Rudeboy

Ding, Ding, Ding!!! Thank you Don! I had some theories, which is why I made this thread, to help pan out my thoughts, theories and the facts. I've always liked what covering the holes did to help the sound. Though on the same line of thought I couldn't help but come to the realization that it would seem that a layer of MLV would or could negate the need for "sealing" up the door in the first place as long as it was properly deadened in the first place. It just kind of made sense and staring down the fact I was going to be doing this very soon (began yesterday as a matter of fact) I was really hoping it would work out that way. It makes for less work and will definitely help with a couple of other concerns I have with a window motor that's possibly looking for replacement. Thanks again guys, I think you're all a bigger help and asset than you realize. I've been doing this for enough time to have tried every excessive and unnecessary thing that can be imagined Three questions help avoiding the mistakes I've made: Do I REALLY need to pierce or cut sheet metal? Do I REALLY need to make the sheet metal inaccessible for future body work or make vehicle components inaccessible for future maintenance? Do I really need to install this stuff in such a way that removing it to deal with 1 or 2 will destroy it and leave me starting from scratch? It's amazing how seldom the answers to any of those are yes. I've told this story before, but it applies. I share a building with a body shop. The guys there have taken a strong interest in what I do. I had just finished lining a trunk with CCF and MLV and they came over to check it out. One of them said: "That's great, but what if you're rear ended - how do we get through all that?" I reached in, unhooked some Velcro, pulled it all out in one piece and dropped it on the floor. Took less than a minute. They cheered The sound deadening version of the Hippocratic Oath is: Make no permanent alterations to the vehicle that don't absolutely need to be made.

I've come to a different conclusion. Keep in mind that I've always built access hole covers in the past. I'm pretty much convinced that the layer of MLV on the inner skin does everything the covers did, with the other benefits, or at least so close to what the covers did that it doesn't seem to be worth the effort. I put access hole covers in the "a lot of work for the possibility of a very slight improvement" category. Belt and suspenders.

It really depends on what you are trying to accomplish. My general rule of thumb is to reinstall as much of the factory material as possible after treatment.

The outer skin is what you think it is - the painted exterior panel. You want to treat it for resonance. The bond between the butyl adhesive and sheet metal is impervious to moisture. A similar material is used prevent corrosion of petro pipelines. The barrier layer is thick, possibly up to 3/8". You need to cut small holes to allow clips and anything else - actuator rods, wires, cables, etc. that needs to pass from one side to the other. Getting this to fit is the trickiest part of a project like this. Takes time but worth the effort. Adding a barrier to both the inner and outer skin is over the top. I don't suggest it for most applications. A useful feature of the EBR is that you can stretch it to any thickness you need. When covering large flat areas, I stretch it out and squiggle it over the surface.

Sharp looking Sonoma. You will want to start with 25% coverage of the inner skin and outer skin sheet metal with vibration damper, but that's just the start. We can't seal a car door in any meaningful way. If nothing else, the drains need to stay open. We can't take the interior air space and expect it to behave like a proper sealed enclosure. At best, it would be a leaky enclosure at whatever its volume is. Most car audio mids aren't designed for use in sealed enclosures anyway. That leads me to what we can do. The most important step is getting a layer of MLV on the inner skin. This won't perfectly seal the plane the speaker is mounted to but it will acoustically isolate the front and back of the speaker. This prevents cancellation. It also puts the back wave output behind the barrier. If you can't hear it, you don't really care what it does inside the door. This is good since it is virtually impossible to absorb or change the path of sound in the middle frequencies with the space available inside a vehicle door. To get the best performance out of the MLV, you'll need to decouple it from the inner skin, to which the MLV is attached, and more to decouple the MLV from the trim panel. The ideal is Inner Skin / CCF / MLV / CCF / Trim Panel. A very cool addition is a layer of CCF and MLV on the outer skin. This blocks a little more noise entry, might present a better boundary interface than plain steel, but the real reason to do it is because it makes it harder to hear your mids from outside of the truck. With a fully treated vehicle, you can listen to music at much higher volumes without attracting attention to yourself. I've thought I was going to be ticketed a few times but remembered that nobody outside the car can really hear this. My girlfriend told me she knew I had pulled into the driveway because the floor inside the house was shaking but she couldn't hear any music. Very pimp, almost literally. Butyl rope is really only useful if you have side intrusion prevention beams inside the doors, or plan to use it when mounting speakers. It's excellent between a mounting ring and sheet metal. When you bolt it down, you seal air leaks and create a vibration damper in place. I have a 10" sub mounted to the rear deck in my Civic in an Infinite Baffle configuration. The rear deck wasn't flat enough so I built a leveling platform out of fiberglass. Then I cut a mounting plate out of 1/2" MDF. Plate goes on top of fiberglass, both get bolted to the rear deck. I put EBR between the sheet metal and FG and between the FG and MDF. Bolted it down and it is extremely solid. One guy with blow through from a box in the bed of his pickup put it under the box. Apparently stopped the bed from rattling as it had done before. Pretty cool stuff if you have a use for it.

