| type |
Would anyone besides myself be interested in seeing a reference project for a 3 inch full range driver? It could be based around the W3-871s or HiVi B3s or something else if there's a better 3 incher out there.
Ideally I'd like to see both a bookshelf and floorstanding design. |
|
|
| gychang |
| quote: | Originally posted by type
Would anyone besides myself be interested in seeing a reference project for a 3 inch full range driver? It could be based around the W3-871s or HiVi B3s or something else if there's a better 3 incher out there.
Ideally I'd like to see both a bookshelf and floorstanding design. |
I support the idea, like W3-871S with Cyburg Needle, but would like to see more ideas.
gychang |
|
|
| edjosh23 |
I think the Aura NS3 193 is also a good reference driver. Planet10 has a good implamentation with a rear mounted NS3.
Josh |
|
|
| MarkMcK |
It is possible to achieve great and accurate sound from a three-inch (generally a 53 mm cone).
If quality is the goal, don't ignore the Jordan. Also, if you can find the original TB W3-881S, then there is a modification published by AudioXpress that is worthwhile.
There is also a modification for the replacement TB W3-881SD. The Canadian company Voxium Inc. has been working with this transducer modification and would have to release the information before the SD would be a possibility.
Also, I consider all 53 mm cone transducers as extended range and not as full range. When you either port or use one of the new transmission line designs, while the simulator may suggest significant bass output, attempts to verify the designs have shown vent or aperture output as much as 20 dB less than the design program indicates.
Lastly, very small diameter cone transducers are affected more by boundary layer effects than larger diameter cones. You can create response aberrations with enclosure dimensions and designs that are beyond baffle edge problems.
Just something to keep in mind is that no simulator or design program can account for every variable. Like everything else, they have limits.
Best,
Mark |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
GM & I have done monster horns for the FF85K -they're genuine horns, based on Leach's math, one of the assumptions of which is a desire for absolute maximum gain and to blazes with anything else. This one stays within linear excursion to 60Hz. Greg's most refined version has about 10db more gain & has an upper cut-off about 120Hz lower.
Bit of fun really. I doubt anyone would be mad enough to build them -too hugeous for most people: 12.5 square foot mouths (reduced by a factor of 8 as they're for corner loading), ~300in long. :devilr: Not the most practical then. But they do give an idea of what a proper BLH is capable of, once size constraints are removed, and you can actually let rip with the classic BLH math, rather than hybrid QW/horn loading. |
|
|
| Pit Hinder |
Scott,
OK, the two of you belong in padded cells, like most of us. We'll meet more of our ilk there. IIRC it was WE engineers Wente and Thuras who once designed a horn as the roof of a dance palace, with the driver located in the next building. A fleamuscle amp drove the wee thingy and it must have ROCKED.
:D Pit |
|
|
| Kensai |
What about something more reasonably sized for the FF85? They look like awesome drivers to work with, so how about BiBs for them or maybe a nice double mouthed BVR?
Scott, I know you like to make "reasonable" and "all out" versions of the dims for everything; one would think that even "all out" the line length of an FF85 BiB would be doable, but I'm guessing that the mouth may still be pretty large.
If a tall, slim cab could be built that would let the FF85 run strong to 80Hz or less, then they could integrate really nicely with a sub.
Kensai |
|
|
| hm |
Hello Kensai,
o,6 mm stroke is not for bass,
but a sat down to 100 Hz
is an argument:
look my FLUTE-SAT,
listening tests shows a bit to much at 10 kHz,
therefore i prefer the Omnes Audio or FRS8M
because 1 mm stroke is also for 100 Hz better. |
|
|
| Kensai |
hm, check the BiB thread about the larger FF drivers. They're thundering with less than 1mm stroke. I'm betting it can be done.
Kensai |
|
|
| loninappleton |
The FF85 would be a good candidate.
I am making a sample of the TABAQ for MLTL but
it's my guess that a Fostex would be a better
candidate for folding and designing.
This just my take on it, but a 4 in. driver like the
FE127e which already has a reference project seems
like the downsize limit for real sound reproduction.
I screwed an 871 to board with a hole in it and that
was the best I've gotten to date. I put one in a PVC
pipe of 3 " diameter at the alpha tl line length of
100 cm (IIRC) and I didn't think much of that.
