Talk:Soundproofing

Professional sound production Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology Start‑class

	Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2021 and 25 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SJB808. Peer reviewers: Hyekyunglee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mattresses

how do I make a soundproof room without using mattresses? they are too punk rawk

Matresses certainly are not the only thing you could use to soundproof a room. Many companies exist that sell special soundproofing foam that can be inserted within the walls. If your budget is limited, any fabric, when enough is applied, will probably work. Not that I'm an expert in the field, but I do have that advice to offer. 65.43.199.68 13:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMPLETELY Soundproof

Wouldn't it be possible to construct a literally completely sound proof chamber surrounding the chamber in a layer of vacuum, even if the vacuum layer is very thin. In order for this to be done the chamber would have to be completely suspended in the vacuum using some kind of electromagnet that can act on the chamber through the vacuum. While it wouldn't technically be completely sound proof since a complete vacuum is theoretically impossible let alone acheivable with our technology, it seems as though using even a millimeter of vacuum would be much more effective than meters of concrete. Perhaps though forming a vacuum large enough to contain a usefully sized chamber is impractical with current technology, though again the vacuum layer would only have to be very thin seperating the chamber with the outside to acheive the desired affect. Any thoughts on this?

A vacuum seal is important for soundproofing since sound waves in air are a compression / vacuum wave. This creates an important sound barrier! Foam Rubber creates damping, so does fiberous materials like bedding, cotton, fiber glass and so on. But these materials will just let sound or air through! Solid Rubber is a good barrier, or a hard barrier that wont let any air through at all. Generally sound proofing consists of using layers of materials that absorb sound or reflect it. Damping materials usually are poor conductors of heat too... so your soundproof room is also fuel efficient! Industry standard is I think foam rubber acoustical foam, followed by ceiling tile material, a hard rubber barrier, then hardboard like gypsum or masonite, followed by compressed fiberglass, and rockwool bats(attic insulation) and then a hard wall like concrete which reflects some sound back through the whole thing. For home use one very good aerobic seal and a then covering a whole wall with damping material like blankets and egg crates is a good Idea! Some damping materials like eggcrates tend to be firehazards so be carefull. Also if this is a recording room you need some reflective surfaces to sound natural. Its a misconception that the recording industry does everything acoustically dead. They often have hard random surfaces with weird stuff stuffed in the walls for isolation!

i am not an expert on the materials science side, but i think the limiting factor would be the ability of the seal to hold over a long time period. most non-exotic construction materials tend to have some leakage. the other issue is "how do you attach the two sides of the vacuum sandwich?" any medium of attachment would transmit sound. still the idea may have some merit and is not to be discarded, sincerely Anlace 20:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive developed the same exact idea (dowm to the magnets, I didt go with electromagnets) so, original poster: great minds think alike :). As for the reply, it doesn't have to be a sealed vacuum (in fact, it cant be, because the portal has to open and close to let you in and out! It is an actively evacuated vacuum, with a small pump actively pumping leaks, and after air pressure returns when you want to enter or exit the room, through a portal. btw I'm responsible for the current intro paragraphs to vacuum flask, you might find that useful too :).

Magnets will hold a charged wall up using the electromagnetic force! The photons that transmit the electromagnetic force will transfer any movement of a magnet to another magnet at the speed of light! Thus the Vacuum will transmit the shockwave at the speed of light rather than the speed of sound! Remember a speaker uses electromagnetic coils pushing against a magnet with the coils attached to a piece of paper(cone) which is transfered via electromagnetism to air! So sound does travel through vacuums! The damping will depend on the mass of the room, the damping of the magnets on both sides of the seal! But the net net is that it is an impractical Idea that won't work! Remember Guitar pickups use magnets, speaker boxes do, and so do microphones! But since sound waves in "air" would be stopped by this you are on the right track...

oh, and anlace: you DON'T "attach" the two sides, the inside room "floats" in the vacuum of the outside room. It floats because it's on magnets, and so is it's bottom. The big question is: does the vibration of the room go to the outside room through the vibration of the magnetic fields? If so, perhaps a better solution is to suspend the room on a very elastic suspension that dampens the vibration. A rubber band with a vibrating toy suspended from it potentially does not transfer the vibration to your hand? (Only the weight?)

