TheSamba.com Forums
 
  View original topic: Sound deadening comparison video: Page: 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Sir Sam Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:08 pm

So I took a little video showing the difference between my stock syncro and the westy I treated with the spray on sound deadening.

Somehow from the video the difference is less noticeable, the biggest difference is noticed along the upper section, very hollow and tinny on the gold syncro, much more solid on the westy.

I'm very pleased with the product and will continue to use it on my vehicles when I can.


insyncro Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:14 am

Nice job.
I push sprayable products to most getting full restorations at my shop.
I used DynaMat once and never went back after spraying the barrier.
Cool vid.

dylan

purplepeopleeater Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:20 am

nice, So how does one obtain such products in the sticks?

I am in the process of stripping the inside of my "rolling" restoration and need some sound proofer, I have used phatmat but it sucks and so does dynamat unless yer building stereos in hondas. :lol:

turbotransporter Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:04 am

I am very happy with Quiet Car sound deadening and it would be tough to go back to all peal and stick.



None of the products I use are "cheap" but like most Vanagon projects the labor costs far exceed the cost of materials.

FYI: The PO of this Westy applied what appeared to be roofing materials as sound deadener and that "cheap fix" cost the current owner dearly when he paid me to remove that droopy sticky smelly mess. Perhaps it would have stuck better if they had done the necessary prep work but I still don't recommend using roofing materials.

insyncro Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:52 am

I couldn't agree more.

Sir Sam Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:11 am

insyncro wrote: Nice job.
I push sprayable products to most getting full restorations at my shop.
I used DynaMat once and never went back after spraying the barrier.
Cool vid.

dylan

Yes very easy and quick to apply.

purplepeopleeater wrote: nice, So how does one obtain such products in the sticks?

I am in the process of stripping the inside of my "rolling" restoration and need some sound proofer, I have used phatmat but it sucks and so does dynamat unless yer building stereos in hondas. :lol:

I ordered it straight from the companies website, for the two gallon containers and sprayer shipped it came out to just under $500 IIRC.

I think to do what I have done so far I have used about 2 gallons. 5 gallons should be about right to do a whole inside of a vanagon.


turbotransporter wrote: I am very happy with Quiet Car sound deadening and it would be tough to go back to all peal and stick.



None of the products I use are "cheap" but like most Vanagon projects the labor costs far exceed the cost of materials.

FYI: The PO of this Westy applied what appeared to be roofing materials as sound deadener and that "cheap fix" cost the current owner dearly when he paid me to remove that droopy sticky smelly mess. Perhaps it would have stuck better if they had done the necessary prep work but I still don't recommend using roofing materials.

oh that looks nice. How many coats did you apply?

Classicvibe Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:46 am

Did I miss the product you used? I think most of us thinking about this are considering the quiet car and the sludge product. I am debating the use of a recycled rubber for the floor as well:

http://www.soundisolationstore.com/quarter-inch-quietground-rubber-underlayment.html#topic7

I heard a good difference in the two panels, so great work. The real test I think is to test road noise before and after inside the vehicle. That is what effects us most driving down the road...the decibel yell I have to make to get the kid's attention in back...

insyncro Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:58 am

I have used Noxudol, Quite Car, Lizard Skin and generic Summit Racing sound deadener.
I use a Schutz gun for each application.
Multiple layers.
All worked well.
QC or Noxudol would be my number one choice as I spray multiple product layers and have made sure these products do not interact with the others I use.

dylan

turbotransporter Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:27 pm

The photo shows the second coat but I applied a total of 4.

There are still a few spots on a Vanagon that need to be "peel and stick" BUT if you have the time, $$ and space to work it's worth it.

I also like that Quiet Car is very low VOC, cleans up with water and won't burn when cured.

Sir Sam Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:32 pm

Classicvibe wrote: Did I miss the product you used? I think most of us thinking about this are considering the quiet car and the sludge product. I am debating the use of a recycled rubber for the floor as well:

http://www.soundisolationstore.com/quarter-inch-quietground-rubber-underlayment.html#topic7

I heard a good difference in the two panels, so great work. The real test I think is to test road noise before and after inside the vehicle. That is what effects us most driving down the road...the decibel yell I have to make to get the kid's attention in back...

It is QuietCar.

That sludge stuff is interesting, I had not heard of it before. I'm not sure how I would use that compared to this spray on product.

Ya I can't really tell you in any kind of quantitative manner what the noise level is inside. But on a qualitative level its pretty quiet in the back, when you go from the front of the van(where nothing has been applied and its all stock) to the back of the van where I applied multiple coats(but not on the engine deck lid, passenger rear 1/4 panel, or slider door(slider was damaged beyond repair so it needed to be replaced to look right again)) it gets noticeably quieter. I plan to spray the new door with the quiet car before installation, and would like to spray several coats on the underside as well. I figure with the top and bottom coated, and the wheel wells coated, I sure be pretty well set.

turbotransporter wrote: The photo shows the second coat but I applied a total of 4.

There are still a few spots on a Vanagon that need to be "peel and stick" BUT if you have the time, $$ and space to work it's worth it.

I also like that Quiet Car is very low VOC, cleans up with water and won't burn when cured.

Yes when I got the quiet car I was expected a smelly nasty substance, but it is very low odor, and is easy to clean up being water based. I was very pleased with that, I am used to working with bondo and paints and things that have all sorts of nasty chemicals that you oughtta wear a respirator for.

tclark Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:01 pm

I wonder if anyone has use this nasa developed productions

http://www.acoustiblok.com/

not a spray on but a nano tech product that supposed to translate sound energy to friction energy

interesting the product write up on noxudol says the same type of technology at work
http://www.noxudolusa.com/sound_damping_products/Sound_Damping.html

then take a look at the demo noxudol
http://www.noxudolusa.com/sound_damping_products/application_demos.html

looks like this can be used as an external undercoat/sound deader

randywebb Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:14 pm

I have a question -- I've been talking to Cascade Audio about sound treatment for the front doors and sliding door on my Van. I already put peel and stick deadener on the outer sheet metal door skins.

They also want me to put VB2HD to cover the inside (the opening where the plastic sheets used to be) and on the sheet metal adjacent to the opening). It is expensive ($180).

They have not been able to explain what the advantage of it will be.

Note that the front doors will have HiFi speakers in them, but the sliding door will not.

Anybody know for sure how important it is to use a product like that to cover the openings?

same question re the interior side sheet metal adjacent to the openings?

tclark Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:25 pm

I think I might be able to ans here based on my current r&d

we are dealing with 2-3 types of sound issue we want to rid our selves of

1) resonance / harmonic vibration sound
2) all other sound we want to block / absorb
(typically low frequency road/engine hum, mid/high frequency air rushing other high pitch street noise)

1) resonance sound from non structural side/door panel & some areas in the floor/fire wall need to have their harmonic vibrations dampened
seems like a coverage of 25-40% will do the trick, materials like
asphalt peel & stick, pressure sensitive adhesive roofing tile (poor job),
foil backed constrained layer dampers like Vb2/VB2HD, fatmat, b-Quiet utilmate/extreme, raamat, dynamat,
or free-layer dampers spray/roll on material like
Spectrum, CAE vb1X, quiet car, Noxudol,Lizard Skin will sound damper the resonance vibrations using visco-elastic polymer material that turn the sound vibration into friction energy dissipating the sound energy into heat

what kinda interesting about the VB2HD/VB2 it is a dampener but has no foil backing BUT has free-layer dampers characteristics AND it is a vapor barrier they use it on the inner door skin not the outer door skin seems kinda neat since that inner skin can vibrate as well

2a) other low frequency sounds like road noise, engine hum, tire noise we want to block
material like Mass Loaded Vinyl(MLV) commercial MLV products are & acoustiblok, straight industrial MLV

2b) mid/high frequency sound we want to absorb material like closed cellar foam is used

2a/2b) combine low/mid/high use composite's like bquiet vcomm, 2skin Luxury Liner Pro, dynamat-dynapad, Quiet Barrier, VB3/VB4 will do this

Note some of these commercial products claim to handle all type of sound but are more weight to handle one or the other
Note it seems you must use a MLV/closed cell just MLV does not work

see these images for an illustration of
barriers , absorbers , & dampers (CLD, FLD )
http://machinedesign.com/article/keep-that-noise-down-0405

I think what i want to do is
1)use the spray/roll on as my dampener like quiet car/ Noxudol, VB1X
2)on 2 front inner door skins use the VB2, think vb2HD is over kill
3)use a composite MLV/closed cellar foam on side/floor/firewall panels
B-Quiet VComm/Lcomm, SB-DWB-20R Decoupled Wall Barrier
4)re foam the deck lid with a heat resistant composite VB-TSM

I think it might even be possible to use the 5 gal quiet car/VB1X & have enuff left to under coat with it as well like in the
http://www.noxudolusa.com/sound_damping_products/application_demos.html video

that should be the slam dunk of sound deadening

Second Skin Rep Jon Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:05 am

Randy, VB2HD is a self adhesive vinyl product. I wouldn't classify it as a MLV (mass loaded vinyl) for the fact that it is fairly light weight compared to most any other MLV products on the market, but it still is an effective treatment for blocking noise once a vibration mat/sound deadening product is applied to help control the resonance and vibrations.

I would like to add a few things though.

There are three categories of sound deadening/vibration control products out there, and unfortunately most people don't know the difference.

First you have mass loaders. This is old technology and is fairly ineffective at reducing vibrational energy and resonance. These products are typically constructed from asphalt or asphalt and rubberized compounds and weigh a significant amount. They work by adding mass to the panel to lower the panels resonance frequency. Only issue is that you have to quadruple the weight of the panel to drop one octave. A skin of a door weighing three pounds would need nine pounds of material added to it to see a reduction of only one octave. So by the time you achieve a noticeable reduction in sound, you would have 70-80 pound doors.

Then you have CLD (constrained layer dampers). These products are lighter weight and sport a butyl based adhesive, no asphalt. They should have a fairly thick constraint layer (typically an aluminum one) as the correlation between the thickness of the aluminum layer and the effectiveness of the product go hand in hand. These products work by converting the vibrational energy into low level negligible heat.

And finally you have FLDs (free-layer dampers), or extensional dampers. These would include most liquid vibration products and a few self sticking mat products. The way they work is that vibrational energy is dissipated as a result of extension and compression of the damping material, vs. a cld where the energy is lost through shear deformation of the material.

Typically speaking CLDs have the upper hand over FLDs because of their ability to maintain a higher loss factor across a wider range of frequencies, temperatures, and thicknesses of the substrate. Basically they are more efficient at controlling vibrations. This is especially true when applications require a light weight solution. For instance on a substrate of say 1/8", a cld mat of only 1/16" may be required to control the vibrations. The FLD on the other hand may require three or four times the thickness, so 3/16 to 1/4", to achieve the same loss factor.

Once a panel is sufficiently 'dead' by using a CLD or FLD product, other means of blocking and absorbing sounds are needed. This is why Cascade suggested using their VB2HD.

CCF (closed cell foam) rarely, if ever, adds much of anything to providing a quieter ride. It's best used as a decoupler to 'float' a MLV layer above the surface or as a gasketing material to prevent rattles and squeaks. So anyone who suggests you use CCF to increase your sound deadening results is just trying to get more $$$ from you.

For full disclosure, I do work for Second Skin Audio (maker of automotive insulation and vibration reducing products), but regardless of what material or product you use I am here to provide information on the subject of sound deadening, not to sell a product.

randywebb Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:51 pm

Thanks.

How important do you think it would be (in a Vanagon front door with a speaker) that is already dampened with material to:

1. add VB2 or similar across the interior sheet metal?

and/or

2. add foam blocks to the sound deadener on the sheet metal to float a barrier product an inch or so away from the deadening layer? (then there is the issue of water in the foam if it is not closed cell)

1621 Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:21 pm

And to add to Randy's questions, what benefit - if any - are realized from using a MLV layer in the doors and/or the front floor when used over the traditional peel and stick dampeners?

tclark Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:19 am

This is now interesting maybe we can attract some more experts from
CAE. Quite Car, etc

>FLDs (free-layer dampers), or extensional dampers.
>These would include most liquid vibration products they work is that >vibrational energy is dissipated as a result of extension and compression
From what i have read 'liquid vibration products' also have characteristics of what you call CLD's in that they are mostly a 'visco-elastic polymer' material that does as you say convert sound to friction heat do you have some clear lab facts that 2nd skin has done to show that the roll/spray damper does not perform like the CLD's

>Once a panel is sufficiently 'dead' by using a CLD or FLD product,
>other means of blocking and absorbing sounds are needed.
>This is why Cascade suggested using their VB2HD
I'd like to hear from CAE on this point they clearly say on their web site that it is a damper product(.070" Vinyl Vibration Damping Material )
like you say not a MLV,
I would think what they are trying to do is stop the vibration on the inner door skin

>CCF (closed cell foam) rarely, if ever, adds much of anything to providing a quieter ride
my understanding here is they they do absorb the mid/high frequency BUT are absolutely required for use with MLV w/o a decoupler the MLV has virtually NO sound block characteristics

I am really interested to do this right now that my tdi diesel has the interior out & do this right once an for all

pps. 2ndskin is spreading same info here good work to educate us masses
http://www.stevemeadedesigns.com/board/topic/110837-peel-and-seal-as-sound-deadning/page__st__40

Second Skin Rep Jon Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:26 am

randywebb wrote: Thanks.

How important do you think it would be (in a Vanagon front door with a speaker) that is already dampened with material to:

1. add VB2 or similar across the interior sheet metal?

and/or

2. add foam blocks to the sound deadener on the sheet metal to float a barrier product an inch or so away from the deadening layer? (then there is the issue of water in the foam if it is not closed cell)

If the panel already has a vibration damper applied, the panel is more then likely considered 'dead' and no further vibration controlling product would be necessary. The only thing that you may want to do is cover any holes in the panel to create a sealed enclosure for the speaker.

Adding foam and a barrier product to the doors would reduce the overall noise level even further. Necessary? Not at all. Worth doing? Depends on how much road and wind noise you have.

1621 wrote: And to add to Randy's questions, what benefit - if any - are realized from using a MLV layer in the doors and/or the front floor when used over the traditional peel and stick dampeners?
Well those are two different products for two different issues.
Peel and stick dampers are designed to control and reduce vibrations, not block sound. These products are just too thin and lightweight to block sound.
MLV on the other is designed to block sound because of it's thickness and mass. Average noise loss when using a 1 pound per square foot MLV is around 25 dBs (across a wide range of frequencies).
So the addition of a MLV over a vibration mat would just further decrease the noise level inside the vehicle, creating a much more pleasant listening environment.

tclark wrote: This is now interesting maybe we can attract some more experts from
CAE. Quite Car, etc

>FLDs (free-layer dampers), or extensional dampers.
>These would include most liquid vibration products they work is that >vibrational energy is dissipated as a result of extension and compression
From what i have read 'liquid vibration products' also have characteristics of what you call CLD's in that they are mostly a 'visco-elastic polymer' material that does as you say convert sound to friction heat do you have some clear lab facts that 2nd skin has done to show that the roll/spray damper does not perform like the CLD's
I do not currently have any graphs or charts showing the differences between CLDs and FLDs. I am however working on plotting these out. It takes some time and effort to do so. Once completed I will post them.

In the mean time, there are several articles available on the web that clearly show the differences between CLDs and FLDs. I know 3M has multiple.

tclark wrote: >Once a panel is sufficiently 'dead' by using a CLD or FLD product,
>other means of blocking and absorbing sounds are needed.
>This is why Cascade suggested using their VB2HD
I'd like to hear from CAE on this point they clearly say on their web site that it is a damper product(.070" Vinyl Vibration Damping Material )
like you say not a MLV,
I would think what they are trying to do is stop the vibration on the inner door skin
Sorry I misspoke. CAE has too many Vnamed products and thought it was a different product. VB2HD is a vibration damper, not a MLV product.

tclark wrote: >CCF (closed cell foam) rarely, if ever, adds much of anything to providing a quieter ride
my understanding here is they they do absorb the mid/high frequency BUT are absolutely required for use with MLV w/o a decoupler the MLV has virtually NO sound block characteristics

I am really interested to do this right now that my tdi diesel has the interior out & do this right once an for all
Most of these CCF products being sold as sound deadening or with sound deadening are 1/8" thick, so at best it's a noise filter for the higher frequencies.

And MLV does have sound blocking capabilities without a foam decoupler. The decoupler is there to not only add another obstacle for sound to travel through, but to prevent direct transference of any underlying vibrations into the MLV. If this were to happen the effectiveness of the MLV would be compromised.

And remember, MLV has been used in the building industry for years as a barrier without a foam decoupler. Sandwiched between the 2x4s and sheetrock MLV creates an amazing sound barrier between rooms, great for isolating media/theater rooms and even apartments.

I hope that clarifies some issues. And of course I always look forward to answering more questions. :)
Later,

tclark Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:38 am

Second Skin Rep Jon wrote:
tclark wrote: This is now interesting maybe we can attract some more experts from
CAE. Quite Car, etc

>FLDs (free-layer dampers), or extensional dampers.
>These would include most liquid vibration products they work is that >vibrational energy is dissipated as a result of extension and compression
From what i have read 'liquid vibration products' also have characteristics of what you call CLD's in that they are mostly a 'visco-elastic polymer' material that does as you say convert sound to friction heat do you have some clear lab facts that 2nd skin has done to show that the roll/spray damper does not perform like the CLD's
I do not currently have any graphs or charts showing the differences between CLDs and FLDs. I am however working on plotting these out. It takes some time and effort to do so. Once completed I will post them.

In the mean time, there are several articles available on the web that clearly show the differences between CLDs and FLDs. I know 3M has multiple.


Also I wonder if you can comment on the %coverage of CLD vs FLD
does CLD need 100%, does FLD need 100% would a combination
25% CLD at the center of a panel then the rest of the panel FLD be the ultimate damper or does that set up some type of wave interference pattern ?

Second Skin Rep Jon Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:03 am

Rarely ever is 100% coverage of either form of vibration control necessary. I'm sure you've seen hundreds if not thousands of pictures of people sound deadening their vehicle head to toe like some alien spacecraft. Absolutely wasteful.
Hell there are even companies out there that are selling inferior products (or rebadged roofing products) and telling you to slap on two or three layers since their product is so cheap... that pisses me off.

As stated several times in the industry, 25% coverage is pretty much all that is needed to sufficiently control vibrations. Upping that to 50% coverage may only increase the results a decibel or two, probably not enough for most anyone to notice.

As for combining the two products in the combination you stated and with the chance of causing some sort of wave interference, probably. What are or what would the result be? I'm unsure. I guess I will have test such theory with the equipment at hand and plot out the results.
Guess I need to get my butt into gear and get these tests done.



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group