MurderMat vs Dynamat, FatMat, SecondSkin and Audio Technix

[Suicide Bobb 5,000+ posts]

remember the purpose of deadener is to provide damping. thickness is not a useful metric. you can increase thickness by injecting air into the process without increasing material, cost, or damping benefits.
you need to be able to quantify the elastomeric and viscoelastic properties of the materials in order to compare them.

the only true test of deadener uses accelerometers and thermal monitoring.

you need to capture these:

this is the kind of data i want to see for a deadener comparison:

EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS

I bet I could get Don to test his CLD tiles with this testing method...

 

[cthedinger 10+ year member]

We've been looking to find a good way to do more of such in depth comparison testing.Unfortunately, even if we do on our own product, without having multiple other samples and running them through the same...

the outcome won't count for much of a comparision!

Damping Technologies, Inc.

The SAE J1637 style test is the only fair way to compare deadeners. Just because one product is thicker than the other does not mean it will preform better, it truly comes down to the adhesive. The SAE J1637 cost $600 per sample to have it tested. I had them test 10+ samples (my own and several other brands) for me in the past, IMO it is the only real way to compare deadeners. It compares how they preform against each other acoustically.

 

[Suicide Bobb 5,000+ posts]

Damping Technologies, Inc.
The SAE J1637 style test is the only fair way to compare deadeners. Just because one product is thicker than the other does not mean it will preform better, it truly comes down to the adhesive. The SAE J1637 cost $600 per sample to have it tested. I had them test 10+ samples (my own and several other brands) for me in the past, IMO it is the only real way to compare deadeners. It compares how they preform against each other acoustically.

Happen to have a link to said comparison test? I'm intrigued

 

[cthedinger 10+ year member]

Happen to have a link to said comparison test? I'm intrigued

Send me an email Coleman@AudioTechnix.com or check the AT section there is two threads with the SAE J1637 style tests comparing a few companies (please note I have not posted results for every sample I have tested but have posted the test results for SS, Dynamat, and AT).

I do not want to clutter this thread.

 

[adas Pro Seller]

We know that it is not all about the thickness of the CLD that determines its effectiveness in actual dampening... as you know there are also 2 parts to deadening, controlling resonance of the panel AND mass loading, in which the thicker butyl layer weighing more is almost always going to be more effective.

Especially in the Car audio arena the idea is to stop/prevent flex as much as possible as well as just control resonance.

We've heard of Damping Technologies, and the test were already planning to be done. Thanks for the insight

 

[keep_hope_alive Premium Member]

Send me an email Coleman@AudioTechnix.com or check the AT section there is two threads with the SAE J1637 style tests comparing a few companies (please note I have not posted results for every sample I have tested but have posted the test results for SS, Dynamat, and AT).
I do not want to clutter this thread.

email sent.

 

[Jaguar 10+ year member]

Damping Technologies, Inc.The SAE J1637 style test is the only fair way to compare deadeners. Just because one product is thicker than the other does not mean it will preform better, it truly comes down to the adhesive. The SAE J1637 cost $600 per sample to have it tested. I had them test 10+ samples (my own and several other brands) for me in the past, IMO it is the only real way to compare deadeners. It compares how they preform against each other acoustically.

Happen to have a link to said comparison test? I'm intrigued

This is what he's talking about. These tests. I actually pulled some of the numbers I used in my graphs from that sheet, nobody else had them.

I'm pleased everyone is back on topic, it's a perfect opportunity for a discussion about it and other products. It was never my intention to make

other sound deadeners look bad, nor make MurderMat look "the best". I've stated this 3 times previously. I pulled the specifications in the graphs

off of each co respective websites and compared what Dynamat, FatMat, SecondSkin and Audio Technix wrote, that's it. What you seen in the

graph's was never a matter of personal opinion. I can't help it if the numbers specified by the companies referring to their ''premium versions'',

Dynamat Extreme, FatMat MegaMat, SecondSkin Pro, and Audio Technix Pro were all "surpassed" by MurderMat's standard 87 mil BL version.

My personal experience with MurderMat is that it's a great product, but is it the best? Who know's, I'll leave that to you guys to figure out.

​

JAG

 

[cthedinger 10+ year member]

This is what he's talking about. These tests. I actually pulled some of the numbers I used in my graphs from that sheet, nobody else had them.

Actually that is not what I was referring too. Give me a few minutes and I will post what I was talking about.

 

[cthedinger 10+ year member]

 

[cthedinger 10+ year member]

 

---------- Post added at 11:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 PM ----------

 

 

[Jaguar 10+ year member]

Actually that is not what I was referring too. Give me a few minutes and I will post what I was talking about.

Ah. I thought it was, I pulled that off of one of your posts here. So are we to understand the comparison chart you made I posted does not reflect

the testing you paid for of those products then? Or was what you just posted here additional. Thanks.

 

[cthedinger 10+ year member]

Ah. I thought it was, I pulled that off of one of your posts here. So are we to understand the comparison chart you made I posted does not reflect

the testing you paid for of those products then? Or was what you just posted here additional. Thanks.

Correct. The charts I posted above are the tests I was referring to that cost $600 per sample to have done. The test is called SAE J1637. Basically tells you how a deadening product preforms acoustic wise. I did not post all the of the results for all the samples I have had tested, just posted a few to give you (and others) an idea of what I was referring too.

The chart you posted from the AT section is similar to yours. It is a chart showing what manufactures said the thickness of there products were. Then I went out and purchased every product on the chart. Next I measured each sample with a micro-meter (which you can get at a hardware store for $25-50) to see if each sample was as thick as the manufacture claimed.

 

[adas Pro Seller]

These tests were only done with the 60 Mil.. Correct?

 

[cthedinger 10+ year member]

These tests were only done with the 60 Mil.. Correct?

Yes Audio Technix on the graphs above represent the 2 old versions of the 60 mil. I no longer sell those 2 versions.

Second Skin in the graph is there current version of Damplifier and the Dyanamt in the graph is the current version of Dynamat Extreme.

 

[TDot 10+ year member]

Forgive my noob question, but are the higher numbers or the lower numbers better with the temp/hz chart?