Who only covers 25% when deadening

[itsblown 10+ year member]

Now I know there has been alot of research done when it comes to deadening a vehicle and alot of respectable companies and people suggest only covering 25% of the pannel when using a CLD type matt

I want to know how many of you guys have only deadened 25% of your rides and how many of you were happy with the results of only covering 25%

Click to read more...

 

[wenn_du_weinst 10+ year member]

that only works for sq in places other then the doors,pillars,kick panels, ie anything that isn't an enclosure.

 

[itsblown 10+ year member]

so like the floor and trunk lid do 25% coverage?

 

[JoshC 10+ year member]

roof too

 

[Flex68 10+ year member]

that only works for sq in places other then the doors,pillars,kick panels, ie anything that isn't an enclosure.

Planning to do 25% coverage with CLD tiles, and that includes the doors and underseat rear wells that house my enclosures.

SDS suggests 25% coverage, throughout, along with CCF under the MLV airborne noise barrier.

SDS shows that the 25% is sufficient to deaden resonance in panels by, like, 90%...

 

[bhsdriller 10+ year member]

fvck that...all of nothing for me. With 2 15's and 5500+ watts I'm gonna deaden all I can

Edit: Yeah I know that at a point you can be "deadening the deadner" but in a high power system I don't see 25% coverage being sufficent

 

[pieper88 10+ year member]

Tried it in my last car.

Wasn't happy with it.

Plastered my new one in deadener. Haven't hooked up the subs yet but it's dead silent in that ***** right now

 

[wenn_du_weinst 10+ year member]

Planning to do 25% coverage with CLD tiles, and that includes the doors and underseat rear wells that house my enclosures.SDS suggests 25% coverage, throughout, along with CCF under the MLV airborne noise barrier.

SDS shows that the 25% is sufficient to deaden resonance in panels by, like, 90%...

sds also only looks at resonance, when using your doors as an enclosure there are other things to look at as well.

 

[Kangaroux 5,000+ posts]

It stops rattling but when you wanna effectively use your speakers 100% is needed...I tried doing 25% on my roof and it made nearly 0 difference. I'm gonna need to get a roll of 60 or 80 mil to throw on there...I'm more concerned with stopping that weird rattle noise on the lows rather than trying to brace it. I'm sorta accepting the fact that it's gonna flex no matter what I really do to it lol

 

[Flex68 10+ year member]

sds also only looks at resonance, when using your doors as an enclosure there are other things to look at as well.

Not at all!

The tiles address resonance on both the inside and outside door skin (and elsewhere), while the CCF is for prevention of vibration-related problems ("rattles" or similar) as well as decoupling the MLV, which serves as an airborne noise barrier.

I consider SDS to be a complete "fix" regardless of whether one is talking about an SQ or SPL ride.

Now, granted, I am also covering the holes in my doors with 60mil fiberglass sheeting, but that is for the benefit of the speakers in making the door a better "enclosure," not for noise reduction.

 

[wenn_du_weinst 10+ year member]

I was talking about the cld tiles, not the mlv and ccf.

 

[Flex68 10+ year member]

Yeah, the tiles are only one puzzle piece.

And if one is pushing a large SPL system, going >25% might be warranted just to gain additional weight, tho I don't believe that going any more than 25% gains anything in terms of reducing resonance any further.....just would logically reduce flex the more weight one adds to each panel.

 

[SourDeez 10+ year member]

I do about 90% and it worked great

 

[Rudy 10+ year member]

There's a logical fallacy in some of these arguments: "25% coverage with vibration damper didn't do everything I wanted so 100% coverage+ must be the answer". That's like breaking your arm, putting a Band-Aid on it and when that doesn't work concluding that the right move is to put 1000 Band-Aids on it. That comparison is important - if you're building a cast out of Band-Aids, you're using the wrong tool for the job. Any solution that uses what is essential tape to structurally reinforce sheet metal is pretty obvious on the wrong track.

Just because a solution that ONLY consists of adding 25% coverage with a vibration damper isn't satisfactory - it's only likely to be satisfactory an SQ system in a car that never moves or runs - doesn't mean it is the wrong way to use vibration damper. It means the problem you are trying to solve isn't simple vibration.

If you're generating enough pressure to displace sheet metal, you need to reinforce the structure. You can get there eventually by piling up vibration damper, just like you can make something of a cast out of Band-Aids, but it isn't an efficient way to get there. If you are trying to build a barrier to block sound, you can also do that by piling up vibration damper. That's going to be inefficient because it is tightly bonded to the vehicle. These products would work better as a barrier if you didn't remove the release paper and just stacked them up - that alone should tell you that you're on the wrong track.

If you care about measurable SPL, you want to stay away from vibration dampers altogether. If you care about preserving the possibility of having sheet metal repaired instead of replaced after an accident, you want to avoid using more vibration damper than you need to do its job. The only people who benefit from the multiple layers of vibration damper everywhere idea are those who sell vibration damper.

Common suggestions for stopping license plate rattle illustrate this perfectly. The worst possible advice is: Line the trunk with vibration damper. Better is line the back of the license plate with vibration damper. This is much more likely to work but is still pretty bad advice since vibration damper isn't ideally soft and resilient. The better advice is to put a layer of something like closed cell foam on the back of the plate to stop it from making contact. Despite the effort that has gone into convincing consumers otherwise, vibration damper isn't the solution to every problem. Same as it isn't a gret solution to radiant heat - but that's a different thread //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif