# 2021 product comparison for sound dampening experiment.



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Well, that's a mouth full. I've been doing a lot of reading in this and other forums about sound dampening. Much of the information is a bit dated, so I'm going to do a simple practical experiment with as many different materials as I can get my hands on. The experiment will be very simple, but telling and effective anyway.

Here's what I have in mind. Build a box of approximately 185 cubic inches that has a detachable base. The base will have a tight fitting lip so that the box will have an equally tight seal with the base. The box will be just big enough to house an Amazon Alexa, which will be sitting on the base playing ambient noise at a constant volume. The noise will be measured by a sound meter held in place by a mini tripod. Next, the box will be lined with one of the sample materials to undergo testing. Maybe do a test with all sides covered and another test with no material on the top side (roof of car)? That noise level reading will be compared to the base reading for comparison. This process will be done with all materials submitted. Mind you this experiment is strictly for noise dampening, not panel resonance suppression. 

If any of you are interested in participating in this little experiment, send me a sample of any material you may have that qualifies as acoustic treatment for car interiors. Due to the size of the enclosure, the submitted samples must be at least 1.5 square feet. As the testing progresses, I will be updating the results here. Since the test is simple and I already have everything except the samples, we should be up and running very quickly.

PM me if you're interested and would like to send me a sample. I will also post which samples have already been tested, so we don't have duplicates being sent in.

Hope for a good turnout.

Cheers

Eric


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Well, over 100 of y'all looked at this post and not one response? And here I thought sound deadening was a hot topic? When the actual install of a product gets posted, lot's of inquiries, so why not put in a tiny bit of effort and help me get some practical base lines for various products? I do all the work, but I need you guys that have some extra pieces of the material to send them to me for testing. I do understand that the likelihood of having some left overs is not great, but hopefully, over time, samples will come in. I'll also write to the manufacturers, but they usually only send very small samples.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

www.facebook.com/groups/651457188787366

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

Yep ^--^--^--^--^

This topic has been beaten to death elsewhere. Follow existing Facebook reviewers...


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Well, beaten to death maybe, but I have yet to see a single, simple and concise list of products tested under virtually identical conditions by an end user. It certainly isn't very scientific, but I'll take real world data over company hype any day.

I'm forging ahead, so if any of you wanna see this happen, let me know.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

I hope no one will find out that I am really just trying to get free sound deadener and cover my dual cab truck one square foot at a time 😵😱😎


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Prices I've found on a few of the most talked about sound deadening products per square foot shipped:


Resonix - $7.22
Dynamat - $4.44
Roadkill Expert - $2.61
Noico - $1.83
Kilmat - $1.67
Damplefier Pro - $7.16
Ampere Audio's Vibraflex - $4.75 for 80 mil 


In all fairness, Resonix is the only product not found on Amazon with free shipping. The additional cost for shipping was $63. If you subtract that, Resonix comes out to $5.63 per square foot. These prices are as of today, 03/14/2021.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Let me know what others you'd like me to add


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Ok, I never expected this kind of response to such a simple test. I'm gonna have to ask you guys to slow down sending me samples. Don't stop, just slow down a bit, lol. Because of this terrific turnout, I'm gonna have to start on this sooner than expected. I may even put the test box together on Sunday and show you guys how I'll set it up. This will not be a test with tiny squares of material, but something a bit more substantial, that's why I need at least 1.5 sq ft of test material. No fancy frequency graphs, no mumbo jumbo, just a box and a decibel meter to monitor before and after results. This is not so much about vibration absorption, but how much certain combination of materials actually inhibit sound. Please also send me your requests about which materials to test and which combinations. Who knows, maybe we'll come up with something extraordinary!


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

Considering that the R&D team at 3M Industries likely graduated at the top of their class, you should def consider testing the EDM100O (stands for "engineered dampening material) made by them--



https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-us/all-3m-products/?N=5002385+3289877683&rt=rud



I got a piece from these guys --









impact products | eBay Stores


We are dedicated to helping DIY and professional up-fitters with their van projects. It is our pleasure to share our engineering and fabrication knowledge and experience to help you complete your build and enjoy your van in comfort, safety and efficient style.



stores.ebay.com





though I had to order the sample piece of EDM1000 by calling them.

PM me if you want more info.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

seafish said:


> Considering that the R&D team at 3M Industries likely graduated at the top of their class, you should def consider testing the EDM100O (stands for "engineered dampening material) made by them--
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the input, I'll be sure to put that on the list. I'll contact them and see what size sample I can get.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

It wasn't easy to get info on this material for some reason. I'm not sure 3M is intending this for the average car audio enthusiast as there is virtually no marketing in that direction and the product is very expensive - over $8 a sq ft on ebay. Pretty sure they will not send me the sample size I require for my tests, but reached out to them anyway. We'll see.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

Eric,

I contacted Impact by phone and talked with Kim.
She sent me one sheet of the EDM1029 for $18.
She also through in a couple samples of the 3M thinsulate that I requested for free .

I'd imagine if you are nice on the fone, she might do the same for you.

That said, it IS expensive, which is why you should test it to see if it is worth it !!!! LOL

PM me and I'll forward you her name/email and fone


----------



## Huckleberry Sound (Jan 17, 2009)

Nice


----------



## arsuoni (Mar 18, 2021)

I’d seen this before, it appears to be great. The 3M marketing material indicates EDM1029 has equal to 15% better performance versus butyl at 50% less coverage and a “potential reduction” in cost because of this. The linked retailer’s cost for 15.15 sq ft is 2x butyl though. Too bad there is seemingly only one supplier.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

arsuoni said:


> I’d seen this before, it appears to be great. The 3M marketing material indicates EDM1029 has equal to 15% better performance versus butyl at 50% less coverage and a “potential reduction” in cost because of this. The linked retailer’s cost for 15.15 sq ft is 2x butyl though. Too bad there is seemingly only one supplier.


Yes, not sure why there isn't more of a push on this product? 3M may have other more profitable avenues already in place for this material. I'm sure it's not an oversight on their part, lol.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

The 3M "NVH" reaserach division pushes mostly to oem manufacturers rather then aftermarket consumers because that is where the money lies.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

My thoughts exactly


----------



## Huckleberry Sound (Jan 17, 2009)

Nice!


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Ok, add one more quality sound product to the list - 3M's EDM1029 being graciously supplied by Kim of Impactproducts, an ebay supplier of 3M products. 

Thank you Kim for helping us out with this project.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Dynamat, Killmat, Noico, ResoNix, time to step up to the plate  In all fairness, I haven't contacted them yet as I was holding out for members to supply samples. On the other hand, if they step up, it will show their dedication to the product and support of the end user.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Still getting material together. C'mon peeps, someone's gotta have a little Dynamat or Killmat they can spare?


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

Do you have the Resonix yet ??
What size piece do you need ?


----------



## magmun (Feb 17, 2021)

EricTundra said:


> Still getting material together. C'mon peeps, someone's gotta have a little Dynamat or Killmat they can spare?


I may have some to spare in the summer. That s when I will finish applying it though it s not either of those products. I ended up getting GP STFU. I m not sure how it compares to the 2 you mentioned, but it s what I got.


----------



## magmun (Feb 17, 2021)

magmun said:


> I may have some to spare in the summer. That s when I will finish applying it though it s not either of those products. I ended up getting GP STFU. I m not sure how it compares to the 2 you mentioned, but it s what I got.


Oh wait. You are wanting a sample. I mis read your post. I have plenty of scrap but i don t know if you would want what I have.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

seafish said:


> Do you have the Resonix yet ??
> What size piece do you need ?


The test I'm trying to run will need at least 1.5 sq ft. Can be in pieces, just not tiny scraps if possible. Need enough to line a small box on 5 sides. Go ahead and PM me for the Resonix.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

magmun said:


> Oh wait. You are wanting a sample. I mis read your post. I have plenty of scrap but i don t know if you would want what I have.


