Rudeboy

Don is understating it to be nice. The blind test would tell you right away just by touch. Some of the samples just did not seem liked they belonged in the conversation. Oh and side note, NEVER EVER install RAMMAT in a vehicle that you might have the slimmest chance of having to remove it. Horrible stupid mess. To their credit, that product is being discontinued. No idea what you are talking about -

Adding more vibration damper isn't going to reduce resonance any further. If you want to stiffen the lid, expanding foam in the ribs might be an option. If you have rattles, wrapping or otherwise isolating or locking down whatever is rattling is the way to go.

I'd forgotten this gem. It was fun when I wasn't in the business and could say whatever I wanted. During one of Aaron's recent visits to SDS, I pulled out my box of samples from my testing days and showed him a variety of products, including FatMat. For all the discussion of testing methods, home brewed or standards based, nothing really beats holding a variety of products in your hands. of the discussion about price and value assume that we are talking about reasonably comparable products. Play with then a little and it's immediately obvious that we aren't. At least this led to FatMat removing the word "butyl" from their site. Despite Steve's claim that asphalt has desirable characteristics, you won't find that word either. "rubberized compound" instead.

you think so? would you use it? Here's where it is made. Notice that they also offer "Extruded Butyl Rope"? Kind of flattering, I guess, but I'd be willing to bet they don't know what it is for. All of the product packaging photos are crude PS mockups I did order some of the AudioBarrier to check it out and the quality is decent. Probably wouldn't use it myself though

you think so? would you use it?

It's a pretty good Chinese clone of Dynamat Xtreme.

Always happy to see a package arrive in the same condition as it left my hands! I do go through a lot of tape

I didn't have any way to test performance when I did the review site. I was really trying to figure out which of the products were what they said the were. At the time, this was important since so many sellers were misrepresenting the absolute basics like what the product was made of, mass/area, heat tolerance and just about everything else. Remember, quite a few were simply taking Peel & Seal out of one box, putting it in another and calling it sound deadener. Some were calling it butyl sound deadener and others were being deliberately misleading with descriptions like "rubberized compound". I relied on the consensus of forum "experts" and assumed that if many people insisted a product worked, it must. This was a mistake on my part. Getting to the bottom of the gross falsehoods was important, but that's still a pretty low standard to to which to hold products like these. This is what led me to start this business. I started working on an update to the site. I had learned how to test product performance, so that was going to be included. I quickly ran into a dilemma. There are plenty of good products out there, but very few that advocated proper application. I was faced with endorsing a product when the seller was recommending applying it in a manner that was to their advantage and not the consumer's. I'd had enough and decided to try and do better. I don't want to get into specific competing products, but there are two absolutely critical components to a constrained layer viscoelastic vibration damper. The adhesive needs to be viscoelastic and the constraining layer needs to be capable of constraint No thin foil or no foil facing can do this adequately. That's not to say the constraining layer has to be foil, but since it almost always is, you get the point. Anybody designing a vibration damper should know this. It's safe to assume that if you are looking at a thin foil or Mylar facing, you are actually seeing a flashing material with a reflective facing intended to protect the material form UV damage. Another consequence of this is that the adhesive (butyl or asphalt) is optimized for waterproofing, not vibration damping.

Peel & Seal is asphalt with a very thin foil facing. You really couldn't find a less useful material for automotive applications - good thing that's not what it is intended for Several people have resold it as sound deadener over the years and one well known brand still does.

I usually think of weatherstripping as self adhesive foam. Do you mean flashing tape? Some is asphalt, some is butyl and it all has a thin foil layer or no foil layer at all. As Impious stated, an adhesive designed for waterproofing is not going to be ideal for vibration damping. Even though the butyl blends are less likely to fall off, they don't perform any better than asphalt. It's really important to understand that "butyl" is just the base component of these adhesives. It is essentially a synthetic rubber. By itself, it would be a terrible vibration damper. Like rubber, it is almost purely elastic and will simply return any energy it receives. That's why claims of "highest butyl content" and highest rubber content" are silly. That's like claiming your mathematical formula is superior because it use more numbers or your song is better because it uses more notes. Viscoelasticity is the key to all of this. If anybody is really interested, PM me with a shipping address and I'll send you a sample of a viscoelastic adhesive. There's nothing better than stretching and releasing a viscoelastic material to understand what is going on. Stretch and release it repeatedly and it starts to get warm. Light bulb moment. I think you'll find that people using flashing tape and reporting great results haven't used a true vibration damper before. With no basis for comparison, a barely noticeable change can be perceived as "great", especially if you've just spent 2 days on the project and really want to believe it was worth the effort. Impious made an extremely important point for anybody who believes it doesn't matter what you use since you are just "mass loading" - quadruple the mass to lower resonant frequency one octave. That for EACH octave - the second will require 16 times the original mass, and so on.

Thanks guys.

I'm constantly amazed at the low quality of the stock materials used, even in relatively expensive vehicles. Some will have decent stuff on the center tunnel and then cheesey asphalt based coatings everywhere else. I've seen thick layers of plain asphalt, coated asphalt sheets that go through the paint bake (very common) and even asphalt impregnated cardboard that was falling off on the roof a Dodge pickup that was falling off after 6 months. Some of these things seem to have been designed to get you through the test drive. The asphalt on the floor of an Hummer H1 had turned into a stringy goo that I cleaned off with a plastic ices scraper. Except for the rock hard, backed on material that is meant to stiffen panels, I'd suggest removing whatever stock material you can. As ///M5 said, do not bother putting aftermarket damper on top of either stock damper or other layers of aftermarket product. It has to be in contact with the panel to work. Additionally layers are damping the layer underneath, more than the panel itself. I wish I'd know this when I started. My car was a test platform for a lot of materials. I followed forum "wisdom" at the time, applying layer after layer of various vibration dampers. Car was solid and all of those layers created a decent barrier but it was incredibly wasteful. Not to mention that the sheet metal is completely inaccessible so that even something as simple as PDR is impossible. Now that I've treated similar cars the proper way, I'm tearing out the old stuff to redo it. The proper amount of the right materials is easier, cleaner, less expensive and WORKS MUCH BETTER. Here's what I'm pulling out: That's right, 8 layers of mat followed by 2 layers of liquid. Terrible job.

It's safe to say that this situation is different than the rest - at least I think it's safe to say that

I really appreciate all of the kind words and the sentiment behind this initiative but I voted "no". , not really, I didn't vote at all It's probably not a good idea though. For one thing, another company already has a sub-forum. Having two competing businesses represented could cause complications that we don't need. Beyond that, I'm uncomfortable with the structure. I'd rather try and give the best advice I can regardless of the products someone chooses to use. What I'd suggest for consideration is a brand agnostic sound deadening sub-forum. That would bring all of the relevant posts into one place and to be selfish about it, would make things easier for me to monitor. I do check in a few times a day but frequently miss threads that I would like to post in. This way anybody can participate whether they want to offer advice or take a position that would otherwise be looked at with hostility in a brand specific forum. I also don't want to be put in a position where I'm expected to hawk my products. I don't make a lot of announcements and have a Web site when I do. Just seems like a more constructive way to go about things. Really flattering though

If you'd told me they were a gift I would have wrapped them Not really Hah! Should of Is there a way i can order a roller from you? Same address I sent the tiles? I believe so. Should be House number is 531 Got it. Happy birthday.

If you'd told me they were a gift I would have wrapped them Not really Hah! Should of Is there a way i can order a roller from you? Same address I sent the tiles?

If you'd told me they were a gift I would have wrapped them Not really

There is a complete layer of 1/8" CCF under the MLV in the hatch area. CCF /MLV /CCF is ideal, but unless there is a lot of space in the trim panels - true for many trucks, moving the MLV even 1/8" out from the inner skin will make the difference between getting the trim panel back on and not. I shoot for adding CCF where it will fit and be compressed slightly when the trim panel is reinstalled. That holds everything tightly in place and avoids the possibility of MLV rattling against the sheet metal. In most cases, a barrier layer on the inner skin will do the job. This is especially true if there are speakers mounted in the doors since the barrier layer acoustically reinforces the baffle. Sometimes this position isn't possible because of the way the inner skin and trim panels fit together. Mini's, newer Mazdas and a few others have large plastic inserts in the center of the inner skin that aren't flat enough for this technique to work. Outer skin placement is a good choice if the inner skin won't work, and the access holes are large enough to get to the outer skin. The advantage of outer skin placement is that it blocks sound from door mounted speakers from leaving the vehicle - good if you don't want to be heard.

