Silentium Sound Proofing, Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

Unfortunately [redacted]'s account of his consultation with us and the services he guaranteed to provide me and my husband is entirely inaccurate. He never once told us that hiring an acoustician would be necessary to determine the sound conduit. If he had, we would have seriously doubted the expertise of [redacted]'s company if, as a soundproofing company, they could not identify the sound transfer path themselves.
Please note that the Silentium website clearly states "We will thoroughly examine your dwelling and find the cause of the noise emanating through walls, ceilings and floors (which isn't always as obvious as you might think)."
The Silentium company claims to offer expertise in identifying the sound paths and in silencing them. It is for this reason we hired [redacted]'s company and paid them a total of $18,400. 
In addition, [redacted] never asked us for our building plans. If he had, I'm sure we would have been able to get them from our building management company without a problem.
In his response, [redacted] refers to our numerous and "confrontational" emails. We sent him a total of three emails after paying him the final balance. We have attached copies of these emails and submit them to Revdex.com, as we believe they demonstrate how [redacted] ignored our very natural concerns about the quality of his company's work. 
 
 
 
 
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

10pt;">As a consumer and synchronously, as a provider of consumer products and services, I will respond truthfully and completely to the alleged assertions lodged against me and my firm, Silentium Sound Proofing, and brought to your attention by my client.
I wish to reputably drive forward, positive recognition for the products or services that I and my firm provide and to advance and grow my business venture. And so, it would appear, foolish and inexcusable for me to alienate a client or customer by supplying substandard services or products. I fully support my work and endeavor to posture in a lawful, professional and honest manner, at all times. I stand firm in my moral and ethical center.
In my line of service provision, “sound proofing,” I proactively strive to develop and maintain extended relationships with my clients.  Positive “word of mouth” advertising is the best method of marketing and it is the key that will unlock the door to my dream of a dynamic, high growth company, boasting a pristine reputation.
I will now truthfully address the concerns and complaints of my client and I will provide, for your review at a later date, if necessary, documentation and a mélange of e-mails from my client and photographs and a letter of reference from a very satisfied client, to substantiate my declarations.
I traveled to New Jersey for a consultation with the potential client.  She indicated to me, the rooms that required sound proofing and it was obvious, that sound proofing was a clear necessity.  On my initial visit, I brought to my client’s attention, the fact that some people hire an “acoustician” or a sound engineer in order to pinpoint the noise conduit.  I also explained to the client that the cost would be in the vicinity of seven to eight thousand dollars for an experienced and reputable acoustician.  My client did not express any interest in hiring an “acoustician” and thus, there was no sound test prior to or post sound proofing installation.
I also told the client that a 50% noise reduction is a reasonable and customary estimate based upon past performance for the products utilized in the laboratory and field testing by independent third parties and that sound reduction is a subjective perception.
I determined, from prior work experience and from the professional industry and laboratory testing literature that the ceiling was the most realistic and common pathway for sound to travel and I recounted this fact to the client.  The building was quite old and I did not see any structural building plans, prior to the commencement of work, as the client did not have these plans.  I know that an acoustical consultant, had she hired one, would have reached the same conclusion.  If there was indeed another sound pathway, it could not be determined without the expertise of an acoustical engineer to test the sound and noise pathways, before the work of sound proofing was begun and after the work was completed.   
We agreed upon a pricing fee and the work was set into motion.  The ceiling in both rooms had to be taken down and the sound proofing process initiated. 
If an additional conduit was present, the ceiling still required the sound proofing treatment that my company provided.  The ceiling, in any case had to be treated and the ceilings were treated meticulously, via methods that had been tested in labs and by independent third party analyses.  Any reputable professional in the industry will attest to the fact that the ceiling is the most common pathway for sound leakage and must be treated first.  The products were used and installed properly and for this, you have my word of honor. 
If the sound proofing, which is subjective to the listener, did not suffice; then an acoustical engineer would have to be hired to determine the other pathways of sound leakage.
I also explained to the client that the sound proofing had to dwell in situ, for about a month, before the final results could be measured.
So, in my estimation, there is no metric available for testing electronically, the amount of sound reduction since there was no measurement prior to the initiation of the sound proofing project. 
AND, MAY I POINT OUT ONCE MORE, THAT NOISE AND SOUND PERCEPTION IS SUBJECTIVE, TO THE LISTENER.
I did not return to the client’s home as the client became confrontational and sent to me, many, many e-mails, to which I responded.
I would hope that this professional letter of explanation will clear my company’s name and provide clarification for the dissatisfied client.
Respectfully,
 
[redacted]  [redacted]

