Bud,
Thanks for simplifying your explanations, because a lot of the time I don't have a clue about what you are saying.
I don't pretend to understand why the backside treatment would make a different wrt transparency of the cone for rear wave reflections, except to the extent that if the treatment calms the cone (like your water tank test), it seems intuitive that reflections back through the cone would become more noticeable.
If I decide to go with blocks on the backside, shouldn't they line up with blocks in the front? That's what prompted my question about the paint soaking into the paper. I'd think that the deeper the fibers are bonded together by the paint, the better the blocks would interrupt the waves travelling through the cone. It would even seem that some of the EnABL benefit could be had using replacement surrounds with rectangle cutouts around the edge where the surround overlaps the cone.
While the Mamboni treatment may have some similar results, it seems to be done in a different manner by damping the edge of the cone at different distances.
Both seem to make sense by making the cone effectively many different sizes instead of just a circle or concentric circles.
Thanks for simplifying your explanations, because a lot of the time I don't have a clue about what you are saying.
I don't pretend to understand why the backside treatment would make a different wrt transparency of the cone for rear wave reflections, except to the extent that if the treatment calms the cone (like your water tank test), it seems intuitive that reflections back through the cone would become more noticeable.
If I decide to go with blocks on the backside, shouldn't they line up with blocks in the front? That's what prompted my question about the paint soaking into the paper. I'd think that the deeper the fibers are bonded together by the paint, the better the blocks would interrupt the waves travelling through the cone. It would even seem that some of the EnABL benefit could be had using replacement surrounds with rectangle cutouts around the edge where the surround overlaps the cone.
While the Mamboni treatment may have some similar results, it seems to be done in a different manner by damping the edge of the cone at different distances.
Both seem to make sense by making the cone effectively many different sizes instead of just a circle or concentric circles.
Hi Sheldon,
Yes, it has. With results from spectacular to undetectable.
The spectacular was on the end where you might expect. Radio Shack three way with mid and tweet horns and a 15" woofer. Horns quit honking and screeching and the woofer quit stumbling and rumbling with bass input. I did not care much for the sound quality revealed but it was VERY intense. All of the surfaces I could get at were treated including both sides of the mid dome. Not sure any longer about the tweeter dome backside, but if it could be gotten to
I did so.
In between were a set of Mackie pro sound horns, with a driver I got a little bit of a look at with their laser interferometer. Unfortunately, Dave Bei, the Laser and all data left for Italy before I got hard copy. Sound was also more intense but I did not treat anything but the titanium domes. Actually still have the domes.
Third was an EV t350 horn from Romy the Cat. Treated all surfaces again, including both sides of the dome. I could not tell any difference qualitatively and Romy could not either.
A few others have asked questions similar to yours in PM's and now you know what they do.
The process should eliminate the two major modes of energy storage in horns of all types. It wil not correct or cover up what the horn surface adds as an ongoing diffraction, if anything. Will also remove any energy storage on the domes or in the compression chambers, though with properly designed and used drivers this should not be a big issue.
Again, the only big correction also produced a serious increase in intensity, in plastic walled horns of indifferent quality, to begin with.
The woofer ended up being a very transparent match for the horns, so great was the improvement in it's activities.
What the process will do is provide direct radiator systems that very closely approach horns in uncompressed dynamic range, clarity and reproduction of musical nuance.
From this, I assume that those horns being driven by cone drivers, as the compression device, could benefit greatly. And the addition of the Mamboni triangles to the back side could be crucial here, if the back of the driver is enclosed and of great benefit even if they are not.
Bud
Yes, it has. With results from spectacular to undetectable.
The spectacular was on the end where you might expect. Radio Shack three way with mid and tweet horns and a 15" woofer. Horns quit honking and screeching and the woofer quit stumbling and rumbling with bass input. I did not care much for the sound quality revealed but it was VERY intense. All of the surfaces I could get at were treated including both sides of the mid dome. Not sure any longer about the tweeter dome backside, but if it could be gotten to
I did so.
In between were a set of Mackie pro sound horns, with a driver I got a little bit of a look at with their laser interferometer. Unfortunately, Dave Bei, the Laser and all data left for Italy before I got hard copy. Sound was also more intense but I did not treat anything but the titanium domes. Actually still have the domes.
Third was an EV t350 horn from Romy the Cat. Treated all surfaces again, including both sides of the dome. I could not tell any difference qualitatively and Romy could not either.
