Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 3499131" data-attributes="member: 549629">Damplify is not a word, so testing for it would be difficult. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gifIf you meant dampening ability (to dampen energy/wave forms), that&#039;s easy to test for. This isn&#039;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 &#039;best&#039; 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 &#039;best&#039; 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 &#039;damplification&#039;. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gifedit: 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 3499131, member: 549629"] Damplify is not a word, so testing for it would be difficult. [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif[/IMG] 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'. [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif[/IMG][IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif[/IMG] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification