# Building bass traps using activated carbon



## arwyn (Dec 18, 2019)

Hi. Just wondering if anyone has built bass traps using the plans from acoustic fields.
How effective do you think is the activated carbon/charcoal? Also is their charcoal specialist unique product or can I source it elsewhere? I'm asking as I live in the uk and shipping would be very expensive
Cheers
Arwyn


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Dec 18, 2019)

I've never heard their products but I have heard of them being deceiving and generally not being someone you want to deal with. Their videos are pretty useless. They're basically just a way to say "come hire us." Their videos offer virtually no practical advice. It's all just "you need to have the right rates and levels so come talk to us."

A couple of months ago they published test results of their bass traps and were claiming that they outperformed everything on the market based on those tests. It turns out that they were essentially looking at the numbers wrong and the products from companies like GIK outperformed them.


----------



## jononotbono (Dec 18, 2019)

Look into using Lympmass Vinyl. It’s incredible stuff. Expensive but actually works if used correctly.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Dec 18, 2019)

jononotbono said:


> Look into using Lympmass Vinyl. It’s incredible stuff. Expensive but actually works if used correctly.


+1 on membrane/diaphragmatic absorbers. You just need to find the right material and construction (dampening and sealed vs unsealed) for the frequencies you need. 

If you happen to be interested in the absorbers I've developed which are considerably cheaper than building theirs (and I think more effective) then message me. Coincidentally one of the materials I use I have to ship from the UK which is quite expensive so it would actually probably be pretty cheap for you and construction of the panels is significantly simpler.


----------



## jononotbono (Dec 18, 2019)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> +1 on membrane/diaphragmatic absorbers. You just need to find the right material and construction (dampening and sealed vs unsealed) for the frequencies you need.
> 
> If you happen to be interested in the absorbers I've developed which are considerably cheaper than building theirs (and I think more effective) then message me. Coincidentally one of the materials I use I have to ship from the UK which is quite expensive so it would actually probably be pretty cheap for you and construction of the panels is significantly simpler.



Last month, I built a 9ft deep bass trap. Gotta laugh at the extremities we go to, to treating a room. But then this Mastering room also has over 7 figures of new gear in it so the cost of the bass trap was not a drop in the ocean in context.

Limpmass Vinyl and Rockwool are helpful friends, especially if you are stuck with a crap little room in a non commercial context but you can’t just slap this shit all over the walls and ceilings and expect good results. More often and not, you just introduce more problems. There is science to this painful shit.


----------



## arwyn (Dec 19, 2019)

Thanks for the replies. Yes I certainly wouldn't get them to build for me as that would be way too expensive! I was curious with all their hype wether the charcoal does make a difference. Thing is I find the science a mine field and while I'm capable of building them, it's knowing what to build!
I will look into the limpmass vinyl. Whoa is that 9 ft deep Jono or width/height?

Edit : Sorry Jono just scrolled back up to your post. Your space must be bige for that depth of that trapping. While my room isn't tiny, my nose would be rubbing the screen of my monitors!!


----------



## jononotbono (Dec 19, 2019)

arwyn said:


> Whoa is that 9 ft deep Jono or width/height?
> 
> Edit : Sorry Jono just scrolled back up to your post. Your space must be bige for that depth of that trapping. While my room isn't tiny, my nose would be rubbing the screen of my monitors!!



Yeah, the bass trap is 9 ft deep, 25ft wide and about 15ft high. That's a lot of rock wool, with Limpmass Vinyl Bass traps in the corners (inside the bass trap). The Limpmass Vinyl bass traps are specifically calculated to work at problem frequencies (at the listening position) calculated in the room. It took weeks to measure the room and sort it out. But this kind of thing is impossible to do in a home. And it's actually unlikely to be necessary. This particular room has just enough ceiling height to be a decent room for mixing and Mastering in Stereo. It's actually a temporary Mastering room as we are about to build a 10000 square foot extension for a specific Mastering Studio which is why it's only Stereo at the minute. The Main mixing studio has 22 Speakers and full Atmos (and completely analogue). I won't even go into how much that room and gear cost. 

