Soundown Carpet Underlayment Installation

[FlyWright]

Think I'm getting what you're saying. Your 4th pic is with the hatches open, yes?

Yes

OK, so in that situation the underlayment covers the hatch seams... but then you also said your carpet is wall-to-wall and floating, so to expose your hatches the whole top carpet has to come up. Yes?

Yes, I pull the entire carpet, but it's possible to pull up one end and fold it over. With my salon layout, it's easier to pull it all and have it out of the way for maintenance.

I think I can't do that in our saloon... too much furniture, a pedestal table (pedestal surrounded by carpet), etc.

IOW, I need to be able to lift each hatch -- and it's attached underlayment and carpet -- without lifting the surrounding carpet.

-Chris

Can you have a serged carpet panel and the pad secured to your hatch for removal? Got pics?

 

[ranger58sb]

Can you have a serged carpet panel and the pad secured to your hatch for removal? Got pics?

I'm not sure what "serged" is, but our current configuration has both pad and carpet attached to each hatch... so everything over each "hole" comes up at once . The original carpet isn't "wrapped" (around the edges of the main floor or each hatch), but the replacement will be.

Each hatch rests on a lip all the way around the circumference of the hatch, and that lip is part of the flooring structure. IOW, the lip system is not just (e.g., metal) framing added afterwards to support the hatches, but rather part of the main floor. The overlap seems similar to what you've described with your underlayment.

I've got some pics, maybe I can post one or two later today...


@FlyWright/Al: Which foam did you use? I see it was 1/2" but the Soundown website lists "charcoal" or "Premium"?

@Keysdisease/Steve: What's the functional difference between the "charcoal" and the"Premium" foam? Our installer said yesterday (after her own search) that the charcoal is more cushy, and the premium is firmer. That right? If so, anything else? Any difference in sound attenuation?

-Chris

 

[Keysdisease]

Hello Chris,

Your installer is correct, the charcoal is more "cushy," but the overwhelming opinion is that it's too "cushy" and that your feet find the floor as if there isn't any foam there at all.

Al bought the "premium," which provides a very plush feel underfoot.

As far as noise reduction performance, the function of the foam is to "decouple" the mass layer from the structural foam. Both foams do that equally, the premium foam has a little more mass so it probably performs a little better, but likely in the "measurable" range and not the "noticeable" range.

I hope this is helpful

Steve

@Keysdisease/Steve: What's the functional difference between the "charcoal" and the"Premium" foam? Our installer said yesterday (after her own search) that the charcoal is more cushy, and the premium is firmer. That right? If so, anything else? Any difference in sound attenuation?

-Chris

 

[FoxtrotCharlie]

Nice work Al - congrats!

 

[Pack Mule]

Good job Al . Nice upgrade for the boat , feet and ears .

 

[ranger58sb]

Your installer is correct, the charcoal is more "cushy," but the overwhelming opinion is that it's too "cushy" and that your feet find the floor as if there isn't any foam there at all.

Al bought the "premium," which provides a very plush feel underfoot.

As far as noise reduction performance, the function of the foam is to "decouple" the mass layer from the structural foam. Both foams do that equally, the premium foam has a little more mass so it probably performs a little better, but likely in the "measurable" range and not the "noticeable" range.

I hope this is helpful

VERY helpful, thanks! And I apparently hadn't found that link on the Soundown site, so that helps even more.

I'm meeting the installer at the boat later this morning to discuss details. I think she just wants to double-check her calcs but also maybe to confirm the total 5/8" or 3/4" overall thickness will be workable..

-Chris

 

[ranger58sb]

Some pics...

Port side hatch, "notched" a bit to deal with the shape of the cabinetry (another owner of an earlier build tells me his port side hatch is just a rectangle, parts of it underneath the cabinetry, and he had to do some significant work to open his up):



Starboard side hatch, just a rectangle, closed and open:





The chairs pictured are replacements for the original Flexsteel sleep-sofa, and that was a bear to move (and "stow" someplace) when that hatch needs to be opened.

