I’m with you on using rubberized only where it matters most. I can’t count how many times I’ve been up in an attic and spotted leaks right around chimneys or where two roofs meet—those spots just take a beating. But I’ve also seen plenty of synthetic underlayment hold up great everywhere else, even after a couple nasty storms. The “silent” claim always makes me laugh, too. Unless you’ve got a foot of insulation up there, you’ll hear rain no matter what’s under the shingles.
Yeah, I’ve noticed the same thing with the “silent” claim—rain’s gonna sound like rain unless you’re basically living in a pillow fort up there. Last week, I helped tear off a roof where the only leaks were right at the valleys and around a skylight. Everywhere else, the synthetic underlayment looked almost new, even though the shingles were rough. Makes me wonder if people overthink the underlayment sometimes.
I’ve been down the rabbit hole with underlayment research since buying my house last year. There’s so much marketing hype, it’s hard to know what actually matters in real-world conditions. The “silent” rain thing always sounded a bit optimistic to me—my neighbor has a brand-new roof with top-tier synthetic underlayment, and he still says it sounds like a monsoon when it pours. Unless you’re adding major insulation or something, I don’t see how any underlayment is going to make a dramatic difference with noise.
Your point about leaks is interesting. I had a roofer walk me through a few local jobs, and almost every time, leaks started at flashing, valleys, or around penetrations like vents and skylights. The field underlayment—whether it was old felt or newer synthetic—usually looked fine even after years. I guess it makes sense, since water’s going to find the path of least resistance, and those weak spots are rarely in the middle of a shingle run.
I do wonder if we overcomplicate things by focusing too much on the underlayment itself versus making sure the details (like flashing) are done right. Not to say underlayment isn’t important, but maybe it’s not the magic bullet some manufacturers want us to believe. I ended up choosing a mid-range synthetic for my place—mostly for the longer warranty and because it seemed less prone to wrinkling than felt. But honestly, if the rest of the roof isn’t done right, I doubt the underlayment alone would save me from leaks.
Feels like there’s always a trade-off, too. The new synthetics are lighter and easier to install, but I’ve heard some can get slippery or tear if you’re not careful. And cost-wise, it’s not a huge portion of the total roof, but every little bit adds up when you’re on a budget.
It’s reassuring to hear your experience lines up with what I’ve been seeing and reading. Makes me feel a little less neurotic for not obsessing over the fanciest underlayment option out there.
I’ve seen so many roofs where the underlayment was still in decent shape, but the real headaches came from poorly done flashing or missed details around chimneys and skylights. Honestly, I’m not convinced any underlayment alone can “save” a roof if the basics aren’t right. Have you noticed any difference in attic moisture or mold since switching to synthetic? Sometimes I wonder if breathability gets overlooked with all the focus on warranties and tear strength.
I get what you mean about flashing and details making or breaking a roof, but I actually noticed a difference with synthetic underlayment. Our attic used to get a bit musty, especially after heavy rain, but since we switched, it’s been a lot drier—no weird smells or spots on the rafters. Maybe it’s just luck or the combo with better ventilation? I do wonder if breathability is as big a deal as people say, though. The synthetic stuff feels almost too tough sometimes, like it’s trapping air in.
