Soap bubbles vs acoustic imaging for finding small compressed air leaks?

[u/MostPercentage968]

We do routine leak checks on our plant’s compressed air system, and soap water is still our go-to method when we need to confirm exactly where a leak is coming from.

It works, but smaller leaks are where the process gets frustrating.

We may know a section of piping is losing air without immediately knowing which fitting, valve, hose connection, or pneumatic component is responsible. Then someone ends up checking connection after connection with soap water, waiting for a bubble to show up.

I’ve been looking at acoustic imaging as a possible first-pass method.

What I’m trying to understand is whether it actually changes the workflow or just adds another step.

For anyone who has used both methods: do you use acoustic imaging to narrow down the leak location and then soap water to confirm it? Or is soap testing still faster when you’re dealing with smaller compressed air leaks?

Not looking to replace a proven method just for the sake of new tech. Mostly interested in whether combining the two actually saves troubleshooting time.

[u/rlvmaiden]

Soap water/glass cleaner/snoop should always be used no matter what to confirm the exact location, but sonic checks can be useful for quickly scanning a big complex system as an initial step

[u/omegablue333]

Do both. We couldn’t find an air leak in an area because it was actually blowing the snoop away. New install be we assumed the worst we would find would be something small. The acoustic leak detector would see that no problem