to consume the asbestos and the enzymes are caustic My simple understanding of the problem
@@AcousticFields this is such a disappointing reply to someone providing actual science. Why should I listen to someone who's counter argument is "feel free to breath fibres"....
Yes, I agree that any fibrous insulation is dangerous if used or installed without the proper protective gear. This is what should have been outlined. And him saying spray foam is ok is living in a fantasy world as in the example of a fire, the fumes given off by the burning spray foam will drop you like a bullet if inhaled. Yes, it is a good insulator and air sealer but if applied without the proper personal protection will kill you far quicker than rock wool or Mineral Wool. On top of that, uncured spray foam in your house can off-gas for a very long period of time making you feel ill all the time of this process.
O, Spray foam is not a sound absorption technology. All of these materials are toxic and should not be used.
Why would _any_ fibrous insulation is dangerous? It's crystalline fibers below a certain sizes that cause long lasting problems.
I was just about to invest in a full studio acoustic treatment with rock wool fibres that I was planning on making myself. I stumbled upon this video by accident while on a forum about comparing the focal shape twins and twin 6s. thanks for this informative video, you really have seemed to save my life with this. thank you.
Health risks along with poor acoustical performance, where is the win?
In the context of home design and health: it's generally always been the case that you don't want to mix fibrous insulation with conditioned space (including wall cavities), this is why exterior insulation with an air barrier is so useful (both from a physics and comfort level) and why all crawl spaces should be encapsulated instead of being passively vented. In this regard, fire and water resistant mineral wool boards are very useful for protecting the home on the outside while extruded foam boards like XPS and EPS serve to keep the roof warm and insulate crawl spaces without crumbling as the home settles.
In the context of acoustics: it's insane that people are using rockwool, it's shocking that that's the case. Why not use sheep wool?
It is best to use the proper rate and level of absorption to match your room usage.
Rockwool is not toxic and is very effective, even more than "Acoustic foam".
@@jrealm5464 Good to hear. Can you point to reasons that underpin the confidence of your assertion and and can you elaborarte on what you mean by "effective"? impact noise for exapmle?
@@jrealm5464 NOTE: Mineral wool was banned in the civil engineering of the USSR. It was regulated by law. Every construction engineer knew that mineral wool is a carcinogen and mineral fiber sticks inti lungs alvioles. Each building built for people in the civil sector underwent a state inspection before it was put into operation. This was an axiom.
***(I mentioned the USSR because the income of factories did not depend on the success of the sale of products. The entire economy was planned, all prices and wages were fixed. And that state needed healthy people).
Going to use Rockwool for sure now. Thanks for the clarification
Do not use any of this material type. It is the same beast in a different dress.
Rock wool is classified as IARC group 3, Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans. That's the same category as coffee.
Bside solutions well, I still would rather not breathe both substances 😉
Yeah this appears to be some fear mongering... there’s also a myth about naturally occurring vs man made products... naturally occurring can be just as dangerous as man made... just because something is natural doesn’t mean it’s safe and just because it’s man made it doesn’t mean it’s dangerous... these products have to meet government regulations the minimum thresholds are usually well below the point of danger.
I can remember the same claims made with tobacco.
Acoustic Fields lmao! People aren’t smoking their insulation🤣
It goes in the wall and never seen again, maybe there’s a extremely slight risk to installers... but after asbestos they don’t mess around with airborne pollutants these days... this stuff has been tested, and comparing it to the tobacco industry claims of the 40s and 50s really makes you guys lose credibility with me.
@@Paranimal86 Just read the handling and installation requirements to protect your health. That will tell you everything you need to know. You are "smoking" the fibers. If they get into your lungs its the same health risk.
Thank you so much. I bought my home that I’m renovating. Ripped some walls in the attic and was on the fence on rususing these mineral wool boards. You just made my mind clear. Thank you dearly
I wouldn’t buy what this guy is selling. If you use proper PPE during install, you should have nothing to worry about. I just insulated my entire garage and attics with the Rockwool. If installed properly there is no risk of inhalation.
You are not understanding the point. We are discussing building insulation types used as an acoustical tool. People believe that covering building insulation types with fabric will protect them from air borne fibers. This is not the case. The material that you use to cover the building insulation with allows for air flow in both directions.
@@AcousticFields You are ignoring differences between crystalline fibers like Asbestos and non-crystalline materials like clay and rockwool. Medicine is based on evidence, not feelings.
@@sammiller6631 There was a time when people thought asbestos was safe too. All yall going to be watching tv in 20 years with some shyster attorney having a late night informercial saying "were you exposed to Rockwool and mineral wool insulation because you may be entitled to compensation!"
From Knauf's ECOSE product brochure:
_In the past, a label regarding the carcinogenic potential of insulation made from glass fibers was required on all packaging. Following forty years of research, glass mineral wool has been exonerated entirely. Glass mineral wool is comprised of fibers that are biosoluble, meaning that the fibers dissolve in the body in a short period of time and exit the body with normal bodily functions. The scrutiny glass mineral wool has undergone is now seen as proof of its safety._
H, You state: "fibers dissolve in the body in a short time period". What are these fibers doing inside our bodies in the first place? Are you stating that in order to insulate our homes for BTU retention we need to have fibers in our bodies?
@@AcousticFields In the case of thermal insulation-beyond the scope of this discussion-said fibers are safely trapped betwixt walls or beneath the exterior cladding. We're not talking about that. We're talking about dissipating acoustic energy with the panels semi-exposed, in which case there might cause for concern IF one was to beat the uncovered panels with a stick, shove one's head into the ensuing dust cloud and inhale repeatedly. But as these panels are inevitably wrapped in fabric and typically hang undisturbed how many fibers could possibly be floating their way into one's unsuspecting lungs? Not many, is my intuition.
H, Hermiel I have been in the building trades for 40 years and have built over 250 rooms. I have seen what that material type does to worker's health. You can believe what you wish. I will take my 40 + years of on - site experience as my reference point.
Hermiel you don‘t beat them with a stick, but much more regularly with bass punches from music 🎶
Hermiel best not open any windows or turn fans on. There are many seemingly innocuous ways that fibers can be exposed. There’s a reason fibrous insulation material, whether mineral wool or fiberglass, was designed to be isolated from indoor environments.
I only use this insulation on interior walls where they are encapsulated within a drywall wall.
Make sure you use a respirator when installing.
Is it still safe?
I'd love to look more into this. Are there any peer reviewed papers that discuss the transmission of microscopic particles through materials such as fabric? Admittedly, I am a from believer in insulation, and the effect it's had on my own personal studio has impressed everyone who has been in it. But I can't refuse good information. Thank you
D, We will be conducting such tests next year. You could research "air permeability"
If you are afraid that particles from rockwool will escape the fabric and get into your lungs, there is actually a way to contain them. :)
@Stimpy&Ren hmmm. Can you cite some sources?
@@jansensteve06 i thnk i've seen that manufacturing research too. It's outhere. But that's people working around this stuff moving in the air in the manufacture all day.
