Jer-
Gimme a day or two- The cool stuff is on my desktop PC - somewhere. For you impatient types, search for loudspeaker repair parts/components in Google. The guy in AZ does custom work on voice coils and formers. He also does edge wound coils (sorry Dale). I'll post his link when I find it.
There are dozens of sources that sell surrounds, spiders and voicecoil assemblies out there.
Gimme a day or two- The cool stuff is on my desktop PC - somewhere. For you impatient types, search for loudspeaker repair parts/components in Google. The guy in AZ does custom work on voice coils and formers. He also does edge wound coils (sorry Dale). I'll post his link when I find it.
There are dozens of sources that sell surrounds, spiders and voicecoil assemblies out there.
whos approach? Yes I stated that it would be a break down and clone as close as possible to the German physics unit I think Ive done pretty well in a short time.
What type of edge wound? can he do custom coils to spec and in low quantities? if so are his prices reasonable?
Last edited:
Mags...Beautiful! Before you do any extra work, let me see what I can do with your posted jpg's, esp. the second (side elevation). What's the height of the support post(s), so I can scale the image. Everything else should fall into line with that....
Glo, no rush....if we were in a hurry, we'd be there already, right? 😉 As for custom coils to spec, any protos will likely be pricey. Anything out of the ordinary usually goes there, and we're not discussing the typ. vc....
"Hi, we want something that'll withstand meltdowns...." I'm being facetious, but Really... Before launching into any queries from any vendor, it's appropo to have a shopping list. I know I'm stating the obvious, but we've just had a vendor on a project double their price on a pivotal part of same that triggered a 'WTF' moment. (Best guess: they forgot to either get a firm price on a item, or they neglected to include their labor. OK....who's supposed to 'eat' that? Us? The client? The architect? Obviously, they don't want to....)
Just one of those 'reality check' moments....not to toss ice water into anyone's BVD's, but it's better to be specific before burning a vendor's time. We've learned to 'vent' our clients...anyone asking me what they can get for a playground for 500$ gets "Parts. No install, no freight, no slides, no climbers."
I got asked, years ago, by an architect is I could create a slide out of bamboo.
"Sure, it's doable. It'll be the first one that I know of. Nothing about it will be 'off the shelf' though, and it'll likely be expensive."
End of discussion.
That's an 'apples vs. oranges' example, to be truthful, But....it'd be best to investigate what's available 'off the shelf', and adapt to that. Calling on Mags endeavour to duplicate a MBL midrange...as successful as it is (Major Backpat, my friend 😉...)...it would behove taking time to see what existing could be 'commandeered' to achieve what we're considering...
*G* I love the excitement I see between the lines here. It's what I'd hoped to see occur. I just want to keep our feet on the ground, in a rare moment of practicality from yours truly.
It's always more of a challenge to take the existing and make it do something Different.
I've stated, often enough to illicit yawns, that I'm one cheap SOB. *L* (If not, I'd be that snot driving a Tesla in 'Ludacris' mode Constantly, just Because...)
The reason I hack up existing junk is that is what I can afford to do. Short of launching into a 'net funding scenario' where the investors expect Progress (ie, $), that's where I'm stuck for the time being. Just to lay the cards on the table...
I don't believe in 'disposable income'. I don't 'dispose' of that which I work too hard for. I suspect y'all are of the same ilk. We all like 'bang for the buck'.
I don't want to be the party pooper, But... All the advice I've been exposed to says to 'know where you want to go before you go there'. So it may be advantageous to define What is wanted in some detail before seeking 'professional help'. And, having that, What do we want to Do with that? I was asked that question awhile ago...
Not to be funny, but....
If you have the Answers....what Question are you seeking?
Glo, no rush....if we were in a hurry, we'd be there already, right? 😉 As for custom coils to spec, any protos will likely be pricey. Anything out of the ordinary usually goes there, and we're not discussing the typ. vc....
