spring brackets or resilient channel suspends the floating ceiling giving mechanical isolation from the floor and joists above
the suspended ceiling only has to just clear the bottom of the joists
the sound absorbing fill between shouldn't mechanically short the suspension
that doesn't follow my mechanical intuition - the fill can only absorb sound from differential motion of the floor above and the ceiling below making the walls of the cavity
with the joists solid thru path and ceiling nailed to them the direct coupled thru the joists motion drives the rigidly fixed ceiling "in phase" at least for the lowest frequencies
the suspended ceiling only has to just clear the bottom of the joists
the sound absorbing fill between shouldn't mechanically short the suspension
that doesn't follow my mechanical intuition - the fill can only absorb sound from differential motion of the floor above and the ceiling below making the walls of the cavity
with the joists solid thru path and ceiling nailed to them the direct coupled thru the joists motion drives the rigidly fixed ceiling "in phase" at least for the lowest frequencies
Last edited:
Assuming a suspension, of course.
trying to get the "max bang for the buck" here.
And preferably a method that workers who may be rather "less astute" than one might really prefer are able to execute without excess supervision...
But, I detect two separate and distinct methods here:
A) vermiculite is in contact with the ceiling
B) vermiculite is NOT in contact with the ceiling
the only issue I can see with the padding method of drywall mounting could be in terms of the mounting screws wanting to poke through the taping/compound. I could see predrilling the holes so that the drywall was hanging on the screwheads, free to move slightly. (more losses?)
Of course drywall above leaves the issue of having a rather reflective surface 7ft above a floor... the floor can get carpet + cushion (it will) but a hard ceiling might leave something to be desired.
problems, problems to solve in non-optimal spaces.
_-_-
trying to get the "max bang for the buck" here.
And preferably a method that workers who may be rather "less astute" than one might really prefer are able to execute without excess supervision...
But, I detect two separate and distinct methods here:
A) vermiculite is in contact with the ceiling
B) vermiculite is NOT in contact with the ceiling
the only issue I can see with the padding method of drywall mounting could be in terms of the mounting screws wanting to poke through the taping/compound. I could see predrilling the holes so that the drywall was hanging on the screwheads, free to move slightly. (more losses?)
Of course drywall above leaves the issue of having a rather reflective surface 7ft above a floor... the floor can get carpet + cushion (it will) but a hard ceiling might leave something to be desired.
problems, problems to solve in non-optimal spaces.
_-_-
Now we talk about Schroeder diffusers. Or you could use flag cloth for the ceiling with the loose fill.
The brackets I posted are used to hang a sub ceiling. The system is very efficient, and often used in refurbishing old houses with separate flats.
The rockwool plates are hard enough to hold a concrete top level directly. I looked for some density data, but didn't find anything quickly..
The rockwool plates are hard enough to hold a concrete top level directly. I looked for some density data, but didn't find anything quickly..
Yes, let's talk about Schroeder diffusers... maybe another thread...
I'd be likely to use a combination of cloth and drywall... or something else along those
lines. Some of these newer flooring ("hardwood/laminate") might be interesting...
The only problem with cloth is that it stretches over time. So mounting it overhead is an issue...
I'd be likely to use a combination of cloth and drywall... or something else along those
lines. Some of these newer flooring ("hardwood/laminate") might be interesting...
The only problem with cloth is that it stretches over time. So mounting it overhead is an issue...
Flag cloth is "special". You actually use hardware cloth first then use frames to stretch the cloth and attach the frames.
Ok, I've used this sort of scheme before, but for wall treatments.
Guess I need to learn more about "flag cloth"... most cloth tends to sag with time + gravity.
Guess I need to learn more about "flag cloth"... most cloth tends to sag with time + gravity.
Pour a reinforced concrete slab over elastomeric foam.
https://acousticalsolutions.com/product/iso-step-floor-underlayment/
http://www.audimutesoundproofing.com/sound-isolation.aspx
Last edited:
yeah... although I like the idea, and the elastomeric foam!
Perhaps a "lightweight concrete" slab, the house is not designed to support so much weight, I expect. Well, it might support it, however add a room full of people, and everyone would be in the basement!
These rolls of "elastomer" are essentially the same as what I was initially considering for placement under 1/4" or 3/8" ply, covered with carpet squares/tiles. The thing is that I'd guess that these are somewhat jumped up prices, since they are being resold as acoustic treatment. IF I was going to go with an elastomeric layer, I'd try to source it more directly from a mfr. The local carpet "warehouse" was showing thin "memory foam" type roll stuff for use under these engineered laminated flooring. That was a bit over $1.00USD/ft. The space that is going to be covered is 15' x 23' or ~450sqft, or about $500 for covering with this stuff.
Somewhere in these sites for the roll out rubbery stuff, I'd like to see them say what the material is and what the (yeah what the heck is the unit measure called?? grrrr...) hardness/density is.