@Stimpy&Ren 15% doesn't mean very much if it is a relative increase
As long as it is not being agitated by touch or strong air currents, the fibers will not come off of the mineral wool batts. The faced side of the batt is already coated to prevent fibers from falling off. You can spray a mixture of water and PVA glue as a sealant on the sides and backs (non-faced) sides of the batt to prevent fibers from dropping. Wrap the whole batt (or any exposed surfaces) in two layers of fabric and you're good. There's no reason to be afraid of a product that is literally harmless if used correctly.
Spraying glue and a double wrap of fabric should be an indicator of the toxicity of the material. Remember how "harmless" tobacco was portrayed.
Acoustic Fields it's the same concept as wearing a seatbelt in a car. It's a useful contraption and certain measures can make it safer
Why wrap with two layers?
@@laidbackmedia so you don’t get a VD.
You may be correct about mineral wool, but I don't think saying carbon 12 is what your body is made of makes it safe. If your body is made of carbon 12, so is the cancer that would be in your body. There are plenty of things that are natural to the human body that can be harmful. I'm not saying your product is harmful. I'm just saying you are under a bias yourself. Being an expert in the physics of sound does not make you an expert in biology. In 20 years you might find someone like yourself bashing your products for causing cancer.
Any material type that has fibers that are made out of metal and fiberglass and those fibers are light enough in weight to be carried by air currents will go right into your lungs. Do your own research on these material types inside your lungs.
Carbon 12 is used to filter drugs from overdoses inside a human body. It is also used to filter air and water. Would you filter your drinking water through building insulation?
@@AcousticFields logic < manipulation
I watched the entire video waiting to hear your recommendation on what to use instead... but nothing. You also talk about "poor acoustical performance," I'd like to see more data on that. What do you use instead that has better acoustic absorption?
There are many material types to use for middle range absorption. What is your usage?
@@AcousticFields I do audiobook and elearning narration in a 4x4 vocal booth. Always looking for more efficient ways to absorb resonance in such a small space. Right now I have 3” Roxul panels that I’ve used for 8 years. But if there’s something that can perform better and be safer, that’s good.
@@narrator-timothymckean Building insulation was never designed as an acoustical tool. It is designed to keep your room warm and cool. It lacks the rate and level of absorption to make vocals sound natural. Try our foam technology. It was specifically designed for music and voice with the proper rates and levels.
I'd use Rockwool on the outside of a building. There are other inorganic dusts used in the building trades that cause lung problems. Use a respirator.
I was about to put this in my damn studio thank god I look at this video before buying I’m going with a different alternative someone in the comments said getting some denim insulation is really the best bet so I got me some 😁
@@alien-hs1zn Cotton dust is actually very dangerous.
I still do not understand all of this banter regarding this material type. It lacks the proper rates and levels of absorption for music and voice. That's it. If it doesn't improve resolution, it must go regardless of other issues.
At the minute 4:25 he says that they put the insulation around the ductwork and it blew into the lungs of the children.. I guess if you put it inside of the ductwork but I figure he probably put it on the outside of the ductwork
Dont put it anywhere. There are much better material types to use to manage vibrations.
Roxul (rockwoll) (mineral woll) also has the advantage of being a better sound dampener, more water resistant (as you mentioned), holds itself in place better (without staples in most cases), and is a slightly better insulator. When you say it costs more, it does; however, when the labor cost does not go up, it is a better investment. All of these products are bad if you inhale them. If you are not protecting yourself they you are at risk. Thanks for sharing.
You are inhaling them when you use boxes filled with building insulation as an acoustical tool.
@@AcousticFields Yes, they are both equally bad for that. The value is in time. In 30 years one will be clearly better than the other. Thank you for your insights.
@@AcousticFieldsYou know you can cover rockwool in materials that wont let fibers get through. For example firstly, wrap it up in foil, then wrap it in acousticly transparent material. Its literarly solution to everything you talk about in this video. I recommend searching for splutions instead of talking about anegdotical experiences casued by lack of proper preparation and safety.
Isn’t the point of covering rockwool that it needs to be work breathable materials so the sound goes into it , otherwise you are making it reflect sound by covering it with something non breathable
@@heythere6983 In the example provided, they are both covered and breathable; I believe the sound you are referring to is coming from the room you are in. I am referring to the sound coming from the other side.
Rock wool is heavier than air. You should wear a respiratory when cutting and installing is just like with any insulation, but all particals will drop to the floor. Fiberglass insulation fibers will floar in the air. I believe rock wool is one of the best and safest insulation in the market today
Why use a product that has health risks along with poor acoustical performance? Where is the win?
@AcousticFields 5he only danger is the partials are small enough that if they get into your lungs then your lungs have a difficult time expelling them just like dust. Rock wool is very fine partials of rock. As for acoustic value I'm sure there is a better product. For insulation value Rock wool is very good. Rock wool is safer and b3ter product than fiberglass insulation.
I'm about to take down my tile ceiling in my basement and though it's not asbestos, I'm still using a respirator and an air filter and will have the windows open with a fan when I do. I'm also sending my wife and kids out of town (I'm also painting the ceilings black for my HT too). Once I'm done I'm replacing the filters in the air filter just to be safe (ill prob even blow it out outside with an air gun too). The simple fact is nothing is bad for you when it's on the market, until the dirty truth comes out 20 yrs later and it's too late. There is never a bad time to err on the side of caution because the companies that tell you their products are safe only care if you believe it, not if it's actually safe. I'll take a little hit in sound quality over a shorter life. Foam might not be the best for sound but it wont get in your lungs either.
N, Building insulation was never designed to treat music and voice. They are designed to keep your room warm and cold sealed inside walls. Manufacturers have taken this highly toxic technology and termed it acoustical treatment. Nothing could be further from the truth. If it treats anything, it would be noise not music and voice.
@@AcousticFieldsnoise is a humongous problem tho.
What sort of foam? Foams off gas. Saying there’s no impact on the lungs from foams is misleading. Horses for courses; while using any sort of fibrous material in an uncontained manner has risks due to the potential of fibers becoming airborne and potentially inhaled it’s important to also acknowledge that VOCs are also not things you want to be breathing in. Ultimately, and sadly, we are surrounded by countless things that are harmful to long-term health in our daily lives.
I watched this video, weighed my options and purchased Mineral Wool anyhow. I used a face mask and clothing to protect myself, admittedly I took extra precautions because of this video. I got to admit, rock wool is amazing! I replaced R30 glass with r30 mineral wool in an attic with a room. I am not a sound guy but the attic went from being able to hear conversations below to not being able to hear those conversations at all. I'm reading mixed reviews for sound dampening but in my case it made an unquestionable difference. If you are concerned on weight, I would use something different as mineral wool is fairly heavy. As for your health, I suppose it's like anything else, just be cautious and aware of the risks. Asbestos is an awesome material, when used safely. That being said breathing loose asbestos fibers is a huge risks and should never be done.
Heath hazards and poor acoustical performance. Where is the win? This is a cheap fix for the uniformed. Music and voice have stringent rates and levels of absorption that must be met in order to achieve proper resolution standards. Building insulation can not meet those requirements. This scenario reminds me of the saying during the french revolution, "let them eat cake".
