Jump to content
abmoore

SQ Three Way Front Stage

Recommended Posts

h-701 is an outstanding processor that has been widely used by many SQ competitors.the DQXS is great too, but I personally like the 701's features and abilities, plus the rux controller is pretty sweet :) if you are going with that processor, you will be able to build one helluva 3-way active system. I think in your case a 3-way active sounds like it will be best. dynamat and build a nice strong baffle for the mid-bass in the doors

He has a W505 and therefore doesn't need the controller. The 505 is a way better controller than the rux anyways.

I'd also highly recommend not using dynamat but instead shopping for deadener products here:

http://sounddeadenershowdown.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi

I won't comment on the speaker locations until I know what car you have. Perhaps I missed it/forget it through the thread, but every car is different and a compromise. What do you feel you are able to do?

I have a 2004 tahoe, probably should add that to my sig. So you don't recommend the h-701, do you think the dqxs is needed or should I get the alpine imprint system with the mic.

I liked mjmorovi's set up, that was what I was hoping I could do since the kicks do not seem like they would work for me. Do you have any other suggestions of something that would work better. And if I put the mids in the dash, how far back. It is pretty deep, I would say almost 28-30 inches. I will have to measure that though.

For the tweets, there are existing mounting positions from the stock tweets that are about the position that was suggested for me to use. Althogh,they do point forward towards the windshield about 30 degrees and slightly upwards.

I didn't say to not get the H701, I said you don't need to buy the RUX to control it....your head unit can. Touchscreen crossovers FTMFW!

How far back? Depends on what you choose for your compromise. The further back the less t/a you'll need but the more reflections you'll get to deal with. If you are doing mids in the dash, instead of the stock locations mount the tweeter right next to the mid. On top of it would be preferred, but again it depends a bit on location and such as well as your processing choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

completely brain farted on the 505, lol yeh no need for the controller. i think you are on the right track.

dynamat is difficult to work with. I use raamat, and love it. much more flexible and easier to lay down. also is tested and certified for much higher temperature than dynamat and many other companies. it is slightly thinner to be more flexible, but I just use multiple layers where needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

completely brain farted on the 505, lol yeh no need for the controller. i think you are on the right track.

dynamat is difficult to work with. I use raamat, and love it. much more flexible and easier to lay down. also is tested and certified for much higher temperature than dynamat and many other companies. it is slightly thinner to be more flexible, but I just use multiple layers where needed

Multiple layers isn't the solution. A better mat means you only have to cover a portion of the panel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all sound deadener really does is add mass to whatever you put on it. it does absorb vibration, but it does so by adding mass. I like it cause because it is easy to work with and can withstand high temperatures therefore is extremely durable in a vehicle. besides IMO there is no such thing as just enough sound deadening, it is more like the more you use the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all sound deadener really does is add mass to whatever you put on it. it does absorb vibration, but it does so by adding mass. I like it cause because it is easy to work with and can withstand high temperatures therefore is extremely durable in a vehicle. besides IMO there is no such thing as just enough sound deadening, it is more like the more you use the better.

Obviously you know nothing about sound deadening. :( Mass is the name of the game in a barrier, but not deadening. And yes mat is NOT a good barrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all sound deadener really does is add mass to whatever you put on it. it does absorb vibration, but it does so by adding mass. I like it cause because it is easy to work with and can withstand high temperatures therefore is extremely durable in a vehicle. besides IMO there is no such thing as just enough sound deadening, it is more like the more you use the better.

You have much to learn young Jedi.

Obviously you know nothing about sound deadening

x2

Not saying Raammat is bad. If you search around you'll see I've highly recommended it on many occasions. One of the better "bang for your buck" deadeners on the market. But your understanding is severely lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Don will peak in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much to learn about deadening? Care to back that up? You seem to enjoy discrediting me, so why don't you tell me how anything I stated above about sound deadening is wrong?

