Oh boy as in..... good job or oh boy as in ..... well hey if I did mess up it’s all good. That is how we learn.
Printable View
Oh boy as in..... good job or oh boy as in ..... well hey if I did mess up it’s all good. That is how we learn.
Oh boy as in lots of bad info from a particular post, and oh boy as in, well, frankly.. killmat isn't worth the effort it takes to install it. Very poor performing product.Quote:
Originally Posted by SQFord
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Don't like the implication that MLV is all basically the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by SkizeR
Or that CCF doesn't block sound and just makes sure the MLV doesn't vibrate with the underlying surface?
The vagueposts are really what's unhelpful.
At least other people try.
Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
Bad idea. Ccf is important and shouldn't be skipped on as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by geolemon
No its notQuote:
Originally Posted by geolemon
No it won't. This is not what ccf is for or does.Quote:
Originally Posted by geolemon
Correct, but so long as its Virgin. Cheap stuff is recycledQuote:
Originally Posted by geolemon
Don't do that. Doing a noise barrier is a big and tedious job and you want to make it worth your effort. Use something thats at least 1Lb/sq footQuote:
Originally Posted by geolemon
Again, noQuote:
Originally Posted by geolemon
Constrained layer damper. Do NOT use heat. It will break down and ruin the butyl if not careful. Also, if you are using a product that needs heat its a product you shouldn't be using. Its just unnecessaryQuote:
Originally Posted by geolemon
No. Ccf is not a barrierQuote:
Originally Posted by geolemon
There you go. This is one use for itQuote:
Originally Posted by geolemon
Yes, THIS is a barrierQuote:
Originally Posted by geolemon
Yeah, so use the right products to make the effort worth itQuote:
Originally Posted by geolemon
http://www.resonixsoundsolutions.com...ce-information
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
You are completely misquoting me, and it takes an asshole to do that to try to paint a false narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkizeR
I took the time to very explicitly describe that:
A) damping material is for vibrations.
B) ccf is a barrier between that and mlv, to decouple them so the MLV isn't vibrating.
C) that MLV is what's blocking the sound.
I also qualified that I'm personally only looking to lighter weight alternatives because I specifically have a light, sporty car and weight is the enemy. Your opinion on my preference on prioritizing weight is irrelevant.
Here's the thing about quoting people:
1) you have an obligation to read what they wrote, if you are going to make commentary on it at all - especially a charged, accusational commentary.
2) it's nothing short of asshole to try to take quotes out of context to try make it look like what you misunderstood.
Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
EDIT: Since one SINGLE vague word in my original post was so aggressively trolled, and with such a narrow-minded rant of aggression, rather than inquire on a potential misinterpretation or vagueness...
...I've edited that post, replacing one single word "it" with "MLV". I highlighted that in red and bold, in part to illustrate how aggressively this troll has tried to creatively edit and misquote what I've written to serve his misinformation attack. One word is not 11 quotes.
Readers beware this guy and his aggression.
Also -
The points I made don't come from my imagination. They are real.
1) Don't skimp on damping material. It matters.
2) All CCF really does is act like the pad that it is. It stops the vibrations of the underlying surface from being passed physically to the MLV.
It's a vibration barrier - nothing more. It doesn't stop sound. Other than adhesive, there's not much "quality" argument. CCF is CCF. You buy the thickness you need. It decouples vibration.
3) MLV is MLV. Even many of the brands admit that they source from the same contract manufacturers. And many of them share dB-by-frequency charts to show effectiveness. They match.
None of these are false statements.
But if you have test results that show how one CCF objectively outperformed other CCF in a "head to head CCF comparison" that I'm not aware ever occurred (and I suspect the reason it hasn't is exactly what I'm saying), please feel free to share that set of measurements.
That WOULD be a positive contribution to this thread.
Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
These test results from Justin Zazzi do that.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5yd1s6vbxb...0v1.3.pdf?dl=0
Actually, yes but unfortunately no.
That's an excellent test setup and test candidate lineup - including the inclusion of MLV with no vibration barrier between it and the damping layer, to really serve as a control variable.