@@AcousticFields I'm not sure it was ever to meant to be sold as an acoustical product. I bet someone found it it does a little better on vocals than the pink stuff and everyone just made assumptions it would be great for everything acoustical. Rockwool safe and sound is just a tad bit denser than the rest of their products. There is no real magic there and I would guarantee there are better products to dampen sound. It's a great product to use in the bathroom, offices or conference rooms where you want to muffle the noises but it's probably not good for a theater room! It's easy to install and the health risks can be delt with pretty much exactly like we do with glass insulation. I really don't think it's a bad product if used correctly. But I also don't think its the correct product if you are buying it for it's acoustical performance.
@@1D10CRACY Of course it was never designed as an acoustical tool. It has an "R" value. Thermo conductivity and sound absorption are completely seperate processes.The material type does exhibt absorption rates and levels. So do my bath towels. However, people don't carry their thinking far enough for music and voice. All absorption coefficients are not created eqaully. Music and voice must have treatment types that are linear in their rates and levels of absorption. There can be no spatial irregularities when it comes to treatment performance. Performance parameters must focus on the 125 hz. - 500 hz. frequency range and do so with ultra smooth absorption curve. Look at our foam's performance. www.acousticfields.com/product/acoustic-foam/ This curve took 8 years and 2 M to achieve.This frequency range has the largest impact on speech intelligibility for vocals and the first four orders of harmonics for music. Music brings joy to many including myself. A joy that is something that can not be lived without. I want to hear all of it.
well obviously you ban it in your projects, when mineral wool is the number 1 in the acoustic market - i get it, but i really dont believe that theres millions of people using it, even acoustic engineers and yet it is so obviously toxic? i'd like some research on that part, because it sounds very unlikely...
C, A 100 million people smoke cigarettes in the USA. That does not make it right. Building insulation is designed to keep your room warm and cold. It was never designed for music and voice. It lacks the proper rates and levels of absorption and it is also toxic.
Unlikely? why do you think people that deal with fiberglass wear respirators? So their lungs don't get filled with fiberglass particles. Putting panels in your room of compressed fiberglass and covering it with an acoustic fabric (guilford is the most popular) is STILL going to allow fiberglass particles to become airborne. if you use it, then you are using it. if you don't, then you aren't.
He's not talking about necessarily in one's home listening room or a production studio. Corning 703 is used in lots of places that are open to the public like offices, hotels, etc. and they wrap it in a Guilford fabric (quite common) and it allows tiny particles of fiberglass to become airborne.
@@Oneness100 Quick question on this. Im certainly no expert...but Ive noticed that these different insulating materials come in different densities, The rockwool Im using to make DIY panels is very dense. Unlike that cotton wool type insulation which IS to be fair very fibrous. Personally I wouldn't touch that stuff for sure. But wouldn't a denser material be safer?
Yes, I have been in professional recording studios that were plastered with Corning 703 wrapped in Guilford fabric or some used some other type of mineral wool wrapped in Guilford fabric.
In my own home I had a few large Corning 703 panels with guilford fabric and a friend of mine told me not to use it for this very reason almost 20 years ago. I lightly banged on one of the panels and a lot of particles were becoming airborne, I then vacuumed the panel just to see if the particles were dust or not. even after vacuuming the panels I repeated the test and still a ton of tiny particles became airborne.
Just because something is the most popular doesn't automatically mean it's the best. Typically the most common isn't the most expensive and that's why it's popular. Everyone's trying to save a buck, even if it means using something that's not very good to begin with compared to something else.
The reason why acoustic engineers typically use these materials is because they haven't developed anything better or because they don't know about AF's products and they just use what was commonly touted, but sometimes a new material comes around that is in fact better, but it takes a while for the word to get out because companies like Acoustic Fields doesn't spend a kajillion dollars in advertising which is what it takes for their products to become well known.
Personally, if you talk to any acoustic engineer, ask them if they have experience with AF's products, if they don't, then find someone that does. Most don't because they are either stuck in their own brainwashed mentality or they simply haven't done any investigation of their own.
I know AF has tested pretty much every material commonly used in the acoustic treatment industry as that's what their initial research was based on, before they developed their own materials and designs. Something that is VERY rare in today's world of room treatment.
@@Oneness100 Im not familiar with that fabric but I would have imagined that a fabric covering would hold in any fibers? Again, considering the rockwool is quite dense I would have though an old sheet even would do the job. I only recently bought a whole pack of rockwool and am currently making DIY bass traps. The thought of just dumping it and buying panels are not really my first thoughts to be honest. Im not trying to play devils advocate...but aren't these acoustic treatment companies just trying to get us to buy their product instead of making our own? Personally I think I'll stick with what I have. Anyway, on a brighter note..its Friday so have a great weekend my friend. Enjoy the music wherever you are.
looks like I'm using plastic wrap around my rockwool because someone who does acoustics by trade said that it doesn't effect much except reflecting some high frequency so think covering it in some thin plastic wrap is good and the panels will still absorb low end and mids which the most important while high end is super easy to tame and you can put foam over your panels anyway.
Now you will need another product to absorb higher frequencies. Seems like the cost/benefit ratio is not working with this material type.
You keep saying "Why take the health risks for poor acoustical performance." Some potential answers: A. It seems like "the health risks" are not as substantial as you suggest. B. The acoustical performance seems to be quite good... or at least "good enough" in a cost/benefit perspective. C. The cost of the solutions with "no health risk" and "superior acoustical performance" is so many multiples above the "risky" stuff that it is hard to justify.
You must minimize your health error rates in the materials that you surround yourself with and breath. If you are happy with high health risks and no real low end absorption solutions, then you have found your formula.
I used cellulose in acoustic panels I built,
It was more work, but it was definitely worth not having irritating, airborne glass/mineral fiber everywhere in my studio area..
Agreed. Building insulation has health warnings along with poor acoustical performance. I do not see a win here except cost. Do you take cost over health and performance. Most do.
I saw a video a couple years ago where a guy tried and tested different materials to use as sound absorption on his studio walls. One of the best materials he found was a stack of old bath towels. He framed the stacks and covered them with some aesthetically pleasing material.
it was DIY Perks
Do you have a link to that video?
Careful with the word "tested" --he's a nice guy and all and extremely talented in electronics, but he was not treating a room for critical listening and definitely didn't do any acoustic measurements of the effect of the towels. Guaranteed they will not do what you want if you're talking studio acoustics. Kind of like how sticking carpet or moving blankets to the wall will "improve" a room--sure, some HF reflections will disappear but that's about it.
So I listened to the video, read through a dozen or so of the replies. What I am wondering is why an alternative was not suggested? If the Rockwool is "bad" then what should we be using instead?
There is no one size or material type that is used for all usages. What are you trying to accomplish? What is the size of your room? What is the usage of your room? What reverberation time in the room do you desire? What surface areas are you treating? What are your sonic goals for your room? You can not simplify this process.
@@AcousticFields All good questions. Primarily what I was asking is in the instances where people are using rock wool for absorption, first reflections, for example. What other material would be substituted. Thanks for responding.
@@markwood8212 This material type lacks the proper rates and levels of absorption for music and voice.
As we know, always where your ppe when installing installation, mixing mortar, sweeping floors in basement etc. Common sense
We find that there is no such thing as "common sense".