Perhaps a big supra baffle with folded BLH would
be workable for the 871 but a fresh start on a
Fostex would be my pick. |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
The FF85K looks a lovely unit to me, but with an Fs of 122Hz, it's not going to do LF in anything simple. The only way you can get the kind of extension shown on the above plot is with a full-on no-compromise hypex horn like that.
Having said that, I don't think anyone would expect it to go particularly low in a realistic cabinet -it's only a 3in cone after all. We can load it down to a higher figure to XO to a pair of woofers easily enough if that's any use? A reduced version of Aiko should work fine. Whatever we'd do, it'd need to be (relatively) big due to the small cone if you want it to make much noise. |
|
|
| hm |
Hello Kensai,
check the membran movement of a bass horn,
only ~0,2 Watt stroke are possible without compression.
look at ~75 Hz + 150 Hz
for householt level ok.
an Bipol double horn omnidirectional with two Fostex are
down to 40 Hz possible.
Look my TROMBONE |
|
|
| MarkMcK |
I have not been keeping up with the jargon apparently. While the talk about stroke is good jargon, I believe it is important to clarify that xmax and suspension max are different. Exceed xmax and the distortion begins to slowly rise. Exceed suspension max and distortion rises preceptiously.
Also, if rear horn loading is the choice for enclosure, then the Jordan becomes less of an option. Also, horn loading will eliminate the possibility of a shelf mount option. Horns as big as a roof don't fit well on the typical bookshelf.
Lastly for this post, I would state that fs of 120 Hz is impossible to work with in a three-inch driver, even with a rear horn loading. The rear horns just don't compression load enough to overcome the impedence mismatch between air and the small diameter diaphragm at low frequencies.
If a goal is to be sensible and practical, that would tend to favor a woofer or subwoofer to augment the bass.
Mark |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkMcK
I have not been keeping up with the jargon apparently. While the talk about stroke is good jargon, I believe it is important to clarify that xmax and suspension max are different. Exceed xmax and the distortion begins to slowly rise. Exceed suspension max and distortion rises preceptiously. |
Amen.
| quote: | | Originally posted by MarkMcKAlso, if rear horn loading is the choice for enclosure, then the Jordan becomes less of an option. Also, horn loading will eliminate the possibility of a shelf mount option. Horns as big as a roof don't fit well on the typical bookshelf.[/B] |
I don't see why not. You can make a horn work with most any dynamic driver. I see nothing in the JXR6 that suggests that they couldn't be BLH loaded effectively. I agree 100% though re giganic, full-scale horns, and I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting that they are a viable option. Just GM & me having a bit of fun to illustrate what a real BLH, with a 300in path & initially very slow hypex expansion rather than a QW / horn hybrid is actually capable of. Ditto that these units really do need LF support. Anything with an Fs of over 70Hz needs partnering with a sub in any realistically proportioned cabinet IMO. |
|
|
| planet10 |
I would think the point of a 3" driver is to build something small... they are never going to do bass... if you can live with the larger box needed to even attempt to get bass out of the driver then a larger driver (ie FE127) can do a better job in a smaller box (other than that the FE127 is quite a bit more money than a typical 3").
I haven't heard the Fostex 3" (maybe i'll get FF85, and FE8x with my next Fostex order), but of the (available) usual suspects (TB/HiVi/Aura) i like the concave coned NS3 the best.
It works in a small sealed enclosure (ref Illusus) that mates quite well with a sub and Gregg the Geek has them in a larger BR series XOed to an ApexJr/Audax budget tweeter and reports really good results.
I do think there is room to investigate a bit of cone treatment to address some slight issues in the top.
dave |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
Those little NS3 units do look rather nice. Wonder how they'd do in a focused array? (bet you never though you'd hear that from me)
Realistically, I reckon something on the lines of the Zaph minimonitor or a baby Fonken with whatever unit is settled on would be just the ticket. |
|
|
| Timn8ter |
I heard the Illusus sealed design (tiny, tiny box) mated up with Dave's 8" subwoofer. Sounded pretty darn nice. The NS3 has low sensitivity (under 80db) and rolls off above 15k. Other than that is a quite desirable. Smoother sounding than the TB and Fostex units to my ears.
