Anyone use this sound deadener?

[mat3833 10+ year member]

Simple math post.

Current price for bulk packs of Noico and Resonix:

Noico 18 sq ft - $36 with prime shipping
Resonix 40 SQ ft - $328 on sale(34ish percent off) from their website

To equalize those amounts 40 SQ feet of Noico 80m would cost $80.

Now, based on napkin math and the charts above

I'm going to focus on a single section of the graph above because in my use-case it was the main issue. Eliminating rattles and buzz in the 150-400hz range was my goal. If we look at the charts and focus on the highest differences in peaks we can get a rough estimate of noise reduction based on how much lower the amplitude is.

Resonix: HUGE drop in the 125hz region roughly 19db reduction in the peak and a decent drop in the 475hz range of about 5db

Noico: substantial drop in the 125hz range of 11db and a "better than Resonix" drop in the 475hz range of about 8db.

Interesting thing about the noico graph is the huge drop in energy at about 425hz. Resonix smooths out the peaks alot in the sub-200hz region

I'm no sound engineer, but vibration is energy. And all deadener does is require more energy input for the same reactive resonance AND lower the resonating frequency.

OK, back to the math. If 40sq feet of Noico is 80 bux, and 40 sq feet of Resonix is 320 bux I can buy 4 times the amount of Noico. I'm not sure the translation from resonance SPL reduction to weight of deadener applied, but I'd Hazzard a guess that 4 times the ammount of Noico is going to do at least as well as the Resonix.

I used 7 of the 18 sq foot packs and 2 of the 10 sq foot packs of the 80mil noico, or 146 square feet.

No way in **** I'm spending $1200 on deadener ALONE.

Yes, Resonix is a better product. Just like Hertz Mille Legend components are a better product than a set of Type r comps from Amazon. Do you absolutely have to run the BEST equipment or materials for your system to function or to gain some kind of improvement? Hell no.



Math is great, it doesn't lie. But the sime fact is noico is not a "garbage" product any more than Type R comps are a garbage product. They serve a different market.

And for the record, I run the Mille legend 3-way set in my car. It's ******* amazing and I love it. But would I go back and spend almost $5000 on "premium" deadener, CCF, and MLV instead of the 600ish I spent on "garbage"? No, because if I did I wouldn't have the Mille legend speakers.

Matt

 

[mastershake575]

Simple math post.

It's not simple math because one's a high effiency product that's engineered for near peak results at 25-35% while the other is basically a mystery (don't believe me ask @SkizeR he owns the company and has batch tested all the competitors).

No way in **** I'm spending $1200 on deadener ALONE.

You wouldn't spend anywhere close to that, the whole point of using deadeners with higher quality aluminum and higher amounts of pure butyl is that you don't need nearly as much.

You obviously don't buy a high effiecent version of any retail product and then proceed to use it in an inefficient manner

Yes, Resonix is a better product. Just like Hertz Mille Legend components are a better product than a set of Type r comps from Amazon. Do you absolutely have to run the BEST equipment or materials for your system to function or to gain some kind of improvement? Hell no.

Math is great, it doesn't lie. But the sime fact is noico is not a "garbage" product any more than Type R comps are a garbage product. They serve a different market.

No a better example and better math would be back in the day my buddy made fun of me because my JBL WGTI and matching 700RMS amp was the same price as his 1500RMS Soundqubed HDC3 and matching korean amp.

He was basically like "oh look how much bigger sub and more wattage i'm getting" (aka "i can get way more Noico for the same price") but in reality my JBL WGTI and amp (Resonix, higher efficency cleaner design) actually clamped both louder and cleaner on 700 watts then his did on 1500+......

Obviously every single product out there has the "bang for your buck" factor but these people thinking that these cheap knockoffs are performing better dollar for dollar compared to the higher price items (resonix, dynamat, hushmat, second skin) it actually isn't really true. Obviously there not absolute garbage but reality is the idea that your gaming the system isn't really true (your getting exactly what your paying for dollar for dollar, your not jipping the system)

 

[mat3833 10+ year member]

It's not simple math because one's a high effiency product that's engineered for near peak results at 25-35% while the other is basically a mystery (don't believe me ask @SkizeR he owns the company and has batch tested all the competitors).
You wouldn't spend anywhere close to that, the whole point of using deadeners with higher quality aluminum and higher amounts of pure butyl is that you don't need nearly as much.

You obviously don't buy a high effiecent version of any retail product and then proceed to use it in an inefficient manner
No a better example and better math would be back in the day my buddy made fun of me because my JBL WGTI and matching 700RMS amp was the same price as his 1500RMS Soundqubed HDC3 and matching korean amp.

He was basically like "oh look how much bigger sub and more wattage i'm getting" (aka "i can get way more Noico for the same price") but in reality my JBL WGTI and amp (Resonix, higher efficency cleaner design) actually clamped both louder and cleaner on 700 watts then his did on 1500+......