I personally love the inclusion of all these alternative materials, including some pretty ghetto ones and a few pretty clever ones. That's really the main focus of his test.
As it relates to my point, however, that all CCF are pretty equal - the only items that correlate to "CCF" are:
- Sonic Barrier 1/2" (this is just 1/2" CCF)
- Sonic Barrier 1/4" (I *think* this is just 1/4" CCF - this is now discontinued and some of Sonic Barrier's other thicknesses are actually composite layered products)
There's also a "generic" foam option listed, but that's significantly not CCF - that's open-cell foam. (it performed worse than I would have guessed, but that's irrelevant)
The thing I'd also question is the very small sample squares, which could just be called into question for not representing real-world use where there would be more CCF to absorb the vibrations laterally - that could penalize some of the materials (or, thinner versions of like materials) disproportionately - but at least the test is fair in the consistency.
If Justin were to replicate this test, but instead use it to compare different CCF's - including different brand name CCF and several generic CCF - I'm confident you'd see a pretty tight grouping pretty close to where the CCF's measured on this were. That's my point.
Unfortunately that's not what this test measured - but it's still a great test with some real eye-opening results.
Back on topic with the thread to benefit members rather than egos:
The REAL interesting takeaway on his test here is that these three options actually perform better than CCF -
- synthetic pillow stuffing
- Thinsulate
- Second Skin heatwave
I always suspected the thick felt-like material that you see behind lots of OEM car panels might be a better performer - I've heard it called "jute" so maybe it's exactly the same as Second Skin heatwave.
It's interesting that Second Skin doesn't advertise it as a vibration barrier, but does advertise it as a noise barrier - something that would also increase it's appeal to me, or any installer looking for an effective noise barrier.
It's similarly noteworthy that literally EVERY composite product (3/4" Sonic Barrier and thicker, Cascade VB2 and VB4, Second Skin's own Luxury Liner) ALL use CCF as the vibration barrier - and not one of the three above. That's cause for pause.
Especially in my personal case with trying to keep weight down in a car (and not a little - we're talking about 50 pounds of difference, in 100 sq.ft. of material... about the equivalent of removing a front seat!), I'd love to see the noise barrier effectiveness of these two options compared:
- CCF with 1/8" MLV
- Heatwave with 1/16" MLV
Unfortunately, like the old Tootsie Roll pop commercial (not to show my age) - the world may never know. It's data we don't have.
I can compare the expense:
- Generic 10mm (1/2") CCF can be found for about $1/sq.ft.
- Second Skin Heatwave comes in at just over $3/sq.ft (it's currently on sale though, just under $3).
I made the point above about how spending more money for name-brand CCF is foolish over generic CCF.
In this case, however, it seems there's a tangible benefit of Heatwave over CCF. Is it worth 3x the expense? Maybe. Shame it's not 1.5x the cost, or less.
I'd again wonder why it's not used in the composite products.
I'd again worry about the validity and potential flaws in the one single test that shows it to perform superior in a vibration barrier application.
I'd wish that there were more tests that show it.
I'd wish that SecondSkin would put up a plot of noise-reduction-by-frequency, like all the MLV OEM's do (and their alternative competitors, like this one which unfortunately performs lesser-than MLV).
Those things would make the decision easier.
In absence of data, or experimentation, the safest option is usually the tried-and-true traditional option - CCF.
I may have a reasonable way to do this experiment myself - what I don't currently have is 1/16" MLV. Maybe I'll pick some up just for this, to compare to 1/8", and do the comparison myself.
I'm confused by your statement of not many CCF's were used....
Second Skin Overkill is CCF
RAAM ensolite is another CCF I believe
SDS neoprene is a CCF
Luxury liner pro is a CCF and MLV just coupled at the factory
The two you said are CCF (Sonic Barrier) are actually open cell by PS's descriptions...
"Sonic Barrier 1/2" Acoustic Sound Damping Foam with PSA 18" x 24"The Sonic Barrier 1/2" acoustic damping foam is a precisely engineered material that offers optimum absorption for its thickness. The material features our exclusive embossed surface finish that helps to trap acoustic energy and improve high frequency performance. This finish is applied to an acoustic-grade open-cell polyether foam,"