In dollars or levs?

The CCF and MLV are just laid on the floor - gravity, seats, trim and carpet hold them in place. On vertical surfaces or horizontal surfaces where they might move around they are anchored with Velcro strips. We would have liked to remove the factory deadener on the floor. It's a very thick layer of asphalt. Cleaning it out would have added another day to the project and we didn't have another day to add. Sometimes you can remove asphalt pretty quickly with dry ice, but it usually takes a heat gun and a lot of scraping then cleanup with mineral spirits. If at all possible, remove asphalt. If you can't, adding CLD Tiles to any resonant areas of bare sheet metal is the next best thing. If the factory material is something other than asphalt it will be almost impossible to remove and there really isn't any reason to do. Again, supplement with CLD. The doors had 5 CLD Tiles added to the outer skin and 1 or 2 added to the inner skin. Packing the space behind the side impact beam with EBR turns the outer skin into two distinct panels. We centered half the tiles above and half below the beam.

Not sure what you mean - this was door / mlv / ccf too. The ideal would be a sandwich with CCF on ether sine and MLV in the middle since the sheet metal inner skin and trim panel are both hard surface from which the MLV should be decoupled. Anything other than that is a compromise and doors almost always require them. If you get a layer of CCF and MLV between the inner skin and trim panel, no matter which order, you'll get a good result. I seriously doubt that it is possible to detect a difference based on order.

just so you know, adhesion has asolutely no direct benefit to sound deadening. so long as the product sticks to where it's been applied, more adhesive doesn't help you sound deaden your vehicle AX I said that about the adhesion because when I stick something somewhere I like it to stay. That's certainly a requirement, but it's a very low standard to meet. You are right to point out that it can't always be assumed to be the case for products sold for this purpose. Once we pass that minimum threshold, the formulation of the adhesive becomes critical. "Butyl" covers a very wide range of materials Just being butyl based does not mean the adhesive was designed for vibration damping. The performance difference between an adhesive designed for vibration damping and those designed for other purposes is huge. Most butyl compounds intended for construction perform no better than asphalt, except that they will stick and are unlikely to fail when exposed to heat. I don't know anything about the adhesive used in this product except what I've seen in their previous products, so I'm not assuming anything. Just that "sticking" tells us nothing and should be expected.

I'm not the reviewer guy anymore - I bite my tongue a lot more now. (and lurk).

Vibration damper (like Dynamat) inside the box will not help at all, at least not enough to be worth doing. The resonant frequency of the box should be well above the frequencies produced by the sub(s) inside. What you are feeling is either distortion from the pressure changes in the box, in which case bracing is what you need, or resonance from overtones or other speakers in the vehicle. I'd be very surprise if it is a problem if the vibration or movement is barely detectable.

There really isn't any such thing as a mixture - the compounds aren't compatible. "Rubberized Compound" means asphalt 100% of the time. All asphalt roofing materials have rubber added for stability. Since the sellers know that people know that asphalt is crap, they call it rubberized compound because they don't have the balls to call it what it is. It's a despicable ploy to trick people into believing it's something other than what it is. Ought to be illegal. Sorry. Well thanks for your help don. Im thinking ill just keep it put away until i can get the right stuff for the job but thanks again u probably saved me a lot of time and trouble that it wouldve caused later on This is from the website. Fatmat Sound Control has been servicing the sound dampening industry for many years now. When we started we made one product and that was our FatMat Extreme. Slowly throughout the years we added new products to our line. Our goal is and always will be to offer our customers the best products at the best prices possible. Butyl is a very expensive product, and that's why so many others make false claims of offering a true butyl product, and the ones that do have a true butyl product sell it at ridiculous prices. FatMat has finally found a way to offer you a true butyl product and we did this while still making it very cost effective. Our new Mega Mat is thicker and it contains less fillers giving you a true rubberized butyl compound. Do the test then. "rubberized butyl compound" is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Butyl is a synthetic rubber. Why would you "rubberize" it? If it comes on a roll, it is a roofing material and won't work very well. If it's actually butyl, it probably won't melt or fall off and will be better than nothing. I wish people would just state the facts and not wrap everything up in a sales pitch that makes it impossible to figure out what they're talking about. It's really rich that he's talking about others make false claims about butyl content.