For surround and specifically Auro3d and Atmos you need a huge amount of space. I have no experience with the charcoal stuff so can't say anything there (and I'm not one of these "I have no experience with ****** but here are my opinions" type person like so much of the internet is.  

It is always best to sort a room out before even thinking about room correction EQ but it may pay for you to look into Sonarworks Room Correction. It's basically designed for shit rooms that are too small and works really well when you get used to it. It's not a proper solution but it's definitely an affordable work around. 

The most important thing you can do, before doing anything, before spending money and wasting your time building anything, is measuring the room you have to see what you are dealing with. Download REW (Room EQ Wizard) and give it a go. You may find good results but be prepared for it to be problematic. Many people here could give you hand reading and understanding the measurements.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Dec 19, 2019)

jonobono,

If you’re going to this much care why don’t you look at the Trinnov DMON8. It solves a lot of issues. 
I have a DMON6 and it’s hard to imagine monitoring without it. The main composer I work with uses a stereo Trinnov and feels the same way I do about it. 
Ask Vintage King for an on-site demo. You’ll be glad you did. 

.


----------



## jononotbono (Dec 19, 2019)

Jack Weaver said:


> jonobono,
> 
> If you’re going to this much care why don’t you look at the Trinnov DMON8. It solves a lot of issues.
> I have a DMON6 and it’s hard to imagine monitoring without it. The main composer I work with uses a stereo Trinnov and feels the same way I do about it.
> ...



Looks very nice. We are using the SPL MMC2 in the Mastering studio.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Dec 19, 2019)

jononotbono said:


> Looks very nice. We are using the SPL MMC2 in the Mastering studio.


Yes, it's a very pro piece - but not at all the same type or classification of equipment.

While being able to control your speaker system, the *Trinnov is a frequency/phase corrector *for any speakers. It applies 19 different DSP processes and is very customizable. You can save presets for a near-perfect frequency/phase for any spot in your room. For example, you can have a setting that gives the customer couch in the back of the room to hear the same response as you had at the mixing position with a previous preset, or if you have a secondary editing station in your room... etc., etc.

Here's the frequency chart for my home control room today. This is just a chart for my stereo speakers. I have a Trinnov DMON6 so I can have it control 5.1 setups also. I might suggest a DMON8 for your situation.

There is nothing like a Trinnov. It's freaking magic. It's the most important piece of gear I own - next to my speakers and my ears. 

.


----------



## jononotbono (Dec 19, 2019)

It looks very good but we don't need it. Our rooms sound exactly as we want them (sorting out a room before adding more tech to fix the problems that haven't been sorted is not how we wanted to do things) and we have completely custom Monitoring control and bass management built by PMC. All of our 22 PMCs (in the Mix studio) have been tuned, balanced and time aligned by Dolby themselves last week (nice guys). No need to rely on software to do this in this scenario. And besides, there isn't a monitoring controller (other than our custom built one) in existence that can do what we need to do (and we can instantly switch from Mono to 9.1 (and Auro3D 9.1), 13.1 (Sony) to Atmos (Dolby) with it. And all panned via our custom analogue immersive console (also a 1 of a kind - at the moment). You should come and visit the studio if you're ever in upstate NY. 

But sure, if it was for me personally (because the studio I work at is way out of the norm for people like myself - and most people to be fair) I would love to own the Trinnov. Looks great! It looks like an excellent solution for a lot of scenarios.


----------



## arwyn (Dec 20, 2019)

Thanks Jono. I have downloaded room eq wizard and will sit down with it properly in the new year. Have taken a few measurements bit need to study what it is I'm looking at and more than that find out what to do to sort the peaks and troughs out. New year spring clean, everything out of the studio snd start afresh.All the shifting and lifting gear should help shed a few pounds that inevitably will appear over the hols. Win win! 
Happy Christmas!!


----------



## jononotbono (Dec 20, 2019)

arwyn said:


> Thanks Jono. I have downloaded room eq wizard and will sit down with it properly in the new year. Have taken a few measurements bit need to study what it is I'm looking at and more than that find out what to do to sort the peaks and troughs out. New year spring clean, everything out of the studio snd start afresh.All the shifting and lifting gear should help shed a few pounds that inevitably will appear over the hols. Win win!
> Happy Christmas!!



Happy Christmas to you to. Don’t under estimate what a good book shelf and sofa can do haha


----------



## arwyn (Jan 6, 2021)

Hi, I'm resurrecting this older thread that I started some time ago. As in true fashion, I didn't get round
to sorting out the acoustics in my room due to a number of things. One in particular that has affected us all in the last year! I have taken a measurement of my listening position and here is what I've got (see below). Having a limited understanding of this, could anyone help with what I need to target with trapping etc? If indeed I have measured it correctly! I was hoping to build Simple Limp Bass Absorbers following Tim Farrants advice. I have put my room dimensions into a room calculator. It gives me the room modes but I'm unclear on what to target with the traps. He says to build them on the dominant modes, which I get, but do yo just concentrate on one axial mode ( the room length) or do you have to take width and height into consideration too. Not sure whether I should be asking this on gearslutz, but thought maybe someone could give me straightforward advice here, as the replies there quickly leave my limited knowledge behind. 
Thanks
Arwyn


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Jan 6, 2021)

arwyn said:


> Hi, I'm resurrecting this older thread that I started some time ago. As in true fashion, I didn't get round
> to sorting out the acoustics in my room due to a number of things. One in particular that has affected us all in the last year! I have taken a measurement of my listening position and here is what I've got (see below). Having a limited understanding of this, could anyone help with what I need to target with trapping etc? If indeed I have measured it correctly! I was hoping to build Simple Limp Bass Absorbers following Tim Farrants advice. I have put my room dimensions into a room calculator. It gives me the room modes but I'm unclear on what to target with the traps. He says to build them on the dominant modes, which I get, but do yo just concentrate on one axial mode ( the room length) or do you have to take width and height into consideration too. Not sure whether I should be asking this on gearslutz, but thought maybe someone could give me straightforward advice here, as the replies there quickly leave my limited knowledge behind.
> Thanks
> Arwyn


If you'd like something designed specifically for your room whether it be just some simple recommendations or a full blown room design, send me a message.


----------



## Tfis (Jan 7, 2021)

arwyn said:


> I have taken a measurement of my listening position and here is what I've got (see below). Having a limited understanding of this, could anyone help with what I need to target with trapping etc? If indeed I have measured it correctly!


Use the waterfall diagram.


----------



## Jerry Growl (Jan 7, 2021)

Any thoughts on an active bass trap like this one? (besides the price tag obviously)







Psi Audio

(I have been intrigued by this brand for a long time. Saving up bit by bit for their monitors... one day hopefully)


----------



## arwyn (Jan 7, 2021)

arwyn said:


> Hi, I'm resurrecting this older thread that I started some time ago. As in true fashion, I didn't get round
> to sorting out the acoustics in my room due to a number of things. One in particular that has affected us all in the last year! I have taken a measurement of my listening position and here is what I've got (see below). Having a limited understanding of this, could anyone help with what I need to target with trapping etc? If indeed I have measured it correctly! I was hoping to build Simple Limp Bass Absorbers following Tim Farrants advice. I have put my room dimensions into a room calculator. It gives me the room modes but I'm unclear on what to target with the traps. He says to build them on the dominant modes, which I get, but do yo just concentrate on one axial mode ( the room length) or do you have to take width and height into consideration too. Not sure whether I should be asking this on gearslutz, but thought maybe someone could give me straightforward advice here, as the replies there quickly leave my limited knowledge behind.
> Thanks
> Arwyn


Will do, Thanks Gerhard


----------



## HDGRAY (May 8, 2021)

Jerry Growl said:


> Any thoughts on an active bass trap like this one? (besides the price tag obviously)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I remember reading about people giving up on the PSI because it has a low level but audible hiss that never goes away?


