Is acoustical foam a rip off?

They forget to mention the most important one: that is about profiles

Regular foam is usually flat, or slightly curved, without any surface depressions or slots or valleys and mountains.

Acoustic foam, on the other hand, can have one of many profiles. These profiles help to tune the tile and have an impact on the overall broadband absorption of frequencies
 
Yes but if i bought twice the quantity at a lower price and cut it roughly to shape that would surely out do the added benefit of "profiles".

By profile do you mean surface texture or shape? I think cutting foam into shape wouldn't be too hard.
 
have you ever worked with foam? it is seriously difficult to cut unless using what amounts to a coat-hanger connected to 240v mains current. Putting the types of shapes we see in most acoustic foam profiles is no easy feat.

as for the suggestion that you could use ordinary foam to do the same job ludicrous at best
- the density of the foam is the key ingredient in stopping air moving
- the idea that mass resists movement should be one of the few things that you managed to learn in science when looking at physics and mechanics
-- the heavier something is the more its inertia is likely to keep it rooted to the spot
-- acoustic foam is particularly dense in comparison to ordinary cushion or pillow or mattress based foam
 
bandcoach said:
- the density of the foam is the key ingredient in stopping air moving
Surely there's somewhere you can buy a block of 80 ppi foam for quarter of the price to cut yourself?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
^^^
C'mon son, give me some credit i know the density i need. No i haven't ever cut foam, i do not work in a foam cutting factory, honestly i was hoping a hacksaw would have done it, now i feel foolish.

Out of interest how exactly does it work? I'm guessing the sound waves go into the foam and get trapped bouncing around and because it's denser then it's harder for them to escape back out? I'm speculating here but if it works like that, couldn't i just use half the density of foam and double the thickness to keep the sound waves trapped?

Or would that be like trying to soak up water with a sponge that is really sparse and the water wouldn't even hold?
 
Last edited:
So my only choice is to buy the foam off people at a inflated price because they hold the suppliers and have the infastructure to cut it or spend a unholey amount of time building a fiberglass one and end up spending enough time that i could have just used to work and buy the foam in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Olie said:
So my only choice is to buy the foam off people at a inflated price because they hold the suppliers and have the infastructure to cut it or spend a unholey amount of time building a fiberglass one and end up spending enough time that i could have just used to work and buy the foam in the first place.
Click to expand...

Do panels. Read up on it. In the long run you'll save time and money.
 
Olie said:
How in the world would that save me time?
Click to expand...

Big Picture.
you can run in circles dealing with foam only. Read up on foam and then read up on Bass Traps, OC705 Fiberglass Panels and also Rockwool.

Foam helps cut echo/flutter/reflections - especially in the mid and high frequency ranges. The bad part is they do nothing for the low end. Now your room is technically full of low end sound and that would cause you to make bad decisions at mixing time and even if you're not mixing it can effect a track your recording like vocals.

The various bass traps and panels do a much better job of covering all frequencies, and they can do it without covering the entire wall.

So how does this save you time? If you're looking for a quick fix it doesn't.
however running away from proper treatment will constantly leave you feeling like your sound can be improved, so you go back and get those items, re-record, and re-mix everything you've already done. Now you've bought all this foam, only to be unsatisfied and then you do the fiber glass panels
so the money you spent on foam is now a waste because you won't even be using it. If spending a day or two building your panels takes too much time, remember that time is going to pay you back with better recordings. If you don't have time for that, the you don't actually want an improvement and therefore may not be very serious about your productions in the first place. I'm not accusing you of that, but I ran in that circle for a long time and did my panels this year. I wish I would have done it a long time ago. I could have tracked more at home with better efficiency and then only gone to a big studio for final mixing.

measure once and cut ten times
or
measure ten times and cut once
 
I personally use fiberboard which I frame and wrap in fabric for a nice neat appearance. Way cheaper with the same if not better sound qualities.
 