"Hi, we want something that'll withstand meltdowns...." I'm being facetious, but Really... Before launching into any queries from any vendor, it's appropo to have a shopping list. I know I'm stating the obvious, but we've just had a vendor on a project double their price on a pivotal part of same that triggered a 'WTF' moment. (Best guess: they forgot to either get a firm price on a item, or they neglected to include their labor. OK....who's supposed to 'eat' that? Us? The client? The architect? Obviously, they don't want to....)
Just one of those 'reality check' moments....not to toss ice water into anyone's BVD's, but it's better to be specific before burning a vendor's time. We've learned to 'vent' our clients...anyone asking me what they can get for a playground for 500$ gets "Parts. No install, no freight, no slides, no climbers."
I got asked, years ago, by an architect is I could create a slide out of bamboo.
"Sure, it's doable. It'll be the first one that I know of. Nothing about it will be 'off the shelf' though, and it'll likely be expensive."
End of discussion.
That's an 'apples vs. oranges' example, to be truthful, But....it'd be best to investigate what's available 'off the shelf', and adapt to that. Calling on Mags endeavour to duplicate a MBL midrange...as successful as it is (Major Backpat, my friend 😉...)...it would behove taking time to see what existing could be 'commandeered' to achieve what we're considering...
*G* I love the excitement I see between the lines here. It's what I'd hoped to see occur. I just want to keep our feet on the ground, in a rare moment of practicality from yours truly.
It's always more of a challenge to take the existing and make it do something Different.
I've stated, often enough to illicit yawns, that I'm one cheap SOB. *L* (If not, I'd be that snot driving a Tesla in 'Ludacris' mode Constantly, just Because...)
The reason I hack up existing junk is that is what I can afford to do. Short of launching into a 'net funding scenario' where the investors expect Progress (ie, $), that's where I'm stuck for the time being. Just to lay the cards on the table...
I don't believe in 'disposable income'. I don't 'dispose' of that which I work too hard for. I suspect y'all are of the same ilk. We all like 'bang for the buck'.
I don't want to be the party pooper, But... All the advice I've been exposed to says to 'know where you want to go before you go there'. So it may be advantageous to define What is wanted in some detail before seeking 'professional help'. And, having that, What do we want to Do with that? I was asked that question awhile ago...
Not to be funny, but....
If you have the Answers....what Question are you seeking?
*L* Nothing 'quick' about my 'quick replies', is there? 😉
Switching to PM's at this point might be a good idea....seriously...
Switching to PM's at this point might be a good idea....seriously...
Thanks Jerry partly why my project had taken so long is just to disperse the cost over a longer time period sure Im "disposing" of it but I've truly learned a crap ton as you can tell through my thread that is all real progress from a paper model using ms-paint to a fully built near mbl quality driver and a complete exact 3d model with realistic rendering. I've hinted before the group here m must define what they want for without definition we don't have direction. It doesn't have to be publicly stated but everyone should know what theirs is. For me it is replication for even reverse engineering leads to education and a discovery of principles
OK, sorry, My over-sight. Yes, I believe statement of intention is paramount. I guess that is what I was fishing for...But, I see that you posted that in post# 487.
I admit, I was projecting that you were cloning for the mere sake of cosmetics...😉
I'm interested in controlling wave velocity over an extended range of frequencies. I don't think a straight-sided cone of uniform modulus and density is the way to go (I might be wrong).
Of coarse, and I haven't define that. But, I think it will be more than a straight-sided, uniform density, modulus, and thickness cone will provide.
My goal is to find a cure for irony....among others...
Thanks, Mags. Personally, I'm 'in it' for the challenge of making a set of drivers that I couldn't afford to buy from GP, much like your MBL clone quest. I'd like them to approach the sound qualities and response of the GP units, and have their own sort of 'functional beauty' that can hark to my 'steampunk' comments earlier on.
I've got some ideas about using an array of drivers, much like my current set of 4, to play about with how an array functions in any space, not just my current 'playground'. Linkwitz has noted at his site to 'ignore the room' and focus on response, if I read his material more or less correctly. I admire his Pluto units, but feel that a Walsh type driver is more my 'cup of tea', if you will.
In the back of my head is a thought I've been toying with...anyone who has heard my units would like a pair, flawed as they are. Eventually, probably sooner than I'd like to consider, this old dog won't be able to sling lumber about with his current verve and speed. Spouse certainly agrees with that observation, and doesn't care for the minor damage I collect in the process. But I'm not the sort or of the mind to go sit in the park and paintball the pigeons, either. *L* (Someone would complain...even if they didn't like them...*smirk*)
So maybe do a 'limited production', much like HHR. Web sales only, keep the price(s) at a level that one doesn't have to choose between a pair or sending the offspring to college, replacing the car, or the like.
Newform speakers (Home) is a model that I've known about and admired, and liked their prices and approach to the market. So there's a potential path to be considered. It's a long ways off before I'd consider it in a more serious fashion, but it's a pleasant pipe dream for the moment....
As for your drawings, I considered them for study and discussion of their (GP's) approach. I find our various clones more interesting, and we certainly learn more from them then trying to do an outright copy.
As for 'extended', I read that as finding the limits of what various materials and combinations of construction approaches yield. I'm interested in refining my approach of a '2 way' unit (Mid of approx. the same basic size I'm running with a 'Infinity' styled tweet) mated to a subwoofer. It works fairly well IMHO with what I'm running now; I'd just like to make it Better. *G*
That, and I suspect that some day I'll have 4 small columns of smoke to contemplate. The "Yep, that was Too Loud Too Long" scenario. 😉
Thanks, Mags. Personally, I'm 'in it' for the challenge of making a set of drivers that I couldn't afford to buy from GP, much like your MBL clone quest. I'd like them to approach the sound qualities and response of the GP units, and have their own sort of 'functional beauty' that can hark to my 'steampunk' comments earlier on.
I've got some ideas about using an array of drivers, much like my current set of 4, to play about with how an array functions in any space, not just my current 'playground'. Linkwitz has noted at his site to 'ignore the room' and focus on response, if I read his material more or less correctly. I admire his Pluto units, but feel that a Walsh type driver is more my 'cup of tea', if you will.
In the back of my head is a thought I've been toying with...anyone who has heard my units would like a pair, flawed as they are. Eventually, probably sooner than I'd like to consider, this old dog won't be able to sling lumber about with his current verve and speed. Spouse certainly agrees with that observation, and doesn't care for the minor damage I collect in the process. But I'm not the sort or of the mind to go sit in the park and paintball the pigeons, either. *L* (Someone would complain...even if they didn't like them...*smirk*)
So maybe do a 'limited production', much like HHR. Web sales only, keep the price(s) at a level that one doesn't have to choose between a pair or sending the offspring to college, replacing the car, or the like.
Newform speakers (Home) is a model that I've known about and admired, and liked their prices and approach to the market. So there's a potential path to be considered. It's a long ways off before I'd consider it in a more serious fashion, but it's a pleasant pipe dream for the moment....
As for your drawings, I considered them for study and discussion of their (GP's) approach. I find our various clones more interesting, and we certainly learn more from them then trying to do an outright copy.
As for 'extended', I read that as finding the limits of what various materials and combinations of construction approaches yield. I'm interested in refining my approach of a '2 way' unit (Mid of approx. the same basic size I'm running with a 'Infinity' styled tweet) mated to a subwoofer. It works fairly well IMHO with what I'm running now; I'd just like to make it Better. *G*
That, and I suspect that some day I'll have 4 small columns of smoke to contemplate. The "Yep, that was Too Loud Too Long" scenario. 😉
I am referring to lowering the coincidence frequency as much as possible, say 100 hz. It's something to shoot for, just a goal.
In retro; a straight-sided cone might work, it's all I have right now, much easier to fabricate.
*L* When I read 'straight-sided cone', a cylinder keeps popping up in my head....but I've just been working too much of late, so excuse me. 😉
Plugging 114 mm into the drawing (the second one, the elevation) and switching the mm to inches yields a vc of 1.5" dia., a base dia. of 3.5", and a cone height of 3.5"; 75 deg. slope.
My original cones were/are 1" top, 3" bottom, 5" height, also at 75 deg. Not too bad for a wild guesstimate, I guess. *G* Only 14.3% off, if one compensates for the larger vc.
The 'squareness' of the base dia. and the height is intriguing. Is it some analogue of a 'golden ratio' that Dick of the DDD came upon in his development of the GP driver? The choice of an 1.5" dia. vc allows for a more powerful and robust 'motor', but the 'high end' would be lowered. The smaller diameter of the base would 'build in' a higher 'cut off' point in the range.
I've noticed in listening to my larger array (1" vc, 5" base, 7" h.) that the high's are 'there', but are subdued. I ascribe this to the 5 mil alum, which would be harder to excite to create them. The sub is currently set at a +/- 150 hz cut-off, which seems to mate well with them. A lucky coincidence? Perhaps...
I've Really got to try some different cone materials...
I'd clone myself, but I know I'd just get into arguments over 'who' would get to 'play' with all this....*sheesh*whine*grumble*
Plugging 114 mm into the drawing (the second one, the elevation) and switching the mm to inches yields a vc of 1.5" dia., a base dia. of 3.5", and a cone height of 3.5"; 75 deg. slope.
My original cones were/are 1" top, 3" bottom, 5" height, also at 75 deg. Not too bad for a wild guesstimate, I guess. *G* Only 14.3% off, if one compensates for the larger vc.
The 'squareness' of the base dia. and the height is intriguing. Is it some analogue of a 'golden ratio' that Dick of the DDD came upon in his development of the GP driver? The choice of an 1.5" dia. vc allows for a more powerful and robust 'motor', but the 'high end' would be lowered. The smaller diameter of the base would 'build in' a higher 'cut off' point in the range.
I've noticed in listening to my larger array (1" vc, 5" base, 7" h.) that the high's are 'there', but are subdued. I ascribe this to the 5 mil alum, which would be harder to excite to create them. The sub is currently set at a +/- 150 hz cut-off, which seems to mate well with them. A lucky coincidence? Perhaps...
I've Really got to try some different cone materials...
I'd clone myself, but I know I'd just get into arguments over 'who' would get to 'play' with all this....*sheesh*whine*grumble*
Oh, yeah...dimensions are nominal. I can take it out to 3 figures behind the decimal point, but I'm starting to look at 'line thickness' on the jpg when zoomed in...
Close enough for gov't. work...*G*
Close enough for gov't. work...*G*
Whoops im sorry the rods are 144mm..... since i dont think anyone cares for anything besides the cone here are the dimensions VC= 2" MOUTH= 5" HEIGHT= 5.5"
Last edited:
*L* Another PEBKAC attack! That's quite alright... 😉 Drawings are made for revisions, and it'll be easy enough to adjust.
A 2" vc, huh? Wow...no wonder GP claims they can go above 100 db. Sukka got some push at it's point. *G* I reread some of their specs last night to refamiliarize with it's details. I wouldn't be surprised if it's got ferrofluid in there as well. I would in their shoes....
...and actually I'm interested in the 'anythings' about them. They set out to build a stout driver, and they've obviously sweated the details....it shows, both in your drawings and their descriptions.
.and thanks again for the drawings. It looks like the surround is inset into it's base ring, and is perhaps a 'U' shape in section. Most surrounds are an inverted 'U'. Am I interpreting that correctly?
...and it seems in their 'stand alone' drivers there's a minimal enclosure beneath the base/surround. So much for utilizing the back wave off the cone....
A 2" vc, huh? Wow...no wonder GP claims they can go above 100 db. Sukka got some push at it's point. *G* I reread some of their specs last night to refamiliarize with it's details. I wouldn't be surprised if it's got ferrofluid in there as well. I would in their shoes....
...and actually I'm interested in the 'anythings' about them. They set out to build a stout driver, and they've obviously sweated the details....it shows, both in your drawings and their descriptions.
.and thanks again for the drawings. It looks like the surround is inset into it's base ring, and is perhaps a 'U' shape in section. Most surrounds are an inverted 'U'. Am I interpreting that correctly?
...and it seems in their 'stand alone' drivers there's a minimal enclosure beneath the base/surround. So much for utilizing the back wave off the cone....