----------



## HDGRAY (May 8, 2021)

arwyn said:


> Hi. Just wondering if anyone has built bass traps using the plans from acoustic fields.
> How effective do you think is the activated carbon/charcoal? Also is their charcoal specialist unique product or can I source it elsewhere? I'm asking as I live in the uk and shipping would be very expensive
> Cheers
> Arwyn


I have the Acoustic Fields BDA plans. 

The activated Charcoal pellets are custom made for Acoustic Fields, as is the carbon foam. Dennis has this stuff made to his specs in China.

I was very skeptical of these products but Dennis has a very large list of well known audio engineers that stand behind his products. Capital records for example would not use his stuff if it didn't work.


----------



## babylonwaves (May 8, 2021)

Jerry Growl said:


> Any thoughts on an active bass trap like this one? (besides the price tag obviously)


I've listened to 4 of those in a hotel room (PSI rented one to show their stuff). That was amazing. Then I took 2 home for my studio and I practically didn't hear a difference at all, independent of the position. I think they're good at shortening the RT but they don't always work well when it comes to iron out modes.

Mine didn't hiss btw.


----------



## ThoughtfulOne (Aug 20, 2021)

arwyn said:


> Hi. Just wondering if anyone has built bass traps using the plans from acoustic fields.
> How effective do you think is the activated carbon/charcoal? Also is their charcoal specialist unique product or can I source it elsewhere? I'm asking as I live in the uk and shipping would be very expensive
> Cheers
> Arwyn


I just ran into this forum. To answer your question, I haven't built their products, but there are many that have. You can actually use either Activated Carbon that AF sells OR you can use other fill material, but the best results are with Activated Carbon. I have spoken to Dennis many times over the years and he tested all sorts of materials with his diaphragmatic cabinet design before settling on Activated Carbon. it just simply out performed everything else. Have I heard it? Yes. I went to a demo room he had many years ago and all I can say is that with his low frequency absorption, foam, and diffusors he had set up, it was flat out the best most natural sounding room I've ever been in. you get insane attack, decay, note/instrument separation, and he achieves a "room disappears" results. It's not JUST one of his products, but the combination of what he specs, amount and placement. Sure, absolutely, building a handful of his cabinets is going to improve the sound, but above all, speak with Dennis first, fill out the room form and get a strategy on what you're going to do rather than just building cabinets and guessing where to place them, etc. It really does matter. He takes a systematic approach and he doesn't like guessing. Guessing is a fool's errand and it wastes time and money..

I highly recommend his products, but more importantly, his advice and recommendations.


----------



## AEF (Aug 20, 2021)

There is nothing inherent to activated carbon, and those products are obscenely overpriced.

I recommend going to the gearslutz forum for acoustics. Dont spend your money on nonsense products.


----------



## sumskilz (Aug 20, 2021)

ThoughtfulOne said:


> I have spoken to Dennis many times over the years and he tested all sorts of materials with his diaphragmatic cabinet design before settling on Activated Carbon. it just simply out performed everything else.


Yeah, he may have told you that, but it's not actually true. His claims about mineral wool (rockwool) are also straight up misinformation. It is actually less of a health hazard than organic fibers, see here: https://gearspace.com/board/bass-tr...ockwool-fiberglass-organic-fibers-review.html

Here is an independent test of his ACDA-10 Activated Carbon Diaphragmatic Absorber:






This is an absorber that costs $1100 and absorbs no more than 20% of any frequency. A piece of 10cm thick Caruso IsoBond with roughly the same surface area costs $30 and absorbs 36-81% from 100 to 200hz, greater than 90% from 250 to 300hz, and greater than 100% above that.

