# "Sound deadening is a waste of time and money; Prove me wrong!"



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Basically what the title says. Sound deadening is pointless.

Forked from here:

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/5540297-post26.html


Where I stated that:

"_I went crazy with the sound deadener on my 2001 Accord. It made no measurable or audible difference. Car Stereo Review did the same with a Camaro back in the day, measured it before and after, and found that it made less than a decibel of difference.

Swapping out the tires on my 2005 Accord made a measurable and audible difference. The data is over at Tire Rack, I'm too lazy to look it up. If you want a quieter car, swap out your tires.

My Genesis is super quiet, and so was my Audi. From evaluating how the factory does it, it seems to come down to :

1) dual pane glass

2) Obsessively sealing off the cabin. Seals on every wire, big seals on the doors, and a trunk that's physically walled off from the rest of the cabin. No ski pass through, no fold down trunk, no CUVs, no SUVs.

3) Attention to detail: the fans in my Genesis are much quieter than the fans in my Mazda

My Genesis probably has about 20 lbs of sound deadening in the entire car.



If someone can prove me wrong, I'm all ears, but I've never seen any data that demonstrated that sound deadening is worth the trouble. If you want a quiet car, buy a quiet car.
_


----------



## TerryGreen5986 (Jun 23, 2017)

??*♂


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

:snacks:


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

do a normal install without deadening that doesnt include sticking multiple small drivers in some contraption thats double sided tape to your dashboard and multiple 4's in a bandpass on your floor and let us know what you think.

an audi and genesis are going to be a bit different than your standard camry or civic, but there are still benefits. 

as far as measurements.. here you go

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/3522858-post1723.html


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

In for the popcorn...


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

I won't say it's pointless but my Jetta didn't get any treatment. I really enjoyed the sound and got a lot of compliments without it.

I think it goes back to goals. There's data that shows what it can and can't do. If you're trying to lower ambient noise, you can't beat sealing off the environment. I think it's easier to reduce resonance and energy transfer though.

In my Jetta, the tweeters are chambered, mids were open baffle, while mid bass and sub were sealed.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

PB, are you talking about using ONLY CLD tiles (i.e. "dynamat style" panel deadening) or using a properly installed CLD/CCF/MLV layered approach to sound deadening (i.e. goal is to reduce road noise inside the listening space)??

If the former, you are likely correct.

If the latter, my experience with applying CLD/CCF/MLV only to the 4 door panels in my truck, indicates to me that you are wrong. 

And I have yet to apply this process to the entire truck, including wheel well liners, where I expect to again Ann even MUCH quieter listening space inside the cab.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

It always very obviously helps my installs when used near high power lower frequency drivers ... it is night and day. 

Surely how it is used will matter a lot, the benefits seem more noticeable at higher volumes, it doesn't really fix everything, and there may be cases where it doesn't do much at all (certain cars/installs/applications). 

Your statement in the original thread that I responded to (not included in #1 above) sounded like an over-generalization to me, that's all.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

SkizeR said:


> do a normal install without deadening that doesnt include sticking multiple small drivers in some contraption thats double sided tape to your dashboard and multiple 4's in a bandpass on your floor and let us know what you think.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

SkizeR said:


> do a normal install without deadening that doesnt include sticking multiple small drivers in some contraption thats double sided tape to your dashboard and multiple 4's in a bandpass on your floor and let us know what you think.
> 
> an audi and genesis are going to be a bit different than your standard camry or civic, but there are still benefits.
> 
> ...


For some context here, SkizeR has linked to tests where a forum member tested the mechanical properties of these damping products.

That's the same thing that Dynamat does with their famous demo, where they have a piece of metal that's undamped and damped.

But here's the thing:

_Your car isn't noisy because the car is underdamped._

Your car is noisy because noise is getting into the cabin.

Don't believe me? Go rent a Prius. The car is so damn quiet you sometimes wonder if it's even on. I've literally hit the ignition button on a rented Prius because I thought it wasn't running. It's that quiet.

_Do you think a Prius has 200lbs of sound deadening in it?_

Of course not. 

Moral to this story:

1) I've seen no evidence that sound deadening makes a vehicle quieter. Again, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

2) If you want a quiet car, buy a quiet car.

Some pics from SkizeR's link. Note that these aren't measurements of a car, they're measurements of damping.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

seafish said:


> PB, are you talking about using ONLY CLD tiles (i.e. "dynamat style" panel deadening) or using a properly installed CLD/CCF/MLV layered approach to sound deadening (i.e. goal is to reduce road noise inside the listening space)??
> 
> If the former, you are likely correct.
> 
> ...


If someone has some measurements, I'd love to see them. I measured my Accord, a ton of work and zero difference. Car Stereo Review did the same with a Camaro, there was a marginal difference, like a fraction of a decibel, but that's basically inaudible.

Unless someone can prove me wrong, I say sound deadening is a placebo.


----------



## mbradlawrence (Mar 25, 2013)

I just saved $200!


----------



## thornygravy (May 28, 2016)

I'm having trouble finding words to express how hilarious this thread is.


----------



## pjhabit (Aug 12, 2008)

It's all a big conspiracy. Acoustic resonance can't be tamed, nor can you block or absorb sound. 

He's on to us...better go tell "The Man"


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

*Re: &quot;Sound deadening is a waste of time and money; Prove me wrong!&quot;*

The reason I didn't put any work into the Jetta is #1 I'm lazy and #2 Andy W. has made similar comments... Except the part about no results. He just said juice isn't worth the squeeze so to speak.

Edit: sealing doors as best I could or using sealed boxes for mid bass and adding DSP have had the greatest impact on my hobby


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## I800C0LLECT (Jan 26, 2009)

PB are you talking about ambient noise only? Or are you also referencing the attempt to control reflections?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

SkizeR makes a funny point, my projects DO look like ass. That's true.

There IS a way to make the car SEEM a lot quieter:

Something really odd about arrays and constant directivity waveguides is that they make the car sound SIGNIFICANTLY quieter.

Here's why:









A conventional speaker is loudest on axis. A constant directivity waveguide, or constant beamwidth transducer, they sound the same across their beamwidth. As the name implies.

I got into them because they image well, but the first time I put one in a car, something funny happened:

_I couldn't hear a damn thing outside of the music._ 

It was actually unnerving, it's probably not safe. These types of speakers sound like you're listening to a giant set of headphones, except you're not. But in the car, the effect is that same, you can't hear anything but the music. The road noise is drowned out, the engine noise is drowned out.

Obviously, everyone would say "if I turn up my music loud enough, I can't hear anything."

But these speakers aren't like that; *even at polite levels, they drown everything out.* This is just a weird side effect of their coverage; they don't cover a room the way that a regular speaker does, the coverage is very even.

Even D'Appolito speakers don't do this the same way, because they're only constant beamwidth over a narrow range and only on one axis. 

A symmetrical waveguide has constant directivity over five or more octaves.

Note that underdash HLCDs don't do this for the most part, because they only control directivity on the horizontal axis, on the vertical they're basically omni. They DO have this effect to an extent, but to really get the full effect you need something like this:


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

I800C0LLECT said:


> PB are you talking about ambient noise only? Or are you also referencing the attempt to control reflections?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Sound deadening doesn't do anything about reflections.

It also doesn't make a car quieter, or at least that's my argument


----------



## pjhabit (Aug 12, 2008)

If you're using only deadener to quiet your vehicle, you're doing it wrong


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Here's some data to back up two claims. First, I claim that sealing off the cabin makes a huge difference. IE, if you drive a sedan you're going to be way better off than if you drive a CUV or SUV. And if you have a sedan with a fold-down seat, you might consider sealing off the trunk. Literally walling it off, *and make it airtight.* Sound has a helluva way of getting through the smallest gap, and you need to seal that cabin off. You can test this yourself, crack the window to your car half an inch. Does it get noisier?









Four sedans, average DBA at cruising speed is 65-67









Eight CUVs, *significantly louder.* Five db louder. That's audible.









These are $80,000 cars. If BMW could make their car as quiet as an Accord using 20lbs of sound deadening, _why didn't they?_ The answer is that they couldn't; the reason a Prius is so darn quiet is because the engine is quiet and the tires are too. The BMW is 5dB louder than a plain ol' Accord because Honda knows that soccer moms care more about a quiet car than having 400hp. The M5's big engine requires big tires, and creates road noise that they can't isolate.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

Patrick Bateman said:


> First, I claim that sealing off the cabin makes a huge difference. Literally walling it off, *and make it airtight.* Sound has a helluva way of getting through the smallest gap, and you need to seal that cabin off. You can test this yourself, crack the window to your car half an inch. Does it get noisier?
> 
> PB, "sealing the cabin" (albeit NOT airtight) by with minimizing ANY gaps and/or holes) in the application of CLD/CCF/MLV layering is EXACTLY what proper sound deadening with CLD/CCF/MLV is supposed to achieve, as many of us can attest to, is VERY effective in reducing cabin noise!!
> 
> I propose that the difference in your opinion form mine and others has to do with the fact that you are likely talking about your experiences using dynamat equivalent CLD deadening and NOT proper multi-material, multi-layer deadening and quieting techniques!!!


----------



## Minibull (Apr 16, 2018)

Well I have an incredibly loud 350z that I'm about to treat. This thing is riding on 19x11 rears and 19x10 fronts. KW coil overs, urethane engine, gearbox, diff mounts, and Nismo hard rubber bushes on all the control arms and linkages.

Road noise in it is very loud, so I'll be doing the cld, ccf, mlv. 
No measurements but I'll have my ears and a bunch of other people who have ridden in it lots who can make the call.

I'll put my hand up and say hey, if there's no difference perceptible, then I'll rip it all back out and save on all that extra weight.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

So are you talking about resonance control, or sound proofing? After your reply to my comment seems like your talking about sound proofing

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Sound deadening doesn't do anything about reflections.


Well I thought maybe we were just talking past each other, but ... I would pretty strongly disagree with this statement.

Again the benefit has always been pretty obvious to my ear. 

For example, in my most recent install, before improving the door treatment behind my door 6.5s I turned it up, and just felt the vibration in the bottom pan of the door directly below the driver. After treatment, it was very obviously reduced. Sound incident upon a sheet of metal is partially transmitted/reflected, and partially absorbed. Installing butyl type deadener decreases the former by increasing the latter. The decrease mitigates rattling and reduces backwave cancellation.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

To be fair, Patrick's point about the noise not being because the car is underdamped is pretty accurate. A few squares of vibration dampener may be needed for specific resonances, but they won't do a damn thing for road and tire noise which are much more a problem than panel vibrations. The wavelengths for those noises are too long, and even MLV is only going to attenuate them a bit. 

I wouldn't say to skip the deadening process; sealing holes in the doors seems to make a real difference for midbass, and a few patches of vibration dampener can quiet noisy bits, but they can be used sparingly and specifically, there's no need to cover every exposed piece of metal.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Minibull said:


> Well I have an incredibly loud 350z that I'm about to treat. This thing is riding on 19x11 rears and 19x10 fronts. KW coil overs, urethane engine, gearbox, diff mounts, and Nismo hard rubber bushes on all the control arms and linkages.
> 
> Road noise in it is very loud, so I'll be doing the cld, ccf, mlv.
> No measurements but I'll have my ears and a bunch of other people who have ridden in it lots who can make the call.
> ...


The problem with relying on your ears is echoic memory is only accurate for a few seconds. You will not be able to notice a difference with any sort of accuracy. You will almost certainly perceive a difference after doing all of the work, even if no difference exists. So, it may make a difference, but using your ears won't be even remotely useful.


----------



## Gump_Runner (Aug 2, 2014)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Basically what the title says. Sound deadening is pointless.
> 
> Forked from here:
> 
> ...


How dare you even insinuate such? It's time for the "I can post more data" than you. Popcorn is on tap.


----------



## Minibull (Apr 16, 2018)

gijoe said:


> The problem with relying on your ears is echoic memory is only accurate for a few seconds. You will not be able to notice a difference with any sort of accuracy. You will almost certainly perceive a difference after doing all of the work, even if no difference exists. So, it may make a difference, but using your ears won't be even remotely useful.


I realise that but it's all I have to work on. I know how loud you have to talk in it though, that may also be another indicator. 


One thing when talking about OEMS and why some won't add in what seems to be a few hundred dollars for deadening. 
Ease of install on the assembly line, to make it fast you would need formed up sheets for deadening, not impossible, but certainly an added complexity
Also I'm curious about what's in the product, apparently the mlv is Barium sprayed, is there a RoHS type reason for OEMS not going that route?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

OMG. This thread is a total clusterf*ck. 

What exactly is it we are out to prove here, again? Is it that CLD (conventionally referred to as "sound deadening") is useless for every single instance one can come up with or any/all attempts of lowering the amount of road noise in your car while driving is futile, or is it one of the other fifteen things I've seen mentioned here?


My take:
Blocking sound while driving: CLD by itself; no big influence. CLD/CCF/MLV; huge difference. My car went from being a typical honda to sounding as quiet as a high end luxury car inside.


That's all I can add until someone can untangle this spaghetti mess of a thread and can provide a clear, concise point to what this thing is supposed to be.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Yes, it's easier to start off with a quiet(er) vehicle, but not everyone has the luxury to do so or may even want to choose so.

I drive a 2005 Tacoma Prerunner almost daily to work. I chose it because I love manual transmissions in pickup trucks, but I also like that it is a 4 banger sipping gas... still has good power for regular driving. One thing I did notice is that it was a noisy ass truck... like literally a hollow shell allowing all sorts of road noise to seep in. Notice I stated "was". A pretty heavy CLD was used sparingly. When I say sparingly I mean a door kit was strategically placed all over the gutted interior including doors. Sparingly because it isn't meant to ward off road noise. A pretty full layer of MLV & adhered neoprene was put everywhere that still allowed panels to fit like stock and from front to back and upwards on the firewall. I also placed melamine foam tiles within the doors and underneath the center console along with the other aforementioned materials. The difference? A good bit! Not luxury quiet, but definitely quieter than before. Noise from the transmission coming through the center console has definitely gone down. The doors & floor aren't emitting near as much into the cabin. It's still a truck and some noise is going to be apparent, but that's a given.

Here's the thing though. You want someone to prove to you, but in reality, just how many people are taking the time to actually record or measure the difference? Basically, I feel that you know this and can pretty much place your argument there. Cool, but at the same time, I have not seen you answer the question of what exact materials did you apply. Was it just CLD, or did you do the full recommended job before stating your case? That question has been asked several times. 


By the way... I drive a quiet weekend luxury car that has a stereo and no deadening was done. The difference in vehicle build is obvious, but so are the things that are already included in the "luxury" car vs what's left out of the pickup.. thicker jute underneath the carpet, denser door panels, an actual trunk with the gas tank & solid wall sealing off the rear seat, etc. So what you're seeing here is one is by design as you say, the other done by aftermarket materials, but sealing off & padding with aftermarket are viable. You want proof but prove to us that there isn't a difference. We're not talking dead quiet because even my luxury car is not, but enough of a difference to be worth the use. If I have considerably lowered noise just from the 3 sources I mentioned earlier, then that's an improvement. No one is claiming that they can make a go-kart sound like a Cadillac. Come on, man.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)




----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

Patrick Bateman said:


> But here's the thing:
> 
> _Your car isn't noisy because the car is underdamped._
> 
> ...



We have no idea what those are or what is being measured.
Like what was the test setup?
Ideally there is some section of road and the car goes down at a constant speed.with a long term spectrum from that.
Or the panel damping examples may be showing that there is no difference to the sound inside with the speakers playing.

Or a big speaker outside and the mic measurements inside.

However I dunno what those plot are actually measuring.


I have a loud little car, and there was no damping anywhere.
I put about 1 square foot under the driver and passenger seats, and it was noticeably less tinny... especially when coins slide slid out of the pocket onto the floor.
There is no radio in that car, just ear plugs.

The panel damping will keep sound from coming through a panel, but most panels on new cars are curved and stiff so there is not a lot of flexing.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Holmz said:


> We have no idea what those are or what is being measured.


go check out the cld testing thread


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

SkizeR said:


> go check out the cld testing thread


TL;DR

Buy SDS Tiles.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

SkizeR said:


> So are you talking about resonance control, or sound proofing?
> Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


EXACTLY what I am trying to determine about his statement myself!!

My guess is that he is talking about panel resonate and doesn't;t yet realize the full benefits of proper soundproofing using CLD along with CCF and MLV because he has never tried it.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Oh, and CLD alone on the inside of the roof of my car made a huge difference in how loud the car sounded when it rained. Much quieter now.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

seafish said:


> EXACTLY what I am trying to determine about his statement myself!!
> 
> My guess is that he is talking about panel resonate and doesn't;t yet realize the full benefits of proper soundproofing using CLD along with CCF and MLV because he has never tried it.


my guess was he went about using CLD as a way to lower the overall noise that gets into the cabin, and failed miserably and was totally let down since he didnt realize that CLD isnt meant to soundproof, all while having a horrible time since ripping out an interior and putting it all back together (with more material taking up space to boot) is no easy or quick task. Sound proofing a car is ****ing hard. Its a TON of work. I doubt that theres more than a handful of people on here who have done a full car properly. Now if hes refering to controlling resonance with CLD or panel on panel vibration with CCF, then i have no explanation because the benefits of either are obvious and quick to realize once you do the work and take a listen.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

ErinH said:


> Oh, and CLD alone on the inside of the roof of my car made a huge difference in how loud the car sounded when it rained. Much quieter now.


doing this in josh's car also seemed to have some benefits to lower frequency reproduction


----------



## Angrywhopper (Jan 20, 2010)

Can someone link Andy W. article on this?


----------



## Gump_Runner (Aug 2, 2014)

rton20s said:


>


Sound Deadening Explained.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrxuE5y1O64


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Angrywhopper said:


> Can someone link Andy W. article on this?


there is none..


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Basically what the title says. Sound deadening is pointless.


Dude, I'm not sure if you were OK with taking yourself out of context or not but the way your thread title reads it seems more like a means of grabbing attention via a 'sensational' post. Since you didn't try to provide context in your subsequent post I can only conclude what you said is exactly what you meant and there are no bounds for the statement. So, I'll just point you to your own posts made about using CLD on things other than lessening the noise in your car (which would have been an argument I would have entertained). Surely you have some data to prove to yourself why you used CLD in these cases:

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/5275370-post97.html


> Nowadays I do a CLD sandwidth of fiberglass, the 3D printed enclosure, then mortite, and then another layer of fiberglass. So it's basically an outside surface of fiberglass, and inside structure of PLA, and a layer of mortite for damping. I use System Three T-88 epoxy.



http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/3419657-post502.html


Patrick Bateman said:


> Here's a video showing the CLD construction I'm using for the midbasses:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOal1ReM5yU


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> doing this in josh's car also seemed to have some benefits to lower frequency reproduction


I saw once a long time ago where some SPL guy was saying that for every millimeter a panel flexes, that equates to xdB loss in output. I don't know what that number was or what 'data' there was to back it up. But, it makes sense that if there's give in a structure that the energy bounced back could be dissipated enough to cause a reduction (or increase, I suppose, depending on that boundary location wrt to the LP). So, if Josh's car is anything like mine and the roof was just a thin layer of sheet metal with metal supports running side to side then I could see that stiffening that panel would increase the output. But, truthfully, I'm surprised it would be noticeable... maybe measurable but I wouldn't expect noticeable ... to the ear, just based on a total wild guess that the difference would be tenths of a dB and at a region where we are much less perceptive to varying loudness.


IOW, you ain't gotta lie, Craig.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> No disrespect; but out of all the sound deadening discussion threads on here within the last couple of weeks... you had to pick this one to start this discussion?
> 
> The purpose of this thread was never intended to discuss making a vehicle quieter. That is off topic here AFAIC.
> Maybe start another thread for this discussion titled something like: "Sound deadening is a waste of time and money; Prove me wrong!"
> I will gladly subscribe to that *circus*


Ah, my prediction came to fruition. lol


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

ErinH said:


> I saw once a long time ago where some SPL guy was saying that for every millimeter a panel flexes, that equates to xdB loss in output. I don't know what that number was or what 'data' there was to back it up. But, it makes sense that if there's give in a structure that the energy bounced back could be dissipated enough to cause a reduction (or increase, I suppose, depending on that boundary location wrt to the LP). So, if Josh's car is anything like mine and the roof was just a thin layer of sheet metal with metal supports running side to side then I could see that stiffening that panel would increase the output. But, truthfully, I'm surprised it would be noticeable... maybe measurable but I wouldn't expect noticeable ... to the ear, just based on a total wild guess that the difference would be tenths of a dB and at a region where we are much less perceptive to varying loudness.
> 
> 
> IOW, you ain't gotta lie, Craig.


We did a little more than standard deadening up there. Build logs dont show/tell all the secrets 

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

SkizeR said:


> We did a little more than standard deadening up there. Build logs dont show/tell all the secrets
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


I'll gut it next time I see it.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

ErinH said:


> I'll gut it next time I see it.


You couldn't even change your own starter.. what makes you think you could remove the quarter panel trim if a nissan versa lol

I kid I kid. But really those quarter panels and c pillars are a pita

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

SkizeR said:


> go check out the cld testing thread


Thanks Matey - I look for the link.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I ain’t about that mechanic life. Not when I have a friend who will do it for me.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Holmz said:


> Thanks Matey - I look for the link.


I'm Nick.. my installers name is Matei lol

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

SkizeR said:


> ...
> Sound proofing a car is ****ing hard. Its a TON of work. I doubt that theres more than a handful of people on here who have done a full car properly.
> ...


Which is why I also am at a loss as to what, how and why.
If you are headed this way, I can put you up for a week or two and give you some work. 
But I would need to clear it with the Mrs, and she previously suggested just using earmuffs.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 12, 2017)

There seems to be a fair amount of confusion regarding the primary purpose of traditional CLD as it relates to car audio. Not to overly simplify, but the primary - and i should stress this - primary purpose of CLD is to alter the resonant frequency of the panel you are putting the CLD on. It's not intended to lower the cabin noise level, and if you are only using CLD as a means of sound deadening to lower cabin noise, then yes, you are wasting time and money. 

However, having stated the above, if you have body panels which have vibration issues, and the panels themselves are creating noise, then CLD will help to mitigate that specific problem. 

When CLD is applied to a panel, it increases the panel's resonant frequency. This is easily tested. Go to Home Depot, and buy a 4x8 sheet of 1/4 inch plywood and punch it with your fist, and do the same test with 3/4 inch plywood. Your fist is the makeshift sound wave, and the plywood is the body panel. The thicker panel vibrates at a faster frequency than then thinner one. Adding CLD to a body panel is like adding CLD to the 1/4 inch plywood to make it resonate at a higher frequency like the 3/4 inch version does. 

I should stress that this example is true of traditional (Dynamat) type CLD's. Layered versions provide more deadening, but the point is that CLD's purpose isn't for sound deadening - it's for vibration control.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I think most people understand the purpose of CLD. What we are confused about is the purpose of this thread.


----------



## Gump_Runner (Aug 2, 2014)

ErinH said:


> I think most people understand the purpose of CLD. What we are confused about is the purpose of this thread.


:laugh:


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

ErinH said:


> I think most people understand the purpose of CLD. What we are confused about is the purpose of this thread.


:computer:


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 12, 2017)

Just to play devil's advocate, if it's such common knowledge - which seems to be what you are suggesting - then why do we still see veteran DIY'ers covering their entire interior with CLD? This is utter nonsense. The tight corners of body panels have no need for CLD due to their inherent high resonance. Only flatter sections of panels are in (potential) need of it.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

I think it is often overused, for sure. The big, flat areas near your low frequency drivers first, and maybe only, will help mitigate vibration/cancellation. Sealing the car against road noise is a bigger problem, and no, I have never done this myself.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Honestly, at one point I thought Patrick's dig at deadening was a slick entry into discussing another idea of using some sort of wave guide or whatever to increase efficiency enough to negate deadening. At least that's what it seemed like at one point with one of his replies 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

He could be funnin' on us. That occurred to me also. He'll do that.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

SkizeR said:


> my guess was he went about using CLD as a way to lower the overall noise that gets into the cabin, and failed miserably and was totally let down since he didnt realize that CLD isnt meant to soundproof, .


Again,that is exactly what I am thinking...

Hell, I even bet that the Camaro article he is referring to also simply plastered Dynamat everywhere and then measured only a small dB decrease in road noise. Gonna try to find it online now.


----------



## Rainstar (May 22, 2017)

SkizeR said:


> Sound proofing a car is ****ing hard. Its a TON of work. I doubt that theres more than a handful of people on here who have done a full car properly.
> ...


what kind of Sorcery and Science and Satan do we need?
I'm resurrecting Jesus here who do i call?


----------



## vet883 (Feb 12, 2017)

I’m not a pro like Skizer or a technical wizard likE PB, but even home brewed sound deadening made my v-8 Dodge loud ass truck quieter than my wife’s lexus NX. I treated the back wall , outer door skin , inner door skin ,and thin layer of dense foam behind the door card. Night and day difference. Don’t do audio for a living . Don’t have measurable data to post. But I do work in a lexus dealership and for the occasional noise complaint we use an approved sound mike to locate ,and mlv squares and closed density self adhesive foam. And just my 2 cents , not everyone wants to buy a different car for a toy. Love my 20 yr old truck. Only like the lexus


----------



## FordEscape (Nov 23, 2014)

*I can't: Prove you wrong!"*

1. I drive a 2014 Ford Escape, not known to be a particularly quiet car.

2. I did the chore of 'full cabin surround' CLD+CCF+MLV, pretty much 'by the book' per SDS How-To guidance (though with Dynamat Extreme and TMS 1#/SF MLV; I did use SDS CCF de-coupler).

3. I did not do any before/after instrumented testing :blush:

4. My 'butt-dyno' perception is that road and intruding vehicle noise is _meaningfully_ reduced in all driving conditions, all else being equal. 

5. I accept that _my_ perception may well be clouded by "placebo effect" 

6. Not so sure that my passengers who rode/ride 'before and after' who commented on the improvement are subject to the same "placebo effect" - they don't have a habit of being shy to tell me when I'm full of **** :laugh:

Yeah, kicking myself for not getting any before/after cabin noise SPL measurements so I've no proof that I myself would like to see to quantify my own (mis?)perceptions 

So, this boils down to yet another undocumented, unsubstantiated, totally subjective BS interweb forum post claiming benefit of my effort and expense. Ashamed to say that, I hate those myself.

(But my life philosophy dictates that if a placebo makes you feel good, doesn't have any adverse side effects, and doesn't drive you to the poor-house ... then go for it )

YMMV :beerchug:


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: I can't: Prove you wrong!"*



FordEscape said:


> ...
> 
> 3. I did not do any before/after instrumented testing :blush:
> 
> ...


At least you know should have done the before and after, so that is progress of a sort.

Being somewhat skeptical, my life philosophy is "show me proof".

I am sure a difference was made in your truck's case, so it would have been great to have numbers. I have before measurements of 95dB - both (A) and (C)...


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Bayboy said:


> Honestly, at one point I thought Patrick's dig at deadening was a slick entry into discussing another idea of using some sort of wave guide or whatever to increase efficiency enough to negate deadening. At least that's what it seemed like at one point with one of his replies
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Nope, I'm dead serious, I see no point in sound deadening. 

It didn't work for me, and I've seen no evidence that it's worked for anyone.

A lot of people say "I deadened my car and it sounds better" but no one has demonstrated that it works.

*Look at the data I posted -* if Mercedes or Cadillac could make their cars quieter, _don't you think they would?_

There's two possibilties here:

1) Mercedes, Cadillac and BMW can't figure out how to make their cars as quiet as a Chevy Malibu

or 

2) Making your car quiet has very little to do with slapping sheets of asphalt onto the sheet metal. It involves reducing tire noise, reducing engine noise, and sealing the cabin. The reason that a BMW M5 is significantly noisier than a Honda Accord is because BMW understands that the people who buy M5s are more concerned with horsepower than road noise.



TLDR: If you want a quiet car, buy a quiet car. Sound deadening won't make your car quieter.


----------



## FordEscape (Nov 23, 2014)

Patrick Bateman said:


> ....
> *Look at the data I posted -* if Mercedes or Cadillac could make their cars quieter, _don't you think they would?_
> 
> There's two possibilties here:
> ...


Respectfully, I think another "or" you're missing is:

3) A manufacturer's decisions regarding NVH reduction are based on a complex set of factors and compromises; when comparing NVH outcomes between any two vehicles it might be fair to acknowledge that the difference in measured outcomes may be due to conscious decisions and priority setting differences rather than a technical inability to achieve 'better' NVH outcomes in either case.

As an aside, I don't see any meaningful relationship between OEM noise performance data and any conclusions that might be drawn about the benefit, or lack thereof, achieved by added DIY acoustic treatments of a given vehicle.

>>>>

Continuing respectfully ....

IMHO you've not shown any "proof" for your implicitly blanket assertion that "Sound deadening is a waste of time and money". You have cited a few instances where a specific acoustic treatment effort has not yielded certain types of acoustic benefit and you've cited differences in absolute noise measurement values between OEM vehicles; IMHO neither is proof of the assertion you posit as it relates to potential benefit of added acoustic treatment efforts of the sort meaningful to DIYers in the context of this forum's member interests.

IMHO the proof, or contradiction, of the implicitly blanket assertion you posit requires extensive controlled before/after testing of a variety of vehicles in a variety conditions with a variety of acoustic treatment efforts. I've not seen that, you've not posted that, I'd welcome disclosure of such a study if it exists.

I _suspect_ that the outcome of such a study would demonstrate, among other things

The _absolute values_ of noise measurement in any given vehicle are to some extent dependent on vehicle characteristics which are independent of affect by added acoustic treatments.
Within any given vehicle the _relative improvement_ in noise reduction will vary depending on the specific acoustic treatments applied.
Between any two vehicles the _relative improvement_ in noise reduction achieved by a set of given acoustic treatment efforts will vary.
And, if I'm correct in my suspicion that _relative improvement_ will vary between the study cases, there will still be _subjective_ judgments remaining with regard to the "waste of time and money" aspect of the debate (though metrics along the lines of dB reduction per dollar-hour invested might be possible to facilitate that discussion).

In summary

To posit "Sound deadening is a waste of time and money" as a resolution (subject) for debate (scientific proof) is perfectly valid.
A conclusion that the assertion as stated is supported (proof has been demonstrated) based on evidence presented in this thread is erroneous (without basis).
I'll wager that if a well-constructed study of the posited assertion were undertaken the outcome would *not* support the resolution as stated - the outcomes would vary depending on the case circumstances, thereby _disproving_ the _blanket_ assertion you posit.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

and there it is...


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Mad Scientist said:


> There seems to be a fair amount of confusion regarding the primary purpose of traditional CLD as it relates to car audio. Not to overly simplify, but the primary - and i should stress this - primary purpose of CLD is to alter the resonant frequency of the panel you are putting the CLD on. It's not intended to lower the cabin noise level, and if you are only using CLD as a means of sound deadening to lower cabin noise, then yes, you are wasting time and money.
> 
> However, having stated the above, if you have body panels which have vibration issues, and the panels themselves are creating noise, then CLD will help to mitigate that specific problem.
> 
> ...


Ideally, I would like a quieter car. I made the mistake of purchasing a CUV, which is fundamentally noisier than a sedan because it has no trunk.

CLD won't help me achieve that goal.

Also CLD doesn't RAISE the resonant frequency, it LOWERS it.










You can see that in this measurement that skizer linked too. The application of damping to this panel has lowered the resonant frequency of the panel.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Nope, I'm dead serious, I see no point in sound deadening.
> 
> It didn't work for me, and I've seen no evidence that it's worked for anyone.
> 
> ...


PB, herein lies the root of this senseless disagreement.

NO ONE here is saying that slapping on sheets of asphalt will make a car any quieter. And if using asphalt products is your sole experience of sound deadening, then it is not wonder that you are making this statement.

However, using properly applied layers of a butyl rubber based CLD with an insyaltuing layer of CCF and then a layer of MLV does in fact quiet the interior of a vehicle substantially.

ANd,, as you say, whether or not a car manufacturer chooses to do so is of course up to their design goals for that vehicle.... one of which is CAF efficiency rules which might preclude the use of a product that weighs in at 1#/SF .


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

didnt read all the comments, but from my own expereince. CLD does help on the doors ands large metal panels to reduce or eliminate vibrations caused by low freq. having a pair of beefy 8" in the doors of tacoma, the CLD did wonders to keep them from resonating.

What the benefit is for going the whole monte with all the other sound proofing, I dont know. have never done it. seems to be more pain than its worth.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

FordEscape said:


> [*]I'll wager that if a well-constructed study of the posited assertion were undertaken the outcome would *not* support the resolution as stated - the outcomes would vary depending on the case circumstances, thereby _disproving_ the _blanket_ assertion you posit.
> [/LIST]


In my experience, sound deadening a car doesn't make the car quieter.

In 25 years of doing this, I've heard hundreds of people say that "they made their car quieter."

Never even once have I seen measured evidence of this. 

If someone can prove me wrong, I'm all ears, because I'd like a quieter car too.

I will likely just purchase different tires, because there's tons of data proving that different tires can make your car quieter.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

seafish said:


> PB, herein lies the root of this senseless disagreement.
> 
> NO ONE here is saying that slapping on sheets of asphalt will make a car any quieter. And if using asphalt products is your sole experience of sound deadening, then it is not wonder that you are making this statement.
> 
> ...


I live in one of those goofy houses in California where my neighbor is so close, I can hear him turn on the shower.

If I wanted to isolate that noise, would I rip out the drywall and apply CLD to it?

Of course not. I'd get new windows. The windows of the home are what's transmitting the sound, not the walls.

Manufacturers do the same thing; the glass on a Lexus is thicker than the glass on a Toyota and it's dual pane.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Did I miss where you've stated exactly what material(s) you used? Not concerned with brand because we all have said that CLD alone only tackles one issue. So did I overlook where that was stated or are you avoiding the question?

Car manufacturers use very little to deaden. Ive seen it in a few cars and it was strategically placed. No one here is arguing that and I don't think most here subscribe to 100% coverage of CLD, so can we please move on from that point?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## pjhabit (Aug 12, 2008)




----------



## FordEscape (Nov 23, 2014)

Patrick Bateman said:


> In my experience, sound deadening a car doesn't make the car quieter.


May I ask if your personal experience includes applying the _full_ CLD+CCF+MLV treatment along the lines suggested by SDS and others?



Patrick Bateman said:


> In 25 years of doing this, I've heard hundreds of people say that "they made their car quieter."
> 
> Never even once have I seen measured evidence of this.


Fair enough, but lack of measured evidence is not evidence of lack of benefit.



Patrick Bateman said:


> I will likely just purchase different tires, because there's tons of data proving that different tires can make your car quieter.


No argument there, good luck finding specific tires that meet your specific objectives.


----------



## drop1 (Jul 26, 2015)

I don't go crazy with mine. I do the doors enough to make them sound like boxes and kill any hint of resonance that I can actually hear and seek out rattles with a vengeance .

2 10s on 1200 watts , frog gbs in the doors on 300 watts per side and ZERO rattles.


----------



## CAudio (Aug 29, 2016)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Basically what the title says. Sound deadening is pointless.
> 
> Forked from here:
> 
> ...





I would argue you used the wrong materials and wrong approach. Substantial improvements can be made only if you use a multi-material approach with CLD, plus acoustic absorbers, plus acoustic barriers.


----------



## CBS13WRX (Mar 5, 2013)

Patrick Bateman said:


> I live in one of those goofy houses in California where my neighbor is so close, I can hear him turn on the shower.
> 
> If I wanted to isolate that noise, would I rip out the drywall and apply CLD to it?
> 
> ...



For your drywall, yes you could rip it out and and apply strips of MLV once that is installed you could have the drywall reinstalled above it and you can be ensured a sound-secure structure! But no you would not use CLD because that is not what it does and drywall would have very little if not any resonance. CLD is part of a system for sound deadening to be used in conjunction with CCF and MLV. Just like your dywall is part of a system for a wall. You don't build a wall with drywall ALONE to get the desired results, you need the other components in order to acheive the desired results.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Patrick Bateman said:


> In my experience, sound deadening a car doesn't make the car quieter.
> 
> In 25 years of doing this, I've heard hundreds of people say that "they made their car quieter."
> 
> ...


John, at this point you're either having a go at us or being deliberately obtuse. (We all know you're more intelligent than this.) 
Pretty much everyone on this thread (and the one before) has been specific about what materials are being used and how. Everyone, except you. You continue to use the generic term of "sound deadening." That does no one any good. And at one point you mentioned the use of an asphalt based product. Also, not good. 

So, rather than throwing up cobbled together "data points" that have varying levels of relevance to the topic at hand and saying, "prove me wrong," why don't YOU get specific about what products you've used and how they failed to meet your expectations. 

Oh and...
http://memecrunch.com/meme/9LUU5/****show/image.gif


----------



## CAudio (Aug 29, 2016)

This is the problem with car audio. Too many folks fail to research what to do. Thus, science and engineering are not applied to solutions frequently enough.


----------



## Second Skin (Aug 5, 2010)

Patrick Bateman said:


> If I wanted to isolate that noise, would I rip out the drywall and apply CLD to it?
> 
> Of course not. I'd get new windows. The windows of the home are what's transmitting the sound, not the walls.


Of course not, why on earth would anyone apply a butyl vibration dampener to drywall??? 

But MLV (the proper material for that type of issue) is used daily in between or behind drywall in construction of Dr's Offices, Elevator Shafts, Sound Studios, and many more areas to block out sound issues...you enjoy the benefit of these products all around you every day and you don't even know they are there. Here's just one example:


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

Patrick Bateman said:


> In my experience, sound deadening a car doesn't make the car quieter.


Based on your posts in this thread I can see why you’ve failed to see the benefit but your apparent lack of knowledge on the subject is likely the cause of your lack of success.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

Second Skin said:


> Of course not, why on earth would anyone apply a butyl vibration dampener to drywall???


You are correct about the use of MLV for constructing quieter walls> that being said, there ARE also construction adhesives for drywall that effectively turn the drywall into a constrained layer dampener (CLD) as it is attached to the studs. 

There are also sound isolation building techniques involving fastening drywall on the same wall to two separate stud systems so that the noise and vibration is not passed directly through the wall from one side to the other. The ONLY point of contact between the studs, and thus between the two sides of the drywall, in effect making this technique analogous to using CCF.

All I am saying in this post is that by coupling these techniques with the MLV layer that you mentioned above, one can achieve extremely quiet adjacent rooms, more so then simply using dual pane or laminated glass in the windows that PB is suggesting is the only way to go.


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

I performed the following test with my Audi a few years ago:



Step 1. Drive car on new asphalt highway at 75 mph and measure road noise with dB meter. Result, approx 85 dB with peaks hitting almost 90.

Step 2. Install 2 layers of CCF + MLV on the floor of the car, and 1 layer of Luxury Liner Pro inside the doors.

Step 3. Drive on the same exact 1 mile stretch of highway with the same dB meter, at 75 mph. Result, road noise was 65-69 dB.



I was certainly convinced that the MLV + CCF was worth the effort.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

subterFUSE said:


> I performed the following test with my Audi a few years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL that doesn't count. You have to use strictly CLD for the test. Using viable materials kills the argument. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

seafish said:


> You are correct about the use of MLV for constructing quieter walls> that being said, there ARE also construction adhesives for drywall that effectively turn the drywall into a constrained layer dampener (CLD) as it is attached to the studs.
> 
> There are also sound isolation building techniques involving fastening drywall on the same wall to two separate stud systems so that the noise and vibration is not passed directly through the wall from one side to the other. The ONLY point of contact between the studs, and thus between the two sides of the drywall, in effect making this technique analogous to using CCF.
> 
> All I am saying in this post is that by coupling these techniques with the MLV layer that you mentioned above, one can achieve extremely quiet adjacent rooms, more so then simply using dual pane or laminated glass in the windows that PB is suggesting is the only way to go.


Yep. We use both of these techniques all the time for our projects. (I am a project manager at an architectural firm.) On many of our remodel projects, an additional layer of 5/8" drywall over an existing layer with green glue in between has proven effective for most needs. We use the same technique on new construction as well. 

When more is required, we'll do the staggered stud technique where the only objects connecting one side to the other are the top and bottom plates. And those are either anchored to the floor, or tied into a ceiling/roof system that further reduce any sound transmission from one side to the other.


----------



## Second Skin (Aug 5, 2010)

subterFUSE said:


> I performed the following test with my Audi a few years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very nice results..if you took pictures or want to share your results, we would love to see your install in our Customer Gallery


----------



## Gump_Runner (Aug 2, 2014)

In my experience the difference between the cheap stuff and expensive stuff is negligible. Like most things in life it's all about the money. The person marketing sound deadening products wants you to spend, spend, spend and has volumes of random information to aid them in doing just that.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

Gump_Runner said:


> In my experience the difference between the cheap stuff and expensive stuff is negligible. Like most things in life it's all about the money. The person marketing sound deadening products wants you to spend, spend, spend and has volumes of random information to aid them in doing just that.


So you are still using rolls of Peel n' Seal like the OP in your car to save money??


----------



## Gump_Runner (Aug 2, 2014)

seafish said:


> So you are still using rolls of Peel n' Seal like the OP in your car to save money??


Nope been using "sound deadening" materials from Amazon and Ebay.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

Gump_Runner said:


> In my experience the difference between the cheap stuff and expensive stuff is negligible. Like most things in life it's all about the money. The person marketing sound deadening products wants you to spend, spend, spend and has volumes of random information to aid them in doing just that.


This is true to a point. Just like buying "car audio" power wire vs welding cable

Sent from my LG-LS998 using Tapatalk


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

subterFUSE said:


> I performed the following test with my Audi a few years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol, did you do the first test with all the windows down?

Car and Driver measured an Audi RS5 and it's 70dBa at 70mph. If you knocked that down to 68-69dB, that would be consistent with the only measured data I've ever seen on this subject, which was Car Stereo Review's comparison of a treated and untreated Camaro.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Treated in what way?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Bayboy said:


> Treated in what way?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## EvAnA (Aug 20, 2012)

subterFUSE said:


> I performed the following test with my Audi a few years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Obviously that data won't be good enough because you didn't measure outside temperature, run an anemometer out of your behind to measure and account for wind speed/noise, washed your car to be dust free pre-test, or checked what phase the moon was in.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

EvAnA said:


> Obviously that data won't be good enough because you didn't measure outside temperature, run an anemometer out of your behind to measure and account for wind speed/noise, washed your car to be dust free pre-test, or checked what phase the moon was in.


We've made it to 95 posts. Skizer and I are the only people who've posted data.

Can anyone else provide data please?

Even I'm surprised by this; people have been trying to make their cars quieter for nearly 30 years now and nobody has bothered to measure whether it made a difference?

I'm not counting subterfuse's post, because obviously a stock Audi isn't 85dba at 75mph. That's insanely loud. You'd have to saw the roof off an Audi to get to 85dba at 75mph.


----------



## Gump_Runner (Aug 2, 2014)

EvAnA said:


> Obviously that data won't be good enough because you didn't measure outside temperature, run an anemometer out of your behind to measure and account for wind speed/noise, washed your car to be dust free pre-test, or checked what phase the moon was in.


The anemometer is imperative no doubt.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Yes, data would be nice to see, but like I've stated before, most don't think about testing before & after and probably wouldn't do it in stages to see the effect of each layer. It's a lot of work to tear out the interior and most are trying to get the car back together ASAP. Everone knows this, so sure it makes it easy to state such a case. Can't blame you in asking for proof because it does seem sketchy to do such work without proof that it isn't placebic. 


Perhaps if someone knows of or can contact this Ryan from Venice CA in one of Don's testimonials to prove it isn't something that Don wrote up himself and also provide the data.


"Just wanted to drop you a note and thank you for your website info and materials. I received the items and finally got around to doing the install on my 2014 scion FR-S.

I did full install of doors, trunk bed, and interior cabin. Total install time about 40 hours. About 2 days for doors as I got the hang of it. Half day for the trunk. And a couple days for cabin - most of that was pulling the interior apart and putting it together again after layering the CLD Tiles, Hydrophobic Melamine Foam, CCF, and MLV.

I have a TRD cat back. Not super loud. But coupled with traffic and road noise the cabin was overwhelming. Couldn't hear radio, hold a conversation, etc. I did some sound measurements before and after.



Pre-install	Post install
Engine idle	65-70 dB	35-40 dB
Highway	110 dB	70-75 dB
Acceleration peak	110+ dB	80 dB
Amazing difference. I can hear the radio now without cranking it up. Friend asked if I installed a new sound system.

Ryan's Data

Ryan - Venice, CA"


Actual link

https://www.sounddeadenershowdown.com/testimonials


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Now this thread is really getting fun!

Thank you Bayboy for the link, that is fantastic. In the link, Ryan from Venice claims that his car was 110dB before he treated it, and treatment reduced that to 70-75dB.

To put that in perspective, here are some things that are 100dB:


Jet take-off (at 305 meters)
 use of outboard motor
 power lawn mower
 motorcycle
 farm tractor
 garbage truck
 jackhammer

Yes, you read that right: *Ryan's car was 10X louder than a jackhammer before he treated it.*

Comparitive Examples of Noise Levels | Industrial Noise Control


This is one of those things we take for granted - our hearing is REALLY bad at ultra high frequencies, and ultra low frequencies. So Ryan probably guesstimated how loud his car was, and was way way off, because he probably based it on how loud he perceives his sub to be.

A 110dB subwoofer is loud, but not deafening. 110dB in the midrange, that's really REALLY loud. Like, dangerously loud.

That's why I joked that Subterfuse would have to saw the top off his car to hit 85dB.

Here are some things that are 80dB:


 dishwasher
 average factory
 freight train (at 15 meters).
 propeller plane flyover at 1000 ft (88 dB)
 diesel truck 40 mph at 50 ft (84 dB)
 garbage disposal (80 dB).

If the interior of your car sounds as loud as a garbage disposal, you definitely need to do something about that lol


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Now this thread is really getting fun!
> 
> Thank you Bayboy for the link, that is fantastic. In the link, Ryan from Venice claims that his car was 110dB before he treated it, and treatment reduced that to 70-75dB.
> 
> ...


I see your point in the exaggeration, but what about his graph?


----------



## bassace (Oct 31, 2011)

This is intentional trolling. OP does not mention CCF+MLV. No pictures of installation. Just trolling and ignoring sensible posts. lol.


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Patrick Bateman said:


> We've made it to 95 posts. Skizer and I are the only people who've posted data.


Masterful troll job on this thread you American psycho.

However, I'm a bit disappointed that most of the responses have been ad hominem attacks and condescension. I know that the way this was posted was designed to aggravate people into a discussion, but I would have preferred more data-backed discourse. For example: "Hey Patrick, as you can clearly see in the graphs, you're an idiot." Versus: "You're an idiot". :laugh: 



Patrick Bateman said:


> Can anyone else provide data please?


I was going to do this last night at 3am, but was too busy PM'ing about midranges. 

Let's see what we can do here. I'm not actually going to make an argument about whether or not it's actually a waste of time and money. I'll introduce a few pieces of data of varying credibility and make a short impression of what it might mean.

*Hypothesis*: 

_Sound deadening is useful in an automotive application by: 

1. Lowering the penetration of outside noise into the listening area through:
* Reduction of panel resonances.
* Absorption of outside noise.

2. Lowering sympathetic resonance of panels induced by the audio system itself._


*If true, we should see*:

- Lowered road noise in vehicles after sound treatment.
- Note: the actual amount of noise reduced will be dependant on both the frequency and amplitude of the road noise.

- Increased SPL of stereo systems which are currently losing acoustic energy into resonating panels.

- Increased fidelity in the frequency ranges where road noise is prevalent, due to the reduction of said road noise.


*Evidence:*

Exhibit 1 - Youtube Landcruiser Install:

Before Deadening:https://youtu.be/_i7liM6Y7Hc?t=2m48s
After Roof and Floor: https://youtu.be/_i7liM6Y7Hc?t=3m52s
Full deadening: https://youtu.be/_i7liM6Y7Hc?t=5m43s

*Results: Approximately 6-7db reduction of road noise.*
Notes: This seems to have been a CLD primary install, with some CCF foam (don't think this is MLV).

Interpretation: This is a good result. About 2.2x reduction in acoustic energy and it should sound 1.2x quieter.


Exhibit 2 - Youtube Diesel Truck Install:

Before Deadening:https://youtu.be/OYtd0kp1UXQ?t=2m51s
Full deadening: https://youtu.be/IabdoDWlP1k?t=1m47s

*Results: Approximately 3.3db reduction of road noise.*
Notes: This seems to have used Second Skin basic CLD panels, and RAAM Mat Ensulite CCF. He also added some organic fiber insulation salvaged from other cars. No MLV, AFIK.

Interpretation: Not as good of a result, but it's a result. However I think it's interesting that the noise peaks during engine shifting were reduced by 5-8db (difficult to judge exactly from the graph). This is important to note and suggests that the resting road noise that's being attinuated by an average 3.3 db might not be at frequencies handled best by the insulation, while the frequencies introduce by the engine revving and shifting seem to have been handled much better.


Exhibit 3 - Youtube - Crutchfield:

Before / After: https://youtu.be/0u3j40DS4fM?t=3m5s
*Results: 9 - 16db of noise reduction*
Interpretation: Lol. Why U lie crutchfield? 


*Conclusions so far*

There is evidence to suggest that sound deadening does reduce noise. This matches up with subjective accounts of people performing this on their cars and noticing an improvement.

I don't have any evidence to support the idea that there may be increased fidelity in the frequency ranges where road noise is prevalent. I did find a video suggesting that the SPL of systems is increased with sound deadening, but I found the testing methods haggard and didn't feel it was worth including in this discussion.

I'm disappointed not to have found any empirically tested installations of the recommended CLD / CCF / MLV + Melamine or Other Foam insulation. I'd have expected Second Skin or others to have more scientifically tested vehicle installs that they can reference to customers wondering "if it is worth it".

The discussion continues...


----------



## Kiwi01 (Jul 2, 2016)

So many post and still no clarification.

I’m not even sure of the argument.

CLD = not sound deadening in terms of removing outside noise and everyone here seems to agree with that.

Doing something for 25 years does not equate to doing something well. If you had been trying to sound deaden using small bells then it does not matter if you did it once or 1000 time it still wouldn’t work. What have you used or seen used that did not work?

A BMW SUV with a massive engine and big tyres is quieter than a medium sedan. No argument there but and orange is typically more orange than an apple. What is your point? Is a BMW SUV with CLD/CCF and MLV quieter than one without it? Maybe they did spend effort and the BMW would be way louder if they had not? Maybe the sorts of people who want zero noise don’t buy turbo V8s with massive tyres.....too many inconsistencies in the argument for it to hold any relevance.

Thicker glass or low grip tyres will reduce noise but that does not = CLD/CCF/MLV does not also reduce noise.

If the noise from your neighbours shower seems to come from the window......stop standing by their bathroom window when they are showering ?

Do you believe that CLD does not dampen panels moving/altering the resonant freq?

Or do you think CCF does not decouple the MLV?

Or do you think MLV cannot reduce sound transmission?

Or do you think the combo does not work together?


----------



## Lou Frasier2 (Jul 17, 2012)

bassace said:


> This is intentional trolling. OP does not mention CCF+MLV. No pictures of installation. Just trolling and ignoring sensible posts. lol.


as with a number of posts i have read in here,atleast he is trying to make people think,atleast i see it that way


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Lou Frasier2 said:


> as with a number of posts i have read in here,atleast he is trying to make people think,atleast i see it that way



That's how I'm starting to see it. We measure for everything else, why not the actual change or claims of improvement for such work?


----------



## 1fishman (Dec 22, 2012)

Should a test for road noise reduction even need to be done on the road? 

In other words wouldn't just be easier/better to use audio recording white noise or ... and just play back in the wheel well area(via speaker/s) and do all your testing in the controlled garage.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

Bayboy said:


> I see your point in the exaggeration, but what about his graph?


I call bs on that 33.6db number. This is in the quietest room in my place with with everything in the house turned off and no audible outside noise.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

People keep thinking that I'm trolling the board, but I'm not.

A little bit of background:

*I'm insanely cheap.* I see a lot of people spending $400 on subwoofers and $1000 on amplifiers and I just can't comprehend that. My favorite tweeter is $19, I've been using the same $50 amplifier for half a decade and I drive a Mazda.

The thing that REALLY soured me on trying to quiet my car wasn't that it didn't work, *it was that it destroyed the resale value.* I literally couldn't give my car away; I had an Accord with 160,000 miles on the odometer and I tried to give it away to a series of charities and they wouldn't take it because the interior was so trashed. I'd removed all the body panels to apply sound deadener, half of them didn't re-attach properly, and the roof panel sagged.

The car just completely looked like ****. It was a disgrace. (Ran great though!)

So, my experience is probably rather unusual. Most of the people who've tried to deaden their cars probably applied a few sheets of Dynamat to the doors and called it a day. I went batshit-crazy, removed EVERYTHING, and couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together.

BTW, this isn't the first time I destroyed a car. Back in the 90s I was on a hot date and the girl touched a metal part of my car and got electrocuted. Luckily she lived. We're married now. Thank God she humored me and my weird obsessions.

That was ANOTHER car that I tried to quiet down, that one didn't work either.


----------



## FordEscape (Nov 23, 2014)

Well, that certainly gives useful context to your personal experience and biases.

Can't speculate on the 'why' behind your failed installation efforts but surely you realize that many many folks here (myself included) have managed to do full-tilt, totally gut the interior, acoustic treatments _without_ trashing their vehicles and ending with a totally OEM appearing interior that maintained that 'as original' appearance for many thousands of miles. There's tons of build-threads as evidence ("proof", if you will, at least of the appearance of the finished work).

It's pretty consistently mentioned that attention to _detail_ is critical to success, _especially_ when talking MLV barrier installation. One can't help but speculate that if the end result of the effort _looked_ like trash it probably had underlying problems that made it _perform_ like trash, and therefore isn't a good basis for judging the benefits of a well-implemented effort.

And you _still_ keep referring only to "sound deadener" which at best is only one piece of the total noise abatement equation by any measure. 

I hope you didn't hurt yourself jumping to the gravely flawed conclusion that is the premise of your OP based on now clearly revealed inadequate experience.


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Patrick Bateman said:


> People keep thinking that I'm trolling the board, but I'm not.


I have no doubts you’re being genuine. I’m more taking about how you decided to open up with the post that you did rather than the post above which frames your statement in a reasonable way. I figured you were intentionally being provocative to create conversation (which worked).


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

*Re: &amp;quot;Sound deadening is a waste of time and money; Prove me wrong!&amp;quot;*

Lol. So bassically... 

"I put a ton of effort in to sound deaden/proof(?) My car and it doesnt work because I didn't have the ability to piece together my own mess"

makes sense 

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lou Frasier2 (Jul 17, 2012)

1fishman said:


> Should a test for road noise reduction even need to be done on the road?
> 
> In other words wouldn't just be easier/better to use audio recording white noise or ... and just play back in the wheel well area(via speaker/s) and do all your testing in the controlled garage.


for me i think it would be better in the real world environment, every day situations


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

At this point, I guess I should post something constructive.

So let me explain why it's so damned hard to make your car quieter.










Here's what an ideal room would look like, if you were trying to make it absolutely quiet. (The front part is cutaway, to illustrate the listener inside a perfectly isolated room.)

In this illustration, the SPL level outside of the room is 87dB. *The level inside the room is zero dB.* Here's how the outside sound is attenuated 100%:

1) there is a room within a room

2) the inner room is 100% isolated from the outer room

3) there's a vacuum between the inner room and the outer room

4) the walls of the two rooms are infinitely rigid

The way that this works, is that the sound OUTSIDE the room hits the outer wall of this "room within a room", but it isn't transmitted into the room because the vacuum between the two walls prevents transmission. (Remember, the sound we hear in a stereo/concert/road/jack hammer/theater/etc is transmitted via air. Remove the air, there's no transmission.)









That's how they do things in expensive home theaters and studios. Basically you have two walls, *the walls don't touch each other*, and the sound from outside can't transmit into the wall inside.



BTW, one of the easiest ways to visualize this phenomenon is to go and buy a Thermos. The good ones cost $30 and they have a vacuum seal between the inner and outer layers. You can put ice cubes in a thermos on Monday and they'll still be frozen on Tuesday.

The 'room within a room' idea works the same way. The inner room is isolated from the outer room.

In the car and in our home theaters, *it's very difficult to achieve this.*









Due to the difficulty, typical "CLD" panels for the home theater and the car have a rigid outer skin and a inner skin designed to damp transmission from the outside to the inside.

Same idea as a 'room within a room', but more practical. It's difficult to achieve a vacuum in your car's door panel.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Have you ever noticed that the sound level in your car get's REALLY loud when you crack a window?

Let me illustrate why that is...










Here's our room from post #113, but in this illustration, *it's no longer a "room within a room."* In this illustration, the top half of the room is attenuating the sound by 10dB, while the bottom half is attenuating the sound by 20dB.

Combined, at the driver's position, *the overall level is 77.4dB*

THAT'S the thing that's so maddening about trying to quiet down your car or quiet down your living room or quiet down your home theater:

*The loudest sound will dominate everything.*

You may have experienced this firsthand. For instance, I live next to a canyon, I can literally hear a pin drop in the middle of the night. But every damn morning I'm woken up by the sound of my neighbor's sprinklers. Sprinklers aren't loud; about 70dB. But my neighborhood is really REALLY quiet. So the sound of 70dB sprinklers is deafening when compared to the ambient level, which is about 50dB.

We run into the same problem when trying to make our cars quieter:

If we deaden the metal to a point that we can attenuate the incoming sound by 20dB or more, we're not going to know it, because the greenhouse of the car will still let sound in.

IE, even if you make the metal panels of the car 100% impervious to the sound outside the car, the glass will let in plenty of sound.

BTW, this is also the reason that swapping out your tires gives so much 'bang for the buck.' If your tires are generating 85dB in SPL and you can knock that down to 82dB, the difference will be unmistakable - because the glass and the body panels can only attenuate a fraction of the sound.

This is also why hybrid and electric cars are so darn quiet... Their engines are nearly silent when the internal combustion engine isn't running.



Having said all that, I think Erin and Hanatsu clued us into something that could make a big difference...


----------



## vet883 (Feb 12, 2017)

Agreed, glass is a good transmitter of sound waves. That’s why law enforcement aims parabolic dish listening equipment at house and apartment windows. Can hear / record clear as day from two blocks away. And you’re right luxury cars use thicker glass but I had the carpet out of a RX350 a while back. Most of the floor front to back is layered in butyl sound deadener painted to match and the qtr panels have randomly placed tiles, . Lastly M3 and RCF have similar powers and performance , one is acoustically tunes to enhance the thrill, the other is acoustically tuned to be quieter,Good point though didn’t see the angle you were coming from.


----------



## CAudio (Aug 29, 2016)

The interior of the new S-Class is quieter than a library at 75 MPH.
To the original poster...while everyone starts somewhere, and I applaud you for trying, your attention to detail is horrible as are your basic arts and crafts skills. If you can't get the panel back on that means you did it wrong. You need to measure and assess as you go...and test fit. Hard to imagine you would have left the vehicle like this. But no different from what 95% of car audio shops would have done...most are complete hacks.


----------



## Kiwi01 (Jul 2, 2016)

In your second example without the room inside a room the outside noise is still reduced. By definition the sound deadening in that example, while not as good as the first example, still “worked”.

Given your example/experince I get the “prove it” comment, its no different than asking to see a dyno test for a 30000w claim on a boss amp with a 30a fuse.

Would the statement then not be better phrased as “Sound deadening does not make enough of a difference to warrant the time, expense, effort or opportunity cost”.

Sound deadening would still need definition as would “enough of a difference”.

So “A layered CLD/CCF/MLV application, installed well cannot reduce the incoming sound/noise by Xdb in a vehicle without spending a disproportionate amount of time, effort and finance when considered in relation to the cost of the other stereo components or without destroying the value of the vehicle.

But then this is an interest/hobby. One persons definition of a measurable drop in noise is anothers waste of time/money. Not to mention different budgets etc.


----------



## CAudio (Aug 29, 2016)

I think if the installation of sound reduction materials is done tastefully and masterfully, it should not hinder resale value. If a hack did it and damaged interior panels in the process and caused a sagging headliner and bulging door panels...well, you are a hack and you reap what you sow.


----------



## bassace (Oct 31, 2011)

Sure the glass will let in sound, but using something like melamine foam to absorb the sound, will attenuate resonances, and reduce the duration of a disturbance signal. 

Also, all is not lost if your amplitude is reduced from 83 -> 81db. It would be best to compare the reduction by FFT analysis to see the "total" reduction over the bandwidth. I wouldn't mind if my internal cabin noise was at 130db of noise.... at 150kHz, I would never hear it! Each frequency is going to be heard differently. 


Perhaps, try to surround yourself in melamine or polyurethane foam and listen to the same sprinkler. It may become a bit more bearable or not, I wonder if it would make an impact. There is just a "feeling" you get around materials that absorb sound well. Like being near a closet of clothes for ex.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

Patrick Bateman said:


> lol, did you do the first test with all the windows down?
> 
> Car and Driver measured an Audi RS5 and it's 70dBa at 70mph. If you knocked that down to 68-69dB,
> that would be consistent with the only measured data I've ever seen on this subject, which was
> Car Stereo Review's comparison of a treated and untreated Camaro.


Sorry in advance. This is going to be a LONG-WINDED post much like the majority of "PB's" car audio "experiment" posts. 

LOL, "PB", maybe you're not factoring in that in these types of tests, the actual *Road Surface* that was used for the particular test can have a HUGE impact on the outcome...in addition to the actual brand/model/size of the tires, and of course the age or tread wear of those tires at the time of the test. Road surfaces can vary drastically.

I'm sure that Mr. Kiser didn't drive the same stretch of road as the other tests, and perhaps he has installed aftermarket exhaust or other performance products in his Audi that make the two cars very different? But just because it happens to be the "same car" in the tests doesn't make it an apples-to-apples comparison. 


And all it takes is a quick Google search of "Automotive NVH" to find studies and tests on the effectiveness of various "Sound Deadening" products and techniques.


I didn't really want to dig on your fabrication or installation skills, but I have to say that IMO the photos that you've posted of _every_ one of your DIY projects here have been a hot mess of kindergartner's-level art project using a random conglomeration of generic, often less than ideal construction materials, and somewhat poor application/installation of those materials.

All of your car audio "builds" or "experiments" look half-assed and you never "take it all the way" because it's always just a temporary experiment. I'm not saying that looks are everything when it comes to achieving the technical functionality of mechanical and acoustic systems, but...just sayin'. 

So sorry man, I'm really not surprised that all of your own DIY Sound Deadening "projects" failed to produce any meaningful results after seeing how you've gone about your other DIY car audio projects. Call me an a-hole if you will, but FWIW I call it as I see it.


And exactly what sound deadening products were used in the Car Stereo Review Camaro test, and where & how were they installed? Link to article?

You also haven't answered exactly what products YOU have used for your many years of DIY SD projects, and how those products were implemented???

I'm not going to say exactly how many vehicles I've owned and done my own DIY Sound Deadening on, but it is a substantial number, and I truly wouldn't waste my time or money if I didn't continue to experience real, meaningful, positive results.

Plus, we have to realize that this is a "hobby" for a lot of people, and any type of work we personally deem worthwhile is an enjoyable outlay of effort and time spent, as I'm sure you also enjoy the time you spend on all of your crazy acoustic experiments.

My SD projects have been on nearly every type & quality of vehicle, from inexpensive 1980's Subaru's and a tin can early Honda Civic wagon, to a 1990's Ford Aerostar van, mid-2000's Acura Legend & Audi Allroad wagon, 2000+ Mercedes S class sedans, a few pickup trucks including a 2001 Chevy Silverado, and even a 1932 Ford Model B pickup, along with my 2007+ GMC/Isuzu W4500 Diesel tilt cab grip truck fleet...and just about everything in between.

As Skizer's said, Proper Sound Deadening installation is a true PITA. And yes, there are limitations depending on the design and construction of each vehicle. But there is absolutely no way to make a Blanket Statement regarding the effectiveness of DIY Sound Deadening.


As you've correctly stated, most modern luxury-type vehicles do tend to have much better design and construction IRT better implementation and use of materials and systems to address NVH.

But by your statement, OEM manufacturers wouldn't use any sound deadening products at all, even on inexpensive models. But of course they do. And many of those products are similar if not identical to the high-quality DIY Sound Deadening products that are available to us today.

For the OEM luxury vehicle manufacturers it starts with quiet tires, and then most important are smooth, aerodynamic exterior surfaces and smooth, gapless exterior transitions between all window glass, body panels, and trim. One area that still creates a fair bit of wind noise are the side view mirrors. 

The actual glass throughout the vehicle is usually thicker all around, and there are at least one or more lamination layers within the glass with special decoupling films between the layers. And as a side note, I don't think calling automotive glass "dual pane" is an accurate statement.

Windshield wipers are now usually tucked under the lower windshield/hood cowl area to keep them from creating additional wind noise by being exposed when not in use.

A-Pillars and all other vertical "pillars" or side towers and the lower, horizontal hollow tube frame members are filled with Lord-Fusor, DOW, or 3M two-part expanding acoustical isolation/absorbing urethane foam.

There are double or triple rubber air seals around all door openings, and better rubber seals and channels for window openings.

There is more and/or better quality OEM CLD and damping Mastics, and thicker OEM CCF foam or jute padding beneath floor carpeting, multi-layered firewall padding, and roof padding.

Body and structural sheet metal are formed to increase strength and reduce resonance and more composite materials are used now as well.

Special engine, transmission, and suspension mounting and isolation dampers are employed along with quieter engine and exhaust systems.

There are better wheel well liners and foam isolation/absorbtion blocks inside the fenders up against the front door jamb hinges. And there are of course active noise cancellation systems in some premium audio systems.

Interior trim panels have more padding and insulation behind them, and quieter, squeak-free fastening clips and joints.

Many of these areas can be improved on older, less expensive vehicles using DIY products _IF_ proper use and installation are followed.

Sure, you can't do much about thin window glass, but if you use a bit of CLD around the frame and fill the adjoining or surrounding hollow window frame areas with the proper two-part OEM expanding foam, this will greatly reduce the transmission of that energy from the windows to the rest of the vehicle.

For example, just using a bit of CLD on the A-Pillars, and across the roof framing above the windshield, and along the forward base of the dash, in addition to filling those empty/ hollow voids with Lord-Fusor or similar expanding foam, it _quite noticeably_ reduced the sound level of wind noise and of raindrops hitting my windshield and resonating within the front cabin in one of my vehicles.

In addition to the "standard" DIY Sound Deadening treatment using CLD/CCF/MLV, you can usually quite easily add additional foam rubber weather-stripping to the door jambs and surrounds to seal off air gaps and reduce wind noise infiltration. You can install quieter mufflers and exhaust systems, buy quiet tires, treat your wheel wells, etc. Not all of these are inexpensive mods, but they may be worth it to the vehicle owner if they otherwise LOVE their particular vehicle and intend to keep it for an extended period.


From my personal experience, I've achieved _markedly_ improved results in two vehicles in particular where I did extensive treatment, using what are now the basic techniques outlined at SDS, along with some of my own techniques which I've posted in other sound deadening threads here.

The first example was in a 1993 Ford Aerostar XLT Extended van. I used this vehicle extensively at the time because it could easily be configured to haul all of my photography & lighting equipment, or my full drum kit and other band member's musical instruments. But it was also excellent for my many extended camping/photography trips, in addition to transporting my large, extended family to holiday and birthday gatherings, concerts, etc.

I Did Not care for its looks At All, LOL. IMO it was the ugliest vehicle on planet earth! _BUT_, it was one of the few vehicles that could functionally do everything I needed it to, including having decent Ground Clearance and AWD for "in the wild" camping/photography excursions. Those two features are both unique in regards to "minivans". It could also easily haul Full Sheets of 4' x 8' plywood & other building products and the rear hatch would still completely close as normal.

Because this vehicle could comfortably seat up to 7 passengers it was used _at least_ 3-4 times each year on medium to long road trips to haul the grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, siblings, in-laws, nieces, nephews, etc to different family events and concerts, etc. There was always a fairly consistent group for these family gatherings and road trips.

This particular vehicle has an extensive amount of very large, flat, untreated metal body panels and doors, and an expansive metal roof. However, the hood and rear hatch liftgate are fiberglass. Particularly when it would rain it would become very loud in the cabin because of the large, untreated roof, and at highway speeds you could hear the wind buffeting around the roof rack and largish side mirrors.

On the interior of the cabin there is a ~1/4" thick plastic, semi-oval cowl cover to access the engine. The cowl cover is located under the dash in the front center floor area. This plastic cowl cover just had some thin floor carpeting on the interior, and a thin layer of aluminum heat-shield on the engine side. It allowed quite a bit of engine, exhaust, and road noise into the cabin! Another major noise contributor were the under dash firewall area and Wheel Wells. Although fairly quiet, the exhaust had a low rumble that would be non-existant in similar modern vehicles.

At the time that I started my sound deadening project on this vehicle, I had already installed fairly quiet tires for at least year prior, which IIRC were Michelin Energy MXV4+. I later installed Goodyear Tripletred Assurance tires which were also very quiet.

Before my SD treatment of this vehicle, family conversations within the large expanse of the vehicle were quite difficult and frustrating, with everyone having to always "speak up" and/or repeat themselves several times in order to be understood.

Everyone experienced this over _many_ different trips, and after just a short time of being on the road, it became somewhat tiresome to continue the conversations and everyone usually fell quiet for most of the remainder of the journey.  In the Hawaiian culture, there is an expression regarding the tradition of these family conversations when multi-generations of a family are gathered, which is called, to "talk story". Unfortunately, much of this was lost on these long family journeys in the van prior to the SD treatment. 