I agree that a vacuum, even if not perfect, will drastically reduce the sound transmitted from the inner orb to the outside. However, it seems impractical, because it would be impossible to reach the inner orb without having to break the vacuum and for that reason i do not think it is efficient, as stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.93.70 (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrations end up coupling between the walls via whatever method is used to hold them apart, be it magnetic or elastic. Magnets will certainly couple vibration, as changing the distance between them changes the force between them (you want to have the change be as little as possible for minimum coupling). In conventional soundproofing, things like floor joists are typically mounted on rubber fittings to reduce this type of coupling between rooms. In a laboratory setting, things like optics tables are "floated" on compressed air pistons to reduce coupling between building vibrations and experiments. --Christopher Thomas 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I thought of this very concept (A soundproof room floating in a vacuum suspended by electromagnets), my google searches led me here. As near as I figure, this is only theoretically possible, in that it would be far too costly and impractical to implement in the real world. The above about some transmission of sound via the electromagnetic suspension is no doubt correct, but I imagine even a distance of only millimeters would dampen any vibration by dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of times. Ironically, the only way to assure no vibrational transmission whatsoever would be to have the inner chamber floating separately without any kind of magnets (and by chance not touching the sides) in anti/microgravity which could only exist in space, which is a vacuum in the first place. In other words, a noise occurring in a spacecraft is vibrationally perfectly isolated and hence perfectly soundproof. Duh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.20 (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem with the idea of completely sound proof is how sensitive do you want to get? Geologists measure magnitude 1 and 2 earth quakes at distances of hundreds if not thousands of miles. It is kind of like asking can we create a complete vacuum or reach zero degrees kelvin. Physics will say we can get close but not absolute. Robert.Harker (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge (Soundproofing with Architectural acoustics

Oppose merger. Diffuser is a small subset of soundproofing. these are the same things. Anlace 01:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Soundproofing principles and techniques are used for a large variety of objects and devices, and are hence not limited to buildings and rooms. For example, soundproofing is required within cars and other motor vehicles, and a wide variety of techniques, not yet described in the article, are so employed. Additionally, in industrial settings there are regulatory requirements (and proposals for their improvements) for the direct soundproofing of machinery equipment in order to help prevent hearing loss to the industrial workers employed in their vicinity, and to limit noise escaping to the surrounding neighbourhood environment, as demonstrated by soundproof engine test cells (and other types of test cells) commonly found near such manufacturers and at airports. HarryZilber (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As two 'oppose' comments have been issued against the merge proposal over the past 2+ years, with no supporting arguments, the merger proposal tag is being removed from the article's webpage as of this date. HarryZilber (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusion

User Anlace previously wrote: "Oppose merger. Diffuser is a small subset of soundproofing. these are the same things. Anlace 01:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Unsigned followup comment unrelated to the merger proposal: "No, diffusion is different! Think of light. The white cone over a lamp is a light diffuser, But completely sealing a lamp inside of a black box is lightproofing! They are different things but both are important to pro audio!"

Sentence Review?

"Most vibration / sound transfer from a room to the outside occurs through mechanical means."

Are there other means to transfer sound (which is a mechanical wave and by definition it needs a medium) other than mechanical?

The writer meant: mechanical as opposed to sound transfer through air, is how I understood it. 121.247.68.245 (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio ? ;) ---19S.137.93.171 (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Link to Blog

According to Wikipedia Guideline Reliable Sources a blog is not a reliable source. The final external link, "How Sound Insulations Work" is indeed a blog. While the information is good, and the blog is well written, unless a reliable source can be found (ie, "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight."), this external link will need to be removed. Of course, input from other editors on this matter is welcomed. Louislouislewee 06:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed external link, no response to above notice. I suggest the same or similar data be located in a Reliable Source and included in article. Louislouislewee 04:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Do list

This article needs more about measurement and design. It could use a photo of construction methods for room-within-a-room. There needs to be a decision about the environmental roadway noise mitigation section: does this stay or get merged somewhere else? There needs to be a discussion of the fire danger of some soundproofing materials. The article should mention Wallace Sabine and Hermann von Helmholtz. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone provide information within the article about companies who manufacture different soundproofing materials —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.139.158 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

products mention

Does anyone know about who manufactures the best soundproofing materials?

