I've heard that Wet Look is repackaged Mod Podge, but I cannot verify this with 100% certainty. Mod Podge is a PVA based sort of 'varnish'/adhesive intended originally for decoupage.
Polyurethane isn't terribly common as a cone treatment, but it is used. PHL comes to mind. It is my understanding that most of the coatings used by manufacturers for paper cones are either PVA or latex compounds.
Natural latex compounds have a tendency to stay sticky sometimes, so it could be that. Altec used to use a plasticized lacquer type stuff that stayed very sticky, but I'm pretty sure only on surrounds. I'd imagine many factory coatings are proprietary.
Polyurethane isn't terribly common as a cone treatment, but it is used. PHL comes to mind. It is my understanding that most of the coatings used by manufacturers for paper cones are either PVA or latex compounds.
Natural latex compounds have a tendency to stay sticky sometimes, so it could be that. Altec used to use a plasticized lacquer type stuff that stayed very sticky, but I'm pretty sure only on surrounds. I'd imagine many factory coatings are proprietary.
Last edited:
For those who think that a speaker's bad on-axis frequency response can be "fixed" by listening off axis, you might want to watch the latest work from Harman. I think you'll be extremely interested in this aswell XRK. Look's like Gainphile was ahead of his time.
Personally this is why i love full range drivers. No X-over to deal with, no problems.
Personally this is why i love full range drivers. No X-over to deal with, no problems.
You are welcome!
I have not gotten a chance to do an A/B testing on them so this is really subjective at this point. From what I have heard so far, I think I like the 10F/8424 better. It has a smoother mid range that makes vocals sound so lifelike and the sensitivity appears to be higher as well. I also like how the HF's sound on the 10F. I think a lot is wasted by having a phase plug vs a round dustcap that can act like a dome tweeter. I like both paper and fiberglass, but in the end, I find fiberglass to sound more dynamic and crisp.
Do you know "resin"? It comes with a hardener. With a little hardener, the resin will not harden and it will be sticky forever.
Good to hear! I was leaning towards purchasing the 10F from madisound anyway. I don't feel like importing a B80 lol. Not to mention the basket on the 10F is just gorgeous.
The only thing that concerns me is that the 10F madisound sells is the G-10 version vs. the G-00 that you measured. I hope the G-10 version sounds just as good.
I already have a pair of Fostex FF85WK's. Im currently still building my LM3875 Audiosector Gainclone Amp (with Elna Silmic II's and Naked Z-Foil Tx2575 resistors ($90 of resistors LOL) but once i get everything going and a pair of 10F's, ill let you know how they compare to the FF85wk's. Im already pretty certain the 10F's will sound better.
Last edited:
I believe 10F is better. I have compared XRK's music clip (Eric Clapton) for B80 and 10F. In real life I haven't heard a 10F. But objectively XRK can make some off-axis FR measurement. This is very important. The one with better directivity Index, or the one with smooth linear roll-off should be better.
Below is a screenshot of Toole's presentation posted above, where Toole mentioned that we may measure the wrong things, or that our measurement may not be comprehensive enough to cover the important things, but here suggested what is important.
Attachments
The 10F/8424G00 version is available at Madisound:
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...anspeak-discovery-10f/8424g-4-midrange-8-ohm/
Yeah 'the wet look' is basically just glossy acrylic paint from what I can tell, dries rock hard.
DI is not really important for a 3" full range because the only significant variation in DI is in the top octave - even if you have a point source the top octave or two will be attenuated substantially by the room. Where it would be important is if you plan to horn load the driver.
Last edited:
The stay-tacky stuff you are looking most likely is water based contact cement.
adhesives101
Type A4. It is also used in speaker repair to glue new surrounds into drivers.
adhesives101
Type A4. It is also used in speaker repair to glue new surrounds into drivers.
In the top octave, there is significant variation (very attenuated response), yes, but it is the reason it is not important. We're looking for SMOOTH pattern of POWER response. And that means more than just 30 degrees off-axis.
In the low octaves (below 200Hz), it is mostly determined by room response, so little we can control through speaker design (or driver design in FR case may be??)
So it is the midrange that will have irregular early reflection or directivity.
The whole idea is that in room listening we cannot avoid listening to the (early) reflections, so to make the perceived sound to sound good we want the reflected soundwave (which is a function of off-axis responses) matches the pattern of the on-axis (which is smooth/straight).
Attachments
Last edited:
True a good power response is desirable.
But is a flat on axis response always accompanied by a flat power response? I think not. Many cases exist where a rising on axis response produces a good flat off axis response and hence power response. This is how I understand many FR lovers use increased toe in to mitigate the rise but maintain a good power response.
I am also of the opinion that early reflections aren't good, especially ceiling and floor bounce. Due to increasing directivity at high freq I doubt much reflection occurs in the last octave.
