All Gen cab noise treatments [dynamat, kilmat, siless, etc]

Just wanted to start a single thread to get some ideas/info from the forum on the range of products and or experiences for improving FGT cab SQ for audio systems. In forum searches, the topic seems to be spread out as subtopics of specific Audio systems, etc.
Also the topic has been covered well in a few threads, most notably by @Shifty and a few more contributors, so thanks for their involvement.

Primarily bcuz Im cheap, Im going relatively 'minimalist' on my audio upgrades for this FGT AC.
Going to install new speaks [JBL Club, HU upgrade later, no ext amp for now] and Im going to attempt to reduce cab sheet metal resonance. Im actually surprised that w/out any treatments, the SQ of these cabs isnt that bad; maybe due to the subwoofer-less/lo-power, non-JBL HU.
At minumum I may go cheap w/scamazon product, or maybe a bit better to the least expensive of products noted in thread title. OTOH, Im certainly not going to attempt to go wall to wall to floor sound treatment either [in the end, its a tow vehicle for me, albeit a nice one].

So let the discussion begin. What did you do/planning to do and w/which products?
What would you do differently if for do-over, or next Tundra, etc?

To add to the topic, here's an outside forum link I also came across, w/their own 'in-house' topic source, [about like our own @Shifty.]
https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=877584

 

This really probably belongs in the Audio subforum. There's nothing 1st-gen specific about the topic.

But I'll tell you, you're potentially opening a can of worms. Sound deadning is like religion to some people. You have a couple schools of thought:

• Cover all-the-things, which maybe makes sense if you intend to compete, but is a waste of time and money for 99% of the population
• Cover strategic spots* in high-problem areas by adding a fair amount of weight to particularly noisy panels

There are people I've seen on this forum who truly believe you'll get benefit from covering every inch of your door shell, on the inside, with sound deadening. Yet study, after study, after study has shown that benefits of sound reduction drop sharply after you get to 40~50% coverage, and once you get to that 65-70% coverage mark, you're genuinely beating a dead horse.

The primary purpose of sound deadening is and always has been "add weight to panels so they can't vibrate". The more weight you add, the less panel flex can happen, which will dull the tinniest of sounds/resonance. But there are limits, points of diminishing return, etc. It's important to remember the purpose, though. You'd be smarter to coat the entire inside of your outer door skin (which is flat) before the inner door skin (which is ridged/creased, ridges and creases reduce a panel's ability to resonate/vibrate).

Avoid foam materials. Butyl deadeners are what most people are using these days and have been for eons. Anything in the 80-120 mil thickness from products like Kilmat, Noico, Siless, or similar will do fine. Get a good, bearing-loaded 1" wide and 3" wide roller to roll the product on. Wipe the panel off with rubbing alcohol before applying.

 

Continuing discussion...

 

IDK, but seems like with each successive gen, Toyota Tundras might be doing better on cab noise reduction; I cant prove it tho.

 

On my 08 crewmax I’ve 100% covered the entire truck. My take away being in the audio industry for 15+ years, you get what you pay for. I’ve all types of products over the years. On my personal truck I went middle of the road with Kilmat 80 mil.
If I had the money , dynamat over all. But that’s just like my option man.

Worst part to cover was the roof but made a good difference. Back wall is annoying me, mostly because I hear noise. Surprisingly the front driver and passenger floors have some substantial factory deadening. Rear floors was the easiest. Doors received inner and outer layer. I didn’t go as far as some removing the vapor barrier and closing off the holes.

 

Ok. Time & $'s not necessarily highest priority for you.
So, of products you've used, same 'get what u pay for'? Dynamat that much better?

I get the idea of arresting the resonant panels. Im trying to decide which product and how much; likely just doing doors for starters and just buy xtra to do back cab and maybe bk floor later.
In FGTs, feels like equal amount of noise from incomplete weather seal between doors [no B pillar].

 

Thx @Shifty...yes, foam products seem to be sound absorbers to me.

 

Sometimes it helps to get back to the basics of, "Why are we doing this, what's the problem, and what's the solve for that problem?"

Reflecting on that: Vehicle cabin is a big shell of metal panels. Metal panels transmit noise extremely well when they resonate, and any noise outside of what's coming out of your speakers is detrimental to your sound experience. The primary function of sound deadener isn't to seal, it's to add weight to panels, thereby absorbing vibrations, and prevent metal from resonating/transmitting sounds. Same thing OEMs like Toyota are doing when they apply the huge slabs of thick as deadener to the floors of vehicles (here's what our AC trucks have on the floor from the factory, you can still buy those deadening slabs).

Look. Foam is great ... if wind noise is your issue. Foam is great to shore gaps, fill voids where outside sounds can transmit inward. It can reduce temperature transmission. But it won't add density/weight to a metal panel to prevent noise transmission through that panel. OEMs have, for the most part, solved most of the gap/void/wind noise problems with the use of bulbous foam seals around the doors, windows, rubber grommets in the firewall. And for some holes, like the rear wall vents, those actually serve a purpose: Pressure equalization when you're closing your doors. It's potentially ignorant to cover those vents, you're adding extra stress to your window seals, and risk blowing out a window when you slam the door. I understand covering them if you're doing SPL comps, but ... you'll find stories here or there in old Usenet postings, social media, audio/auto forums where others have popped out or damaged windows after sealing all the equalization vents.

First shop I worked at ~30-35 years ago, the main shop vehicle we ran in IASCA probably had about 80% coverage, that 80% coverage was not 80% coverage of all interior panels, it was only under panels where the deadening would be invisible, with near-100% coverage on the floor and ceiling (it was a T4R, that was a lot of surface area). That was more than enough, honestly overkill, waste of money, but that was the "trend" back in the 80s/90s, when car audio was really kicking off, but before a lot of study had been done on effectiveness. Unfortunately, trends die hard, and so does the misinformaton that goes along with that - people like to copy/mimic without looking into the reality of what works. For customer cars we would usually aim for 30% coverage inside the doors, with the brunt of that being inside the outer door skin, where it made the most difference. Mind you, I haven't been in the industry for the better part of 20 years, the last 25 I've spent in tech, so it's possible a lot has changed. But in general, the physics of what/why/how you use sound deadening mat surely hasn't.

Anyway, you can do whatever you want to do. Some folks on here, like @robabeatle, who has been eeking out a pretty killer system for his 1st gen AC, did his entire base floor in MLV, went to great lengths to make soundstage corrections (even at the expense of his door cards ), it's really impressive the lengths he's gone to - dude is crazy, in a good way, gets into the science of it all. Here's his take on foams, which I agree with. As you'll see from that thread I last linked, there are a lot of people who (I feel) have misconceptions about where you get your bang vs. buck. And I also agree with his take here on % of coverage, but I usually aim a little higher (his number of 25% does reflect what multiple sound studies conducted by independent labs have found over decades). This was his 1st pass on his floor, which probably was a massive difference, since so much sound transmission comes from the resonance below the cab. Then he added foam. Then MLV. Then more MLV. (Here's a link to that install)

It may seem over the top, but he has a very specific vision: He's going for ultimate sound quality (SQ) which is starting with turning the cabin into an acoustically near-silent room. Then adjusting sound staging with speaker position. Then using DSP for fine-tuning/signal refinement. (he can correct me if I'm wrong). That vision may not be your vision. Just like I tell people with suspension, you need to (A) be realistic about what YOU want for YOUR TRUCK, what are you trying to accomplish? and (B) pick a budget you're willing to spend so you can plan around that, which (C) also includes installation, if you're not willing or able to do the work. Why listen to input from me or others on "how to sound deaden" if their goal may've been totally different from yours?

Last ... this topic has been beaten to death in the audio forum, so I dunno why I'm adding this but ...

On products, 80mil-120mil butyl deadener is fine. If you've ever seen pics of my shop, with my old toolbox, I think there's two or three Dynamat stickers on it. I'm a decades-long user of their products, but I'm here to tell you: When it comes to butyl deadeners like the three I mentioned or Dynamat, if it's the same mil thickness, you WILL NOT be able to tell the difference. 50mil Dynamat will get its dick stomped in the dirt by 120mil Siless mat. Thickness = weight, adding weight kills sound transmission, a sheet of butyl that's 2x+ thicker is going to provide substantially more weight. I'll say it: Dynamat is overpriced for what it offers. It's become "designer" mat, if you will. Again, old trends and name recognition go on-and-on-and-on-and-on. Same reason people still think Moog makes good parts, but they're utter shit, people talk them up b/c it's what Papaw used, and that's why Pappy used it, and that's why I use it, and my son's gonna use it. Ignoring reality in the name of brand loyalty is ... "special".

One other thing @robabeatle and I agree on here, and I've already told you this on the 1st gen forum: "SQ basically requires an external DSP. Now, if that is not an option (and it makes a world of difference, no amount of $$ spent on speakers can over come a lack of DSP)"

If SQ isn't your thing, I wouldn't bother going overboard with sound deadener. If you have no intent to add an external amp, and a DSP, or work around sound staging issues (like mounting tweeters in the A-pillar base to cross-fire for better staging), then you're missing a lot of the stuff that'll make a far larger difference.

/NOVEL

 

PS - this post you made is approximately what that T4R mentioned earlier looked like. Inside of the outer door skin: Loaded, 90%+ coverage. Interior part of the door skin had scraps and pieces for ~60% coverage.