Obviously every single product out there has the "bang for your buck" factor but these people thinking that these cheap knockoffs are performing better dollar for dollar compared to the higher price items (resonix, dynamat, hushmat, second skin) it actually isn't really true. Obviously there not absolute garbage but reality is the idea that your gaming the system isn't really true (your getting exactly what your paying for dollar for dollar, your not jipping the system)

OK, there seems to be some kind of communication or understanding issue here.

It IS simple math. Product cost, product used, resonance level reduction, all of these are numbers you can use to quantify this. As I said, I was going FULL COVERAGE. Regardless of what product I used, full coverage was happening. I filled voids with expanding foam, covered large holes with flashing, covered as much of my car as I could in deadener and CCF. I had to use a minimum of X ammount of product to cover the car. X ammount of product A would cost 4 times what X ammount of product B costs. In my case, I would have spent 1200 on Resonix because I was, once again for clarity, covering every square inch I could.

Yea, Resonix, second skin, etc are great products
They do their job very well when using 15-25 percent coverage in the center of panels. But their cost is not justified in all cases. I am not arguing that Resonix is the "best" deadener on the market based on a few very simple tests.


It's really not fair to compare the WGTI series of subs to an HDC3. The W series is extremely efficient for what it is, as was the GTO amps they were paired with. I ran 2 of the W15 GTI and just sold the one I kept.

You can't really compare deadener to a speaker tho. Deadener is a very simple thing. It's just mass and a little vibration reduction. Speakers are complex. If we are comparing the CLD tiles from Resonix to noico, you could accomplish a good portion of the "dampening" by gluing lead weights to the center of your panel.

Dollar for dollar, I would put money that noico would perform on par with Resonix if not beat it. Resonix ON SALE costs 4x what noico costs. Get one square inch of Resonix and 4 square inches of Noico. stack 4 squares of Noico on the center of the panel and measure. Or use 4 times less Resonix. I'm perfectly happy being wrong in this particular case. As Ive said numerous times Resonix and second skin are great products, if it beats noico on a dollar for dollar level it will change my plan for my Sorento build. Everyone who has done testing has stuck with the "equal square inch coverage" method to compare their results. And while that does tell you what is a better product overall, a true companion would include a cost weight section as well.

Matt

 

[SkizeR 10+ year member]

Im a little (read: very) tired right now, so I'm not going to go through every comment here and explain every little detail. What I will do, is tell you this. I promise you, that you will not have a better end result than using ResoNix CLD Squares, period. As a car audio shop owner, it didn't make sense for me to make a product that was on par with the rest when I needed something that could do much more with much less time/effort.

Here, I even did the math for you guys.

Sound Deadener Independent Testing

Curious to know which sound deadener ACTUALLY performs the best instead of listening to every companies marketing scheme? Well, look no further.

resonixsoundsolutions.com

 

[mastershake575]

My gripe with this thread is there is a lot of theory and not much application.

Chris's page was posted on the first page and tells you everything you need.

To absolutely no surprise cheap overseas knockoff selling at 80% less price isn't as good and you have to use way more to get similiar results (some of these variants are so low quality that you won't even get same results if you smear 4x as much on)

It's really not fair to compare the WGTI series of subs to an HDC3. The W series is extremely efficient for what it is, as was the GTO amps they were paired with. I ran 2 of the W15 GTI and just sold the one I kept.

It's a 100% fair comparison. These higher end deadeners (shouldn't even say high-end, should just say deadeners that are actually real and don't use filler) are more efficient.

The only logical way that comparison wouldn't be fair is if you believe every single deadener is basically the same so higher efficiency shouldn't come into play

Dollar for dollar, I would put money that noico would perform on par with Resonix if not beat it. Resonix ON SALE costs 4x what noico costs. Get one square inch of Resonix and 4 square inches of Noico. stack 4 squares of Noico on the center of the panel and measure. Or use 4 times less Resonix. I'm perfectly happy being wrong in this particular case.

" Looking at this, Noico is definitely a much better performer than Kilmat. Now comparing it to ResoNix. ResoNix lowers the resonance peak another 7.5dB lower than Noico. This equates to ResoNix being 5.62x more effective at reducing resonance in a given panel. Noico can be found for as low as $1.97 per square foot. Price to performance vs. ResoNix CLD Squares, you would spend $11.07 to get enough Noico to, in theory, be as effective as ResoNix. 5.62x the amount would need to be applied. This is also not as good of a value, especially when you consider the extra work required to apply all of that additional product. "

Here, I even did the math for you guys.

Sound Deadener Independent Testing

Curious to know which sound deadener ACTUALLY performs the best instead of listening to every companies marketing scheme? Well, look no further.

resonixsoundsolutions.com

These results shouldn't even be shocking.

Your literally creating and shipping a product half way across the globe and still charging 80% less money then a geniune product. Of course the quality is going to be drastically different (cheap fillers and low R&D budget).


Back to the original opening post, no stay away from Kilmat, Mat66, Fatmat, Siless, Noico. Use a higher quality product but less of it. It will be less work, similiar if not better results, won't actually cost you any more, and you won't have to worry about potential toxic fillers/chemicals.

