I agree totally, experament. No harm done. Yea if your trying to fix the "buz" you may not have to take the mags off. I had a pr that buzzed. Its largely the foam at the edge of the panel where the "ribbon" meets the frame. There is foam on front and back. The foam rots and now the diapgragm can slap against the frame making the buzz. Im sure yall know this one. Anyway My pr had a bunch of buzzing spots. I bought "flowable silicone" and poured it in along the edge only on the side you can easily get to. Left the magnets on. This stuff flowed down into the noks and crannys of the roted foam and basically made a connection from the frame to the diaphagm. It was solid enough to work without putting some adhesive on both sides.
Some have said this foam has a damping function for the diaphgram. I have bulit literaly hundereds of bass panels of many different designs over the years including ones similar to Apps, even ones that are all metal, no film at all, and I am confident that whatever damping that foam is doing its basically of no effect to sonics. I used a similar foam arrangment in the all metal diaphrams but it was as a strain relief, not a damper. Did experatent a buch with many many different types of damping foam at the edge but it had littke to no effect overall. Just a nice compliant termination for the fragile riggidly corrugated aluminum.
Some have said this foam has a damping function for the diaphgram. I have bulit literaly hundereds of bass panels of many different designs over the years including ones similar to Apps, even ones that are all metal, no film at all, and I am confident that whatever damping that foam is doing its basically of no effect to sonics. I used a similar foam arrangment in the all metal diaphrams but it was as a strain relief, not a damper. Did experatent a buch with many many different types of damping foam at the edge but it had littke to no effect overall. Just a nice compliant termination for the fragile riggidly corrugated aluminum.
tyu, ok I see. Yea you can simply run a wire in place of the foil. As far as the sound being better this way, well that one is a bit of a mystery. I can tell u this. The sound of dipoles such as this can be very sensative to small changes in midrage level or rake. One way to change the rake on that driver is to add a little inductance in series with it. I supose its possable that if you run wires for the ribbon trace returns close to the magnet structures steel you may get enough added inductance to rake the treeble down a db or so.
I have experienced the dramatic subjective response to very small changes in rake or level of that MRT. Sometimes even .5 db change above about 2khz seems to take it from HiFi to convincing.
The Diva arriangment gives a lot of tunning availavble in this respect and the most convincing vocal I have ever heard was a prototype with similar mrt and tweeter. When its just right it can be truly real sounding.
I have experienced the dramatic subjective response to very small changes in rake or level of that MRT. Sometimes even .5 db change above about 2khz seems to take it from HiFi to convincing.
The Diva arriangment gives a lot of tunning availavble in this respect and the most convincing vocal I have ever heard was a prototype with similar mrt and tweeter. When its just right it can be truly real sounding.
Delta....thanks for any an all your input...
well as you know the Stages MT has the 16 ga soild wire ....used in the crossovers ...runing up the sides of the MT.....
who knows I just need info on the Calipers....I think...maybe... sometimes...the wire mod was a upgrade to the sound...can find it..
well as you know the Stages MT has the 16 ga soild wire ....used in the crossovers ...runing up the sides of the MT.....
who knows I just need info on the Calipers....I think...maybe... sometimes...the wire mod was a upgrade to the sound...can find it..
yes delta you got me. was wondering if someone would. I have been out of this game for a few yrs dealing with life but have returned with a vengence so to speak. About 10 straight yrs of prototyping have been picked up again and am presently filling a patent on a ribbon design that I hope to bring to market within the next yr. What tipped u off?
Thinking of taking a patent out on my latest design,any help would be welcome is it easy or very complicated?
Jamesbos, dont be to enamored with the word "patent". Anyone can obtain a patent. The tough part is comming up with somthing truly unique , elegantly simple , and effective. Most patents are just a large number of claims of details hopping to exclude others in a technicality. meaning if your clever enough with design theres usually a way around them. The way I see it if you have a solid working design but not nessasarily anything trully and fundamentaly different , then its probably best to just build it and do a better job than your competition. This may be especially tru in the loudspeaker world as the devices are fundamenatly all the same and its all been done before. However if you have stumbled onto a new discovery that all have seemed to miss then it may be time to hire a lawyer. Sure you can write patents yourself BUT im not that smart, I have to pay someone smarter than me to do this. I have a good guy in town whos taking my money to write mine and it aint cheap.
