I am using some Phy-Hp LB21 8" widerange drivers for over 5 years in an open baffle by now and all this tme I have had a kind of love/hate relationship with them. They are very nice midunits wich do a lot of things very well but time tells that there are also some strong colourations in their sound. They can sound a bit like an old radio console from time to time. That's not that strange considering the fact that they are based on fullrange drivers from the 50's.
Anyways, I would like to see if there are some areas that can be improved to the divers themselves. This would be some kind of cone treatment, there's very little or none to be improved about their basket wich is allready very well executed.
so far I can come up with the following things:
Treating the cone with C37 laquer or maybe Ultee audio sound varnish
Adding a phaseplug to them to fill out the space between the magnet and the voicecoil.
The Phy-hp has no dustcap, it's some kind of transparant foam. If I would go with laquering the cone I guess I have to remove this foam anyway, otherwise it's not possible to treat the cone all the way down to the voice coil. What I understand about the C37 or Sound Varnish is that it stiffens the cone a bit. I think it wouldn't be a good idea to only treat the cone up until the dustcap foam and leave that last cm to the voicecoil untreated. Don't know if that will cause a strange transition from plain paper to treated paper at that point.
Doing something like the ENABL process tot the cones. I have tried to read a lot about the ENABL process but as far as I understand it up to this point is that there has to be a special pattern wich is specicfic to the driver to be treated. I would like to know more about it but it's difficult to read troug all the posts to come up with something practical usefull for me at this time. I also would like to know if this kind of treatment goes together with other cone treatments like the C37 or Sound Varnish.
All in all a lot of uncertainties because I don not like to screw up 1200 euro's on drivers offcoarse. That's always the trobe with expensive driver I know. Strangly it works that way psychologically. If I had a pair of viaston b200 for instance I would hesistate to treat them in certain ways because they are cheap enough to replace in case I screw them up. On the other side there's always the thought that the manufacturer allready tweaked a lot on these drivers, after all the Phy-Hp is kind of a tweaked version of the Supravox drivers.
I would like to know if anybody else has messed around with drivers like these and cone treatments, and offcoarse with what result.
Anyways, I would like to see if there are some areas that can be improved to the divers themselves. This would be some kind of cone treatment, there's very little or none to be improved about their basket wich is allready very well executed.
so far I can come up with the following things:
Treating the cone with C37 laquer or maybe Ultee audio sound varnish
Adding a phaseplug to them to fill out the space between the magnet and the voicecoil.
The Phy-hp has no dustcap, it's some kind of transparant foam. If I would go with laquering the cone I guess I have to remove this foam anyway, otherwise it's not possible to treat the cone all the way down to the voice coil. What I understand about the C37 or Sound Varnish is that it stiffens the cone a bit. I think it wouldn't be a good idea to only treat the cone up until the dustcap foam and leave that last cm to the voicecoil untreated. Don't know if that will cause a strange transition from plain paper to treated paper at that point.
Doing something like the ENABL process tot the cones. I have tried to read a lot about the ENABL process but as far as I understand it up to this point is that there has to be a special pattern wich is specicfic to the driver to be treated. I would like to know more about it but it's difficult to read troug all the posts to come up with something practical usefull for me at this time. I also would like to know if this kind of treatment goes together with other cone treatments like the C37 or Sound Varnish.
All in all a lot of uncertainties because I don not like to screw up 1200 euro's on drivers offcoarse. That's always the trobe with expensive driver I know. Strangly it works that way psychologically. If I had a pair of viaston b200 for instance I would hesistate to treat them in certain ways because they are cheap enough to replace in case I screw them up. On the other side there's always the thought that the manufacturer allready tweaked a lot on these drivers, after all the Phy-Hp is kind of a tweaked version of the Supravox drivers.
I would like to know if anybody else has messed around with drivers like these and cone treatments, and offcoarse with what result.
PHYs. You lucky, lucky... 