It starts to add up quickly. The way I am looking at it is to look at the effectiveness of the treatment vs. the cost vs. the final aesthetic of the install.
Another factor is the speed of install and the cost and difficulty of installation.
_-_-
Perhaps a "lightweight concrete" slab, the house is not designed to support so much weight, I expect. Well, it might support it, however add a room full of people, and everyone would be in the basement!
These rolls of "elastomer" are essentially the same as what I was initially considering for placement under 1/4" or 3/8" ply, covered with carpet squares/tiles. The thing is that I'd guess that these are somewhat jumped up prices, since they are being resold as acoustic treatment. IF I was going to go with an elastomeric layer, I'd try to source it more directly from a mfr. The local carpet "warehouse" was showing thin "memory foam" type roll stuff for use under these engineered laminated flooring. That was a bit over $1.00USD/ft. The space that is going to be covered is 15' x 23' or ~450sqft, or about $500 for covering with this stuff.
Somewhere in these sites for the roll out rubbery stuff, I'd like to see them say what the material is and what the (yeah what the heck is the unit measure called?? grrrr...) hardness/density is.
It starts to add up quickly. The way I am looking at it is to look at the effectiveness of the treatment vs. the cost vs. the final aesthetic of the install.
Another factor is the speed of install and the cost and difficulty of installation.
_-_-
Bear, don't you have any control over those persons who are making those footfalls? My little sister used to stomp around on her bare heels until we urged her to learn to walk quietly. Some kind of cash incentive might be cheaper? Or some sheepskin slippers....
Getting into this late, but when I and another engineer built a recording studio directly over a rock n roll club, we got very good attenuation by filling the space beneath the floor with sand. This was in a commercial building whose construction would handle the weight.
Doc
Doc
No, no control over the people above, they will do what they do. But also, they would prefer to experience as little of my music as they can... 😀
Yes, sand is nice, but as noted earlier, rather heavy. I am considering a thin layer of sand. But I have to watch the "build height" above the existing plywood floor.
And, it's never too late for a good idea or another perspective.
_-_-
Yes, sand is nice, but as noted earlier, rather heavy. I am considering a thin layer of sand. But I have to watch the "build height" above the existing plywood floor.
And, it's never too late for a good idea or another perspective.
_-_-
Consider cork under the carpet. In our house, it seems to help deaden the footsteps and music... It's about 3mm thick, glued down to the subfloor. No expensive, and comes in square tiles.
FWIW - most methods of sound proofing relies on two or more decouples layers, combined with mass, preferrably different in each layer. Mass in itself can work, but effieciency falls with lower freq, except for rather extreme levels of mass. The 'frame and bracket' system I suggested is by far the better, at a reasonable cost. I'm sure some googlin' will give some results.
A layer of softer absorbent like cork, foam, carpet etc will dampen thumps or footfall, but does not do it for a music system below or above 🙂 Bass and kick drums will still travel through the structure.....
A layer of softer absorbent like cork, foam, carpet etc will dampen thumps or footfall, but does not do it for a music system below or above 🙂 Bass and kick drums will still travel through the structure.....
Last edited:
Didn't see this listed: http://www2.owenscorning.com/around/sound/commercial_acoustics/floormat.pdf
GM
GM
What percentage of low frequency sound transfer would be eliminated if the sub system wasn't in solid contact to the floor? Just curious..
There is no "sub system" in contact with the floor... the issue is transmitted noise FROM the floor above, mostly footfalls. The added bonus is a reduction of sound transmitted UP from below.
For a general answer to the question raised, probably somewhat less sound would be transmitted if a sub was not in contact with a floor, but at ~100dB or more in the air of the room, lifting it up would not likely not be of enough benefit to be important.
For a general answer to the question raised, probably somewhat less sound would be transmitted if a sub was not in contact with a floor, but at ~100dB or more in the air of the room, lifting it up would not likely not be of enough benefit to be important.
Last edited:
GM, looks interesting... pink, of course!
Have to read it some more, since the high STC numbers are WITH a "resilient" ceiling mount system below, and a double layer of 5/8" (thicker stuff) gypsum board ceiling below, plus "acoustic" insulation in the joists.
I'd like to see what the benefit of the roll foam alone is, along with impulse testing, and a freq curve, with and without... that would be of actual use.
Wonder what the price is?
_-_-
Have to read it some more, since the high STC numbers are WITH a "resilient" ceiling mount system below, and a double layer of 5/8" (thicker stuff) gypsum board ceiling below, plus "acoustic" insulation in the joists.
I'd like to see what the benefit of the roll foam alone is, along with impulse testing, and a freq curve, with and without... that would be of actual use.
Wonder what the price is?
_-_-
- Status
- Not open for further replies.