DeltaStar, ha thats great, dude that was ages ago. Yea the "FO" I called them, not sure but that term may still be used ?? Anyway I have stuggled mighty going back and forth between FOs and the "Plastics". Heres the deal. Measurments , as much as the faithful would like to believe, simply dont tell us everything. IMO there are complex mechanical properties that the ear can hear but we cannot nessasarily measure well. Subtle things. My thoerys on the war between the Plastics and the FOs goes like this, The Fos have a linear spring mechanical characture, they have almost zero hysteretic property , meaning there no time delay between stress and strain. Similar to a metal cone. For whatever reason the ear likes the sound of such a material so long as it isnt excited into resonance breakup. When such a material bends it adds little to no coloration to the sound as the bending modes are linear. Sooo if you can get the FO to behave then its probably the most transparent sounding. Plus it can be a little lower mass but contrary to pop belief lower mass in and of itself does not equate to better sound. Its all in the execution. The Plasics on the other hand have the advantage of using the shear mode damping properties of that constrained layer of adhesive as well as some other details. BUT that added material has hysteretic properties and materials like this behave in a non linear fashion when they bend. The ear doesnt like the types of distortion that results from this property. Hawever again its all in the execution and with very carful tayloing of each component, mylar/kapton/adhesive/foil etc you can get many of the good quailities with few of the sins. Its a very fine line. Many DIYers have made ribbons this way BUT untill u can controll down to microns the thickness of each component and get into expensive formulations of adhsives you will only get good not great.
I tend to favor the Fos. When there done right they seem a bit more resolving as well as more dynamic but I admit the Plasics are a bit more forgiving with source material, perhaps a bit "sweeter" sounding BUT IMO slightly vield campared to the Fos. If you want to try an FO in your mid you should def try it. Their cheap to build ! you can even use the standard foil u get in the grocery store. Dont use the heavy duty foil its a bit thick. Sur its not tempered foil but it will have same sound and many dont realize that the standard foil in grocery is same thickness foil used in many great designs. .0007 inch ! that like 17 micron. Most would say hay too thick. Not so.
DeltaStar, ha thats great, dude that was ages ago. Yea the "FO" I called them, not sure but that term may still be used ?? Anyway I have stuggled mighty going back and forth between FOs and the "Plastics". Heres the deal. Measurments , as much as the faithful would like to believe, simply dont tell us everything. IMO there are complex mechanical properties that the ear can hear but we cannot nessasarily measure well. Subtle things. My thoerys on the war between the Plastics and the FOs goes like this, The Fos have a linear spring mechanical characture, they have almost zero hysteretic property , meaning there no time delay between stress and strain. Similar to a metal cone. For whatever reason the ear likes the sound of such a material so long as it isnt excited into resonance breakup. When such a material bends it adds little to no coloration to the sound as the bending modes are linear. Sooo if you can get the FO to behave then its probably the most transparent sounding. Plus it can be a little lower mass but contrary to pop belief lower mass in and of itself does not equate to better sound. Its all in the execution. The Plasics on the other hand have the advantage of using the shear mode damping properties of that constrained layer of adhesive as well as some other details. BUT that added material has hysteretic properties and materials like this behave in a non linear fashion when they bend. The ear doesnt like the types of distortion that results from this property. Hawever again its all in the execution and with very carful tayloing of each component, mylar/kapton/adhesive/foil etc you can get many of the good quailities with few of the sins. Its a very fine line. Many DIYers have made ribbons this way BUT untill u can controll down to microns the thickness of each component and get into expensive formulations of adhsives you will only get good not great.
I tend to favor the Fos. When there done right they seem a bit more resolving as well as more dynamic but I admit the Plasics are a bit more forgiving with source material, perhaps a bit "sweeter" sounding BUT IMO slightly vield campared to the Fos. If you want to try an FO in your mid you should def try it. Their cheap to build ! you can even use the standard foil u get in the grocery store. Dont use the heavy duty foil its a bit thick. Sur its not tempered foil but it will have same sound and many dont realize that the standard foil in grocery is same thickness foil used in many great designs. .0007 inch ! that like 17 micron. Most would say hay too thick. Not so.
Can I run Fo.....in Stage are the Caliper MRT?..........I mean I know I can....what about the sound..do you think it would give more are less output.....? I have pr of minors with same MRT also....any input..
Out of 5 pr of stages I have never got to hear the frist dubbel sided MRT. on mylar....I
I have allways thought this must have give a biger-taller image.
thanks
Out of 5 pr of stages I have never got to hear the frist dubbel sided MRT. on mylar....I
I have allways thought this must have give a biger-taller image.
thanks
Last edited:
With the Fo you will need a transformer unless u have a system that can drive a 1 ohm load as thats about what you would have to use to get senstivity right. As for "output" not sure what u mean here.