BTW: mass has nothing to do with a barrier, density does. by that statement you are telling me you don't understand how sound waves move. as far as i can tell I know a lot more about sound deadening than you do.

best way to sound deaden is to add multiple layers of a deadener to all surfaces, this adds mass to the surfaces, and reduces vibration immensely, next to nothing which take away resonances and interference with the sound sound waves.

to actually absorb sound, you need some sort of insulator. for vehicles the best to use is some form of ensolite. this keeps sound from bouncing off of the surfaces, in same way as carpet. this again reduces resonances.

I know nothing about sound deadening? Hilarious....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to actually absorb sound, you need some sort of insulator. for vehicles the best to use is some form of ensolite. this keeps sound from bouncing off of the surfaces, in same way as carpet. this again reduces resonances.

To ensure absorbtion you need material as thick as the 1/4 wavelength of the frequency you are trying to absorb. How thick is Ensolite ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To ensure absorbtion you need material as thick as the 1/4 wavelength of the frequency you are trying to absorb. How thick is Ensolite ?

This is from RaamAudio's website.

Ensolite™ IUO

Specifications:

Thickness 1/8 (.125) inches

Length

36 inches (sold by the yard)

Width 56 inches

Square Feet 14 per linear yard

Polymer PVC/NBR25%

Compression Resistance 1.5-3.5 psi

Water Absorption 0.1 lbs/ft²

Tensile Strength 30 psi

Elongation 125% without damage

Flammability MVSS302, FAR 12 Sec. Vert.

Flotation L 1191

Edited by bobonit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much to learn about deadening? Care to back that up? You seem to enjoy discrediting me, so why don't you tell me how anything I stated above about sound deadening is wrong?

No problem. It really won't be very difficult. I'm no expert on deadener, but I'll try to explain to the best of my abilities. Hopefully Don will chime in aswell as some point.

First, you said;

"all sound deadener really does is add mass"

That in-and-of itself demonstrates that you don't understand how constrained layer dampers (CLD) function. There is a reason they call them constrained layer dampers and not just "mass panels". Constrained layer dampers function due to the interaction of the viscoelastic layer and the contraining layer. The quality and thickness of both the viscoelastic layer and the constraining layer will determine how well the product performs. It does also add mass to the panel that lowers the panels resonance, but that certainly is not "all it really does" as you incorrectly stated. For a brief overview of how CLD works, see HERE

To my understanding, because of how constrained layer dampers function each additional layer is increasingly less effective than the layer adhered directly to the host panel. Which means for panel damping it is best to use a single layer of the best damper you can find than multiple layers of inferior deadeners (which are inferior in their deadening properties to begin with). The additional layers may decrease noise transmission, but at that point you are wasting time and money for a benefit that can be had through cheaper and more effective means (MLV, etc). I believe there are also other issues such as open vs. closed termination, but I'm not well versed so I'll simply mention it here incase you decide to research further on your own.

Lastly, your "the more you use the better" statement has already been dismantled over the years by people like John (FoxPro5) and Don (Rudy/Rudeboy). Effectively and adequately reducing vibration and resonance in a panel generally does not require 100% coverage and multiple layers of CLD. There is a point of diminishing returns where you are spending time and money on an expensive product for little to no additional damping benefits. Again, you may see some decrease in noise transmission by covering everything and using multiple layers of CLD to do it, but then you are using the wrong product for the job and better results could be achieved more cost effectively by using proper barrier materials.

BTW: mass has nothing to do with a barrier, density does.

That statement in and of itself doesn't make any sense. How can mass have nothing to do with a barrier but density does, when density is simply mass per unit volume?

by that statement you are telling me you don't understand how sound waves move. as far as i can tell I know a lot more about sound deadening than you do.

I would have to disagree that you are more knowledgeable about sound waves and deadening than M5 (it was his statement, not mine).

best way to sound deaden is to add multiple layers of a deadener to all surfaces, this adds mass to the surfaces, and reduces vibration immensely, next to nothing which take away resonances and interference with the sound sound waves.

See above. Already covered the inaccuracy contained in these types of statement.

to actually absorb sound, you need some sort of insulator. for vehicles the best to use is some form of ensolite. this keeps sound from bouncing off of the surfaces, in same way as carpet. this again reduces resonances.

