SecondSkin Damplifier

[ramos 5,000+ posts]

cascade is supose to be good to

It's really good stuff , but the price is a turn off for me . That chit is spensive //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/frown.gif.a3531fa0534503350665a1e957861287.gif

 

[ItalynStylion 10+ year member]

I've used Damplifier in my entire car. Doors, roof, rear deck, trunk lid and floor. I love that stuff. Their spectrum is really nice too as well as the overkill foam.

Just be careful though....it's easy to get carried away and you start deadening everything //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

It's a good test. It's kind of missing one crucial part - Damplifabilty.
I wonder how we can even test that?

Damplify is not a word, so testing for it would be difficult. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif
If you meant dampening ability (to dampen energy/wave forms), that's easy to test for. This isn't rocket science, HOW these mats dampen is a well known phenomenon... they simply mass load to alter the resonant frequency of the panel. Therefore, any mat that has the ability to alter mass the most, is the 'best' dampener.

There are two basic fundamentals to mass loading, and its effectiveness... the actual density/mass of the product being applied, and how well it sticks to the parent surface. Adding mass does nothing if its not added in the right place, correct? So adhering it to the panel is crucial to it performing good, bad, or mediocre.

With these two bits of information, its now easy to test for the best dampening ability, right? The mat with the most mass/density, and with the best adhesive, would be the 'best' dampener. The sound deadener showndown measures those exact things guys, test is already done, you are just trying to slap a non-existant word on it and want some magical way to measure it directly. Maybe when humans come up with a device that will measure the loss of airborn sound waves thru sound barriers, they will call it 'damplification'. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

edit: And forgot to mention, the butyl rubber mats also have a true visceolastic property that helps dampen sound, which does vary from one mat type to another. This however, imo has never been shown to make nearly as drastic an effect on sound deadening airborn waves. Closed cell foams are vastly superior to mats for this type of application.

 

[SeanDub 10+ year member]

ok

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

The only downside to Don's testing methodology is that it measures a series of variables from which an extrapolation is made, rather than an actual measurement of the resonance (both frequency and amplitude); basically, measuring physical damping is preferable. He and Sean (who does relatively similar testing for several major clients with a $350K scanning laser vibrometer) had a long and interesting discussion on SSA about improving the effectiveness of the test, but the end result is that a 100% accurate test is well beyond the scope of an enthusiast in terms of financial viability and time constraints, much less acquiring the necessary knowledge to be able to interpret and process results effectively.

However, what Don's test is really A+++ (eBay talk) for is identifying three things:

1. Which manufacturers out and out lie about their products.

2. Which manufacturers know what they are doing with their products.

3. Which objective qualities can be used to make general estimates of a product's performance. Though the qualities described cannot possibly account for every variable and do not provide a "final result", they do at least call attention to analysis of what I would consider a series of previously misunderstood products.

I remember Anthony of SecondSkin made a very interesting anecdote...something to the effect of "I know more about my competitors products than they do" and I would wager that holds true in several instances.

Anyways, all rants aside, I have nothing but respect for the work that Don has done.

 

[fwb_1234 10+ year member]

Damplify is not a word, so testing for it would be difficult. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif
If you meant dampening ability (to dampen energy/wave forms), that's easy to test for. This isn't rocket science, HOW these mats dampen is a well known phenomenon... they simply mass load to alter the resonant frequency of the panel. Therefore, any mat that has the ability to alter mass the most, is the 'best' dampener.

There are two basic fundamentals to mass loading, and its effectiveness... the actual density/mass of the product being applied, and how well it sticks to the parent surface. Adding mass does nothing if its not added in the right place, correct? So adhering it to the panel is crucial to it performing good, bad, or mediocre.

With these two bits of information, its now easy to test for the best dampening ability, right? The mat with the most mass/density, and with the best adhesive, would be the 'best' dampener. The sound deadener showndown measures those exact things guys, test is already done, you are just trying to slap a non-existant word on it and want some magical way to measure it directly. Maybe when humans come up with a device that will measure the loss of airborn sound waves thru sound barriers, they will call it 'damplification'. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

edit: And forgot to mention, the butyl rubber mats also have a true visceolastic property that helps dampen sound, which does vary from one mat type to another. This however, imo has never been shown to make nearly as drastic an effect on sound deadening airborn waves. Closed cell foams are vastly superior to mats for this type of application.

Ok, my vocabulary wasn't ideal, agreed.

When I see info on SS products (including a PM from Ant) he says that it works by converting the sound waves into heat. What you have said makes more sense.

Here is the quote.

...Both products are designed to do the same basic function. Reduce noise through the visceolastic conversion of resonance to heat...

I asked him about the difference in effectiveness of Spectrum and Damp./Damp Pro. There was a little more to the PM, but this is the important part for this discussion.

What do you think of that explaination.

When I get home. I want to see if there actually is an energy conversion.

I was thinking about getting a tuning fork and then painting a thermometer to the fork with some Spectrum I have. I'll bang on one side for a while, see if the temperature changes.

I hope it will.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Ok, my vocabulary wasn't ideal, agreed.
When I see info on SS products (including a PM from Ant) he says that it works by converting the sound waves into heat. What you have said makes more sense.

Here is the quote.

I asked him about the difference in effectiveness of Spectrum and Damp./Damp Pro. There was a little more to the PM, but this is the important part for this discussion.

What do you think of that explaination.

When I get home. I want to see if there actually is an energy conversion.

I was thinking about getting a tuning fork and then painting a thermometer to the fork with some Spectrum I have. I'll bang on one side for a while, see if the temperature changes.

I hope it will.

Its funny, years ago when everyone was using asphalt based mats (butyl wasnt out yet), the big buzz word/phrase was visceolastic energy transfer. but I/we know now that asphalt based mats had virtually none, while the butyl mats do exhibit the phenomenon.
How much it will heat, I suspect, will be unmeasureable with a thermometer. Interesting test though, let us know what happens.

In any event, the main function the mat will perform will be mass loading in order to lower the resonant freq of the vibrations, not actually transferring wave energy into heat.

Finally, there is an alternative for minimizing vibrations in a panel that is rarely talked about... stiffening the panel. For example, I like using wood or other such materials, in panels, screwed to door panels strategically to stiffen the panel (in addition to using mat). Another example is using fiberglass. Fiberglass will stiffen a roof to the point it will NOT flex, if given enough layers. And will weigh less than the traditional method of slapping up mat to mass load it (and that may fall down). Fiberglass can even be applied to back of plastic interior panels to give them rigidity. At the risk of using a cliche, soemtimes it pays to think outside the box.

 

[jblayz1 10+ year member]

I've read plenty if good reviews about this product but just wanted to know if there was anything better around that price range. Also, is 20 sq. feet enough for two doors?

i use damplifier, spectrum and overkill all from seconskin audio. if you just want some for your doors use the door pack.

 

[Pyro_By_Nature 5,000+ posts]

It's a good test. It's kind of missing one crucial part - Damplifabilty.
I wonder how we can even test that?

I beleive someone over at DIY mobile audio had a way to test this, forgot the name of the equiptment but I'll try to find it again.