# ResoNix In-House CLD Testing



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Long story short, im impatient and curious and want to 150% make sure my product stacks up above the rest. I know Chris is doing his own testing, but idk when that will be done. On top of that, I'm also curious to see how his rig compares to say, an actual car door. Combine all of that with Matei moving back to NY and working at the shop again, I'll have some time free'd up to do this. That being said, I plan on setting up the Nissan Versa's rear door as a testing subject. My plan is not going to be nearly as intricate and flexible as chris's setup, but it will give an idea on how its actually behaving in the exact environment we use it in.. usually car doors. Car doors are not going to have the same natural resonance/response as a relatively small and flat panel that is bolted to a box. So here is my plan..

2 good contact microphones ( Metal Marshmallow Piezo Disc Contact Mic And Preamp ) will be used to gather measurements. You can read the description on this page, but the long story short is that contact microphones ONLY measure the vibrations of the substrate that they are mounted to, and ignore all sound that is traveling through the air. This is PERFECT to gather the info we need to know. These mics in particular are flat from 10hz all the way up to 20k. That said, One will be placed right behind the speaker (which will probably be a spare GB60), and one will be placed dead center of the door. This way we can get a better idea of what is happening across the entire panel. They will be mounted to the inside of the outer door skin (where you would normally install CLD). These models have their own built in preamp, so I can measure right from the analog input of the laptop. The inner door skin and will be FULLY sealed and treated before all testing. I only want results from the outer skin. The CLD being tested will be stuck to the outside of the outer door skin. Thats right.. right on the paint. The reason for this is so I do not have to touch the speaker or the inner door skin and can get consistent results, and to change products relatively quickly and easily. I am thinking of covering the door in painters tape so I don't potentially ruin the paint, but I will have to test to see if that changes the results of whatever is being measured. REW will be used to take generate sweeps and take measurements. The only thing I'm not sure of is if I should go directly into the laptop with the mic, or go into another preamp so I can do impulse response. Im not sure that's necessary considering I can still do waterfall graphs, but impulse will still be a halfway useful measurement.

TLDR: speaker installed in oem door location, fully treated inner skin while taking measurements of outer skin, contact mics permanently installed to the inside of the outer skin, deadener applied to outside of the outer skin directly to paint. All of it will be filmed to prevent the possibility of fudging results. Measured with REW to get frequency response, waterfall graph, and possibly impulse response. 

Any questions, ideas, or critiques?


----------



## JCsAudio (Jun 16, 2014)

Baseline test with the blue painters tape on but no CLD applied of course. Would it be worth measuring in vehicle db measurements to see if there would be any significant ambient in car reduction in sound even though CLD isn’t designed to block sound. 

FYI, blue tape has a specific release time so if you leave it on too long between testing then you could end up in a sticky situation. 

A junk yard door would make a good test alternative if the tape doesn’t work out. If I had one I would give it to you for free.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

JCsAudio said:


> Baseline test with the blue painters tape on but no CLD applied of course. Would it be worth measuring in vehicle db measurements to see if there would be any significant ambient in car reduction in sound even though CLD isn’t designed to block sound.
> 
> FYI, blue tape has a specific release time so if you leave it on too long between testing then you could end up in a sticky situation.
> 
> A junk yard door would make a good test alternative if the tape doesn’t work out. If I had one I would give it to you for free.


Yup, each run would include bare door, tape, and tape with cld IF i even decide i care about the paint lol. I'd use the green 3m tape though. Thats what we use here. 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## lithium (Oct 29, 2008)

I saw your post over on carav randomly. I think diyma might be a better spot for this kind of thread. Anyways, here's a copy/paste of my thoughts:



> I have a few suggestions but maybe I should describe how someone would typically go about this test professionally. And when I say professional, this is a very basic explanation as this isn't my area of expertise.
> 
> To evaluate the performance of a CLD application an NVH engineer would conduct a model (vibration) test of the panel w/o treatments and repeat the test with your product installed. Model testing involves impacting the panel with an instrumented hammer (measuring the input) and then measuring the response of the panel with accelerometers. This is called a frequency response function (FRF) measurement.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan750iL (Jan 16, 2016)

Looking forward to seeing this project go forward. I've been a little disappointed by the lack of progress on the other testing thread.