I wouldn't be spending a fortune on C37. It has the weight of mythology to support. C37 has been extracted from the fangs of the Great Ooongabba snake by buddhist nymphets, mixed with fairy dust to the proportions of a secret Italian 300 year old violin-varnish recipie used by all the greats, and simmered slowly to perfection by Nigella Lawson.
Back on this planet, I don't think many people deny that it can have an effect (depends on what you're doing with it); the point is that something about 1/10 the price or less will probably do exactly the same thing. From some of the analysis made, C37 appears to be no more than a couple of relatively cheap varnishes mixed together with a copious amount of hype.
I'd probably start by adding phase-plugs (Dave's the man to ask about those), treating the cone with something like puzzlecoat, cut back 50% with water, and then go straight to EnABL. Yes, it needs subtly different patterns for each driver (naturally -as you rightly point out, you can't expect the same thing to work for every driver, given they are all different & thus need different applications), but Bud & Dave will be able to help with that. It shouldn't change the basic voicing of the driver, but it should help erradicate some of the less desirable features.
I wouldn't be spending a fortune on C37. It has the weight of mythology to support. C37 has been extracted from the fangs of the Great Ooongabba snake by buddhist nymphets, mixed with fairy dust to the proportions of a secret Italian 300 year old violin-varnish recipie used by all the greats, and simmered slowly to perfection by Nigella Lawson.
Back on this planet, I don't think many people deny that it can have an effect (depends on what you're doing with it); the point is that something about 1/10 the price or less will probably do exactly the same thing. From some of the analysis made, C37 appears to be no more than a couple of relatively cheap varnishes mixed together with a copious amount of hype.
I'd probably start by adding phase-plugs (Dave's the man to ask about those), treating the cone with something like puzzlecoat, cut back 50% with water, and then go straight to EnABL. Yes, it needs subtly different patterns for each driver (naturally -as you rightly point out, you can't expect the same thing to work for every driver, given they are all different & thus need different applications), but Bud & Dave will be able to help with that. It shouldn't change the basic voicing of the driver, but it should help erradicate some of the less desirable features.
The one thing I'm a bit afraid of is adding too much weight to the cone with some kind of coating. The Phy's are about the only wide range drivers I know that do not have a rising response. they measure almost flat up til 8 kHz. Adding weight might cause a falling response instead of a rising one. It could work the other way around though. By adding coating I might change the speed of sound trough the cone in wich case it might start having a rising response.
I know all the stories about the c37 coating from people who haven't tried it themself. I would rather like to hear some comment's from people who actually did try it. It's rather expensive yes, but I don't think it's completely BS.
One thing that a good coating might do to them I guess is that they become more resistant to humididty. I have noticed that these drivers start to sound more like old 50's console speakers when the air is more saturated with moisture. It's not that it's a very big problem though, I only started nticing after I have lived with them for quite a long time. Still I believe that some improvements can be made, just want to be carefull that's all
I know all the stories about the c37 coating from people who haven't tried it themself. I would rather like to hear some comment's from people who actually did try it. It's rather expensive yes, but I don't think it's completely BS.
One thing that a good coating might do to them I guess is that they become more resistant to humididty. I have noticed that these drivers start to sound more like old 50's console speakers when the air is more saturated with moisture. It's not that it's a very big problem though, I only started nticing after I have lived with them for quite a long time. Still I believe that some improvements can be made, just want to be carefull that's all
Ideally you need a soft stiffening with say very thin shellack with a little bees propolis(very little), too much propolis and it will be too soft and too little and it will be too hard ... and MAYBE followed by a very thin coating of very thin bitumen, and I said maybe ... depends on how hard/soft your shellack/propolis mixture will be ... nahh, better leave out the bitumen stuff, its kind of ugly black stuff and not as aesthetical as the shellack/propolis solution
Hi Sjef!
try a tweeter. you don't believe me? buy two piezos for about 10 bucks an give it a try. do not forget the x-over. yeahhh, it's not true fullrange anymore. but the phy is only a widerange driver anyway.
the 8 inch phy's does not have highs above 10khz. maybe that's why you think "They can sound a bit like an old radio console from time to time". i think you will be surprised how good the phy can sound if you hear it with a tweeter. i was. but i can not afford the phy .
have a nice day
mike
try a tweeter. you don't believe me? buy two piezos for about 10 bucks an give it a try. do not forget the x-over
. yeahhh, it's not true fullrange anymore. but the phy is only a widerange driver anyway. the 8 inch phy's does not have highs above 10khz. maybe that's why you think "They can sound a bit like an old radio console from time to time". i think you will be surprised how good the phy can sound
if you hear it with a tweeter. i was. but i can not afford the phy . have a nice day
mike
Sjef said:
I've been playing with C37 for the last year or so... ii lump it as another tool like puzzlekoat or micro gloss.
Each of these is cone specific. Some cones prefer C37 some, puzzlekoat (the Micro gloss is a new tool that cam with EnABL)
My experiments, while far from conclusive, seem to point to a relationship between effectiveness & how well it "flows" on to the cone. For example C37 almost seems to sppread itself onto an FR125S. Puzzlekoat is a bit of a struggle. Reverse is true with a Fostex. The easier to apply seems to elicit the best sonics (but close) Having just EnABLed my 1st FR125, the micro-gloss flows onto the cone almost like C37.
EnABL means i have to do a lot more new research. It is now a question of what is effective under EnABL (if anything). On the Fostex cones a bit of PK helps (50% is too dilute -- it is often the case that a pattern for one works for another (ie FE207 whizzer was what i used for FR125)
to be quantitative because different samples come in different viscosity, and as it ages it gets more viscous. You thin it just until it starts to get runny and flows onto the cone fairly easily.)
There are 2 EnABL patterns. The main pattern and the pattern for the centre of dustcaps and points of phase plugs.. The latter is pretty much fixed. With the former is just how it is scaled, and where it is put. I have 2 versions of the pattern (a radial disk and a linear strip )useful for phase plugs, popping over dustcaps & stuffing into a voice coail)), and just scale them as needed.
With my EnABL experience so far, i think that EnABL is paradigm changing and a candidate for almost every driver.
dave
Hi Sjef,
Treating expensive drivers with any secondary material is a worry.
EnABL has less negative effect than the other processes I have tried, since I noticed at age 6, that I could not make any sense of the words sung in songs through speakers.
May I ask you to experiment a little and report back? I have not treated PHY speakers, but I would not be afraid to. How much treatment is the real question.
Would you snap your index finger nail against the front cone surface, half way up the cone? Not hard, but enough to get a report. Does the sound die quickly? Almost as if you had not really hit the surface hard enough. Or, is there a sort of after glow of sound that almost seems as if the sound grew ever so slightly louder before dieing?
We are listening for resonance characteristics, sort of like a pro audio sound engineer will clap his hands in a space new to him and listen to the sound die away.
If the sound is dead very quickly, EnABL will not make any alteration in the character of the speaker, just remove the masking effect of same frequency standing waves for signals 30 to 80 dB down. If it is any thing other than this, EnABL will help much more noticeably and may help to eliminate the character that you dislike in the sound qualities.
Then, lightly rub the pad of one of your fingers over the cone surface, just lightly enough to make a rasping noise. Rub up and down, radially, and listen for a subtle alteration in content. You will have to do this for a bit, as you get used to applying even pressure and eventually the change will become apparent.
If there is really no change, then only the lightest of coats of any material should be used. If there is a marked change in content, note that spot, as an EnABL pattern may need to be applied right there, in addition to the inner and outer diameters.
Should you choose to perform these two tests and report back, perhaps with a link to some pictures of the driver, I am certain we can help you to do just barely enough to correct the slight conditions you do not like and open up an entirely new realm of musical enjoyment for you.
It is always easier to do this testing with my own ears and fingers. These are the only tests I would perform were the drivers here, before treating the driver, other than listening to it as an omni directional, no baffle device, mounted in free air on a pillar.
Bud
Treating expensive drivers with any secondary material is a worry.
