Second Skin Enclosure Coating - Protoype pics are up

[Plottin4success 10+ year member]

wait your going to put this INSIDE the box?

Thats what I was thinking. Wouldn't you want the ported chamber to be as smooth as possible? Would this coating affect airflow in the port?

 

[RogerKline 10+ year member]

We can offer it in a smooth finish if enough people request it.As of now it is being developed to inclused the recycled rubber bits which give it the texture.

ANT

I was hoping for this:

So instead of carpeting your sub enclosure, you could simply paint on this durable liner. It is something like a bed liner but not as glossy; a bit more flat but with good skid and mar resistance. Something you can clean with a wet rag that won't get scratched up.
We can add an agent to the mixture to make it self leveling too so it will always be smooth no matter how you paint it on, or we can give it a bit of a texture.

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

wait your going to put this INSIDE the box?

Thats what I was thinking. Wouldn't you want the ported chamber to be as smooth as possible? Would this coating affect airflow in the port?

Yes, inside. Its a bandpass, and the port is 22w by 20t, so you can see right in. The inside was just spray painted, but thats all scraped up and when any dust or anything gets in it (its all nasty looking after a couple weeks) it looks horrible. Some type of bedliner would be great looking I would think.

In a straight burp car it would probably lose a little sound... Maybe a tenth or two if that. But in an everyday car, you would never notice the difference in sound.

 

[soundstreamer 10+ year member]

wait your going to put this INSIDE the box?

An SPL competitor told me he gained from 154 to 155.5 dBs from doing a spray on deadener on the inside of his box... It might be worth trying.

 

[basebalz13 10+ year member]

An SPL competitor told me he gained from 154 to 155.5 dBs from doing a spray on deadener on the inside of his box... It might be worth trying.

lmao no, that would be all wrong. maybe if it was a smooth spray on and not rough like this. however even still a 1.5 db increase from that? no... specially at a 154-155. now if it was in the low 40's that would be understandable

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Any sound daedening benficts, no matter where the product is used, is purely a side effect of the materail used in the coating.

If its being compared to carpet, carpet will definitely provide better sound dampening performance. You know this Anthony. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif That is why my previous post on performance alterations was based on mass loading, not sound damping.

I am not sure. I don't forumlate rubberized undercoatings. Most that I know of are solvent based. I have very little experience formulating solven based products. I stick with water based coatings. There are some similar aspects to most adhesive resins whether they are solvent or water based coatings but dependong on the specific intention of the coating the small similarities add up to big differences in product perfomace.House paint and some waterbased calkings are not too far off from one another for example. The formulas are not miles apart from one antoher either. Similar, yet different.

This is where you lose me. When you mention 'performance', it implies something other than aesthetics. What big differences in performance are you referring to? Your example of house paint versus caulk is a good one except, again, we are discussing an aesthetic product, not one that actually contributes to any real performance differences.
Im not trying to pick on you, or your new product, but I think its only fair that this product does not lead to some voodoo notion that an enclosure coating will equate to anything other than aesthetic differences. Im sure you can understand that. If people think it looks cool and like the idea of it being water based, great, I hope you sell a ton of it. But again I think its only fair we make sure it stays within that realm, for looks only.

Thats what I was thinking. Wouldn't you want the ported chamber to be as smooth as possible? Would this coating affect airflow in the port?

In a slot port, the vast majority of airflow will happen at the center of the port, and very little on the outer edges. On round ports, yes more air flow occurs at the edges, but not with slot ports. This is exactly why a slot port can have perpendicular sides and square corners, and not hurt airflow. Its also why slot ports require more port area than round ports. If someone wanted to use it to make the inside of their slot port look better, I doubt it would cause much, if any, noticeable loss of output, frequency response, etc.

 

[nineball 10+ year member]

Im not trying to pick on you, or your new product

thanks i needed a good joke to start the day off.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

thanks i needed a good joke to start the day off.

So, you can tell me where my comments or concerns are invalid?

 

[nineball 10+ year member]

nope. i laughed at the statement i quoted, nothing else.

 

[WrenchGuy 10+ year member]

Some people are really ******* this up! Must be the tires they use.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

nope. i laughed at the statement i quoted, nothing else.

Okay. Guess I misunderstood your point, my bad.

 

[Anthony Collova 10+ year member]

If its being compared to carpet, carpet will definitely provide better sound dampening performance. You know this Anthony. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif That is why my previous post on performance alterations was based on mass loading, not sound damping.
This is where you lose me. When you mention 'performance', it implies something other than aesthetics. What big differences in performance are you referring to? Your example of house paint versus caulk is a good one except, again, we are discussing an aesthetic product, not one that actually contributes to any real performance differences.

Im not trying to pick on you, or your new product, but I think its only fair that this product does not lead to some voodoo notion that an enclosure coating will equate to anything other than aesthetic differences. Im sure you can understand that. If people think it looks cool and like the idea of it being water based, great, I hope you sell a ton of it. But again I think its only fair we make sure it stays within that realm, for looks only.

I understand and agree with your intentions, but I think you are reading too much in to my words or simply looking for something that is not there.

If you read my original post up top, you will see that I never claimed that this product will make your bass louder, or improve the acoustics of the box, or alter sound in any way, or should even be used for that intended purpose.

All I said is that it will in fact reduce vibrations, which it will. I never claimed that it would provide any added acoustic performance value at all.

There is no way around it. The product is a viscoelastic, mineral loaded, rubber loaded, acrylic polymer. By nature it will, to some extent, reduce vibrations. There is no way around this.

I also went on to say (maybe in different words) that I don't know if this would make any audible difference at all, or if it would be worth it.

The product will reduce vibration, but that is not what I am selling it for, or marketing it towards. Some one asked me a question about if it would help with vibrations. I answered. Simple as that.

As far as your perfomance question goes, performance can he anything.

Adhesion

Skid resistance

Water Absorbtion

Elongation or tinsile strength

damping performance.

This is why I used the examples of house paint and caulking as I did.

they both hav their own performance standards because they are 2 different product.

To try an compare one standard to another make no sense.

With this coating, it is close enough to other waterbourn dampers that you could use it as a vibration damper if you wanted to but as I said in the OP, I don't think it would make much difference.

ANT

 

[tommyk90 5,000+ posts]

lmao no, that would be all wrong. maybe if it was a smooth spray on and not rough like this. however even still a 1.5 db increase from that? no... specially at a 154-155. now if it was in the low 40's that would be understandable

You have so much to learn.

Just because you don't agree with something or didn't get the same results doesn't mean it's incorrect.

I thought you would have learned your lesson after the alternator debacle, but apparently I was wrong.

 

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

Audioholic, by "performance", I'm pretty sure Ant means its ease of application, how well it holds up to abuse, how well it sticks to the wood, refrains from cracking, keeps its color, etc.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

There is no way around it. The product is a viscoelastic, mineral loaded, rubber loaded, acrylic polymer. By nature it will, to some extent, reduce vibrations. There is no way around this. I also went on to say (maybe in different words) that I don't know if this would make any audible difference at all, or if it would be worth it.

Again, not trying to bust your balls, but if you arent trying to imply its viscoelastic properties are helpful, why do you mention it? Again, there is no reason why a properly built enclosure should/would need vibrations reduced. We brace them to raise their resonant frequency above the passband the enclosure/speaker combo will reproduce. Its not a piece of sheet metal on your car that your midbass is going to resonate. I dont think you have bad intentions with these comments, but I easily see this leading to 'which deadener is best for my speaker box?' threads.