----------



## YeahWhatever (Dec 12, 2018)

How do you plan to fully remove the deadeners from the door as you test them? The good ones will be stuck on pretty hard if you rolled them on with a roller like they are supposed to be applied, wouldn't they?


----------



## Lou Frasier2 (Jul 17, 2012)

did you not read his post?serious question, I believe skizr is making a setup to test the cld on some sort of metal panel, not an actual door


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

YeahWhatever said:


> How do you plan to fully remove the deadeners from the door as you test them? The good ones will be stuck on pretty hard if you rolled them on with a roller like they are supposed to be applied, wouldn't they?


I actually started testing yesterday, as seen on facebook. Its HARD to remove quality deadener. ResoNix took me about 3 hours to remove 4 square feet, and about 45 mins to remove second skin damplifier pro. The lesser quality products remove without issue besides leaving nasty residue on your hands.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Lou Frasier2 said:


> did you not read his post?serious question, I believe skizr is making a setup to test the cld on some sort of metal panel, not an actual door


Oh yeah? 









Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

So yeah, i started testing yesterday. So what we did was acquire a 2010 Nissan Maxima or Altima (i forget which exact one) door, stripped the window and wiring, and mounted a speaker to it as normal. But, then we enclosed the speaker on the front, and hung the door from a home depot style rack by chains and am sticking the CLD to the outer skin so its easy to remove without taking the door apart. Its powered by a JL Slash 300/4V3 which has a regulated power supply, so output is consistent. 4 Square feet were applied to the same exact spot on the door, and the mic is placed at the exact same spot every time with control measurements before hand to compare. So far, i tested ResoNix Squares, Second Skin Damplifier Pro, Hushmat, Kilmat 80mil, Kilmat 50 mil. Kilmat was honestly pathetic. Hushmat you can tell could be good if they just beefed up the product a bit (its good butyl, just super thin), and second skin and ResoNix did well. Second skin damplifier pro has a thicker aluminum layer (6 mil i think) but a thinner 80 mil butyl layer. The butyl you can just tell is a good quality, but had a slight odor but nothing that would be noticeable behind the doors. Its no doubt a good product. But, ResoNix edged it out. I think the engineer at our manufacturer may have been right when he said "the aluminum thickness layer isn't as important as you would think, the butyl is more important" 


Here are the results so far. There are a few duplicate measurements, a few control measurements, and one of the kilmat measurements has a test to see if just placing it on vs rolling it hard has an effect. It actually didn't have much of an effect. Here is the rew file for what i have tested so far.

I also want to reiterate that this is most definitely not the most scientific test, but should give us some real world, apples to apples idea of what is what considering we deaden doors, not small pieces of thin metal in a box. Chris's test, which starts soon will definitely be a more stable and accurate test than this. Now, the most important part of a measurement is understanding what its telling you. In this case, frequency response isn't the only thing we want to look at. Waterfall is the most important as its frequency vs time, which shows us the decay of the resonance of the panel. Pay attention to 50hz - 100hz.






Sound Deadener Test 9.8.20.mdat







drive.google.com


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

can someone try to see if that google drive link works?


----------



## Lou Frasier2 (Jul 17, 2012)

SkizeR said:


> Oh yeah?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well ****,i take my earlier statement back


----------



## SNCTMPL (Nov 23, 2014)

I can’t get it to work on my iPad.


----------



## preston (Dec 10, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> can someone try to see if that google drive link works?


I was able to download the file but what do I do with an .mdat file ? Windows didin't know what to open it with.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

preston said:


> I was able to download the file but what do I do with an .mdat file ? Windows didin't know what to open it with.


Thats a REW file. You probably need the latest beta version 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

to view the file, you probably need the latest beta version of REW as that is what I used to take the measurements. Screenshots will come soon though


----------



## lithium (Oct 29, 2008)

The data looks interesting. It's almost an enclosure insertion transmission loss measurement, but not quite. I really enjoy seeing these DIY experiments.

edit: mixed up transmission and insertion.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

SkizeR said:


> ...
> Any questions, ideas, or critiques?


When I sound treated a counselling room, I forgot to measure the insertion loss.

A third mic decoupled from the panel outside the car, would allow for the speakers to be used to measure insertion loss.

Or the mic inside, and an extra GB60 outside the car.


It is not measuring resonance, which I see is your goal, but knowing the insertion loss an dread noise killing is potentially worthwhile?


----------



## LumbermanSVO (Nov 11, 2009)

Holmz said:


> When I sound treated a counselling room, I forgot to measure the insertion loss.
> 
> A third mic decoupled from the panel outside the car, would allow for the speakers to be used to measure insertion loss.
> 
> ...


Looking at the waterfall plots could get us some useful information there. Those came in really handy when looking at the tests Chris did years ago.

I was able to download the file, updating REW right now because my current version can't generate the waterfall plots.


----------



## preston (Dec 10, 2007)

I've used a lot of products over the years including CLD (but not Resonix). And somehow I keep coming back to the old standard dynamat. So it would be interesting to me if you included that in your tests. 
Don't worry I plan to order some Resonix for my upcoming build to see how I like it ! 
(I tended to use the thicker CLD in problem areas such as door and used the cheaper by sq ft dynamat to cover larger but less critical areas).


----------



## NoTraction (Aug 10, 2008)

Interested to see how ResoNix compares to other products


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> Long story short, im impatient and curious and want to 150% make sure my product stacks up above the rest. I know Chris is doing his own testing, but idk when that will be done. On top of that, I'm also curious to see how his rig compares to say, an actual car door. Combine all of that with Matei moving back to NY and working at the shop again, I'll have some time free'd up to do this. That being said, I plan on setting up the Nissan Versa's rear door as a testing subject. My plan is not going to be nearly as intricate and flexible as chris's setup, but it will give an idea on how its actually behaving in the exact environment we use it in.. usually car doors. Car doors are not going to have the same natural resonance/response as a relatively small and flat panel that is bolted to a box. So here is my plan..
> 
> 2 good contact microphones ( Metal Marshmallow Piezo Disc Contact Mic And Preamp ) will be used to gather measurements. You can read the description on this page, but the long story short is that contact microphones ONLY measure the vibrations of the substrate that they are mounted to, and ignore all sound that is traveling through the air. This is PERFECT to gather the info we need to know. These mics in particular are flat from 10hz all the way up to 20k. That said, One will be placed right behind the speaker (which will probably be a spare GB60), and one will be placed dead center of the door. This way we can get a better idea of what is happening across the entire panel. They will be mounted to the inside of the outer door skin (where you would normally install CLD). These models have their own built in preamp, so I can measure right from the analog input of the laptop. The inner door skin and will be FULLY sealed and treated before all testing. I only want results from the outer skin. The CLD being tested will be stuck to the outside of the outer door skin. Thats right.. right on the paint. The reason for this is so I do not have to touch the speaker or the inner door skin and can get consistent results, and to change products relatively quickly and easily. I am thinking of covering the door in painters tape so I don't potentially ruin the paint, but I will have to test to see if that changes the results of whatever is being measured. REW will be used to take generate sweeps and take measurements. The only thing I'm not sure of is if I should go directly into the laptop with the mic, or go into another preamp so I can do impulse response. Im not sure that's necessary considering I can still do waterfall graphs, but impulse will still be a halfway useful measurement.
> 
> ...


Good idea regarding the contact mics. I ran similar experiments 20 years ago using accelerometers to find the source of a specific vibration in a audibly noisy environment.

Ge0


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

NoTraction said:


> Interested to see how ResoNix compares to other products


For now, im going to leave this to Chris (TooStubborn2Fail). Once his testing is done, i will resume mine to see how it correlates. You can see his new test on facebook in his group "The Deadening"


----------