Where are your NRC tests on your website, is that what the percent comparison graph is? Rigid mineral wool has an NRC of 1.11 at 125hz. Based on your product page, the Acoustic Foam has an NRC of .3 at 125 hz. That is a HUGE difference. Low frequencies are almost always the issue since high end can be blocked by something as sample as a moving blanket. I can speak from experience that a box of mineral wool 4" thick around a Vox AC30 at max volume will dampen the volume enough to have a quiet conversation next to it. Also a box of Mineral Wool that can fit an ac30 is only about $150 for 64 square ft of materials and frames and fabric. The price using your product would be astronomical.
These material types do not have the ability to absorb lower frequencies at the proper rates of absorption required for small rooms. Most offer no performance at 30 Hz. few have anything to speak of at 40 Hz. You could fill the room full of this material type and still not have enough coverage. Absorption rates must be taken into consideration, not just level (resonant frequency). With middle and high frequencies it is all about the rate of absorption for music and voice. You must be able to absorb at the proper rate, since music and voice in critical listening rooms must be carefully managed. Music and voice are different that noise. You can not use a noise comparison when dealing with music and voice .
@@AcousticFields Okay then what the absorption for your product at 40hz? All I'm saying is from experience, 4" of rockwool does an amazing job at isolating and absorbing. Down to at least 125hz, which is where yours declines. Reason would believe that rockwool at 80hz still absorbs a fair amount of sound. Rockwool is almost completely flat NRC across the spectrum which is great for producing a flat response. We know that density is what it takes to absorb sound, so if your foam is heavy enough then I believe it might work but at the prices of basic foam its just an awful lot of money in my opinion. Asbestos is dangerous not because of the lighter than air particles but because it can actually slice your DNA due to its makeup.
@@AcousticFields If you wrap a sub with a 40hz sine wave in your product does it significantly reduce the volume outside? Cause mineral wool does.
What is the safest and most effective alternatives for Owens and Rockwool for sound absorption purposes?
A panel of wood blocks. :-)
@@Hyper5nic If I wanted to make a diffuser panel of blocks, is there a software or a way to design it?
@@curtishustace There are a lot of DIY videos that show how to go about making a wooden diffuser.
I found this video to be most helpful
th-cam.com/video/ABACqbuBz-c/w-d-xo.html
Mark de Muze thank you. I believe my room is too small for a diffuser. 6x6x6.5. So I am going with sound adsorption. I was going to use 703 and mineral wool, but after this video I am NOT going to use those substances. Thx for the video. I was going to get a free consultation with you all but my budget is low so I’ll wing it until I can have some more $$’s to get your advise. Best to you. And yours.
@@curtishustace You're welcome Curtis, and even if you're on a budget, I'm sure you will find a good solution. ;-) Oh and by the way, the space I work in is only two and a half by two meters.
Can you clarify 'rates and levels of absorption'? Are you referring to the absorption coefficients?
Rate is the amount of absorption at each frequency. Level is how low the technology absorbs down or up to. Look at the rates and levels of our foam compared to others. www.acousticfields.com/about/
Is it ok to use rock mineral fiber (Safe and Sound) inside the walls between the studs? Fully closed between drywall. Not for inside the rooms as absorbers.
K, It would depend on the preparations you have to make to install it. Use respirators and body suits.
@@AcousticFields Thank you
K Rider Owens Corning THERMAFIBER offers a higher recycled content a cross the board, even formaldehyde free.
Yes it is safe to use in wall cavities and attics. Eye protection, and work gloves and an N95 should be used during installation. No need for a body suit.
I have a question, you say rockwool is cheap and wont work and is poor for music snd voice. So what fabric should we use then thats good for music and voice and I listened to your measure video which make sense so you decide what you want as terms of what sounds to absorb then plan to build. What fabric would you recommend as a whole or is it all about “as long as it gets the job done” and is not toxic. I love your content. I hope to hear back from you
Fabrics are not a sound absorption technology. Fabrics are cosmetic in nature and reduce product performance. Use our foam technology which was specifically designed for music and voice.
www.acousticfields.com/product/acoustic-foam/
@@AcousticFields What are the stats of your foam?
Density: _______
Compression Rate: ________
Overall Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC): _______
I welcome research into this subject and enjoyed your video. But I do question why there's no apparent connection between audio engineers and musicians who spend time near these ubiquitous products and lung disease/other associated health problems? If mineral wool style products can become agitated and shed fibers, wouldn't the moving of gobos in studios be spreading these things all over the place?
Why take the health risks for poor acoustical performance. You spend less to get less performance and more health risks. I do not understand the risk/reward ratio. No one has to this day done a very good job of that one most important truth.
Are you sure professionals are even using this? Or is it more like wannabe pro youtuber types?
Sir, do you do consultations online I am looking to protect sound from neighbours
Yes, we have both noise and treatment design options.
www.acousticfields.com/sound-barrier-technology/
I’m so glad you brought this to the attention of the public....thank you.....!
Thank you for your support.
This is a lie.
@@jrealm5464 what part?
Rockwool is good ?
None of this material type is good for health or acoustics. It lacks the ability to absorb properly for music and voice.
@@AcousticFields which one is good sir ?
What about if you wrap them in plastic foil?
this man asking the real questions
i've already packed the structural walls and built traps filled with rockwool and fibreglass and perforated panels that are covered in fabric. Now considering covering the panels with foil instead of going mad redoing the whole fucking thing all over again.
Wouldn’t that reduce insulation / sound absorption
There is a noticable lack of evidence to backup your warnings. Rockwool is not cheap either, it costs 2x what fiberglass insulation costs. Fiberglass is a similar product to mineral wool is that dangerous as well? What do you suggest as a fire. pest and water resistent insulation product?
Evidence is present in two ways. You can examine the fibers riding on the air and getting in your lungs. Couple that health issue with some of the poorest rates and levels of absorption for music and voice, you get what you should get, building insulation used as an acoustical tool. Building insulation was designed to keep your home warm or cool. It was never designed as an acoustical tool. Its usage has been perverted in the name of cost. Music and voice are different than noise. You must use proper rates and levels that deal specifically with music and voice. Building insulation can never meet the strict acoustical requirements of music and voice.
Okay, so it's not a good choice for acoustical use and it is true that fibers in the air are not good, nor are most air particles used in construction. Wearing a mask and taking proper saefty measures mitigates the health risks of mineral wool. However, there are decades of health analysis where people that worked in the manufacturing and installation business using mineral wool were evaluated against people not in the industry for cause of death and they found no difference or evidence that long term exposure was a health risk. I think it's fine to avoid it in an acoustical panel on your wall, but it should not be demonized for insulation use with no actual proof that it is a danger to use.
Why are you talking about asbestos? And no, mineral wool is no longer classified as carsinogenic. From IARC: In contrast, the more commonly used vitreous fibre wools produced since 2000, including insulation glass wool, stone wool, and slag wool, are considered "not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans".
Sources:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_wool
publications.iarc.fr/99
Also, remember that normal people do not work with mineral wool - neither do they burn it, they keep it in the wall. For acoustics it´s put inside fabric. One could for sure speculate about this, but not conclude. The science does just not support it, and it´s since 2002 no longer classified as a casinogenic. Other than that, I like your videos and would like to see more comparisons (test data) of how your products compare to cheap mineral wool in real life scenarios.
