to damp speaker frames i use leftovers from cascade damping sheets
http://www.cascadeaudio.com/aut1.html
it's thin and easy to apply.
http://www.cascadeaudio.com/aut1.html
it's thin and easy to apply.
I think plumbers putty might be just the ticket. It comes in tubs and is really cheap also.
http://www.doityourself.com/invt/6142806
http://www.doityourself.com/invt/6142806
Have you considered a tube of Silicone Seal? Comes in cauking gun sizes if its that important to you.
I think you would do better worrying about dealing with vibration, resonance, sound wave propagation, and harmonics in the cabinet itself before worrying about damping the metal of the speakers.
Zarathu
I think you would do better worrying about dealing with vibration, resonance, sound wave propagation, and harmonics in the cabinet itself before worrying about damping the metal of the speakers.
Zarathu
Zarathu said:
Silicon seal doesn't work well... it doesn't have the characteristics to damp.
Damping & shaping the basket is an important ingredient in making your speaker the best it can be,,, it attacks a very different problem than ensuring the box isn't an unwanted passive radiator. if you haven't done this, you haven't rung the last bit of fidelity out of your box.
dave
Re: So, the envelope please, Dave....
Would you accept the reverse hypothesis? i.e. that differences may be audible, but not represented by significant or obvious "paper events", or further, that sonic benefits may result from "intuitive" modifications? (i.e. not based on premeditated calculations)
As for appropriate coating elements, over the years, I have played with 2 basic types;
- removable "clay/putty" such as DuctSeal, BluTak or rope caulking, adhesive bitumen or vinyl based sheets such as car audio installers have been using for years (pick your favorite brand name) ;
- permanent paint-on products ranging from DynaShield (car audio aerosol product) to a water-based product primarily designed for marine and industrial noise abatement.
http://www.silentrunning.us/
I saw this product on display at an industrial materials supplier, with a great point of sale demo of effectiveness, so I took a gamble.
Not cheap, and time consuming to work with, but a quart goes a long way. It not only deadens the stamped steel basket frames of lower priced drivers, but cures hard enough to allow for shaping to fill small gaps between basket and magnet stacks, etc.
No doubt there are other numerous other commercial products or even DIY formulas that are equally effective.
Zarathu said:
Would you accept the reverse hypothesis? i.e. that differences may be audible, but not represented by significant or obvious "paper events", or further, that sonic benefits may result from "intuitive" modifications? (i.e. not based on premeditated calculations)
As for appropriate coating elements, over the years, I have played with 2 basic types;
- removable "clay/putty" such as DuctSeal, BluTak or rope caulking, adhesive bitumen or vinyl based sheets such as car audio installers have been using for years (pick your favorite brand name) ;
- permanent paint-on products ranging from DynaShield (car audio aerosol product) to a water-based product primarily designed for marine and industrial noise abatement.
http://www.silentrunning.us/
I saw this product on display at an industrial materials supplier, with a great point of sale demo of effectiveness, so I took a gamble.
Not cheap, and time consuming to work with, but a quart goes a long way. It not only deadens the stamped steel basket frames of lower priced drivers, but cures hard enough to allow for shaping to fill small gaps between basket and magnet stacks, etc.
No doubt there are other numerous other commercial products or even DIY formulas that are equally effective.
I used "No More Nails" as a filler for the gap between the basket and the magnet. This is a high grab filler/adhesive for attaching dado rails etc.
I can part answer a question
.
It improves the clarity of the music. No I-did-this-atitus on this one, I pressganged some listeners into service and all noticed a difference. Dynamic range was not altered in my MIssion 753's dramatically, but the additional clarity was welcome.
It is easy to apply and bonds very well to the basket.
I didn't treat the legs of the basket, I intend on using daming sheets for these.
The other issue with the no moare nails is that is shrinks as it dries. So I need to add some more to the gap which I will soon.
Definately recommend this for every speaker. Its a cheap and sensible tweak
I can part answer a question
.
It improves the clarity of the music. No I-did-this-atitus on this one, I pressganged some listeners into service and all noticed a difference. Dynamic range was not altered in my MIssion 753's dramatically, but the additional clarity was welcome.
It is easy to apply and bonds very well to the basket.
I didn't treat the legs of the basket, I intend on using daming sheets for these.
