# Forum Home Renovation Plastering  Soundchek or Fyrchek for Noise Reduction

## ebf

Hi guys, 
Just wondering what everyone's experience with these two products are for noise reduction. While the Gyprock Soundchek is the product advertised to reduce noise, from my understanding the Fyrchek has good acoustic reduction qualities too. 
The big bonus with Fyrchek is I can get it for nearly half the price as Soundchek - around $9 sqm as opposed to around $17 for soundchek. Thoughts?

----------


## pharmaboy2

Soundcheck works ever so slightly better, but it's generally a weight based performance thing.  Price it by kg s per metre and choose from there.  All the testing shows no discernible difference when weight is equal.   
really, there's no conceivable reason for it to be that sort of price difference.   I'm using fyrchek in my cinema and music room, but adding green goo in between sheets for a sound proof room.   
Oh, and don't forget acoustic performance NEEDS insulation in the cavity too.  Wasting your money otherwise

----------


## ebf

Thanks pharmaboy, I had a suspicion that was the case. 
And yes, insulation is going to be top priority.

----------


## joynz

And not just any insulation, use acoustic batts.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> And not just any insulation, use acoustic batts.

  I know I've been one to harp on abut using Mineral wool (acoustic) batts, but i did troll through some tests etc a couple of months ago, and there is sweet FA difference.  The proof is in the wool based products having an acoustic moniker when installed in a system, yet wool is terrible at acoustic deadening.  Green goo who test all their systems in proper chambers say any std insulation will do.    
Spend your our money on fire caulk for all gaps, sealed doors, acoustic Windows, furring channels and firechek on the ceiling etc etc - ie, weak points   :Wink:

----------


## joynz

Hi Pharma 
When you say 'wool' do  you mean glass wool or actual wool from sheep? 
I assert that Bradford's Soundscreen is more effective than a standard batt at the same thickness.  
However, I'd be happy to review your data saying the opposite if you send me a link.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Hi Pharma 
> When you say 'wool' do  you mean glass wool or actual wool from sheep? 
> I assert that Bradford's Soundscreen is more effective than a standard batt at the same thickness.  
> However, I'd be happy to review your data saying the opposite if you send me a link.

  1 actual sheeps wool - lightweight, soft stuff
2 true, when tested as a single batt either not contained or contained on a single side 
but false when built into a wall designed for good sound insulation - reason?  Mineral wool is far denser and absorbs more in the lower frequencies, say below 500hz.  However in a wall with firechek in it, the firechek  absorbs the lower frequencies and the mineral wool adds not enough to change the rating of the wall by a single db.  Higher frequencies reverberate between the 2 sheets and will be re radiated through the other side - these are frequencies above 1000hz generally.  This property of a built plasterboard wall is drastically effected by the installation of any sparse insulation. 
this is not a simple subject, you are unlikely to be swayed by a link, but if you are interested much research is required. Because mineral wool on its own is superior in density it doesn't follow that the pathetically sparse overpriced version in Australia is a good option.  It really depends on what you are starting with and what you are tying to achieve. 
it is great for improving the acoustics in a room though  
in the OPs question, using fyrchek for residential problems, type of insulation is unimportant, sealing of the room is, as is Windows and ceiling, top plate junction etc.    nothing magical about "acoustic" products, most for housing are normal products with testing and massive markup - eg firechek versus soundstop. 
so, ask the alternative question, find a test between 2 identical systems where the only thing they change is soundsreen versus r2 fibreglass and see if there's a difference in rating

----------


## joynz

That's how I chose my insulation - compared ratings for walls with normal batts and normal plaster vs. Soundscreen and normal plaster.  Think sound absorbent plaster might have been compared too.   
Metrix recently posted a lot of data on this topic.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Thats soundscreen versus gold batts from the red book (CSR) there's a 1db gain in performance from Bradford gold batts to soundscreen mineral wool.  1 Db is usually imperceptible

----------


## phild01

Most of the data I referenced also said imperceptible difference from whatever insulation is used.  I used fyrechk based on the available data that showed very little improvement is gained by using soundchk.
The biggest obstacle for me was the difficulty in controlling structure borne sound transmission.  That would have been a box within a box.

----------


## ebf

What's the general consensus on green goo? Worth the money?

----------


## pharmaboy2

Hi ebf, it depends on what you are trying to achieve.  Keep in mind that green blue absolutely requires a wall with insulation in it to get the benefit.  But it's pretty awesome for lower frequencies - performs a bit like a masonry wall. 
As always,  room is only as good as its weakest link, for most that's going to be windows or doorways, so green glue system would go great as long as you also put the effort into thick doors with double seals and Windows with the wide separated double glazed option. 
in the scheme of things given the cost of the whole project of building a studio, green glue is very cheap - a grand would probably see you through a whole room.  If you have lots of space though a staggered stud wall would work better - pick your target reduction that you can get with your windows and doors, and then build the rest to exceed it by say 5db- if that needs green glue, then yes.

----------

