Decibels are measured in a logarithmic style of measurement. Being logarithmic, the change is diminishing. As you go higher and higher in volume you need more and more change to be able to notice .. the first part of the scale makes the biggest difference followed my minute and minute changes.

The opposite of logarithmic is exponential, where you get increasingly larger and larger changes.

This was done on purpose to make huge numbers easily manageable.. from a range of 10db to 170db you can go from whispers to jet engine to eardrum piercing loudness. Obviously there is ALOT that has gone on within that range there.. but you have only gone from 10 to 170... so yeah.

I think you could argue this both ways.. You could say yes the high decibel change of the resonix could be less noticeable if you were using the same amount of it.

But you could also argue that you would need way less of the product to make the same amount of change as the less effective product..

The only way to truly test this is to have a big square of one product and a smaller product of another product and see how much it took of one to equal the other. But yeah too many variables to know for sure without alot of laboratory grade testing equipment inside an anechoic chamber.

 

Decibels are measured in a logarithmic style of measurement. Being logarithmic, the change is diminishing. As you go higher and higher in volume you need more and more change to be able to notice .. the first part of the scale makes the biggest difference followed my minute and minute changes.

The opposite of logarithmic is exponential, where you get increasingly larger and larger changes.

This was done on purpose to make huge numbers easily manageable.. from a range of 10db to 170db you can go from whispers to jet engine to eardrum piercing loudness. Obviously there is ALOT that has gone on within that range there.. but you have only gone from 10 to 170... so yeah.

I think you could argue this both ways.. You could say yes the high decibel change of the resonix could be less noticeable if you were using the same amount of it.

But you could also argue that you would need way less of the product to make the same amount of change as the less effective product..

The only way to truly test this is to have a big square of one product and a smaller product of another product and see how much it took of one to equal the other. But yeah too many variables to know for sure without alot of laboratory grade testing equipment inside an anechoic chamber.

The easiest way to verify the claim would be to measure multiple layers of the other dampeners to see if it really takes 10 squares to match the Resonix, or just 2.

 

Now, I know that doubling the power going to a given speaker results in a 3db increase in SPL. However, it doesn't seem to follow that a 3db difference between the measured result of 2 dampeners means one is twice as effective. If we're talking about how a product affects the sound, then it seems to me we should be talking about perceived volume. It would then follow that product A would need to measure 10db lower than product B in order to claim 2x effectiveness (a 10db rise in SPL results in double the perceived volume).

So, unless I am misunderstanding the principles here, Resonix's claims of being 3.6-10x as effective as the other products in the test seem spurious to me. The test certainly shows that the product is superior, but I don't think it's to the level that their interpretation claims. What am I missing?

I have no experience with Resonix but essentially you need a lot less to accomplish the same effects. This would in turn save you money over the competition. How many people use it this way is in question. I would guess that people still use it the same as if they were using a different brand. They would cover as much area as they could reach, but IDK; just a guess.

But you could also argue that you would need way less of the product to make the same amount of change as the less effective product..

The only way to truly test this is to have a big square of one product and a smaller product of another product and see how much it took of one to equal the other. But yeah too many variables to know for sure without alot of laboratory grade testing equipment inside an anechoic chamber.

This is what i've been told by Nick. Resonix requires essentially 1/4 IIRC of other CLD to be just as effective...something along those lines

 

Your first statement I have in bold is not accurate. 3db is double the power; approx 10db of change is double the spl.

I have no experience with Resonix but essentially you need a lot less to accomplish the same effects. This would in turn save you money over the competition. How many people use it this way is in question. I would guess that people still use it the same as if they were using a different brand. They would cover as much area as they could reach, but IDK; just a guess.

This is what i've been told by Nick. Resonix requires essentially 1/4 IIRC of other CLD to be just as effective...something along those lines

Your first paragraph says exactly the same thing as the text you highlighted.
As for what this Nick says, it is based on the test results being discussed. In claiming a 3db decrease = 2x effectiveness, the interpretation of these results posted by Resonix seems to be using the wrong equation to inform the valuation of their product.

 

A strong statement from someone that just joined and 2 posts. You care to elaborate or add value to the topic?

 

Never trust anyone who can't spell "boy"!!!

 

As Cman said, dB is a logarithmic scale. Every 3dB, as mentioned, is a doubling or halving of energy (keyword here is energy, maybe that's where the misunderstanding comes from). To increase 3dB, you need to double the energy. CLD converts mechanical energy into heat. Every 3dB of measured change is a doubling/halving of energy. Based on this, in theory, a given panel would require 2x more of the same product or the equal amount of a product that performs 2x better to have a reduction of 3dB. I say in theory obviously because every panel is different and will behave differently, and every product is different and will behave differently. That said, the testing that Chris has published is by far the most data we have ever had on sound deadening. Speaking of his testing, he also tested various amounts of ResoNix vs. other products. Half the amount of ResoNix still performed better than everything else. I'll see if I can dig up those photos of that test.


Edit: with 50% coverage vs the rest of the products in the test (not 50% coverage of the panel, just half the coverage of the other products. You will need to join Chris's FB group and read the details to find specifics), it had an 11dB drop in resonance. Still better than SS Damp Pro's full results
First pic is ResoNix 50% coverage vs the second pic being SS Damp Pro Full coverage.

 

Speaking of his testing, he also tested various amounts of ResoNix vs. other products. Half the amount of ResoNix still performed better than everything else. I'll see if I can dig up those photos of that test.

That is exactly what i was just talking about. That would be interesting to see

 

Sound Deadener Test Results

Hey everyone. You all probably remember that Chris (2stubborn2fail) for his sound deadening testing years ago. Some of you may also remember that he was building a new rig and doing more testing via his Facebook group, The Deadening. Well, a few months ago he did a large round of testing...

www.diymobileaudio.com

 

This is his very old testing. He has newer testing on his facebook group.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/651457188787366

 

You've never been a customer before due to me canceling every order you've ever tried to make..

For those wondering, this is Koontz.

 

Hey all,
I've seen quite a bit of discussion recommending Resonix as the go-to sound deadening product around here. The case for this product seems to hinge on an independent test which was conducted a few years ago, and which seems to show Resonix as the most effective product by a significant margin.

Now, I am certainly no acoustic engineer, nor do I have a wealth of experience with this kind of product or SQ-focused installs in general. That said, I find myself a bit confused by a couple of statements on the Resonix page explaining the test results. To wit:


and



Now, I know that doubling the power going to a given speaker results in a 3db increase in SPL. However, it doesn't seem to follow that a 3db difference between the measured result of 2 dampeners means one is twice as effective. If we're talking about how a product affects the sound, then it seems to me we should be talking about perceived volume. It would then follow that product A would need to measure 10db lower than product B in order to claim 2x effectiveness (a 10db rise in SPL results in double the perceived volume).

So, unless I am misunderstanding the principles here, Resonix's claims of being 3.6-10x as effective as the other products in the test seem spurious to me. The test certainly shows that the product is superior, but I don't think it's to the level that their interpretation claims. What am I missing?

I think you're getting hung up on the audible aspect of this, which is not easily determined. The amount of power dissipated/redirected by cld is easily determined and reported, the human part of that is yours to figure out.