EnABL has less negative effect than the other processes I have tried, since I noticed at age 6, that I could not make any sense of the words sung in songs through speakers.
May I ask you to experiment a little and report back? I have not treated PHY speakers, but I would not be afraid to. How much treatment is the real question.
Would you snap your index finger nail against the front cone surface, half way up the cone? Not hard, but enough to get a report. Does the sound die quickly? Almost as if you had not really hit the surface hard enough. Or, is there a sort of after glow of sound that almost seems as if the sound grew ever so slightly louder before dieing?
We are listening for resonance characteristics, sort of like a pro audio sound engineer will clap his hands in a space new to him and listen to the sound die away.
If the sound is dead very quickly, EnABL will not make any alteration in the character of the speaker, just remove the masking effect of same frequency standing waves for signals 30 to 80 dB down. If it is any thing other than this, EnABL will help much more noticeably and may help to eliminate the character that you dislike in the sound qualities.
Then, lightly rub the pad of one of your fingers over the cone surface, just lightly enough to make a rasping noise. Rub up and down, radially, and listen for a subtle alteration in content. You will have to do this for a bit, as you get used to applying even pressure and eventually the change will become apparent.
If there is really no change, then only the lightest of coats of any material should be used. If there is a marked change in content, note that spot, as an EnABL pattern may need to be applied right there, in addition to the inner and outer diameters.
Should you choose to perform these two tests and report back, perhaps with a link to some pictures of the driver, I am certain we can help you to do just barely enough to correct the slight conditions you do not like and open up an entirely new realm of musical enjoyment for you.
It is always easier to do this testing with my own ears and fingers. These are the only tests I would perform were the drivers here, before treating the driver, other than listening to it as an omni directional, no baffle device, mounted in free air on a pillar.
Bud
I am using a tweeter. I have tried many differnet tweeters over the years and finally came up with either a pair of Air motion transformers or a pair of BMS 4540ND in custom wooden waveguides as the best sounding combinations. With the AMT it sounds best when crossed at 3,5kHz !! with steep slope, with the BMS waveguides it sounds best when crossed at 5kHz with shallow slope.
I also use a two pairs of 15" JBL drivers underneath them crossed at 150Hz. So effectivly I'm using them as midrange drivers only.
I have just tried this with the Phy drivers and on some PHL1220 I have lying around. These two surely sound different. On the PHL the sound seems to be lower when I tap it near the voicecoil then when I tap it at the outerside of the cone.
With the Phy's it sound like the paper is under tension. The tap is quite dry, a bit dryer on the inner surface then on the outer surface but not by much. It's pretty even oven the entire surface whereas with the PHL's there si more difference on different areas of the cone.
The finger rubbing test show up about the same result. On the PHL it sound like rubbing over a hard surface, on the Phy it sound like my finger rubbing is actually amplified a bit.
It's hard to describe soo far. I will play with it some more the next days and listen very carefully to it's characteristics, see if I can come up with a third driver to compare. Haven't got ay lying around at the momenet except some 15" drivers but that's a whole other thing.
I have made two closeup pictures of the cone. As you can see there is a open foam dustcap. the cone seems to be a NAWI form as far as I can see. It has got a paper harmonica surround with is coated with some kind of slightly permanent sticky coating wich likes to attract dust over the years.
The cone and the surround are made of one piece !!
The cone itself is not treated in any way I know off, just plain paper. The bronze outer ring can be removed. When removed this ring and the loudspeaker basket standalone both sound like a churchbell, when attached together is sounds completely dead. The bronze ring extends about 2/3 over the paper harmonica surround. I don't know what the voicecoil is made off, I believe it's paper also (hence the power handling of only 25 watts) but I'm not sure.
here is one picture
Attachments
That might be the silver ones then I guess. Phy-hp is using silk as isolation in their silver voice coils. Haven't heard them but besides the difference in voicecoil from what I see in the vague pictures on their website the silver coil version seems to have a little phase plug. The pictures are not clear, it could also just be the view of the magnet, it doesn't have the open foam dustcap.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.