The original carpet wasn't "wrapped" around the hatches... just dressed up a bit after I simply cut the carpet and pad and unscrewed the hatches...

-Chris

 

[siestakey]

Serged

A picture of serged carpet

 

[ranger58sb]

Ah. Thanks. No, ours isn't serged, and the plan so far is to wrap each engine room hatch. There's another hatch in the stateroom that's already wrapped, and we'll just re-do that the same way, too.

1/2" Premium foam is our menu choice.

Our next decision is about the 1- versus 2-lbs/sq ft. mass layer; just at the moment, I don't see any downside to the heavier layer (aside from extra cost) since the weight increase isn't a huge deal for our boat...

-Chris

 

[ranger58sb]

FWIW, I took some "before" sound measurements yesterday, so I'll have something to compare after the installation... Not as sophisticated as Al's frequency-specific graphs, but at least averages/maximums/minimums at various RPMs (idle and 1200 in the slip, 2200 and 2400 underway).

From memory, the max I saw was 100 dB-C at 2400 RPMs while underway. Given the way my meter works, it's likely I should have changed the range setting to the next higher increment, so that max may really have been in the 102-105 range... but I didn't figure that out 'til afterwards.

Not to worry, should be good enough for comparison...

-Chris

 

[FlyWright]

Chris, Did you finish the Soundown installation?

 

[ranger58sb]

Yep, just day before yesterday, but still stowing stuff afterwards. I'm very pleased, so far; very comfortable cushioning! I'm hoping to take the "after" sound measurements tomorrow...

-Chris

 

[ranger58sb]

Installation finished. Early thoughts, and preliminary sound measurements for comparison:

This project initially focused on hull liner replacement in the master stateroom. Then we decided to replace carpeting in the master, too. Then we decided to replace all carpeting. Then we decided to add carpet underlayment for sound abatement -- thanks to the thread here. Then, once we saw how well the new hull liner looked, and how good the installer was, we decided to replace the hull liner in the guest stateroom and behind the hanging lockers, etc.

IOW, requirements creep, but it was really only a choice of doing it all now and enjoying it ourselves for longer, or doing it all later.

The installation went well. We chose the Soundown with 1/2" premium foam and the 2-lbs/Sq.Ft. mass layer. My original thought was that the boat wouldn't notice the extra weight. Almost blew it, with that decision. The two engine room hatches weigh approximately 35-lbs each, they're large enough to be awkward, and the underlayment would have added about 38-lbs each. Woof!

As it turned out, the installer was able to wrap the mass layer of the Soundown on the hatches... and then free-float that hatch carpeting/pad in the "trough" (?) created by the surrounding carpet/Soundown on the main part of the cabin sole. The result is that it looks like a wrapped hatch, I can move the carpet/pad in one step, then lift the hatch itself. The hatch pulls are underneath the carpet/pad... so normally completely invisible. We'll see if that works, but so far the hatch carpet/pad hasn't moved. I may decide to add some double sided hook-and-loop in between, if it becomes necessary... but so far, so good.

Here are the raw sound measurement numbers; I haven't done any real analysis yet:

Test # before/after =
center of pre-selected dB-C range setting: Average dB-C, Minimum, Maximum = description

1 = 60: 61, 55, 66 = saloon, AC, 1 portable fan
1 = 60: 58, 52, 67 = -3, -3, +1 dB-C

2 = 70: 72, 67, 75 = master, AC, 2 portable fans
2 = 70: 63, 58, 69 = -9, -9, -6 dB-C (?? seems spurious ??)

3 = 70: 75, 71, 78 = saloon, genset, AC, 1 portable fan
3 = 70: 72, 69, 76 = -3, -2, -2 dB-C

4 = 70: 74, 72, 76 = saloon, genset, 1 portable fan
4 = 70: 73, 69, 75 = -1, -3, -1 dB-C

5 = 70: 68, 63, 76 = master, genset, 2 portable fans
5 = 70: 62, LO*, 69 = -6, -3?, -7 dB-C (?? seems spurious ??)

6 = 90: 91, 82, 97 = engines underway, 2215 RPMs, saloon, genset, AC, 1 portable fan
6 = 90: 90, 83, 96 = -1, +1, -1 dB-C

7 = 90: 94, 85, 100 = engines underway, 2415 RPMs, saloon, genset, AC, 1 portable fan
7 = 90: 93, 84, 98 = -1, -1, -2 dB-C

8 = 80: 75, LO, 80 = engines in slip, 1205 RPMs, saloon, genset, AC, 1 portable fan
8 = 80: 75, 71, 80 = NC, +1?, NC dB-C

9 = 80: 78, LO, 84 = engines in slip, idle (625/605 RPMs, saloon, genset, AC, 1 portable fan)
9 = 80: 78, LO, 83 = NC, NC, -1 dB-C

* “LO” means lower than the lower limit of the pre-selected 20 dB-C range

-Chris

 

[ranger58sb]

Some more thoughts...

First, my "digital sound meter" isn't the most sophisticated tool in the free world. Which in turn means I have no comparison data for specific frequencies, just the overall composite for each test.

Second, I was focused on measuring actual ambient noise, not just the change from before and after the Soundown installation. Hence the tests with ACs and portable fans, almost all of that above the Soundown.

Third, tests in the master stateroom were more for curiosity than anything else. We did include Soundown on the horizontal surfaces down there, but engines and genset are all under the saloon... so I wasn't expecting much of a difference in the master.

Fourth, looks like all the saloon/genset and saloon/engines/genset tests suggest a -1 dB(C) change at higher engine RPMs, no change at lower engine RPMs. (Interesting that 1200 RPMs in the slip measured quieter than idling in the slip. ?)

I wasn't working the meter for the underway tests, this last time, so can't tell whether I may have perceived any difference or not. I suspect not, if the -1 dB(C) comparisons are valid. I was present during the genset tests (3 & 4), and could not tell any difference in sound levels... even though the meter says -3 dB(C) in one case and -1 dB(C) in the other.

The new carpet/underlayment feels GREAT to walk on!

-Chris

 

[siestakey]

[
Here are the raw sound measurement numbers; I haven't done any real analysis yet:

Test # before/after =
center of pre-selected dB-C range setting: Average dB-C, Minimum, Maximum = description

1 = 60: 61, 55, 66 = saloon, AC, 1 portable fan
1 = 60: 58, 52, 67 = -3, -3, +1 dB-C

2 = 70: 72, 67, 75 = master, AC, 2 portable fans
2 = 70: 63, 58, 69 = -9, -9, -6 dB-C (?? seems spurious ??)

3 = 70: 75, 71, 78 = saloon, genset, AC, 1 portable fan
3 = 70: 72, 69, 76 = -3, -2, -2 dB-C

4 = 70: 74, 72, 76 = saloon, genset, 1 portable fan
4 = 70: 73, 69, 75 = -1, -3, -1 dB-C

5 = 70: 68, 63, 76 = master, genset, 2 portable fans
5 = 70: 62, LO*, 69 = -6, -3?, -7 dB-C (?? seems spurious ??)

6 = 90: 91, 82, 97 = engines underway, 2215 RPMs, saloon, genset, AC, 1 portable fan
6 = 90: 90, 83, 96 = -1, +1, -1 dB-C

7 = 90: 94, 85, 100 = engines underway, 2415 RPMs, saloon, genset, AC, 1 portable fan
7 = 90: 93, 84, 98 = -1, -1, -2 dB-C

8 = 80: 75, LO, 80 = engines in slip, 1205 RPMs, saloon, genset, AC, 1 portable fan
8 = 80: 75, 71, 80 = NC, +1?, NC dB-C

9 = 80: 78, LO, 84 = engines in slip, idle (625/605 RPMs, saloon, genset, AC, 1 portable fan)
9 = 80: 78, LO, 83 = NC, NC, -1 dB-C

* “LO” means lower than the lower limit of the pre-selected 20 dB-C range

-Chris[/QUOTE]
Thanks for sharing!!!!!