IIRC, I had completed the SD treatment of this vehicle in late September, and the next big family road trip was in November for Thanksgiving, traveling about 5-1/2 to 6 hours from SoCal to the Central California area of Bass Lake, just South of Yosemite National Park and East of the Bay Area.

Shortly after embarking, once we were up to cruising speed on the highway, one of my sisters (a classical guitarist who has always been overly sensitive to "noise") randomly commented on how much quieter it seemed in the van and how easily we could all carry on a normal conversation without barking back and forth at each other! Nearly everyone chimed in and agreed. I was usually designated driver for much of the trip, and I noticed that it was now far easier to hear the passengers back in the 3rd row seats!

Needless to say, we all enjoyed long, extended, relaxed conversations on that trip and seemed less fatigued upon arrival. One of our conversations was with my sister's father-in-law inquiring about what exactly I had done to achieve the quiet interior.  

No, I didn't do any before & after measurements. But IMO, I didn't need to. In addition, at that point in time, measurement equipment was not as widely available and/or as inexpensive as it is today.

One other big indicator of the improvement to me was that one day I noticed that when driving alone in the vehicle, I was consistently listening to my system (which hadn't changed at all during the SD process) at a much lower level of ~26-27 on the volume level of the Sony CDX-C910 head unit. Previously I was normally listening to the system while on the road at a volume level of 34+!

I treated the following areas in this vehicle with basically the same or a similar combination of the following products: 

• Selective but extensive Dynamat Extreme and/or RAAMmat BXT CLD. 
• 1/8" thick heavy Rubber Sheeting (didn't know about MLV yet).
• 3/8" or 1/2" thick Urethane Ensolite CCF and/or spongy Neoprene rubber CCF.
• Polyfill Stuffed into dry Voids and Cavities...some 1"-2" thick Acoustic OCF as well.
• Two-part Expanding Urethane foam sprayed into Pillars and Hollow Frame Members, and within the Sliding Side Door & Rear Hatch Door. Learned about this 2-part expanding foam early on from Movie Set Art Dept./Special FX/Model Builders.
• Aerosol Spray Rubberized Undercoating wherever possible under the vehicle.

Front to Back:

• Wheel Wells (Metal): Rubberized Undercoating Spray.
• Wheel Well Liners (Plastic): sandwich of CCF/Rubber Sheet/CCF.
• Inner Front Fender Cavities against Front Door Hinges (same as above, but rolled up like a sleeping bag & press-fit into place).
• Upper & Lower Dash Metal: CLD + Stuffed Acoustic OCF & Polyfill in voids.
• Firewall: CLD/Neoprene CCF/Rubber Sheeting as far up as possible.
• Front Doors (Inside): CLD/Rubber Sheet/Neoprene CCF.
• Front Doors (Sheet metal under door panel): CLD & Sealed Large Openings with sandwich of CLD, 3/16" Foam Core Poster Board, CLD.
• Front Door Panels: Selective CLD inside.
• Entire Floor Front to Back: CLD/Neoprene CCF/Rubber Sheeting/Factory Carpet.
• All Interior Metal Side Panels: CLD/Neoprene or Ensolite CCF/Rubber Sheeting + 1"-2" Acoustic OCF where possible.
• Vertical A/B/C Pillars: Combination of Stuffed Acoustic OCF + Expanding Spray Foam.
• Sliding Side Door: CLD/Expanding Foam in inner Cavities, Acoustic OCF around but clear of linkage areas).
• Inner Ceiling: CLD + Ensolite Foam on large panels/Expanding Foam in Cross Braces.
• Rear In-Floor Storage Compartments: CLD + Wrapped in Neoprene CCF.
• Rear Hatch Door: CLD + Some CCF on panels with Selective Expanding Spray Foam around window frame and in inner Cavities.

Yup, A LOT of work!!! I spent about a week and estimated that I added 100-125 lbs. to the vehicle! BUT, it DID make a HUGE difference! The vehicle also rode a bit smoother with the extra weight (it was based on a truck chassis) and I didn't experience a noticeable hit in average MPG.


The other vehicle where DIY Sound Deadening made a HUGE difference was in a 2001 Mini Cooper S.

Basically I used the same treatments as in the Aerostar Van, but with a bit more modern products (better CLD, MLV, & 2-part Expanding Foam). Key areas in order of importance were:

1. Wheel Wells*
2. Transmission Tunnel & Floor/Firewall
3. Rear Hatch & Rear Quarter Panels
4. Front Doors & Horrible Door Panels
5. Ceiling
6. Pillars

Some of the major inherent problems with this vehicle were the *noisy run-flat tires, the prominent/recognizable exhaust drone, and the hard/sport suspension. The tires and exhaust issues could be improved if you were willing to make those sacrifices and spend the money.

Overall, the same NVH improvements were experienced in the Mini as in the van...i.e. it was MUCH easier to hold normal conversations, and less power & volume level were required to enjoy the stereo system's clarity. My girlfriend and other friends all noticed the difference without being prompted. While sitting in the rear seats, one of my friends who is an electric guitarist and who has obvious hearing damage said, "it's a totally different car! I can actually hear what your saying, LOL!"

I completely understand that some drivers may not want to add the extra weight required to address these problems in their sport or performance vehicles. I've owned a few vehicles where this was the case as well.

Of the vehicles that I've owned, it might be obvious, but yes, I would say that the MB S-Class only needed a small bit of selective treatment as it was already pretty much tomb-like with the windows rolled up. It was mainly the OEM stereo system itself that needed real improvement.

All of the other vehicles gained varying degrees of improvement from basic DIY SD treatment as well. In every case I felt that the time and expense was worth the improvement.

Anyway, that's my experience. And with that experience I believe that you can still improve the NVH even on most modern high-end luxury vehicles, although perhaps with less sizable improvements, as the OEM has in most cases done most of the work for you. But this is always dependent on the design & cost-driven goals of the OEM in relation to its targeted customer base, and can still vary a great deal. Again, a blanket statement doesn't apply.

You can't just randomly slap some otherwise high-quality SD products haphazardly into your vehicle and expect real gains. It has to be a targeted and methodical approach, with the right combination of materials in the right places...and usually it's a Sh!t Ton of work to do it right.

In the case of DIY Sound Deadening, a half-assed approach doesn't usually result in much benefit. It seems to work best using an all-or-nothing approach. IME, there can't be any gaps in your SD "system" or the effort and expense is wasted.

As always YMMV. "PB", if you've never had _any_ positive results from using DIY sound deadening products you are doing something wrong.

I'm out. This discussion is not worth any more of my time.

Enjoy the music.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

bassace said:


> Sure the glass will let in sound, but using something like melamine foam to absorb the sound, will attenuate resonances, and reduce the duration of a disturbance signal.
> 
> Also, all is not lost if your amplitude is reduced from 83 -> 81db. It would be best to compare the reduction by FFT analysis to see the "total" reduction over the bandwidth. I wouldn't mind if my internal cabin noise was at 130db of noise.... at 150kHz, I would never hear it! Each frequency is going to be heard differently.
> 
> ...



I think that something that Hanatsu and Erin said is very eye opening:

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/5540393-post28.html

_"My roof made measurable differences, larger than 2dB in some regions and lowered low frequency ringing by some amount_" (@Hanatsu)

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...time-money;-prove-me-wrong-2.html#post5541129

_"CLD alone on the inside of the roof of my car made a huge difference in how loud the car sounded when it rained. Much quieter now."_ @erinh



So... What's going on here? Why is deadening the roof so noticeable?










If we go back to my crude illustrations of sound transmission, you can see that it's 87dB outside the room. Inside the room, the thing parts of the wall are attenuating 10dB, and the thick parts are attenuating 20dB.

Again, a crude attempt to illustrate what's happening in a car.

I think what's key here is that *we're really damn close to the roof.* For instance, in my car, I'm about a sixth of a meter away from the roof.


Here's an example of what I mean:

*Have you ever been in a hotel where you can hear your neighbor?* In the beginning of the night, your neighbor is nothing but a low rumble, but when you head to bed, you can hear their TV as if it's in the same room as you. This is because you're so close to the wall. The TV isn't in your room, it's on the other side of the wall. The wall attenuates that sound. It may be as little as 10dB or as much as 30dB. But once you get close to that wall, the volume level is intolerable.

I think something similar may be happening with the roof here. Consider that the body of your car is basically a "cocoon" that's keep the sound out. If you were equidistant from the roof, the doors, and the floor, you'd want to treat them equally. But since your head is right up against the roof, it may provide the biggest 'bang for the buck.'

Here's the math:

Sound decays at a rate of 3-6dB(1) when your distance from it doubles. For instance, if the noise outside of your car is 87dB measured 10cm from the walls of your car, and you move an additional 10cm away, the level will drop to about 81-84dB.



















You can see this phenomenon in the Car and Driver measurements; the sound that enters a sedan is attenuated with distance, and the cavity formed by the trunk attenuates the sound. TLDR : sedans are quieter than SUVs.


Here's another example of this:

I had a friend who had a spoiler on his car. I never heard any turbulence from the spoiler.









But I put a roof rack on my Accord and it was absolutely intolerable. This was likely because the source of the turbulence (and the sound) was just 15cm above my ears.

(1)the decay of sound depends on the shape of the wavefront. A point source decays at a rate of 6dB every time the distance doubles, a line source decays at a rate of 3dB every time the distance doubles, and a planar wave doesn't decay at all.


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)

^FFS man, maybe, just maybe, you should have posted the information in posts #113 & #114 and the one above in your OP instead of just being a lazy f#ck and blurting out what you did in your OP without at least _something_ to support your statements! Ya think?  You shouldn't have had to rely on _ErinH_ & _Hanatsu_ or anybody else to chime in with counterpoints and meaningful info.

I don't think that I've ever really felt the need to block or ignore seeing posts from a particular member here in the past, but I think that might be changing very soon. I get the idea of stimulating people to think with bold claims and contradictary statements, but the M.O. or way you go about nearly every one of your threads is tiresome.

L8r!


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

*&quot;Sound deadening is a waste of time and money; Prove me wrong!&quot;*

I was not going to reply initially but what the hell... lots of weird stuff going on here.

First off what are we talking about to begin with? Dampening panels by lowering the center resonance frequency and Q? Are we talking about isolation or absorption? These are different things. Also, perceived loudness and actual loudness are two different things, our ears perceive about 10dB as a reduction by half and worth to mention is that our ears are more or less sensitive to different frequencies. Third, the law of diminishing returns. If you insulate a car which has zero insulation, a lot of midrange noise could be removed (easier to absorb) and the reduction would be perceived as large. A Jaguar wouldn’t be easy to improve because it’s already quiet with lots of work put in to make it so.

So to begin with, CLD is an vibration dampener basically used to reduce the negative impact of higher acoustical energy in a constrained area. It’s not an efficient material/method of reducing noise emanating from the outside. It’s an resonance reducer which per definition is dependent on frequency.

Next up, the absorption of sound. Here is where it many gets it wrong. An acoustic absorbing material will be have an absorption coefficient, look at a standard absorbing material and you’ll see that the factor drops off at low frequencies. It’s heavily dependent on material thickness and flow resistivity. To absorb low frequencies an insane thickness would be required to yield good results.

Road noise is complex but remain largely in the lower frequencies. Some of it reaches up in the lower midrange which more effectively can be absorbed leading to an quieter ride. Factors such as changing tires and asphalt density are probably going to reduce noise inside the cabin more than a ”normal” sized layer of absorption material can do.

Having said that, I dampen my car because of vibrations, lowering resonance frequencies and Q of resonances that interfere with sound REproduction. That you can do pretty easily. Wanna lower road noise? Put absorption material in the inner wheel house... 

Can you get a quieter car by ”dampen your car” - of course!


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

*&quot;Sound deadening is a waste of time and money; Prove me wrong!&quot;*

Also, reducing a resonance in frequency and lowering the Q parameter of the same could very well lower perceived noise in several occations (CLD). Reduction in resonances ARE audible, especially if the panels are large - like a roof. It’s just not effective as an absorbing material. It’s not rocket science...


----------



## Gump_Runner (Aug 2, 2014)

Some folks approach this topic with the seriousness of solving peace in the middle east. Most of the information is boring as hell but it does provide a certain entertainment value.


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

Patrick Bateman said:


> lol, did you do the first test with all the windows down?
> 
> Car and Driver measured an Audi RS5 and it's 70dBa at 70mph. If you knocked that down to 68-69dB, that would be consistent with the only measured data I've ever seen on this subject, which was Car Stereo Review's comparison of a treated and untreated Camaro.




Oh FFS! No, the windows were not down. I used a professional dB meter. I drove on the exact same 1 mile stretch of highway, and the road surface was very, very fresh and new. I did that because I did not want the road surface quality to be a variable in my test.

I'm sorry that I didn't video tape the test, but this was several years ago and I wasn't planning to be in a stupid internet argument with the almighty Patrick Bateman. Perhaps with more forethought I would have been more prepared 


So you read in some magazine that a different model Audi had 70dB road noise? Well, I own the car and I drive it every day. I'll trust my real-world experience more than your magazine article.

2013 Audi S6 with sport package.
20" wheels with 35 series summer tires

The road noise was easily 85dB with peaks nearly 90dB. The primary noise culprit is tire hum that bleeds into the cabin. There is wind noise, but it's not as bad as the tire hum. I have always been disappointed in the road noise on the Audi cars I have driven. My parents have an A8 and it's better than my S6, but not by much.



I will agree with you that if you want a quiet car it is best to buy a quiet car.
One of my other cars is a 2012 Mercedes S63 AMG, and that car is much more quiet on the road than my Audi. The Merc also has 20" wheels with 35 profile summer tires, so I don't attribute the noise difference to the wheel/tire setup. The Merc is a much heavier car, and it has much better door construction. The doors are very heavy and they have an electronic closing feature that seals the door for you so that you don't have to slam it. Soft-touch close, basically. 
Also, when you remove the interior door trim, there is a metal panel that is riveted to the door frame which seals off the door from the outside. The only hole in the door is where the midbass speaker is installed, and you have to remove that to open the hole. It's one of the best car doors I've ever seen. The Merc has double-pane glass windows which I'm sure help with wind noise.

I'm not sure what the Mercedes road noise measures at because it's quiet enough that I never thought about testing it. If I had to guess, I would say it is below 65 dB. On the highway you don't notice the tire noise much. The most noticeable sound is actually the engine and maybe the wind.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

Patrick Bateman said:


> ...
> BTW, this isn't the first time I destroyed a car. Back in the 90s I was on a hot date and the girl touched a metal part of my car and got electrocuted. Luckily she lived. We're married now. Thank God she humored me and my weird obsessions.
> ...


So is she batshit/Bateman crazy?


----------



## Hulk2015 (Apr 6, 2015)

vet883 said:


> Agreed, glass is a good transmitter of sound waves.


Is there any evidence that ceramic tint (or tints as people on the forums call them) make windows quieter? I have Huper Optik 50% on all windows on my sedan and SolarGard Ultra Performance 75% on my windscreen.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

Hulk2015 said:


> Is there any evidence that ceramic tint (or tints as people on the forums call them) make windows quieter? I have Huper Optik 50% on all windows on my sedan and SolarGard Ultra Performance 75% on my windscreen.


You could have measured it yourself?



CAudio said:


> This is the problem with car audio. Too many folks fail to research what to do. Thus, science and engineering are not applied to solutions frequently enough.





Patrick Bateman said:


> We've made it to 95 posts. Skizer and I are the only people who've posted data.
> 
> Can anyone else provide data please?
> ....


I have made before measurements... after naturally follows at some time "later".


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Hulk2015 said:


> vet883 said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed, glass is a good transmitter of sound waves.
> ...


I couldn’t see why it would. I have 3M crystalline over here.


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

subterFUSE said:


> ... The Merc has double-pane glass windows which I'm sure help with wind noise.


a little nit picking here, but just to keep our terms straight--

Dual pane windows are insulated windows in houses that have an air space I between the two sheets of glass. They are in fact quieter then single pane windows. There are also triple pane windows that are even quieter then dual pane, though triple pane VERY expensive.

"Laminated glass" is what is used in vehicle windshields and usually has a layer of plastic laminated between the two sheets of glass which prevents shattering. While laminated glass obviously can also be used in buildings, dual pane or triple pane, is NEVER used in vehicles.

http://www.jeld-wen.com/en-us/produ...t-windows/338-acoustic-performance-in-windows


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

seafish said:


> a little nit picking here, but just to keep our terms straight--
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Mercedes S Class uses dual pane glass with inert gas in between the layers, similar to home windows. They are not the typical laminated car glass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SQ Audi (Dec 21, 2010)

subterFUSE said:


> Mercedes S Class uses dual pane glass with inert gas in between the layers, similar to home windows. They are not the typical laminated car glass.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My Hyundai Equus also uses dual pane glass. The windshield is laminated, but all 4 windows in my car are dual pane glass. This car is one of the quietest I have ever owned, more so than my A4 and my ML500.


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

Audi glass.













Mercedes glass.











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Patrick Bateman said:


> I think that something that Hanatsu and Erin said is very eye opening:
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...time-money;-prove-me-wrong-2.html#post5541129
> 
> _"CLD alone on the inside of the roof of my car made a huge difference in how loud the car sounded when it rained. Much quieter now."_ @erinh
> ...



I should have quantified my post a bit better. I don't think the difference maker of the CLD in my case was so much the _level _but the _sound_ of the rain on the roof, likely by doing what CLD is designed to do: lowering the resonant frequency. The rain on the roof had a much more "thud" like sound as opposed to a very tinny, obnoxious sound. Certainly a combo of level and frequency but again, my subjective analysis was that the pitch/timbre of the rain on the roof was altered.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

subterFUSE said:


> Mercedes S Class uses dual pane glass with inert gas in between the layers, similar to home windows. They are not the typical laminated car glass.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yep.

If I'm not mistaken, all cars use dual pane glass, but the Mercedes glass is as you describe.

Most cars use a sandwich like this:

glass
polymer
glass

The main reason for this is safety, it doesn't shatter like regular class. Sound attenuation is a bonus.

Toyota does a bunch of things to justify the extra expense of a Lexus over a Toyota; thicker glass is one of them:

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/gs-4th-gen-2013-present/684318-we-have-thicker-glass.html


----------



## seafish (Aug 1, 2012)

Well that's what I love about the internets...can you learn new things everyday....
sometimes true, (of course also sometimes untrue), but that being said, I had no idea they were doing that in cars.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

subterFUSE said:


> Oh FFS! No, the windows were not down. I used a professional dB meter. I drove on the exact same 1 mile stretch of highway, and the road surface was very, very fresh and new. I did that because I did not want the road surface quality to be a variable in my test.
> 
> I'm sorry that I didn't video tape the test, but this was several years ago and I wasn't planning to be in a stupid internet argument with the almighty Patrick Bateman. Perhaps with more forethought I would have been more prepared
> 
> ...


When I finally got a Big Boy Job I got rid of the car that I'd been driving at the time, an Audi 5000 that was stock. I paid $1600 for the car and it had a decent stereo in it.

I went out and bought a new Honda Accord, and then I systematically did all the things that I always wanted to do to it:

1) big stereo

2) swapped out the stock steel wheels for 17" rims

3) lowered the car

4) applied sound deadening

And just ruined the car. That was one of my 'Eureka' moments, that *every little change you make to a car should be evaluated.* For instance, the sound of my stereo is more important to me than handling. Though my car handled better after I invested $1000 in rims and tires, it SOUNDED worse, because the low profile tires introduced major road roar.



As for my snarky comment, *note that all the Car and Driver measurements are A-weighted.*


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

bbfoto said:


> ^FFS man, maybe, just maybe, you should have posted the information in posts #113 & #114 and the one above in your OP instead of just being a lazy f#ck and blurting out what you did in your OP without at least _something_ to support your statements! Ya think?  You shouldn't have had to rely on _ErinH_ & _Hanatsu_ or anybody else to chime in with counterpoints and meaningful info.
> 
> I don't think that I've ever really felt the need to block or ignore seeing posts from a particular member here in the past, but I think that might be changing very soon. I get the idea of stimulating people to think with bold claims and contradictary statements, but the M.O. or way you go about nearly every one of your threads is tiresome.
> 
> L8r!



This forum is dead as a doornail, I stir the pot to keep it alive. Check out my posts on diyaudio or the bicycle forums, I'm way less provocative there.

There's a method to my madness.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

*Re: &quot;Sound deadening is a waste of time and money; Prove me wrong!&quot;*




Hanatsu said:


> Also, reducing a resonance in frequency and lowering the Q parameter of the same could very well lower perceived noise in several occations (CLD). Reduction in resonances ARE audible, especially if the panels are large - like a roof. It’s just not effective as an absorbing material. It’s not rocket science...


The roof thing is a real eye-opener. I'd never considered that treating the roof may offer the biggest bang for the buck. I'm just shy of two meters tall; my first car was noisy as ****, but I'd never considered that having your head rub the ceiling is going to make you really sensitive to sound radiating through that ceiling. (VW Scirocco.)

It's basically like putting your ear up against the wall; your going to hear what's on the other side.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Hulk2015 said:


> Is there any evidence that ceramic tint (or tints as people on the forums call them) make windows quieter? I have Huper Optik 50% on all windows on my sedan and SolarGard Ultra Performance 75% on my windscreen.


I've been wondering the same thing. I don't think that tint would make a difference, because the film is so thin. But I wonder if there's a film that's very clear, optical quality, but also relatively thick?










https://www.acmeplastics.com/pet-g/pet-g-clear-sheet

For instance, this is the plastic that they make water bottles out of. It's the same stuff I 3D print with. It's durable enough that it wouldn't warp in the hot sun, but it's soft enough that you could thermoform it with a heat gun. It might be interesting to order a sheet, thermoform it to a window in the car, and see if it attenuates the sound that's entering the cabin.

Since the sound is entering the cabin from all directions, you want to attenuate it where it's loudest. That's why the seals on the door and the sunroof, and the grommets on wires passing through the firewall are so important. If you pull up the carpet along your firewall, you'll find a thick blanket under the carpet, that's for sound attenuation coming from the engine.

Actually the sunroof is another great place to apply this, because it's so close to our ears and it doesn't need to be perfectly clear. (I wouldn't put something like this on the windshield, too dangerous.)


----------



## Second Skin (Aug 5, 2010)

Hush Car Audio provided these results posted online a few years ago. You can see his posts on his social media accounts from that time period. Have an awesome weekend and enjoy your builds with any approach you choose for your project!!! 

Hush Car Audio Mitsubishi Evo Damplifier Pro CLD + Luxury Liner Pro MLV


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Alright, man. I try hard to be a positive person. I try hard to not say negative things and I tried hard to not go down this road but I can't do this anymore. It's my turn...


None of your car audio ideas/systems are better than just "ok".

Prove me wrong. 
* By "Prove me wrong", I mean have someone corroborate your measurements, or otherwise your superlatives exuding how you've discovered the hidden truth of car audio with their positive subjective feedback of your system. Much like JBL uses objective data correlated with subjective analysis (data) to draw legitimate conclusions, we need that to gauge whether you know what you're talking about and can build a nice system or if you're just throwing out ideas that occasionally have legitimacy and then expect everyone to crowd around you, thanking you for it. Because, truthfully, after this thread of yours, I can't help but think the latter is your intention anymore.


