Damplifier vs Dynamat Extreme?

[sexiewasd 10+ year member]

Holy ****, i just realized his picture is on the box holding another box of dynamat. and on that box, there's another pic of him. and so on. it's a neverending pic of chip foose!!!!

That picture brain-****ed my mind for a week once. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[Rudy 10+ year member]

Nor does anyone as Second Skin doesn't publish damping specs and Dynamat does.
If the butylene composite is the same on Damp as it is on DP, then I personally like Second Skin's product a little better. It seems more "rubbery" which seems to lend to the products viscoelasticity more. I got no science on that, it's just my gut feeling.

On a side note, I saw some Stinger Expert RoadKill at CC the other day for like $4000 per square with this awful gooey tar-like adhesive that reminded me of this certain product that's complete crap in my eyes that's always mentioned in these threads. I should really stop using my brain sometimes, I could get in trouble...............

Not publishing performance testing data can't really be held against any of these guys. Until they can all agree on a standard and procedure, any numbers they publish are questionable. Dynamic Control publishes ASTM E756@ 200 Hz results, but without complete results and the methodology report that goes with the results, it is impossible to know what we are comparing. Add to that a history of other companies publishing bogus results and it gets even more complicated. I'd love to see comprehensive testing but we aren't going to see it until somebody is willing to pay an objective moderator to oversee the tests and publish the results.

It seems more "rubbery" which seems to lend to the products viscoelasticity more.

"Visoelasticity" describes a continuum between fully viscous and fully elastic. More rubbery just means the material is more toward the elastic end of the scale. I have no idea what the ideal is, but I have been playing with a product that is much more viscous than any of the other products I've tested and it performs VERY well. It might be messy to install, but still. Again, objective testing data would be helpful. I don't think we can extrapolate performance from adhesive consistency but we can be absolutely certain that viscoelasticity is essential and that thicker foil performs better than thinner.

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

Not publishing performance testing data can't really be held against any of these guys. Until they can all agree on a standard and procedure, any numbers they publish are questionable. Dynamic Control publishes ASTM E756@ 200 Hz results, but without complete results and the methodology report that goes with the results, it is impossible to know what we are comparing. Add to that a history of other companies publishing bogus results and it gets even more complicated. I'd love to see comprehensive testing but we aren't going to see it until somebody is willing to pay an objective moderator to oversee the tests and publish the results.

I absolutely agree with all of that, esp the bolded. I'm not trying to make SS look like the bad guy, I was pointing it out.

My personal feeling is that does say something about a company if they take the extra step to insure the performance of their product, whether everyone in the damping industry all agrees on THE performance standard or not. There's a difference between saying you're the best and actually proving it.

The OP asked "which product damps better." How do we answer that question?

"Visoelasticity" describes a continuum between fully viscous and fully elastic. More rubbery just means the material is more toward the elastic end of the scale. I have no idea what the ideal is, but I have been playing with a product that is much more viscous than any of the other products I've tested and it performs VERY well.

Come to think of it, I know Ant has mentioned that he can adjust how much air is used in their adhesive. Besides color, stickyness and smell, that might be the readily obvious difference to the layman between the adhesive used by Dynamat?
I've played with "pure" butyl puddy and it has a just-sticky-enough property to it....basically midway on the spectrum you described. Thing is though, as temperature drops below freezing it's stiff and hard almost like glue. This tells me that if the bonafied butyl-based CLD mats did use "pure" butyl it wouldn't work as well than if they adjusted the mix by adding other "stuff." I do know what CAE adds, but I don't know what the others add that seems to be the deal breaker. Thoughts?

 

[Rudy 10+ year member]

I absolutely agree with all of that, esp the bolded. I'm not trying to make SS look like the bad guy, I was pointing it out.
My personal feeling is that does say something about a company if they take the extra step to insure the performance of their product, whether everyone in the damping industry all agrees on THE performance standard or not. There's a difference between saying you're the best and actually proving it.

The OP asked "which product damps better." How do we answer that question?

I agree that testing should be part of R&D for any damping product. I'd also love to see a reliable way for us to compare results. I was lucky enough to see a huge quantity of comparable data from one of the premiere testing firms. Unfortunately, it turned out to have been leaked without authorization and I was asked not to share it with anyone. It did confirm what we already know - asphalt ***** and thicker foil is better than thinner foil.

Come to think of it, I know Ant has mentioned that he can adjust how much air is used in their adhesive. Besides color, stickyness and smell, that might be the readily obvious difference to the layman between the adhesive used by Dynamat?

Not sure there is a lot of difference. Aside from damping performance, additives contribute to usability and stability. I agree with Ant that it would be hard to make a performance argument that favored one over the other.

I've played with "pure" butyl puddy and it has a just-sticky-enough property to it....basically midway on the spectrum you described. Thing is though, as temperature drops below freezing it's stiff and hard almost like glue. This tells me that if the bonafied butyl-based CLD mats did use "pure" butyl it wouldn't work as well than if they adjusted the mix by adding other "stuff." I do know what CAE adds, but I don't know what the others add that seems to be the deal breaker. Thoughts?

I don't know either. Tests performed to a uniform standard would be the only way to compare performance, but cost is the problem. A while ago I thought I had the perfect solution. Manufacturers could submit samples to a testing lab and pay to have their products tested. They would also authorize the lab to send me a copy of the results for publications. The lab was ready to go. I contacted several manufacturers and there was ZERO interest. Oh well. All we care about as consumers is that the product be durable and perform well. How that is achieved, in terms of materials used, isn't important.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

You will never get all the manufacturers to agree to uniform testing and comparisons of all the products available. These guys aren't stupid, companies like eD and FatMat know they are the bottom dwellers in the dampening industry. They rely on ignorance and price shopping to sell their product. Any form of realistic testing would only point out their flawed product. You might get companies like SS and Raamat to agree to such a test, but far too many other companies will only stand to lose from such a proposition.

 

[adam71 5,000+ posts]

Holy ****, i just realized his picture is on the box holding another box of dynamat. and on that box, there's another pic of him. and so on. it's a neverending pic of chip foose!!!!

That picture brain-****ed my mind for a week once. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

You guys better stop looking at that picture. Otherwise you're going to tear a hole in the time-space continuum. Then we're all screwed.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/furious.gif.fc81ca146dbff91fede3ed290dbc4f4c.gif

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

You will never get all the manufacturers to agree to uniform testing and comparisons of all the products available. These guys aren't stupid, companies like eD and FatMat know they are the bottom dwellers in the dampening industry. They rely on ignorance and price shopping to sell their product. Any form of realistic testing would only point out their flawed product. You might get companies like SS and Raamat to agree to such a test, but far too many other companies will only stand to lose from such a proposition.

In my e-convos with Rick, he essentially hates it. And rightfully so, he's done well for himself by being the man with customer service and lending a helping hand with what he sells.

ED did "test" their products with some crude speaker in a pail eval or something once, but it was about as scientific as your everyday ca.com logic: "my deader works better cauz it stuck to my door for over 4 months and never fell off!" Brilliant.

Also keep in mind that CLD mat is one of only a handfull of sturctural damping products we can use. And, in my mind, it's application in a vehicle is pretty limited - not UNlimited as the status quoe suggests. Be unique kids, deaden you car intelligently! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/veryhappy.gif.fec4fed33b4a1279cf10bdd45a039dae.gif

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

Use whale blubber ..get a few hundred pounds and it will stop your rattles