A few others have asked questions similar to yours in PM's and now you know what they do.
The process should eliminate the two major modes of energy storage in horns of all types. It wil not correct or cover up what the horn surface adds as an ongoing diffraction, if anything. Will also remove any energy storage on the domes or in the compression chambers, though with properly designed and used drivers this should not be a big issue.
Again, the only big correction also produced a serious increase in intensity, in plastic walled horns of indifferent quality, to begin with.
The woofer ended up being a very transparent match for the horns, so great was the improvement in it's activities.
What the process will do is provide direct radiator systems that very closely approach horns in uncompressed dynamic range, clarity and reproduction of musical nuance.
From this, I assume that those horns being driven by cone drivers, as the compression device, could benefit greatly. And the addition of the Mamboni triangles to the back side could be crucial here, if the back of the driver is enclosed and of great benefit even if they are not.
Bud
Hi John,
Thanks, it is difficult to remember that you all aren't directly connected to my brain. You, on the other hand are very happy about this circumstance, even if you had not realized it before.
I have aligned blocks on several occasions. I can't report any quantitative gain or qualitative gain, but it does seem to make sense. However, I no longer make any attempt to align them either as rings or specific sector block alignments. That doesn't preclude you from trying it and finding additional benefit however.
I can say that just coating the back side with the gloss does help. Even with no blocks in place.
I do not think that the penetration of the cone material is vitally important. The pattern works in an exactly similar fashion on impermeable surfaces and treating the back side has the same degree of effect. Even thick, molded poly cones, that you would expect no interactivity from, are just as susceptible to back side treatment benefits.
I am not sure that the Mambon process is actually a damping process. I think it really works by effectively providing more surface area for the energy, in boundary layer, to emit into that third vector from, the longitudinal compression wave in the adjacent air. Certainly the use of PVA as the felt glue would not act as a damping mechanism to any great degree. I really think it is just a better boundary layer and that the energy it deals with all exits before it reaches terminus, just as most of the energy in an EnABL treated cone does.
Keep asking those questions.
Bud
Thanks, it is difficult to remember that you all aren't directly connected to my brain. You, on the other hand are very happy about this circumstance, even if you had not realized it before.
I have aligned blocks on several occasions. I can't report any quantitative gain or qualitative gain, but it does seem to make sense. However, I no longer make any attempt to align them either as rings or specific sector block alignments. That doesn't preclude you from trying it and finding additional benefit however.
I can say that just coating the back side with the gloss does help. Even with no blocks in place.
I do not think that the penetration of the cone material is vitally important. The pattern works in an exactly similar fashion on impermeable surfaces and treating the back side has the same degree of effect. Even thick, molded poly cones, that you would expect no interactivity from, are just as susceptible to back side treatment benefits.
I am not sure that the Mambon process is actually a damping process. I think it really works by effectively providing more surface area for the energy, in boundary layer, to emit into that third vector from, the longitudinal compression wave in the adjacent air. Certainly the use of PVA as the felt glue would not act as a damping mechanism to any great degree. I really think it is just a better boundary layer and that the energy it deals with all exits before it reaches terminus, just as most of the energy in an EnABL treated cone does.
Keep asking those questions.
Bud
I guess I'll have to try EnABL with an experiment I saw on youtube with rice, a metal plate, and an HF transducer http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zkox6niJ1Wc
Maybe that will give me a better understanding of what it does.
Maybe that will give me a better understanding of what it does.
John,
You should also look at the other three on resonance. Very interesting. I will be surprised if there is any difference with a pattern treatment applied in either case. I think these are all due to systemic nodes rather than transient ringing. Might be the same in some instances, but I am doubtful. Certainly worth attempting both experiments, with rice and with dust and round panel. I would expect similar patterns to emerge in untreated ringing so.....?
Bud
You should also look at the other three on resonance. Very interesting. I will be surprised if there is any difference with a pattern treatment applied in either case. I think these are all due to systemic nodes rather than transient ringing. Might be the same in some instances, but I am doubtful. Certainly worth attempting both experiments, with rice and with dust and round panel. I would expect similar patterns to emerge in untreated ringing so.....?
Bud
I have some garbage 15's that I could cut the cones off. Then replace the cone with a flat piece of somewhat strong paper like posterboard to imitate cone material (open to suggestions), and extend the VC former up to the flat cone with a cardboard tube. Then do the same kind of experiments demonstrated on youtube, but with this flat paper cone.