The other issue with the no moare nails is that is shrinks as it dries. So I need to add some more to the gap which I will soon.
Definately recommend this for every speaker. Its a cheap and sensible tweak
Re: And the envelope please
FWIW, in the ongoing pi$$ing contest of absence of irrefutable hard data to buttress either position, my solution has always been to JLTI.
In many cases Dave & I have tested each other for recognition of undisclosed modifications made to speakers / amps/interconnects, etc by simply playing a familiar piece of music in the background, while engaged in a conversation.
No measurement equipment required, other than our ears; and even if available, I'm not sure some of the differences we hear could be quantified.
For example;
A few months ago we attended a concert by The Wailin' Jennies - at the end of the show they perform an a capella piece at the front of the stage. Even though our offside balcony seats suffered from very bad PA gear for most of the show, the acoustics of the venue (a former church) were not overloaded during the unamplified final performance. This particular piece is also the closing track on the CD "40 Days", a disc which is in near the top of our list of test music, and we've listened to it literally hundreds of times, both before and after the concert.
After attending an intimate and emotionally moving live performance such as this, it's very difficult to separate the memory of the total visual/audio event from subsequent listenings to the same artist and tracks.
Clearly, except for the incredibly unlikely event of a "professional" quality minimalist recording of a live concert that you attended, there will always be huge and unknown differences in the sonics between original performance and what is played back in our listening rooms.
My point is that some of the differences heard in system tweaks, and in this case driver mods and enclosure materials/construction techniques are as refined as the size of the perceived acoustic space surrounding the artists, and between them. How can the "accuracy" of that be measured?
With the visual memory of 3 female vocalists standing slightly more than arm's length apart, and at least 30 feet from the back wall, the degree of believable "naturalness" of the reproduction of this soundstage spacing and depth on subsequent listening sessions is hard to miss. Of course playback of recorded audio is all an illusion , and to a great degree we filter all sensory input though both our logical and emotional minds. At any given point, each of us are the sum total of our unique life experiences, acoustic and otherwise - any surprise that there are so many visions of what constitutes "reality"?
How would you propose to reconcile the difference between what any "state of the art" objective measurement equipment indicates as the sensory input to my ears, and what I think I'm hearing?
My apologies for the dyspeptic and slightly OT slant of this rant, but this topic has been so frequently been approached from so many angles, I just needed to vent some methane ( you might want to stand upwind
)
cheers
Zarathu said:
FWIW, in the ongoing pi$$ing contest of absence of irrefutable hard data to buttress either position, my solution has always been to JLTI.
In many cases Dave & I have tested each other for recognition of undisclosed modifications made to speakers / amps/interconnects, etc by simply playing a familiar piece of music in the background, while engaged in a conversation.
No measurement equipment required, other than our ears; and even if available, I'm not sure some of the differences we hear could be quantified.
For example;
A few months ago we attended a concert by The Wailin' Jennies - at the end of the show they perform an a capella piece at the front of the stage. Even though our offside balcony seats suffered from very bad PA gear for most of the show, the acoustics of the venue (a former church) were not overloaded during the unamplified final performance. This particular piece is also the closing track on the CD "40 Days", a disc which is in near the top of our list of test music, and we've listened to it literally hundreds of times, both before and after the concert.
After attending an intimate and emotionally moving live performance such as this, it's very difficult to separate the memory of the total visual/audio event from subsequent listenings to the same artist and tracks.
Clearly, except for the incredibly unlikely event of a "professional" quality minimalist recording of a live concert that you attended, there will always be huge and unknown differences in the sonics between original performance and what is played back in our listening rooms.
My point is that some of the differences heard in system tweaks, and in this case driver mods and enclosure materials/construction techniques are as refined as the size of the perceived acoustic space surrounding the artists, and between them. How can the "accuracy" of that be measured?
With the visual memory of 3 female vocalists standing slightly more than arm's length apart, and at least 30 feet from the back wall, the degree of believable "naturalness" of the reproduction of this soundstage spacing and depth on subsequent listening sessions is hard to miss. Of course playback of recorded audio is all an illusion , and to a great degree we filter all sensory input though both our logical and emotional minds. At any given point, each of us are the sum total of our unique life experiences, acoustic and otherwise - any surprise that there are so many visions of what constitutes "reality"?