The Stage and Minor MRT is considred by many as a gem. I admit it does have a certain quality thats hard to beat. Many dont realize that MRT is quite a heavy ribbon. Proff that lower mass isnt always better.
I have never heard the Apps two sided MRT BUT I have built ones like it. I see no advantag at all to the two sided MRT design. Two sided bass, thats a different matter. It is unnessarily heavy with the added adhesive mass and my measurments show more distortion. Sonicly it always seemed a bit more vield then the single sidded six trace designs.
The Fo is a different characture. IMO less layed back and less polite sounding. On good recordings it can be great, one lesser stuff I would rather listen to the plastic. Each system that Ive put an Fo in required hrs of tayoring the freq respone to get it to match. The plasics are much more forgiving and seem to be close to right with less work. DIYers should learn how to wind their own transformers and play with Fos. Its cheap, easyer than u think, and fun. In the end u can always go back easily enough so no harm done.
The Stage and Minor MRT is considred by many as a gem. I admit it does have a certain quality thats hard to beat. Many dont realize that MRT is quite a heavy ribbon. Proff that lower mass isnt always better.
I have never heard the Apps two sided MRT BUT I have built ones like it. I see no advantag at all to the two sided MRT design. Two sided bass, thats a different matter. It is unnessarily heavy with the added adhesive mass and my measurments show more distortion. Sonicly it always seemed a bit more vield then the single sidded six trace designs.
The Fo is a different characture. IMO less layed back and less polite sounding. On good recordings it can be great, one lesser stuff I would rather listen to the plastic. Each system that Ive put an Fo in required hrs of tayoring the freq respone to get it to match. The plasics are much more forgiving and seem to be close to right with less work. DIYers should learn how to wind their own transformers and play with Fos. Its cheap, easyer than u think, and fun. In the end u can always go back easily enough so no harm done.
Last edited:
I well say the App 26"Mrt sound vary good...the frist Stage MRT ribbons....the one all the reviewers head...an went nuts over....were mylar an dubbel sided...but were replaced from fear of failer from shorting out if over driven...
George Short .... Stage was already in production before I was privilege to join their engineering team in 1990. My only involvement with the product was as a member of the listening panel that approved the Kapton-based ribbon that superceded the original Mylar ribbon, and with the same listening panel that approved the stand.....
I have never liket the sound on the Stages or the Minors on there stands....lose to much of the magic to me
I have with played with Magnepans True ribbon....but always been dissatisfied with there low output..an week magnets in there setup....after liveing with Apogee ribbon tweeters for years ....maggy true ribbon just dose not get it.....well for me anyway...thanks for your input
George Short .... Stage was already in production before I was privilege to join their engineering team in 1990. My only involvement with the product was as a member of the listening panel that approved the Kapton-based ribbon that superceded the original Mylar ribbon, and with the same listening panel that approved the stand.....
I have never liket the sound on the Stages or the Minors on there stands....lose to much of the magic to me
I have with played with Magnepans True ribbon....but always been dissatisfied with there low output..an week magnets in there setup....after liveing with Apogee ribbon tweeters for years ....maggy true ribbon just dose not get it.....well for me anyway...thanks for your input
I have one pr of the long 60"& pr 40"..1/4 is all I have seen....ive read some older ribbons may have been biger.......I have used them with Acoustats esl an other speaker in the past....but I have tried to repace the foil ....there foil is lite as air.....vary hard to work with...
an have low output...crossover 4-6k...I think the way thay add the dots...to the foil... kill to much of the output .... not trying to put down Magnepan ribbons....this is just my feeling
other say there the best ribbons ever made....good for them... liveing with the Apogee type MTR.....to my ears ....give the sound I like..on the topend....justsaying
an have low output...crossover 4-6k...I think the way thay add the dots...to the foil... kill to much of the output .... not trying to put down Magnepan ribbons....this is just my feeling
other say there the best ribbons ever made....good for them... liveing with the Apogee type MTR.....to my ears ....give the sound I like..on the topend....justsaying
OK thats what I expected. Yes they are using very thin foil. Probly aroun 4 micron. My own experaments say the dots arent the issue . Have u tryed heavyer foil in that magnet assemby? You may get what your looking for with .5 mill foil even .7 mill. no real need to corrugate BTW
The other thing to consider is the crossover. I have used the small tweeter in many designs BUT have never really liked it as much as a single MRT doing the whole upper end. Sure the handoff to that thin ribbon has certain technical advantages and can measure great BUT my ears are more impressed overall when one driver is doing the whole spread up there. I suspose it maybe a crossover issue but just not sure.