The setup would be quite easy and I have 4 of these junk drivers, so if I can get the first one to behave in interesting ways with sand or sawdust or whatever. Then I do all 4 and get them behaving the same. At that point, I'm ready to try to see the effects of EnABL, Mamboni, doping, etc. I understand that cone geometry is different, and the resonances may not change, but some good info may show up (changes in transition times, noise manifested differently, etc). Worst case I get some cool dancing rice videos. Best case I prove big differences from these treatments for the non-believers or those on the fence, and maybe even come up with ideas to improve them.
Tomorrow is my day off, so time to get supplies and cut off those cones.
The setup would be quite easy and I have 4 of these junk drivers, so if I can get the first one to behave in interesting ways with sand or sawdust or whatever. Then I do all 4 and get them behaving the same. At that point, I'm ready to try to see the effects of EnABL, Mamboni, doping, etc. I understand that cone geometry is different, and the resonances may not change, but some good info may show up (changes in transition times, noise manifested differently, etc). Worst case I get some cool dancing rice videos. Best case I prove big differences from these treatments for the non-believers or those on the fence, and maybe even come up with ideas to improve them.
Tomorrow is my day off, so time to get supplies and cut off those cones.
The patent
Only today found out about google patents.http://www.google.com/patents?id=aoUgAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=5,304,746#PPP1,M1
Only today found out about google patents.http://www.google.com/patents?id=aoUgAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=5,304,746#PPP1,M1
This is the one i use:
http://free.patentfetcher.com/
instead of having to page thru the patent, grab each image, and them assemble the pages, this is one click and i have the entire patent open as a pdf.
dave
http://free.patentfetcher.com/
instead of having to page thru the patent, grab each image, and them assemble the pages, this is one click and i have the entire patent open as a pdf.
dave
Hi BHD,
Currently struggling to relearn how to manipulate the EnABL lisp routine that provides block placement for specific cone dimensions, so the show and tell sequence will make more sense. Probably start taking pictures, and learn about that acre of knowledge later today, so posts should start pretty soon.
Hi soongsc,
I am not familiar with the Jordan drivers, but a 2 inch outer diameter will likely require a technical pen, like rapidiograph or mars, to provide the smaller inner rings of blocks.
The Mamboni process shows up around page three in this thread.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100390
You can PM Dr. Mamboni to find out if he has any other threads on other forums about his work. I have never searched. He has not posted to this forum, that I have seen, for some time now. Probably too busy living and listening to his music system.
Bud
Currently struggling to relearn how to manipulate the EnABL lisp routine that provides block placement for specific cone dimensions, so the show and tell sequence will make more sense. Probably start taking pictures, and learn about that acre of knowledge later today, so posts should start pretty soon.
Hi soongsc,
I am not familiar with the Jordan drivers, but a 2 inch outer diameter will likely require a technical pen, like rapidiograph or mars, to provide the smaller inner rings of blocks.
The Mamboni process shows up around page three in this thread.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100390
You can PM Dr. Mamboni to find out if he has any other threads on other forums about his work. I have never searched. He has not posted to this forum, that I have seen, for some time now. Probably too busy living and listening to his music system.
Bud
BudP said:
The Mamboni process looks very much like what Manger drivers do. It seems that different cone material will require different way of working this, there will be no single pattern for all. The more internally resistive the cone material is, the easier to accomplish the desired results.
soongsc
The Mamboni process is very similar to what microwave reflection suppression treatment is like, just as is the Manger process. I would not use the Mamboni process on the front side of a driver without experimenting first, however. Preferably on very cheap, full range PA speakers, about 200 mm in diameter. Cones only, no whizzer cones.
I know what the EnABL process does here and for those areas where you want no loss in output into the surrounding air, the EnABL process will be superior to both the Mamboni and Manger process. The amount of improvement will be greatest in detail coherence.
Using the Mamboni and EnABL together is a very powerful thing to do. The Mamboni process, used on a driver backside, is going to be useful in knocking down systemic standing waves, those caused by size, shape and emitter materials, the construction details. The EnABL process will terminate the parasitic resonances that would also form on the front side and be fed by the decay of the systemic resonances. The EnABL process will also eliminate all transient ringing, caused by imperfect termination of the non systemic resonances. Together, the two should control the non linear modes of all drivers.
Domes may or may not be a problem. Flat panel emitters should not be a problem, until adding the slight mass of the Mamboni process begins to degrade efficiency. I would be surprised to see both work well on a planar ribbon tweeter, like a Bohlander Grabbner high frequency only device. The EnABL process does provide excellent results when used on the clamped ends of pure element ribbon tweeters, as in RAAL and Linnaeum drivers and also the piezo film drivers from Pioneer.
The only truly difficult drivers to treat are the filled poly cone woofer and mid ranges. Their designers, being quite aware of the problematic ringing, have chosen to eliminate a boundary layer, to the best of their ability and limit resonance modes in this fashion. It is effective, but when you add a boundary layer to these drivers and then control it with the EnABL pattern, the sonic benefits are pretty dramatic.
The end result here is performance equivalent to a superb horn system for all music related values. Certainly the efficiency will not be equivalent and just as certainly, the coloration imparted by an improperly terminated horn will not be present.
With properly terminated compression drivers and horn bells, the difference will be down to intensity of experienced music, with the horns having a moderate edge here, and recreation of an extensive sound field, accessible from a wide listening area, with the non horn speakers having a moderate edge here. The musical values from both will be equivalent in nature.
Bud
The Mamboni process is very similar to what microwave reflection suppression treatment is like, just as is the Manger process. I would not use the Mamboni process on the front side of a driver without experimenting first, however. Preferably on very cheap, full range PA speakers, about 200 mm in diameter. Cones only, no whizzer cones.
I know what the EnABL process does here and for those areas where you want no loss in output into the surrounding air, the EnABL process will be superior to both the Mamboni and Manger process. The amount of improvement will be greatest in detail coherence.
Using the Mamboni and EnABL together is a very powerful thing to do. The Mamboni process, used on a driver backside, is going to be useful in knocking down systemic standing waves, those caused by size, shape and emitter materials, the construction details. The EnABL process will terminate the parasitic resonances that would also form on the front side and be fed by the decay of the systemic resonances. The EnABL process will also eliminate all transient ringing, caused by imperfect termination of the non systemic resonances. Together, the two should control the non linear modes of all drivers.
Domes may or may not be a problem. Flat panel emitters should not be a problem, until adding the slight mass of the Mamboni process begins to degrade efficiency. I would be surprised to see both work well on a planar ribbon tweeter, like a Bohlander Grabbner high frequency only device. The EnABL process does provide excellent results when used on the clamped ends of pure element ribbon tweeters, as in RAAL and Linnaeum drivers and also the piezo film drivers from Pioneer.
The only truly difficult drivers to treat are the filled poly cone woofer and mid ranges. Their designers, being quite aware of the problematic ringing, have chosen to eliminate a boundary layer, to the best of their ability and limit resonance modes in this fashion. It is effective, but when you add a boundary layer to these drivers and then control it with the EnABL pattern, the sonic benefits are pretty dramatic.
The end result here is performance equivalent to a superb horn system for all music related values. Certainly the efficiency will not be equivalent and just as certainly, the coloration imparted by an improperly terminated horn will not be present.
With properly terminated compression drivers and horn bells, the difference will be down to intensity of experienced music, with the horns having a moderate edge here, and recreation of an extensive sound field, accessible from a wide listening area, with the non horn speakers having a moderate edge here. The musical values from both will be equivalent in nature.
Bud
Hi Bud,
During my exploration of sound enhancing methods, especially on 2" and 3" metal cone drivers, mass, pattern, absolute dimensions with frequency in question, thickness, and material property of applied pattern, etc. all become important.
During one project, it was discovered the criticality of mass with the frequency response, but when the same was applied to the back side for cosmetic reasons, the results were significantly different. These process to effect the the frequency range above 10KHz as you have mentioned which is similar to my tests. In this particular case, total mass within the range of 0.26~0.21 grams were acceptable.
For paper or other material that are internally more mechanically resistive, it does seem that the pattern is the more critical aspect. For stiffer material that transmits energy more efficiently, the mass, stiffness, and other material properties become just as critical which make the situation really complicated because the vibration modes change.
For ribbon tweeters, I think you are probably not applying it to the diaphragm, otherwise the weight would be critical.
During my exploration of sound enhancing methods, especially on 2" and 3" metal cone drivers, mass, pattern, absolute dimensions with frequency in question, thickness, and material property of applied pattern, etc. all become important.