And all you need for that is some CCF glued to the back of the license plate. Cheap and 100% effective.

Ok, so I started with the Fatmat tonight. I also happened to have a roll of Peal N Seal leftover from my Focus. So I compared. Without a doubt, there are definitely similarities. For sure they are both manufactured by the same company. Same overall thickness, same foil thickness, same type of sticker/label securing the roll, even the same font. However there is also an important difference too. The Peal N Seal is most definitely an asphalt based product. You can smell it when opening the package and you can see how the oils have bled out of the product after it has sat for a long time. The roll I have sat in the same place for 2 years. The FatMat appears to be a butyl based product. Different texture - far more flexible and "rubbery" - than the Peal N Seal. It also has a different odor and less of an odor at that. Is it effective? Probably not as effective as a thicker 60 or 80mil product, but it's good enough to get rid of the "tinnyness" in the outer door skins. So, just for fun, I used my trusty Radio Shack SPL meter to do some testing. With a hair dryer running at full blast outside the door, the door with the Fatmat showed a 10db decrease over the bare door. I'm sure my test wasn't very scientific, but it's enough to at least show me that the Fatmat is doing *something.* So I guess I'll find out how well it all works after my spontaneously combustible volara and the MLV is installed. Thanks, Michael Since Fatmat doesn't even claim their adhesive is butyl anymore, I'd be surprised. Dissolve a piece of both in an ounce of mineral spirits. The liquid will turn brown (asphalt). The difference you're seeing is what happens to asphalt after a year or two.

Drippy flaming rockets of awesomeness... Exactly correct. I'd be very surprised if insurance covered damage from a fire that was caused by someone lining a vehicle with a dangerous material - in the same way they won't pay for the extra costs to repair sheet metal that is covered with layers of aftermarket vibration damper. It's surprising how much more new sheet metal and paint costs than pulling, mud and blending. I think it's hilarious that you've burned Voloara too

Not trying to be a dick, but I would very seriously urge you to test the burn rate of Volara before you use it, or at least before you use it in your girlfriend's car. Scared me when I tried it.

Good times. Like Aaron, I've had my hands on both the Audio Technix product and Damplifier/Damplifier Pro. The adhesives are VERY different. The widely thrown around assertion that AT and Damplifier are the same comes from some cherry picked results published by the owner of AT purporting to show very similar performance. There's no way to know what any of this really means since he chose not to release the full report. Nothing on when and where he got the sample of Damplifier, etc. Testing a competitor's product introduces all sorts of variables - intentional or not. "Results" like these should be rejected and not accepted as proof of anything. The ethics behind this move are troubling to me. This is the same guy who tore chunks of adhesive off of some RAAMmat BXT II, posted photos and said he wouldn't trust it in his car. There are reasons manufacturers test each others products and there are reasons they don't make the results public. Understand that the claim that they are the same thing is contradicted by the evidence presented to support the claim. One is a 40 mil product, the other 60 mils. If the published results are correct, the proper claim would be that the two products performed similarly in the test. The fact that it took different thicknesses to achieve that level of performance is absolute proof that they aren't the same. A point that gets missed on all of the excitement is that it is possible to create a vibration damper that performs well in the short term only. With Second Skin, you know it is a product that has been in use for years, under every imaginable condition and has stood the test of time. It may be tempting to believe that this is going to be true for every product and the only difference is the markup each vendor applies to their product. I promise you this isn't true. Manufacturing a reliable product costs a lot more. The point of this tirade is that "they are the same" is being actively promoted by AT and repeated by people who aren't willing or interested enough to look at the proposition fairly. Go to the Web site. The Meta title is: "Sound Deadener Better Than Dynamat". This is demonstrably false by every relevant metric. Look at the company forums and ask yourself if Second Skin would allow the kind of statements that AT allows about Second Skin to be made on a Second Skin forum about AT. I'd be shocked. A poster on one of the AT forums stated that AT was better than SDS CLD Tiles by a long shot. Did the owner come back with something like: "They're both good products intended to be used differently" or anything like that? Of course not. His response was: "I'm going to make this a sticky!". I obviously prefer my product, but I wouldn't hesitate to use products from Second Skin, Dynamic Control or Cascade. All very good products. All sold by companies that are secure enough in the quality of what they are selling and familiar enough with how they should be used to conduct themselves in a professional and respectful manner.

