Ceiling: drywall vs. panel

[damonrpayne]

Drywall vs. panel ceiling. If I have a beam and such to box around, is panel even an option?

[Speedball]

What are you referring to when you say "panel" ceiling?

[colterphoto1]

Didn't I give my technique on this in an earlier thread?

[damonrpayne]

If you did, sorry, got link?

[colterphoto1]

I'm sure it's on a thread of yours Damon- don't know what you mean by panelling a ceiling.

Use drywall- box down around ductwork and beams with 2x2 ledger boards, 3/4" plywood sheets on vertical runs, 2x4's laid flat between them for good solid surface to screw drywall to.

[colterphoto1]

More detailed in your 'framing lumber' thread- 1st or 2nd page I think.

Aren't you contracting this out?

M

[artto]

Damon.....shame on you! I thought Dr. Who & I made it perfectly clear what kinds of things could/should be done when we were there. Ceiling panels are generally junk for acoustical situations such as music & HT. They have a relatively narrow frequency absorption band and do very little to block sound transmission. There are, of course specialized ceiling panel products for both broadband absorption and diffusion, with specialized prices to match. []

[formica]

Ceiling panels are generally junk for acoustical

situations such as music & HT. They have a relatively

narrow frequency absorption band and do very little to block sound

transmission.

I would tend to agree, unless the reasoning for using an acoustic tile

suspension is access to mechanical / electrical systems?

Even so... personally i'm not a fan of their "rattle" potential even

with the additional hold-down clips offered.

[Speedball]

What are you referring to when you say "panel" ceiling?

........lol.... "a grid ceiling", that certainly is a cost effective method.

[psg]

Ceiling panels are generally junk for acoustical situations such as music & HT. They have a relatively narrow frequency absorption band and do very little to block sound transmission.

Any worse than drywall?

I've used "Rocksul" brand (sp?) 3"-thick bats of ascoustic insulation between joits, and ceiling panels underneath. Works pretty well. You can hardly tell when music is playing downstairs.

For the next house I'll have to decide whether to use ceiling tiles again, or go with nicer-looking and higher-clearance drywall. I like the wire-passing access tiles provide.

[colterphoto1]

If it's a single purpose, custom-built HT setup, really really really try to get all the wires run first. Heck, leave a conduit and pull some extra pairs.

Then put a drywall ceiling up. Only if you want your work to add any real value to your home.

M

[PrestonTom]

It is not clear to me what you are trying to achieve.

If you are trying to minimize room-to-room transmission (sound deadening). The grid pannels will provide very little. If you are trying to absorb sound, Artto is absolutely correct. This will not be very effective at mid frequencies and certainly not effective at low fequencies.

For sound deadening you will need mass & density. Additionally, it needs to be complete in its coeverage (sound, like water, will find its way through any crevice or gap). Choices include double shhets of drywall, preferably with staggered studs or some sort of mechanical isolation on the structure. Insulation could help, but this will not be effective at lower frequencies.

For sound absorbtion, the material must be thick esp to get the mid-frequencies. For the low frequencies, you will need quite a bit of material (bass traps may be more effective).

If you are trying to minimize room modes, you might consider diffusion for the mid frequencies and perhaps bass traps for the low frequencies.

Clearly a bit of research ahead of time is wise.

Good luck,

-Tom

[DrWho]

I vote for drywall

[formica]

For the next house I'll have to decide whether to use

ceiling tiles again, or go with nicer-looking and higher-clearance

drywall. I like the wire-passing access tiles provide.

Actually that is basically what it comes down to... convenience

versus look (a rattle free look...BTW). IMHO...a gypsum ceiling

will also add more resale value to the home to boot...

ROb

PS: I think you were referring to Roxul brand of insulation between your joists?

[artto]

Ceiling panels are generally junk for acoustical situations such as music & HT. They have a relatively narrow frequency absorption band and do very little to block sound transmission.

Any worse than drywall?

I've used "Rocksul" brand (sp?) 3"-thick bats of ascoustic insulation between joits, and ceiling panels underneath. Works pretty well. You can hardly tell when music is playing downstairs.

For the next house I'll have to decide whether to use ceiling tiles again, or go with nicer-looking and higher-clearance drywall. I like the wire-passing access tiles provide.

Roxul is a very different product and is quite good as a broadband absorber. However, covering it with something like the typical suspended ceiling tile would tend to modify its airborne sound absorption properties since the interior HT sound would hit these first. Roxul between the joists would help dampen resonances between the joist spaces, and it probably has some effect as a bass trap when used like this.

Drywall is preferable to ceiling tile because it is much denser/harder, and therefore provides better sound blocking in the form of less airborne sound transmission. Ceiling tile typically has a relatively narrow frequency absorption range, primarily in the midrange, so that it can absorb "noise" such as voice and computer/printer sounds in an office environment for instance. For music and HT applications you want to control both absorption and diffusion, over a wide (broad) band of frequencies, not just a small part of that range.

[picky]

My Sonex ceiling was just what the doctor ordered for our HT.

It uses a standard suspended ceiling grid. According to Sonex, the tile absorbs 90% of the sound at reaches them thereby preventing reflection.

The 2' x 2' panels are 2" thick (nominal) willtec (melamine) foam (Hypalon coated) which require no clips to hold them in place. We went with black tiles.

The foam has a Class 1 commercial fireproof rating.

There are no decerniable rattles or squeaks.

Tiles withstand 100% humidity. No sagging.

As artto mentioned, the panels come at a price: I paid just over $600 for 28 tiles.

Spec Data (2-page PDF): http://www.memtechacoustical.com/acousticalsolutions/downloads/harmoni-tiles.pdf

If purchased with an added composite layer of ProSpec sound-blocking barrier (price increases):

Sonex's rating: PROSPEC Barrier can stop up to 42 decibels of noise in the speech and music frequencies, compared to standard walls, which stop from 25 to 33 decibels.

Unlike drywall: I can still get to my pipes and wiring! The rest of our ceiling is either drywall or removable MDF that looks like drywall when painted. I did run empty wiring conduits through the ceiling to ease any future upgrades.

[xdetroitx]

I have a tile ceiling and whenever I turn the volume up it is cause for dusting tile dust off my entire room. Not to mention unless you have very high ceilings you will lose a good 4 inches of head room. If you are worried about getting cables across run a piece of 1" pvc pipe through the wall. Or, you can build a small chase. Its all a preference, but I would go with drywall. This is not a professional sound guys opinion but I am a tradesmen which has finished more than one basement.

[gaspr]

Using drywall certainly will look better but it is my experience that

someday down the road, something will hapen that will cause you to have

to cut into your ceiling. It may be a leak from some

plumbing above, or a need to run a new gas line, water line, new

drain lines for a future remodel upstairs... the list is endless.

So, if you do decide on drywall, do not texture the ceiling so as

to make any future repairs much easier to conceal.

If you are looking for some sound isolation from or to the floor

above, a layer of "Green Glue" sandwiched between two layers of

drywall is said to work wonders.

Garth

[mas]

I realize that I am very late to the table here, but I must admit to being a bit confused by what has transpired.

Ok, what do we know: There is the desire to conceal an exposed beam while also allowing access to systems....

First, it does not seem to have been established what the acoustic goal is. Materials which facilitate absorption, reflection and diffraction have been mentioned almost interchangably along with the issue of aethestics that seems to alternate with an acoustic goal.

My first suggestion is to determine what needs to be done acoustically in the room.

I am ASSUMING that sound transmission is not a primary factor and that 'in the room' response is paramount. But even this has not been clearly stated!

Secondly, I would toss this notion that absorption is the Neosporin of acoustical treatment. This is like saying that the surgical removal of a kidney is the cure all for what ails you!

Thirdly, a few room measurements would render this entire debate moot, as then you would know what would be the optimal need. But as it has already been stated that you need access to the additional space above, you also have the opportunity to use it to your advantage by coupling the space via the use of a phase grating (similar to Russ Berger's SpaceCoupler - see the thread on the A frame ceiling). Using such a panel system, you could have access to the space above while both providing a diffusive surface treatment that would simultaneously provide for an extended pseudo-reverberant field. If that was not desired (or appropriate - as a few measurements would tell us!), a panel system such as the 'stuffed coupler' equivalent to a space array (more details also mentioned in the 'A Frame' ceiling thread) could also be employed, thus providing effective acoustical treatment while also facilitating access to systems.

But before any treatment is proposed, it sure would be nice to know what aspects of the acoustical room response SHOULD be amended in order to optimize the acoustics rather than simply running about suggesting whatever treatments come to mind.

[damonrpayne]

In-room response is key, I am not concerned about sound transmission out of the room. The measurements are roughly 20' x24' with 9' ceiling. The ceiling is obviously not uniform given the couple of things to box around. When I put my dimensions in my room mode calc the modes seemed to be very evenly distributed with the first problem spot being 41 - 141hz .

You are a little late on this one mas, I've already chosen to go with a drywall ceiling. I'm looking into owens corning 705 for my "first round" of acoustic treatments, however I can only find measurements of its effectiveness down to 125hz (Ethan Winer's page) and I would like to know if its going to do any good at 41hz. This is going to be an ongoing project lasting at least a year I'm sure but initially I'm shooting for a reflection free zone at the primary listening position only and some bass traps in the front of the room.