Ensolite is actually extremely poor at absorption, as are most closed cell foams. It diffuses better than it absorbs, and a single layer of typical thickness (1/8 - 1/4") is not thick enough to absorb a majority of the frequency range. Open cell foam is what you need if you want to absorb sound, and it's range of absorption frequencies will be related to it's thickness and a few other factors.

If you want to absorb sound, Ensolite or any other CCF is not the right tool for the job. As a matter of fact, if you look on the SDS website they sell CCF as a decoupler, not as a sound absorption product as it's simply not effective for that use.

I know nothing about sound deadening? Hilarious....

It's hilarious that you think you understand sound deadening, frankly.

I would suggest you spend some time on the various forums searching out posts by the above mentioned users, as they have shared a wealth of information on deadening and noise control over the years. None of which coincides with your current notion of "correct sound deadening".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dynamat is difficult to work with. I use raamat, and love it. much more flexible and easier to lay down. also is tested and certified for much higher temperature than dynamat and many other companies. it is slightly thinner to be more flexible, but I just use multiple layers where needed

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.

all sound deadener really does is add mass to whatever you put on it. it does absorb vibration, but it does so by adding mass. I like it cause because it is easy to work with and can withstand high temperatures therefore is extremely durable in a vehicle. besides IMO there is no such thing as just enough sound deadening, it is more like the more you use the better.

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.

Much to learn about deadening? Care to back that up? You seem to enjoy discrediting me, so why don't you tell me how anything I stated above about sound deadening is wrong?

BTW: mass has nothing to do with a barrier, density does. by that statement you are telling me you don't understand how sound waves move. as far as i can tell I know a lot more about sound deadening than you do.

best way to sound deaden is to add multiple layers of a deadener to all surfaces, this adds mass to the surfaces, and reduces vibration immensely, next to nothing which take away resonances and interference with the sound sound waves.

to actually absorb sound, you need some sort of insulator. for vehicles the best to use is some form of ensolite. this keeps sound from bouncing off of the surfaces, in same way as carpet. this again reduces resonances.

I know nothing about sound deadening? Hilarious....

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind Of Off Topic And A Bit Of Thread Hijacking, But, Just What Exactly Did Happen To HAT While I Was Gone?

I Also See Some Opinions And Views On Their Products Have Changed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind Of Off Topic And A Bit Of Thread Hijacking, But, Just What Exactly Did Happen To HAT While I Was Gone?

I Also See Some Opinions And Views On Their Products Have Changed...

I am wondering the same thing....

as for the deadening, I base all my statements from real world experience and testing. I have had dynamat fall off from extreme heat countless times. I used it on my trunk lid and roof of my car, and both places it fell and had to torn off and replaced with raamat. I live in one of the hottest parts of the country, so pretty sure I understand tough conditions for sound dampening. yes you are right, each layer dampens the layer below it. when any object is touching another object, sound waves and vibrations are both transfered. so if not all vibrations and resonances are "deadened" by one layer, further layers will definitely help. this is simply real world experience. I agree that thicker dampener is more efficient at getting the job done, but it is harder to work with, I don't see why I need to explain why something thinner is easier to maneuver over odd shapes over a thicker material, that should be pretty blatant.

now you are accusing me of saying mass is opposite of density? where did I say this? and as Rudy half-heartedly admitted, it is true that density blocks sound or works as a barrier, not mass. yes mass is used to measure density, but the point remains that is not the causing factor of blocking sound. you could argue that of any material you can simply add more and more of that material to block sound from a source to a receptor, but the fact is the most efficient way to do is by using a much thinner or smaller object this far more dense. i am thinking of this in terms of a wall seperating two rooms. simple way of thinking of this is how concrete floors in a two story building block that much more sound between the two levels over wood truss floors with insulation. concrete is far denser therefore blocks much more of the sounds. yes it has more mass, but that is consequence of a larger volume of a denser material.

It still does hold true that adding mass to something lowers vibrations and resonances. it takes more force to vibrate something that has a larger mass, therefore adding mass will help. now what material you use to do it definitely changes the effectiveness, but if you were for example to use any sort of spray adhesive, and spray that on the metal, do that a hundred times so that there is a thick layer of adhesive (hypothetical of course I expect no one to actually try this) then it will still work as a deadener. was it most efficient? no, that's why so companies market their sound deadener. I will and do gladly lay down 2-3 layers of raamat rather than a single layer of dynamat, I don't have to worry about it peeling off from the heat, and from my experience it has proven to be just as effective or more effective by doing it this why. I of course am not the only person that does this.

ensolite, like any insulator or carpet, etc. will do great and does do great to absorb sound. of course you probably have never tested this in a room inside a house with a microphone, but I wouldn't expect you to. any material that has air pockets will capture sound waves in those air pockets. sound waves move slowest in air, and faster in solids, the more air pockets it has to travel through, the more it slowed down and dissipated to nothing. why do you think they hang carpets and foam on walls of large rooms, gymnasiums, concert halls, etc. ?

BTW I'm glad ya'll can read the "research" done by phatmatt, damplifier, and all the other companies. in the end they all use almost the same exact technology, but use different adhesives and thicknesses.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind Of Off Topic And A Bit Of Thread Hijacking, But, Just What Exactly Did Happen To HAT While I Was Gone?

I Also See Some Opinions And Views On Their Products Have Changed...

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.

yes mass is used to measure density, but the point remains that is not the causing factor of blocking sound

Density is mass / volume. Mass does not measure density.

Deadener and barriers are 2 very different things, with a different purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind Of Off Topic And A Bit Of Thread Hijacking, But, Just What Exactly Did Happen To HAT While I Was Gone?

I Also See Some Opinions And Views On Their Products Have Changed...

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.

yes mass is used to measure density, but the point remains that is not the causing factor of blocking sound

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Yes I have had dynamat fall off several times, I live in extreme heat, where vehicles temperature reach excess of 120* on a daily basis with ease for a large portion of the year. I don't know what to tell you, the dynamat fell off, and the raamat in same areas is still holding after about 1 1/2 years.

I am also not the only person that has had this experience. The FACT IS that it did happen to me, and it did peel off. So telling me that's a false statement because of something I experienced? Where do YOU get off with a statement like that?

There have only been two real issues that you and impious seem to disagree with me on.

1.) multiple layers- I already stated I understand and agree that a single layer of "better" mat is more efficient. I also stated how those mats are also thicker and harder to work with. multiple layers from real world experience does and has proved to be very effective. I would gladly lay down 2-3 layers of something that is easy to work worth through bends.

2.) you are telling me that ensolite is not a good sound absorber. THAT MY FRIEND is a completely false staement. I already explained how it works, which is the same as any insulator in the world. If this statement was false, and you somehow can prove how closed cell insulators do not work as good sound absorbers, then maybe you would share to enlighten the world on a better way? (you could make millions)

and no one still addressed BigC how what happened to HAT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Yes I have had dynamat fall off several times, I live in extreme heat, where vehicles temperature reach excess of 120* on a daily basis with ease for a large portion of the year. I don't know what to tell you, the dynamat fell off, and the raamat in same areas is still holding after about 1 1/2 years.

I am also not the only person that has had this experience. The FACT IS that it did happen to me, and it did peel off. So telling me that's a false statement because of something I experienced? Where do YOU get off with a statement like that?

There have only been two real issues that you and impious seem to disagree with me on.

1.) multiple layers- I already stated I understand and agree that a single layer of "better" mat is more efficient. I also stated how those mats are also thicker and harder to work with. multiple layers from real world experience does and has proved to be very effective. I would gladly lay down 2-3 layers of something that is easy to work worth through bends.

2.) you are telling me that ensolite is not a good sound absorber. THAT MY FRIEND is a completely false staement. I already explained how it works, which is the same as any insulator in the world. If this statement was false, and you somehow can prove how closed cell insulators do not work as good sound absorbers, then maybe you would share to enlighten the world on a better way? (you could make millions)

and no one still addressed BigC how what happened to HAT?

Repeating the same thing over and over is not an explanation. A few basic principles cover all of these issues but you choose to make up your own physics. Not sure what more there is to say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all sound deadener really does is add mass to whatever you put on it. it does absorb vibration, but it does so by adding mass. I like it cause because it is easy to work with and can withstand high temperatures therefore is extremely durable in a vehicle. besides IMO there is no such thing as just enough sound deadening, it is more like the more you use the better.

Obviously you know nothing about sound deadening. :( Mass is the name of the game in a barrier, but not deadening. And yes mat is NOT a good barrier.

You should re-read your own posts before posting again. ROFL.

I responded about mass when you stated all sound deadener does is add mass and my response was "it is the name of the game in a barrier, but not deadening". If this doesn't insinuate mass per unit area perhaps you could clarify how you read that. When you buy things in sheets the area is expected to be a given.

Let's make this easier on all of us, I have a real EASY bit of homework for you. Google Modal Damping and then explain to me how the DAMPING changes with mass (for extra credit you can then summarize and extrapolate how adding mass to a door panel works, and while you are at it perhaps you can tell us why it is called Dampener). After that go ahead and google the STC for a closed cell foam and then for lead sheeting and its closest cheap approximation mass-loaded vinyl. If you need to, do a bit of research and figure out what STC is first ;)

As for the experience pissing contest, I'll refrain from comparing your "experience" with mine. That definitely is a route that you don't want to go down in particular if you are not familiar with Modal Analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as for the deadening, I base all my statements from real world experience and testing.

FYI, real world experience and testing is only useful if the right experience and testing has been done, and you actually understand how and why the results were what they were. You, however, do not and make up your own reasons. This is the driving force behind so many of your errors...you think "experience" is the end-all of objective evaluation. That was the same argument you used in our earlier discussion about speakers, and you're using it now. The problem is you do not understand that your experience and testing is relatively meaningless if not conducted properly, and that the results are meaningless if you don't understand the physics involved and why the results turned out as they did and then incorrectly ascribe them to some arbitrary reason that you determined to be the cause. You simply don't grasp this concept.

Second, not much more to say other than anyone who has ever actually researched this, from the interested hobbyist, to those in the industry, to those who conduct studies and engineer the product disagrees with you. What does that tell you?

I agree that thicker dampener is more efficient at getting the job done, but it is harder to work with, I don't see why I need to explain why something thinner is easier to maneuver over odd shapes over a thicker material, that should be pretty blatant.

The funny part here is that those oddly shaped curved/bent surfaces are already the lowest resonance pieces of sheetmetal in the car and should be your least concern. You are also here admitting that you would rather use an inferior but easier to use method and product. That doesn't help your position any.

now you are accusing me of saying mass is opposite of density? where did I say this? and as Rudy half-heartedly admitted, it is true that density blocks sound or works as a barrier, not mass. yes mass is used to measure density, but the point remains that is not the causing factor of blocking sound.

You are still trying to separate density and mass. Density is a description of a materials mass per volume, nothing more. Give up.

and from my experience it has proven to be just as effective or more effective by doing it this why. I of course am not the only person that does this.

See above.

ensolite, like any insulator or carpet, etc. will do great and does do great to absorb sound.

Patently false and demonstrates just how little of this you understand.

of course you probably have never tested this in a room inside a house with a microphone,

Demonstrates what I referred to above....incorrect testing and/or failure to understand and comprehend results. Your "testing" is meaningless. Yes, meaningless.

why do you think they hang carpets and foam on walls of large rooms, gymnasiums, concert halls, etc. ?

And do you know what type of foam they are typically using? Open cell foam, not closed cell foam. Open cell foam works by creating a labyrinth through which the soundwaves must travel and become "trapped", for lack of a better quick explanation. This is why closed cell foam is not a good absorber. Closed cell foam will absorb some, but it's not very effective and the thin foam used (1/8 - 1/4") will only be even mildly effective at the upper most range of the audible frequency spectrum. Closed cell foam works decently as a diffuser, but not an absorber. Please, research it.

"BTW I'm glad ya'll can read the "research" done by phatmatt, damplifier, and all the other companies. in the end they all use almost the same exact technology, but use different adhesives and thicknesses."

Sure, they call use a "technology" called constrained layer damping. They all use different compositions for the viscoelastic layer, they each use different thickness materials for both the viscoelastic layer and the constraining layer, and each of these factors will alter the various aspect of the products performance such as vibration damping, adhesiveness, performance in temperature variations, etc. Believe it or not, CLD has applications beyond car audio and has been studied, researched and developed in outlets other than car audio marketing.

"None of my above statements are false,"

Nearly all of them are. You're just too ignorant to realize it.

"and neither of you have come up with any hard evidence to prove otherwise."

All of the research is out there, you are free to look it up for yourself. But you won't, because you like to sit around thinking you know it all based on your flawed "experience" and "testing" and that all of the actual research that has been conducted on the topic is wrong because your flawed experiments are the truth to you. Don recently gave you a reference to research and read....but you won't.

"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.

"

It's difficult to counteract your "learnings" when your "learnings" were made up by yourself and you refuse to believe your experience could be wrong or that you don't understand or comprehend what was actually occurring. When someone who has spent probably close to 5 years actually researching deadening, opened a website dedicated to testing sound deadening products, and eventually went on to develop his own line of deadening products based upon all of this research (Rudy) tells you that you're wrong.....chances are good, you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.) you are telling me that ensolite is not a good sound absorber. THAT MY FRIEND is a completely false staement. I already explained how it works, which is the same as any insulator in the world. If this statement was false, and you somehow can prove how closed cell insulators do not work as good sound absorbers, then maybe you would share to enlighten the world on a better way? (you could make millions)

No need to reinvent the wheel here. It's called OPEN cell foam, and has been known for a good long time. Ensolite is a CLOSED cell foam, which are poor absorbers. But OPEN cell foam is very effective at sound absorption. Here's a couple examples of OPEN cell foam;

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=260-516

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=300-900

Again, demonstrating your ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So..... I cannot find my camera. Here is a link to some pictures that are far better than I can take anyway. Just go to the interior pictures. The only difference I can see mine has is that below the parking break there is an elevated piece of plastic for a foot rest.

My link

And I am looking for suggestions on speakers. I like all of the talk about damping and such, and have learned quite a bit, but it tends to get the conversation off topic. Although, if any talk of it is needed, it will be appreciated.

Thanks.

Also, didn't mean to change the conversation tone again, ha ha, but it was a slight hijack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are a lot of great speakers out there, a lot of guys that have concentrated their car audio desire into SQ are running Hybrid Audio. Morel, Focal, they found quite popular in the SQ world as well. DLS, is another great company. I even like Zapco quite a bit.

What size drivers are you looking at using for mid-bass and midrange? also, whether you choose them or not, check out the new Hybrid Legatia Pro L1 tweet in the black finish, it is downright dirty! http://www.12velectronics.com/servlet/the-107/HYBRID-AUDIO-TECHNOLOGIES-LEGATIA/Detail they are quite expensive, and really the Pro L1's are a better match for a 2-way system, so not necessarily recommending them to you, I just love the look! lol

that website is the only authorized Hybrid online dealer BTW and they do offer pricing for a full 3-way set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just looking for some specific raw drivers that will work well with a 3 way active front stage. I just bought the alpine imprint and I am going to purchase the h701 later so I can do a 4 way. This thread seems to keep repeating itself. I want to use an 8 midbass and a 4 midrange. My original intentions were more expensive speakers, then most of you informed me to focus on the install. So then I said I would like to use less expensive speakers, and if a 2 way front stage will work better that would be fine. Then there was a long discussion about sound damping, which was fine. So any input on mounting locations or specific speakers would be great. I will look into the hybrid pro tweets again but like you said, they are expensive, not sure on the price though.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×