Mag, I'm gonna test every material that's sent to me to compare to a base line. If you have a few pieces that total up to 1.5 sq ft, that'll do. PM me.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

EricTundra said:


> Mag, I'm gonna test every material that's sent to me to compare to a base line. If you have a few pieces that total up to 1.5 sq ft, that'll do. PM me.


I MAY have a sheet of kilmat left. That being said, I think I threw that garbage away lol


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

EricTundra said:


> Here's what I have in mind. Build a box of approximately 185 cubic inches that has a detachable base. The base will have a tight fitting lip so that the box will have an equally tight seal with the base. The box will be just big enough to house an Amazon Alexa, which will be sitting on the base playing ambient noise at a constant volume. The noise will be measured by a sound meter held in place by a mini tripod. Next, the box will be lined with one of the sample materials to undergo testing. Maybe do a test with all sides covered and another test with no material on the top side (roof of car)? That noise level reading will be compared to the base reading for comparison. This process will be done with all materials submitted. Mind you this experiment is strictly for noise dampening, not panel resonance suppression.


Is no one going to talk about how flawed this testing method is? Let me get this straight.. the long story short is you want to test CLD's on how much they lower noise generated from an enclosure to inside of another room? Yeah, dude.. this ain't it


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

Skizer isn't wrong, your testing for the CLD to do something it isn't designed to do doing it as described. You're testing it as if it was a barrier like MLV or lead. Clds, control resonance and that's how they stop any sort of sound transmission (which they arent very good at). So thats what you should to be testing for imo
As others have said, it has been done and is actually being done again at the moment on "The Deadening" page. If you want to do testing yourself, I would suggest a setup similar to what he uses in his tests.
It would be quite cool to do similar tests to get another batch of testing from another source. Maybe taking impedance sweeps to see how it changed from the deadeners changing enclosure resonance. You could also take it a step further and use a precision laser distance meter to get data as to how much panel resonance changes in frequency and the of change in vibration of the panel.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

SkizeR said:


> Is no one going to talk about how flawed this testing method is? Let me get this straight.. the long story short is you want to test CLD's on how much they lower noise generated from an enclosure to inside of another room? Yeah, dude.. this ain't it


Look "dude", nothing is set in stone yet. How I test and whether or not you agree with what I do or how I do it, is totally up to you. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm just putting material in a certain situation, which will be fully described once I nail it down, and then will post numbers based on the data. How you want to interpret this is up to you. If you think this is a waste of time, that's also up to you. I appreciate your input, but please wait till I've narrowed down the procedure a bit. 

What you quoted above was my initial thought, but that has changed. I will outline the test in a bit when I've had more time to finalize it. Furthermore, I never said I only wanted to test CLD's. I said I wanted to test sound dampening materials which will also include combinations of materials. If you're going to summarize what you think I said, please do it right or don't do it at all. Not really sure where your hostility is coming from, but maybe you as a distributor of acoustic material feel threatened by independent testing? If not, why not wait till the end and then give some constructive comments instead of "Yeah, dude, this ain't it."


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

EricTundra said:


> Look "dude", nothing is set in stone yet. How I test and whether or not you agree with what I do or how I do it, is totally up to you. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm just putting material in a certain situation, which will be fully described once I nail it down, and then will post numbers based on the data. How you want to interpret this is up to you. If you think this is a waste of time, that's also up to you. I appreciate your input, but please wait till I've narrowed down the procedure a bit.
> 
> What you quoted above was my initial thought, but that has changed. I will outline the test in a bit when I've had more time to finalize it. Furthermore, I never said I only wanted to test CLD's. I said I wanted to test sound dampening materials which will also include combinations of materials. If you're going to summarize what you think I said, please do it right or don't do it at all. Not really sure where your hostility is coming from, but maybe you as a distributor of acoustic material feel threatened by independent testing? If not, why not wait till the end and then give some constructive comments instead of "Yeah, dude, this ain't it."


I wouldn't take it to heart dude. He's just pointing out a flaw in your previously stated plan so you come out with useful data after spending all of your time.


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Skizer isn't wrong, your testing for the CLD to do something it isn't designed to do doing it as described. You're testing it as if it was a barrier like MLV or lead. Clds, control resonance and that's how they stop any sort of sound transmission (which they arent very good at). So thats what you should to be testing for imo
> As others have said, it has been done and is actually being done again at the moment on "The Deadening" page. If you want to do testing yourself, I would suggest a setup similar to what he uses in his tests.
> It would be quite cool to do similar tests to get another batch of testing from another source. Maybe taking impedance sweeps to see how it changed from the deadeners changing enclosure resonance. You could also take it a step further and use a precision laser distance meter to get data as to how much panel resonance changes in frequency and the of change in vibration of the panel.


As stated in my reply to Scuzzy, er, I meant skeezer, err, skitzo, oh , you know..., it's not going to be centered around CLD. And yes, I know what CLD's are designed for, but that doesn't preclude tests outside their primary function. I can imagine that not every material will perform the same in these tests, and I am curious to see to what degree they diverge. Will there be a decrease in the decibel reading when a CLD is applied vs bare metal? I should think so even though that is not a CLD's primary purpose. Does this invalidate my tests or my curiosity? Again, I should think not. 

Looking at the tests done on "The Deadening" page did influence my decision to change my testing parameters, but hopefully to augment both. I too think it would be cool to run other concurrent tests, and I applaud you for encouraging this unlike some other people who seem to be bothered by this. I'd rather have too much information than not enough. Chaff can always be weeded out in the end.

Getting off soap box for now 😜


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

EricTundra said:


> As stated in my reply to Scuzzy, er, I meant skeezer, err, skitzo, oh , you know..., it's not going to be centered around CLD. And yes, I know what CLD's are designed for, but that doesn't preclude tests outside their primary function. I can imagine that not every material will perform the same in these tests, and I am curious to see to what degree they diverge. Will there be a decrease in the decibel reading when a CLD is applied vs bare metal? I should think so even though that is not a CLD's primary purpose. Does this invalidate my tests or my curiosity? Again, I should think not.
> 
> Looking at the tests done on "The Deadening" page did influence my decision to change my testing parameters, but hopefully to augment both. I too think it would be cool to run other concurrent tests, and I applaud you for encouraging this unlike some other people who seem to be bothered by this. I'd rather have too much information than not enough. Chaff can always be weeded out in the end.
> 
> Getting off soap box for now 😜


It will absolutely change the output of sound, but its going to be a function of resonance damping and mass loading. The less the panel vibrates, the less sound is going to be transfered. So I would imagine that clds with a better butyl compound will fair better, as well as the thicker (more massive) ones. Will probably be a near direct correlation with the primary data of resonance. Only time will tell!
But I think the main purpose of his comment was to make sure the data you were collecting is what you are actually looking for. It's easy for someone to do a test but muck up the procedure and get differing results from what is actually being tested for. And in his case, if you are looking for a loss in sound transmission because you were thinking that was what the product was designed for, then published data that it performed no differently from other products, it could cast doubt in people's mind of the product.
That's what I would be thinking anyway. My .02c


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Well, I should have done the intro with a bit more fore thought, but will iron it all out. It will be clear what my understanding is, what the test parameters are, and how I interpret the results. My aim is to add to the conversation, not cloud it. I do appreciate your .02c and the thought you put into your comments. Thanks


----------



## EricTundra (Feb 19, 2021)

Thanks Magmun for sending a sample of GP STFU dampening material for the tests.

Since I have changed the parameters of the test, a smaller sample size will now work fine. Instead of 1.5 cu ft, one cubic foot will be enough. So please, send in a few more samples to test. Among the most popular brands, we still need a sample of Killmat, Noico, Dynamat, and Resonix, although a sample of Resonix is in the pipeline.

It will be a beautiful weekend in sunny Southern California, so no excuses not to work on the test chamber then. Will keep y'all posted.

Cheers

Eric


----------



## Clvol1255 (Aug 6, 2020)

Second skin


----------

