The truck liner AFAIK is a polyurethane (with an elastomer polyol) - it appears to have been designed for maximum impact resistance.
The quietcar product seems to be viscoelastic (if we were to take them at their word).
The dynamat/bquiet/fatmat products work by adding weight to the body panels and changing (lowering) their resonance frequency.
The gong and cymbal test (if true) seems to be valid since it is similar to the way one tests if more sound deadening is needed on a body panel (by knocking on it and listening for resulting harmonics).
It is true that any material that prevents vibration or changes the characteristic frequency will alter the sound produced (including fingers, thumb, whole human body, tar, resin, polyurethane, viscoelastic materials, carpet padding etc etc) - but my goal is to find a material that will produce maximum sound reduction throughout the car with minimum cost. And that is why i am trying to look into different products and trying to compare their "advertised" specifications
The point of this posting is not to start an argument or flame war or anything - its just a way of airing out my thought process so i can make atleast a semi informed decision in the end.
Dynamat - Sound Deadening - And Alternatives
Re: Dynamat - Sound Deadening - And Alternatives
Didn't want to seem like a jerk, shameem... Its just I trust numbers. Bquiet supplies numbers. The spray supplied a gong. I dunno, just a bit superstitious I suppose. Numbers speak the loudest to me, because it has some point of reference as to what the differences from one material to another is.
if someone puts fatmax in their car, and it quiets the car, they'll say, "It works great! better than dynamax!"
but the fact is, they'll never have a true comparison. they'll never drive that same car with dynamax, strip it, then apply fatmax or the spray in bed liner and then drive it to test the differences between the materials.
If they can't supply numbers, I am going to assume they:
A. don't have the resources to test against competitors
B. don't have better numbers than the competitor
it's not necessarily a TRUE assumption, but more-than-likely true. There's a chance it's a better product, but a better chance that it's not.
if someone puts fatmax in their car, and it quiets the car, they'll say, "It works great! better than dynamax!"
but the fact is, they'll never have a true comparison. they'll never drive that same car with dynamax, strip it, then apply fatmax or the spray in bed liner and then drive it to test the differences between the materials.
If they can't supply numbers, I am going to assume they:
A. don't have the resources to test against competitors
B. don't have better numbers than the competitor
it's not necessarily a TRUE assumption, but more-than-likely true. There's a chance it's a better product, but a better chance that it's not.