Ther are certain advantages to super thin foil BUT its not all roses. I have developed a ribbon design that uses foil this thin. Its likley the same thickness that RAAL and RAVEN use although they are different designs. I admit there are some very good things about the sound of ribbons this low in mass BUT they often seem a bit too polite to my ears. Sure they measure very nice and the waterfall is quite good but as some have noticed there sometimes seems to be a holding back in dynamics. Im not really sure what it is. Some will argue that what you like with the heavyer ribbons is just distortion. I suspect its more complicated than that. In fact im a heratic as im not convinced that ultra low distortion that is so often persued is the end all be all of good sound. I suspect Dr Geddes is on the right track. Thermal compression and dispersion are issues we should be more focused on. My own design of the ultra low mass ribbon uses a flatter foil design similar to RAAL but I have a much different suspension system. Ive put that design on hold and am running farward with a much different and higher mass design. Super low mass is a way to deal with many of the issues but its limited in some important ways IMO.
The other thing to consider is the crossover. I have used the small tweeter in many designs BUT have never really liked it as much as a single MRT doing the whole upper end. Sure the handoff to that thin ribbon has certain technical advantages and can measure great BUT my ears are more impressed overall when one driver is doing the whole spread up there. I suspose it maybe a crossover issue but just not sure. Ther are certain advantages to super thin foil BUT its not all roses. I have developed a ribbon design that uses foil this thin. Its likley the same thickness that RAAL and RAVEN use although they are different designs. I admit there are some very good things about the sound of ribbons this low in mass BUT they often seem a bit too polite to my ears. Sure they measure very nice and the waterfall is quite good but as some have noticed there sometimes seems to be a holding back in dynamics. Im not really sure what it is. Some will argue that what you like with the heavyer ribbons is just distortion. I suspect its more complicated than that. In fact im a heratic as im not convinced that ultra low distortion that is so often persued is the end all be all of good sound. I suspect Dr Geddes is on the right track. Thermal compression and dispersion are issues we should be more focused on. My own design of the ultra low mass ribbon uses a flatter foil design similar to RAAL but I have a much different suspension system. Ive put that design on hold and am running farward with a much different and higher mass design. Super low mass is a way to deal with many of the issues but its limited in some important ways IMO.
Last edited:
Apogee Stages with double sided foil bass driver on mylar...............all other bass driver are foiled on the front sided only......foil on yello kapton......right??
George Short..... makes this statement......
•In 2008, during development of the Fibonacci Technologies' Vaya! Loudspeaker I kept of a pair of upgraded Stage's and a pair of Duetta Signatures in my listening room as reference. I can say with no reservations, the Duetta Signatures are great speakers, but the upgraded Stage's blow them away.
The Stages Double foil bass on mylay .....has to add to the magic of these spekers....I cant see how any one sided foil drive could sound as good as a double sided foil driver....anyone.
thanks
An has any one ever heard Georges.... Fibonacci Technologies' Vaya ribbon speakers??
George Short..... makes this statement......
•In 2008, during development of the Fibonacci Technologies' Vaya! Loudspeaker I kept of a pair of upgraded Stage's and a pair of Duetta Signatures in my listening room as reference. I can say with no reservations, the Duetta Signatures are great speakers, but the upgraded Stage's blow them away.
The Stages Double foil bass on mylay .....has to add to the magic of these spekers....I cant see how any one sided foil drive could sound as good as a double sided foil driver....anyone.
thanks
An has any one ever heard Georges.... Fibonacci Technologies' Vaya ribbon speakers??
Last edited:
I havent heard the Fionacci, BUT, I have built the basic platform. I can tell u this much, a large wide ribbon going down to 100 or so is the most convincing midrange and mid bass for that matter I have ever heard. Ive done this format in both box and dipole. The mid bass and male voice of that dipole was spooky good. You would be educated quick on how much garbage we put up with pistons and boxes when u hear a loose suspended large ribbon with wings. If it wasnt soooo damn low sensativity I would persue it as a product. However anyone with some skill can make a ref quality system this way.
Planer bass is a very touchy thing and I suspect what they may have been hearing in part anyway is the mild hump in response that the Stage has in the mid bass/lower midrange area as apposed to the flatter measuringDuetta. Planers often lack a bit of impact bass wise and the "snap" some hear in the Stage I suspect is abit of rise in the 200 - 400 hz area. Its possable that the double sided diaphragm has a mechanical characture that emphesizes this section.
Yrs ago I was working on a new bass diaphragm design that exploited this. It was the best bass diaphragm for Rock by far. Very exciting punchy dynamic similar to cones but with that open transparent bass quaity. However the design was a one trik poney. Most rock and some pop was great BUT everything else was thick sounding. Its possable the Stage has just enough of this atrabute with just enough damp to capture some of that "magic" without being overdone.
