Is liquid deadener as effective as mat deadener?

[audioman42]

I can get a gallon of eD liquid deadener for about $50 shipped, about 30 square feet of a popular mat deadener for about $60 shipped. The liquid is tempting me. Should I succumb?

[Rudeboy]

Originally Posted by audioman42

I can get a gallon of eD liquid deadener for about $50 shipped, about 30 square feet of a popular mat deadener for about $60 shipped. The liquid is tempting me. Should I succumb?

I've never used the ED liquids, but I do have both here for testing for the upcoming version of SDS. They seem OK, just much higher water content than the others I have. Even though they are cheaper per liquid unit, Second Skin's liquids come out cheaper when you only considered the cured mass.

Are liquids as effective as mats? I can't say. There doesn't even seem to be any good way to test them against each other, under the best laboratory conditions, let alone in my basement . It's even difficult to compare different mat configurations against each other - differences in thickness, facing layer construction, adhesive density and viscosity are all critical.

Theoretically, a mat poroduct with a decently heavy foil layer should be more effective. In an ideal configuration, the mat should be three or four times as effective. Unfortunately, none of the products out there are ideal configurations, so we can't even come up with theoretical model. Generally, I think we are pretty safe in assuming that liquids, applied at the same thickness as mats, will be almost as effective. This is pretty thick though, expect to need 4 or 5 coats of the liquid to get there, with drying time between applications. They also seem to be most effective over slightly different frequency ranges, which brings us to the next point.

I've been playing around with the idea that a layer of mat covered with a layer of liquid may be the most effective approach. It seems to be true and makes sense. For example a 1.5mm mat covered with 1.5mm of liquid. There do seem to be advantages, but we're talking about twice the effort, and a much longer installation time. Pretty much only suited for extremists.

[dbphelps]

I completely agree with Don, in that liquids are generally suited for a specific application (such as in hard to reach areas or very uneven surfaces that wouldn't lend themselves to mat pplication well)...

I also agree that a liquid over a mat seems to be the most effective method of using the two, since as mentioned the frequency ranges that are dampened are different between the products, thus they couple and are of greater effectiveness together than by themselves...

For example, in my Trans-Am, I used Damplifier throughout, even in as many hard-to-reach areas as I could (the rear fenders/sidepanels are a nightmare) and then utilized Spectrum Sludge in the hard to reach areas and layered it on top of the Damplifier whereever it made sense... To top it all off I also applied a layer of eDead v4 (basically pre-adhesived 1/4" thick Ensolite) over everything I could... Ideally I should have covered as many frequency ranges that can possibly be dampened fairly effectively... Now I didn't go nuts and apply the sludge over everything as the ensolite needs a good surface to adhere to and the foil layer of the Damplifier is much better than the uneven surface of the dried Sludge... I will say that the install shop had a hell of a time removing the eDead v4 as well as the Damplifier when they put the amp rack in place...

Now when I did my doors, the doors themselves are a composite glass-reinforced resin material, thus I only applied mat material to the outside of the door skin (2 layers), and for the inner panel I don't think adding mat would have been effective, seeing ass how the door panel itself bolts to it and there are some large voids in it, so I only applied the eDead v4 closed cell foam to the inner panel... That coupled with another layer of the closed cell foam on the door panel itself should do as much as can be done to isolate and insulate the door...

[zfactor]

imo it has its applications and uses but no its def not as effective as reg mat like dyn extreme or comparable raamat stuff... its great for hard to reach places but imo thats all.. i did 3-4 layers in the last car and i feel one layer of extreme would have been as good if not better overall..

[60ndown]

i did both my front doors and my trunk in second skin sludge in 2 hours

rubber gloves and liquid deadener ftw.


car was night and day different afterwards.

mazda 626. noisey ride b4, dead silent (think rolls royce) after

took about a week to dry completely.

i just grabbed a handful and smeared it on inside and out of everything. tried for about 3 mil but its tough to accurate.

[Phreaxer]

I've done a lot of deadening and I am getting ready to start 2 more cars. I have used Dynamat and Raamat, GREATLY prefering Raamat over that Dyna-cutyoassup-crap. The liquid has always interested me, but it also kind of scares me... I would want to use it on my doors, but how do I make absolutely sure I dont hit the window motor while blindly painting the door skin (outer) through the holes I have to work with? or dripping it onto/into the rail or something. Would the liquid be better suited for areas without moving parts to risk screwing up? (floors, quarterpanels, etc?) I'm inclined to just stick with what I know and what I know works well, Raamat.

[technobug]

Originally Posted by audioman42

I can get a gallon of eD liquid deadener for about $50 shipped, about 30 square feet of a popular mat deadener for about $60 shipped. The liquid is tempting me. Should I succumb?

In my experience.......NO.
I have 3 gallons of Cascade VB2 in my truck. Was totally not worth it. Also $60 for 30sq ft sounds pricey. Look into Raamat BXT60.

Here is a link to my review of liquid and pics:

http://forum.elitecaraudio.com/showt...0&pagenumber=2

[technobug]

The Pics above are after I sanded the interior. Prep for applying the liquid. I didn't want any chance of the shit not having a good surface to adhere to. Here are pics after the fact.

[technobug]

And 800X happier after this:

[torog]

But did you apply liquid on the floor before adding BXT?

[torog]

Originally Posted by lukeboa

i did both my front doors and my trunk in second skin sludge in 2 hours

rubber gloves and liquid deadener ftw.


car was night and day different afterwards.

mazda 626. noisey ride b4, dead silent (think rolls royce) after

took about a week to dry completely.

i just grabbed a handful and smeared it on inside and out of everything. tried for about 3 mil but its tough to accurate.

I would be glad to know what was more effective: deadening the doors or the trunk? (if you tested between the two steps)

[technobug]

Originally Posted by torog

But did you apply liquid on the floor before adding BXT?

Not sure what you're asking. But the answer is no. I did not intend to use the liquid on the floor.

[Whiterabbit]

Anthony claimed in another thread that the idea behind the spectrum wasnt an alternative to matting, but rather a different butyl composition that was intended to affect a different frequency range. Does anyone have any experience or ability to address the frequency dependance of the liquid secondskin versus the matting?

[Rudeboy]

Originally Posted by Phreaxer

I've done a lot of deadening and I am getting ready to start 2 more cars. I have used Dynamat and Raamat, GREATLY prefering Raamat over that Dyna-cutyoassup-crap. The liquid has always interested me, but it also kind of scares me... I would want to use it on my doors, but how do I make absolutely sure I dont hit the window motor while blindly painting the door skin (outer) through the holes I have to work with? or dripping it onto/into the rail or something. Would the liquid be better suited for areas without moving parts to risk screwing up? (floors, quarterpanels, etc?) I'm inclined to just stick with what I know and what I know works well, Raamat.

You really have to mask. You can also use a brush with most of them, but that isn't going to be easy inside a door either.

[Rudeboy]

Originally Posted by Whiterabbit

Anthony claimed in another thread that the idea behind the spectrum wasnt an alternative to matting, but rather a different butyl composition that was intended to affect a different frequency range. Does anyone have any experience or ability to address the frequency dependance of the liquid secondskin versus the matting?

Not specifically - this stuff is really hard to test. We can probably come up with some theories from the fact that liquids are more viscous and more elastic than mats.

I think he may have meant a different viscoelastic composition rather than butyl composition. Liquids have all sorts of components, but the material property both share is viscoelasticity.

The foil on the mats also comes into play, or may, in this context. Definitely aids in the damping process - stresses between the foil and the adhesive in response to flexing make constrained layer products more effective than extensional products like liquids, but again to many variables to compare easily.

As soon as I get this new version of SDS done, I'm going to post an invitation to manufacturers to pay to have their products tested by a laboratory of my choosing, using a standardized procedure that I specifiy. Then the lab will give me the results directly and I will post them. Maybe then we'll have some apples to apples data to look at.

[audioman42]

Originally Posted by technobug

In my experience.......NO.
I have 3 gallons of Cascade VB2 in my truck. Was totally not worth it. Also $60 for 30sq ft sounds pricey. Look into Raamat BXT60.

That $60 shipped is for RAAMmat BXT60. I guess I'll go with the mat instead of liquid. Thanks guys.

[60ndown]

Originally Posted by torog

I would be glad to know what was more effective: deadening the doors or the trunk? (if you tested between the two steps)

i cant say 4 shizzle? i did em both together.

my guess would be the trunk.

[FoxPro5]

IME for the same price, I'd take mat over liquid. I have SS Sludge, Dynamat Extreme, and SS Damplifier Pro on my doors and I really think the mat does a better job of mass loading and killing vibration.

Also consider your environment. I'm in cold weather most of the time and it seems that frozen metal with mat on it is more difficult to move than cold metal with something like Sludge.

[torog]

Thanks. Did you hear a difference in subwoofer respons if you have one. that's a thing who interests me because I have a lot of rattles in my trunk and I may go subless if I can't fix it. thanks a lot...

[technobug]

Originally Posted by audioman42

That $60 shipped is for RAAMmat BXT60. I guess I'll go with the mat instead of liquid. Thanks guys.

LOL

My bad....for some reason I thought Raamat came in bigger rolls. It always seemed like for the same price you get 3x as much as xtreme. I dunno. Been a while. I think my price on 36sq ft of xtreme was like $120 or something. Or maybe $200. eh I forget.