Foam is commonly known for being very bad at bass absoption compared to other solutions, and also creating bass ringing (because of unchanged reverbation time).
And one last thing. Several types of foam emit very toxic fumes during a fire, and is very flammable (mineral wool is not). Read all the classifications carefully. If you cant find classifications, stay away.
H, These material types replaced asbestos. Just because something is not classified as a toxic substance does not mean it is not. How about tobacco? These products are manufactured by large corporations that can buy a rating. I was in the building industry when asbestos was also not considered a carcinogen.
H, Fabric will not stop the fibers from getting through the fabric. Many people in the building industry work with this material type. Read the installation instructions on any of the insulation types. That should be enough to turn anyone with common sense away. from it.
Can the fibers get out even if behind a drywall?
Stay away from this material type for all usages. Read the installation requirements.
Do you have any experience with or information for use of sheep's wool as insulation or sound absorption ?
P, I do not but it warrants testing as an alternative to toxic mineral wool and fiberglass.
Exactly the question I was going to ask! I have some natural wool insulation in my home now. I don't recall the brand. Here is a link that may begin to shed some light on the subject.....
havelockwool.com/?Website+traffic-Search-3&hsa_src=g&hsa_kw=wool%20insulation&hsa_mt=e&hsa_cam=8264971907&hsa_grp=83302630297&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ad=413449749089&hsa_ver=3&hsa_tgt=kwd-599246547248&hsa_acc=3434447461&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI28L-lMzm5wIViobACh2f9g0NEAAYASAAEgJTWvD_BwE
How can rockwool that has been insulated by fabric be toxic? How can fibres travel through the fabric it has been sealed with? Rockwool on its own yes can release the fibres.
Ofcourse they were never designed to be used as a sound absorption material. Most of us do not have nearly the required amount of money need to hire your company to treat our rooms, or a similar company. We have to use what we can afford. Most people have a room, or rented room, 2 cheap monitors and an audio interface.
If you don't want people to use rockwool what is your solution at the same price?
Or perhaps you can tell us what the difference between your pricing and using rockwool panels.
Sound absorption materials all have different rates and levels of absorption. You must define your usage, distance from sources to room boundary surfaces, seated position distances from walls and source and a host of other variables. There is no one size fits all or one material type solution for every usage. Just like rooms are all different types, so are absorption requirements.
If true, this is a big problem. This mineral stuff is being installed in large public places. My church is renovating a large
performance hall that needs treatment, how do I convince them to spend triple on foam rather than cheap wool?
M, You do not have to use foam for large institutional coverage. There are other material types to consider. However, you will still see higher costs.
I did cover it with chunk of dacron over all sides. It work well in terms of that those fibers are not flying anywhere. Im sensitive for this type of material. It really work. Yes people dont use just fabric! But dacron do the work.
Anyway thank you for your shared knowledge.
Think about how the product works. It works by air flowing through the fabric. Do you think that if a fabric allows for air flow into the inside of the box that the same fabric will not allow the fibers to be expelled back out. It's not a one way valve it works both with air in and air out.
@@AcousticFields Well dacron is not fabric.It is 100% polyester in reel. There is no way to blow thru that material. It just eats everything and nothing get out. I sleep in that room..
How can it be lighter than air? Does it fall upwaerds to the ceiling like helium balloon? If not then it IS NOT lighter than air.
The particles that get emitted from the product is what he's talking about. Look at Corning's 703 panels, the panels are thick and highly compressed, but If you look at it in proper light and you bang on the panel, tiny little particles become airborne. Those are what he's talking about.
I've had Corning 703 in my last room, but I don't use it anymore. I saw how much was becoming airborne and it's disgusting.
@@Oneness100 They are not lighter than air. Basic physics and knoledge.
L, They are light enough to be transmitted through air movement. Anything air born can be inhaled.
@@lauril1377 tiny particles that become airborne and float around in the air are lighter than air. The material itself isn't lighter than air, and Dennis isn't talking about that, he's talking about the little fibers that become airborne. Maybe you are using selective hearing and not really listening to what he said. He said the small, HENCE the operative word, SMALL fiber particles. He's not talking about the large panels themselves.
@Stimpy&Ren Well, they stay in the air an awfully long time, especially since people have air conditioning constantly stirring up the air particles to continuously floating much longer than I can follow how long it takes for them to reach the ground..
What you are talking about is some excuses for using building insulation as acoustic treatment and you've mentioned nothing about their performance.
If you want to use building insulation for room treatment knowing the potential harmful effects and their absorption coefficients as not that great for music and speech, that's your decision. I've used some of this stuff and have been in many rooms that also use it and none of those rooms sounded very good and many of them were professionally built under the direction of an acoustic engineer.
I've heard AF's foam and LF products in a room they had me visit. Best experience I've had to date. PERIOD. Maybe you should visit one of their rooms and listen for yourself. THEN make the decision.
No more cancer causing agents. My wife is already fighting cancer. I lost my Dad 7 years ago to cancer from exposure first to DDT and next 20 years later he had the 2nd bout of cancer when exposed to Roundup when he developed non-hodgkin's mantle cell lymphoma.
K, Agreed. One must error on the side of caution with so much toxicity in our environments today. I read some where that in 2040 there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. Well done humanity, well done.
Every accoustic treatment expert I've listened to recommended rock wool or glass fiber wool. What do you recommend instead for building accoustic panels for a home studio?
R, Building insulation is toxic. Use open celled foams for middle and high frequency issues.
@@AcousticFields Okay, thanks. But what about low frequencies? Foam is not able to absorb / trap low frequencies as far as I know.
Go to check all his videos about it... they did a lot of work around this topic..
@@youtubewatcher2006 acoustic fields recommends and pioneers activated carbon low frequency devices, two diaphragms possibly of mass loaded vinyl or something and air spaces before a chunk of extremely porous and dense carbon material. Effective to 40hz
@@AcousticFields he just downplays rockwool and gives no credible alternative except his company. Right or not it comes off as disingenuous.
Hello, I stumbled on this video because I was trying to build an ICF house but realized it was too expensive. So I saw other videos on using mineral wool to insulate a home. If I use Mineral Wool on the external wall and Spray Foam Insulation on the internal there should be no issues with air contamination in the house?
R value is associated with thermal conductivity. It keeps rooms warm/cool. Building insulation has an r value assigned to it. You must do your research on the r value to use for your area of the country. Most city codes have minimums allowed. Thermal conductivity has nothing to do with sound absorption for music and voice.
I normally only write positive and encouraging comments on videos that I watch, but this one really bothers me - and has bothered me for a couple of days now. In my opinion, you would be better off sticking to your field of expertise and maintain credibility in that area rather than venture out a lose all credibility. Promote your products of their merit alone and not fear mongering or spreading misinformation about other products. Here is one video from an expert in his field:
th-cam.com/video/MSJjipaPxUE/w-d-xo.html
No lobbyists of governments. Yes, industry funded but I am assuming, like you, scientists also need to eat and don't like working for free and companies need to higher experts outside of their expertise.
