I do not leave the house on new years eve, so I am bored, or reading, or listening, or building transformers or fiddling with requests I care about, so thanks for providing some requests.
Here is the Audax tweeter Ed. You can put that outer dome ring on the inside of the dome too. Just a spot of paint under the outside center spot is good enough for the inside. The increase in clarity is worth the trouble of disassembly. Just a single 50% cut gloss coat is needed on both sides of the dome, assuming you dot both sides. Just on the outside, if that is all you treat.
If you do treat both sides, also placing a large ring on the pole piece, just inside the gap is worth doing too, unless this has a back chamber, which doesn't look likely. You can get some astounding performance out of Audax dome tweeters, just go lightly on the gloss coating.
Bud
Here is the Audax tweeter Ed. You can put that outer dome ring on the inside of the dome too. Just a spot of paint under the outside center spot is good enough for the inside. The increase in clarity is worth the trouble of disassembly. Just a single 50% cut gloss coat is needed on both sides of the dome, assuming you dot both sides. Just on the outside, if that is all you treat.
If you do treat both sides, also placing a large ring on the pole piece, just inside the gap is worth doing too, unless this has a back chamber, which doesn't look likely. You can get some astounding performance out of Audax dome tweeters, just go lightly on the gloss coating.
Bud
Most New Year's revelers are amatuers
I stay home too.
I've had the "horn" off of the tweeters and put it back ok. I'm not sure I can get to the backside of the dome. I'll give it every consideration.
I'll be handing off the New Year in a few minutes...and sending it your way. Best of health, God Bless you all, have a good one...
I stay home too.
I've had the "horn" off of the tweeters and put it back ok. I'm not sure I can get to the backside of the dome. I'll give it every consideration.
I'll be handing off the New Year in a few minutes...and sending it your way. Best of health, God Bless you all, have a good one...
A quite evening home - except for the fireworks that will go off here around mid-night. The wife is in Huntsville with her sister and I'm here with the three Dachshunds taking a break from the math contained in "Audio Transducers" - by our friend and fellow audio nut - Earl Geddes. An excellent time to be listening to a bit of music and reflecting about things past - and things yet to come.
Happy New Year to All - May Health, Peace, and Happiness fill your cup.
Happy New Year to All - May Health, Peace, and Happiness fill your cup.
A quiet evening here too, especially as I have to wake up in time tomorrow morning to do a jazz show on the radio. If interested, web feed at www.kfjc.org , 10:A-2:00P PST, 1/1/08.
? The first enabl of 2008 ?
Roland KC 350 Keyboard Combo. A rather mushy sound, a good test methinks.
Rather crudely done. nb Not the recommended brands / methods:-
Artists acrylic - Royal & Langnickel. Cochineal red.
Flat brush for outside pattern. Fine sable for central three rings round the junction of dome and cone, and for the patterns at the top of the dome.
Minimal dilution. Just felt right - thin coat, and no risk of running.
Patterns as per recent Viva Woofer post.
Then plugged it in to my DMX6Fire soundcard, some well known FLACs in Foobar2000.
Sat back and closed my eyes to listen.
At once I knew something had happened. In place of the usual slight hiss was an inky black silence. It was as if my speaker had completely disappeared!
Once the police had apprehended the culprit and returned my speaker, I sat back to listen.
Well, nothing was going to turn this into a HiFi, but the difference is immediately noticeable. Piano music, choral stuff, classical, pop, various rock, everything showed a marked increase in clarity. The mushy boom that lay under everything before is greatly reduced.
So, sold. It works. Will get the proper stuff to do my Fostexes and take rather more care!
Thanks Bud et al !
Roland KC 350 Keyboard Combo. A rather mushy sound, a good test methinks.
Rather crudely done. nb Not the recommended brands / methods:-
Artists acrylic - Royal & Langnickel. Cochineal red.
Flat brush for outside pattern. Fine sable for central three rings round the junction of dome and cone, and for the patterns at the top of the dome.
Minimal dilution. Just felt right - thin coat, and no risk of running.
Patterns as per recent Viva Woofer post.
Then plugged it in to my DMX6Fire soundcard, some well known FLACs in Foobar2000.
Sat back and closed my eyes to listen.
At once I knew something had happened. In place of the usual slight hiss was an inky black silence. It was as if my speaker had completely disappeared!
Once the police had apprehended the culprit and returned my speaker, I sat back to listen.
Well, nothing was going to turn this into a HiFi, but the difference is immediately noticeable. Piano music, choral stuff, classical, pop, various rock, everything showed a marked increase in clarity. The mushy boom that lay under everything before is greatly reduced.
So, sold. It works. Will get the proper stuff to do my Fostexes and take rather more care!
Thanks Bud et al !
I never knew the waves reflecting back around the surface of a speaker are so strong....
I was responsible for my friends' new year's party sound setup.
Anyhow at some point this morning I got cosy pretty close to one of the speaker boxes...
So, I observed this ant walking just infront of the box on the floor... poor thing... everytime the bass pounded hard, it would be like a gale force wind that sucks him in under the box... few seconds later he comes back out, and boom gets sucked under again...
Will try this experiment again this week useing some flour... was a very interesting phenomena...
I was responsible for my friends' new year's party sound setup.
Anyhow at some point this morning I got cosy pretty close to one of the speaker boxes...
So, I observed this ant walking just infront of the box on the floor... poor thing... everytime the bass pounded hard, it would be like a gale force wind that sucks him in under the box... few seconds later he comes back out, and boom gets sucked under again...
Will try this experiment again this week useing some flour... was a very interesting phenomena...
cj.9,
I would place a rectangle on the front baffle, Another on the top and bottom and a seperate line down the middle of both long side panels. You will likely end up placing horizontal lines of blocks across the front baffle, between the woofers and high frequency driver.
Lot of blocks of acrylic paint, but should make the box disappear, through lack of diffraction effects and surface ringing. The mid side line of blocks will set the depth of field to behind the boxes, from a perception stand point.
Thing you need to understand here is that I'm nuts. I just do not like the sensation that diffractions and reflections from cabinet boxes provide, once you get the drivers to quit. The box will be the same sort of deal as the drivers. You have never heard a box that is not there, until you don't...... see what I mean?
Bud
I would place a rectangle on the front baffle, Another on the top and bottom and a seperate line down the middle of both long side panels. You will likely end up placing horizontal lines of blocks across the front baffle, between the woofers and high frequency driver.
Lot of blocks of acrylic paint, but should make the box disappear, through lack of diffraction effects and surface ringing. The mid side line of blocks will set the depth of field to behind the boxes, from a perception stand point.
Thing you need to understand here is that I'm nuts. I just do not like the sensation that diffractions and reflections from cabinet boxes provide, once you get the drivers to quit. The box will be the same sort of deal as the drivers. You have never heard a box that is not there, until you don't...... see what I mean?
Bud
BudP said:
Use a sphere and get over it. 😉
I fail to see how dots or rectangles painted on a box will fix the problem of diffraction . Please provide more details. 😉
Hi Magnetar.
Box faces, horn surfaces, or any other incidental, terminated surfaces, act just like the boundary surfaces of a cone or dome or ribbon. All of them will ring in the boundary layer. Diffraction is a bit different, but the same mechanism that picks the energy up out of the boundary layer and flings it off of the edge of a cone, works identically on a baffle edge, to eliminate diffraction.
Just as with all of the other foolishness I have offered here at DIY, I am only reporting, repeatable, very noticeable effects. Events you don't have to struggle to notice. There are plenty of those slight effects too, but you will have to journey down the EnABL, adjustable dynamic color cables and Electron Pools paths to find them for yourself.
Now, I cannot say with authority, that an open baffle will be as easily controlled as a closed box baffle. I have yet to make my first open baffle speaker. Planet 10 enterprises holds the keys to that exploration and we will get more serious about it this year, as a neat show will pop up in May, in Portland and we might just be able to get there, with the things fully functional.... or not.
However, I can say that the null mix zone from front to back, on a full range driver, in open air, has no diffraction artifacts and this with considerable information being emitted, directly out from the edge of the basket perimeter frame. So, I do think that open baffle edge diffraction will be addressable. After all, the energy being carried across the baffle is a transverse wave, not a compression wave.
Bud
Box faces, horn surfaces, or any other incidental, terminated surfaces, act just like the boundary surfaces of a cone or dome or ribbon. All of them will ring in the boundary layer. Diffraction is a bit different, but the same mechanism that picks the energy up out of the boundary layer and flings it off of the edge of a cone, works identically on a baffle edge, to eliminate diffraction.
Just as with all of the other foolishness I have offered here at DIY, I am only reporting, repeatable, very noticeable effects. Events you don't have to struggle to notice. There are plenty of those slight effects too, but you will have to journey down the EnABL, adjustable dynamic color cables and Electron Pools paths to find them for yourself.
Now, I cannot say with authority, that an open baffle will be as easily controlled as a closed box baffle. I have yet to make my first open baffle speaker. Planet 10 enterprises holds the keys to that exploration and we will get more serious about it this year, as a neat show will pop up in May, in Portland and we might just be able to get there, with the things fully functional.... or not.
However, I can say that the null mix zone from front to back, on a full range driver, in open air, has no diffraction artifacts and this with considerable information being emitted, directly out from the edge of the basket perimeter frame. So, I do think that open baffle edge diffraction will be addressable. After all, the energy being carried across the baffle is a transverse wave, not a compression wave.
Bud
BudP said:
I asked a specific question. Please answer it. You said
"Lot of blocks of acrylic paint, but should make the box disappear, through lack of diffraction effects and surface ringing. The mid side line of blocks will set the depth of field to behind the boxes, from a perception stand point."
I asked you to explain that. You dodged the question. I am 99.99999999999 percent sure you are wrong - painting rectangles on speaker boxes does not change the diffraction and waves caused by the box. They are way too small to have any perceivable or measurable effect on the sound caused by diffraction. Please prove me wrong Bud.
Magnetar,
What exactly are the rules for "proving" that what I have to say might be true? Will you perform a series of activities at my direction and witness the results? Others have. This thread is littered with their surprise....
There are no differences in physics between a cone and a baffle, with respect to how the boundary layer affects energy being emitted into a compression wave, while crossing these surfaces. Both have boundary layers, both have transverse energy waves crossing them, both have edges that must be terminated. The driver emitter surfaces arguably have a significantly greater energy emission problem than does a baffle, due to their significantly higher energy per cm sg'd. If I can terminate a transverse wave on a woofer, a mid range or a tweeter, how is this different at the edge of a baffle?
The volume of boundary layer I am affecting, in either case, is only a few hundred molecules thick. The paint blocks might as well be the Andes, as far as the energy within the boundary layer is concerned. Taller blocks can be used, but they don't work any better than the paint. Nor do they work less effectively and if it relieves an uncomfortable mental state for you, to contemplate .005 or .010 thick blocks, then please do so.
The compression wave that is attached to the transverse wave, which is actually crossing the baffle, in the boundary layer, will be controlled absolutely, in it's angular structures, by what the transverse wave does, when it reaches the baffle edge.
If there is no standing wave event possible, at that edge, the energy that would ordinarily ring in the boundary layer, just exits from the edge, in phase coherence with the compression wave it was attached to. The compression wave has no extra phase structures added and so it does not "diffract" into energy lobes. This is the least lossey form of energy transform available and conservation of enrgy is maintained.
I do realize that this does not make sense, if your understanding of speaker drivers is that they are perfect pistons which emit compression waves from their surfaces, without any intervening energy transform between voice coil excitation and compression wave formation.
If this is indeed your understanding of how speakers perform you need to contemplate the situation a bit, read Beranek "Acoustics", page 198 to 201 and dig up Lincoln Walsh's "bending board" theories and patents.
I am just attacking the termination problem, where it is easiest to interfere with the default situations, and so I need the least amount of interference, in the shortest possible window of time, to effect a change from a default energy transformation to one that is controlled.
I am not attempting to bully the compression wave, after it has formed, but instead while it is being formed, on the non pistonic surfaces of the time expansion component of "speakers" we call cones, or domes or ribbons or baffles.
Do any of these words help?
Bud
What exactly are the rules for "proving" that what I have to say might be true? Will you perform a series of activities at my direction and witness the results? Others have. This thread is littered with their surprise....
There are no differences in physics between a cone and a baffle, with respect to how the boundary layer affects energy being emitted into a compression wave, while crossing these surfaces. Both have boundary layers, both have transverse energy waves crossing them, both have edges that must be terminated. The driver emitter surfaces arguably have a significantly greater energy emission problem than does a baffle, due to their significantly higher energy per cm sg'd. If I can terminate a transverse wave on a woofer, a mid range or a tweeter, how is this different at the edge of a baffle?
The volume of boundary layer I am affecting, in either case, is only a few hundred molecules thick. The paint blocks might as well be the Andes, as far as the energy within the boundary layer is concerned. Taller blocks can be used, but they don't work any better than the paint. Nor do they work less effectively and if it relieves an uncomfortable mental state for you, to contemplate .005 or .010 thick blocks, then please do so.
The compression wave that is attached to the transverse wave, which is actually crossing the baffle, in the boundary layer, will be controlled absolutely, in it's angular structures, by what the transverse wave does, when it reaches the baffle edge.
If there is no standing wave event possible, at that edge, the energy that would ordinarily ring in the boundary layer, just exits from the edge, in phase coherence with the compression wave it was attached to. The compression wave has no extra phase structures added and so it does not "diffract" into energy lobes. This is the least lossey form of energy transform available and conservation of enrgy is maintained.
I do realize that this does not make sense, if your understanding of speaker drivers is that they are perfect pistons which emit compression waves from their surfaces, without any intervening energy transform between voice coil excitation and compression wave formation.
If this is indeed your understanding of how speakers perform you need to contemplate the situation a bit, read Beranek "Acoustics", page 198 to 201 and dig up Lincoln Walsh's "bending board" theories and patents.
I am just attacking the termination problem, where it is easiest to interfere with the default situations, and so I need the least amount of interference, in the shortest possible window of time, to effect a change from a default energy transformation to one that is controlled.
I am not attempting to bully the compression wave, after it has formed, but instead while it is being formed, on the non pistonic surfaces of the time expansion component of "speakers" we call cones, or domes or ribbons or baffles.
Do any of these words help?
Bud
Beyma fullrange
Hello Bud,
I have heart the difference that EnAbling makes on the Fostex 126 that I received from Dave (Planet 10). I was sitting spellbound for hours glued to the sound. Really a big step forward in clarity and detail. So I thank you very much for enabling us to get that much closer to the music.
Could you do your photoshop miracle also on this speaker.
Many people have built Das Vieh (BLH horn) with the cheap Beyma 8AGN speaker. A very dynamic and lively speaker that is liked much by the many people that built it.
Hello Bud,
I have heart the difference that EnAbling makes on the Fostex 126 that I received from Dave (Planet 10). I was sitting spellbound for hours glued to the sound. Really a big step forward in clarity and detail. So I thank you very much for enabling us to get that much closer to the music.
Could you do your photoshop miracle also on this speaker.
Many people have built Das Vieh (BLH horn) with the cheap Beyma 8AGN speaker. A very dynamic and lively speaker that is liked much by the many people that built it.
Attachments
BudP said:
We are talking about the effect of sound waves traveling through air meeting the edge of an enclosure (or obstructions on the baffle) as well as the altering of the wave launch going from half space to free space due to the geometry of the baffle and the frequency of the wave. These waves are longitudinal waves (as are all sound waves no?) .
What you propose is these painted rectangles will some how alter (eliminate! the box will disappear- your words!) these proven, repeatable problems that exist on all loudspeaker baffles. I don't think so.
Take a box speaker and paint the baffle with as many dots as you like, measure the response and compare that to the same driver from that same loudspeaker in sphere with the same volume and loading behind it. Contrary to what you suggest there will still a big difference between a sphere and your painted box.
Look, noone is going to fight with you to get you to do a $2 modification... so move along now... There is no one as blind as he who does not want to see.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.