Full Range drivers - do they always "rip your ears off" at high volumes?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Jump to Latest
chris661

chris661

Member
Joined 2008
planet10 said:
I don't think it is always paper, but i've not met a paper cone i haven't been able to improve with a seal coat to bond the top layer of fibres together... and that is going back >30 years and on a lot more than FRs. The journey to the drivers i presently sell started with efforts to cure the FE127eN of its shreiky bits.

I now have at least a dozen sets of speakers that are just fine at higher volumes... as long as i don't run the amp out of power.

dave
Click to expand...

I have some PVA wood glue, and lots of visaton FRS8 s - should I give this a go, or is PVA the wrong thing for it?

Seems to me, Bud, that the only way to stop these resonances is to stop the speakers vibrating! :rolleyes:
 
BudP

BudP

Member
Joined 2007
Seems to me, Bud, that the only way to stop these resonances is to stop the speakers vibrating!
Click to expand...

Yes, that would work. Would also aid in reducing other extraneous vibrations like "turn the d**n music down, NOW!!!!!"

I do find it very interesting that Dave's "paper noise" solution does not affect the process EnABL provides. Were EnABL actually controlling the vibration mechanism of the cone, then it seems that a pre process like the PVA / Damar fiber noise suppression should in some way dilute the EnABL benefit.

Instead, we find EnABL just removing the interface problems that speakers, and all other vibrating surfaces, exhibit when confronted with transforming energy across widely different material densities. Most specifically, from a high density medium, like paper, to a very low density one, air at atmospheric pressure.

The presence and benefit of the PVA is audible, with EnABL or not, just as the EnABL process does not require the PVA treatment to provide it's benefits. That they are synergistic, with both providing benefit, but only the PVA providing it with any form of appreciable mass loading, does indicate that the EnABL process is working on factors not addressable with simple mass loading of diaphragms. Just what that process is, has been the basis of a great long argument.

Bud
 
C

chrisb

Member
Joined 2002
:D
BudP said:
Yes, that would work. Would also aid in reducing other extraneous vibrations like "turn the d**n music down, NOW!!!!!"



The presence and benefit of the PVA is audible, with EnABL or not, just as the EnABL process does not require the PVA treatment to provide it's benefits. That they are synergistic, with both providing benefit, but only the PVA providing it with any form of appreciable mass loading, does indicate that the EnABL process is working on factors not addressable with simple mass loading of diaphragms. Just what that process is, has been the basis of a great long argument.

Bud
Click to expand...


great & long as in enjoyably so, or greatly long as in demonstrating all the "benefits" of any polemic "discussion"?


when all else fails, read Floyd Toole's latest book: turn your objective, conscious brain off (a lot easier for some of us than others :eek:), and just bloody listen through the entire recording/playback chain to the music
 
Last edited:
BudP

BudP

Member
Joined 2007
great & long as in enjoyably so, or greatly long as in demonstrating all the "benefits" of any polemic "discussion"?
Click to expand...

Actually some of both. Originally the truth testers came with every intention of debunking all that was claimed for EnABL. Over time and some very specific testing done by soongsc and John K (one of the original truth testers) it was determined that some form of change was found in CSD plots. In one case, just a barely noticeable "refinement" to a resonance node (from John K) and in another, the dispersal of a similar resonance node. Regardless, the tests did not show the extra -60 dB down from the usual - 40 db coherency cut off, that speakers are known to have. This is of course a generalization as pure ribbons and some horn systems do reach farther down.

This claim, which is quite audible, was a stumbling block for those who demanded that only mass loading was a workable scheme, that a CSD shows all possible activity and, that so small a difference (typically less than the range found in a run of drivers from the same batch), proved that any audible changes were overstated and obviously psycho-acoustic placebo effects. Can't actually say I blame them for this point of view.

I did welcome these folks in to the discussion and eventually we found the discussions to be quite illuminating, both for what is and what is not understood, about speaker activity and our ability to measure it. I will point out that once these emission difficulties are corrected, speakers actually are minimum phase devices and modern drivers are very near perfect in their emulation of a sonic event, recorded in real time and real space.

We did try to get them to just sit down and listen, but, that was not ever going to happen, at least it has not happened yet.

Bud
 
chris661

chris661

Member
Joined 2008
Tried the FRS8s out this morning. Now I've got some time at school (they haven't blocked this site yet...) to report back.

At lower volumes, there is little difference in sound, but I only had a quick listen. I did notice that they would go a lot louder now - the amp clips before they scream. With limited Xmax though, I had to reduce bass output considerably (they were in free air, just sat on top of the amp. I believe I can get more by plugging them into dad's PA amp - will do that and report. But there's a definite difference at higher volumes.

Thanks
Chris
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Top Bottom