Barnaby2122 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in improving section on "Damping"

I've completely cut some material from the section on "Damping", not because it shouldn't be there but because I cannot follow what the author was trying to say. (Were they trying to say that internally damped drywall is a more effective way of damping low-frequency vibrations?)

Here's the material I've cut:

Lead and Neoprene do not address the lower, most bothersome low frequency vibrations and can be very difficult to install as well as costly. One commonly used material is internally damped drywall such as QuietRock.

I invite someone to reintroduce the material in a form that's clearer. Thanks.

W.F.Galway (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking that out. AFAIK, there is no specific characteristic that neoprene and lead have which make them unsuitable for LF damping. LF is tough for every material, including QuietRock. I have to guess that the editor adding this was very gung-ho about QuietRock, and was responding to the difference between it and some other standard methods of damping. Without a cite, though, taking it out was the best move. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bold changes ! Polystyrene; moisture; Open-celled foam

I feel I should justify my deletions here - and not just by 'No citation' !

Making a sound wave transfer through different layers of material with different densities assists in noise damping.

Hopefully I've re-added that in clearer form.

Open-celled foam is not a good sound damper inside of a wall, as the foam is too dense and offers insufficient surface area for sound wave interaction. Improper use of foam tape as a stand-off for paneling can lead to problems with structural compliance enabling resonance of the panel. This process is analogous to a string holding wind-chimes: the string helps the chimes ring by isolating the vibration instead of damping it. Foam tapes may, therefore, be undependable in a soundproofing protocol.

You're describing some complex systems. Maybe they were just badly-designed ! Panel absorbers rely on enabling panels to resonate, then damping the vibration! Usually mass (density) tends to correlate with good absorption. Likewise open-cell foam has high surface area. Foam tape can be damping rather than compliant. Best not to use resonant panels, and tape behind the anti-nodes? If the physics is self-contradictory, it is best left out - too confusing.

Extruded polystyrene foam (XPS) and expanded polystyrene foam (EPS), commonly used for thermal insulation, are significant conductors of sound. Polystyrene use as a sound damper should be avoided except in applications where moisture resistance and buoyancy is necessary.

I also removed references to dampness in damping materials (I hate the English language sometimes!) from the heading as being too 'secondary'. Most studios don't require buoyancy either - are these references to a specific marine application ? Even air is important as a component of composite damping materials. I suspect polystyrene can be useful for 'damping' of surface reflections (eg to conduct sound into a wall by impedance matching or refractive index matching), or under a perforated membrane in damped Helmholtz absorbers.

See Auralex TruTraps Genesis System Q'Fusors - the footnotes reveal they are EPS foam.

Study on Cementitious Sound Absorber with Expanded Polystyrene Waste as Aggregate.

Also note that there are 2 kinds of 'soundproofing' - anechoic chamber or noise abatement - their requirements may be contradictory in some rare cases !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Acoustic treatment ?

I've been having slight "second thoughts": maybe 'soundproofing' should be restricted to sound transmission, not reflection ? OTOH echoes will increase the sound level both inside and outside the room. The article could maybe be improved by renaming it to Acoustic treatment - a missing topic pre-linked from Acoustic foam? I'll try to redirect that here ! 'Soundproofing' sounds like an informal, imprecise term.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works for now !---19S.137.93.171 (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary is clear on 'transmitted' sound [1] [2] Google doesn't find dictionary entries except us and wordnetweb.princeton.edu.

---19S.137.93.171 (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

YES! Good! I was about to suggest the same thing. Change it! Acoustic Treatment is what this article should be called. Sound Proofing is under the grader topic of Acoustic Treatment. Sound Proofing specifically regards transmission. Acoustic Treatment includes Sound Proofing, as well as diffusion, absorption, etc. You have my vote to change it!

24.84.229.90 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

This article is covering both Soundproofing and Acoustic treatment topics. There is some overlap as some acoustic treatments also have soundproofing properties. But I do think a WP:SPLIT should be considered. ~Kvng (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Must acoustic foam be fireproof?

I would propose deleting the following paragraph from the section "Absorption".

"Acoustic foam must be fireproof to avoid disasters such as The Station nightclub fire which killed 100 in 2003."

Firstly acoustic foam does not have to be fire proof (there are many contrary examples of acoustic foams which are not fire proof).

Secondly by drawing a conclusion the paragraph is making itself a primary source. There are no secondary sources cited - stating either: - that all acoustic foam must be fire proof to avoid disasters - that non-fire proof acoustic foam was responsible for The Station nightclub fire - that the requirement for all acoustic foam to be fire proof follows as a direct result of the Station nightclub fire.

If comment is to be made about the fire performance of soundproofing material I would propose it be made in a separate section.

--School of Stone (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course flammable acoustic foam works well in absorbing sound, but what's the use? Absorbent materials are for places where people are, not places where fire is okay or where there is no oxygen. There could be some specialized uses for flammable acoustic foam, but the majority of acoustic solutions must have some degree of flame retardation or it cannot be used in good conscience. The most dangerous polyurethane acoustic foam solutions are just like having solid gasoline in the room—set them off and fire will spread so quickly people will not be able to escape in time.

Of course The Station was not the first example—it was only a recent one. Relevant building codes existed prior to that fire.

A separate section would be suitable. The article could discuss the three fire retardation grades given to acoustic foam (including the fourth rating, that of failure to retard at all) with cites to expert sources. It could also discuss general building code guidelines that allow lower-rated foam installed in home studios but not into businesses. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sound absorption isn't necessarily used exclusively in areas where people will be for long periods of time. The fire performance is unlikely to be important at all in anechoic chambers used for academic research for instance (since the risk of ignition is unlikely to be great, people do not generally stay in anechoic chambers for prolonged periods of time and exiting in the case of emergency is not a problem).

The articles relating to the Station nightclub disaster don't actually support the statement "Acoustic foam must be fireproof to avoid disasters such as The Station nightclub fire" they only suggest that flammable acoustic foam can contribute towards the severity of a fire (the Station nightclub articles make it clear that the nightclub had no sprinklers, no emergency lighting and the fire doors were locked). As stated in Mix Online "One of the most serious of those decisions ... was the choice of acoustic foam."

I'd agree that a separate section explaining the fire performance requirements of acoustic foam would be useful (especially since fire regulations vary greatly from country to country and even from state to state).--School of Stone (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"pretty straight forward"

There were a couple of times where the article uses the phrase "pretty straight forward" in describing a certain topic (eg: "The use of distance to dissipate sound is straightforward.")

There is no need to say it is "straightforward". It doesn't help those who are looking the information up, and in fact, if it is "straightforward", why would we need an entry for it? To me, this reads as the author's ego condescending on the reader who "doesn't know the mysterious secret world of sound". Doesn't do any good. I say this be part of the community and coming across such egos often enough.

Whether or not that was the intention of the author of this phrase, the use of this phrase has no informational value, and perhaps has a little counter-productive value, so I've deleted them. 24.84.229.90 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to add - Temporary / fold away Barriers

Would like to see information on sound barriers within a room. Like from an AC on the window or partner who snores. Temporary foam wall (or other material) that can be pulled out at sleep time and folded away when not in use?

Thickness and effectiveness of such solutions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgkprog (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass and changes in density are mainly what stops sound waves. A pliant non-rigid material that won't transmit the vibrations through itself is also good. So think a multilayered sandwich of different density resilient materials some of which must be very dense. Aside from a vacuum panel this would make the best barrier. The weight of such a panel makes it difficult to make it mobile and anyway the barrier would have to go from floor to ceiling and get to within something like 1/16" to 1/8" from the ceiling and have no gaps on the floor larger than that as well. This means giving the partitions wheels to move them would be quite difficult. Lead and vacuum get close to being ideal barriers. A glass or aluminum or steel vacuum panel with lead sheet on one side might be ideal. For windows consider fixed panes of different thicknesses with a multistage vacuum pump to minimize the mass of the air inside or a window that alternates between water filled and air filled panes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.182.140 (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"reducing the amplified reflection in the source room."

What does this even mean? Should it instead read "reducing the amplified reflection FROM the source room"? Spreadlove5683 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC) I'm just going to change the article. In the 1% chance this is incorrect, someone change it back and please explain why. Spreadlove5683 (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spreadlove5683, I assume amplified must refer to a sound reinforcement system. I've edited to remove this and try to explain things better. ~Kvng (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]