Mark's suggestion of the Jordan got me looking around and finding that Ted is only offering the 2" and 6" models on his website. Also, no North American distributor unless I missed something. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Timn8ter
[B]I heard the Illusus sealed design (tiny, tiny box) mated up with Dave's 8" subwoofer. Sounded pretty darn nice. The NS3 has low sensitivity (under 80db) and rolls off above 15k. Other than that is a quite desirable. Smoother sounding than the TB and Fostex units to my ears. |
cheap Pioneer 10" sub actually.
Hoffman's Iron law dictates the LOW sensitivity. Similar driver that only goes to ~200 Hz is way more efficient.
| quote: | | Mark's suggestion of the Jordan got me looking around and finding that Ted is only offering the 2" and 6" models on his website. Also, no North American distributor unless I missed something. |
North American distributor is in Hong Kong. Jordan only has the JXr6 & the JX92 at the moment -- noone would build his other drivers for him. The JXr6 looks to be a nice mid-tweeter but is going to be a strtch as a FR
dave |
|
|
| arjscott |
Hi all,
I'm quite interested in the FF85K designs this guy has published recently. He calls them angular spiral horns.
http://www3.ocn.ne.jp/~hanbei/eng-angular.html
I'm thinking of building the Helix AG-100 or AG-100M shown on this page, primarily because the FF85K appeals to me (although I've never heard it) and the enclosure looks interesting.
From the AG-100 section:
The measurements of frequency responses and impeadance characteristics indicate the lower limit is about 54 Hz and bass reflex behavior still acts an important role.
The sound is clear and crisp with sufficient lower level.
He also shows some bookshelf sized enclosures using the FF85K.
What do you guys think of these designs?
Best regards,
Andrew. |
|
|
| happy.gringo |
Dave,
What kind of cone treatment are you thinking of for the NS3? I have some Mod Podge and I was thinking of applying a thin coat, but maybe some felt triangles would be better? |
|
|
| MarkMcK |
Could we please stay away from the just dumb luck school of modifying drivers? There are plenty of other threads for this. Sometimes what goes on in some of these threads and Web sites seems so irrational. Sorry, but just not my cup of tea.
Does anyone have high resolution measurements for some of the tranducers suggested? While I have not measured the particular NS driver mentioned, others using that same cone design have not been particularly desirable by my standards. Of course, I have really high standards for minimum performance.
I would be interested in trying to select a couple of price/performance points for possible transducers. But I would suggest we base this upon evidence and not just personal preference or outside economic interest.
Best to all,
Mark |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by happy.gringo
Dave,
What kind of cone treatment are you thinking of for the NS3? I have some Mod Podge and I was thinking of applying a thin coat, but maybe some felt triangles would be better? |
Mark is really the master at searching out and destroying cone resonances... anytime he is willing to share imformation i listen
I don't know how i would approach the NS3. The 3-layer constrained layer cone is something i have not encountered before (i know it is such because i was asked to do a phase plug experiment on them.
dave |
|
|
| Geek |
Ah yes! The little Aurasound. Those things are wicked cool.
I created a WinISD Pro model for the NS3-193-8A is anyone's interested:
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca/GeeK_Z...hp?topic=2751.0
Seems quite accurate compared to my results with sweep tests on the completed unit.
I did a project with them, but added a helper tweeter:
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca/GeeK_Z...hp?topic=2545.0
The NS3 I used has some nasty little peaks above 10K if used FR. If you cross it at 6K, that's the maximum frequency for a simple crossover for taming those nasties. Nothing special about the helper tweeter. One of those ones Steve at Apex Jr. has works fabulous.
If you want a pure FR with no helper tweet in there, perhaps cone treating is the answer.
Cheers! |
|
|
| happy.gringo |
| Wow Geek! Those are beautiful. I plan on using Aura NT1-204-8D tweeters. The ones Zaph tested recently. What if I stick with 6khz for crossover, but just use a standard linkwitz-riley second order from one of the online calculators for the front NS3 and tweeter and leave the rear NS3 fullrange? |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by happy.gringo
What if I stick with 6khz for crossover, but just use a standard linkwitz-riley second order from one of the online calculators for the front NS3 and tweeter and leave the rear NS3 fullrange? |
The idea is to roll off the HF nasties on the NS3 (even as small as they are). The Aura tweeter is a nice size, but the huge nasty break-up mode is going to defeat the entire purpose of what Gregg is doing with the tweeter.