The 8 years and 2 million that you have spent developing your foam products certainly places you in a conflict of interest on this topic. As a consumer, these kinds of video actually drive me away from your product, which may be very good, because I do not want to support a company that uses these kinds of tactics to promote their own products.
You are free to make your own decisions regarding this material type. However, due to the toxic nature of the material type and the poor acoustical performance, we must ask once again, where is the win?
Hi, let’s say I use Rockwool as insulation and sound deadening for a camper van, install using a respirator, seal it behind plywood panels, and vacuum after.
Are there any reasons then you still wouldn’t recommend it, and if so what would be my best alternative? Thanks
This material type is toxic to be around. Examine the installation instructions. Look at wool as an alternative.
Great video, thank you for sharing it!
For all of us DIY'rs what would you recommend as a healthy replacement for rockwool in a home music studio? Thank you!
It depends on the issues you are having within your room size/volume/usage. Remember there is no one size fits all. What issues are you having that require sound absorption technology?
@@AcousticFields Mostly early reflections as it's a 4.3m x 3.1m x 2.3m room. So like most small room recording/listening home studios. Absolutely I totally agree it always depends but most of small rooms can become manageable with some cleverly positioned absorption. If you could point us to a healthy Rockwool alternative the TH-cam community would be eternally grateful.
We do not subscribe to any of those material types. We have used them in the past but were dissatisfied with their performance. This is why I created our carbon and foam technologies that are designed specifically for music and voice and not to keep your room warm or cold..
@@AcousticFields Is there any DIY alternatives you can suggest? (There is no way i can purchase from you or find anything except foam absorbers scammer companies in my country).
It depends on many variables. Stay with open celled foam. It is the most economical and safest.
So what material is a healthy substitute?
We have not researched BTU retention material types. I am sure there are numerous types available. None of the ones we have seen have the proper rates and levels of absorption for music and voice.
@@AcousticFields Not referring to BTU retention specifically. I am curious what material type is a non toxic option. If your company strictly avoids these mineral wools im sure you have a preferred material type. What material types do you like to use?
Hi. Thank you for the warning. What material do you recommend?
A, Open celled foam will produce rates and levels of absorption without air borne fibers.
@@AcousticFields so you substitute off-gassing foams that permeate everywhere in lieu of rockwool? I'd reconsider. Have you wool insulation?
you can always let them off gas for some months outside, problem is no matter how dense foam is, it will never serve as bass trap because of the low rates it has, and bass absorption is literally the most important one for untreated rooms.
@@blisssenseripzyzz4evermiri176 What do you think of alternating layers in a bass trap: dense material, not dense?
Mineral wool is the BEST insulation a homeowner can use! I would tell someone installing mineral wool to use PPE, but I would have no problem having it in my walls of my home. I would use a barrier over the mineral wool before attaching the sheetrock. Mineral wool stops 100% air and moisture so no chance of mold growing in walls. Also, it's a certified fire and sound barrier. Fiberglass does NOT stop air and moisture needing a vapor barrier to stop mold.
Still, I thank you for the video.
Opinions vary on the BTU retention benefits.
AMD Guru... What type of barrier do you put up over the mineral wool insulation before attaching the sheet rock ? Was it sheets of plastic ?
@@kh455 not him used used underwear boooo in cold weather not matter what's u used to stay warm
I'll still use rock wool cubes in my garden for now, but they are never dry. Now carbon I can make in my sand filled kiln then add steam to activate, that may be interesting. Good heads up video, thanks you.
thoughts on polyester acoustic panels?
Its not the material type that is critical. It is the rate and level of absorption from 125 - 500 hz. that you must justify.
Who else is shocked a company that sells 1K panels don't want you to make your own for 30 bucks a piece. With the money I've saved I can afford treatment for the cancer they claim I'll inevitably get (without any properly controlled studies cited). Plus I can buy some nice speakers on top of that too.
T, Be careful what you wish for. I just got out of the hospital after battling cancer for 5 weeks. I would not wish that experience on anyone. Use common sense. Any material type that can enter your lungs and accumulate in your lung tissue can not be worth any type of cancer risk no matter what the economics are.
@@AcousticFieldsand that is why mineral wools are made so they are not breathable 🤷♂️
How about in Europe?
No wooden houses only bricks and mineral wool is placed on outside walls and glued. Then covered with plastic mesh thing made for it and acrylic coats over it. Here we usually dont have central hvac systems and mineral wool is seen only when installing and never again. How about that? Would that be be dangerous?
Building insulation type materials that are used for BTU retention in a sealed structure will not produce fibers that can be transmitted through the air except during installation. Panels filled with building insulation covered with fabric that allows for air permeability are a completely different animal.
@@AcousticFields okay thanks for information
Good video Dennis. Cheap is a keyword here! There are also health friendly organic substitutions. For the low frequencies I have found al least 3 such wool types and mixed it with your diafragmic absorbers. My clients saying that Drums are breathing in my room)
L, Walk us through what you did.
Yes, I'd like also know more :)
so what should we use?
What are the frequency and amplitudeof your issues. You must first identify your issue before applying treatment of any type.
@@AcousticFields okay, what are the range of materials? you say these artificial materials are bad; which ones are good?
I have read many comments on here about your motivation of this video being possibly profit driven. I don't know whether you are or not, and will refrain from forming an opinion on this matter right now. However there is a way to perhaps put some peoples suspicions at rest.
Please advise of a product(s), that you can point people to (that you don't sell), or at the very least other companies sell as well, that are great products for sound absorption and safe. (To make absorption panels, etc.)
That would be a good way to confirm one way or the other whether your motivations are (or are not) profit driven and are purely for safety concerns. I am sure many people in the comments section would welcome a generic recommendation that are effective and safe. Thanks.
I am not in the business of putting peoples' suspicions at rest. People who use this toxic material type should have no rest. We are in the business of achieving sound quality in small rooms.
@@AcousticFields Yes, I hear your position. I just thought it might be a way to quell some of the suspicions of some of the people making comments in that regard about your motivations.
I honestly have read articles both supporting your position and also some taking the opposite stance. I am not going to take a chance on using the product because there are too many varied opinions on the subject in complete conflict with each other. I'd rather be safe then sorry so I am going to find an alternative for sound treatment.
@@uptownphotography Lets look at the cost/benefit ratio. It's toxic to handle, the rates and levels of absorption are not complimentary for music and voice, and you would need a box that is 36" deep to get any rate of absorption to speak of at 40 Hz. Forget about getting down to 30 Hz. What you are dealing with here is a belief system that is incorrectly founded from the beginning material type. Changing a belief system such as this one means starting with the truths and moving forward with the truth until the belief system dies on its own faulty volition.
@@AcousticFields What would you recommend as a material that would be effective for low frequency absorption? Thanks.
Phil...
Question. I only have about $200 for bass traps right now. That will allow me to purchase "fluffy" fiberglass insulation in large rolls.
If I wrap each in garbage bags, then stack those in all the corners, then throw a large drape over them, will that get me decent Corner Bass Management for a very low cost? (I'm broke!)
The corners of your room are not your problem. It takes two parallel walls to produce an axial mode, not two parallel corners. Save your dollars to increase your budget to 5 K. This is the standard costs for our phase 1 of our DIY approach.
