I've known folks who do this, but a scope's amplified metal rod really highlights even subtle changes whereas fingernails tend to damp them, or maybe I just need it due to my ~lifelong tinnitus. Well, me and some others have doped them to make them even brighter, though for damping I knead some of the starch out of them.
GM
GM
GM - So you're actually putting the metal rod of the stethoscope on the cone? Tapping it against the cone? Or playing white noise and listening to it thru the scope as you move from dustcap to surround?
I'm still not sure what to listen for re: whizzer cone oddities... sounds pretty good to me, especially with the plate lens in place and maybe a little eq at the top and bottom ends. I guess I'd need something higher end to demo it against to be able to hear any differences, like the aforementioned Altec 604 perhaps. My ears just don't seem to be programmed to pick out as much detail as some of you- it just sounds good or it doesn't.. very scientific eh?
It compares favorably against my yamaha 3 way bookshelf speakers (8" woofer), but thats maybe not the best comparison. Slightly more punch. Sounds bigger and more open. Female vocals especially sound better. Sometimes the point source thing is noticeable and sounds better. And boy is it loud, lol.
Freddy, I still need to try the klam style lens, a few more variations of plate type lenses, and I can try the cover type with flower cutout too at some point.. Not enough time it seems...
I'm still not sure what to listen for re: whizzer cone oddities... sounds pretty good to me, especially with the plate lens in place and maybe a little eq at the top and bottom ends. I guess I'd need something higher end to demo it against to be able to hear any differences, like the aforementioned Altec 604 perhaps. My ears just don't seem to be programmed to pick out as much detail as some of you- it just sounds good or it doesn't.. very scientific eh?
It compares favorably against my yamaha 3 way bookshelf speakers (8" woofer), but thats maybe not the best comparison. Slightly more punch. Sounds bigger and more open. Female vocals especially sound better. Sometimes the point source thing is noticeable and sounds better. And boy is it loud, lol.
Freddy, I still need to try the klam style lens, a few more variations of plate type lenses, and I can try the cover type with flower cutout too at some point.. Not enough time it seems...
Last edited:
"beam blocker" 12" Beam Blocker (5" Dome)
re:18 xover - about 1200 sometimes - one of my faves - 18 in a small K topped with a Smith distributed source horn
- that same 18 did not sound so good as a direct radiator - it was made like a "big K12". That 18 sounded poor until I opened the gap up to 1.125" - perhaps opening the aperture up somewhere else would have had the same effect. There was no significant difference a microphone could see at 1/24 octave resolution - so this sort of stuff has to be done "by ear". I suspect its due to such a large and varying radiating area with a tapered aperture.
(I know stuff like a K would give those trying to avoid diffraction, etc. a heart attack - lol)
Eminence 18 with 4" coil - you can see the 18 aperture wise is about a 6" wide driver right above the dustcap area and a 4" wide driver by its frame. I later "raised" the wings and added a 20L chamber to the top of front chamber. Raising the wings really didn't help - it was fine as in that picture. The chamber lowered a peak, did some smoothing, and gave a bit more on the bottom. (It had no deep bass but what it had was satisfying)
here's a K18 with a little slotted pipe and generic network - audio - curved upper panel
YouTube
re:18 xover - about 1200 sometimes - one of my faves - 18 in a small K topped with a Smith distributed source horn
- that same 18 did not sound so good as a direct radiator - it was made like a "big K12". That 18 sounded poor until I opened the gap up to 1.125" - perhaps opening the aperture up somewhere else would have had the same effect. There was no significant difference a microphone could see at 1/24 octave resolution - so this sort of stuff has to be done "by ear". I suspect its due to such a large and varying radiating area with a tapered aperture.
(I know stuff like a K would give those trying to avoid diffraction, etc. a heart attack - lol)
Eminence 18 with 4" coil - you can see the 18 aperture wise is about a 6" wide driver right above the dustcap area and a 4" wide driver by its frame. I later "raised" the wings and added a 20L chamber to the top of front chamber. Raising the wings really didn't help - it was fine as in that picture. The chamber lowered a peak, did some smoothing, and gave a bit more on the bottom. (It had no deep bass but what it had was satisfying)
here's a K18 with a little slotted pipe and generic network - audio - curved upper panel
YouTube
Last edited:
While beam blockers will disperse more highs off-axis they will kill the highs on-axis.
A sphere with solid surface most certainly will. But maybe a sphere with holes in the surface will not
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.