I can fairly confidently suggest that the 50 cent tweeter from ApexJr is going to be quite a bit better than the Aura in this application.
dave |
|
|
| type |
| I like the look of the NS3 but have not heard it but I own both the B3S and 871S. Is it worth giving up high frequencies for more bass? I started out with the B3S and moved on to the 871S because the Tang Band sounded a bit better. I'm actually using them in the Zaph boxes that I built for the HiVi's and the TB's sounds really good in these cabinets. |
|
|
| planet10 |
I started with the 871s and moved to the Auras,,, i think they are quite a bit better.
dave |
|
|
| type |
| Really? Even though they only go to 15khz? |
|
|
| planet10 |
They go as high as the TBs and smoother... they also have quite a bit better LF and are generally less coloured.
dave |
|
|
| Geek |
Hi,
| quote: | Originally posted by happy.gringo
Wow Geek! Those are beautiful. I plan on using Aura NT1-204-8D tweeters. The ones Zaph tested recently. What if I stick with 6khz for crossover, but just use a standard linkwitz-riley second order from one of the online calculators for the front NS3 and tweeter and leave the rear NS3 fullrange? |
Thank you much! :)
I didn't try a L-R crossover. Give it a whirl. I'd be interested in hearing your results!
The standard crossovers are definately easier to design from experience. I tried a series crossover spreadsheet and online calulator.... bah! Breadboard it, sweep it, swap parts, sweep again ad nauseum until it's right :D |
|
|
| type |
| quote: | Originally posted by planet10
They go as high as the TBs and smoother... they also have quite a bit better LF and are generally less coloured.
dave |
I may have to try them. Any difference between the black and silver version? |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by type
Any difference between the black and silver version? |
The colour ;)
dave |
|
|
| MarkMcK |
Hi all,
Sorry for the delay in responding so I may be out of sequence. I just cannot devote the time to diyaudio.com that some moderators are able to.
In response to my asking about high resolution tests of the NS transducer Dave suggested, Dave suggested the Zaph mini test site.
I do not want this to sound like a criticism. It is not. It is just that, as we all should know, not all testing is the same.
I have tested some of the same transducers as Zaph. Parts Express, during their high resolution days, used their CLIO system to test transducers they sold and that Zaph tested. It appears that Zaph shows only about one-half the magnitude resolution that I or Parts Express used to publish.
Just something to keep in mind when trying to use others' testing to choose a transducer. Also good to realize that Zaph doesn't seem to list transducers that are below average. Every transducer is good or better and usable. Here too, I tend to have higher minimum standards.
As to testimonial standards, there are too many personal testimonials for transducers and loudspeakers on diyaudio.com that I can't even listen to and certainly would not recommend. Just be careful when someone says, "I like the way this sounds" or "This sounds better than that."
I do not know if this helps for this thread, but I subscribe to something called rational choice theory. It is about making informed choices. It is based upon the availability of comparable data.
So, does anyone have high resolution test results of some of the transducers suggested in this thread. If so, would you post it? It might not help, but I cannot see how it would hurt the project.
Best to all,
Mark |
|
|
| MarkMcK |
I am a supporter of diy. For me, however, that means interdependence and not dependence. With interdependence you have a group of people capable of working independently who choose to work together. In contrast, with dependence, you have many who have to rely upon the few because they are incapable of working independently.
Now, I would prefer many diyaudio members capable of doing their own high resolution testing.
While I may be willing to do some testing for the benefit of bringing rational choice to this thread, if I do, the terms of that testing will be harsh. I only want to commit my billable hours if people are serious.
More details will follow, but what I would be looking at would be sender to pay for and complete shipping labels for both ways. In addition, I would not be responsible for any damage in shipping or testing. Further, without return postage or labels, I just won't be bothered and will do nothing.
I cannot say strongly how much I don't want to do this. If necessary, however, there may be a possibility.
Lastly, a reply to a real old post (number 16) that is a little off topic and this is really for Scott. There is a well documented acoustical/physics property that will interfere with effectively BL loading small diameter transducers. When this is in play, your mathematical (electrical) model may be less accurate than you think. If interested, contact me and I may be able to provide references.