You see, I get you like technical data. I love it, too. I get that you like playing with installs. I love it, too. However, I've yet to be able to correlate your installs/ideas that YOU have implemented in your car with anyone else's positive opinion of your system(s). I'll never get to hear your system. The next best thing is for someone I know, and have an understanding of what they listen for and what they consider "good" or "bad", to listen to your car and tell me what they think. 

Now, to the layperson that may come across as mean. But it's really not. It's more just me stating the obvious and pointing out the fact that, yea, subjective opinions do matter. Until then, you're just a dude on the internet rambling on about your vast intellect of audio. Like all of us are/were at some point… that in itself isn’t bad. The problem is when people begin to take your word as gospel. There’s a saying, or there should be: “always question the source of your information”. You've done a good job at positioning yourself as someone who is knowledgeable and should be able to achieve a nice stereo system. However, the more of these kind of posts you make... the more of these "I've found the secret to audio and I'm going to tell you what it is" posts I see from you, the more I am concerned for all those who follow you blindly in the realm of car audio. The way you continually discuss these ideas taken from home audio and applied to car audio (mono tweeter, midbass array, the need to have a round pod to lessen diffraction of a tweeter (oh, god, that one still irks me) have, over the years, made me realize that your version of what sounds good probably is not in line with what I would deem as a good playback system for a multitude of reasons. It’s simply, again, “question your sources” and until I can somehow corroborate your “I know all the answers” posts, then it seems reasonable that we question your credentials; where is your proof… like Harman/JBL studies, we need subjective data here. 

Of course, I'm just a dude on the internet, too. However, I've had a lot of people in my car over the years and have encouraged demos. Probably well in to the 100’s over my years of doing this. It's not the greatest thing since sliced bread and that’s not what really matters. What is important is I think most can at least say "yea, I heard Erin’s system and I see where he's coming from" when I discuss things. Whether they liked my system or not, they can at least correlate what I say/post vs what they heard. And they can say “yea, I don’t like it so I’m not gonna listen to him”. And they can tell their friends that's what they thought. That’s fine. 

You can say that these posts are intended to make people think. But I think you're doing more of a disservice to the community by making these bold claims and then sitting back, expecting us to just take your word for it. If you want to help, maybe you should get out more and offer demos, and then you can point us to those people so we can determine the validity of your “Eureka” moments. After all, subjective vs objective is a metric itself. And you want data. So why not provide us with some of your own?



TLDR; Everyone should be cautious of who they trust when it comes to audio advice. There are a lot of people who you would think have great sounding systems who can't put two midranges in phase if their life depended on it. I have literally had people come up to me at shows/meets and say that my "time alignment website is wrong" and upon further discussion and getting in their cars the midranges were literally 180 degrees out of phase. I wish I were kidding. These are the kind of people that run on the internet to tell everyone how they know everything. Then there's all the in-between. So it's with that that I say: Until you can hear or somehow get second hand feedback of someone's system, always, ALWAYS question their motives and their own standard for what a nice car audio system consists of. This holds true for myself, PB and everyone.


----------



## FordEscape (Nov 23, 2014)

Patrick Bateman said:


> ... If I'm not mistaken, all cars use *dual pane glass*, but the Mercedes glass is as you describe.
> 
> Most cars use a sandwich like this:
> 
> ...


You are mistaken. "Dual Pane Glass" has specific meaning (a glass panel consisting of two layers separated by a void space) and is distinctly different from "laminated glass". The separate glass layers comprising a "dual pane" automotive window are each laminated construction. The former being rare in automobiles, the latter being pervasive due to safety concerns and ultimately DOT regulations. It's not a semantic game - it's effective communication of substantive and meaningful technical distinctions.

Within the category of laminated glass there are those using particular combinations of film(s) and glass which are further categorized as 'acoustic glass' (Carlex/Carlite SoundScreen® Acoustic Glass being one example). 'Acoustic glass' is finding it's way into even relatively low-cost vehicle applications (e.g. all 2013+ Ford Escapes are equipped standard with SoundScreen windshields and beginning in 2016 it became standard for front side windows).


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

ErinH said:


> I should have quantified my post a bit better. I don't think the difference maker of the CLD in my case was so much the _level _but the _sound_ of the rain on the roof, likely by doing what CLD is designed to do: lowering the resonant frequency. The rain on the roof had a much more "thud" like sound as opposed to a very tinny, obnoxious sound. Certainly a combo of level and frequency but again, my subjective analysis was that the pitch/timbre of the rain on the roof was altered.



Sounds perfectly in line with my experience too. Due to the equal loudness curve of our hearing, the actual perceived noise level should be lower. As with speakers, high Q resonances are more audible than low Q ones as well. At least that’s my theory...


----------



## pocket5s (Jan 6, 2012)

ErinH said:


> ... trimmed for brevity ...
> 
> 
> 
> TLDR; Everyone should be cautious of who they trust when it comes to audio advice. There are a lot of people who you would think have great sounding systems who can't put two midranges in phase if their life depended on it. I have literally had people come up to me at shows/meets and say that my "time alignment website is wrong" and upon further discussion and getting in their cars the midranges were literally 180 degrees out of phase. I wish I were kidding. These are the kind of people that run on the internet to tell everyone how they know everything. Then there's all the in-between. So it's with that that I say: Until you can hear or somehow get second hand feedback of someone's system, always, ALWAYS question their motives and their own standard for what a nice car audio system consists of. This holds true for myself, PB and everyone.


Bravo sir, bravo. My only suggestion to this is that is should have been an open letter to all the diyma folks who are seen as the "go to" people here.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

ErinH said:


> Alright, man. I try hard to be a positive person. I try hard to not say negative things and I tried hard to not go down this road but I can't do this anymore. It's my turn...
> 
> 
> None of your car audio ideas/systems are better than just "ok".
> ...


Is this news lol?

I thought everyone understood I was nuts, *it's right there in my name.* I'm literally Doc Brown, building weird-ass **** that I never finish and questioning EVERYTHING.

If you're looking for audio nirvana, don't look my direction, but if you're looking for the closest thing to a rocket scientist who's tinkering with car audio, I'm your guy.

I think that's one of the reasons I have such affinity for guys like Danley; dude didn't get into audio because he liked building loudspeakers, dude got into audio because he was working for NASA and they wanted to levitate objects with sound.

If I die tomorrow I want this on my tombstone:

Square Pegs - Page 92 - diyAudio

_Hi Patrick
I have to say you have to be one of the most inquisitive, creative and ambitious fellows I have run across. I don’t know what you do now for a living but I hope it challenges you like acoustics does and if you get tired of it, get a hold of me we are growing still at work._


----------



## MB2008LTZ (Oct 13, 2012)

Well my license plate stopped rattling after i deadened it and was worth the 5 minutes and $20 I spent on it....Does that prove you wrong?


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

I personally have taken Patrick exactly as he described himself. I had never read that he claimed to be some type of audio god. He likes to come up with crazy stuff and share it. Then see how normal people respond to that information. I actually assumed that's how most everyone portrayed him on this forum. There's nothing wrong with that. 

If people automatically follow guys that say crazy stuff (proven or unproven) about topics that are important to them without even considering whether it's feasible to their situation are idiots to begin with and deserve to be lead astray. Nothing wrong with poking the bear if your the one who stays around to get swipped.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

One other thing - if any of you think that I post on forums for the adulation, that's not the case at all, I basically treat forums like a notebook. I am *constantly* referencing my own posts, because many of my projects involve me taking something I did years ago, then re-doing it in a slightly different way. 

Here's an example of what I mean:

One afternoon at work, a coworker of mine discovered that a system was misconfigured. It was a Friday afternoon. We jumped on a conference call, found the issue, and put together a fix in about 25 minutes.

*And then he wanted to repeat that process across our entire fleet of servers.*

You should've seen the look on my face - I was absolutely dumbfounded.

From my perspective, we fixed the issue, we could fix the rest of the fleet on Monday. Chances are good nobody would notice the issue.

But he wanted to "dot his Is and cross his Ts"

I'm super insanely productive because I cut corners, I'm sloppy.
He's the complete opposite; he's meticulous, he's organized, he's methodical.

We're like oil and water.

But someone like him, they're not going to try and make a stereo with a single tweeter, or put a horn in their trunk just to see what will happen, or 3D print a hundred different waveguides that are just slightly different from one another. 

Probably my favorite movie about the creative process is "The Social Network." Because Aaron Sorkin just NAILED how that works, how creative types will see someone with a clever idea and say "I can do that", then spend 48 hours obsessively coding until they come up with some half-assed product by Monday. Every person I've met in this field who's created their own software is like that, obsessive and sloppy and socially clueless.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

Patrick Bateman said:


> but if you're looking for the closest thing to a rocket scientist who's tinkering with car audio, I'm your guy.


Well, actually....



ErinH said:


> .
> I do this on top of being a rocket scientist


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

ca90ss said:


> Well, actually....


Ha! I suck.

Just looked Erin up on LinkedIn. I won't link it, but he does indeed seem to be involved in aerospace engineering.

This reminds me of when my step dad and I get into debates. I'm sloppy as **** - I write software for a living. He's methodical and organized.

He can BARELY tolerate my terrible engineering, because if he does something half assed, people die. (He designs medical equipment.)

When I do something half assed, it's called "job security," because people get laid off when software actually works. Developers have a vested interest in always tinkering with their software.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

pocket5s said:


> Bravo sir, bravo. My only suggestion to this is that is should have been an open letter to all the diyma folks who are seen as the "go to" people here.


then fight it by helping out and posting more..


----------



## pocket5s (Jan 6, 2012)

SkizeR said:


> then fight it by helping out and posting more..




It’s a lost cause. Has been for several years, which is why so many leave. Same goes for the Facebook sq oriented groups.

Now I help by trying to save people from here whenever possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Probably my favorite movie about the creative process is "The Social Network." Because Aaron Sorkin just NAILED how that works, how creative types will see someone with a clever idea and say "I can do that", then spend 48 hours obsessively coding until they come up with some half-assed product by Monday. Every person I've met in this field who's created their own software is like that, obsessive and sloppy and socially clueless.


As someone who actually runs an investment-backed tech startup in LA, I can confirm that this is categorically inaccurate.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

GreatLaBroski said:


> As someone who actually runs an investment-backed tech startup in LA, I can confirm that this is categorically inaccurate.


So... I guess movies that are dramas, are not the same as documentaries?


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Holmz said:


> GreatLaBroski said:
> 
> 
> > As someone who actually runs an investment-backed tech startup in LA, I can confirm that this is categorically inaccurate.
> ...


Who would have guessed that real life isn’t like the movies? ?


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

GreatLaBroski said:


> As someone who actually runs an investment-backed tech startup in LA, I can confirm that this is categorically inaccurate.


Los Angeles is the minor leagues, every tech company out of L.A. has plowed itself into a ditch because they're not filled with autistic weirdos like me.

Where to start?

The guys at Shopzilla are perfectly nice guys, but Google Shopping did it better

The guys at Myspace had a cute idea, but they didn't have an autistic tour-de-force like Zuckerberg, and that's why they ran themselves into a ditch. It was cute when Justin Timberlake invested in their rotting carcass

Snapchat is circling the drain : https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/snap-snapchat-layoffs-7-percent-cost-savings-1202740730/

Noticing a pattern yet?

Back in the day I was talking about this with my boss. Basically he had to add some 'wiggle room' to projects that we did in Europe and Southern California, because nobody works 40hrs a week there. When we sent people to Spain, we'd have to allocate an extra 50% because people come in to work at 10:00am, take a 90 min lunch and they're checked out at 4pm. In Los Angeles, people come to work at 10:00am and bail around the same time. I get it, the traffic sucks. But in Seattle and Silicon Valley you see people sleeping in their cubicles, that's why the two wealthiest people in the world are from there. The work ethic is just completely different than L.A.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

your replying to off topic nonsense yet you still havent went into detail about what exact "deadening" your talking about (resonance, control, vibration control, or sound proofing from exterior noise), and what products and methods you have used in your previous installs


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Patrick Bateman said:


> "Los Angeles is the minor leagues, every tech company out of L.A. has plowed itself into a ditch because they're not filled with autistic weirdos like me.
> 
> Where to start?
> 
> ...


The individuals who have founded some of the most success tech companies are decidedly weird. Examine the founder of a truly innovative company and you’ll find a rebel without the usual regard for social customs.

This begs the question, why? Why aren’t more “normal” people with refined social graces building tech companies that change the world? Why are only those on the periphery reaching great heights?

If you ask tech investor Peter Thiel, the problem is a social environment that’s both powerful and destructive. Only individuals with traits reminiscent of Asperger’s Syndrome, which frees them from an attachment to social conventions, have the strength to create innovative businesses amid a culture that discourages daring entrepreneurship.

“Many of the more successful entrepreneurs seem to be suffering from a mild form of Asperger’s where it’s like you’re missing the imitation, socialization gene,” Thiel said Tuesday at George Mason University. “We need to ask what is it about our society where those of us who do not suffer from Asperger’s are at some massive disadvantage because we will be talked out of our interesting, original, creative ideas before they’re even fully formed. Oh that’s a little bit too weird, that’s a little bit too strange and maybe I’ll just go ahead and open the restaurant that I’ve been talking about that everyone else can understand and agree with, or do something extremely safe and conventional.”

An individual with Asperger’s Syndrome — a form of autism — has limited social skills, a willingness to obsess and an interest in systems. Those diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome tend to be unemployed or underemployed at rates that far exceed the general population. Fitting into the world is difficult.

While full-blown Asperger’s Syndrome or autism hold back careers, a smaller dose of associated traits appears critical to hatching innovations that change the world.

“A typical child might just accept, ‘Okay this is just the way it’s done, this is how we do things in our culture or family,” said Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Center in Cambridge. “Someone with autism or Asperger’s, they kind of ask those why questions. They want more logical answers. Just saying ‘Well we do this just because everybody else does,’ that doesn’t meet their test of logic.”

Baron-Cohen says the autistic are interested in what’s called first principles, fundamental rules used to inform their decisions. First principle-thinking happens to be a tactic Elon Musk, the innovative leader of Tesla and SpaceX, says has contributed to his success.

“Rather than reasoning by analogy, you boil things down to the most fundamental truths you can imagine and you reason up from there,” Musk has said. “This is a good way to figure out if something really makes sense or if it’s just what everybody else is doing.”

To be great, you can’t think like everybody else, and you probably won’t fit in to the herd. As a child Musk was bullied and beaten so badly that as an adult he struggled to breathe through his nose and needed corrective surgery.

John Doerr, a venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins, who was an early investor in Google, Amazon and Netscape, has said that great entrepreneurs tend to have “absolutely no social life.” Great innovators, like those with Asperger’s, just don’t fit in.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has been described as “a robot,” and having “a touch of the Asperger’s,” according to a former colleague. There are stories of a young Zuckerberg having awkward meetings, such as with Twitter’s co-founders.

One of Facebook’s first investors, Reid Hoffman, has said his first impression of Zuckerberg was how quiet he was. Zuckerberg said maybe 15 or 20 sentences in an hour-long meeting.

“What I most remember was scratching my head going, ‘Huh why is he being quiet?’ It turns out he was being quiet because he’s thinking a lot,” Hoffman said in an interview on This Week in Startups. “He’s perfectly fine with, ‘Hey if there ends up being five seconds of silence, it’s five seconds of silence, I’m thinking.”

Zuckerberg’s willingness to defy social norms has paid off with an uncanny ability to position Facebook to thrive. It’s now worth $228 billion. In an era where tech companies and especially social networks can disappear as quickly as they rise (remember Friendster), Zuckerberg’s eye for innovation maintains Facebook’s relevance. He dared to spend over $25 billion acquiring companies without little or revenue — WhatsApp, Instagram and Oculus.

When Zuckerberg spent $1 billion on Instagram, which had never made a cent, many saw it as a crazy move. Now by one estimate Instagram is now worth $35 billion.

Zuckerberg’s willingness to be different and ignore social norms manifest itself in other ways. He wears a gray T-shirt every day, saying he wants to focus his decision-making energy on Facebook not fashion.

“I just killed a pig and a goat,” he once posted on Facebook, during a year in which he spent a year only eating meat he killed with his own hands.

Zuckerberg isn’t the only one to turn unusual instincts into tech riches. Four of the six PayPal co-founders built bombs in high school.

While lots of “normal” people played with Legos, Google co-founder Larry Page built a functioning inkjet printer out of them in college. Marissa Mayer, the Yahoo chief executive and an early Google employee, has described Page’s super power as “asking ‘why not.’ On everything.”

“Think different,” happened to be Apple’s slogan, which its co-founder Steve Jobs embodied in his youth as he wandered India and experimented with LSD.

At age 24 Jobs was invited to attend the initial meeting of the Seva Foundation, which is devoted to treating blindness. Unhappy with the discussion, an angry Jobs stood up — unfazed by a room of accomplished experts — and shared what they should do to make a difference in the world. (The anecdote was shared by Larry Brilliant in the new book Becoming Steve Jobs.) The conversation devolved into a “donnybrook,” so Brilliant asked his friend Jobs to quiet down.

“I’m not going to,” Jobs said. “You guys asked for my help, and I’m going to give it.”

Soon Brilliant forced him to leave the meeting.

“If you have autism or if you have a mild form of it you might be kind of less interested in following the crowd and conforming to social norms. And you can think more independently,” Baron-Cohen said. “They want to know are we doing these things because it’s the most efficient way, it’s the best way of doing it or the cheapest way. They want some kind of logic.”

Obsessiveness, another trait of those with Asperger’s, also pays off when building a tech company.

Microsoft’s co-founders Bill Gates and Paul Allen were comfortable coding software for hours on end as young programmers.

“Some of the more prudish people would say ‘Go home and take a shower.’ We were just hard-core, writing code,” as Gates told author Walter Isaacson in The Innovators.

While Thiel has not said it outright, his theory could be interpreted as an explanation for Silicon Valley’s notorious gender gap. Asperger’s Syndrome is much more prevalent in boys than girls.

But for Justine Cassell, associate vice provost for technology, strategy and impact at Carnegie Mellon, Thiel’s argument doesn’t hold up.

“It seems odd to say that the best innovation is going to come from somebody who doesn’t study people. In fact who isn’t able to spend casual time with them,” Cassell said. “If really what he’s saying is Silicon Valley start-ups are places where the winners are the ones who don’t have any social skills, to me that’s a sad statement about who is inventing the technology of tomorrow. Both the narrowness of the group doing the inventing and most importantly and most tragically to me, the statement that those who do not care about social interaction with other people are thought to be the best able to develop technologies to help people.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...company/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95f40682453d


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

SkizeR said:


> your replying to off topic nonsense yet you still havent went into detail about what exact "deadening" your talking about (resonance, control, vibration control, or sound proofing from exterior noise), and what products and methods you have used in your previous installs


I worked to make my cars quiet for about ten years. In the early 90s, I was doing what everyone else was doing - applying Dynamat to the sheet metal.

My first car was a VW Scirocco, my 2nd was a Ford Escort.

My 4th car was an Audi 5000. THAT car was an eye opener: virtually no sound deadening, but possibly the quietest car I'd ever owned.

By the time I bought my fifth car, I'd come to the conclusion that my attempts to quiet the car had failed because I hadn't gone full retard. So I went nuts. Ripped off every panel but the floor, used a Dynamat clone from Parts Express. 

When I was done, *the car was louder.*

That was a freaken bummer, but once again, I upped the anted, and did CLD for the first time, using a product that PE sold.

This didn't work at all - the stuff delaminated.

I threw it all away and never attempted to quiet a car again. Except for that time I swapped out my tires, which was effective.

It wasn't a complete loss though - I learned some lessons:

1) buy a quiet car

2) I think you need to pay attention to how these projects can make things WORSE, not better. For instance, I didn't understand that the plastic sheeting on the outside of the door, that sheeting attenuates sound, because sound is transmitted via the air, and the plastic seal prevents that transmission. Little things like that - they make a difference. And note that I have a terrible attention to detail.

Also, ripping off all the panels can introduce buzzes and rattles into the car.

Erin, Hanatsu, you and Second Skin provided some data, and I may very well deaden my roof. But I'll probably hire a pro to do it, because my attention span is too short to do this job properly, I'm just not methodical enough.

Side note:

I'm sure I pissed off a few people that make their living doing this stuff, but there's a sales pitch buried in here:

Amateurs probably shouldn't be doing sound deadening work, because it's very possible to make your car unsellable. _Would you want me painting your car?_ Of course not, I'd screw it up. Just about anyone can build a sub box, it's fairly easy to install a door speaker, but sound deadening, that's a serious job, it's not for the faint of heart.


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Noticing a pattern yet?


Yes.

I’ve noticed the pattern of you making broad-sweeping accusations and then cherry picking a few examples, distorting them, then calling it fact.


----------



## MB2008LTZ (Oct 13, 2012)

MB2008LTZ said:


> Well my license plate stopped rattling after i deadened it and was worth the 5 minutes and $20 I spent on it....Does that prove you wrong?


So you didn't answer my question.....????


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

GreatLaBroski said:


> Yes.
> 
> I’ve noticed the pattern of you making broad-sweeping accusations and then cherry picking a few examples, distorting them, then calling it fact.


Dude, I'm literally sitting in an office in LA writing software. Everyone bailed three hours ago. People in LA don't work like people in Seattle. Blizzard is basically the only success story in LA software, and their success has a lot to do with having access to the Hollywood types that don't exist in San Jose or Seattle.

If you're doing a pure software play in Los Angeles, it's going to be an uphill battle.


----------



## Minibull (Apr 16, 2018)

So uh...sound deadening...this was about sound deadening and "finding more facts and numbers" for it?

As a side note, my 350z is now stripped down. The first thing is that there is barely any broad sheets of metal on the inside. Heaps and heaps of bracing and gussets and corners, and lots of stiffeners and dimples over the sheeting. 
The biggest flat sheet is the roof and the doors, which are actually huge on this thing, so that will be my first step along with the floor. The boot...i might leave it open for a bit until I work up the motivation to tackle it.

What I have found interesting is that Nissan have put quite a lot of some hard and heavy substance over a lot of the panels, some form of CLD type stuff. Always around the center area of any large sheet, just like any CLD recommendations 
There is also some foil backed butyl like substance up front of the passenger area on the floor, and through the fuel tank cavity behind the seats, there is some really heavy foam like stuff, backed with a thick layer of what looks like the MLV I ordered.
This is along with all the normal foam type stuff lining the firewall, and other cavities.

I was honestly expecting nothing, being a cheap car and also a sports oriented car. So they have done some things to try cut some noise


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Dude, I'm literally sitting in an office in LA writing software. Everyone bailed three hours ago. People in LA don't work like people in Seattle. Blizzard is basically the only success story in LA software, and their success has a lot to do with having access to the Hollywood types that don't exist in San Jose or Seattle.
> 
> If you're doing a pure software play in Los Angeles, it's going to be an uphill battle.


I don’t want to drag this out any further but all I’ll say is that you’re thinking very shallow. Am I running a medical company? Am I running a logistics software company? ERP? Payments? Machine Learning ASICS? Manufacturing? Agriculture? Public works? Financial trading systems? Blockchain?

I love practical disruptive businesses that actually deliver REAL measurable value to customers. You don’t see a lot of those cause they’re actually *hard as ***** to build. Not trash like another garbage photo sharing app that wants to creep and sale your private data for bucks.

There’s seriously endless “tech startups” that have nothing to do with consumer-facing services and social networking. Social is the lame stereotype. I like “unsexy sounding businesses” that deliver real value. Those actually do well in LA. And that’s the kind of business I’m running. It’s B2B with moderate duration sales cycles and 5-6 figure ARR and reasonable CAC/LTV ratios.

Yet here you are swearing that no tech businesses work in LA, yet you’re paid to program for one?

Come on man. Stop it with the broad sweeping statements.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Patrick Bateman said:


> I worked to make my cars quiet for about ten years. In the early 90s, I was doing what everyone else was doing - applying Dynamat to the sheet metal.
> 
> My first car was a VW Scirocco, my 2nd was a Ford Escort.
> 
> ...


well theres your damn problem. wrong product for the job

close ****ing thread. jesus h christ. like we tell everyone else... go read sounddeadenershowdown.com


----------



## 04quadcab (Dec 31, 2017)

I like discussions that call conventional wisdom into question. That is how we create new knowledge. I have not yet read all SEVEN pages yet. But here is my experience.

First, I have noticed that far to few people make any attempt at objective measurement. Your smart phone can measure DB. Even if it is not calibrated, if sound deadening reduces noise anybody can do a simple before and after comparison. This is something where we could work together to crowd source measurements and have a relatively scientific, definitive answer. 

I am in the process of deadening my 14 year old pickup truck. I applied partial coverage of CLD to the doors, measuring both before and after. The difference was noticeable, both to the ear and the meter. But, the difference was highly contextual. At 80 MPH on a crappy interstate I shaved of 10 db. At 70 on a smooth interstate, NOTHING. In addition to giving me a measurable difference in many situations (especially on bad roads) there was a huge reduction in the overall harshness of the ride. I was happy with the results.

I then did a full treatment on the floors. CLD+CCF+MLV. According to the meter, the improvement was slight. I may have dropped the noise floor by a DB. But, the overall harshness was reduced and the overall driving experience was better. At speed on a crappy interstate it was still far to loud but it was less road noise and more wind noise. 

So far, I am not willing to conclude that this has been worth the trouble or expense. Is that because I made mistakes, or because it is a flawed process? I don't know, but I am not a professional and this was my first attempt. Could it be because the doors are the weak link and I need to fully treat them? I don't know, but I intend to do just that and measure the results. I have the material on hand, and I am having a lot of fun. It is a fun hobby.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

Just want to say that this has been a fun thread to read. I personally have no problem with PB's musings on the topic, and I can see his point on some things, but not on others.

For example - I think almost any attempt at absorption in a car is futile. Stuffing some mineral wool behind a plastic rear quarter panel is going to do exactly nothing. Even commonly accepted practices like stuffing doors and dash mats I find to have no measurable effect. I've tried all kinds of stuff and I've never had any measurable results. Perhaps that's just my experience, but when people talk about doing those things and only providing subjective impression I'm immediately skeptical. There are some ideas that I think can work, but most of it just strikes me as doing it "just because".

I've also completely deadened cars in the past and I know how to do it, but my current build is getting virtually no treatment at all. It's a major PITA in my case with limited benefits and considering the output potential of the build and the fact that I usually drive with the windows down anyway, road noise is not of concern. However, if I ever get around to putting a system in my Focus one of the first things I'll do is the full treatment. I view that as more a matter of perspective though and not a blanket statement about all vehicles.


----------



## karmajack (May 9, 2017)

SkizeR said:


> well theres your damn problem. wrong product for the job
> 
> close ****ing thread. jesus h christ. like we tell everyone else... go read sounddeadenershowdown.com


Ahahahaa! It took 7 pages to drag this out. And ended as expected. 

Dynamat didn't make my car into a sound proof studio, so all sound deadening treatments are a myth.


----------



## ChrisB (Jul 3, 2008)

SkizeR said:


> well theres your damn problem. wrong product for the job
> 
> close ****ing thread. jesus h christ. like we tell everyone else... go read sounddeadenershowdown.com


I was always of the opinion that if you want to stop noise, you need to put something down that blocks said noise. Mass Loaded Vinyl is probably one of the few things that will be totally effective at doing this because it creates a barrier that makes it harder for noise to transfer through. The downside to this is weight because at 1 pound per square foot, things get heavy real fast.

I only used sound deadener to stop panels from resonating. IMHO from a noise perspective, sound deadener is the wrong tool for the job. It's a great base layer, but to truly reduce noise you need to decouple the MLV from the underlying panel with closed cell foam. To do this properly requires some skill because a layer of deadener, topped with closed cell foam, and then finished off with MLV makes things rather thick!

It's no fun putting consoles, carpet, seats, etc. back in the car if you make certain areas too thick with your deadening protocol. Also, if you own a performance car, the weight could be a hindrance.

EDIT: All the deadening protocols in the world won't help you if your car has horrible seals that let in a lot of wind noise. That used to be a common complaint for vehicles with frameless door windows as those seals started to deteriorate over time. New seals didn't always fix the problem either... I'm just throwing this out there because a lot of time, money, and effort can be sunk into blocking noise, only to be an exercise in futility due to some other characteristics of the vehicle...


----------



## DavidRam (Nov 2, 2014)

I do extensive sound deadening in all my cars strictly for the placebo effect. It works great!


----------



## Gump_Runner (Aug 2, 2014)

As The Great poet Rodney King once said, "Can't we all just get along"?


----------



## 04quadcab (Dec 31, 2017)

subterFUSE said:


> I performed the following test with my Audi a few years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We need more of this! If everybody that reads these forums would measure, apply sound treatment, then measure again then we would have data. If we have data we can test a hypothesis and have an answer.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Hypothesis: Sedans are quieter than SUVs and CUVs. Electric cars are quieter than ICE cars. High performance cars are noisier than normal cars.










Some data. I threw together this spreadsheet using the measured data from Car & Driver.

Some things I noticed:


Teslas are surprisingly noisy - check out how quiet the BMW and Mercedes electric cars are.
The top sedans, as far as sales go, are ridiculously quiet. This may have been one of the reasons that my experiments on an Accord were a failure; the car is ALREADY really really quiet.
The numbers on trucks are so good, I almost wonder if it was a fluke? It would be worth looking at more data.
Be careful when looking at the data for hybrids; the measurements don't make it clear if the car was running on it's engine or motors.
CUVs DO seems to be noisier than sedans.
High performance cars are LOUD.


_edit - the top of the graph says 75mph. It should say 70mph._


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

Tesla are very poorly built cars. No surprise they are noisy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

SPLEclipse said:


> dash mats I find to have no measurable effect.


i actually had measurable differences with the dash mat in my car


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

My dash mat works for about 3-4 dB attenuation between 3000-5000 Hz


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

subterFUSE said:


> Tesla are very poorly built cars. No surprise they are noisy.


Noisy != badly built.

My Tesla Model S was great. I’ve seen some **** Model X’s (early production ones sucked). The model 3’s are pretty good from what I’ve seen.

Calling them “very poorly built” is not fair at all. I’d say “fantastic engineering and safety, questionable quality control”.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

subterFUSE said:


> My dash mat works for about 3-4 dB attenuation between 3000-5000 Hz
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Can dash mat be bought in the EU? Never seen it. I’d be interested to measure it


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

My Mat is something I custom made for myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Hanatsu said:


> subterFUSE said:
> 
> 
> > My dash mat works for about 3-4 dB attenuation between 3000-5000 Hz
> ...


I wonder how well stitching a dash mat with something like ultratouch as the foam filling would work.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

subterFUSE said:


> My Mat is something I custom made for myself.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


With what material?


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

F13 wool felt. 1/2” thick


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

GreatLaBroski said:


> Noisy != badly built.
> 
> My Tesla Model S was great. I’ve seen some **** Model X’s (early production ones sucked). The model 3’s are pretty good from what I’ve seen.
> 
> Calling them “very poorly built” is not fair at all. I’d say “fantastic engineering and safety, questionable quality control”.


They are not put together well. They simply don't have the fit and finish of other car brands. I'm glad you liked yours, but their quality is simply not on the level of many other brands at equal or even lesser pricing.


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

GreatLaBroski said:


> I wonder how well stitching a dash mat with something like ultratouch as the foam filling would work.



Effectiveness will depend on the type of material, and the thickness.

Wool felt is a very good sound absorber. Open cell foams can be good, but you have to get the right kind. Basotect is one kind of foam that works well. Closed cell foams do not work as absorbers.

Bass frequencies need a really thick material to be effective at absorbing. In a car, it is not practical to use a bass absorbing material because the thickness necessary is not achievable in the confined space.

The best we can do is absorbing sounds above 3 kHz. Realisitically, more like 5KHz and up.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

subterFUSE said:


> Effectiveness will depend on the type of material, and the thickness.
> 
> Wool felt is a very good sound absorber. Open cell foams can be good, but you have to get the right kind. Basotect is one kind of foam that works well. Closed cell foams do not work as absorbers.
> 
> ...


Yep. 1000hz is 34cm long, so you need about 8.5cm of wool to attenuate 1khz. (one quarter wavelength.) The density of the material and the thickness will largely determine the effectiveness.










In cardioid woofers, the same construction is used to absorb the output from the rear of the cone.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

Added some cld and ccf to my drivers door today. I had installed a minimal amount of cld to my doors originally, mostly pieces here and there over any holes in the door, a few places on the door panel and none on the outer door skin. This time I added about 25-30% coverage to the outer skin, a few more small pieces to the inner door, a few more pieces to the door panel and then some ccf on the door by parts that had the potential to rattle and about 75% coverage of ccf to the doorpanel. Made some progress but still have some rattles at high volume. Will see if there's any increase in maximum output after doing the other door. 

Here's the before and after at idle and front speaker output before


----------



## Lou Frasier2 (Jul 17, 2012)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Hypothesis: Sedans are quieter than SUVs and CUVs. Electric cars are quieter than ICE cars. High performance cars are noisier than normal cars.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you should try being in a 2014 peterbilt daycab,its horrendously loud and the sound when im at a jobsite ,its overwhelming to boot,im glad for people like you on this forum that think outside the box and aren't afraid to show it,


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Yep. 1000hz is 34cm long, so you need about 8.5cm of wool to attenuate 1khz. (one quarter wavelength.) The density of the material and the thickness will largely determine the effectiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All we need is a fire extinguisher


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

Lou Frasier2 said:


> you should try being in a 2014 peterbilt daycab,its horrendously loud and the sound when im at a jobsite ,its overwhelming to boot,im glad for people like you on this forum that think outside the box and aren't afraid to show it,


I always wonder......is the engine louder or all the noise that potholes cause louder?

Sent from my LG-LS998 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

subterFUSE said:


> Tesla are very poorly built cars. No surprise they are noisy.


So the Mclaren, Fezza and 911 must also be poorly built.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

Holmz said:


> So the Mclaren, Fezza and 911 must also be poorly built.


No really, Teslas are very poorly built


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

SkizeR said:


> No really, Teslas are very poorly built


Bad sealing from a brand new S model.
















Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Giant door panels that don't need to be that large. Poorly designed.









Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

SkizeR said:


> No really, Teslas are very poorly built


The post with the graphs had statements equating noise level as a metric for quality.

Hence the question about mcLarens being crap as they are also noisy.

And the Peterbuilt or Kenworth must also be crap using the noise logic.


----------



## brett (Apr 27, 2005)

i got like 3 pages into this thread and realized something a little sobering; some people know things and some don't. it actually helped me realign where i get some of my information in the future.

anyway, i've read through the tests and experienced things in real life. my conclusions are my own and are in no way a placebo. my understanding is that there are three areas of concern; vibrations that need to be dampened, road noise that needs to be blocked/absorbed, and reflections that need to be nullified. it is also my understanding that former is the easiest to do, which is why most people do that first. and in doing so loosely, and incorrectly, call it sound deadening. hence why this dumb thread exists in the first place.

should i be on the lookout for a thread about how capacitors are worthless?


p.s. i will be applying cld to my jeep soon


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

brett said:


> should i be on the lookout for a thread about how capacitors are worthless?


If you think they aren't, then maybe so. Because they are.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

GEM592 said:


> If you think they aren't, then maybe so. Because they are.


Well, they are are pretty important to pretty much every single electronic item you own.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

*Re: &quot;Sound deadening is a waste of time and money; Prove me wrong!&quot;*

Yup and for those who are wondering. Three words.
Maxwell super caps.

https://www.stevemeadedesigns.com/board/topic/178148-bump4lifes-supercapacitor-overview-and-testing/

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

ca90ss said:


> Well, they are are pretty important to pretty much every single electronic item you own.


Yes I'm sure that's exactly the generalization he was meaning to reference. The value of capacitors as electrical components in general. Obviously, he wasn't commenting about the nonsense power caps that nobody in their right mind would ever use. So thanks for clarifying, and cleaning up.


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

Cleanup time, let's get this thread headed back in the direction of complete pointlessness, as was originally intended.


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

I think this thread needs to be nuked from orbit and reincarnated as a “Sound Deadener Test Results Thread: Post your dB gains or lack there of”. Too much toxicity in here.


----------



## lowcel (Dec 28, 2014)

Throw some 9's in your doors and give them 400 watts of power each. Play them down in the low 50 hz range. First do this with no sound treatment then do it with sound treatment. I promise you, you will notice a difference.


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

This thread should be renamed "Why using the right tool for the right job is critical".


You don't try to put screws into wood with a hammer.
You don't try to reduce road noise by installing CLD deadener.


This is why it is important to understand what materials you *are* supposed to use for the specific application. CLD deadener does work fairly well in its intended application. Which is not blocking exterior noise.


----------



## pocket5s (Jan 6, 2012)

captainobvious said:


> This thread should be renamed "Why using the right tool for the right job is critical".
> 
> 
> You don't try to put screws into wood with a hammer.
> ...


This ^^

Everyone who says sound deadener doesn't work is both right and wrong.
Everyone who says it does work is both right and wrong.

Context is everything.


----------



## SQ Audi (Dec 21, 2010)

Let's rename this to "This thread is a waste of time and a waste of brain cells - Prove me wrong."


----------



## LumbermanSVO (Nov 11, 2009)

Patrick Bateman said:


> If someone has some measurements, I'd love to see them. I measured my Accord, a ton of work and zero difference. Car Stereo Review did the same with a Camaro, there was a marginal difference, like a fraction of a decibel, but that's basically inaudible.
> 
> Unless someone can prove me wrong, I say sound deadening is a placebo.


I'm going to wade into this mess with some numbers. I treated my 1986 FS Bronco with a thin canvas top with FatMat CLD, CCF, and MLV. I did the roof, both skins of the doors, door cards, whole floor, and bedsides. Everyone told me that trying to kill road noise in a vehicle with a thin canvas top was a waste of time and money, my intuition disagreed with them so I did it. 

I tested at several steps, from stock interior with canvas top, to full-treatment with canvas top. My only regret is not using a better CLD tile. The CLD tests showed that the FatMat was actually one of the worst performing products, not too much better than Peel-N-Seal. I have NO doubt that my numbers would be better had I used a better CLD product.

All tests were performed at the same time of day, with the same weather, on the same stretch of roads, at the same speeds, with the same app, the same phone, the same firmware/software versions, the same mic, placed in the same location, with the same phone holder.

Here are the numbers:










I wish I had done a spectrum analysis as part of the testing, because the perceived difference is much greater than 4-5db, and the road noise appears to be significantly more reduced in the higher frequencies.


----------



## mediumroast (Apr 18, 2011)

I lost my RTA measurements since it was maybe ten years ago. In my 2004 Toyota Corolla after adding about 300 pounds dynamat and second skin it lowered the ambient noise in most freqs by about 6db and some of the higher pitch wind noise lowered by 15db! It sounded luxury great but RTA revealed total ambient noise wasn't reduced much like not even 3db lowered average - just spread out mostly to the lower freqs and the peaks were reduced. Every step made an audible and measurable difference: doors, floor, roof, sealing off the trunk, deadening/reinforcing rear deck, blocking the firewall, casing the wheel wells, covering the wiring holes, extra door weather stripping (copying how luxury cars use 2 strips instead of 1.)

Result = road and wind noise was more comfortably muffled and sounded even better(quieter) than my current mercedes e320 - even though average db of road noise was about the same before and after sound deadening.


----------



## thornygravy (May 28, 2016)

Where the deadening effects were the most apparent to me was the first time driving on bumpy roads. The resonance used to be so crazy I could barely hear my mids play.


----------



## mediumroast (Apr 18, 2011)

Yea the extra weight was like having 2 passengers all the time and bumpy roads were way smoother!


----------



## 04quadcab (Dec 31, 2017)

*Re: &quot;Sound deadening is a waste of time and money; Prove me wrong!&quot;*



thornygravy said:


> Where the deadening effects were the most apparent to me was the first time driving on bumpy roads. The resonance used to be so crazy I could barely hear my mids play.


This is where I noticed the most difference. There is a decrease in overall harshness. My truck just feels newer. This of course could just be a placebo effect.

It's also important to remember that even with a whole lot of sound deadening big changes on a meter just aren't going to happen. If you reduce the overall road noise by 10 decibels that means you cut the road noise by half. That is a huge difference.

If you remove half the acoustic energy generated by road noise that will give you a 3 decibel decrease. If you are trying to kill road noise in order to improve the sound in your car then three decibels is a pretty good benchmark. it will have the same net effect as doubling your amplifier power. 

My overall average decrease, just with CLD on the doors, was 3 decibel. Barreling down a really bad Interstate at 80 miles an hour gave me a 10 decibel reduction. 

After a full treatment of the floors I didn't get as big of a reduction as I hoped. But now the road noise never seems to get above 80 decibels. Most of the time the air conditioning on full blast will drown out the road noise. I'm hopeful that when I do a full treatment of the doors that I will get an additional gain since a lot of road noise is creeping around the floor of my truck now.

I may misunderstand how decibels work. If I have this wrong someone please correct me.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## MitchWolos (Aug 4, 2015)

Sound deadening is a waste of time. Because here's a review by a car magazine. Of different cars. Using different tires. Without measuring the sound level from the exhaust to calculate the level of isolation to the interior. It all makes perfect sense if you don't think about it.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

MitchWolos said:


> Sound deadening is a waste of time. Because here's a review by a car magazine. Of different cars. Using different tires. Without measuring the sound level from the exhaust to calculate the level of isolation to the interior. It all makes perfect sense if you don't think about it.


Can you use quote marks (") to designate the actual quote?
Also referencing which actual magazine you are quoting would also be dandy.


----------



## Gramps (Jul 10, 2018)

So my post is not about cars, but homes, yeah its pointless but the rest of this thread is anyways and i have a few mins spare to dribble a bit so here goes it.

I’m a plasterer (drywall in some parts of the world), we have products that we use in certain area’s for sound proofing, its all done under strict regulations and since I don’t do a great deal of it, I’m not sure of the specs, but our manufacturer has gone to HUGE extent to to R&D into this.
So we have sound proof plasterboard in varying thickness that is used in layering techniques alongside sound proof insulation to provide certain parameters to suit different applications, 
The last project i used this on was for counseling rooms, we built a metal framed wall, 2 layers of 13mm soundcheck plasterboard on each side of the wall with sound proof insulation inside, the result, you could not hear the mixing drill going thru the wall,
Now the sound engineer did request special door frames and doors, which sealed a lot better than a normal door, so the room was totally sealed off, but even a reasonable bang on the wall was very hard to hear from the other side of the wall.
I have no doubt that the sound proofing did its job, it passed strict testing with the sound engineer, and cost a bloody fortune to boot!!

Like i said, nothing to do with cars, but totally todo with soundproofing, 
Krem


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

To add gramps post just decoupling studs, adding mlv, and using a sound proofing insulation in a wall makes it nearly sound proof. It's really noticeable in a house because of the reduced background noise. That's what people don't seem to realize about sound deadening. It makes you hear what's there better and prevents cancellations. It doesn't necessarily only make the whole world around you quieter.


----------



## vettefiend (Apr 4, 2009)

Holmz said:


> Can you use quote marks (") to designate the actual quote?
> Also referencing which actual magazine you are quoting would also be dandy.


He was being sarcastic.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

vettefiend said:


> He was being sarcastic.


OK - Thanks




Gramps said:


> So my post is not about cars, but homes, yeah its pointless but the rest of this thread is anyways and i have a few mins spare to dribble a bit so here goes it.
> 
> I’m a plasterer (drywall in some parts of the world), we have products that we use in certain area’s for sound proofing, its all done under strict regulations and since I don’t do a great deal of it, I’m not sure of the specs, but our manufacturer has gone to HUGE extent to to R&D into this.
> So we have sound proof plasterboard in varying thickness that is used in layering techniques alongside sound proof insulation to provide certain parameters to suit different applications,
> ...


A fellow up in QLD sells green glue which is used like a neoprene layer, but between two sheets of gyprock (drywall).
I have only done 1 room like this, and used the door seals etc. it was a 5" thick wall with decoupled inner and outer walls using 2x4.

The AC vents remain a problem area.

The damping approaches are similar to a car, and I suppose the physics are the same.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Gramps said:


> Now the sound engineer did request special door frames and doors, which sealed a lot better than a normal door, *so the room was totally sealed off,* but even a reasonable bang on the wall was very hard to hear from the other side of the wall.
> I have no doubt that the sound proofing did its job, it passed strict testing with the sound engineer, and cost a bloody fortune to boot!!
> 
> Like i said, nothing to do with cars, but totally todo with soundproofing,
> Krem


IMHO, this is the primary reason why it's easier to sound proof a room than a car:

*You can seal off a room.*

In a room or in a car, even the tiniest leak can allow a great deal of sound in the room. We can evaluate this easily; a Lexus going down the highway is very quiet, but if you crack the window a fraction of a centimeter, there's a great deal of sound that enters the cabin from outside.

In a home or an office, it's fairly straightforward to seal off a room, particularly if you have the luxury of _building_ that room. Something as trivial as reducing or eliminating a gap under the door makes a big difference.

In a car, we have one huge freaken thing we can't do anything about: the glass. And that's a big part of the reason that luxury cars are generally quieter than their less expensive brethren. Luxury cars use double pane glass, thicker glass, or both. It's a little tricky to determine who has the best glass, because technically _all_ glass in cars is double pane. 










The glass in cars has two layers, with a laminate in the center, to prevent it from shattering in an accident.

Car and Driver is the only magazine that I'm aware of that consistently measures how loud cars are. There may be others. Because Car and Driver has been publishing data on this using the same calibrated test equipment for well over thirty years, they've provided us a mountain of data on how quiet cars are. It's a great resource if you're looking to drive a quiet car.

TLDR: Being able to seal off a room or a car is paramount to soundproofing it. Rooms are fairly straightforward to seal off. Cars are very difficult, particularly because the glass of the car radiates sound into the cabin, and the sound transmission of the glass is generally lower in the luxury marques, due to superior / heavier / more expensive glass. If you'd like citations, I posted them earlier in the thread.


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

Great thread. I've had my rear seats out of my E46 for the past month, that makes more of a difference (in this case for the worse) than anything else I've installed or uninstalled on a car in terms of deadening.

For my build, I'm replacing the falling-apart-foam-and-MLV-sandwich that I found when I removed the rear seats with something of comparable size and density, just to restore original noise levels and ensure the seat fits properly. I'll be doing a minimum of what is required to seal the door speakers, TBD once I get the panels off. I just can't justify any more weight than that on a car that I've already tried to milk ever spare horsepower out of its poor little 2.5 liter six.

Most of my noise is tire and road noise transferred by my low profile tires and sport suspension. Nothing I can do about that without compromising something else on the car.

So I'm not sure it "doesn't work", but I agree it's an area that gets into diminishing returns very quickly due to manufacturer decisions that you can't change. The perceived need for extra sound deadener is often an indicator of you bought the wrong car.

That said, when I had three 12" subs in the trunk of an '89 Sentra many years ago, I did add supplemental bracing and multiple layers of CLD. That killed the horrible trunk rattle, and placebo or otherwise, seemed to focus the energy of my subs into the cab of the car. But was it the most efficient way of achieving that? Dunno. Probably not.

:lurk:


----------



## GEM592 (Jun 19, 2015)

Patrick Bateman said:


> IMHO, this is the primary reason why it's easier to sound proof a room than a car:
> 
> *You can seal off a room.*
> 
> ...


You can't hear Huey Lewis over a chainsaw in your car either


----------



## Gramps (Jul 10, 2018)

It’s only the front windscreens that are laminated glass as in the pic above, the rest is toughened single layer glass that shatters into a gazillion pieces.

As for sealing off rooms in a house, yeah that alone makes a huge difference, but you can still hear heaps thru a normal timber framed wall with 10mm plaster sheet either side, even laminating 2 normal sheets together don’t make much difference.
A proper sound proofed room will always be framed from metal studs to allow the insulation to sit inside the stud arpeture, sound proof plaster and insulation is very dense, yes there are regulations that the room must be sealed off with sealant around the tops of the sheets behind the cornice line, so the sealing off is part of the process.
Krem


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

My Mercedes has 2 pane acoustic glass windows on all the doors. There is an air gap between the panes. Quietest car on the road I have ever owned, except for the engine which is 600+ HP V8 biturbo. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## P0234 (Jul 5, 2018)

I know I'm late to the party, but here is my $0.02. 

If sound deadening didn't work, manufacturers wouldn't use it. In fact they are trying to use less beacuse it adds significant weight. ANC, active noise cancellation is being used to replace some.


----------



## Gramps (Jul 10, 2018)

subterFUSE said:


> My Mercedes has 2 pane acoustic glass windows on all the doors. There is an air gap between the panes. Quietest car on the road I have ever owned, except for the engine which is 600+ HP V8 biturbo.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If there is an air gap between the 2 layers then its not laminated, laminated glass is extremely soft and cannot be used in doors as it will crack and scratch very easily, your merc would still have toughened glass in the doors, just 2 lots of it sealed around, and my guess would be maybe its argon filled like a lot of double glazed windows.
Still works like sound proofing.
Krem


----------



## Theslaking (Oct 8, 2013)

What's funny is cars in the 40's and 50's had laminated glass in the side windows, but now most don't in lower lines.

Mercedes glass is laminated. It's a few layers of plastic with the middle layer being an absorbing layer.


----------



## minbari (Mar 3, 2011)

My windshield is like that. Was immediately able to tell how much quieter it was.

Sent from my LG-LS998 using Tapatalk


----------



## JH1973 (Apr 21, 2017)

Wow,double pane glass in cars now? I wonder if they put the Low E gas in there for insulation like they do with most home windows now?


----------



## CadChris (Nov 7, 2015)

Hey everyone,

I'm new here.......so bare with me.

My one project died out a few years ago, and I just bought myself another project to hopefully soundproof to new luxury car standards. For a few years 2013-2016, I was following this thread " Sound Deadening (CLD) Testing" by member "TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL", but felt this was only part of the soundproofing materials I needed.

I can't post the thread yet as a new poster...forum rules.

I was going to try to send him a PM about some stuff I found called Megasorber out of Australia, but I need to post a few times in a thread.

This soundproofing mfg, appears to be very high end for both auto/industrial/commercial soundproofing materials.

They have a very extensive website, but the forum will not let me post links yet. 


Google: "MEGASORBER"

But, they only sell direct from Australia, and no U.S. dealers.

Does any mfg here in the U.S. use the same technology they use for sound absorption ect........?

What experts on this forum can I reach out to or should I start another thread on this subject, and where should I post?

By the way, my project is to sound-proof a 1990 Cadillac Fleetwood 
Brougham.

Speaking of the glass, my idea on my other Fleetwood was to urethane a 2nd windshield to the existing windshield as one way to address that area!!!!!!! Not sure if there would've been visual anomalies, but was/still am willing to try it.... 

Thanks for everyone's input and guidance,

Regards,
Chris


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

CadChris said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I'm new here.......so bare with me.
> 
> ...


I messaged Chris (TooStubborn2Fail) a link to your post, but he doesn't really get on this site since the login fiascos a while back. 

From a brief look, I am not seeing anything special on the Megasorber site. Nothing they sell seems unique when compared with products readily available in the US. Stick with the prescription provided by Sound Deadener Showdown and you should be good to go. 

https://www.sounddeadenershowdown.com/product-how-tos

For reference, Chris has also done some testing on sound absorption materials. I don't think he has posted the complete "official" results anywhere, but I know he has a lot of raw data. Richard Vedvik (keep_hope_alive) also has a series of videos on YouTube for automotive sound treatment that are worth checking out. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkYUo2EShW9lgtrfXiDvLNQ/videos


----------



## CadChris (Nov 7, 2015)

Holmz said:


> Or use bullet proof glass. There is a company in Chicago that sells that for Caddies


Thanks Holmz.....What company in Chicago? 

I looked into bullet-proof glass once as an idea for soundproofing my windshield and figured just adding another windshield with an air-gap between could work and using a special car-windshield urethane used especially for quiet-glass windshields in the industry could make a difference. 

I found 1 or 2 mfgs who would custom make laminated side glass and a new better windshield with a PVB/AR/Better UV coating for my car, but super expensive for each piece. I just wanted to come up with an idea especially when running into South Florida heavy rain hitting the windshield.......it's so noisy, you have to scream inside the car to have a conversation.......!


----------



## CadChris (Nov 7, 2015)

Thanks for that info "rton20s.....I'll look it over.


But.....I was really interested in that companies sound absorbing material with their fire-proof "Soundmesh G8". I've never seen anything like it.......... 

I would use it attached under the hood to absorb engine/air sounds (in addition to some kind of panel damping stuff.. ), as well as make some custom sized panels to fully trim the large engine compartment over the wheel-wells and on the horizontal surfaces to make a "blanket" to trim-out around the engine. I think that would really do something for engine noise. 

I really like that this stuff comes with different colored fabrics and (white) to match the white paint of my Cadillac so I can have a custom-look to cover all the b.s. hoses/wires/junk.



Let's see if I can post these links yet:

Is there anything made in the U.S. like their Megasorber FM-S or any of their other sound absorbing panels?

Fire-safe Acoustic Foam Panel, Megasorber Soundproofing Products

Megasorber FG:
Acoustic Foam with Fireproof Acoustic Facing, Megasorber Soundproofing

Megasorber P:....I thought about putting this under a headliner if it could be used to absorb interior sound, and somehow be formed to the contours of the fiberglass headliner panel and then apply fabric headliner to it.....:shrug::
Sound-Absorbing Polyester Panel, Fireproof Facing, Megasorber

All Sound Absorption:
Acoustic Foam, Soundproofing Foam Products by Megasorber


Here's a case study on a bus, but it looks like maybe they used a ton of different products to achieve their results and even put absorption material under the bus:.......lot's of frequency /db /graph charts!!!!!!!!:laugh: 
Soundproofing for 4WD Coaches & Vehicles | Megasorber

What do you think?????????


----------



## CadChris (Nov 7, 2015)

Hey Holmz........You're in Australia????? What's the word on the street about that Megasorber company based in Australia????

Anyway.......I get the joke, I thought you knew of a company that had bullet-proof windshields already made for a Cadillac Brougham. I called some companies, who all said it was a $10,000 custom job.


----------



## CadChris (Nov 7, 2015)

Just for reference, here's what a Cadillac Brougham's engine compartment looks like with a "Big-Noisy-350 Chevy".....

I'm going to switch to a Flex-A-Lite S-Blade electric fan to get rid of the belt driven fan/clutch. Those huge fan-blades really move air and roar.....! 

I would attach some kind of absorption panels to those cross member-tubes that form a "diamond shape" around the engine as well as under the hood.....at least that's my idea to make one-hell-of-a-sound-trap for under hood noise absorption:laugh:...


----------



## Grinder (Dec 18, 2016)

JH1973 said:


> Wow,double pane glass in cars now? I wonder if they put the Low E gas in there for insulation like they do with most home windows now?


While this inert gas does improve thermal efficiency, what makes windows Low E is are microscopic coatings that have been applied to the inner surface(s) of multi-pane windows to reduce ingress and/or egress of infrared radiant heat.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

CadChris said:


> Hey Holmz........You're in Australia????? What's the word on the street about that Megasorber company based in Australia???
> ...


Just looking at the web site now. Which product are you thinking of?


----------



## CadChris (Nov 7, 2015)

Holmz said:


> Just looking at the web site now. Which product are you thinking of?


Everything I posted in post# 236......or even their complete line of stuff from dampening, to absorption.

By the way.......I had to laugh when I saw your screen-name. Just watched this famous American movie the other day:

See video:

......"hey excuse me HOLMZ........what it is bro......."!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LWXpIZ130s&t=65s

I bet the Griswold Wagon-Queen Family Truckster could've used some MAJOR soundproofing!


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

CadChris said:


> Everything I posted in post# 236......or even their complete line of stuff from dampening, to absorption.
> 
> By the way.......I had to laugh when I saw your screen-name. Just watched this famous American movie the other day:
> 
> ...


Funny my other nicknames are the dude and Grizwald.
I thought the Holmz was related to the John, but now I know.


----------



## josby (May 8, 2011)

I've always found it strange that in the 26 years since I first saw that Dynamat desk bell demo at my local car audio shop, I've never seen them (or anyone else that makes such products) advertise the results of any well-controlled before-and-after measurements using their products. NVH is pretty big for auto OEM's; Sound and Vibration magazine has two issues per year on automotive NVH. Surely hiring one of those engineers to do before-and-after measurements on a car would be feasible. So, I assume either 1) they know the results wouldn't be impressive, or 2) they worry that, since vehicles vary, some customers might measure their own results and complain if they weren't as good.

Still, I'm comforted by what I've read from the OEM world, like this article on auto NVH from an engineer at an acoustics, noise and vibration consulting firm. He talks about basically the same stuff that Don at SDS does: dampers to control structural resonance, decoupled dense barriers to block airborne sound, and poro-elastic absorbers to absorb airborne sound.




I ran across this very informative thread from a former Tesla NVH engineer comparing the Model 3 with Model S and Mercedes S-550. Some consolidated excerpts from his various posts I found interesting:

"Of course, the MB S-550 is the champion here and nothing I have ever tested comes close. The S-550 has lots of sound damping materials, probably about 100 lbs worth, and so does the Model S (although perhaps just a tad less). Most cars in that class will have similar sound packages (A8, 750i, LS460, etc.). Sadly, us automotive engineers have to engineer cars to meet a wide range of use cases, road surfaces, weather conditions, etc, which forces a lot of complexity, cost and weight into the car. The lengths that Mercedes has gone to on the S-550 to isolate road induced vibration from reaching the cabin is remarkable. It is an engineering wonder, but it did not come cheaply and does add weight."

"Both the Tesla's suffer a little bit from a frequency spectra that has some strong "tonal" components which blend in with the broadband "white noise" (which is the dominant feature of tire/road noise). The S550 has a much smoother, flatter frequency spectra and the sound is both quieter and more "pleasant".

"This is very tricky territory here since *dB(A) is a very simple, single-number metric which attempts to capture a complex, frequency dependent behavior*, but cannot adequately describe the overall perception of a sound. Some sounds don't "seem" as loud because of the shape of their frequency spectra. Other sounds "seem" loud (even though they are not as measured by dB(A)), because of the nature of the sound spectrum."

"I should also mention that my Model 3 has the 19" wheels with "ContiSilent" tires. In general, lower profile tires are noisier (so the 19's should be slightly louder than the base 18's), but the ContiSilent acoustic foam in the tire should offset that somewhat. My road noise measurements show that the sharp peak in the frequency spectra that would normally be observed when there is no acoustic foam is gone. Previous testing I have done on these tires has shown pretty unequivocally that they really do work. Keep in mind that the noise reduction happens at a very specific frequency (the acoustic cavity resonance of the air cavity inside the tire), so you won’t hear overall reduction in sound, but it will seem quieter since that dominant tire cavity resonance is significantly reduced and this affects the “perception” of loudness."

"One big advantage the Model 3 has over the Model S is that it does not have a hatchback like the S has, and so the passenger compartment is somewhat isolated from the noise generated in the trunk. This was a huge issue for us on the Model S and made getting the car really quiet (e.g. like MB S550) very, very difficult. The Model 3 closes off the trunk (but does have the "vent" in the rear shelf panel), so it can use less acoustical material and still achieve good noise levels."

"All of these [noises] can be a combination of structure borne (vibrations passed through to the body mechanically) and airborne (noise penetrating the body through the air). Knowing which of these noise sources is most offending and then deciding if it's structure borne or airborne (or both) is the just the starting point of making a car 'less noisy'."

"I wouldn't do anything to improve the Model 3 road noise. However, if I did decide to do that I would focus on suspension, tires and body structure. The reasons is that if you look at the noise spectrum (I have), you'll see that most of the sound energy is structure borne noise below 500 Hz. This part of the frequency range is not affected much by carpets, mats, and other "soft" acoustical materials. In this frequency range, it is all about vibration isolation from the road surface, and low frequency wave radiation from the body sheetmetal panels. One would need softer tires and software suspension bushings and additional body panel reinforcements."

"If you had to, I suppose you could "slather" a bunch of Dynomat-like material on much of the body sheet parts: the firewall, door inner sheet metal, rear wheelhouse inner panels, trunk floor, etc. You'd need a lot of it, and probably multiple layers in order for it to make a noticeable difference."

"You might find that the Dynamat, foam decoupler and heavy layer makes a difference but it somewhat depends on what Tesla has already done behind the door trim panel. It also depends on how strong that noise path is in the first place."

"The battery pack under the floor pretty much wipes out any noise contribution from the floor in general. This is one of the HUGE noise advantages Tesla has over any car without a large battery pack under the floor. Speaking about "Dynamat", keep in mind that this only provides damping for structural vibrations of the sheet metal, and while this can (and does) contribute to noise, it is only a part of what is needed. Think of it as a necessary but not sufficient part of the solution."


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

JH1973 said:


> Wow,double pane glass in cars now? I wonder if they put the Low E gas in there for insulation like they do with most home windows now?


Yes, my 2012 Mercedes has double pane windows with argon gas in between the layers, just like a home window.


----------



## 1styearsi (Aug 13, 2012)

i don't want to read the whole thread.
i have a 2016 VW passat quiet car from the fsctory.
i also have a 1992 chevy truck and i doubled up the deadener an it mad a huge difference


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

josby said:


> "I should also mention that my Model 3 has the 19" wheels with "ContiSilent" tires. In general, lower profile tires are noisier (so the 19's should be slightly louder than the base 18's), but the ContiSilent acoustic foam in the tire should offset that somewhat. My road noise measurements show that the sharp peak in the frequency spectra that would normally be observed when there is no acoustic foam is gone. Previous testing I have done on these tires has shown pretty unequivocally that they really do work. Keep in mind that the noise reduction happens at a very specific frequency (the acoustic cavity resonance of the air cavity inside the tire), so you won’t hear overall reduction in sound, but it will seem quieter since that dominant tire cavity resonance is significantly reduced and this affects the “perception” of loudness."


Swapping out tires made a huge difference in my Accord. I found the tires by looking up measurements that were performed at tirerack.com. The tire store that I hired to install them, they didn't want to put them on my car, because they were designed for a hybrid. Basically the tires were optimized for low rolling resistance (to increase mileage) but they also happened to be very quiet.

On the downside, braking was noticeably worse.

I'd argue that nothing works better to isolate road noise than constant directivity waveguides though. It's really eerie how the road noise just "disappears" when you play music through one. I believe this is because the coverage is so constant.

The first time I ever heard a CD waveguide was at the RMAF show in Denver. I was gabbing with it's inventor for a few hours, while music was being played. The next day I was actually hoarse. Basically when the coverage is constant and the speaker has a ton of headroom, the actual SPL level "seems" like it's about 10dB lower.

One way to visualize this is to picture a laser and a light bulb. The laser will be very bright on-axis, but all of the energy is focused in a narrow beam. A light bulb covers the whole room, but to get the same energy level you'd have to pour a ton of power into it.


----------



## CadChris (Nov 7, 2015)

I never heard about those "ContiSilent" tires mentioned above....thanks for the info.

So the question now is, can we in the aftermarket add the same type/density Polyurethane Insulation into any tire????

https://www.continental-tires.com/car/technology/contisilent

_"A ContiSilent™ tire contains a polyether-based polyurethane foam. It is firmly attached to an adhesive layer on the inner surface of the tire tread area."
_

Here's a few more articles:

*Car and Driver Magazine Tests:*.....it looks like "3M Thinsulate" inside that tire in the photo:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/t...ulated-tires-really-hush-road-noise#backfires

*How to Repair a ContiSilent:*
https://sandyblogs.com/techlink/?p=8677

Years ago, Uniroyal Tires made the "Royal Seal" that made the 80's 90's Fleetwood's ride really well. That thick gel inside (puncture seal) probably also had sound dampening characteristics that were not advertised back then.....I think it's similar to this technology by Continental called "ContiSeal", and I wonder if that has good sound dampening characteristics:
_A ContiSeal™ tire contains a sticky, viscous sealant layer that covers the inside of the tire tread._
https://www.continental-tires.com/car/technology/extended-mobility-main/contiseal

I have the classic Vogue white walls/gold stripe on my big 1990 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, although they look good, they're a hard riding tire, and noisy. I'd love to add something inside these tires now to address that area of sound dampening.......!

Tire soundproofing should be a whole thread started.......let's put on our "Thinking Caps" to figure out what to put inside tires for soundproofing, and not throw it out of balance......maybe "3M Thinsulate"??????

In the articles above, Honda attached a sound-dampener directly to the inner wheel rim lip that expands which is very interesting.

I wonder if adding something like an innertube-bladder inside a tubeless radial tire could be done to achieve the same sound dampening effects.....

Here's a little on the subject and I guess it's been done or asked about:
https://www.wheels.ca/news/installing-inner-tube-in-tubeless-radial-is-a-dangerous-move/

Some advocate using Talc Powder when using an innertube to reduce inside friction of the tube chaffing on the inner tire.....
https://community.cartalk.com/t/inner-tube-for-tubeless/7138/8

https://community.cartalk.com/t/radial-tube-in-radial-tire/29284/15

Coker Tire makes these....not sure of how they can be used for a tubeless-radial.....have to call and ask:
https://www.cokertire.com/gr-13-15-tr-13-radial-tube.html

Just a few thoughts about what can be put inside a tire for sound dampening.


----------



## CadChris (Nov 7, 2015)

Looks like Michelin is using foam in tires:

https://www.michelin.com/eng/media-...N-Acoustic-the-tire-that-turns-down-the-sound

https://www.michelinman.com/US/en/why-michelin/michelin-acoustic-technology.html


So is Goodyear:
Goodyear Newsroom : Sound Comfort - Foam in tire Technology


According to TireRack:
https://tires.tirerack.com/tires/Acoustic Tire


----------



## evo9 (Jul 6, 2005)

Patrick Bateman said:


> If someone has some measurements, I'd love to see them. I measured my Accord, a ton of work and zero difference. Car Stereo Review did the same with a Camaro, there was a marginal difference, like a fraction of a decibel, but that's basically inaudible.
> 
> Unless someone can prove me wrong, I say sound deadening is a placebo.



Have to agree with you on this topic. I walked away with the same feeling when I dynmatted my 2000 accord coupe from top to bottom. The overall design of a car suspension will dictate the interior noise level of any vehicle. Unless you are going to layer the panels a few inches thick. One or two layer of sound damping wont make a difference. 

With that said. I do believe it does help to dampen the doors & panels where the speakers are mounted. This helps with rigidity which in turn allows the drivers to perform at peak level. Another method of resonance control to improve sound is to add a ballast. But yeah, damping elsewhere is a waste of money & time.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Specifically kick and under seat midbasses. Having deadened floors is a huge deal. If they aren't, then i have alot of tactile location ques which is bad.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## josby (May 8, 2011)

CadChris said:


> So the question now is, can we in the aftermarket add the same type/density Polyurethane Insulation into any tire????


My guess would be that you'd need to have the density and size of the foam just right for it to work properly, and that would require measurements, calculations and knowledge of materials that none of us hobbyists have, though.



CadChris said:


> Looks like Michelin is using foam in tires:
> 
> So is Goodyear:


Unfortunately, the tire manufacturers seem to only be targeting this at OEM's. Most of their pages about their tire quieting technology don't even mention which of their tire models have it in them.

I looked through every Michelin tire on Tire Rack, and the only ones with their Acoustic Technology are some of the 19" to 21" Max Performance Summer tires. And almost all of them have an OEM in their SKU (e.g. Tesla, Audi, Porsche). Except I did find one 18" Grand Touring All Season tire that has it, but only in size 235/45R18.

Same story for Pirelli - the only tires that have their Noise Cancelling System are 20" to 22" Max Performance Summer tires, except for a single size of one of their All Season tires (265/40R20).

At first I hoped maybe it was just new technology that would trickle down to other models, but most of the press releases from tire manufacturers about this tech are from 2016, so it seems like it would've happened by now.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar (Aug 23, 2016)

CadChris said:


> I never heard about those "ContiSilent" tires mentioned above....thanks for the info.
> 
> So the question now is, can we in the aftermarket add the same type/density Polyurethane Insulation into any tire????


For all the effort is it actually worth it acoustically?
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/tested-do-acoustically-insulated-tires-really-hush-road-noise


----------



## LumbermanSVO (Nov 11, 2009)

evo9 said:


> Have to agree with you on this topic. I walked away with the same feeling when I dynmatted my 2000 accord coupe from top to bottom. The overall design of a car suspension will dictate the interior noise level of any vehicle. Unless you are going to layer the panels a few inches thick. One or two layer of sound damping wont make a difference.
> 
> With that said. I do believe it does help to dampen the doors & panels where the speakers are mounted. This helps with rigidity which in turn allows the drivers to perform at peak level. Another method of resonance control to improve sound is to add a ballast. But yeah, damping elsewhere is a waste of money & time.


See my previous post: https://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/5553802-post208.html

I'm tempted to do the a similar test when I treat my Miata, unfortunately, I've already done the doors, so it wouldn't be a stock vs fully treated test.


----------



## K-pop sucks (May 28, 2018)

Did this thread break?


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

K-pop sucks said:


> Did this thread break?


I was beaten into submission


----------



## Aculous1 (Jun 17, 2017)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Basically what the title says. Sound deadening is pointless.
> 
> Forked from here:
> 
> ...


I'd be more than happy to give you empirical data if you sponsor it and pay for my time.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Aculous1 said:


> I'd be more than happy to give you empirical data if you sponsor it and pay for my time.


How much?


----------



## Aculous1 (Jun 17, 2017)

Patrick Bateman said:


> How much?


$1500 parts and lets just call it 20hrs labor @ $80 an hour. But you didn't care about the answer to this question and you really didn't care about the answer to the first question. But then again it wasn't a question in the first place. 

Then you went on to answer your own "statement" with the "if you want a quiet car buy one" comment...

Which brings me to the annoying part. I have been reading your posts about the M2 waveguide and I have been studying directivity for awhile. I read a bunch of Geddes stuff and was looking into making M2 clones. But this makes me wonder if you believe your own horseshit or not...


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Aculous1 said:


> $1500 parts and lets just call it 20hrs labor @ $80 an hour.


Most of my projects generally max-out at around $500. $3100 is too much for me.



Aculous1 said:


> But you didn't care about the answer to this question and you really didn't care about the answer to the first question. But then again it wasn't a question in the first place.
> 
> Then you went on to answer your own "statement" with the "if you want a quiet car buy one" comment...


I care deeply about this question. For instance, I've been debating the purchased of a 2019 Honda Accord. It includes the following technologies to quiet the cabin:

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...way-better-car-honda-even-fixed-display-audio

_Active noise cancellation helps mask road and engine noise by sampling sounds reaching the cockpit and playing back an inverse wave form. It now uses three microphones to better capture sounds. There’s even a sound-absorbing band of acoustic material inside the wheels to reduce noise._

I really need to ditch my Mazda CX5, it sucks. 



Aculous1 said:


> Which brings me to the annoying part. I have been reading your posts about the M2 waveguide and I have been studying directivity for awhile. I read a bunch of Geddes stuff and was looking into making M2 clones. But this makes me wonder if you believe your own horseshit or not...



When the JBL M2 first came out, Geddes commented that the waveguide was largely a marketing gimmick. There's no one on earth who's invested more time in reverse engineering it; I've posted six different ways to model it.

Having said all that, I mostly agree with Geddes : the M2 waveguide is largely cosmetic.

There are some SMALL advantages to the M2 waveguide; it offers the advantages of a diffraction horn with possibly lower diffraction. (I can get into the advantages of a diffraction horn, if anyone cares.)

But at the end of the day, I still haven't measured anything that exceeds the performance of the QSC waveguide (which is basically oblate spheroidal) and the JBL progressive transition waveguide (which is basically a hybrid of an OS waveguide and a biradial horn.)

Last but not least, and the most important thing by far here:

*Why bother with an M2 clone?* A clone will cost around $4000 a pair, and there are designs for $1000ish that are simpler to implement and 95-100% as good. I guess if you want to spend 3X as much for that last zero to five percent...


----------



## Aculous1 (Jun 17, 2017)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Most of my projects generally max-out at around $500. $3100 is too much for me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wouldn't buy a honda after the experiences I have had with them mechanically but mostly in the electrical and audio arena. My buddies 2016 had all the same noise issues and electrical issues my 2000 accord had.

The point is you can absolutely quiet a car down to a reasonable level. But in order to do that its going to cost you around $500 minimum to do it right. There are a lot of products to get this done but aluminum foil with butyl attached is not really what most people need. But its the ham-fisted approach most people take. Mass loaded vinyl and closed cell foam as well as a spectrum or green glue type product works really well. But you spend a LOT of time doing this and it may not be worth it to you. Road noise and little vibrations of panels drive me crazy. Hence why I spent the time to take care of my F250 I owned awhile back but I didn't do anything to my cadillac. There are diminishing returns.

Sounddeadener showdown does a good job of giving you a turn key solution but instead of spending the money on that I would take a different approach and look at products being used in home theater that can be applied to car audio. Also secondskin has a product I like which is luxuryliner pro. But you can also use stuff like DB3 which works. 

Fact of the matter is that most people just throw the aluminum butyl stuff all over the car not knowing what its function is. A small 4"x4" piece is most likely adequate to lower the resonant frequency of a panel. Just adding weight to the car doesn't do anything. having a barrier that sound can't pass like MLV is a lot more important. Door seals get overlooked, and road noise coming through the floor is a big thing. Theres a ton of issues that get overlooked. 

Also if you aren't measuring the car sitting in a parking lot at idle and then on the highway...you don't have the data to backup what you are doing. I'll measure mine before and after when I do mine but its going to be a bit. Also I only have the minidsp measurement mic but at least it would be something. 

________________________________________

The unity and synergy horns are super interesting as well. I looked at M2 clone because I saw a good deal on the woofers and the cabinet didn't seem crazy. But I ended up going the JBL 43xx route and am now looking at a Rey Audio type setup or a SEOS waveguide with a BMS driver. (DIYSOUNDGROUP keeps me occupied a lot)

I am playing with the idea of running the Eric Stevens horns in my truck but I am wondering if a biradial or some type of other horn could also work. But I am getting to the point where I want a simpler setup in my "older" age.


----------



## K-pop sucks (May 28, 2018)

Aculous1, I agree 100% with what you said. People cover there whole car with CLD tiles and do nothing else like idiots. What's worse is when they only need 25% panel coverage to do the job, they must love diminished returns with CLD. 

I have used both Sound deadening showdown and second skin products on my car. SDS has better CLD tiles, second skin has thinner aluminum and smells. SDS mlv has more weight to it than second skin, but luxury liner is a better all in one solution. If you need CCF in various thickness, go second skin.

I recently bought 3" thick studio acoustic foam and 3m Thinsulate 600L insulation to test. Still messing with extra door seals and seal fillers.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Aculous1 said:


> The unity and synergy horns are super interesting as well. I looked at M2 clone because I saw a good deal on the woofers and the cabinet didn't seem crazy. But I ended up going the JBL 43xx route and am now looking at a Rey Audio type setup or a SEOS waveguide with a BMS driver. (DIYSOUNDGROUP keeps me occupied a lot)


Listeners seem to prefer a narrower baffle. I heard the JBL 4367 back-to-back with a Revel that cost 30% as much, and the Revel sounded about as good. The two are very different but the Revel sounds darn good, especially for the money.

I'm putting my money where my mouth is and I'm currently building a Unity horn with a narrow baffle. I'll post the results if it goes anywhere.

Some thoughts on Revel vs JBL here : https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/330741-preference-direct-radiators-10.html



Aculous1 said:


> I am playing with the idea of running the Eric Stevens horns in my truck but I am wondering if a biradial or some type of other horn could also work. But I am getting to the point where I want a simpler setup in my "older" age.


I'm also trying to come up with a Boundary Element Model of underdash horns, but it is HARD. Probably the hardest piece of software I've ever tried to learn, and this is what I do for a living :O

ABEC is a beast.

If I manage to come up with a model, that could be really cool, because it's never been done before. And because car audio horns are dependent on the shape of the dash, it would allow me to make underdash horns tailored for a specific car. 










BEM has kinda been a Godsend for this type of stuff. Even five years ago it was challenging to do, because it took so long to do the sims. But with eight core CPUs down to $199, it's becoming do-able. Once someone starts selling BEM software that's affordable and works with GPUs, that will open the floodgates. I think Comsol can leverage GPUs, but it costs around $12,000 


If I can actually get it to work, BEM should allow me to see what twenty different waveguides behave like, without actually building them. You will be able to vary the height, the depth, the throat, _everything._

Right now we can already do that with Axidriver, but the problem with Axidriver is that it's symmetrical. Sound really doesn't like symmetry; that's why all the modern JBL waveguides have lots of features to break up the symmetry.

So to get to the next level, you have to build a model in 3D, and that means you have to do BEM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_element_method


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

You should check out the AcousticBEM github if you’re doing an implementation. If I was going after it I’d modify some of that code and write a solver to run in CUDA.


----------



## Aculous1 (Jun 17, 2017)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Listeners seem to prefer a narrower baffle. I heard the JBL 4367 back-to-back with a Revel that cost 30% as much, and the Revel sounded about as good. The two are very different but the Revel sounds darn good, especially for the money.
> 
> I'm putting my money where my mouth is and I'm currently building a Unity horn with a narrow baffle. I'll post the results if it goes anywhere.
> 
> ...



Very cool, I'd be interested. I am just now getting comfortable with speaker modeling and I struggle with accurate measurement which is more a product of the environments that I have to use to measure them in than anything else. The whole damn world is too noisey. 

I tried to figure out Hornresp but find it pretty worthless because I can't really make sense of it in any practical way. As much as I fight it I am more of a visual person. But yea I have been looking at horns ever since I started to look at tapped horns and TLs.


----------



## preston (Dec 10, 2007)

Data point

2015 GMC Sierra 2500HD.

On reasonably quiet pavement at 68mph, my iphone OSHA noise app averaged about 70dB. Pretty close to what I saw in one of the car magazines.

Did a full gamut of sound proofing, CLD/CCF/MLV on the rear wall (after removing most of the OEM pad and adding an amplifier board). Floor, front doors heavily treated, I didn't fully drop the headliner due to the sun roof but managed to get some CLD on the roof and stuffed melamine foam everywhere I could fit it. Rear doors are currently untreated. 

New measurement is 68dB. Now you can certainly make the argument it wasn't worth it, but I had the whole interior apart anyway and you do everything you can right ?

For me it was well worth it, I appreciate any improvement in quiet. This big giant diesel truck is actually a little quieter now than my 1992 Cadillac Deville that has also been treated but not nearly as extensively since it was ten years ago and I didn't know as much.


----------



## LumbermanSVO (Nov 11, 2009)

preston said:


> Data point
> 
> 2015 GMC Sierra 2500HD.
> 
> ...


I bet if you had done some form of RTA measurement when testing you would have found that the sound treatments were much more effective at higher frequencies.


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

LumbermanSVO said:


> I bet if you had done some form of RTA measurement when testing you would have found that the sound treatments were much more effective at higher frequencies.


This is my suspicion as well. But I'd love to see measurements.


----------



## LumbermanSVO (Nov 11, 2009)

It's something I plan to test when I do more work on my Miata. I know from doing the Bronco that deadening works because I tested before, after, and during different stages. But it sounds like it was much more effective than the numbers show, and I believe that's because it was much more effective at higher frequencies.

I probably won't do any more work on the Miata until spring though, I have other projects I need to work on.


----------



## 04quadcab (Dec 31, 2017)

preston said:


> Data point
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A 2 DB drop may be worth it. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Tweezer (Nov 9, 2018)

preston said:


> Data point
> 
> 2015 GMC Sierra 2500HD.
> 
> ...


Just curious. On the rear wall, is the CLD/CCF/MLV over the amp board and under the electronics, over the amp board and electronics, or some combination? I'm getting ready to do the same and can't figure out the order. I'm thinking install the amp board to the sheet metal, then install CLD, CCF, MLV in that order. I'll then mount the amp on "stand offs" so CLD/CCF/MLV is under the amp (if there's enough room). Does that make sense? What did you do?

Were your two measurements taken on the same road?


----------



## preston (Dec 10, 2007)

I cut out most of the central area of the stock blanket, but left the top portion and as much of the sides as I could. Then with the blanket removed entirely, I applied CLD to much of the wall. That metal BTW is very thin and has a lot of resonance, I'm surprised Chevy doesn't do more back there but the stock blanket is pretty thick including an MLV layer. 

So then I covered the entire wall with a ccf/MLV sheet, held in place with velcro and some of the same bolts used for the amplifier board. Then the board gets bolted into place and the amps mounted. Note that in these trucks most of hte noise seems to come in from the back wall, if you ever drive aournd with that wall bare you will definitely agree.

I was unwilling to completely block the vents, but I taped MLV "flaps" that hang over them to block as much as I could, but they are not sealed so air pressure can still slip through. The vents were then further covered with the remnants of the stock blanket. The RCA's and wires route under this blanket but I don't have the amps mounted over the vents.

Your idea is fine but I wanted to be able to remove the amp board easily both for initial fabrication and if I even want to go back in and change up things. I can't see that it would make much difference. I think sealing the amp board in there would be a mess and more difficult as well. There is a lot of finagling to get everything setup right. 

I agree on high frequency, 2db or not the improvement was quite pleasing to me especially considering it was already pretty quiet. I came from a 2003 Dodge Ram that I had also done a lot of sound proofing to and in that case there wasn't much improvement, or at least it was still pretty loud, like 74 dB in the same conditions. Yes measured on the same road and same speed.

I thought about recording an RTA before/after but putting in a system is so much work things get dropped by the wayside, and I knew I was going to do all this anyway because Audio fairy dust.


----------



## Thegenuinearticle (Mar 1, 2018)

I have to largely agree reflecting back on all my previous installs. I think in some key areas it can make a difference but that's mainly like using foam materials or weather stripping to decouple a baffle from the metal when installing door speakers or other panels . Also placing an absorbent material behind the door speakers like fiberglass duct board to tame the back wave can be effective. Using polypill sheet to line the door panels when placing back over the doors helps eliminate buzzing and other resonances.

I guess my idea of sound deadening is more about decoupling surfaces that can resonate using gasket materials or also using non drying modeling clay to line midrange housings and such. However for the most part in my experience slapping pounds and pounds of foil covered rubber all over a vehicles interior only gave me a heavier car and a lighter wallet....Just my $0.02..The companies in bed with the industry who peddle this foil covered petroleum will of course claim something otherwise...


----------



## Pb82 Ronin (Jun 6, 2018)

:inout::bash: Really old thread man. 

But I will say, I did take before and after deadening measurements with a db meter and there WERE differences in ALL conditions. So I can easily disagree with the OP with simple tools.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Pb82 Ronin said:


> :inout::bash: Really old thread man.
> 
> But I will say, I did take before and after deadening measurements with a db meter and there WERE differences in ALL conditions. So I can easily disagree with the OP with simple tools.


Post 'em.


----------



## Thegenuinearticle (Mar 1, 2018)

Old thread? Ok...Keep it going then because millions of dollars per year are being spent on these products and honestly I had rather chase down a rattle or vibration (which I think makes a bigger difference in listening enjoyment) with some $5.00 weather stripping than spend $1,000 on some rubber that makes my car 200 lbs heavier...


----------



## Pb82 Ronin (Jun 6, 2018)

Measurements Before/After: 
(Engine off/No radio)
Windows up - 39 db / 38.5 db
Windows down - 39.8 db / 39 db

(Engine running)
Windows up (M2W closed) - 57 db / 53.5 db
Windows down (M2W closed) - 59 db / 58 db
Windows up (M2W open) - 70 db / 65.3 db
Windows down (M2W open) - 73 db / 71 db

(Engine running, stereo playing)
Stereo playing W/U - 94 db / 102 db (metal song, not bass heavy and at normal volume)
Stereo playing W/D - 91 db / 97 db

This was my initial measurements after basic deadening, CLD tiles, Kollossus, and some HMF. I have not reaccomplished this since the installation of the MLV, which now I'm very tempted to do because the car is dramatically quieter than before.


----------



## Lanson (Jan 9, 2007)

Sound deadening, IME, is a case of diminishing returns but one should always strive to get on at least the beginning curve of that because there is definitely an initial reward even with basic deadening. But I've never built a vehicle without at least something to quell the vibrations and rattles. Usually minimum 36 sq ft + closed cell foam.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Pb82 Ronin said:


> Measurements Before/After:
> (Engine off/No radio)
> Windows up - 39 db / 38.5 db
> Windows down - 39.8 db / 39 db
> ...


Thanks for posting this!

What is "M2W?"


----------



## diy.phil (May 23, 2011)

Electromechanical exhaust/valve control. Should be a switch on the center console. M = mild = good neighbor at night. W = wild animal running loose on the freeway or in the city lol.


----------



## Pb82 Ronin (Jun 6, 2018)

M2W = mild to wild exhaust controller. As mentioned, it's a remote control for the additional exhaust valve. That's why it's noticeably quieter when closed than open. I'll take more measurements soon since I've added MLV and foam, and as I've said, it's definitely quieter now.


----------



## LBaudio (Jan 9, 2009)

if you do maybe 25% of coverage and nothing else i dont wonder why there is no difference in measurements....

Back in the day there was test of Rockford Fosgate damping materials (Yellow and Blue/cyan) in cans....measured difference was measured at engine idle and with car running at 50 and 70 mph if I recollect correctly and measured difference was over 2 dB....


----------



## LumbermanSVO (Nov 11, 2009)

LBaudio said:


> if you do maybe 25% of coverage and nothing else i dont wonder why there is no difference in measurements....
> 
> Back in the day there was test of Rockford Fosgate damping materials (Yellow and Blue/cyan) in cans....measured difference was measured at engine idle and with car running at 50 and 70 mph if I recollect correctly and measured difference was over 2 dB....


I did some similar testing and posted the results in my build thread, and even earlier in this thread: https://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/5553802-post208.html


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

Pb82 Ronin said:


> M2W = mild to wild exhaust controller. As mentioned, it's a remote control for the additional exhaust valve. That's why it's noticeably quieter when closed than open. I'll take more measurements soon since I've added MLV and foam, and as I've said, it's definitely quieter now.


How does the F:A ratio change with the exhaust changing?

Is this an "Alpha-N" tune, or MAP, MAF... and is theresome closed loop lambda to correct for it?


----------



## Pb82 Ronin (Jun 6, 2018)

Holmz said:


> How does the F:A ratio change with the exhaust changing?
> 
> Is this an "Alpha-N" tune, or MAP, MAF... and is theresome closed loop lambda to correct for it?


It doesn't affect AFR at all. The valve is in the tips, well down stream of the O2s.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

Pb82 Ronin said:


> It doesn't affect AFR at all. The valve is in the tips, well down stream of the O2s.


Why have it loud if it doesn't flow more air?


----------



## LBaudio (Jan 9, 2009)

LumbermanSVO said:


> I did some similar testing and posted the results in my build thread, and even earlier in this thread: https://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/5553802-post208.html


thanks for posting your measurements!


----------



## Pb82 Ronin (Jun 6, 2018)

Holmz said:


> Why have it loud if it doesn't flow more air?


Its not a loud thing...its a quiet thing. Its the stock system and it reduces exhaust db by a few db. It's very noticeable in the car. (Jump to about 50 seconds in the video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-hpOOc5tTQ


----------



## stickpony (Nov 8, 2010)

subterFUSE said:


> I performed the following test with my Audi a few years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


question is, which one cut the road noise, the luxury liner pro in the doors, or the multiple CCF+MLV layers on the floor


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Here's some measurements from Car and Driver:

1) 2017 Audi A6, 70mph cruising : 64dB, a-weighted.

2) 2017 BMW 540i, 70mph cruising : 64dB, a-weighted.

3) 2017 Jaguar XF, 70mph cruising : 64dB, a weighted.

A lawnmower and a leaf blower are 85dB. If your car is hitting peaks of 85-90dB, something is terribly, terribly wrong with it.

Data here : https://www.caranddriver.com/review...jaguar-xf-s-mercedes-amg-e43-comparison-test/

Last week I rented a Tesla S, and that is by far the quietest car I've ever driven. 

Though Car and Driver has reviews of the Model 3 and the Model S, they *don't* list SPL levels. A link here indicates that Edmunds measured 61dB, a weighted:

https://forums.tesla.com/fr_FR/forum/forums/sound-levels-edmunds-test-track-review

This means that literally removing the engine from the vehicle reduced the SPL level by 3dB, compared to BMW and Jaguar's offerings.

Seriously guys, do you REALLY believe you're going to see 10dB improvements from sound deadening, when REMOVING THE ENGINE lowers the SPL by 3dB?


On a side note, if you want to hear how quiet a car can get, go rent a Tesla. It is FREAKISHLY quiet. When you shut the doors, it's like your in an isolation tank. It's particularly noticeable when you're driving around town, there's basically no sound at all. You hear some whirring from the motors as the car gets up to speed, and a little bit of road noise from the tires.

On the freeway, by far the most dominant sound is wind noise.


----------



## TJ Mobile Audio (May 6, 2009)

:lurk:


----------



## Pb82 Ronin (Jun 6, 2018)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Here's some measurements from Car and Driver:
> 
> 1) 2017 Audi A6, 70mph cruising : 64dB, a-weighted.
> 
> ...


I believe you can, yes. Here's why...just yesterday I took my ZO6 out on the road with my db meter. Cruising at 80 mph my db in the cabin was 73.5 db. When I opened the exhaust valves it went to 79.8 db. A difference of 6.3 db just by closing a little flapper valve in the tail pipe. I know from other measurements that my deadening efforts have reduced cabin noise by anywhere from 3.5 - 5 full db depending on which criteria you're testing. So I get it man, you don't think it's worth the money...or what ever your hating on it for, but sound deadening works. At least it absolutely did in my case. I bet when I'm done, my 600HP 427 V8 will be quieter (or at least even with) than 64 db listed above in the "quiet" euro wagons.

EDIT: And my car is tuned, so it doesn't even do the cylinder deactivation anymore. And what does "a-weighted" even mean?


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Maybe it's because I'm a hoarder, but my attitude is simply _"if you want a quiet car, buy a quiet car."_

For instance, I can see that it's possible to make an exceptionally noisy car quieter. For instance, a Corvette is really loud; Car and Driver says they're 71 decibels, a-weighted, at 70mph: https://www.caranddriver.com/review...16-ford-mustang-shelby-gt350-comparison-test/

But to me, instead of investing weight and cash in sound deadening, I'd just do what I recommend:

_If you want a quiet car, buy a quiet car._ For instance, a Tesla is as fast off the line as a Corvette and it's ten decibels quieter.

Now, obviously, this begs the question "what do you want your car for?" And this gets to the hoarder thing: 

I don't want a car to do everything. For a car stereo, I want a quiet car. Lately I've been thinking about getting a quick car, and I've been considering a Lotus or a Tesla. The Lotus is noisy as hell, so it wouldn't be practical for a serious car stereo, IMHO.

Then again, I may be an idiot. For instance, I bought my Mazda CX5 because I needed to haul ****. I traded in my Mazda 6 for it. And I HATE my CX5. Most boring "car" I've ever owned. I likely would have been happier if I'd ignored my own advice, and purchased a car that does more than one thing well. The CX5 is good at hauling things, it's terrible at everything else. It's like driving a delivery van.

Personally I'd rather have three cars, that are each good at one thing, then ONE car that's a compromise. But that's just me.


----------



## drop1 (Jul 26, 2015)

My last f150 had the works. It was a v8 with 4 wheel drove and mud tires. It went from sounding like a mud truck to sounding like a library. 

That truck needed heavy treatment. Most newer cars do not need full treatment. 
Kill the doors for sure and if you can, block as much between the engine and front floor board as reasonably possible and let it ride.
Do the turnk if you like abusive subs.
My newest truck is set up the same. 4x4, mud tires and I has I application of butyl in the doors. I have ZERO rattles save the windshield wiper bouncing occasionally but the interior does not rattle. It's not caddy quiet but its quiet enough. I do have some resonance I want to address but she dont rattle and is relatively quiet and that makes me happy..


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Maybe it's because I'm a hoarder, but my attitude is simply _"if you want a quiet car, buy a quiet car."_
> 
> For instance, I can see that it's possible to make an exceptionally noisy car quieter. For instance, a Corvette is really loud; Car and Driver says they're 71 decibels, a-weighted, at 70mph: https://www.caranddriver.com/review...16-ford-mustang-shelby-gt350-comparison-test/
> 
> ...


No argument here... but in some car/truck that has no sound deadening then sound deadening can be a huge change.
It is particularly relevant when one needs a 4wdr and there are no 4wdr Teslas.

The sports car does not even have a radio in it.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Actually it IS four-wheel drive, if you pay for the option. 

I paid $150 to rent a 4WD Tesla P85D from Alamo at the Oakland airport.

Fun stuff! Zero to sixty is supposed to be 3.3 seconds. I couldn't find anywhere that allowed me to pull this off lol. Just crazy ridiculous acceleration.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a32551/when-will-we-see-a-sub-two-second-tesla-0-60-time/


----------



## Grinder (Dec 18, 2016)

Pb82 Ronin said:


> .... And what does "a-weighted" even mean?


https://www.noisemeters.com/help/faq/frequency-weighting/


----------



## bbfoto (Aug 28, 2005)




----------

