Are rubber walls a bad idea?

L

LoudAsFudge

Audiophyte
I came across some 72"×42×3/4 rubber gym/stahl mats for $40. My idea is to hang em with 2 hanger bolts apiece, a few inches from drywall. Probably put absorption material in between. Limp mass to the max(70lbs. Ea. ). They're corrugated on one side. Is this patent pending or crazy? I can't get picture size file small enough...
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
It depends. Rubber still has a surface, so it will still reflect sound at probably many frequencies. It will absorb likely only specific ranges, which is why you don't see rubber sound recording rooms. Random surface area is better at diffusing sound.
 
L

LoudAsFudge

Audiophyte
The corrugated side should scatter mids and highs. Flexible limp mat should absorb pressure, especially with the spring effect from absorbant material behind it, helping with the low end. Density should keep sound in room. 3 in 1. But I'm probably missing something because I haven't seen it done anywhere. Was hoping it was cost.
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
I think it will depend on the frequencies you are trying to control and whether you are trying to keep it from transmitting to other rooms or just minimize in-room reflections. Rubber will contain/damp bass most likely, but not the upper octaves.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Generally I'd consider rubber more a reflective substance than absorbent.....If you have that much space from walls use proper stuff
 
L

LoudAsFudge

Audiophyte
Pressure absorber ( i think a powerful one). Like 1/2 dry wall on those isolation brackets+hat channel. I dont think they'll absorbe like a fibre board. I think the corregations will also trap sound. Plus scatterer. Plus keep the sound out the rest of the house. Again, probably missing something but an engineer I've been talking with said it should work.
 
Eppie

Eppie

Audioholic Ninja
Bass traps do have material designed to absorb sound energy, but they are engineered for specific frequencies. A random size mat will maybe absorb one certain frequency if you're lucky. Likewise, the spacing on the corrugated side is fixed. That means it will affect different frequencies in different ways; scatter some, reflect others. If your only goal is to prevent sound from traveling through the drywall, the mats may help, but they will make an acoustical mess inside the room. Acoustic panels are not new science and have been around for decades. There are reasons that they are designed a specific way.
 
Last edited:
L

LoudAsFudge

Audiophyte
The idea is any frequency that can generate enough pressure to wiggle a suspended, 3/4" thick mat will be reduced. Corrugated wall panels are a thing, especially when they're perforated. The areas where I don't want corrugations I can cover with dry erase board or anything else. All I'll need is a straight jacket!
 
Kingnoob

Kingnoob

Audioholic Samurai
Imo I don’t know if it will do anything but worth a shot . Do you hear any difference?
Rubber walls make the most sense when you are nuts. :)
Just hang random things in your room until you find something that’s cheaper than an acoustic treatment panel.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Room treatments are largely a futile endeavor. You should never try and make a room dead. The problem people are trying to correct is as usual poor speakers. Specifically the problem is the off axis response not matching the axis response. Occasionally a rear wall may need some attention to curb slap echo.
 
L

LoudAsFudge

Audiophyte
They smell like rubber. Don't think that will work. Smell too strong, I would need to coat these in Kilz paint or something. 1 mat decreased 10 dB on other side of wall. With a couple of mats up, response inside room didn't change much. I think I need to do the entire wall to see a difference but I don't think I can handle the smell. I was hoping someone had heard of flexible wall systems
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Room treatments are largely a futile endeavor. You should never try and make a room dead. The problem people are trying to correct is as usual poor speakers. Specifically the problem is the off axis response not matching the axis response. Occasionally a rear wall may need some attention to curb slap echo.
Acoustical room treatments aren't generally used for making a room dead, they're used to limit reflection time in order to make speech intelligible and to allow the perceived location of sounds to be correct or to come close to matching their locations in the mixing/mastering room. While it's almost impossible to truly match that sound, coming close is a goal some people choose, for better or worse.

The first reflections in narrow/small rooms cause a lot of problems, especially when the walls are similar or the same length. If that room has hard surfaces, it's very hard to achieve good sound, never mind great sound. High SPL compounds the problems and equalization will never tame them. Flutter echo is a bad problem in small rooms and if nothing is done, nobody will enjoy the experience. It's easy to hear flutter- walk into a room and clap your hands- it's very easy to hear and any sound of impacts in music or sound form videos will show it. This also emphasizes the frequencies that reflect most and when they're in the range where people are most sensitive, the level can be decreased using EQ, but the duration can't be adjusted using any controls in the equipment. Slightly lower SPL in those frequencies will decrease the duration to some extent but that can't be considered a 'cure'.

Go into a lecture hall that hasn't been treated and try to understand what is being said, then treat it- huge difference. Restaurants are a prime example of spaces that should be treated, whether they have music or not.

Anyone who has been in a place that has terrible acoustics may find that their mood changed after they spent time there- noise levels and bad acoustics are often called 'sonic pollution' and after having dinner at a restaurant last night, I can give you another specific example of this- we were in a small booth with less than 4' between any of us and it was very hard to understand what was being said. We could, however, hear people across the room very clearly because of the 45° angles of the ceiling causing the sound to reflect directly to our booth. The din was very annoying. Open concept houses with high ceilings suffer from this, too. Without treatment, home theater or even dinner, would be a terrible experience.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
The idea is any frequency that can generate enough pressure to wiggle a suspended, 3/4" thick mat will be reduced. Corrugated wall panels are a thing, especially when they're perforated. The areas where I don't want corrugations I can cover with dry erase board or anything else. All I'll need is a straight jacket!
Rubber mats are usually used for impacts, acoustical treatment materials are more likely to be porous and for wide-band attenuation but if low frequencies are a problem, a heavy panel or mat could be used. If it moves because of the energy from the sound, it's reducing the energy that continues in the space, or going outside of the space.

Most construction materials have been tested for their effect on sound absorption and/or transmission- the NRC (Noise Reduction Coefficient) and STC (Sound Transmission Coefficient) are shown on web pages for these materials, including fiberglass (batts, ceiling panels with decorative surface and rigid), woven wood fibers, mineral panels, stucco, etc. The charts show the NRC and STC at various frequencies and these stats are used for treating spaces, based on recommended percentages of area to be treated in order to achieve a desired result.

No paint should be applied to materials that have visible open holes and porous surface, like ceiling tiles- as soon as the paint creates a new surface, a large % of its effectiveness will be lost.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top