It sounded just as good as a thinner material only it lacked a very detailed and crispness on the exetreme high end.
To help with this I used acetone to clean off the glue backing and found that the thickness of diaghram was not to bad around .6mil to .8mil depending on what grade you use.
After using heat treatment.
I had gotten A bunch diffrent types and tried them all.
But that was before I had a proper drive system back in 2003.
I didn't figure that part out until the beginning of last year.
I also did the same thing with window treatment stuff but never used it because it was much thicker than even monokote.
But I am sure that it would work especialy for a bass or just a midrange panel.
The problems I had the most with some of them was because they weren't tensilized and that they weren't thermaly stable.
But once I hit them with the heat gun a few times they worked just fine.
So, I used it to get my construction technique down so that I didn't wasted my only supply of .25mil mylar up as it is very hard to get anymore,although not impossible,but it is rare to find in large widths.
I had a source to get some 4' wide .5mil mylar but never got any.
The thinnest I have todate is .06mil polyeseter (mylar?).
But I can only find it in 3" widths and it is what I used that on my micro panel and it sounded great except the material I used to listen to had no high end what so ever, so I questoined the sound but as it turned it was an mp3(no wonder).
I took that panel apart to make pictures to post and all I have to do is reassemble it so I don't know what it's capablilty's are yet, but it did make for a great headphone driver!
jer
P.S. Now that the weather is finaly straightening up around here I can get going on those projects again!
To help with this I used acetone to clean off the glue backing and found that the thickness of diaghram was not to bad around .6mil to .8mil depending on what grade you use.
After using heat treatment.
I had gotten A bunch diffrent types and tried them all.
But that was before I had a proper drive system back in 2003.
I didn't figure that part out until the beginning of last year.
I also did the same thing with window treatment stuff but never used it because it was much thicker than even monokote.
But I am sure that it would work especialy for a bass or just a midrange panel.
The problems I had the most with some of them was because they weren't tensilized and that they weren't thermaly stable.
But once I hit them with the heat gun a few times they worked just fine.
So, I used it to get my construction technique down so that I didn't wasted my only supply of .25mil mylar up as it is very hard to get anymore,although not impossible,but it is rare to find in large widths.
I had a source to get some 4' wide .5mil mylar but never got any.
The thinnest I have todate is .06mil polyeseter (mylar?).
But I can only find it in 3" widths and it is what I used that on my micro panel and it sounded great except the material I used to listen to had no high end what so ever, so I questoined the sound but as it turned it was an mp3(no wonder).
I took that panel apart to make pictures to post and all I have to do is reassemble it so I don't know what it's capablilty's are yet, but it did make for a great headphone driver!
jer
P.S. Now that the weather is finaly straightening up around here I can get going on those projects again!
Last edited:
Yes, here's a link to the 6-micron film:
Electrostatic Speaker Membrane Dupont Mylar C 6um 40M | eBay
Monokote is a PET film but I tried to find out which formula But the said it was propiertory and would not tell me even after I had explained my intended use and was not out to infringe on their little secret.
All I wanted to know was the specs.
My uncle whom is an electronics engineer and has been buliding model airplanes ever since I could walk,and,he stated to me "It is a PET film and that they are all PET films as mylar is a PET film".
Upon more research a had determined that Mylar is a brand of PET films as there other brand names as well and many have the same similar charcteristics.
I had spent alot of time on the dupont website and had talk to a few sales reps and engineers as well as warehouses and I couldn't get anymore .25mil mylar as it was all depleated here in the states and they weren't going to make it any more.
Unless I wanted a full 5000lbs roll of it!
Because there wasn't enough of a demand for it and the only thing that they were going to supply was .5mil mylar.
That was in 2003.
They did tell me that they were manufacturing it over seas under the brand name called Hostaphon.
But I never pursued a supplier becuase of the cost and time envolved in phone calls let alone all I wanted was a few 1000 feet of it and it was 8' wide so it was a small order for beeing over seas.
So since I had some I figured it would probably last me for a while.
But I want to get some wider stuff, as, what I have is only 12.25" wide.
The 1000' or so that I do have cost more in shipping than the material from ohio to florida when I got it and I should got a whole bunch more of it then.
But since I have probaly only used maybe 30' of it so far.
That was before the advent of highspeed internet but things are different now days.
Even with my original licron coating the thickness came to just over .5mil with .25mil mylar that I have.
But the new licron crystal that I am using the coating it self is unmeasurable in thickness.
And the difference in sound was only noticeable in an A/B comparison listening test.
I had documented that in another thread as I had planned to do I compleat study on it.
So, I guess I am a little behind on it because I am very happy with the results I have now.
Even though monokote is not exactly cheap it is widely available and was the easiest thing to use and worked without a hitch.
