Sound Deadening Comparison

[T3mpest 10+ year member]

Does anyone know how much Dynamat it takes to equal 1 gallon of SS spectrum?

Click to read more...

 

[eric77 10+ year member]

30-50 sq ft

 

[swaptrex 10+ year member]

^x2, but i would guess closest to 40 sq ft.

 

[EFFENDI 10+ year member]

IMHO, liquid deadener is the best way to go, I went through half a gallon and I have covered about 20 square feet so far, and I have been applying 3+ coats to each surface. So, I would estimate the whole gallon is good for at least the equivalent of 40 square feet of mat deadener, but the main advantage is that liquid will outperform the mat.

 

[swaptrex 10+ year member]

IMHO, liquid deadener is the best way to go, I went through half a gallon and I have covered about 20 square feet so far, and I have been applying 3+ coats to each surface. So, I would estimate the whole gallon is good for at least the equivalent of 40 square feet of mat deadener, but the main advantage is that liquid will outperform the mat.

why will it outperform it?

 

[Nightskye 10+ year member]

I'm going at about the same rate as Effendi with my Spectrum.

Did inside my 4 doors this weekend, 3 coats on the fronts, 2 on the rears. A little less than half a gallon left, ~18 sq ft left or so I reckon.

Oh man, what a difference. Nice solid thud when I shut the doors, and I could hear the difference immediately when I fired up my system, tighter bass, crisper highs and more detail in the music. Dramatic reduction in road noise on the test ride.

The only comparison I can make is to Dynamat Extreme, and that was in a friend's car. I thought DE was less effective, but we did his on the outside of the door (behind the door panel), not the inside of the door like I did.

 

[EFFENDI 10+ year member]

why will it outperform it?

Liquid has a few significant advantages. Most of which make it a better solution for acoustical control than constrained layer (mat-based) deadener.

1. Liquid deadener has better adhesion to metal body panels (where most vibration and rattling occurs) than mat-based deadeners. Since mat is less flexible, and cannot be placed in the same areas, liquid has an inherent advantage in its design, in that it can cover more area of a panel than mat.

2. Less mass/material is needed to achieve the same, or better, results with liquid when compared mat-based deadeners.

3. Typically, liquid has better temperature handling capabilities than mat-based deadeners. Mat has the tendancy to melt under high heat. Liquid, once cured, exhibits very high resistance to heat, and does not melt.

4. Liquid has a lower cost per square foot, when compared to mat-based deadeners. ie. 40 square feet of Second Skin Damplifier (mat deadener) is $170.00 ($4.25/sqft). A single gallon of Second Skin Spectrum (liquid deadener), which covers 40 square feet is , only $59.00 ($1.48/sqft). Mat is over twice as expensive per square foot.

5. Finished installation/application of liquid looks better than mat-based deadeners. Mat often has a shiny metallic backing (distracting, obvious). Liquid, once cured has the look of bedliner (closer to an OEM material).

6. Liquid is easier to apply than mat. Simply paint, or spray it on. No cutting, no rolling. Messes/mistakes are more easily cleaned up (if liquid is water-based, it cleans up with water or acetone) than mat deadener.

7. Liquid has very little/none detectable residual odor. Lets face it, almost all mat deadener stinks.

8. Liquid is teh l33t

 

[osiris999 10+ year member]

agrees

 

[swaptrex 10+ year member]

Liquid has a few significant advantages. Most of which make it a better solution for acoustical control than constrained layer (mat-based) deadener.
1. Liquid deadener has better adhesion to metal body panels (where most vibration and rattling occurs) than mat-based deadeners. Since mat is less flexible, and cannot be placed in the same areas, liquid has an inherent advantage in its design, in that it can cover more area of a panel than mat.

2. Less mass/material is needed to achieve the same, or better, results with liquid when compared mat-based deadeners.

3. Typically, liquid has better temperature handling capabilities than mat-based deadeners. Mat has the tendancy to melt under high heat. Liquid, once cured, exhibits very high resistance to heat, and does not melt.

4. Liquid has a lower cost per square foot, when compared to mat-based deadeners. ie. 40 square feet of Second Skin Damplifier (mat deadener) is $170.00 ($4.25/sqft). A single gallon of Second Skin Spectrum (liquid deadener), which covers 40 square feet is , only $59.00 ($1.48/sqft). Mat is over twice as expensive per square foot.

5. Finished installation/application of liquid looks better than mat-based deadeners. Mat often has a shiny metallic backing (distracting, obvious). Liquid, once cured has the look of bedliner (closer to an OEM material).

6. Liquid is easier to apply than mat. Simply paint, or spray it on. No cutting, no rolling. Messes/mistakes are more easily cleaned up (if liquid is water-based, it cleans up with water or acetone) than mat deadener.

7. Liquid has very little/none detectable residual odor. Lets face it, almost all mat deadener stinks.

8. Liquid is teh l33t

all makes sense now...........