Thanks for this video, Dennis - it's important information you're providing.
Unfortunately for me, I made my acoustic panels years ago before I heard about these dangers.
But, I did wrap all those panels with heavy curtain material called "Blackout" which isn't what I would call a "breathable" fabric: I actually put the fabric over my face and tried to breathe through it, and found it quite difficult to breath thru.
So, Dennis - I'm wondering if - since the wrap material is quite thick, and the fact that the panels are in place and undisturbed (and no hammers are falling on them - hopefully) - hopefully they are safe to leave in place?
You are putting sound energy into the material, this will help degrade it ever so slightly over time. Your sound creates pressure highs and lows that push and pull on the material - look at your woofer moving air, you get the idea. Mineral wool is not a discrete solid material, it's clusters of fibres, fluff basically that can come apart even wihout effort. Over time it degrades even witout being touched or moved. On occasion I've had to pull decades old rockwool, and it invariable had lost a lot of its integrity, it had fallen apart to some extent, actually much more than i expected. Since the fibres can be very small, they can potentially penetrate the fabric. Only airtight material would gurantee that you block the fibres. Not to scare you, you're probably fine, but since you asked I figured i'd put in my 2¢.
If you can’t breathe through it is also poor for sound absorption: it doesn’t let air through
I'm gonna wrap mine in plastic tightly and then add some breathable cover on the front. Shouldn't affect the absorption too much and will give me a peace of mind.
@Memer Dreamer Soundwaves go through plastic foil.
I think fiberglass is not any better that mineral wool. But it is not used for sound absorption. Just for heat or cold insulation. I have looked and looked and after many hours the only product I can find to stop heat from affecting the electronics is the foil covered mineral wool. If there is another product that can stop the heat I would like to know about it.
We are discussing these material types as they pertain to sound absorption inside a small room. I do not see any need to stop heat from affecting the electronics. Please explain further.
Remember toadstools? Do NOT eat apples.
Well, we can agree that Rockwool isn’t the best product for this purpose, but to say it is hazardous if handled right is simply not true according to studies. Asbestos fibers cause cancer because the body cannot break them down in 60 years. The fibers in rockwool do fully break down in the body after 82 days. Of course we must still wear a respirator or good particle mask when handling as a measure of common sense, but once the material is covered and hung, it does not break down and emit fibers into the air anyhow. Before anyone goes tearing through their walls removing the insulation, do the homework.
J, Our tests indicate that the fibers do transmit through the fabric. Why take the chance with your health when there are so many other alternatives?
@@AcousticFields Can you provide test results with number of fibers, diameter, length, etc., vs. fabric type and pore diameter/shape/thickness and correlate them to medical studies showing that these are "toxic" as you claim? Such data would be extremely helpful in determining the need for PPE, ventilation, or other mitigating methods.
The IARC removed it from the list of carcinogens in 2001 because of new science and understanding according to this video: th-cam.com/video/MSJjipaPxUE/w-d-xo.html It would seem it is totally fine to use inside your wall as insulation like the intended purpose but it does make sense to avoid it inside vents and such like you say because of constant exposure.
J, Remember tobacco? The government did the same thing. The government is highly influenced by special interest. Do your own thinking and testing.
@@AcousticFields is this an acoustics channel or a political motivation channel?
The linked video above is VERY informative. Highly recommend.
Thank fir posting. You did say "they (rock wool) overabsorb".I'm trying to build something, an acoustic screen that also doubles as a fence, that interrupts, absorbs, reduces the racket from bastard barking dogs that spend their life shitting pissing and barking in next doors garden. So something that 'overabsorbs' sounds good to me.
Anyone got any advice ?
You are confusing sound absorption technology with barrier technology. You must focus on barrier technology for your usage. To properly design a barrier, you must first measure the noise over a seven day time period. You then design the barrier for the highest pressure over that seven day time period. This will assure that you attenuate noise on the loudest day. We have processes to assist you with this design system.
I'm. Building the max I can get away with. An 8ft barrier. Constructed with 8x4 by 4in panels filled with rock wool, sheeted on the backside with twin wall cellular plastic sheeting and the working side covered with breathable roofing fabric that is also waterproof. So the sound has no barrier to deflect it as the fabric is microscopically perforated to be breathable and still waterproof. All cobbled together after many hours research into what might work. So desperate now to take back even a little control in a runaway problem. If nothing else it'll prevent these worthless animals seeing anything at all on my side and perhaps they'll go across to the other poor folks.
@@roontunes The material types you stated and the constrcution methodology you have described will not work for frequencies below 125 hz. What are the frequency and amplitudes of your noise issues?
It's very good of you to respond, thank you. As for specific frequencies etc these wretched animals are at the ear splitting high frequency level. We have German shepherds nearby that sound like polar bears barking in a subway tunnel and that's bearable ( no pun intended ).
I know guys who do insulation with mineral wool , they all having breathing problem and always coughs, I told them about dangerous of mineral wool but they don't care because they earn 3 times more then others in the construction sector.
They also do paint job, work with MDF, do wood finish, or metal finish etc. Almost all of them are hazardous to human, yet the construction people are still doing it.
I appreciate the video but what is the safest insulation to use?
If you are referring to r value, you will have to consult sources in your region. There is no "safe" building insulation considering the health hazards along with poor acoustical performance.
+1. .. Many, many thank you's.
What is an acceptable alternative these days? I do know that if you go to supermarket insulation products do state "Safe friendly to skin, organic, . . . "
Stay with open celled foams. They are economical, lightweight with predicatble rates and levels of absorption
This guy sells his own products made of foam and he wants you to buy his stuff instead of rockwool or 703. Typical conflict of interest. I don't trust him at all.
L, No need to trust me. Look at the performance data and make your own decision. Make sure you factor in the health risks.
@Acoustic Fields always says his product is the only one that works. He says any of his competitors stuff is worthless. I guess he thinks he is the only game in town. Then he will tell you over the phone that it would cost the same for him to sell you his product than you build it yourself, after you already bought his DIY kit.
For what it’s worth I appreciate the health consideration and him sharing the information. I hope he continues to do so. If you don’t like his video or products you should move on and choose something else 🤷♂️
It is save to use this material to isolate exterior walls?
Building insulation is not a barrier technology. It is designed to keep your room warm and cool.
do not use rock wool. I've been having severe health issues from long term exposure and I would have never used it if I knew what was going to happen to me. stay away and be safe please.
G, I am so sorry to hear my friend. Thank you for sharing. Its through repetitive sharing of personal experience that finally changes long held belief systems.
don't forget to pick-up your sponsored check on the way out, you done good with that story ... lol
@acoutsic fields , Iv lived in in attic
They had a furnace with a hole ontop of it in a closet on the side , this hole blows air out, ofcourse my luck, this closed area has exposed fiberglass)I believe that’s the insulation used) , it’s been like this since 2016.
When I first moved in I told everyone my eyes and Lungs felt irritated in the house when the ac or heat went on .
Do you think this could cause long term lung damage at this point? Or if addressed, this could be alright?