I used grapite as a coating on those very first diagphrams and it worked good but now I have refined my process.
And have been using the mylar mounted with epoxy and it is easy to replace the diagphram if needed using the same frames.
But I hate messing with epoxy as it is very messy and if you get it were it doesn't belong,you have just wasted a piece of mylar!
So,Exterem care must be takin when using it and you can't move it once that frame hits the surface otherwise you risk wrinkling the diagphram and is very difficult to straighten out.
Somtimes it might take I few tries until you get it down right.
But thats DIY,he,he,he !
jer
All I wanted to know was the specs.
My uncle whom is an electronics engineer and has been buliding model airplanes ever since I could walk,and,he stated to me "It is a PET film and that they are all PET films as mylar is a PET film".
Upon more research a had determined that Mylar is a brand of PET films as there other brand names as well and many have the same similar charcteristics.
I had spent alot of time on the dupont website and had talk to a few sales reps and engineers as well as warehouses and I couldn't get anymore .25mil mylar as it was all depleated here in the states and they weren't going to make it any more.
Unless I wanted a full 5000lbs roll of it!
Because there wasn't enough of a demand for it and the only thing that they were going to supply was .5mil mylar.
That was in 2003.
They did tell me that they were manufacturing it over seas under the brand name called Hostaphon.
But I never pursued a supplier becuase of the cost and time envolved in phone calls let alone all I wanted was a few 1000 feet of it and it was 8' wide so it was a small order for beeing over seas.
So since I had some I figured it would probably last me for a while.
But I want to get some wider stuff, as, what I have is only 12.25" wide.
The 1000' or so that I do have cost more in shipping than the material from ohio to florida when I got it and I should got a whole bunch more of it then.
But since I have probaly only used maybe 30' of it so far.
That was before the advent of highspeed internet but things are different now days.
Even with my original licron coating the thickness came to just over .5mil with .25mil mylar that I have.
But the new licron crystal that I am using the coating it self is unmeasurable in thickness.
And the difference in sound was only noticeable in an A/B comparison listening test.
I had documented that in another thread as I had planned to do I compleat study on it.
So, I guess I am a little behind on it because I am very happy with the results I have now.
Even though monokote is not exactly cheap it is widely available and was the easiest thing to use and worked without a hitch.
I used grapite as a coating on those very first diagphrams and it worked good but now I have refined my process.
And have been using the mylar mounted with epoxy and it is easy to replace the diagphram if needed using the same frames.
But I hate messing with epoxy as it is very messy and if you get it were it doesn't belong,you have just wasted a piece of mylar!
So,Exterem care must be takin when using it and you can't move it once that frame hits the surface otherwise you risk wrinkling the diagphram and is very difficult to straighten out.
Somtimes it might take I few tries until you get it down right.
But thats DIY,he,he,he !
jer
No there isn't any reason at all as long as it stays mechanicaly and dynamicaly stable.
IMHO the reason it came about is that it just sounds better on the high end so it was specified for tweeters but it will work for both at least in my panels it does.
But if you start going with a much wider panel then the heavier stuff might be more suitable in order to get the proper amount of tension in order to stay stable.
My next panel width will be on the order of 11.5" wide Diagphram to find this out, as my largest width to date is a 7.5" wide diagphram.
jer
IMHO the reason it came about is that it just sounds better on the high end so it was specified for tweeters but it will work for both at least in my panels it does.
But if you start going with a much wider panel then the heavier stuff might be more suitable in order to get the proper amount of tension in order to stay stable.
My next panel width will be on the order of 11.5" wide Diagphram to find this out, as my largest width to date is a 7.5" wide diagphram.
jer
At low frequencies, the weight of the diaphragm is insignificant compared to the weight of the airmass the diaphragm is loaded with. For the same material type, increasing the thickness will generally increase resonance because the thicker material will be capable of higher tension.
Hi,
I agree with Arend-Jan and Bolserst. Thicker material can be put under alot higher mechanical tension. This allows for such hard tension that the thicker membrane can exhibit a higher resonance than the thinner membrane. With a free vibrating distance of ~100mm I could stretch a 12µm thick film such it ended up at a resonance of 250Hz. A thinner film of 3.8µm could not be stretched more than to give 180Hz.
jauu
Calvin
I agree with Arend-Jan and Bolserst. Thicker material can be put under alot higher mechanical tension. This allows for such hard tension that the thicker membrane can exhibit a higher resonance than the thinner membrane. With a free vibrating distance of ~100mm I could stretch a 12µm thick film such it ended up at a resonance of 250Hz. A thinner film of 3.8µm could not be stretched more than to give 180Hz.
jauu
Calvin
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.