Everything absorbs some sound, its just a matter of how much it absorbs and diffuses versus reflects sound.
Foam does the first two, and reflects very little.

Fiberboard is more reflective than foam because it has a hard surface, and since the surface is flat, it will not diffuse sound but instead reflect the majority that isnt absorbed and doesnt pass through right back.

Its most likely better than nothing, but just barely.
 
Open Celled Acoustic Foam

Olie said:
^^^
C'mon son, give me some credit i know the density i need. No i haven't ever cut foam, i do not work in a foam cutting factory, honestly i was hoping a hacksaw would have done it, now i feel foolish.

Out of interest how exactly does it work? I'm guessing the sound waves go into the foam and get trapped bouncing around and because it's denser then it's harder for them to escape back out? I'm speculating here but if it works like that, couldn't i just use half the density of foam and double the thickness to keep the sound waves trapped?

Or would that be like trying to soak up water with a sponge that is really sparse and the water wouldn't even hold?
Click to expand...

Foam works by first moving air with sound energy through it. The molecular movement or speed creates friction and thus heat. Heat is an energy change, thus we have absorption or energy reduction. Absorption can also occur using sound pressure and not molecular movement. This pressure activated process of absorption requires a different absorption technology to maximize effectiveness.

In our facility, we use one of those old fashioned electric carving knives with the oscillating blades. You can even contour angles and create curves when forming foam to fit into a specific area. Open celled foams are relatively cheap when you compare ease of installation and rates and levels of absorption per square foot. Are there cheaper ways? Of course, but these ways require the use of construction techniques and building materials, so you have to include labor and additional material costs in your final calculations. There is always a series of trade offs and benefits with any chosen method.

Regards,
Dennis
 
I am intrigued as most foam cutting I have seen using oscillating blades is generally very untidy and wasteful, hence my mentioning the the similar tool used for cutting styrofoam.

I am guessing that getting nice curves etc, using the electric knife approach is not a first time job but comes from lots of practice
 
bandcoach said:
I am intrigued as most foam cutting I have seen using oscillating blades is generally very untidy and wasteful, hence my mentioning the the similar tool used for cutting styrofoam.

I am guessing that getting nice curves etc, using the electric knife approach is not a first time job but comes from lots of practice
Click to expand...

It all depends on the density of the foam. Our foam is denser then average open celled foams, so the cut is smooth and even. We have used this method on other types of foams and you are correct, it can be a bit messy if the cell structure is less dense.

Dennis
 
Drethe5th said:
Big Picture.
you can run in circles dealing with foam only. Read up on foam and then read up on Bass Traps, OC705 Fiberglass Panels and also Rockwool.
Click to expand...

Owens Cornings 703 or 705, or Roxul Safe n Sound is the way to go.

Also to answer your question... Yes studio foam is a rip off. read up on absorption coefficients. in my studio we used Roxul safe n sound insulation. we just covered it in fabric and it is a much cheaper alternative to studio foam.
 
those acoustic panels are only good if you need to record stuff and you want to preserve the room "aura"

if you just want to produce get some bass traps behind the monitors and maybe ones behind you so they catch the sound coming from the speakers and your good IMO
 
Drethe5th said:
Big Picture.
you can run in circles dealing with foam only. Read up on foam and then read up on Bass Traps, OC705 Fiberglass Panels and also Rockwool.
Click to expand...

I used to have some fiberglass panels.
They did a pretty good job handling broadband absorption.

Why did I get rid of them?

Health.


I've already become concerned with the health effects of sitting in front of a music workstation all day long.
Lack of bloodflow, poor breathing, poor posture.

When you add fiberglass to your studio, you're adding another issue which can affect your heath:

Fiberglass has the potential to be very dangerous to the most important system in your body -- your cardiovascular system.
Basically, constant exposure can create symptoms similar to asbestos inhalation.
People cover them in an attempt to reduce or eliminate exposure, but I don't trust the covers.

That's my case for acoustic foam.

-Ki
Salem Beats
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top