Sorry I missed your e-mail. I've responded.

Last I checked (and its been awhile since shop class) most car floorboards are usually 16 or 18 gauge, which is in the neighborhood of 2-2.5 lb./sq. ft. Are they making floors thinner these days or am I just talking out of my ass? First of all, I see an error in what I said - doubling mass gets you a 6 dB reduction. You also start to get into the difference between a rigid and limp barrier. The point is still worth keeping in mind. I'm not sure what's being used on floors now. I do know that I've yet to lay a barrier on the floor and not been able to hear a difference, but it is less of a difference than you get when adding it to the thinner and lighter sheet metal used for door skins, quarter panels, etc. I don't know what they told you door skins were made of in shop class, but if you've ever handled a new one it's shockingly light. Door skins were 18 or 20 gauge and floors were 16 or 18 gauge, but those cars were predominately midsize and fullsize American cars from the 70's and 80's the teacher pulled out of a junkyard to teach us how to weld and do basic metal work; a whole lot has changed in the automotive world since then. Oh yea. Much thinner now. The sheet metal used to be there to protect you. That function has been almost completely shifted to other components. Now it's pretty much just there to hold the paint

Which ones?

Last I checked (and its been awhile since shop class) most car floorboards are usually 16 or 18 gauge, which is in the neighborhood of 2-2.5 lb./sq. ft. Are they making floors thinner these days or am I just talking out of my ass? First of all, I see an error in what I said - doubling mass gets you a 6 dB reduction. You also start to get into the difference between a rigid and limp barrier. The point is still worth keeping in mind. I'm not sure what's being used on floors now. I do know that I've yet to lay a barrier on the floor and not been able to hear a difference, but it is less of a difference than you get when adding it to the thinner and lighter sheet metal used for door skins, quarter panels, etc. I don't know what they told you door skins were made of in shop class, but if you've ever handled a new one it's shockingly light.

I'd do the doors next, but get a barrier in there, between the inner skin and trim panel. A lot of tire noise comes in through the front edges of the front door and the rear edges of the rear doors. It will also make a big dent in traffic noise. It should make an audible difference in noise levels and will cut down on the omnidirectional noise you're hearing now. That improvement may encourage her to let you revisit the floor, cargo area floor and quarter panels. You'll need a barrier in those areas as well. Hondas have a lot of vibration damper on the floor from the factory. Adding more will only reduce noise levels if you add enough layers to create a barrier. That's not an efficient or cost effective way to do things. Multiple layers at 100% coverage is also going to be a big problem if the vehicle ever needs body work.

Anybody interested in maximizing SPL should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Mt65xM4apFQ

Fair enough. I understand it is working great for you, but curious what it is working great as? (ie, what were your goals in installing it that it achieves) P&S is a reasonable "lazy man's" choice in an SPL application if you don't care about having to redo it or having your interior damaged by melting asphalt. The two important things to avoid are panel movement/distortion and air leaks. Covering everything with P&S will help some with both and will do it without the potential negative (for SPL) conversion of vibration to heat you'd get with a vibration damper. If I were an SPL competitor, I'd want to address both issues in the most effective way possible - bracing panels and sealing leaks. I really don't understand people who obsess over the equipment they use and then half ass the things that will make the biggest difference, but everybody looks at things differently. In any case, this application might be justified for a subset of a very small minority of people considering these treatments. It gets dangerous when it isn't made clear that it would be a very poor choice for most.