Iv seen you mention you seeing health issues arise in some people , if you were to guess , would you say this is still within the realm of being fixable for long term health? Just curious what you think.
I would consult with your doctor and have a chest xray or MRI. You need to establish a base line of any damage.
If to cover rockwool with breathable material , but it is not let particales let through? For example Tyvek ? Let me know please. I think it would be not harmfull if made for example pannel for standing behind recording place , and when it is no need - just take it away from the room. Let me know what do you think please.
L, We do not allow that material type on any of our build projects. The fibers are toxic and enter your lungs. Material types will not prevent the fibers from getting through. To test this, take a black light and tap on the existing panel with fabric and watch the fibers come through the fabric.
@@AcousticFields Do you think the same regarding Fiberglass. Is it also dangerous as Mineral wool? Thank you
@@leavesproduction1043 Stay away from material types that can enter your lungs
God bless you. I was going to have bought some today.😮😮😮😮. Not now.
I’m just trying to block some shop vac noise.
Shop vac noise is full range noise. To block 85% of it, you will need to use a permanent construction barrier. You can use absorption at 8" depth as a start to lower amplitudes or strength of middle and high frequencies. Keep sound absorption as close to source as you can.
@@AcousticFields Thanks for your reply. Right now I’m planning a roughly 2 ft cube box with walls consisting of 2.5” concrete sandwiched between plywood. Final measurements to be determined. Outside the concrete section would be some kind of continuation of the box as a baffle system through which the exhaust would pass. Inside, just a little extra space to experiment with non-toxic liners. Also entries and exits for hoses & power, and cooling air for the motor. This contraption will be rolled outside the garage when in use to save space and separate me from the noise.
Thank you again. I would have bought that rock wool today had not seen your video this morning.
so this is fun and all i might get rid of all my rockwool panels now you had a nice convincing story but what in the world do we diy builders replace it with i mean what kind of material would you consider save and works for a diy project and yeah i know there is no perfect material it depends on everything but we diy builders dont care that much we build our own so we can atleast afford any kind of treatment everything is better then hearing one snare drum hit a 100 times becouse of a very bad echo please give us some options
Your issue is not echo. Echo is a repeating signal. Your issue is reverberation. You must lower the reverb times in your room using the proper rate and level of absorption for music and voice. Building insulation lacks that important response curve. Use our proprieatry foam sheets and build yoirv own units that have the proper rtae and level of absorption for music and voice.
Please get educated on this topic. The key determinant as to the potential for harm is the fiber diameter and the composition of the glass in the fiber.
Feel free to inhale as many as these fibers you wish. Once again, no one is explaining the cost / benefit ratio to me.
I guess the other question is what can we use for insulation and sound proofing. Seems just about every material is bad and caustic to people.
Q, All you have to do is look at the installation requirements for each material type. Most require full body suits and respirators. That should tell you all you need to know about its toxicity.
@@AcousticFields so basically all insulation materials
quaz18 towels. Use multi-layers of cotton towels.
Warnings are great, but people looking to solve sound issues need to hear about alternatives.
What are the frequency and amplitudes of your issues?
@@AcousticFields I've noticed a build up between 100-260 Hz. A calculator I found indicated the Schroederfrequency was 217 Hz with an RT60 of 0.6. I'm comfortable mixing at very low volumes (60-80db). So that helps.
Basically it's a 12x12 room with a 3' deep closet & hallway door at one end. I leave both doors open to lengthen the reflections. So, in theory, the room ends up being 12x15+hallway. I also have a 4' rack of outboard gear on the right of my mix position and amplifiers to the left. (And attempt to narrow the room by 4'.). It is less than ideal. But temporary.
Unfortunately, just before COVID lockdowns I sold my home & well treated studio building to relocate to Nashville. On the way I stopped in Austin to do mixes for a client. Then we got stuck in. - I'm planning to purchase a property & do a full build out when things clear up,. So I really don't want to spend a lot to treat this space. Hopefully I'll only be in it for the next 6months or so.(And the market for used acoustic treatment isn't great) - Regardless, I still have corporate work to crank out & could conceivably pick up singer/songwriter mixing to tide me over.
Anyway, the reason I made the comment was because the "cheap & reasonably effective" method everyone reaches for in a case like this are products like Owens Corning & (lately) Rockwool. - I've yet to find an acoustic foam solution that is comparable in price. But I'd be happy to be corrected.
@@AcousticFields Now that Kitty replied to your question (about a year ago) maybe you can tell us what are some alternative materials people could use for sound absortion? I keep seeing your replies to this question and you keep saying that it depends on our roomsize but why not just name some materials that you sometimes use or recommend in a few examples of small/medium/large rooms or whatever makes the difference according to you?
@@greedokenobi3855 Agreed. Super annoying and disingenuous, to put it nicely.
How’s denim insulation for acoustic panels?
Ultratouch r13 from Lowe’s any good?
What is the rate and level of absorption? What is the usage of the room? What are room dimensions? What are average pressure levels used within the room? Nothing is easy.
are felt panels safe as sound absorption materials in a room?
If the rate and level of absorption is predictable and consistent throughout the frequency ranges. Do you have the coefficients for said panels?
What is your position on blown in dense pack cellulose
It is a BTU material type. The R- values should be shown on the material type.
so essentially do not use 'rock wool' as a bass trap wrapped in fabric, but it is safe (or as safe as it can be) to be used as some degree of soundproofing? If you built a 4ft x 6ft vocal booth and used Rockwool between two sheets of ply, is this ok?
I'm trying to figure out if you are opposed to this type of insulation all together, or only when it is used as sound panels withs improper coverings? Thanks.
F, These material types are not viable barrier technologies.
Great info.
What is the alternative please?
What is room size? What is your room usage? What are your reverberation goals? What is your peak SPL levels? There is no one size fits all usages. You must develop an acoustic stratedgy first and then apply tactics to treat the stratedgy objectives.
Thanks. For the warnings. …
What would a Good alternative be for a Mixing Studio Setup - Music Instrumental, Vocals and Recordings.
What are the dimensions of the room? What pressure levels will you be working at?
@@AcousticFields Not too loud, just Normal mixing Levels, I'll be Mastering Occasionally in the room.
rehabbed a house 8 years ago. Put rockwool in walls and ceiling to soundproof the lower level from the upper level. Duct work is old and leaky. Even gaps in supply ducts grab the rockwool particles and drag them into the ducts, into the house and our lungs. I got sick. Just torn out a section of the ceiling by ducts and removed the rockwool. Nasty stuff! Why do they make this stuff that we will Inevitably inhale so toxic. Almost makes me think it is by design. I am going to try hemp insulation - not toxic at all.
We receive comments like yours on a daily basis. Be careful with the cleanup.
What are you recommending for a light weight wall insulation that's not toxic if it burns and won't rot ore mold when wet?
We do not get involved with BTU retention. You will have to consult with local codes and ordinances regarding heating and cooling insulation issues.
So do the Acoustic panels from Sweetwater have this stuff??
We will be doing a series of videos showing what is in all of these units.
Dennis what do you think about using Denim ultratouch instead?
S, What are rate and level of absorption?
@@AcousticFields "The NRC for R-13 UltraTouch 3.5 inch is 1.15 overall."