For comparison, 5mm (3/16″) plywood paneling over a 50mm (2″) airspace has much better low end performance than this $1100 item. Acoustic Fields is selling snake oil.

EDIT: I've also noticed that whenever Acoustic Fields products are criticized on any forum, new users join in order to defend them, as has happened twice in this thread already.


----------



## HDGRAY (Aug 21, 2021)

sumskilz said:


> Yeah, he may have told you that, but it's not actually true. His claims about mineral wool (rockwool) are also straight up misinformation. It is actually less of a health hazard than organic fibers, see here: https://gearspace.com/board/bass-tr...ockwool-fiberglass-organic-fibers-review.html
> 
> Here is an independent test of his ACDA-10 Activated Carbon Diaphragmatic Absorber:
> 
> ...


Those tests were from 2008, A.F. didn't use Carbon in their boxes in 2008 they used other fill materials. They also have improved their box designs since that time. 

And no I am not Dennis and I don't work for Dennis, I have only spoken with him on the phone a couple of times. 

The science behind diaphragmatic absorbers is sound and we'll researched, as is the use of carbon for this purpose, as it is one of the most efficient materials for low freqency management in existence because of its extremely large relative surface area.

I have been a recording artist and engineer for About 38 years. 

There is 7 pages about me in the history of pacific northwest rock and metal book called "Rusted Metal".

I was also a general contractor for many years building nightclubs, hi end home theaters, from foundation to finished trim, & other entertainment related enviroments, as well as a few recording studios.

I am currently building 8 diaphragmatic absorbers for a recording studio which I have scaled down to fit in wall between 24" on center spacing. Using a total of 450 pounds of granular carbon. 

I also plan to use quite a bit of A.F. foam in this project.

When this room is finished in a few months I will report back with the results.


----------



## sumskilz (Aug 21, 2021)

HDGRAY said:


> Those tests were from 2008, A.F. didn't use Carbon in their boxes in 2008 they used other fill materials. They also have improved their box designs since that time.


Initially in my post (edited before you responded), I mentioned that unlike reputable manufacturers of acoustic treatments, Acoustic Fields posts no independent test results, which is something they have been criticized about for years by those pointing out the outlandish claims Dennis makes. However, I wanted to make sure I was being fair, so I double-checked and found that test from 2008 is now subtly tucked in there on this particular product page, next to a chart making some absurd claim about the bass response which is not represented within the independent test.

So if what you are saying is true, then why would it be linked on the product page for a product with the same name that is (according to you) no longer manufactured in the same way? If that were true, the test results wouldn't just be pathetic for the amount of money being asked for these absorbers, they would also be fraudulent. Although, I think you are mistaken rather than the results being fraudulently applied to a differently manufactured product, as no one would falsely claim test results that bad.

Outright misinformation is plentiful on the Acoustic Fields website, coming directly from the owner himself. For example, here he claims that mineral wool type insulations "do not provide the proper rates and levels of absorption for music and voice." Of course mineral wool is the industry standard for the job, used in almost every (if not every) major commercial studio. Its levels of absorption are several times greater than Acoustic Fields' most expensive absorber. So either he knows nothing about the topic he's speaking authoritatively about or he's lying in the service of selling his obscenely overpriced relatively poorly performing alternative.


----------



## AEF (Aug 21, 2021)

Honestly the appearance of a new member touting a product that is universally known by 99% of acousticians as snake oil should be enough to get this thread locked.


----------



## HDGRAY (Aug 21, 2021)

sumskilz said:


> Yeah, he may have told you that, but it's not actually true. His claims about mineral wool (rockwool) are also straight up misinformation. It is actually less of a health hazard than organic fibers, see here: https://gearspace.com/board/bass-tr...ockwool-fiberglass-organic-fibers-review.html
> 
> Here is an independent test of his ACDA-10 Activated Carbon Diaphragmatic Absorber:
> 
> ...