 

[metalheadjoe 10+ year member]

Chris's page was posted on the first page and tells you everything you need.

To absolutely no surprise cheap overseas knockoff selling at 80% less price isn't as good and you have to use way more to get similiar results (some of these variants are so low quality that you won't even get same results if you smear 4x as much on)
It's a 100% fair comparison. These higher end deadeners (shouldn't even say high-end, should just say deadeners that are actually real and don't use filler) are more efficient.

The only logical way that comparison wouldn't be fair is if you believe every single deadener is basically the same so higher efficiency shouldn't come into play

" Looking at this, Noico is definitely a much better performer than Kilmat. Now comparing it to ResoNix. ResoNix lowers the resonance peak another 7.5dB lower than Noico. This equates to ResoNix being 5.62x more effective at reducing resonance in a given panel. Noico can be found for as low as $1.97 per square foot. Price to performance vs. ResoNix CLD Squares, you would spend $11.07 to get enough Noico to, in theory, be as effective as ResoNix. 5.62x the amount would need to be applied. This is also not as good of a value, especially when you consider the extra work required to apply all of that additional product. "

View attachment 37044

These results shouldn't even be shocking.

Your literally creating and shipping a product half way across the globe and still charging 80% less money then a geniune product. Of course the quality is going to be drastically different (cheap fillers and low R&D budget).


Back to the original opening post, no stay away from Kilmat, Mat66, Fatmat, Siless, Noico. Use a higher quality product but less of it. It will be less work, similiar if not better results, won't actually cost you any more, and you won't have to worry about potential toxic fillers/chemicals.

Why are you so heavily invested in this topic?

Chris posted theory. I'd like to hear about real-world experience. Tests are theory to a degree.

 

[Firewalker]

No Chris does it via testing with thousands invested in equipment on his own dime.

 

[mat3833 10+ year member]

Why are you so heavily invested in this topic?

Chris posted theory. I'd like to hear about real-world experience. Tests are theory to a degree.

There is no real world test data. Nobody has the time nor desire to deaden a whole car with multiple different products. It would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming, and the second you move from a small test box to a car you loose a huge margin for advantage.

The only data I need is the personal experience I have. I'll continue to use the products I have been successful with that fall within my set budget.

Matt

 

[mastershake575]

Why are you so heavily invested in this topic?

Because that's literally the point of a hobby and a forum, to discuss and learn about aspects of the hobby and learn why the competitors are the competitors

Not everyone has the desire to just be a bobbytwonames and spam "uhh buy american bass that's what I run and it slams" (yeah sorry I won't be doing that type of investment in topics, not interested)

No Chris does it via testing with thousands invested in equipment on his own dime.

I guess independent testing is "theory" when it's the results you don't want to hear

As a car audio shop owner, it didn't make sense for me to make a product that was on par with the rest when I needed something that could do much more with much less time/effort.

Not only that if these knockoffs were really better bang for your buck then OEMs would be using them and savings tens of millions a year in production.

 

[SkizeR 10+ year member]

Hey guys, owner of ResoNix here (again). Take this for what it's worth, as I know some of you will argue it just for the sake of debating, but whatever, here is some info that I have for you. There is another way of testing these products. Manufacturers use ASTM E756-05, or SAE J1637_202202. These measure Composite Loss Factor by using a standardized size aluminum bar that is vibrated at 200hz. Keyword there is 200hz. One frequency is used to test all of these products, and on a little aluminum bar. It has no real-world application for us in the car audio side of things since we apply this to large, flat pieces of steel and are typically concerned with 60-110hz. I spoke to the engineer at the manufacturer that makes ResoNix for me. This engineer, who designs and tests these products for a living, is HIGHLY impressed with what Chris is doing, and actually follows his testing. He agrees that while it may not be a standardized test, it is more in-depth and applicable to our situation than any other testing they have seen. The only way Chris could improve this test is to use an actual car door, but that makes the test drastically more difficult and expensive to pull off and make repeatable. The fact that the panel he uses has a similar resonant frequency is very close (damn near identical) to having the real thing. Call me a liar, tell me you need more testing, tell me whatever. I don't really care. The data is right there for you, is repeatable, and verifiable from real-world use. You can't just sit here and demand someone provide "real world experience" while we are literally spoon-feeding you the most comprehensive set of data on these types of products ever seen. You want real-world experience? The only way to do that is to get it, not ask for it on a forum (seems kinda contradicting if you ask me). But if you want it, even though I'll be called biased, or whatever, my real-world experience is my history of owning and operating a high-end car audio shop that wasn't satisfied with ANYTHING on the market after SDS closed, so I decided to make my own to satisfy myself and my clients. ResoNix is the product of that desire of mine. The only reason it is available for sale is because the minimum orders are insane relative to what a shop would need.

 

[SkizeR 10+ year member]

PS, I also did my own testing. That Rockville stuff someone mentioned I didn't even bother testing after I ordered it. It came shipped as a giant goopy mess