But is a flat on axis response always accompanied by a flat power response? I think not. Many cases exist where a rising on axis response produces a good flat off axis response and hence power response. This is how I understand many FR lovers use increased toe in to mitigate the rise but maintain a good power response.
I am also of the opinion that early reflections aren't good, especially ceiling and floor bounce. Due to increasing directivity at high freq I doubt much reflection occurs in the last octave.
Last edited:
Do you have experience with 10F/8424 because think it perform over average talking power response when tuned to a flat on axis response.
Example if by DSP set A10.2 or TC9FD flat on axis at mic point in space then when listening off axis or in the door into the room one need to add a kind of smile profile EQ at 1 up to 3 HF octaves to get power response to sound natural right balanced, into this 10F is special set it flat on axis as mentioned above and it need no more attention regarding power response and sound very good balanced even standing in the door into room. I have no measurements to backup this percieved performance all is based my subjective experience but maybe xrk971 can comment upon this, but guess it not to perform perfect response off axis as on axis response but a profile that is better or pleasing than most. For me this point together with other good specs for 10F make the higher cost a lot more fair. For info all three drivers mentioned above was setup as FAST systems.
This is my personal take on why fullrangers work so well:
1. We know from work from Harman that the flatter the speaker measures, the better it will do in subjective blind listening tests. With fullrangers now measuring incredibly flat like the 10F and B80, this is a non-issue.
2. Inductors, Capacators, and Resistors are imperfect and all create various distortions and power losses in crossovers. Theoretically, there could be very low level signal/ "detail" that comes out of your amplifier, but is wasted and converted to heat in the crossover before ever reaching the speaker driver.
3. Any sound from speakers coming from more than one location is confusing for the brain to interpret. (Multiple drivers, delayed horn output, ect).
4. This is the biggest one and i saved for last- "For frequencies below 800 Hz, mainly interaural time differences are evaluated (phase delays), for frequencies above 1600 Hz mainly interaural level differences are evaluated. Between 800 Hz and 1600 Hz there is a transition zone, where both mechanisms play a role." - Wiki
"The fundamental frequency for speech ( f0) is typically 100 to 400 Hz. For singing, the range may be from about 60 Hz to over 1500 Hz"-Source
We can deduce from this that from 80-1600hz that we want as little change as possible in speaker radiation pattern (to keep room interaction/phase the same) and we want as little phase change as possible (no x-over or use phase perfect x-over). Basically we can assume that this frequency range is *the* most critical range for audio reproduction. Now the question is, how small of a driver do we need to use to stay relatively omnidirectional up to 1600hz?
At 5" Ka=2= 1700hz
At 4" Ka=2= 2123hz
At 3" Ka=2= 2843hz
At 2" Ka=2= 4262hz
-Source
So for the best sound quality possible, we want to use speaker drivers that measure optimally flat from 80hz to 1600hz on axis with a size below 5'' to obtain optimal phase performance and so what we hear from the room reflects the on-axis response.
In my opinion, sense frequencies above 1600hz are localized in the human auditory system by level differences, the beaming of fullrange drivers is a non-issue above this frequency. The driver beaming reduces room related distortions and creates a more direct path to the ear. The reason this doesn't sound bad like a crossover with a poor design, is that the transition from k=0 to beaming is smooth and consistent. There is no tweeter crossed at 2khz that is suddnely Omni where the 8" driver it is crossed with is beaming.
1. We know from work from Harman that the flatter the speaker measures, the better it will do in subjective blind listening tests. With fullrangers now measuring incredibly flat like the 10F and B80, this is a non-issue.
2. Inductors, Capacators, and Resistors are imperfect and all create various distortions and power losses in crossovers. Theoretically, there could be very low level signal/ "detail" that comes out of your amplifier, but is wasted and converted to heat in the crossover before ever reaching the speaker driver.
3. Any sound from speakers coming from more than one location is confusing for the brain to interpret. (Multiple drivers, delayed horn output, ect).
4. This is the biggest one and i saved for last- "For frequencies below 800 Hz, mainly interaural time differences are evaluated (phase delays), for frequencies above 1600 Hz mainly interaural level differences are evaluated. Between 800 Hz and 1600 Hz there is a transition zone, where both mechanisms play a role." - Wiki
"The fundamental frequency for speech ( f0) is typically 100 to 400 Hz. For singing, the range may be from about 60 Hz to over 1500 Hz"-Source
We can deduce from this that from 80-1600hz that we want as little change as possible in speaker radiation pattern (to keep room interaction/phase the same) and we want as little phase change as possible (no x-over or use phase perfect x-over). Basically we can assume that this frequency range is *the* most critical range for audio reproduction. Now the question is, how small of a driver do we need to use to stay relatively omnidirectional up to 1600hz?
At 5" Ka=2= 1700hz
At 4" Ka=2= 2123hz
At 3" Ka=2= 2843hz
At 2" Ka=2= 4262hz
-Source
So for the best sound quality possible, we want to use speaker drivers that measure optimally flat from 80hz to 1600hz on axis with a size below 5'' to obtain optimal phase performance and so what we hear from the room reflects the on-axis response.
