Cheap alternatives to 703???
-
- gettin' sounds
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:23 am
- Location: McMinnville, TN
- Contact:
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!
-
- pushin' record
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:40 pm
- Location: Kansas City
- Contact:
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
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...
- jnTracks
- steve albini likes it
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 6:49 am
- Location: seacost of NH USA
- Contact:
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.
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
railroadavenuerecording.com what i like to do
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.
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.
- jnTracks
- steve albini likes it
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 6:49 am
- Location: seacost of NH USA
- Contact:
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.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.
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
railroadavenuerecording.com what i like to do
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests