|
What part of the graph are you talking about when you say 3db "better?" Also, the bare metal graphs show 3-6db variances at certain points between graphs, rather than +/- 1db.
I'm not sure what to make of your results. If more bass is a positive consequence of using deadeners, the area under the curve of the stinger looks better to me than dynamat below 80hz, particularly taking the delta with bare metal graphs into account, while dynamat looks better 80-100hz.
Curiously, aside from smoothing that nasty peak around 85hz, both Stinger and Dynamat appear to be poor for midbass from 80hz and up.
Quicker decay is good of course, but the slope doesn't look significantly steeper to me with dynamat than stinger, and I wonder if that is enough to qualify dynamat as "better" than stinger or raamat if, judging by the dynamat graphs, it does very little compared to the baremetal graph below around 80hz while in the stinger graph you gain at one point up to 7db vs the baremetal graph.
Are you saying that ~3db peak around 75hz of the damped Stinger vs the smoother Dynamat curve is what makes Dynamat better?
|