Just a theory but a bit of real world evidence to lead me there...
Planer bass is a very touchy thing and I suspect what they may have been hearing in part anyway is the mild hump in response that the Stage has in the mid bass/lower midrange area as apposed to the flatter measuringDuetta. Planers often lack a bit of impact bass wise and the "snap" some hear in the Stage I suspect is abit of rise in the 200 - 400 hz area. Its possable that the double sided diaphragm has a mechanical characture that emphesizes this section.
Yrs ago I was working on a new bass diaphragm design that exploited this. It was the best bass diaphragm for Rock by far. Very exciting punchy dynamic similar to cones but with that open transparent bass quaity. However the design was a one trik poney. Most rock and some pop was great BUT everything else was thick sounding. Its possable the Stage has just enough of this atrabute with just enough damp to capture some of that "magic" without being overdone.
Just a theory but a bit of real world evidence to lead me there...
I have got a pr of Calpier sig coming soon..... I will need to do work on the crossover
to get that darker sound out some speak of...the Sprague poly cap..I like a lot.... are sweet but can be a little soft...... the polystrien caps used in the stage give what some say is to bright.....I think can get the right mix to get the Calpier topend right up there with the Stage...or better....maybe...
Any input on the biger Apogees. sound ..same Sprague Stock caps used in all the Apogees ....till the stages....
I had the Duettas sig.....but the bass buzz came in.. an I did not know what we know now..about the fixs.......sounds like you been doing some great work with ribbons...
thanks for your input....
to get that darker sound out some speak of...the Sprague poly cap..I like a lot.... are sweet but can be a little soft...... the polystrien caps used in the stage give what some say is to bright.....I think can get the right mix to get the Calpier topend right up there with the Stage...or better....maybe...
Any input on the biger Apogees. sound ..same Sprague Stock caps used in all the Apogees ....till the stages....
I had the Duettas sig.....but the bass buzz came in.. an I did not know what we know now..about the fixs.......sounds like you been doing some great work with ribbons...
thanks for your input....
I think the Scintilla and fullrange have the best mid and tweet of them all, but come's at a heavy cost, finding amps to drive them. The midrange ribbon in the Diva's can't take any amount of power at all, before they start twisting and flying around, and it has nothing to do with dc either, can't see how they gave it 110 db spl, not possible, 95 db and the mid is in trouble already, but tweet ribbon is stable, never move's, like to put a 1 1/8" wide foil in the gap and try it first to see what it's like, before I put in the new Graz kit I have on the shelf.
Al
Al
Lowmass.....what about the kapton...have you are anyone used it?....Diying ribbons tweeter are bass.....?....dose it have more mass then mylar?...do you think Apogee used it to match there MTs...better....
AS for this twisting MRT....1992-3 my frist Stages...till now.....I had MRT twisting
94.. I had the Duetta sig..... they twisting......I was told by fokes here that the Stages MRT should not move that much.....I took a look at what was going on....on the Stages
I pulled the feet...add wood to the screw holes then put back....used a lock bolt on the back leg points....stopet 95%......made a big diff...I never used a lock bolt on back points....
there is feedback....we know this... from the other drivers....an mdf panels, facesa,magnets,feet.....room...my two 12"subs.....
Also I did a fix for my Stage front foot point.....on all my othere stages this point was bent at a 45 degrees.....so it went under the panels......an this changes the center of gravity of the panels.....this last pr of stages I have now .....front leg was Straight flat off the back of the panels ....I got them bent at 45 degrees.....what a diff in the sound...for the better...small changes make big sound diff with these ribbons
just one mans finding
AS for this twisting MRT....1992-3 my frist Stages...till now.....I had MRT twisting
94.. I had the Duetta sig..... they twisting......I was told by fokes here that the Stages MRT should not move that much.....I took a look at what was going on....on the Stages
I pulled the feet...add wood to the screw holes then put back....used a lock bolt on the back leg points....stopet 95%......made a big diff...I never used a lock bolt on back points....
there is feedback....we know this... from the other drivers....an mdf panels, facesa,magnets,feet.....room...my two 12"subs.....
Also I did a fix for my Stage front foot point.....on all my othere stages this point was bent at a 45 degrees.....so it went under the panels......an this changes the center of gravity of the panels.....this last pr of stages I have now .....front leg was Straight flat off the back of the panels ....I got them bent at 45 degrees.....what a diff in the sound...for the better...small changes make big sound diff with these ribbons
just one mans finding
Last edited: