Ms. DICKINSON
Golden Member
Time to abandon apt dude. Get a house to yourself.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Apartment Sound Proofing
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
OK so after 10 years of reading this forum I signed up because of this thread.
If appears you want to spend 18K to soundproof because of creaking floors.
Here is my tip before you try anything and spend 18k go to the ladies apartment and spread baby powder on the hardwood floored and brush it between the spaces. Old floors creek because the wood rubs together this way you are adding a rubbing layer this is an old tip to stop hardwood floors from creaking. ()🙂
If appears you want to spend 18K to soundproof because of creaking floors.
Here is my tip before you try anything and spend 18k go to the ladies apartment and spread baby powder on the hardwood floored and brush it between the spaces. Old floors creek because the wood rubs together this way you are adding a rubbing layer this is an old tip to stop hardwood floors from creaking. ()🙂
Yes. I sent you a PM
Simple R19 fiberglass. Kraft paper faced for ease of installation
Replacing a ceiling can only do so much.
The way to do it is to install a 'floating' ceiling. You attach spring/rubber mounts to the joists in the ceiling. Ideally you want a gap of about 4-6".
Then you hang extra-heavy plasterboard off the mounts. Typically, you would use 2, 1/2" thick boards of high-density plasterboard, giving a total thickness of 1".
The gap around the edges between the new lower ceiling and walls must be sealed with a 'resilient' acoustic barrier material, bearing in mind that the 'floating' ceiling will move up and down slightly.
The gap above the new ceiling boards should be filled with extra-heavy mineral wool (not thermal insulation or foam, this is similar to the glass wool used for insulation, but is designed for maximum weight, not thermal properties). Injectable foam is a waste of time. It's not filling the gap that you are interested in, it's maximizing weight while simultaneously using a soft pad that absorbs high-frequency vibrations. Injectable foam does neither.
There are 3 keys to soundproofing: Blocking (this is only for high pitched sounds like speech, TV, etc. transmitted through the air - this is done with the resilient foam used to seal the edge of the ceiling to the walls. It does nothing for low-pitched sounds or footfall); Isolation (The new ceiling must be free to move seperately to the supporting ceiling - and like a car suspension, it must be sprung and damped); Mass (Maximum mass is required in order to cushion shocks and vibrations so that they can be damped by the isolation).
Don't get an 'acoustic' or 'sound absorbing' ceiling. Those terms mean ceilings that deaden the acoustics in the room they are used. So, they're used in recording studios to deaden the room acoustics. They don't insulate from above.
Replacing the floor will give much better sound performance, especially to footfall. This is by far the preferred option.
the sub-floor void should be filled with heavy mineral wool.
A resilient acoustic membrane placed under heavy floorboards (you can get cement enriched fiberboard which is super heavy), which are screwed (not nailed) to the joists.
Then a thick 'resilient' membrane is installed and extended up teh walls by a couple of inches, with all joins welded.
A floating floor of heavy (inch thick, preferable cement enriched) rigidly glued, tongue-and-groove board is laid onto of the membrane and left 'floating'.
Finally, on top of the floating floor is laid conventional acoustic floor underlay, and finally the top wood finish.
The disadvantage with this floor modification is that it will raise the floor by about 2", necessitating modification to doors and skirting boards.
The way to do it is to install a 'floating' ceiling. You attach spring/rubber mounts to the joists in the ceiling. Ideally you want a gap of about 4-6".
Then you hang extra-heavy plasterboard off the mounts. Typically, you would use 2, 1/2" thick boards of high-density plasterboard, giving a total thickness of 1".
The gap around the edges between the new lower ceiling and walls must be sealed with a 'resilient' acoustic barrier material, bearing in mind that the 'floating' ceiling will move up and down slightly.
The gap above the new ceiling boards should be filled with extra-heavy mineral wool (not thermal insulation or foam, this is similar to the glass wool used for insulation, but is designed for maximum weight, not thermal properties). Injectable foam is a waste of time. It's not filling the gap that you are interested in, it's maximizing weight while simultaneously using a soft pad that absorbs high-frequency vibrations. Injectable foam does neither.
There are 3 keys to soundproofing: Blocking (this is only for high pitched sounds like speech, TV, etc. transmitted through the air - this is done with the resilient foam used to seal the edge of the ceiling to the walls. It does nothing for low-pitched sounds or footfall); Isolation (The new ceiling must be free to move seperately to the supporting ceiling - and like a car suspension, it must be sprung and damped); Mass (Maximum mass is required in order to cushion shocks and vibrations so that they can be damped by the isolation).
Don't get an 'acoustic' or 'sound absorbing' ceiling. Those terms mean ceilings that deaden the acoustics in the room they are used. So, they're used in recording studios to deaden the room acoustics. They don't insulate from above.
Replacing the floor will give much better sound performance, especially to footfall. This is by far the preferred option.
the sub-floor void should be filled with heavy mineral wool.
A resilient acoustic membrane placed under heavy floorboards (you can get cement enriched fiberboard which is super heavy), which are screwed (not nailed) to the joists.
Then a thick 'resilient' membrane is installed and extended up teh walls by a couple of inches, with all joins welded.
A floating floor of heavy (inch thick, preferable cement enriched) rigidly glued, tongue-and-groove board is laid onto of the membrane and left 'floating'.
Finally, on top of the floating floor is laid conventional acoustic floor underlay, and finally the top wood finish.
The disadvantage with this floor modification is that it will raise the floor by about 2", necessitating modification to doors and skirting boards.
Last edited:
Heck of a post. Thanks for that. I agree with most and disagree with just a couple of the points. I really hope that none of this is perceived as an argument. That is absolutely not my intention. You bring up a number of fine points and these threads stay out here in cyberspace forever so I think its important to leave an accurate message. I appreciate your consideration.
I agree. If 80% of the sound is coming through the ceiling, then 20% is coming in through the downstairs walls. You would always have the remaining 20% if all you did was treat the ceiling. However the link in post #11 describes a means to damp significant vibration on the subfloor directly, which directly assists with the reduction of both the 20% passing through the walls as well as the 80% passing through the ceiling.
I also agree that you want extra heavy. This is cheap if you use standard 5/8 drywall. $7-8 a sheet. Finished thickness is 1.25
Well here we disagree. Refer to previous posts in this thread, however the data supplied by the Acoustics Lab at the NRC in Canada describes that the optimal material for joist and wall cavities is standard thermal density insulation. See a lot of that data in this report: http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/ir/ir693/ir693.pdf
Denser insulations are required ON a wall for sound / echo control, but not IN a wall. The cavity resonance that we are combating is most effectively dealt with by adding standard thermal fiberglass, mineral wool, mineral fiber, cellulose, polyester, or cotton. Comparing the massive dataset from the NRC, we see that the slightly denser mineral wool / fiber (sold for thermal) is slightly better in the upper frequencies. We also see that fiberglass is slightly more effective in the low frequencies.
Given that we are generally designing a system to deal with the much more difficult low frequencies, fiberglass looms as the better choice. However Id suggest getting whatever is cheapest in your area as from a practical perspective, insulation contributes the least to the overall solution so personally I dont believe its worth spending too much time deciding on which one. I recommend to just get the cheapest.
Weight is the last thing we want in this cavity. Seems counterintuitive maybe, given that on either side of the cavity we want a lot of mass, but not in the cavity. We want low/medium density resistance for the sound waves, with no compaction to avoid actual physical conduction through the fiber.
Agree completely. The material is too dense and does not offer sufficient surface area for interaction with the sound waves. It can also be dense enough to actually conduct a vibration, effectively coupling the system.
Agree and people often confuse the two.
It sure is. Carpet and pad is also great, but in most instances the upstairs floor is not an option. And the trend is more toward hard, conductive surfaces.
The concept of applying a resilient product directly on the joists is very acoustically sound (no pun). Sometimes its frowned upon by building inspectors, though. Again, the concept is great, but not always accepted.
I agree. If 80% of the sound is coming through the ceiling, then 20% is coming in through the downstairs walls. You would always have the remaining 20% if all you did was treat the ceiling. However the link in post #11 describes a means to damp significant vibration on the subfloor directly, which directly assists with the reduction of both the 20% passing through the walls as well as the 80% passing through the ceiling.
I also agree that you want extra heavy. This is cheap if you use standard 5/8 drywall. $7-8 a sheet. Finished thickness is 1.25
Well here we disagree. Refer to previous posts in this thread, however the data supplied by the Acoustics Lab at the NRC in Canada describes that the optimal material for joist and wall cavities is standard thermal density insulation. See a lot of that data in this report: http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/ir/ir693/ir693.pdf
Denser insulations are required ON a wall for sound / echo control, but not IN a wall. The cavity resonance that we are combating is most effectively dealt with by adding standard thermal fiberglass, mineral wool, mineral fiber, cellulose, polyester, or cotton. Comparing the massive dataset from the NRC, we see that the slightly denser mineral wool / fiber (sold for thermal) is slightly better in the upper frequencies. We also see that fiberglass is slightly more effective in the low frequencies.
Given that we are generally designing a system to deal with the much more difficult low frequencies, fiberglass looms as the better choice. However Id suggest getting whatever is cheapest in your area as from a practical perspective, insulation contributes the least to the overall solution so personally I dont believe its worth spending too much time deciding on which one. I recommend to just get the cheapest.
Weight is the last thing we want in this cavity. Seems counterintuitive maybe, given that on either side of the cavity we want a lot of mass, but not in the cavity. We want low/medium density resistance for the sound waves, with no compaction to avoid actual physical conduction through the fiber.
Agree completely. The material is too dense and does not offer sufficient surface area for interaction with the sound waves. It can also be dense enough to actually conduct a vibration, effectively coupling the system.
Agree and people often confuse the two.
It sure is. Carpet and pad is also great, but in most instances the upstairs floor is not an option. And the trend is more toward hard, conductive surfaces.
The concept of applying a resilient product directly on the joists is very acoustically sound (no pun). Sometimes its frowned upon by building inspectors, though. Again, the concept is great, but not always accepted.
the DRIZZLE
Platinum Member
Ted - What kind of carpet pad would work best for my application. I read that felt is better than the urethane foam, does it make a difference?
the DRIZZLE
Platinum Member
Is this sufficient?
http://www.amazon.com/ENDURANCE-Prem...8765966&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/ENDURANCE-Prem...8765966&sr=1-2
I think you will want to have a read here
http://www.soundproofingcompany.com/solutions/soundproofing_ceilings/
drats. someone beat me to it.
http://www.soundproofingcompany.com/solutions/soundproofing_ceilings/
drats. someone beat me to it.
Last edited:
BlahBlahYouToo
Lifer
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