Best to all,
Mark |
|
|
| MJK |
Mark,
"high resolution test results"
What do you mean by high resolution tests? Are you talking about computer based measurements over RS SPL meter measurements?
"There is a well documented acoustical/physics property that will interfere with effectively BL loading small diameter transducers. When this is in play, your mathematical (electrical) model may be less accurate than you think."
I am interested in this topic. Can you post or e-mail me a description or reference for this effect? |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
That's two of us -if you could post or email the description / reference, I'd be interested.
Best
Scott |
|
|
| soongsc |
| That makes three. At least present some example data to explain what the quantifiable differences are between what one calls high resolution and what others are providing, what equipment are used, and what the calibration standards are for the equipment. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkMcK
Could we please stay away from the just dumb luck school of modifying drivers? There are plenty of other threads for this. Sometimes what goes on in some of these threads and Web sites seems so irrational. Sorry, but just not my cup of tea.
Does anyone have high resolution measurements for some of the tranducers suggested? While I have not measured the particular NS driver mentioned, others using that same cone design have not been particularly desirable by my standards. Of course, I have really high standards for minimum performance.
I would be interested in trying to select a couple of price/performance points for possible transducers. But I would suggest we base this upon evidence and not just personal preference or outside economic interest.
Best to all,
Mark |
Could you sent me some of your data since I have also sent you mine in the past? |
|
|
| MarkMcK |
Still nothing on any of the transducers recommended to date.
I have a Web site where I look at "state of stock" and display what I call high resolution testing.
What George is talking about is sharing IR data. What he sent me was three IRs of his secret transducer modification project. Do you remember asking me to guess what you were doing? While I did not do that, I did talk to you about some strange errors in you IR response. Particularly that the data was not minimum phase.
I would gladly share an IR file with you George. If there is a transducer listed on my Web site that you would like to see the IR for, I will gladly send. I assume you still have my e-mail address.
Otherwise, as stated over and over I have both published and shared the results of my attempts at independent verification. One reason you publish is so you don't have to repeat yourself endlessly. I have also published numerous blurbs about transducer modification where I present classical comparative data (before and after) at high resolution.
I, at least, am still open to the possibilities. I have just asked that people try to verify the predictions made by the design models they use. Not much to ask for. Proportional response people. It is a good thing.
More on topic. Some idea of reference might include project performance boundaries or limits. For example, how loudly will it play.
I am using a three-inch transducer as a reference but am not recommending it for use here.
The transducer sensitivity for one watt one meter is 87.2 dB. Qts is 0.6326. Fo is just under 110 Hz and was verified by measurement.
Maximum average power is 12 watts for this transducer. Now, by measured verification I know that I can easily produce a small and simple enclosure that will produce an F3 of 120 Hz with no ripple. I also know that the manufacturer sets max cont power by distortion. When distortion reaches 5% at Fo that is max cont power.
Now, 5% is a little too high for me, but I will tolerate 3% at max cont power. While this is still arbitrary, since my F3 is 120 Hz, that is the frequency I am interested in. For this transducer, 3% F3 is reached for 10 watts continuous in at 120 Hz. One meter output is 97.2 dB.
Ten watts in at 120 Hz requires an excursion of 4.5 mm (or 9 mm peak to peak). This exceeds the transducers Xmax rating and is in part the cause of the distortion rise. This is, however, well within suspension max.
If you want to push the transducer to rated cont power max, then one meter output goes up to 98 db and 3% distortion point will be found at 122 Hz. Not far above the 120 Hz f3 point.
The transducer is also rated at 25 watts peak input. For this input, we produce a one meter sound level of 101.1 dB. Three percent distortion is pushed upward to 162 Hz.
What does this do for us? If this sound level (adjusted for how far away from the loudspeaker you sit) is acceptable, then one possibility for a very high performance system would be to cross at or a little above 120 Hz. Cross to a woofer or sub woofer system. An easy way to put one together would be to use a plate amp. There are affordable plate amps with fourth order low pass filters.
In a sealed enclosure the three-inch will acoustically roll off at 12 dB per octave. At a second order high pass filter and you will have symmetrical slopes. Preserve polarity. At fourth order, you should have acceptable to excellent stereo imaging. But you do not just have to take my word for it. If you decide to try this option you can verify or disprove it yourself.
