# Acoustical wood ceiling



## Jack N (Oct 7, 2006)

See attachment. Has anybody used these, and how effective are they at controlling sound ? I'd like to use them because they're absolutely beautiful, but they're very expensive. I couldn't justify the cost if they're not all that acoustically effective. Any and all feedback welcome.


----------



## basementjack (Sep 18, 2006)

Looks interesting, but I'm not sure why they used the word acoust... in the name, there doesn't appear to be any insulation of any kind.

The 3d nature would help breakup sound waves - so that would help a little, but you'll still need to do some treatments to the room.

Since you said you were looking for acoustical effectiveness, I think you'd be better off with an alternate approach - either a different commercial panel, or a design feature or a combo 

For example, if you have room, you can build sofits around the room - stuff these with insulation, and you have a fairly cheap bass absorber built in to your room. you'll effectively have made a tray ceiling - and you could put some GIK or Realtraps up there for more even absorption. The sofits will offset the look of the panels so that when you walk in the room, it doesn't look like funny with a bunch of panels hanging from the cieling.


----------



## bpape (Sep 14, 2006)

Agreed. It's sturdy enough that you can fill the cavity behind with insulation (and definitely should). The prime benefit is breaking up the waves - not to mention it looks gorgeous.

Bryan


----------



## Jack N (Oct 7, 2006)

From a sound stand point, I too couldn’t see how it would affect anything other than maybe adding different reflection points for some of the sound waves. From what I can tell, there’s no absorption qualities to them at all. Each 2’x2’ panel costs roughly $40 plus the trim, grid, clips, molding, etc. At that price, I’d want some definite improvement in acoustics to help justify the cost. At this point, unless someone has something else to add, I can’t justify the cost.

I like the sofit idea. I’ll keep that in mind.

Is there a ceiling panel that is acoustically effective , other than the traditional one with the little holes in it ? I don't think those are all that effective anyway, are they ?


----------



## basementjack (Sep 18, 2006)

if you are thinking of a drop celing, those tiles are ok, but you can really add value by cramming insulation above them to the point that nothing rattles due to the gentle pressure of all that packed in insulation - these actually make for some good acoustics in 2 ways - transmission from ceiling to floor above is minimized (as is the other way around - since it's a drop ceiling, there is very little direct connection) the other way is that the whole ceiling acts as a bass trap to some degree. I guess a 3rd benefit might be the effect on high freqency, but that won't be as great as hanging some GIK or realtrap panels.


----------



## bpape (Sep 14, 2006)

Any time you do a drop ceiling with tiles, you're trading in-room absorbtion for a loss in isolation. This may or may not be acceptable with sound getting out. As for sound getting in, well, IMO, it's not a good thing. Any sound that gets in is simply raising the noise floor in the room and decreasing the apparent dynamic range of the system.

The wood system is not so much an absorbant by itself as it is something to break up the waves. Some of it is just scattering. The big benefit is not allowing sound to just skim across the flat ceiling surface. Also remember that when you have the 'beams' scattering things, it's not just in physical space, but also in the time dimension.

Bryan


----------



## Jack N (Oct 7, 2006)

First of all, let me clarify that room to room transmission, either to or from, is not a concern. It’s just my wife and I, and with the exception of holidays where we would have a large quantity of people, all the other times we have quests – they’ll be in the home theater room, which will double as a party room by moving the seating around. My only concern is the sound quality within the room itself.

“the whole ceiling acts as a bass trap to some degree” Can you explain that to me please ? I’m thinking that the traditional acoustic tile with the little holes in it is mostly a flat panel that actually captures very little sound. Doesn’t the sound just bounce off the tiles like it would a wall ?

“Also remember that when you have the 'beams' scattering things, it's not just in physical space, but also in the time dimension.” I had thought of that also. I was wondering if the sound would actually sound “confused” or “busy” from multiple errant reflections. Or do you think the sound waves would actually dissipate to an inaudible level before reaching a listener ?


----------



## bpape (Sep 14, 2006)

The scattering allows more lower level cues from multiple directions giving a sense of spaciousness. 

The acoustic tiles absorb more than you think - plus they pass bass up into the absorbtion above so you have in effect an 8-12" thick bass absorber.

As for your not worrying about sound getting in, that's your call. There are a lot of other things that make noise in a house besides people.

Bryan


----------



## Jack N (Oct 7, 2006)

Thanks for the info on the acoustic tiles. I wasn’t aware that they behaved like that. I read somewhere that it's a good idea to place thin sheetrock on the back of each panel to keep them from vibrating. Would that affect the acoustic performance of the tile ?

“There are a lot of other things that make noise in a house besides people.” Kind of a wake-up call for me. I hadn’t thought about “the other things” before. Good point.


----------



## basementjack (Sep 18, 2006)

I don't think sheetrock is needed on top of them, but it can't hurt.
a friend of mine solved all his vibration issues by stuffing insulation above his tiles - kept them nice and tight.


----------



## bpape (Sep 14, 2006)

Insulation and sheetrock are for 2 different purposes. The insulation is to keep the cavity from resonating - and without the sheetrock, act more like a large bass absrober.

If you use the sheetrock, it's to attempt to get some additional mass for isolation purposes.

Bryan


----------



## Jack N (Oct 7, 2006)

"If you use the sheetrock, it's to attempt to get some additional mass for isolation purposes."

I'm thinking then that the sheetrock is actually a deterrent for sound transmission up into the cavity above the tiles. This then would cut down on the efficiency of the absorption characteristics of the batting by actually bouncing some of the sound back into the room. Correct ?


----------



## bpape (Sep 14, 2006)

Well, I said it's an attempt. It kind of works but really doesn't provide a ton of isolation - especially not at bass frequencies. The efficiency of the absorbtion of the tile at lower midrange and up frequencies is about the same. Below that, you are impacting the extra absorbtion gaines by the cavity. Look at the specs for the tile/material in an A mount vs an E mount.

Bryan


----------



## Jack N (Oct 7, 2006)

“Look at the specs for the tile/material in an A mount vs an E mount.” Sorry, but you’re working with a green horn here. I don’t know what you’re talking about. Would you clarify please ?

Well, it looks like the hard wood ceiling is a moot idea now anyway. I just got this email from Owens Corning:

“Dear Mr. Nelson,
Thank you for contacting Owens Corning. QuietZone Acoustyle was discontinued on 9/28/06.
We have chosen to focus our energy on products with strong acoustic value. Acoustyle is an excellent product for appearance and ease of installation, but is does not meet our customers expectations for sound control.”


----------



## bpape (Sep 14, 2006)

Sorry. A mount is flat on a surface. E mount specifies how far off the surface it is. So you'd have a 2" tile A mount tested flat and another test with an 10" gap behind it - as it'd be in a real installation. The E will give more bass control but at a hump. Filling it in will keep it higher but extend it broader.

Bryan


----------