Why is everyone thinking i didnt apply it right?? I did, it just doesnt work!! Because people want to believe that the way they installed theirs is going to prevent the same outcome. Some advocate heat - which only accelerates the deterioration of the rubber compounds added to the asphalt to increase its heat tolerance. Others, aggressive solvents or using rollers, neither of which make any difference. "Crap shoot" is a pretty good description. Asphalt will either melt or the VOC's will outgas leaving inert crud behind. As has been pointed out already, asphalt isn't a vibration damper. If it stopped rattles it did so by mobilizing the moving parts - duct tape would work as well. If it increased SPL, it did so by sealing air leaks. Asphalt is an inherently unstable material and a poor choice for this application. Installation has very little to do with anything. There have been several asphalt fans who have used incredibly meticulous and elaborate procedures and still ended up with failures. The key is analyzing the problem you are trying to solve and devising a solution that addresses it directly. If the problem is the trunk lid inner skin rattling against the outer skin, a few dabs of RTV silicone will solve the problem. If it's a rattling license plate, 25 cents worth of closed cell foam glued to the back of the plate will be more effective than 10 layers of vibration damper inside the trunk or trunk lid. Whatever the problem, asphalt isn't the solution - unless the problem is roofing related

Thats A LOT of deadener. I'm not sure if I want to do both layers, probably just the inner. I can't imagine what your civic is going to be like but now i'm going to have to wait to see before I order my stuff. Will you be taking any measurements? Before and after db levels? it would be interesting to see how a properly treated civic compares to mine. Are you going to post exactly what and how much of your own materials where installed? It will give me a good idea as I have Canadian Si Sedan which its identical to the US EX. Thanks for the response, waiting anxiously for that build log lol. Yes to all questions. Lots of measurements. Lots of photos. Lots of "do this for 95% of the benefit, this for over the top".

In 2005 I drove a new Civic EX Sedan off the dealer's lot. I'd never heard of aftermarket acoustical treatments for cars, but within a day or two I realized I had a big noise problem. I couldn't talk on the phone and could barely hear the factory sound system. Like most people, my first attempt was to upgrade the stereo in an attempt to overpower the noise. The original SDS began as an attempt to figure out what products to use in my Civic. It has also served as a test bed for almost every product on the market. It also taught me that the recommended "layer on the vibration damper" treatment was a terrible way to reduce noise. I decided to rip everything out and start fresh using the treatments I sell. Aaron can tell you about this stage of the product since he helped. Here's what came out: I would have been better off buying a replacement but couldn't bring myself to pass that mess off on to someone else. I'd guess it took a solid month's labor, spread out over the fall and winter to get back to stock. I'm almost done. I've been documenting the installation and will be posting the project on my Web site. This is actually why I've been so far behind on e-mails for the past month or so. Trunk's done. Roof's done. Front doors are done. Carpet went back in last night. All that's left is the back seat platform and rear doors. Rear deck will have to wait since I'll be mounting a sub IB there and will need to have the rear glass removed to do it. Anyway, yes, I'm familiar with 7th gen Civics. I hung CCF and MLV on the inner and outer front door skins, but have mids mounted in them. The inner skin layer is more important for noise reduction since a lot of noise enters the doors from the top, sides and bottom. The outer skin layer blocks a little more noise but I installed it to make it harder to hear the speakers from outside the car.

I know it's a little late, but modeling clay doesn't like heat. Duct seal has a similar consistency and density and won't melt on hot days. I use Extruded Butyl Rope for that

For trunk noise, you have the choice of either treating the trunk itself or going behind the back seat and over the rear deck. I don't think the second idea is workable if there will be sub(s) in the trunk. I look at subs in a trunk as being analogous to having an HT setup - with the sub in your neighbor's house. Adding a barrier between the trunk and passenger compartment just makes this worse. You want as much sound as possible to travel into the passenger compartment. You wouldn't have to treat the entire trunk since the box itself will make a pretty good barrier.

It's easy enough to test, but you won't believe that either. Why don't you call Fatmat and ask them?

This really comes down to your definition of "deadener" and "works". The license plate test doesn't prove your point. Anything that's softer than the plate and the back of the mounting surface will solve that problem - 10 cents worth of CCF or even some chewed gum would be more effective and easier. Decoupling the surfaces is the key here, not vibration damping. Gaining SPL after applying the material is almost certainly the result of sealing air leaks. Again, many things will accomplish the same thing. That's really not "deadening" by any definition. It's possible that you got some panel stiffening in the process. That's an advantage asphalt has, since it isn't a vibration damper, you don't get the offsetting conversion of vibration to heat. You also don't get a reliably durable product that can be counted on to last for several years and may result in a serious mess. If you don't care about that and are happy to address the issues indirectly and inefficiently, I guess it could make sense. None of that supports the idea that it works as a deadener.