Leaderboard

welcome. you will love it here. there is no bullshit like on other forums.

None of my above statements are false, and neither of you have come up with any hard evidence to prove otherwise. you have either quoted me and simply said I was wrong, or said I was wrong and then your argument almost goes hand in hand with exactly what I had said. my ears are always open to learn new things, but so far on this entire thread, I have yet to hear anything of any value and truth that would counteract my learnings. Did you read Rudy's response ? Did you read the response on sound absorbtion ? I have a very hard time believing you have done more research or testing in the realm of acoustics than 2 of the people posting in this thread. You say you are open to learn new things but so far you have been stuck on the " I know best attitude and whatever anybody says, I still know best". How do you expect to learn with that attitude ? You are very dense my friend. Density is mass / volume. Mass does not measure density. Deadener and barriers are 2 very different things, with a different purpose. I know what the equation is, and mass is involved, therefore it is used to measure density. I didn't say mass measures density, I said it is USED to measure density, quite obviously a common knowledge statement. yes deadener and barriers are completely different, I did not bring barriers, only addressed it when I believe M5 was the one who brought it up. Actually, I have learned quite a bit on this forum, especially I feel I have a much better understanding of inter-workings of an amplifier, and also understand large electrical setups much better thanks to several very intelligent posters. I have learned a lot of other things as well, just being honest with this thread.

If you've had Dynamat fall off countless times, it was either Dynamat Original (which nobody will defend as a product) or there is something so utterly wrong with your implementation of the simplest installation procedure I can imagine that your grasp of reality has to be questioned. If you threw Dynamat Original into this discussion as a straw man, more than your basic competence is suspect. None of your statements are false? That statement itself is false, but more importantly, some of your statements are partly true but you are assigning them too much significance. It's very easy to draw the wrong conclusions from casual observations. Research constrained layer dampers and viscoelasticity. Both topics have been studied extensively by people who understand these things better than you or I ever will. While you're at it, see if yo can find a copy of Vibration Damping By Ahid D. Nashif, David I. G. Jones, John Phillips Henderson at the library and then tell me your multi-layer approach makes any sense after you've read it. It looks like the sun is orbiting the earth when you are lying in your hammock, but that doesn't make it so.

That's pretty silly. How hard is Dynamat to work with? Is 4 mil foil that much of a challenge? I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who was beaten by aluminum foil. Where did you get the idea that RAAMmat has a higher heat tolerance than Dyanamt Xtreme? Who "certified" that? I've tested the two products side by side dozens of times and RAAMmat always fails first. That's not really the big deal you seem to think it is since any constrained layer damper that performs well in the temperature range that is important to us (normal temps in a vehicle) is going to be worthless at the temperatures at which either one fails. Flexibility isn't a virtue when it comes to constrained layer dampers. You want a stout constraining layer. The energy you saved by not having to wrestle with 4 mil foil will bite you in the ass for the life of your install. I used to be a fan of RAAMmat's value too. The unfortunate fact is that its very thin foil and too viscous adhesive leaves a lot to be desired when you take performance into consideration. Why do you think they've introduced BXT II, with a 4 mil foil BTW? BXT II is vastly superior to BXT. You've concluded that "the more you use the better" because you've been using ineffective products. You are correct that if the constrained layer damper isn't properly engineered, all you are doing is adding mass. How exactly does adding mass "absorb vibration"? Google constrained layer damper to learn what should be going on. Adding mass to a panel is an extremely inefficient way to damp vibrations - so inefficient in fact, that most people should consider it a compete waste of time. Adding multiple layers makes no sense either. With a constrained layer damper, each added layer is only damping the layer under it, which shouldn't be resonant so ...? If you want to just add mass, all you can hope to do is lower the panel's resonant frequency below the audible range. There are applications for this when the resonating part is excited by a narrow frequency range, but that isn't the case in a vehicle. If you want to add mass there are many cheaper alternatives. You are going to surprised by how much mass it's going to take. This one is almost impenetrable. Saying mass is the opposite of density is interesting. In a vehicle, where available space is limited, you need to use a dense material to achieve the mass you need to block sound. While we're jumping on distinctions without differences, it is possible to have such a thin layer of a very dense material that its mass is worthless as a barrier. Barrier effectiveness isn't governed by "mass law" because the people who called it that didn't know their mass from a hole in the ground. Ensolite is the name of a product family of closed cell foams. None of them are very good absorbers. Some of them are good isolators and cushions, but absorbers, no. You have accused others of not understanding how sound interacts when it encounters various boundaries and media, but you are ignoring the importance of the frequencies that comprise the sound we are concerned with. Is 1/8" closed cell foam going to absorb sound? Yes, at frequencies above the audible range.

33Hz is high for a home install...you've got a lot more stuff going on in there then in a car as well. Room gains are different etc. If you plan on keeping it in there I would tune lower...

ok my amplifier has no internal fusing and is around 2000 watts (i dont know how accurate hifonics amp ratings are) so do i need an 2nd fuse near the amp?? I see in your sig that you only have one amp. If that is true you'll will only need 1 fuse and that would be placed near the battery. Now the fuse you put in the holder would be rated for what the amp needs to be protected, and not the wire. But if you have two amps this is a different story. Wrong. The fuse right next to the battery protects the wire, not the amp. Thats why it is right after the battery and not right before the amp. The fuse before the amp, protects the amp. KU40 just explained this. What exactly would this 2nd fuse near the amplifier be protecting that the primary fuse near the battery could not protect against, given it was rated appropriately to protect amplifier and wire rather than sized for the wire only? If the amplifier has onboard fuses, then the fuse near the battery only needs to be rated appropriately for the wire. If the amplifier doesn't have onboard fuses, then the fuse near the battery needs to be rated sufficiently to protect both wire and amplifier (which ever is less....which if you used the correct gauge wire will be the amplifier). A 2nd fuse on the same wire seems unnecessarily redundant. It's not protecting anything the primary fuse couldn't.

and these.............

Anyone Know What Kind Of Amp This Is? Or Could Anyone Link Me In The Right Direction. Thanx