I noticed today that when outside my Fit, almost every indoor sound is heard even with the doors shut.

Is there any modifications I can do to make it to where outsiders can't hear my music? I read a little about sound deadening, but I am aware that makes it to where the driver can't hear the outside noise.

Thanks

 

Sound deadening will work in both directions, if that's what you're wondering.

 

If your concern is that you're going to deaden your car to the point you won't be able to hear; other cars, horns, sirens, etc. don't worry, that will never happen.

 

Thanks guys, love this website!

Funkster: I dislike how if I am sitting at a stoplight and blaring a song by say, Queen how everyone else at the light can hear the song and probably me singing along with it. I am trying to figure out a way to "sound proof" my Fit so that outsiders can't hear.

Starks: Thanks. Do you know if there is any easier way than pulling my car apart and applying Dynomat? I bought my Fit used two months ago and I'm not so comfortable doing that yet.

 

#1
Thanks to the design of the car you will only be able to negate this effect, not eliminate it. You can dampen panels to reduce how much noise escapes, but gaps and the glass windows will prevent you from ever completely blocking sound.

#2
Do not buy Dynomat. There are much better products for much less money. I use and recommend RAAMatt from RAAMaudio.

 

Double Pane Soundproof Glass!

Funny you ask if there is an easier way when pretty much every soundproofing progress thread on here features the OP at one time or another saying the Fit comes apart very easily compared to other cars. Do your research on here and read other fitfreak's sound deadening project threads. If after doing your research you are still uncomfortable with the thought of doing it yourself, pay someone else to do it or perhaps if you're lucky you can meet up with a generous local fitfreaker who has completed a similar sound deadening project.

 

Anything is better than how it is now! I'll have to look into those two things and maybe get some help taking my car apart and installing. Thanks a bunch

 

I tried to cover the dampening I did fairly well in my thread. Feel free to check it out.

https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/fit-...ld-thread.html

 

Smart idea Starks. I'll definitely look into it!

Y'all are the best!

 

use QUICK ROOF if you have to go the deadening route. 3-5-10 times more for so called boutique deadeners is a waste of money.

 

I have no specific experience with QUICK ROOF as a product. I can tell you that in my experience as an enthusiast and working in the audio industry for a few years that I have yet to see a "roof" dampening mat work as well as a high quality Butyl based dampening mat.

Not to mention they usually have a much weaker adhesive on them as they are designed to lay on a roof and don't have to stay adhered to a vertical panel such as a door let alone stay adhered upside down as in the inside of a car roof.

 

I'm not questioning your experience. I myself is an enthusiast not only in car but also in home and portable/mobile (head-fi). I have done a few full car install before.

I still have to see quick roof fail, fall and not perform as intended. It's been put down by a lot of so called experts that are into boutique deadeners.

If you want butyl based then you'd be better of with eDead from eD Elemental Designs: Car Stereo, Home Speakers, Electronics

 

Take it as you wish, but you could say I am probably more than familiar with eD products than anyone here.

I prefer the performance of RAAMmat as well as feel it is a higher quality product. That being said, eDead is a decent product and if it is all that fits in your budget it is one of the better products in the price range.

OP, I want you to keep in mind that sound dampening is not as simple as just sticking on a dampening mat. Different materials block different frequencies more effectively than others and the best approach is a multi-product attack.

 

You can also look in my build log to see what I have done for sound deadening, I am almost done. All doors, floor, rear hatch, hatch door and the roof are done. I am only wanting to do the footwells and firewall areas inside and I am done. My deadener of choice is Second Skin. I won't get into the argument of roof materials over car specific made deadener because roof materials are just inferior all the way around.

 

As far as taking the interior out, I had the carpet and everything else out in 2.5 hours. And that was my first time doing it, even stopped to talk to the neighbor.

 

Second Skin is also a fantastic product and it would have been my top choice if it was in my budget for the mat. I do have their Spectrum in my rear wheel wells and I need to finish spraying it in the front as well.

 

everybody has their preference. In my experience (about 20 yrs) i would still put quick roof as a proven in car sound deadening alternative to "fancy" and eD stuff... unless course if any of you can come up with anything to prove that qr and eD are inferior to deadening.

What ever works

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThEvil0nE

everybody has their preference. In my experience (about 20 yrs) i would still put quick roof as a proven in car sound deadening alternative to "fancy" and eD stuff... unless course if any of you can come up with anything to prove that qr and eD are inferior to deadening.

I personally have done testing on the differences and can tell you true deadeners do test better. However, that is nothing without data so here is the results of testing similiar to mine. The only difference is I used a cylindrical test panel instead of a flat one and I tested "Peal N' Seal" and "RAAMmat" instead of the products used in this test.

Credit to Jon for these word and test findings.

More often than not, a quick Google search for a cheaper alternative to automotive sound deadening results in many people suggesting or even using roofing products from their local home improvement store. But just like everything on the internet, you have to take these peoples opinions for what they are... opinions.
Materials that are usually found and used are Peel & Seal and other similarly produced roofing membranes. Quite often these products look and feel similar, if not the same as actual vibration dampers so it becomes an obvious choice.
There are still several unscrupulous companies that continue to sell these materials, just rebadged as "automotive sound deadening" and sell them at a premium.

The reason these roofing products are not an effective or efficient alternative are many.
Most roofing products are made from asphalt or a combination of asphalt, bitumen, petroleum distillates, and/or low grade rubber. These in most any combination equate to a low grade adhesive. Because of this, these products are intended for use on low sloping roofs, typically not exceeding 30°, as their their adhesive is the limiting factor. If you were to apply such product to a vertical surface, such as a car door, failure can be imminent.

Another reason these roofing products are not ideal is the fact that they lack a thick enough constraining layer (foil) to do any good. Without this constraining layer the product can't withstand the shear strain of panel flex and the conversion of the vibrational energy into low level heat is lost.

Even as inefficient as mass loading is, these products wouldn't even cut the mustard as a mass loader because they are just too light weight (averaging about .30 pounds per sq. ft.).

Besides all of the reasons above, my favorite argument from these individuals (and even some companies with inferior products) is that these products are so cheap that you can get away with using two or three layers of the product and come out ahead both with your wallet and results, this is further from the truth and I can prove it!

To prove these people wrong that it's "cheaper" and "just as effective" to use roofing products, I set forth to put this theory to test. To do so I began with a brand new 12" x 24" sheet of 22 gauge steel which I then laid out where everything would be installed for testing.

The sheet is split in half to provide some distance between the vibration source and the equipment that will record/pickup the vibrations.
The bottom half is the testing area.
A 6" square smack dab in the middle is where the properly designed automotiove CLD vibration mat will be placed to simulate 25% coverage of a panel (such as a door, trunk lid, or even a roof).
The roofing product will be placed over the entire bottom half of the sheet metal to simulate 100% coverage.


Location for the transducer that will provide the vibrations for the test.



A better shot of the "testing area" where the products will be applied.



On the backside of the testing area is where the pickup (in this case a highly sensitive accelerometer) will be placed.



With the sheet metal panel and transducer mounted securely, an audio signal (20Hz to 250Hz sine sweep) was then fed into it, thus causing the panel to vibrate. I ran the test a total of three times and took the average of the three runs and used that as my baseline for the untreated panel, below is the graph.


The pink horizontal lines represent the highest peaks.

I than repeated the test using a well know, and properly designed, automotive sound deadener mat (around the $3-$3.50 per square foot price point):


Once again, ran the same three tests and took the average. Here is the graph for the CLD (RED) compared to the baseline untreated panel (BLUE).



So to put their theory of "it's so cheap you can use two layers and get the same results", I did just that. I applied the roofing product (U-Seal brand roofing product) over the entire bottom half, the first layer was applied horizontally, second layer was applied vertically.


Three tests were ran, and I took the average.
Below are the results of the two layers of roofing product (BLUE) overlaid with the 25% coverage CLD (RED):



As you can see, two layers with 100% coverage of a roofing product still doesn't quite beat out 25% coverage of a properly designed CLD mat. There are a few areas the roofing product did perform better, but the same can be said for the CLD.

The weight difference between the two products is quite significant, two layers of the roofing product clocked in at 9.7 ounces, where as the CLD was only 2.6 ounces.. nearly 3.75 times less than the roofing product. So for those people who believe weight has something to do with the performance of a product, think twice.

To further put a nail into the "it's cheaper to use roofing products" coffin, I took the average price in my area of your typical roofing product which is $17.45 for 12.5 sq. ft., so $1.396 per sq. ft.
The CLD I used during these tests, on the high side, costs $3.50 per sq. ft..


Now if we break that down, the roofing product per square foot costs $1.396, multiple that by two (because you need to use at least two layers to get close to the same performance) = $2.792 to treat one square foot of panel area.

The CLD on the other hand costs $3.50 per square foot, divide that by four (since it requires only a quarter of the amount) = $0.875 to treat one square foot.

$2.792 for a roofing product vs. $0.875 for a properly designed automotive sound deadener, the choice is yours.

 

Yeah that article alone pretty much puts to an end any real debate over roofing products vs real deadener's. Oh and btw, I have been in the automotive audio industry for over 25 years myself so I am no amateur by any means.

 

Part of the problem is we are driving small cars. There just is not a lot of girth to the doors, unibody, interior materials etc... You could dynomat the doors, floor and pillars which would help but keep in mind you still have thin glass.

Luxury cars are extremely quiet in both directions and a big factor is the double pane windows they use. I know my old Lexus has a door twice the thickness of the Fit, these things help.

Like I said I would dynomat the doors and floor. Your really going to want it because it is time consuming and expensive. BTW, I am cool with you playing Queen!