Cheap alternatives to 703???

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

norton
buyin' a studio
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 4:42 pm
Location: minneapolis

Post by norton » Mon Sep 06, 2010 6:09 pm

That's great to know.. thanks for the link.

The last time I checked on ultratouch it was still double the price of 703. I'm glad to see that the market's turning in favor of recycled cotton.

chorga1
pushin' record
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:48 pm
Contact:

Post by chorga1 » Mon Sep 06, 2010 6:51 pm

Yeah - it is a nice change - I remember 3-4 years ago it was $1.25-1.65 sq ft

User avatar
lancebug
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:27 pm
Location: Yesterday

Post by lancebug » Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:26 am

This has started t get me thinking. I have a bunch of big pillow cases for floor pillows that we bought in egypt. I wonder if filling them with ultratouch and throwing them around the studio would work (in addition to my more traditonal treatments)? Maybe I'll just try it and see....

kevin206
gettin' sounds
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:23 am
Location: McMinnville, TN
Contact:

Post by kevin206 » Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:53 am

:shock: :( :(
I've read about the UltraTouch for years and decided to check out the website. With no distributor in my state, and with the cost of shipping, the stuff runs about $2 per sq ft. And then there is a minimum order for the shipping. So I'm looking at over $800 to build some absorbers! Maybe a live 'live' room isn't so bad after all! :P

Chris_Meck
pushin' record
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:40 pm
Location: Kansas City
Contact:

Post by Chris_Meck » Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:53 pm

just built 32 panels with 4" Roxul, 4 lb, 2'X4'. Total cost, with covering fabric: $350.00.
That's including the wood for the frames. The Roxul (mineral wool, rockwool, what have you) was like $30 a bag roughly, for four 2'X4' panels per bag (32 sq. ft).

the 6 lb. was a little more, and 8 lb. a little more than that. I decided the 4 lb. would do.

All is way cheaper than 703 and by all accounts just as good if not better-and certainly easier to handle-I did the whole job with no gloves and no itchy-scratchies.

Chris
greetings from Flyover Country...

User avatar
jnTracks
steve albini likes it
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 6:49 am
Location: seacost of NH USA
Contact:

Post by jnTracks » Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:20 am

i just made 24 panels of 3" rockwool.

cheap, less toxic than 703, cheaper, and depending on which chart you read it ether has the same or greater absorption characteristics than 703.

only real drawback is that it's softer and less rigid. still, i had no trouble making simple frames the same size as the chunk of rockwool (to space it off the wall and attach the fabric to) stretching fabric over the frame. then place the chunk on the fabric and wrap more fabric over it.

holds it off the wall (by the thickness of the frame, 2" in my case) and it's sturdy enough to have no trouble keeping it's shape, even with just fabric holding it on.

my room sounds great. very happy.
-Justin Newton
railroadavenuerecording.com what i like to do

User avatar
JWL
deaf.
Posts: 1870
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: Maine
Contact:

Post by JWL » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:35 am

From an acoustics performance point of view, I find 703, rockwool, and ultratouch to be (more or less) interchangeable, with a few caveats:

ultratouch generally needs to be about twice as thick as the others to get the same performance. Their 5.5" thick batts (subjectively to my ear) perform about the same as 3" of 703.

703 is rigid, rockwool less so, and ultratouch is completely floppy and needs to be reinforced. My favorite use for ultratouch is to cram them into corners, and then build a fake facade front for it (think: giant speaker grille). It's hard to get ultratouch to look good.

User avatar
eeldip
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 5:10 pm
Location: NoPo

Post by eeldip » Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:20 am

i have a similar ultratouch absorber. basically, i put homosote in the corner, screwed 2 foot wide sections in. then stuffed behind with ultra touch. and continued up the wall.

kinda off topic, but i really like the sound that bounces off of homosote. nice semi deadness.

User avatar
jnTracks
steve albini likes it
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 6:49 am
Location: seacost of NH USA
Contact:

Post by jnTracks » Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:21 am

JWL wrote:From an acoustics performance point of view, I find 703, rockwool, and ultratouch to be (more or less) interchangeable, with a few caveats:

ultratouch generally needs to be about twice as thick as the others to get the same performance. Their 5.5" thick batts (subjectively to my ear) perform about the same as 3" of 703.
so that means that to your ear it's about half as effective, since it has to be twice as thick to perform the same.
not really interchangeable at all.

the performance of all these materials is based on thickness so if one needs to be twice as thick, that's a big deal.

i don't have any personal experience with ultratouch.
-Justin Newton
railroadavenuerecording.com what i like to do

User avatar
JWL
deaf.
Posts: 1870
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: Maine
Contact:

Post by JWL » Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:40 pm

The main thing is that Ultratouch is much less dense. There's about the same amount of absorption material, but because the density is less it requires more material volume.

Also the specified thickness for Ultratouch seems a bit optimistic.... the 5.5" batts seem much thinner than that to me.

chorga1
pushin' record
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:48 pm
Contact:

Post by chorga1 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:33 pm

JWL - would compressing a batt of the 5.5" ultratouch affect its absorption properties? If so, in what way?


I'm building corner bass traps using ultratouch and I was curious if shoving them with more of the stuff would improve their bass trapping abilities to any practical effect.

User avatar
JWL
deaf.
Posts: 1870
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: Maine
Contact:

Post by JWL » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:27 am

Compressing it would have a few effects: mainly it would reduce the surface area, thus reducing the overall absorption.

My favorite use for Ultratouch in corner traps is to use 1 16" wide batt shoved in the corner, with a 24" wide batt over that.

chorga1
pushin' record
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:48 pm
Contact:

Post by chorga1 » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:44 am

Thanks for the info!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests