# CCF vs Hydrophobic Melamine Foam



## dogguy (May 12, 2017)

Other than price, is there any reason not to use Hydrophobic Melamine Foam as a decoupler for MLV?

CCF offers zero sound absorption, but the HMF does, so why not use this instead? It's waterproof and it will offer some sound absorption.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

Anything you put between two constraining layers will not act as an acoustic absorber, so there will be no acoustic benefit. Even if it was exposed to the sound in the environment it would only be effective at absorbing frequencies of _maybe_ 8kHz and greater, which won't make any real difference on the floor.


----------



## dogguy (May 12, 2017)

Hmm. Lets take where absorption foam is placed in car. Inside the rear quarter panels, inside doors, above the roof liner. All of these applications have interior panels on top of them, so in all cases, the foam is between two constraining layers.

A home with sheet rock on both sides and mineral rock insulation in-between, two constraining layers on both sides.... The insulation does absorb sound.

I am not saying you are wrong, but it doesn't seem logical to me. Do you have some kind of data/tests to back up your statement?


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

Interesting. I would think that the melamine would be able to decouple and provide some extra sound absorption. Although the issue is that it could be too thick to put door panels and other areas along with the MLV. Melamine is compressible but it takes a fair amount of pressure to squeeze it down flat and at the more it is compressed the more it looses its sound absorption capabilities.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

dogguy said:


> Other than price, is there any reason not to use Hydrophobic Melamine Foam as a decoupler for MLV?
> 
> CCF offers zero sound absorption, but the HMF does, so why not use this instead? It's waterproof and it will offer some sound absorption.


 Any foam can work between 2 hard surfaces, the only reason ccf is used is because it can resist moisture, water, chemicals and it will last longer.

Any foam Being in between 2 hard surfaces, ( metal and MLV ) there is no acoustic benefit for the foam since the MLV will block noise coming from the outside or the inside when the music waves reflect on the door panel.

If used just as an insulator say, an extra layer over the MLV between the door panel it may help a bit a acoustically.

The magic eraser foam is very dense, it does absorb sound in the upper range, however I am not sure it will be better in than standard open cell foam. 

CCF only deflects sound, it does not block it, or affect it in any frequency range from what I understand


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

Alrojoca said:


> Any foam Being in between 2 hard surfaces, ( metal and MLV ) there is no acoustic benefit for the foam since the MLV will block noise coming from the outside or the inside when the music waves reflect on the door panel.


This doesn't seem correct. We are not talking about just any foam, but melamine which is known good sound absorber. If you were able to put a 1.5" or even .75" melamine between the door skin and mlv it should work as a decoupler and reduce some sound from outside of the vehicle from getting to the mlv. How effective is unknown. SDS sells Hydrophobic Melamine Foam (HMF) which has also been treated to repel water. I use it in my car along with a full treatment of MLV. I am not using the HMF in place of ccf but to fill areas in panels, pillars and headliner. The issue again is it's thickness. It would difficult to use in doors it is hard enough getting the MLV in there with a thin layer of ccf.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

gregerst22 said:


> This doesn't seem correct. We are not talking about just any foam, but melamine which is known good sound absorber. If you were able to put a 1.5" or even .75" melamine between the door skin and mlv it should work as a decoupler and reduce some sound from outside of the vehicle from getting to the mlv. How effective is unknown. SDS sells Hydrophobic Melamine Foam (HMF) which has also been treated to repel water. I use it in my car along with a full treatment of MLV. I am not using the HMF in place of ccf but to fill areas in panels, pillars and headliner. The issue again is it's thickness. It would difficult to use in doors it is hard enough getting the MLV in there with a thin layer of ccf.



You replied to just part of my post, perhaps you should have read the whole thing. :mean:

The op did not specify to place it between the door card and the MLV, like I mentioned it on my first post.

I stand for what I said, if decoupling is the purpose using MLV, any foam with decent density will do, and again, with foam between 2 hard surfaces ( not the door card and the MLV) , there is no acoustic benefit, other than decoupling to keep road noise outside.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

Melamine Foam is lightweight and will work better on upside down areas like the roof panels or vertical panels. 

CCF will work on the floor pans better because it's very dense and heavy. More difficult when installing on roofs due to weight.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Melamine Foam is lightweight and will work better on upside down areas like the roof panels or vertical panels.
> 
> CCF will work on the floor pans better because it's very dense and heavy. More difficult when installing on roofs due to weight.


Ccf is dense and heavy? Have you ever even used melamine or ccf? 


OP, I would use ccf as the decoupler because its thinner, yet still effective. If you use a thicker foam, chances are you wont be able to get your door panel back on. I would use melamine to fill left over gaps

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> Ccf is dense and heavy? Have you ever even used melamine or ccf?
> 
> 
> OP, I would use ccf as the decoupler because its thinner, yet still effective. If you use a thicker foam, chances are you wont be able to get your door panel back on. I would use melamine to fill left over gaps
> ...


Luxury liner Pro weighs a freaking ton. And its not just the vinyl that contributes to the weight. But the foam is pretty thick.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Luxury liner Pro weighs a freaking ton. And its not just the vinyl that contributes to the weight. But the foam is pretty thick.


No, I assure you it's not the foam.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> No, I assure you it's not the foam.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk



"Applications for this melamine foam include ceilings, doors, trunk lids, and any upside down surface that our mass loaded vinyl Luxury Liner Pro is too heavy to be applied"

"Melamine foam is an extremely lightweight and flexible"


I guess you know better than the people that manufacture the stuff.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> "Applications for this melamine foam include ceilings, doors, trunk lids, and any upside down surface that our mass loaded vinyl Luxury Liner Pro is too heavy to be applied"
> 
> "Melamine foam is an extremely lightweight and flexible"
> 
> ...


Luxury liner is ccf AND mlv....... Foam weights next to nothing. Mlv on the other hand is heavy as holy hell. You need to stop speaking on topics you have no experience with.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

https://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/foam_stop/mel_comp.htm


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

Melamine is extremely light but so is ccf especially compared to mlv. I weighed all of the material before I installed it in my car and then subtracted the scraps and what I had left over because I wanted to know how much extra weight was in the car. It came to about 115 lbs. I think about 16 lbs of it was ccf the rest was mlv.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> Luxury liner is ccf AND mlv....... Foam weights next to nothing. Mlv on the other hand is heavy as holy hell. You need to stop speaking on topics you have no experience with.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


CCF is about 14 times heavier than Melamine foam. But hey, what do I know.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

High Resolution Audio said:


> CCF is about 14 times heavier than Melamine foam. But hey, what do I know.


What type of ccf? There are loads of different ccf's. Either way, the comparison is irrelevant. Second skin is saying you would use melamine in spots where you cant use luxury liner because the MLV on the luxury liner is much heavier and much harder to work with. 

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

High Resolution Audio said:


> CCF is about 14 times heavier than Melamine foam. But hey, what do I know.


I have a few 3/4 x 24" x 24" squares of melamine foam from SDS left over. They weigh next to nothing, a few ounces. So saying ccf weighs 14x more is not much.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

The magic eraser is stiff and it tears, even if found in 1/8" thickness it will break or tear if compressed too much. I may be wrong, some higher quality ones may not have those issues and may cost way more. 


I would still use quality open cell foam to fill gaps between the card and the inner door, it may simplify things, like self adhesive different thicknesses and cost.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Alrojoca said:


> The magic eraser is stiff and it tears, even if found in 1/8" thickness it will break or tear if compressed too much. I may be wrong, some higher quality ones may not have those issues and may cost way more.
> 
> 
> I would still use quality open cell foam to fill gaps between the card and the inner door, it may simplify things, like self adhesive different thicknesses and cost.


id be weary about putting open cell foam in a door.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

dogguy said:


> Hmm. Lets take where absorption foam is placed in car. Inside the rear quarter panels, inside doors, above the roof liner. All of these applications have interior panels on top of them, so in all cases, the foam is between two constraining layers.
> 
> A home with sheet rock on both sides and mineral rock insulation in-between, two constraining layers on both sides.... The insulation does absorb sound.
> 
> I am not saying you are wrong, but it doesn't seem logical to me. Do you have some kind of data/tests to back up your statement?


Most foam I see in cars is non-porous and used only to provide rigidity and mass-load the panel to prevent vibration and transmission. It has no absorptive properties. There might be thermal benefits, as I assume plastic is a worse conductor of thermal energy than air (the same way glass in fiberglass is a very poor thermal conductor). Insulation inside of wall cavities can provide sound absorption, but only of sound that has made it through the first constraining layer. It is also only effective down to a frequency corresponding to the thickness of the material. Typical ~3.5" thickness fiberglass insulation is good down to around 250hz if you get the good stuff, but there isn't a lot of absorbing to be done at higher frequencies inside of a cavity and unexposed to the incident or direct reflected sound.

So would the melamine foam be better at blocking outside noise? I guess it technically would be, but it certainly wouldn't have a noticeable effect and I doubt it would be measurable unless you had some meticulous test conditions and precise measuring equipment. Now if there was, for example, a cavity behind an acoustically transparent material or even a cavity that was partially exposed to incident/reflected sound stuffing it full of absorptive material might actually do something.


----------



## dogguy (May 12, 2017)

My main point of the original post was to ask the question if using HMF as the decoupler would also absorb sound coming from the outside. I understand I would have to have the HMF on top of the MLV to improve the interior acoustics.

Thanks guys for the feedback. Here is what I have taken from the posts.

1) If I installed HMF that was 1/4" thick it would absorb some sound that passed through the sheet metal of the car where CCF would not absorb much of anything. So there would be an improvement in blocking sound from the outside, how much is not known.

2) If I were to use HMF it is not as flexible as CCF and would not bend and mold to curved surfaces as easy as CCF. 

Question: For those of you that have used HMF, is it really that rigid? Would it be a real issue or could it work fine inside a spare tire well or on top of a drive shaft tunnel?


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

SkizeR said:


> id be weary about putting open cell foam in a door.



I would be careful about the source of the foam eraser since it needs to be treated for water resistance, and other things. The good ones, $11/sf for 1/2" thickness

Some OCF is good quality and can stand moisture and different temperatures. Assuming the inner door is mostly sealed with CCF and MLV, the moisture and water potential getting between the door card and MLV may be very minimal if not totally absent, the foam may last 5-8 years.
Ozone destroys cheap low quality foam, and if the source has good quality, chances are it will last long enough and it's cheap. Here on the link below, they even recommend it as engine cover or attached to the hood. Maybe the car audio Industry 

Compared to this at 50 cent/sF sorry but I see no reason to spend more if this can offer savings and similar performance. For headliners and pillars the foam eraser may offer more significant benefits. In the doors, no, not for me. Maybe the car audio install industry has some standards and go with a more expensive material. It's up to each

Solid Foam Charcoal Padding Sheets - Open-Cell - FoamByMail.com


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

HMF is rigid. It also has to be thick to be effective. It's also cost more from my experience. It can only absorb high frequency at low thickness which typically isn't much of an issue in doors. So for potentially higher cost, more difficult installation, and little acoustical benefit I would say this is a point of diminishing returns type of thing.


----------



## dogguy (May 12, 2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tyABDoIexI

If you go to 4:10 and looks at the Basotect UF it looks nice and flexible to me. I can get any of the versions to be treated and be hydroponic.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

dogguy said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tyABDoIexI
> 
> If you go to 4:10 and looks at the Basotect UF it looks nice and flexible to me. I can get any of the versions to be treated and be hydroponic.


Hey, sorry to the OP for taking the thread off topic, but I see you are from the Boston area. Just wanted to say Hi!


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

dogguy said:


> My main point of the original post was to ask the question if using HMF as the decoupler would also absorb sound coming from the outside. I understand I would have to have the HMF on top of the MLV to improve the interior acoustics.
> 
> Thanks guys for the feedback. Here is what I have taken from the posts.
> 
> ...


How effective is hmf at only 1/4" thick? Probably not worth doing imo. At 3/4" it would be too difficult to work with in place of ccf. but if your hellbent on trying it go for it.


----------



## Swaglife81 (Oct 15, 2016)

Just my 2 cents in a nutshell

Melamine foam in places where space isnt limited like a roof or trunk in a 1 inch size has better results. It is better than ccf but can't be used behind door panels because of space restrictions. A big ass child molester type van could benefit from melamine over ccf. I would say melamine is the car application compared to Open cell foam in a home or studio environment. If it's treated to replace water. I wouldnt use melamine anywhere but a car trunk or hatch/suv open area. CCF is pretty much used because it's cheap and won't soak in water. If it wasn't water proof I guarantee people wouldn't be using it


----------



## dogguy (May 12, 2017)

It seems like everyone is in agreement that at 1/4" as the decoupler, it wouldn't have much an effect in absorbing outside sound and would be a waste of money. 

In the sliding doors, roof, pillars and rear quarters if I filled these with HMF it would make an audible difference in absorbing sound coming into the car and an acoustical improvement inside the car.
This is the type of car for the current application 
https://betterparts.org/images/hyundai-h1-travel-12.jpg

Thanks for everyone's input



[High Resolution Audio] Hey. I am from the Boston area, currently in Europe.


----------



## BigAl205 (May 20, 2009)

I haven't used the HMF, but from what I've read is that it's only an effective absorber when it's uncompressed, so using it as a de-coupler would compress it and take away the absorbent characteristics.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

JUST GO FOR IT! 

Even with with 10 extra different opinions against using it, you seem convinced to still use it and probably were going to go with it regardless of many opinions. 

Maybe the Basotect is the ultimate state of the art German foam, keep in mind it needs to be the gray one for acoustic purposes and not the white one. 


Good luck ??


----------



## dogguy (May 12, 2017)

Alrojoca said:


> JUST GO FOR IT!
> 
> Even with with 10 extra different opinions against using it, you seem convinced to still use it and probably were going to go with it regardless of many opinions.


I am not "convinced" to use HMF as the decoupler, this why I am asking for other peoples opinions and experience. The CCF has near zero effect on absorbing sound, so I am exploring other options to see if there are other options that would not just act as a decoupler, but also absorb sound.


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

dogguy said:


> The CCF has near zero effect on absorbing sound, so I am exploring other options to see if there are other options that would work better.


The people's opinions that you are seeking are telling you that HMF has near zero sound asorbing at a 1/4 or in a compressed state. Let us know about other options. I would use something else if it helps.


----------



## Swaglife81 (Oct 15, 2016)

I just want to add since I said it needed to be 1 inch in big areas. I went to sounddeadenershowdowns site and see what's new lately if anything different has been posted. They list the sound deadening in 3 steps. CLD 1 step with Ccf/mlv together as step 2. We all knew this though. Step 3 says use HMF and even behind trim panels, between roof and headliner, walls, etc. Keep in mind they sell it in 3/4 and 1.5 inch thickness. I thought it was 1 inch but can't remember what they first started with in thickness. So seems HMF is used after a car has been treated with the usual cls,ccf,mlv than HMF is added in areas that it can be compressed. It says to be used in fixed spaces.

I'll copy this from sound showdown

"The effectiveness of any sound absorber is controlled by its thickness - the thicker the better. Hydrophobic Melamine Foam is compressible so you want to use it in protected open spaces - between the roof and headliner, inside quarter panels, inside van walls, behind trim panels, any fixed airspace."

It's says absorb mid to high frequencies on product description. I haven't done a HMF full roof and panel application. Without custom headliner I don't see how to use CLD, 1/8 ccf, 1/8 mlv and 3/4 to 1.5 inch HMF other than a trunk in a car or roof/panels in a van with custom non factory paneling or whatnot. I think that's why there hasn't been many real life experiences/tests with it. Your looking at 1.5 to 2 inches of product before it's even compressed on a roof or wherever. I imagine alot needs to be done for trim panels or a headliner to fit back on


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 16, 2005)

Hydrophobic Melamine Foam would decouple but it's not ideal for that purpose. As others have noted, effectiveness as an acoustic absorber is directly tied to thickness. That's why we have it manufactured in 3/4" and 1.5". There aren't a lot of places in a vehicle where a decoupler that thick will work. There are no great absorbers in the thicknesses we want for decouplers. 

HMF is not as durable as high quality CCF. You want durability in a decoupler that will be subjected to constant compression/decompression cycles. 

It would be great if every material served multiple purposes, but that's seldom the case. Use the right tool for the job.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

High Resolution Audio said:


> https://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/foam_stop/mel_comp.htm


Just curious if anybody clicked on this link?


----------



## BigAl205 (May 20, 2009)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Just curious if anybody clicked on this link?


I did.


----------



## High Resolution Audio (Sep 12, 2014)

BigAl205 said:


> I did.


The only thing about this stuff is I can't find out id it was been treated to resist water. Some of the other brands do that.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

I got a sample of the hydrofobic melamine foam in the mail today. My original statement stays the same

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

SkizeR said:


> I got a sample of the hydrofobic melamine foam in the mail today. My original statement stays the same
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


Was it gray or white? German BASF quality or knock off ?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

It was from sds

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

SkizeR said:


> It was from sds
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk



Post a good picture of it and with some compression.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Alrojoca said:


> Post a good picture of it and with some compression.


Why?

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

????


----------



## Second Skin (Aug 5, 2010)

High Resolution Audio said:


> Luxury liner Pro weighs a freaking ton. And its not just the vinyl that contributes to the weight. But the foam is pretty thick.


You are correct sir, the foam on the Luxury Liner Pro is about 4 times denser then regular closed cell foam like Over Kill Pro. But it is the 9 lbs of the Mass Loaded Vinyl infused to the dense CCF that make up most of the weight.


----------



## Second Skin (Aug 5, 2010)

SkizeR said:


> Luxury liner is ccf AND mlv....... Foam weights next to nothing. Mlv on the other hand is heavy as holy hell. You need to stop speaking on topics you have no experience with.
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


Actually Luxury liner is just raw mass loaded barium infused vinyl. 

Luxury Liner Pro on the other hand is a very dense closed cell foam infused onto the same mass loaded vinyl. If we were to cut off the CCF on LLP, it would weight 2-3 times more then the weight of the same piece of CCF like Over Kill Pro. It is very easy to see/feel the difference in CCF's just by touching the products.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Second Skin said:


> Actually Luxury liner is just raw mass loaded barium infused vinyl.
> 
> Luxury Liner Pro on the other hand is a very dense closed cell foam infused onto the same mass loaded vinyl. If we were to cut off the CCF on LLP, it would weight 2-3 times more then the weight of the same piece of CCF like Over Kill Pro. It is very easy to see/feel the difference in CCF's just by touching the products.


Ahhh, well my point still stands... Gerald is comparing apples to birds

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## Second Skin (Aug 5, 2010)

Alrojoca said:


> The magic eraser is stiff and it tears, even if found in 1/8" thickness it will break or tear if compressed too much. I may be wrong, some higher quality ones may not have those issues and may cost way more.
> 
> 
> I would still use quality open cell foam to fill gaps between the card and the inner door, it may simplify things, like self adhesive different thicknesses and cost.


Open cell foams that have not been treated with a hydrophobic process should not be used inside of vehicles as they will absorb and retain water. 

Here is a picture of a very bendable, pliable melamine foam....but yes you do have to spend more than a dollar like the price of the Magic Eraser and it helps to get Hydrophobic Melamine Foam


----------



## Second Skin (Aug 5, 2010)

dogguy said:


> Thanks guys for the feedback. Here is what I have taken from the posts.
> 
> 
> 2) If I were to use HMF it is not as flexible as CCF and would not bend and mold to curved surfaces as easy as CCF.
> ...


No it is very flexible, you just have to buy a high quality HMF. Here is a picture of how flexible Mega Zorbe is.


----------



## Second Skin (Aug 5, 2010)

Which ever Melamine Foam you decide to use, make sure it has been Hydrophobic treated or it will retain water like a sponge (Mr. Eraser). 

Enjoy the video


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

Good to know it also has adhesive backing, it makes things easier.


----------



## trunks9_us (Oct 25, 2007)

Mega Zorbe™ - Hydrophobic Melamine Foam
I honestly think if you ate gonna use this in your doors you should follow this method if your vehicle allows it. 

1. Cld

2. Measure the thickness between the window and the outer door to see if you can even fit .5 inch thick in there. If you can great if you can get 1inch even better but if you can't go with mlv on the outer or both if thats your only option on space.

3. On the inner door shell where the panel is onto. Measure the distance between the back side of the inner panel and the window again. If room permits add a layer which is gonna suck in general due to putting your arm in the odd places to make it fit. Will it work if you can fill most or even some yes how much well that depends how much you can get in there. So let's say you were able to get .5in on the outer and .5in on the inner outside.

4. Now do the inner front with .5in that will probably be the most on the inner front.

5. Do the whole door card with .5 thickness it should be fine maybe even a inch in some door panels if the gap permits. In my 09 corolla I was able to put overkill pro in between the door card and inner door panel.

So there you have it a possible up to 2 inches some might only get 1.5in even if it was compressed some at 1.5in or 2 inches. Here are the llp transmission loss on top and Mega Zorbe™ - Hydrophobic Melamine Foam on bottom. So as you can see even with one inch on the lower hz it is about on par with llp and higher transmission loss on the rest. Even at 1.5inches compress between the door card and the inner panel will still show significant improvement over the llp. Especially if your cover the panel holes with fiberglass or flashing or whatever you decide to choose to block it.

Regardless of what people say or think numbers don't lie.


----------