During one project, it was discovered the criticality of mass with the frequency response, but when the same was applied to the back side for cosmetic reasons, the results were significantly different. These process to effect the the frequency range above 10KHz as you have mentioned which is similar to my tests. In this particular case, total mass within the range of 0.26~0.21 grams were acceptable.
For paper or other material that are internally more mechanically resistive, it does seem that the pattern is the more critical aspect. For stiffer material that transmits energy more efficiently, the mass, stiffness, and other material properties become just as critical which make the situation really complicated because the vibration modes change.
For ribbon tweeters, I think you are probably not applying it to the diaphragm, otherwise the weight would be critical.
Bud,
I went to a couple of art supply places and got the typical Costa Rican salesperson's blank stare. Acrylic paints with either PolyS or Micro scale were non-existent. The only things with "poly" in the name or description were paints for clothing, and clear wasn't an option. I couldn't find "micro" anything and the closest to anything transparent were drying retarders, thinners, oils, and varnishes. On a whim I picked up a couple of the "poly" paints for clothing that I could live with or use otherwise, along with a bottle of "real crystal varnish" that seemed interesting.
If I knew how the correct paints are typically used, I would have a better chance of obtaining the correct items. Currently in my arsenal are PVA glues, dammar varnish, Polymark textile paint, and real crystal varnish, along with other varishes, oils, shellac, nitro lacquer, etc used for wood finishing.
The 15's I have are high eff, pro woofers, with lightweight paper cones. Though I use them for bass only duty, they are quite extended and should give me a decent idea of the EnABL effects. Can I use something I already have, that will display some results, or do I need the exact paints?
I went to a couple of art supply places and got the typical Costa Rican salesperson's blank stare. Acrylic paints with either PolyS or Micro scale were non-existent. The only things with "poly" in the name or description were paints for clothing, and clear wasn't an option. I couldn't find "micro" anything and the closest to anything transparent were drying retarders, thinners, oils, and varnishes. On a whim I picked up a couple of the "poly" paints for clothing that I could live with or use otherwise, along with a bottle of "real crystal varnish" that seemed interesting.
If I knew how the correct paints are typically used, I would have a better chance of obtaining the correct items. Currently in my arsenal are PVA glues, dammar varnish, Polymark textile paint, and real crystal varnish, along with other varishes, oils, shellac, nitro lacquer, etc used for wood finishing.
The 15's I have are high eff, pro woofers, with lightweight paper cones. Though I use them for bass only duty, they are quite extended and should give me a decent idea of the EnABL effects. Can I use something I already have, that will display some results, or do I need the exact paints?
soongsc
Actually I do apply it to the ribbon diaphragm. Please note, only on the clamped ends, where long cycle resonances can form. I do not apply it on the long sides of the ribbon, for exactly the reason you mention, mass damping. The blocks are very small, use very little material and, being applied only to the ends, do not affect the ribbon mass in a poor fashion.
Please remember these are not mass damping measures.They are boundary layer control devices, that work only because there is an edge, a reflective edge, a boundary layer to support energy in a standing wave mode and very few alternate ways to ease that termination discontinuity.
When you were working with metal domes you were actually working with two separate resonance modes. The EnABL process only works on transient resonances that are created only because there is an edge to the emitter.
You were also involved with mechanical storage of energy that can only emit in a narrow frequency band but can be excited by a much wider frequency band than it's peak emission frequency. All drivers have both. The transient ringing standing waves are excited by wide band frequency energy and ring in equally wide band frequency corruptions. Of the two, they are far more objectionable to a human listener. In a quantitative measurement system, the systemic resonances are much more noticeable.
Were you to add the EnABL pattern to your other investigations, these differences would become much clearer, right along with the music you were playing at other times. EnABL will not, however, remove systemic resonance, just the subsidiary resonances created by a systemic resonance. The pattern will help to reduce the time frame within which the systemic resonance is effective, however.
Bud
Actually I do apply it to the ribbon diaphragm. Please note, only on the clamped ends, where long cycle resonances can form. I do not apply it on the long sides of the ribbon, for exactly the reason you mention, mass damping. The blocks are very small, use very little material and, being applied only to the ends, do not affect the ribbon mass in a poor fashion.
Please remember these are not mass damping measures.They are boundary layer control devices, that work only because there is an edge, a reflective edge, a boundary layer to support energy in a standing wave mode and very few alternate ways to ease that termination discontinuity.
When you were working with metal domes you were actually working with two separate resonance modes. The EnABL process only works on transient resonances that are created only because there is an edge to the emitter.
You were also involved with mechanical storage of energy that can only emit in a narrow frequency band but can be excited by a much wider frequency band than it's peak emission frequency. All drivers have both. The transient ringing standing waves are excited by wide band frequency energy and ring in equally wide band frequency corruptions. Of the two, they are far more objectionable to a human listener. In a quantitative measurement system, the systemic resonances are much more noticeable.
Were you to add the EnABL pattern to your other investigations, these differences would become much clearer, right along with the music you were playing at other times. EnABL will not, however, remove systemic resonance, just the subsidiary resonances created by a systemic resonance. The pattern will help to reduce the time frame within which the systemic resonance is effective, however.
Bud
John,
Are there any model railroad buffs in Costa Rica? These products are aimed specifically at them. Also plastic model builders will be using some of them.
If you cannot find them, I can send you what you need. You should also be able to order the Micro Scale products directly. I just order their 10 or 12 bottle carton of the Micro Gloss. Takes me a number of years to use it up, but if I do not open the bottle it does not seem to change characteristics. Do not know how the hot house environment of CR will affect long term storage though.
http://www.microscale.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=FINPROD
For the Poly S acrylic paint, I do not know of a web site, but here is the company that whole sales it world wide.
Testor Corp
26 Royal Terrace Cres
Bolton ON, L7E 1N9
Phone: 905-857-8023
Fax: 905-857-8690
Perhaps worth a call to see if anyone in CR is retailing the stuff. It is a particularly tough surfaced material when dry.
Morray James offered this advice on paint choices to me recently:
Bud:
soft Vs hard refers to the solids content of the paint, the higher the solids content the harder the paint will be when cured. Since you want to have a top coat of hard material that allows the surface energy to travel faster than in the cone material you would want to use a high solids content paint. The higher the density and hardness the faster the energy will travel through it.
Rather than using 20 coats for filled plastic cones I would suggest that you use a much higher solids content paint and then fewer coats will be required to get the job done with far less overall mass. Floor polish has to be flexible as the substrate is flexible.
If the top coating is to brittle it will crack on hard impact as the substrate flexes beneath it. I would think that while you don't want a totally brittle top coat for speaker cones a considerably harder material than the floor coating would be a better choice perhaps. Manufacturers of coatings (paints) will supply information of surface hardness of the cured product. additives such as gem stone powder can also be used to enhance coating hardness garnet being a good example. You can even get diamond powder if you want.
I am pretty conservative here, mostly through ignorance. so I certainly welcome Morray's information and that of anyone else also.
Bud
Are there any model railroad buffs in Costa Rica? These products are aimed specifically at them. Also plastic model builders will be using some of them.
If you cannot find them, I can send you what you need. You should also be able to order the Micro Scale products directly. I just order their 10 or 12 bottle carton of the Micro Gloss. Takes me a number of years to use it up, but if I do not open the bottle it does not seem to change characteristics. Do not know how the hot house environment of CR will affect long term storage though.
http://www.microscale.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=FINPROD
For the Poly S acrylic paint, I do not know of a web site, but here is the company that whole sales it world wide.
Testor Corp
26 Royal Terrace Cres
Bolton ON, L7E 1N9
Phone: 905-857-8023
Fax: 905-857-8690
Perhaps worth a call to see if anyone in CR is retailing the stuff. It is a particularly tough surfaced material when dry.
Morray James offered this advice on paint choices to me recently:
Bud:
soft Vs hard refers to the solids content of the paint, the higher the solids content the harder the paint will be when cured. Since you want to have a top coat of hard material that allows the surface energy to travel faster than in the cone material you would want to use a high solids content paint. The higher the density and hardness the faster the energy will travel through it.
Rather than using 20 coats for filled plastic cones I would suggest that you use a much higher solids content paint and then fewer coats will be required to get the job done with far less overall mass. Floor polish has to be flexible as the substrate is flexible.
If the top coating is to brittle it will crack on hard impact as the substrate flexes beneath it. I would think that while you don't want a totally brittle top coat for speaker cones a considerably harder material than the floor coating would be a better choice perhaps. Manufacturers of coatings (paints) will supply information of surface hardness of the cured product. additives such as gem stone powder can also be used to enhance coating hardness garnet being a good example. You can even get diamond powder if you want.
I am pretty conservative here, mostly through ignorance. so I certainly welcome Morray's information and that of anyone else also.
Bud
- Status
- Not open for further replies.