So, I really can't see how the Nautilus type enclosure would be modelled differently from sharp turning corners. Certainly would like to see examples showing the differences. Without knowing the detailed concepts, nor examples demonstrating how these variiations will show up in a simulation, I certainly won't just trust such simple intruduction, the trap is, is the limitation right where you don't want it to be. In sales, they will tell you software can do many things that makes it sound like it's what you want, if you get into the actual process of applying it, you find that the limitations really don't give you any benefit at all to explore new methods.EnclosureShop - Enclosure Modeling
Bottom of page:
"Chambers can be represented using either a non-reflective lumped parameter model or a transmission line model which includes reflections. The primary parameter of importance here is Vab. A shape is always involved to facilitate the computation of the chamber volume.
A chamber can also include a portion of its volume occupied by a fibrous filling material. Parameters are provided for the type of media, density of media, and the percentage of volume filled. The material is used to absorb internal reflections."
Note the "transmission line model" is not limited to transmission lines (..as we think of them).
I don't know if fiber-filler density can be varied within a single chamber or not. That's pretty important IMO (especially for a closed acoustic labyrinth).
So, I really can't see how the Nautilus type enclosure would be modelled differently from sharp turning corners. Certainly would like to see examples showing the differences. Without knowing the detailed concepts, nor examples demonstrating how these variiations will show up in a simulation, I certainly won't just trust such simple intruduction, the trap is, is the limitation right where you don't want it to be. In sales, they will tell you software can do many things that makes it sound like it's what you want, if you get into the actual process of applying it, you find that the limitations really don't give you any benefit at all to explore new methods.
And sometimes the designer will say something like "why do you need that? No one needs that".. Myopic fools. 😀
You can always ask. 😉
Plus a few people here on this thread seem to have EnclosureShop.. and the documentation behind the program (at least in length) is Light-years better than Soundeasy.
Dan
What specifically are you doing? Sorry if you already went through this, but a short review would help. Your results are quite amazing. One thing to check is stability over time. This has been an achiles heal of these techniques over the years. A lot of that stuiff dries and hardens over time and the results are worse than what you started with.
That is my fear. I don't worry about the PVA stuff, but the fabric glue makes me nervous. Unfortunately only time will tell as it doesn't seem anyone else had tried this in this application. Worst case scenario I've lost time and learned that cones can be much better behaved then many manufacturer's are trying to make. I looked for information on its durability after I did the initial testing, but couldn't find anything. I know its cousin is still working well 20 years later on my train set, but that' a different glue and environment. If I have to recone/resurround, well, worse things have happened. The speakers were all useless to begin with. The original surround material was only good for seven years to begin with.
Dan
Last edited:
Well, everyone has their own criteria how they want to spend their money.😀And sometimes the designer will say something like "why do you need that? No one needs that".. Myopic fools. 😀
You can always ask. 😉
Plus a few people here on this thread seem to have EnclosureShop.. and the documentation behind the program (at least in length) is Light-years better than Soundeasy.
Another installment after just more cone treatment(no surround):
Man do I wish I could see some data on "enable" and C34 or I believe it is called.
It would be nice to make a direct comparison. You got to wonder if the time, difficulty and/or price of those modifications is worth it. There are certainly cheap, easy and effective ways of damping a paper cone.
Dan 🙂

Man do I wish I could see some data on "enable" and C34 or I believe it is called.

Dan 🙂
The question of time.
one driver over the initial curing as of June 9,2010:
Same driver in slightly different measuring conditions today June 22, 2010:
Prior to any treatment:
The Mod Podge Hard Coat still has 2 more weeks prior to full cure where the Aleen's is beyond its stated curing time. Hmmm, what's going to happen?
Dan
one driver over the initial curing as of June 9,2010:



Same driver in slightly different measuring conditions today June 22, 2010:



Prior to any treatment:



The Mod Podge Hard Coat still has 2 more weeks prior to full cure where the Aleen's is beyond its stated curing time. Hmmm, what's going to happen?
Dan
Last edited:
Man, those are pretty impressive changes do you know how they sound before and after? I remember John Janowitz @ AE speakers doing some cone treatements on a PHL driver a long time ago. I also know that he builds and treats his drivers, You might want to ask him what he uses on his drivers.
Man, those are pretty impressive changes do you know how they sound before and after?
I have been treating paper cone drivers with puzzlecoat (PVA) for nigh on 35 years with generally positive sonic results.
dave
Wouldn't it be nice to know exactly what PVA formulation AE uses? Of course the cone profile material/suspension has quite a bit to do with it. Doug, you have AE drivers. Are the cones themselves treated, or just the surrounds?
Doug, I just read the ret of your post. Maybe I should ask him. Actually, I think I'll just end up buying some AE drivers. I wish they had larger VCs though. However, the end result is difficult to argue with esp for home use.
Doug, I just read the ret of your post. Maybe I should ask him. Actually, I think I'll just end up buying some AE drivers. I wish they had larger VCs though. However, the end result is difficult to argue with esp for home use.
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be nice to know exactly what PVA formulation AE uses? Of course the cone profile material/suspension has quite a bit to do with it. Doug, you have AE drivers. Are the cones themselves treated, or just the surrounds?
Doug, I just read the ret of your post. Maybe I should ask him. Actually, I think I'll just end up buying some AE drivers. I wish they had larger VCs though. However, the end result is difficult to argue with esp for home use.
What, seriously, would larger voice coils bring to the table?
Wouldn't it be nice to know exactly what PVA formulation AE uses? Of course the cone profile material/suspension has quite a bit to do with it. Doug, you have AE drivers. Are the cones themselves treated, or just the surrounds?
Doug, I just read the ret of your post. Maybe I should ask him. Actually, I think I'll just end up buying some AE drivers. I wish they had larger VCs though. However, the end result is difficult to argue with esp for home use.
The cones are treated. I believe John's drivers have to be waterproof since they are used in live sound designs.
I have to ask why do you think the VCs are that small? John's drivers are used more in live events then they are in home...there isnt a VC issue here. John could answer that though.
before, terrible. After, not so good. right now, about the same. Ha Ha--seriously.
Dan
😀
So measurements look nice now but not so great sound though. 😎
I have been treating paper cone drivers with puzzlecoat (PVA) for nigh on 35 years with generally positive sonic results.
dave
No doubt, I have read several custom builds where the drivers had been treated to get the desired performance.
I think Nick used adhesives and coatings from this Co. (for his Lambda drivers):
C.P. Moyen Products - Adhesives, Thinners, Solvents, Epoxies
C.P. Moyen Products - Adhesives, Thinners, Solvents, Epoxies
Wouldn't it be nice to know exactly what PVA formulation AE uses?
I wouldn't be surprised if John was using something more exotic like BL100.
dave
😀
So measurements look nice now but not so great sound though. 😎
Those measurements still don't look nice 😎--at least by my standards and I'd bet most people's. The low end response is the low end response no matter the gate. IOW there is no bass. At 300Hz it drops like a stone. The rising response is also less than pleasant. There's plenty more ugliness to discuss in those responses, but you get the drift. Those things are easily audible and not in a pleasant way. Yea, the driver improved, but usefulness is still pretty low overall.
The reason I'd like a larger coil is mostly to do with power handling/power compression. I know, there have been measures taken in AE drivers to improve the small coil in that regard, it just makes me wonder if the 2.5" coil can actually hang with a 4". Is it really the ultimate performer? It would be nice to see what they could do in exact conditions with some of the 4" coiled pro drivers in that regard. It's certainly not a make or break thing for home use. It's more of just a "nice to have" so you feel like you paid for the ultimate performer in every way. Many people certainly get by with motors that won't do nearly what the AE are surely capable of in the home. Even my Eminence show no sign of giving out in the home at high volumes and it's motor is nothing to write home about. So yea, in all reality, it's a non issue for us. That small coil may well make life easier and thus more of a positive for the DIY guy. So it's just on a wish, not need list for me. Be careful what you wish for.😉
Thanks Scott for the C.P Moyen site.
Dan
Bl100?
Pulled from a long ago memory. Might not be right, but i now recall more. Lord's BL100
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Multi-Way
- Measurements: When, What, How, Why