Why is foam so freakin expensive?

massappeal85 · « **on:** 24 Feb 2003, 02:29 am »

I'm talking about the kinds you see in studios and in some of these speaker companys anchoic chambers and such. What is it about this foam that makes it so much more expensive and different then any other kind I could post up on the wall?

I ask primarily because I'm soon to be attempting a home studio on a low budget (actually I've been attempting it for about a year), and honestly some of this foam would cost me more then my equipment which alot will be DIY (simply because I don't have alot of cash), and I just can't be spending like that.

Are there any DIY methods to making some of this foam, or anything that has a similar effect?

nathanm · « **Reply #1 on:** 24 Feb 2003, 04:27 am »

I've asked myself that many times. I suppose a chemist would have the best answer, but from what I understand the acoustic foams are open-celled as opposed to closed. Auralex has a number of documents on the subject, but of course that's not exactly unbiased is it? heh! Still, I found it very informative.

I have one room covered with rectangular checkers of very thin foam (3/8" or so) that served as packing material for various electronic components. My friend got them from work. They normally got thrown out but he started collecting them for me. It works quite well for knocking down those slap echoes. I don't know if it the exact same material as the commerical stuff, but it looks the same (kind of sparkly) and it seems to work the same.

The matress foam stuff seems like a softer version. But regardless of its acoustic properties I don't know who'd wanna put up a tan-colored eggshell piece on their wall though! Heh!

You might wanna try hangining up heavy fabric of some sort, like drape material. This stuff isn't going to stop those bass frequencies, but it absorbs enough of the high stuff to make the room sound less reverby.

I've probably spent as much on foam as some spend on cables, but I can easily hear the difference foam makes, whereas I can't with cables. Heh! Plus, it just looks damn cool.

markC · « **Reply #2 on:** 24 Feb 2003, 05:12 am »

Oh oh, Nathan you can't hear the difference between cables? You cannot have spent enough money on them! Seriously though, try some silver ic's ala chris vanhaus and I'll bet you change your mind. I certainly did. For about $ 80-90 bucks a pair and something to do on a winter weekend you can't go wrong IMO.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #3 on:** 24 Feb 2003, 05:40 am »

I suppose part of the cost of the foam for acoustics is due to the fact that it's a very specialized product with a relatively limited market. The cost of production and developement and any profits must be spread out over a smaller amount of product. It may seem like there'd be a lot of it sold, but I would imagine that for every square foot of foam sold there's probably a thousand yards of carpet, etc.

I have seen some places with some decent prices on foam, some of them mentioned on this site. Foambymail.com and Silent Source both have some good deals.

I'm in the same boat as you are, ma85. I'm working on the room my second system resides in, and being a small room, it's gonna need a lot of absorption to tame reflections and slap echoes. I also can't really afford/justify a lot of money that would probably more effectively be spent on my main system. Still, I want good sound.

One thing you might try is some DIY fiberglass absorption panels. The Klone-audio.com site has some good info on construction, and from what I've read they're very effective and economical.

Tonto Yoder · « **Reply #4 on:** 24 Feb 2003, 10:15 am »

I lived in Ohio near Michael Green's MG Audio and visited his store just as he was starting Room Tunes (he was also a dealer for ASC Tube Traps).
In his main listening room, his treatment was partially strategically-placed fiberglass insulation. I always wondered if Room Tunes were just Pink- Panther-in-a-bag (i.e. just fiberglass with fabric).

Dan Banquer · « **Reply #5 on:** 24 Feb 2003, 02:26 pm »

You can get 2 ft by 3 ft by 2.5 inches thick acoustic foam panels from www.partsexpress.com The part number is 260-315B, they are $4.90 each. This doesn't sound too expensive to me but I don't know how you would feel about it.

pjchappy · « **Reply #6 on:** 25 Feb 2003, 05:03 pm »

Part of the high expense might be the fact that the stuff is supposed to be flame resistant. . .

The fire in the RI nightclub might have spread so quickly b/c of the use of non-flame resistant foam (just the cheap stuff) according to some news sources. . .

p

nathanm · « **Reply #7 on:** 25 Feb 2003, 05:34 pm »

Wait a minute, a club used ACOUSTIC TREATMENT!? Hell has frozen over and nobody told me?! *pig flies overhead making a wooshing, oinking sound*

Psychicanimal · « **Reply #8 on:** 27 Feb 2003, 02:42 pm »

Have you tried ( www.foambymail.com ) ?

Dan Banquer · « **Reply #9 on:** 27 Feb 2003, 02:48 pm »

I wonder what the fire safety classification really means that they give on their web site. Any ideas? The price sure looks pretty good.

Psychicanimal · « **Reply #10 on:** 27 Feb 2003, 03:23 pm »

Quote from: Dan Banquer

I wonder what the fire safety classification really means that they give on their web site. Any ideas? The price sure looks pretty good.

Dan,

They will send some free samples upon request...

These people have their factory 1 1/2 hr north of here. I've been invited to their showroom and plan to drive up in the next week or two. Perhaps if enough Audiocircle people e-mail them I'll be given a "better tour" and can then report back to the folks here...

Dan Banquer · « **Reply #11 on:** 27 Feb 2003, 04:01 pm »

Consider it done. If and when I get a reply I will post it.

massappeal85 · « **Reply #12 on:** 28 Feb 2003, 01:06 am »

That price is DEFIENTLY right. I'd also like to hear about how easy these things go up in flames too.

Xi-Trum · « **Reply #13 on:** 28 Feb 2003, 01:38 am »

I have a small sample from them. I'll try to torch it and see what happens.

NealH · « **Reply #14 on:** 28 Feb 2003, 03:03 am »

The main problem with burning foam is the emission of Phosgene gas and, of course carbon monoxide. These are by products of foam combustion and the Phosgene gas is extremely toxic. Phosgene has been around a while. The Germans were using it in their chemical warfare program during WW1. It is mercifulless.

No matter how fire retardent foam is, in the presence of intense heat there will be smoldering, even with no ignition, and these gases will be released. This is not new news.

There is absolutely no excuse in the RI nightclub owners allowing the use of fireworks in the presence of foam. Though they say it was not allowed, obviously other bands had been using fireworks in this club and I am sure they were aware of what went on.

There is absolutely no excuse in the band allowing fireworks when it was obvious that foam lined the ceiling.

There is absolutely no excuse in the promoter allowing fireworks in an establishment with foam lining the ceiling, or anywhere.

And, there is absolutely no excuse in not having a sprinkler system, though this is no guarantee of safety.

All those sharing responsibility for the RI niteclub tragedy should be recieve the maximum punishment (prison term or execution, as appropriate). Sorry for taking such a hard line on this.

Workplace and homeplace safey is everyone's responsibility, not just the governments. If you don't know your environment's hazards then you better find out. Ignorance is no excuse.

Needless to say, I believe in capital punishment.

mgalusha · « **Reply #15 on:** 28 Feb 2003, 03:08 am »

Foambymail lists the MVSS 302 spec. Here is some info on it:

MVSS - 302Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 302 is a fire test requirement for materials installed in motor vehicles.Paperboard, such as that used in auto head liners, needs to pass this test. The MVSS–302 test is conductedby placing a sample of paperboard in the horizontal position in the test chamber. A small flame is started onone end for a prescribed amount of time. In order to pass the test, the flame must not progress beyond acertain length within a specific time frame. The test is classified on a pass/fail basis.Most paper and corrugated applications that must meet the MVSS-302 test are flame retarded using asaturant (EX18, EX-13 or PyroNova™). When a saturant is used, the dry basis weight add-on rate forEX18 will be 12% to 15% or, for PyroNova™, 15% to 18% add-on.

Xi-Trum · « **Reply #16 on:** 28 Feb 2003, 01:22 pm »

Ok, tried it!

The foam burned and shrank when torched. But extinguished as soon as flame was removed.