Review: We hired Silentium Sound Proofing ([redacted]r is [redacted]) to soundproof 2 rooms in our condo to mask the noise (television, music, dog barking, voices) originating from the unit above ours. In consultation, [redacted] told us that his work would cause these sounds to be inaudible in both rooms, with the caveat that his work would not mask impact noise entirely (footsteps and vibrating speakers). He guaranteed a total sound reduction of at least 50%. We agreed to his price of $18,500.Silentium Sound Proofing began the work in our apartment on March *, 2014. At this time we paid a deposit of $9,250. Silentium Sound Proofing finished installing the green glue to our ceiling on March **, 2014. We paid the balance of the total payment on March **, 2014.We emailed [redacted] on April *, 2014 to voice our concern that the soundproofing was not masking even the most basic noises from above (upstairs neighbors coughing, talking, laughing). We were distraught because this was not the outcome we expected, nor were told by Silentium Sound Proofing to expect. [redacted] responded by saying that the sound must be traveling via another channel, such as the shared wall joists or piping. The next week we sent [redacted] another email asking him to improve upon the work Silentium performed to get us to the 50% sound improvement promised. (We'd put the current noise reduction somewhere around 15%.)[redacted] responded by email saying that the sound transfer must be through a wall, either through framing, duct, plumbing, or some other similar type opening. He absolved Silentium of any further responsibility to improve the efficacy of the soundproofing.We feel misled since we did not pay $18,500 as a first step in an expensive process of elimination to identify the sound transfer path. We expected [redacted] to consult any necessary structural/audio engineers to anticipate and block the sound path.Desired Settlement: We feel misled, and have asked Silentium to properly soundproof our two rooms or deliver a 50% refund. We hope for a swift and fair resolution.

Business

Response:

As a consumer and synchronously, as a provider of consumer products and services, I will respond truthfully and completely to the alleged assertions lodged against me and my firm, Silentium Sound Proofing, and brought to your attention by my client.

I wish to reputably drive forward, positive recognition for the products or services that I and my firm provide and to advance and grow my business venture. And so, it would appear, foolish and inexcusable for me to alienate a client or customer by supplying substandard services or products. I fully support my work and endeavor to posture in a lawful, professional and honest manner, at all times. I stand firm in my moral and ethical center.

In my line of service provision, “sound proofing,” I proactively strive to develop and maintain extended relationships with my clients. Positive “word of mouth” advertising is the best method of marketing and it is the key that will unlock the door to my dream of a dynamic, high growth company, boasting a pristine reputation.

I will now truthfully address the concerns and complaints of my client and I will provide, for your review at a later date, if necessary, documentation and a mélange of e-mails from my client and photographs and a letter of reference from a very satisfied client, to substantiate my declarations.

I traveled to New Jersey for a consultation with the potential client. She indicated to me, the rooms that required sound proofing and it was obvious, that sound proofing was a clear necessity. On my initial visit, I brought to my client’s attention, the fact that some people hire an “acoustician” or a sound engineer in order to pinpoint the noise conduit. I also explained to the client that the cost would be in the vicinity of seven to eight thousand dollars for an experienced and reputable acoustician. My client did not express any interest in hiring an “acoustician” and thus, there was no sound test prior to or post sound proofing installation.

I also told the client that a 50% noise reduction is a reasonable and customary estimate based upon past performance for the products utilized in the laboratory and field testing by independent third parties and that sound reduction is a subjective perception.

I determined, from prior work experience and from the professional industry and laboratory testing literature that the ceiling was the most realistic and common pathway for sound to travel and I recounted this fact to the client. The building was quite old and I did not see any structural building plans, prior to the commencement of work, as the client did not have these plans. I know that an acoustical consultant, had she hired one, would have reached the same conclusion. If there was indeed another sound pathway, it could not be determined without the expertise of an acoustical engineer to test the sound and noise pathways, before the work of sound proofing was begun and after the work was completed.

We agreed upon a pricing fee and the work was set into motion. The ceiling in both rooms had to be taken down and the sound proofing process initiated.

If an additional conduit was present, the ceiling still required the sound proofing treatment that my company provided. The ceiling, in any case had to be treated and the ceilings were treated meticulously, via methods that had been tested in labs and by independent third party analyses. Any reputable professional in the industry will attest to the fact that the ceiling is the most common pathway for sound leakage and must be treated first. The products were used and installed properly and for this, you have my word of honor.

If the sound proofing, which is subjective to the listener, did not suffice; then an acoustical engineer would have to be hired to determine the other pathways of sound leakage.

I also explained to the client that the sound proofing had to dwell in situ, for about a month, before the final results could be measured.

So, in my estimation, there is no metric available for testing electronically, the amount of sound reduction since there was no measurement prior to the initiation of the sound proofing project.

AND, MAY I POINT OUT ONCE MORE, THAT NOISE AND SOUND PERCEPTION IS SUBJECTIVE, TO THE LISTENER.

I did not return to the client’s home as the client became confrontational and sent to me, many, many e-mails, to which I responded.

I would hope that this professional letter of explanation will clear my company’s name and provide clarification for the dissatisfied client.

Respectfully,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

Unfortunately [redacted]'s account of his consultation with us and the services he guaranteed to provide me and my husband is entirely inaccurate. He never once told us that hiring an acoustician would be necessary to determine the sound conduit. If he had, we would have seriously doubted the expertise of [redacted]'s company if, as a soundproofing company, they could not identify the sound transfer path themselves.

Please note that the Silentium website clearly states "We will thoroughly examine your dwelling and find the cause of the noise emanating through walls, ceilings and floors (which isn't always as obvious as you might think)."

The Silentium company claims to offer expertise in identifying the sound paths and in silencing them. It is for this reason we hired [redacted]'s company and paid them a total of $18,400.

In addition, [redacted] never asked us for our building plans. If he had, I'm sure we would have been able to get them from our building management company without a problem.

In his response, [redacted] refers to our numerous and "confrontational" emails. We sent him a total of three emails after paying him the final balance. We have attached copies of these emails and submit them to Revdex.com, as we believe they demonstrate how [redacted] ignored our very natural concerns about the quality of his company's work.

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,