The sound deadener Poll

[Koridan 0]

Im trying to figure out what is the best out of these choices. So tell me what you use or what you heard was good stuff

~MadroX

[///M5 2,833]

IMO there are two choices. Raamat and 2ndSkin; however for me I'd rather have the opportunity to layer and choose how much goes where so I voted Raamat as although a bit less effective you get more sq ft so you can choose where you want double/triple/... instead of having the deadener choose for you.

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

IMO there are two choices. Raamat and 2ndSkin; however for me I'd rather have the opportunity to layer and choose how much goes where so I voted Raamat as although a bit less effective you get more sq ft so you can choose where you want double/triple/... instead of having the deadener choose for you.

[ANeonRider 3]

http://www.sounddeadenershowdown.com/

[Acidburn 10]

do NOT use eDead, my window is fudgeed up again because of it

[Tirefryr 1,742]

LOL! Who voted for FatMat?

[JimJ 11]

If I could have afforded it, I would have gone with SecondSkin...Ant makes one hell of a product. But I wasn't disappointed with RAAMmat at all

The Cascade products I've used (mostly to silence trim vibrations) have worked well, but everything they make is relatively pricey...

[X-OvrDistortion 0]

If I could have afforded it, I would have gone with SecondSkin...Ant makes one hell of a product. But I wasn't disappointed with RAAMmat at all

The Cascade products I've used (mostly to silence trim vibrations) have worked well, but everything they make is relatively pricey...

Cascade and SecondSkin would be my choice and are my choice of products.

[flakko 1]

looks liek i tied it up with raamat stuff never fails me

[sundownz 197]

Second Skin for the win... it's expensive but it kicks butt.

[KickinAudio 5]

I'm about to buy a whoolle bunch of something. Probably second skin when I do.

[Rudeboy 152]

Ranking by quality, best first:

Second Skin, Cascade Audio, Hushmat

Dynamat Xtreme

RAAMmat, B-Quiet Ultimate

eDead

The following are asphalt and I wouldn't even consider using them in a car:

Dynamat Original

Brown Bread

FatMat

B-Quiet Extreme

Edited June 29, 2007 by Rudy

[Acidburn 10]

eDead is asphalt as well FYI

[JimJ 11]

They have a butyl form out now, IIRC.

I still wouldn't give Ben a dime.

[vladd 26]

Word on the street is the new raamat is much messier to work with.

[Rudeboy 152]

eDead is asphalt as well FYI

They've moved on to butyl.

Word on the street is the new raamat is much messier to work with.

RAAMmat has always been somewhat messier than some of the others. There was apparently a short run of RAAMmat that was messier than usual, but the new version is about the same as it has always been.

[DevilDriver 28]

Second Skin, no question over here.

[platnum accord 0]

are all the asphalt horror stories true where if you dont clean the metals and use a heat gun and a roller to apply the stuff it might fall of if on a vertical or on the bottom of a horizontal surface?

[Rudeboy 152]

are all the asphalt horror stories true where if you dont clean the metals and use a heat gun and a roller to apply the stuff it might fall of if on a vertical or on the bottom of a horizontal surface?

Not only that - using a heat gun to apply it damages the rubber used to stabilize the asphalt, making it much more likely to fail in the long run. Asphalt is a no win option, IMO.

[dopey 0]

http://www.sounddeadenershowdown.com/

When will these be tested for effectiveness?

[ANeonRider 3]

It's mass loading... so as long as it adds mass...

[Rudeboy 152]

http://www.sounddeadenershowdown.com/

When will these be tested for effectiveness?

Probably never. Standard tests are about $600 per sample and I can not figure out a way to even prepare specimens in a way that would be fair. How do you compare the effectiveness of a thicker mat to that of a thinner mat? Use the same area? Same mass? Who knows.

It seems to me that the best we can do is extrapolate effectiveness from material properties. To a large extent, mass is a determining factor - if it doesn't melt or fall off, it will do some good. Beyond that, we know that butyl is viscoelastic. That adds effectiveness. We know that the thicker and stronger the foil, the more the product will stiffen the panel and the greater the viscoelastic effect will be.

There really doesn't seem to be a generalized "all things being equal" testing structure that will let us compare to a standard ideal.

[Acidburn 10]

are all the asphalt horror stories true where if you dont clean the metals and use a heat gun and a roller to apply the stuff it might fall of if on a vertical or on the bottom of a horizontal surface?

yes, pieces of eDead have fallen off the inside of my door and have jammed up the window mechanism, this is the 3rd time it has happened

[///M5 2,833]

http://www.sounddeadenershowdown.com/

When will these be tested for effectiveness?

Probably never. Standard tests are about $600 per sample and I can not figure out a way to even prepare specimens in a way that would be fair. How do you compare the effectiveness of a thicker mat to that of a thinner mat? Use the same area? Same mass? Who knows.

It seems to me that the best we can do is extrapolate effectiveness from material properties. To a large extent, mass is a determining factor - if it doesn't melt or fall off, it will do some good. Beyond that, we know that butyl is viscoelastic. That adds effectiveness. We know that the thicker and stronger the foil, the more the product will stiffen the panel and the greater the viscoelastic effect will be.

There really doesn't seem to be a generalized "all things being equal" testing structure that will let us compare to a standard ideal.

It is pretty easy to measure damping, frequency shift and of course the modal response of a structure, but since you can't mass load it further you will have to use a laser vibrometer instead of an accelerometer. You could also do acoustic transmission loss tests on it as well.

[Rudeboy 152]

It is pretty easy to measure damping, frequency shift and of course the modal response of a structure, but since you can't mass load it further you will have to use a laser vibrometer instead of an accelerometer. You could also do acoustic transmission loss tests on it as well.

I understand which tests can be done. What is missing is any way to pay for having them done, and more importantly, a way to use those test to provide useful comparative data. It isn't enough to say that a 1" X 4" strip of Dynamat Xtreme is 3% more effective than the same sized patch of RAAMmat or even one of the liquids. The DX will have more mass than the RAAMmat and is thicker and more expensive. How about two layers of RAAMmat to one of Dynamat? Now the cost is almost the same but the RAAMmat is thicker and heavier.

The tests you describe work backward from what we are trying to determine, they are much better suited to determining which material will best solve a specific problem rather than providing a means of comparing products for general use. I'd be very interested if somebody can describe a methodology with results that would help when choosing between products, instead of just a litany of tests. For those that insist that mass loading is all that is going on, there isn't any need for tests beyond weighing in any case.