If we use the plate amp, then it will be easy/simple to MFB the woofer. I suggest the simplest technique. I suggest not trying for more than 6 to 10 dB of feedback.
There is still work to do. We haven't come any closer to being able to rationally suggest a set of transducers at various price points to use in the project, regardless of the low frequency enclosure type. |
|
|
| soongsc |
I'm beginning to think what Mark refers to as "High Resolution" is basically unspmoothed data, high reresolution measurement based on MLS sample size and sample rate. Nothing out of the ordinary. Right Mark?
BTW, the new web site looks much better. |
|
|
| happy.gringo |
I ordered the Aura NT1-204-8D tweeters, and then I looked at the frequency response and saw the huge peak out past 20khz. That must be the problem that Dave was referring to.
I ordered parts to do 2nd order linkwitz-riley on both NS3 and NTI, crossing the front NS3 at 5khz (I used 25ohms to calculate, as that is what it looks like on the chart at that frequency) to level out that bump at 7khz. Then crossing the NT1 at 7.5 khz to get close to flat. I will run the rear NS3 fullrange and paint the cone first with acrylic triangles pointing to the center, and then a top coat of modge podge. As the rear driver is mainly used for baffle step, I hope this will dampen it a bit (yeah, I know Mark, but it is an experiment)
Yeah, I realize I should've run this past you guys before I made the order, which is already on the way to Costa Rica and too much of a pain in the #$% to send back.
Is there any way to deal with that huge peak out past 20khz and what will the audible effect be?
Thanks. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by happy.gringo
I ordered the Aura NT1-204-8D tweeters, and then I looked at the frequency response and saw the huge peak out past 20khz. That must be the problem that Dave was referring to.
I ordered parts to do 2nd order linkwitz-riley on both NS3 and NTI, crossing the front NS3 at 5khz (I used 25ohms to calculate, as that is what it looks like on the chart at that frequency) to level out that bump at 7khz. Then crossing the NT1 at 7.5 khz to get close to flat. I will run the rear NS3 fullrange and paint the cone first with acrylic triangles pointing to the center, and then a top coat of modge podge. As the rear driver is mainly used for baffle step, I hope this will dampen it a bit (yeah, I know Mark, but it is an experiment)
Yeah, I realize I should've run this past you guys before I made the order, which is already on the way to Costa Rica and too much of a pain in the #$% to send back.
Is there any way to deal with that huge peak out past 20khz and what will the audible effect be?
Thanks. |
Are Aura NT1-204-8D 3"full ranges? |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by soongsc
Are Aura NT1-204-8D 3"full ranges? |
1"metal dome tweeters.
dave |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by planet10
1"metal dome tweeters.
dave |
EnABL pattern can solve the problem above 20KHz quite well. The sound should be more focussed with more air. The frequency response will probably be extended. |
|
|
| happy.gringo |
| What if you put an 8 ohm resistor in series and then bypassed the tweeter with a 1uf capacitor. Would that send everything from around 20 k thru the cap and bypass the tweeter? |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by happy.gringo
What if you put an 8 ohm resistor in series and then bypassed the tweeter with a 1uf capacitor. Would that send everything from around 20 k thru the cap and bypass the tweeter? |
I haven't calculated it, but with this configuration, you lose sensitivity, lose the detail the driver is supposed to reproduce, and image focus as well as stage openess will be reduced somewhat. Some manufacturers put a mask in front of the driver to suppress this, and it causes the same reduction in performance.
I suspect that hump is cap resonance, if so, then that is where it needs to be optimally solved for best results. |
|
|
| happy.gringo |
Well, I do have two pairs coming, so maybe I will try to paint the little squares on one pair, even though the instructions say in big letters "Do not touch the dome!"
Is the pattern painted on the front down near the surround? |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by happy.gringo
Well, I do have two pairs coming, so maybe I will try to paint the little squares on one pair, even though the instructions say in big letters "Do not touch the dome!"
Is the pattern painted on the front down near the surround? |
Metal domes are easily denteted, and forever if so. So do it with care.
Best discussed at the EnABL thread. |
|
|
| chuck55 |
Nice to see MarkMcK back.
I would recommend this 4" unit, sorry they do not make 3".
4" Flex unit |
|
|
|
