As to the statement re: hood loudness: Would I agree that a single measure of an 8db difference would be "louder," from two different sound sources in two different kitchens? No. Wrong measure and flawed methodology. First, decibels don't measure loudness and second no conclusions could be drawn from a single person's report comparing the loudness of two different sound sources in two different settings. Perceived loudness is measured by multiple subjects under highly controlled conditions and is highly variable across individuals. Decibels are a physical measure of sound pressure; loudness is a psychological/perceptual measure of individual judgments. Decibels don't measure loudness for the same reason temperature doesn't measure warmth and weight doesn't measure heaviness. 85F in NOLA and 85F in Phoenix will not be perceived as equally warm because you already know that humidity, wind, clothing and your own individual body's response to these factors will vary. If we were to put a group of people in a controlled room and vary humidity, air circulation and type of clothing while varying temperature and ask them when they perceived a noticeable difference we would find that we would get the same report of perceived warmth at very different temperatures. In this case a decibel is a very similar measure to temperature and loudness is similar to perceived warmth. Depending on different sound pressures (decibels) your perception of loudness will vary significantly by the sound's frequency, if that frequency modulates, if the db level modulates, your proximity to the sound source, how reflective surfaces shape the sound, your individual hearing capability and sensitivities and (unfortunately) your age. If you look at a graph of where subjects perceive different sounds as pretty much equal in loudness while frequency and db levels are varied you'll find that sounds that at least half the group find equal in loudness can vary as much as 10 db or more. Human ears are very frequency sensitive. So, if a single observer's reported that 2 different sound sources were 8 db off in two different environments I don't see how any relative judgments could be made (and most kitchens with tile, polished wood surfaces, relative hard floors and glass windows can be expected to reflect sound in very different ways.) I won't speculate on all the methodological issues present to make a valid comparison of two different hoods' loudness levels in two different kitchens but a decibel meter would be largely irrelevant to the experimental design (you don't care about decibels, you care about perceived loudness). And to add insult to injury, you might well find out that even when you hit the standard that over half of the subjects agreed on the loudness findings you would still find other judges insisting some hoods were louder than others. That's pretty much how perceptual judgments tend to go. . .

In lieu of getting to work on the MUA, I followed these two hood links and have the following comments. The claim that accelerating the air in the perimeter hood makes it quieter cannot be true. High velocity air has more turbulence and hence emits more sound. Having less air flow may be what makes it quieter. This perimeter gap is very small, and the amount of air that can flow through it without sounding like a vacuum crevice nozzle will be low. Also, the front to back dimension seems too small to overlap the rising effluent plumes. Mesh filters are specified for the perimeter design. While these can be as effective large particle grease filters as baffles, they also catch and retain dust, hair, lint, etc., and require routine washing to keep from gagging the air flow (such as it is in this case). Both claim the same cfm for the motor power (I can barely resist attacking this terminology), but I would bet that the actual flow at actual pressure losses will make the perimeter unit flow less air than the baffle unit. I would think that the baffle unit would be better at capture than the perimeter unit due to its aperture size. What the perimeter unit captures will surely be contained, but that should be true of the baffles also. One problem with the baffles is that they appear to be horizontal. Tilted baffles drain grease to places where it can be collected. Maybe they anticipate modest grease removal and hence periodic washing will be sufficient to avoid drips. On the other hand, dripping could function as an automatic warning for cleaning. If the perimeter insert is deemed very desirable for aesthetic reasons, then perhaps two inserts mounted so that the non-lamp edges meet would provide enough capture depth. One technical issue is that the perimeter slots have very little influence more than a few gap widths away. Hence rising effluent that hits within the insert perimeter gap has to travel sideways to be captured. This would work if the effluent velocity were small, as in, say, rising cigarette smoke. But the velocity is around 3 ft/s from a hot pan or cooking surface. It will hit the metal and rebound following the law of conservation of momentum. I consider it unlikely that that part of the effluent will be captured. Earlier in this thread I commented on the conflict that arises between cost, aesthetics, and function, and that also applies here. Sometimes one has to use a less functional hood to meet the limits of the other criteria. I prefer to embrace the opposite perspective, albeit still subject to those limitations, which is to ask: How close to the functionality of a commercial hood can I come without exceeding cost or ugliness budgets. kas

People survive with a tile only backsplash, right? I think that's how we're leaning right now. Our kitchen doesn't have much backsplash as it is (2 1/3 walls are masonry, the remaining 1 2/3 include the fridge, a standard interior door and a very wide doorway). There's one wall between the front wall and the fridge that's got 51" backsplash, and then the range wall where the base cabinet run goes 24"/30"range/24". I had initially thought having the stainless there would be too choppy. I warmed up to the idea since I like the look, but I'm going to take this as a sign. I also may take this as a sign that since we'll be seeing more backsplash and not having to deal with the stainless, maybe we'll get Heath tile in a custom color vs. picking one of the ready made colors. :) The big issue is that since we don't need a lot, we'll pay more per square foot. :: We looked at a lot of pictures last night and I would be fine switching the trim on the range to one of the higher backs, rather than island. DH had dismissed it before, considered it, and decided against it. I think we'll be good with tile.

The chimney goes up to the ceiling but the cabinets don't. There are several things you can do. You can tile all the way to the ceiling and do a decorative edge at the sides of the tile to finish it. That way the edge continues up. You can shape the tile so that it makes a triangle (without the peak) or arch above the hood, that narrows at the top behind where the chimney goes through the ceiling. This would probably be more attractive, but takes better tiling skills to pull off well. You could tile above the cabinets as well as the whole wall behind the stove. That might look excellent! Or you could go full on artsy and end the tiling below the top of the cabinets with an irregular edge (shaped like waves, flames, or whatever). Or go something like 15" above the top of the hood, following the shape of the top of the canopy. You can do all kinds of different things, but I wouldn't stop the tiling in a straight line at the top of the cabinets. That would look like someone goofed on the measurements. Just about anything else will look intentional, and can be made to work.