In my opinion, sense frequencies above 1600hz are localized in the human auditory system by level differences, the beaming of fullrange drivers is a non-issue above this frequency. The driver beaming reduces room related distortions and creates a more direct path to the ear. The reason this doesn't sound bad like a crossover with a poor design, is that the transition from k=0 to beaming is smooth and consistent. There is no tweeter crossed at 2khz that is suddnely Omni where the 8" driver it is crossed with is beaming.
Last edited:
Good discussions on directivity. I have found that 5in drivers are substantially more "beamy" than 3.5in and thus benefit hugely from an acoustic lens like the Karlson aperture which produces a very wide angular smooth response. This is one reason why I keep going back to the Karlsonator as one of my favorite speakers despite its issues with some dips in the frequency response as a result of the lens. A Dayton PA130-8 5in full range driver sounds much much better in a Karlsonator than bare faced for this reason. Even with 4in drivers the K aperture can significantly improve the polar directivity by broadening it substantially. Basically all the way up to 10kHz there is less than 5dB variation over 60deg angle.
Here is what a K aperture can do for a Dayton RS100-4 polar response:
The other way to improve sound of a full range driver that everyone should try at some point because it is very significant is to put a front horn on it to control the directivity and reduce effects of early reflections from walls, floor and ceiling. The sound from a 3.5in full range like a TC9FD or 3FE22 behind a tractrix horn and crossed with a woofer below 400Hz is in a word, magical. It is a sound that is literally stunning and when you first hear it, it's like watching HD TV for the first time. We all remember that experience. The horn achieves this controlled directivity that make the full range driver crystal clear. Furthermore, the horn loading reduces cone motion to tens of micrometers, thus, HD related to cone motion is vanishingly small for normal SPL levels in the sub 90dB range. When I first heard my Trynergy speakers it was an epiphany and I was stopped in my tracks.http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...ing-trynergy-full-range-tractrix-synergy.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...ing-trynergy-full-range-tractrix-synergy.html
Here is what a K aperture can do for a Dayton RS100-4 polar response:
The other way to improve sound of a full range driver that everyone should try at some point because it is very significant is to put a front horn on it to control the directivity and reduce effects of early reflections from walls, floor and ceiling. The sound from a 3.5in full range like a TC9FD or 3FE22 behind a tractrix horn and crossed with a woofer below 400Hz is in a word, magical. It is a sound that is literally stunning and when you first hear it, it's like watching HD TV for the first time. We all remember that experience. The horn achieves this controlled directivity that make the full range driver crystal clear. Furthermore, the horn loading reduces cone motion to tens of micrometers, thus, HD related to cone motion is vanishingly small for normal SPL levels in the sub 90dB range. When I first heard my Trynergy speakers it was an epiphany and I was stopped in my tracks.http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...ing-trynergy-full-range-tractrix-synergy.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...ing-trynergy-full-range-tractrix-synergy.html
Last edited:
Lack of time prevents me. It will be similar sounding to a TC9FD and since cone motion is small not sure how big of a benefit. Although motor is substantially more powerful perhaps I will hear a difference. Need to make a front bezel adapter to prevent surround from hitting the throat flange. Just need to connect to amp and reload miniDSP settings for Trynergy and go from there. Currently deep in another project at moment - still in modeling phase but taking a lot of time. Just enjoying my 10F's in their current RS225 FAST boxes with any new music I can throw at it.
New Diana Krall "Wallflower" CD where she does covers of old classics is quite superb sounding on 10F's.
The resolution and low distortion coupled with the Harsch XO sounds wonderful.
New Diana Krall "Wallflower" CD where she does covers of old classics is quite superb sounding on 10F's.
The resolution and low distortion coupled with the Harsch XO sounds wonderful.
Xaborus,
You say what I mean, but in a far more eloquent way, and also with some numbers
From what you cite it seems that a 4-5" driver will nicely fulfill the requirement for minimal change in radiation angle in the range up to 1600Hz. The narrowing of radiation beyond 2k would seem to help reduce room artifacts, which I feel is a huge benefit.
My take on all of this is that the 5" may beam more,and hence reduce spurious room reflection better. I cannot imagine that remaining largely omnidirectional beyond 5k is of benefit (unless you live in a field with no boundaries, in which case it would be superior)
You say what I mean, but in a far more eloquent way, and also with some numbers
From what you cite it seems that a 4-5" driver will nicely fulfill the requirement for minimal change in radiation angle in the range up to 1600Hz. The narrowing of radiation beyond 2k would seem to help reduce room artifacts, which I feel is a huge benefit.
My take on all of this is that the 5" may beam more,and hence reduce spurious room reflection better. I cannot imagine that remaining largely omnidirectional beyond 5k is of benefit (unless you live in a field with no boundaries, in which case it would be superior)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.