How would you propose to reconcile the difference between what any "state of the art" objective measurement equipment indicates as the sensory input to my ears, and what I think I'm hearing?
My apologies for the dyspeptic and slightly OT slant of this rant, but this topic has been so frequently been approached from so many angles, I just needed to vent some methane ( you might want to stand upwind
) cheers
Re: And the envelope please
Ductseal by default, as it is cheap, easy to work with and effective. It both damps & shapes (do not underestimate the shaping/streamlining of the driver -- in an ultimate driver tweak you would add a "cone-head" to the driver magnet (look at the fuji TEN and B&W promo)) as well as provides a modicom of HF absorbtion.
It can be a bit messy thou (some brands are realy messy -- i'd recommend the IDEAL pictured on my tweaks page)
The latex marine damping materials are also interesting. It damps & stiffen. It is a lot of work to apply and is expensive (especially if the smallest amount you can find is a gallon). It is very worthwhile to fill the back of the hollow bezels you find on some drivers (ie Fostex) -- besides damping, the torsional stiffeness is dramatically increased. For basket damping i suspect an initial layering on of the marine stuff, with a final fill of ductseal might be most effective/practical. The layers of latex stuff would increase structural integrity where ductseal alone would only damp (and shape)
Good for stiffening/damping basket legs too. It can take literally weeks to do a driver thou as you apply with a paint brush literally painting it on so you spend a lot of time waiting for it to dry so you can do the next coat. The experimental FE127 had 20+ coats on it (with more needed to make it look finished) before we cut that experiment short.
dave
Zarathu said:
Ductseal by default, as it is cheap, easy to work with and effective. It both damps & shapes (do not underestimate the shaping/streamlining of the driver -- in an ultimate driver tweak you would add a "cone-head" to the driver magnet (look at the fuji TEN and B&W promo)) as well as provides a modicom of HF absorbtion.
It can be a bit messy thou (some brands are realy messy -- i'd recommend the IDEAL pictured on my tweaks page)
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The latex marine damping materials are also interesting. It damps & stiffen. It is a lot of work to apply and is expensive (especially if the smallest amount you can find is a gallon). It is very worthwhile to fill the back of the hollow bezels you find on some drivers (ie Fostex) -- besides damping, the torsional stiffeness is dramatically increased. For basket damping i suspect an initial layering on of the marine stuff, with a final fill of ductseal might be most effective/practical. The layers of latex stuff would increase structural integrity where ductseal alone would only damp (and shape)
Good for stiffening/damping basket legs too. It can take literally weeks to do a driver thou as you apply with a paint brush literally painting it on so you spend a lot of time waiting for it to dry so you can do the next coat. The experimental FE127 had 20+ coats on it (with more needed to make it look finished) before we cut that experiment short.
dave
The best way to damp a stamped steel basket is to leave it in the box, at the dollar store, and buy a good driver with a cast aluminum frame.
Seriously though, a small basket would benefit audibly from damping? I've done it on large ones (my 2 18" subs have steel baskets, and I could hear a difference) I used strips of my rubber back carpet glued on with silicone.
Silicone on it's own does have damping qualities. Put some on a wine glass and see how it rings afterwards.
Ductseal would be about the best thing to use though.
Seriously though, a small basket would benefit audibly from damping? I've done it on large ones (my 2 18" subs have steel baskets, and I could hear a difference) I used strips of my rubber back carpet glued on with silicone.
Silicone on it's own does have damping qualities. Put some on a wine glass and see how it rings afterwards.
Ductseal would be about the best thing to use though.
My favorite is modeling clay, the stuff you buy at Toys R' Us. Put it in some hot water to make it soft and sticky. Flatten it with a rolling pin and cut it into strips. Easy to work with, easy to clean up, non toxic. How long does it last? I have some Advent IIs in the basement from the mid 70s. The foam surrounds are dust but the clay I put all over the drivers and interior of the cabinet looks like the day I put it on. ( someday I'll get around to getting them reconed! ) I've used this tweak on almost every speaker I've ever owned (including boomboxes). In every case there has been a dramatic increase in clarity.
) I've used this tweak on almost every speaker I've ever owned (including boomboxes). In every case there has been a dramatic increase in clarity.- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.