Oh and BTW I have installed hundreds of bales of Rock wool. And rock wool related competing products.

None of it is rated for use within occupied enviroments. It is only rated for In wall, crawl space and attic use. Osha requires a respirator to install these products. If it was truly safe to breath, an Osha approved respirator would not be required.

Don't take risks with your lungs!

Further this stuff is not in the least bit fire proof.

Just take a fuzzy chunk outside and hold a lighter to it.

Over the years I have seen a lot of people use this stuff for sound panels covered in speaker cloth, unfortunately it sheds right through the cloth and if it gets into your pots or faders it will chew them up, found that out the hard way 30 years ago. Some guys covered the wool with plastic wrap to stop the shedding, but to recap this stuff is not rated for use in occupied spaces, it would be a code violation to do so.

All that said it's a great in wall product for between room decoupled sound dampening. I have used it many times and will use it again for what it is technically designed and rated for.


sumskilz said:


> Initially in my post (edited before you responded), I mentioned that unlike reputable manufacturers of acoustic treatments, Acoustic Fields posts no independent test results, which is something they have been criticized about for years by those pointing out the outlandish claims Dennis makes. However, I wanted to make sure I was being fair, so I double-checked and found that test from 2008 is now subtly tucked in there on this particular product page, next to a chart making some absurd claim about the bass response which is not represented within the independent test.
> 
> So if what you are saying is true, then why would it be linked on the product page for a product with the same name that is (according to you) no longer manufactured in the same way? If that were true, the test results wouldn't just be pathetic for the amount of money being asked for these absorbers, they would also be fraudulent. Although, I think you are mistaken rather than the results being fraudulently applied to a differently manufactured product, as no one would falsely claim test results that bad.
> 
> Outright misinformation is plentiful on the Acoustic Fields website, coming directly from the owner himself. For example, here he claims that mineral wool type insulations "do not provide the proper rates and levels of absorption for music and voice." Of course mineral wool is the industry standard for the job, used in almost every (if not every) major commercial studio. Its levels of absorption are several times greater than Acoustic Fields' most expensive absorber. So either he knows nothing about the topic he's speaking authoritatively about or he's lying in the service of selling his obscenely overpriced relatively poorly performing alternative.


Good question, I have no answer for that as I am not affiliated with that company.

Charcoal has been used for decades for sound absorption. Activated carbon and carbon nano tubes are well researched absorbers.

I have never purchased any AF manufactured products. I am only concerned about the carbon and building my own boxes.


sumskilz said:


> Initially in my post (edited before you responded), I mentioned that unlike reputable manufacturers of acoustic treatments, Acoustic Fields posts no independent test results, which is something they have been criticized about for years by those pointing out the outlandish claims Dennis makes. However, I wanted to make sure I was being fair, so I double-checked and found that test from 2008 is now subtly tucked in there on this particular product page, next to a chart making some absurd claim about the bass response which is not represented within the independent test.
> 
> So if what you are saying is true, then why would it be linked on the product page for a product with the same name that is (according to you) no longer manufactured in the same way? If that were true, the test results wouldn't just be pathetic for the amount of money being asked for these absorbers, they would also be fraudulent. Although, I think you are mistaken rather than the results being fraudulently applied to a differently manufactured product, as no one would falsely claim test results that bad.
> 
> Outright misinformation is plentiful on the Acoustic Fields website, coming directly from the owner himself. For example, here he claims that mineral wool type insulations "do not provide the proper rates and levels of absorption for music and voice." Of course mineral wool is the industry standard for the job, used in almost every (if not every) major commercial studio. Its levels of absorption are several times greater than Acoustic Fields' most expensive absorber. So either he knows nothing about the topic he's speaking authoritatively about or he's lying in the service of selling his obscenely overpriced relatively poorly performing alternative.


Don't take risks with you lungs.

I use Rock wool, have for years. It works great but like I said it is not rated for use in occupied spaces the same as fiber glass batts





Synthetic Mineral Fibers - Standards | Occupational Safety and Health Administration







www.osha.gov


----------



## HDGRAY (Aug 21, 2021)

sumskilz said:


> Initially in my post (edited before you responded), I mentioned that unlike reputable manufacturers of acoustic treatments, Acoustic Fields posts no independent test results, which is something they have been criticized about for years by those pointing out the outlandish claims Dennis makes. However, I wanted to make sure I was being fair, so I double-checked and found that test from 2008 is now subtly tucked in there on this particular product page, next to a chart making some absurd claim about the bass response which is not represented within the independent test.
> 
> So if what you are saying is true, then why would it be linked on the product page for a product with the same name that is (according to you) no longer manufactured in the same way? If that were true, the test results wouldn't just be pathetic for the amount of money being asked for these absorbers, they would also be fraudulent. Although, I think you are mistaken rather than the results being fraudulently applied to a differently manufactured product, as no one would falsely claim test results that bad.
> 
> Outright misinformation is plentiful on the Acoustic Fields website, coming directly from the owner himself. For example, here he claims that mineral wool type insulations "do not provide the proper rates and levels of absorption for music and voice." Of course mineral wool is the industry standard for the job, used in almost every (if not every) major commercial studio. Its levels of absorption are several times greater than Acoustic Fields' most expensive absorber. So either he knows nothing about the topic he's speaking authoritatively about or he's lying in the service of selling his obscenely overpriced relatively poorly performing alternative.


----------



## HDGRAY (Aug 21, 2021)

sumskilz said:


> Initially in my post (edited before you responded), I mentioned that unlike reputable manufacturers of acoustic treatments, Acoustic Fields posts no independent test results, which is something they have been criticized about for years by those pointing out the outlandish claims Dennis makes. However, I wanted to make sure I was being fair, so I double-checked and found that test from 2008 is now subtly tucked in there on this particular product page, next to a chart making some absurd claim about the bass response which is not represented within the independent test.
> 
> So if what you are saying is true, then why would it be linked on the product page for a product with the same name that is (according to you) no longer manufactured in the same way? If that were true, the test results wouldn't just be pathetic for the amount of money being asked for these absorbers, they would also be fraudulent. Although, I think you are mistaken rather than the results being fraudulently applied to a differently manufactured product, as no one would falsely claim test results that bad.
> 
> Outright misinformation is plentiful on the Acoustic Fields website, coming directly from the owner himself. For example, here he claims that mineral wool type insulations "do not provide the proper rates and levels of absorption for music and voice." Of course mineral wool is the industry standard for the job, used in almost every (if not every) major commercial studio. Its levels of absorption are several times greater than Acoustic Fields' most expensive absorber. So either he knows nothing about the topic he's speaking authoritatively about or he's lying in the service of selling his obscenely overpriced relatively poorly performing alternative.


----------



## sumskilz (Aug 21, 2021)

The idea that “natural” fibers are safer than rockwool is a myth. I put natural in quotation marks because rockwool/mineral wool (same thing) is just as natural. It’s made of molten rock, mostly silicon dioxide, the same as sand at a beach. Not unlike wood products, some mineral wools off-gas when they’re new, due to the binder used. You can avoid this by buying mineral wool that doesn’t use phenol formaldehyde resin as a binder, like Knauf ECOSE products.

Breathing in large amounts of dust of any type is unhealthy. Hence, the warning to wear proper protective equipment when working with mineral wool. This is especially important for commercial installers who work with it all the time. However, the exposure you get cutting and installing mineral wool shouldn’t be conflated with the exposure you get from having it in your studio covered in fabric. Small amounts of it will escape from the fabric, but if you’re worried about breathing in small amounts of silicon dioxide, you better avoid sandy beaches as well. If you live in a dry climate, at least part of the year, you’re certainly already breathing in a lot of mineral particles.

Cellulose dust from plant-based alternatives is worse for your lungs than mineral wool. The reason for this is that tiny mineral particles are absorbed and removed from your lungs in a relatively short period of time. Whereas tiny cellulose particles decompose in your lungs over a much longer period of time, leading to greater inflammation which is a cancer risk factor. For home studio use, the risk appears to be extremely low in either case, much lower than many other products you no doubt already have in your home.

There are other options, synthetic options that are considered relatively healthy. Caruso IsoBond is a polyester fiber foam that has good bass absorption. Polyester is considered one of the most stable plastics, you probably have many other plastic items in your home that are much more toxic. Basotect is a melamine foam that also has good bass absorption. Ironically, melamine is made of cyanide and formaldehyde, but it's stable enough that it’s used to make cups, plates, and eating utensils. 

Caruso IsoBond and Basotect are both foams. There are knock-offs of these products you can get that are less expensive, but keep in mind that most other types of foams are both toxic and fairly bad at dealing with low frequencies. I still consider mineral wool such as the aforementioned Knauf ECOSE products to be the best options.

Regarding the scientific claims I’ve made, you can find links to relevant studies in this thread I linked earlier: https://gearspace.com/board/bass-tr...ockwool-fiberglass-organic-fibers-review.html


----------



## HDGRAY (Aug 21, 2021)

Like I said I have been installing saying / SAB / Rock wool for over 30 years. 

It is not rated for use within occupied environments. It doesn't matter what some health document says, it's still a code violation, which if you are a business can carry a hefty fine.
And it does not matter if you cover it with speaker cloth, even if it is Gilford main, that does not constitute an isolated space like inside of a wall.


----------



## AEF (Aug 21, 2021)

HDGRAY said:


> Like I said I have been installing saying / SAB / Rock wool for over 30 years.
> 
> It is not rated for use within occupied environments. It doesn't matter what some health document says, it's still a code violation, which if you are a business can carry a hefty fine.
> And it does not matter if you cover it with speaker cloth, even if it is Gilford main, that does not constitute an isolated space like inside of a wall.


Ah yes the anecdotal evidence. Ridiculous.

There is no science that backs up any of your claims. None.


----------



## HDGRAY (Aug 21, 2021)

AEF said:


> Ah yes the anecdotal evidence. Ridiculous.
> 
> There is no science that backs up any of your claims. None.


Write a letter to theses guys and complain. https://www.cpsc.gov/

Why do you think there are no fancy pre-made Rock wool acoustic panels for sale on the market?

The Owens corning 700 range of compressed board insulation is rated for use in occupied environments when properly covered by an approved fire rated fabric.


----------



## HDGRAY (Aug 21, 2021)

AEF said:


> Ah yes the anecdotal evidence. Ridiculous.
> 
> There is no science that backs up any of your claims. None.


Just so we are clear, I am taking about rock wool / Roxel / saying / SAB Batt insulation which is popular with the DYS crowd.

Products like rock board, or Rock wool compressed board products are rated for occupied spaces of properly installed in accordance with the code.

Products like this https://www.acousticsoundinsulation.com/rockwooll-ceiling-panels/


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Aug 25, 2021)

HDGRAY said:


> Write a letter to theses guys and complain. https://www.cpsc.gov/
> 
> Why do you think there are no fancy pre-made Rock wool acoustic panels for sale on the market?
> 
> The Owens corning 700 range of compressed board insulation is rated for use in occupied environments when properly covered by an approved fire rated fabric.


Doesn't GIK use a Knauf product that's a soft rockwool?


----------



## HDGRAY (Aug 26, 2021)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Doesn't GIK use a Knauf product that's a soft rockwool?


GIK products are basically board insulation.

They bind the whole bale together with an "environmentally friendly" glue. In other words unlike plain rock wool bales Gik is sealed and as such was awarded an occupied space use certification


----------

