Sound Deadener???

[atsaubrey 10+ year member]

i wasn't trying to offend you. Sorry if i did. Let it be know. You are still the man

Damplifier and Damplifier Pro do not need to cover every inch either. Maybe try and understand how sound deadening mats work before you decide on purchasing anything.

 

[mvw2 10+ year member]

Nobody wants to lose the rights to their own names now. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif (cough Kleenex) Companies hate that. Well Ant doesn't for that reason, but they do have names for their products.

 

[James Bang 5,000+ posts]

Covering every inch seemed to just be marketing from deadening companies. Search "ultimate sound deadening" here and you'll see an install that covers every inch with layers upon layers of silliness. If that install was done by an employee of a deadening company, people might probably think that's how you're supposed to do it.

Before SDS, there was no talk about the 25% coverage strategy/technique, which I'm sure certain deadening companies aren't happy about that technique catching on.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/greedy.gif.5a53e6246569d7ab79867170f3b06629.gif

 

[KyleBechtold 5,000+ posts]

Damplifier and Damplifier Pro do not need to cover every inch either. Maybe try and understand how sound deadening mats work before you decide on purchasing anything.

the advertising of it tells a much different story.. hell just look at the tundra.

 

[djarmy2004 10+ year member]

Well Im thinking of getting either damplifier or dynamat. they both seem to be about the same price per sq ft.

 

[gunz4me2 10+ year member]

Covering every inch seemed to just be marketing from deadening companies. Search "ultimate sound deadening" here and you'll see an install that covers every inch with layers upon layers of silliness. If that install was done by an employee of a deadening company, people might probably think that's how you're supposed to do it.
Before SDS, there was no talk about the 25% coverage strategy/technique, which I'm sure certain deadening companies aren't happy about that technique catching on.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/greedy.gif.5a53e6246569d7ab79867170f3b06629.gif

Look at the popular automotive shows like Overhaulin'; Chop, Cut, Rebuild; Street Customs; Pimp My Ride; and Unique Whips. What do most of these shows do when showing the sound deadening process? Well, they tend to cover every square friggin inch of sheet metal.

Unique Whips took it even further by covering right over a rusty floorboard. I guess that was needed to stop the rust from resonating.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Anyhow, why do these shows promote full sheet metal coverage? To sell more product!//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/greedy.gif.5a53e6246569d7ab79867170f3b06629.gif:greedy://content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/greedy.gif.5a53e6246569d7ab79867170f3b06629.gif:greedy://content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/greedy.gif.5a53e6246569d7ab79867170f3b06629.gif

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

One of the most important things to understand is that more coverage with an inferior product is not better than less coverage with a higher quality material. In other words, don't be lured into using an inferior product like FatMat just because you get more coverage. All you'll end up accomplishing is spending more time laying down more material and ultimately achieving worse results.

Usually, but not always.

Also, just because all your friends in the neigborhood eat chips and salsa, doesn't mean it's the only good dip out there. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif Point is: there's more to "deadener" than CLD mat.

Structural damping, whether extensionalor constrained-layer, provides an

at-the-source solution to noise control

problems. Further, it is not always necessary

to use 100 percent panel coverage

to achieve significant noise reductions.

For example, 50 percent coverage

will provide a noise reduction that is typically only 3 decibels (dB) less than

for 100 percent coverage; 25 percent

coverage is only 6 dB less. When properly

used, damping can be as cost effective

as it is acoustically effective.

http://www.earsc.com/pdfs/engineering/understandingdamping.pdf
Also, FatMat is not "deadener." Would you put CLD mat on your roof?

 

[Rudy 10+ year member]

Structural damping, whether extensional

or constrained-layer, provides an

at-the-source solution to noise control

problems. Further, it is not always necessary

to use 100 percent panel coverage

to achieve significant noise reductions.

For example, 50 percent coverage

will provide a noise reduction that is typically only 3 decibels (dB) less than

for 100 percent coverage; 25 percent

coverage is only 6 dB less. When properly

used, damping can be as cost effective

as it is acoustically effective.

Sorry, don't buy it. The fact that they are describing vibration damping in terms of dBs of noise reduction tells you they are measuring something else. The fact that they aren't specifying frequencies makes you wonder if they measured anything at all. That site usually has pretty good information, but this seems like something from the marketing department. A 6 dB noise reduction would be worth having. If you could get it with extra vibration damper I'd be all over it.

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

The fact that they are describing vibration damping in terms of dBs of noise reduction tells you they are measuring something else.

Ok, what are they measuring, then? 100% of anyone buying CLD mat here wants a noise reduction of some sort via damping. Find me someone that doesn't.

The fact that they aren't specifying frequencies makes you wonder if they measured anything at all.

What'cu talkin' bout. Figures 5 and 6 are loss factors at 1k as per layer thickness taking temp into account. May have motivations to sell damping stuff, but you cannot deny the bruit point they're making here.

25% is a good starting point. Could take more, but I doubt less. Good points in this thread overall, but let's not got dogmatic.

 

[Rudy 10+ year member]

Ok, what are they measuring, then? 100% of anyone buying CLD mat here wants a noise reduction of some sort via damping. Find me someone that doesn't.
What'cu talkin' bout. Figures 5 and 6 are loss factors at 1k as per layer thickness taking temp into account. May have motivations to sell damping stuff, but you cannot deny the bruit point they're making here.

25% is a good starting point. Could take more, but I doubt less. Good points in this thread overall, but let's not got dogmatic.

I'm not being dogmatic - there are applications where going past 25% yields a useful benefit. 25% is just a guide. I repeat however, there is nothing in the PDF you linked that substantiates the relationhsip stated between coverage percentage and result. Almost everything in that PDF is taken directly from:

Vibration Damping

By Ahid D. Nashif, David I. G. Jones, John Phillips Henderson

including the illustrations and charts. Everything except the percentage coverage assertions. The ideal is going to be between 25% and 50% with 25% being the safe sweet spot when everything is considered. How can 100% coverage ever be useful when areas of the panel are never in motion? It's a marketing line thrown into accepted science.

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

I'm not being dogmatic

Wasn't speaking you specifically.

Anyway, I don't know why I do this anymore. It's freakin pointless. I'm ashamed I get roped into this, still. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif