In the spirit of how Bud is approaching this (and the way i tend to be anyway), templates will be freely downloadable. Once i get a handle on the quickest way to generate them, i'll also generate a pattern for most anything -- at least the flat disk templates.
Actually, taking any template and fiddling with the size percentage in your page setup dialog (don't know if that is what it is called in Windoz-land), you can pretty much scale any existing disk into the size needed for any other driver (ovals are a bit special)
I will also be selling EnABLEd drivers (i'm working on a licence with Bud), and doing drivers after the fact. With EnABLE there is a lot to be said for some experience in applying the patterns (i have some drivers already available for cheap that sound REALLY good, but are less than stellar cosmetically). It has taken me about 20 drivers to get to the point where cosmetic glitches are down to acceptable levels.
dave
Actually, taking any template and fiddling with the size percentage in your page setup dialog (don't know if that is what it is called in Windoz-land), you can pretty much scale any existing disk into the size needed for any other driver (ovals are a bit special)
I will also be selling EnABLEd drivers (i'm working on a licence with Bud), and doing drivers after the fact. With EnABLE there is a lot to be said for some experience in applying the patterns (i have some drivers already available for cheap that sound REALLY good, but are less than stellar cosmetically). It has taken me about 20 drivers to get to the point where cosmetic glitches are down to acceptable levels.
dave
triboard
RobertF,
Do you (or anyone else reading this) know if this triboard is available in the US?
Richard
RobertF,
Do you (or anyone else reading this) know if this triboard is available in the US?
Richard
Hemp FR 6.5
Hello Bud,
I have finally fully EnABLed the 6.5 Hemps and I must say that they sound much more civilized now.
See: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1288466#post1288466
The upper midrange peak or shout does not call attention to itself as it did before. Not that it was a big problem - you really had to listen for it and it didn't get in the way of the music. I guess the hemp has good dampening properties.
Sibliant sounds are not grainy anymore and the soundstage is less constrained to the speaker. By this I mean that certain instruments such as violin or sax would at times zip back into the speaker cone during loud passages. The conformal coating (micro gloss) really did its job, it's a must!
I have a question for you Bud; did the FR 4.5's cone soak up a lot of the micro gloss? Because the whizzer of the 6.5 reacted nicely to the coating, not so the main cone. It took in more of the coating than I expected, however the sound seemed to benefit from the treatment, excessive coating or not. Just a heads up before you start on the hemp FR 8 driver.
Best
Kris
Hello Bud,
I have finally fully EnABLed the 6.5 Hemps and I must say that they sound much more civilized now.
See: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1288466#post1288466
The upper midrange peak or shout does not call attention to itself as it did before. Not that it was a big problem - you really had to listen for it and it didn't get in the way of the music. I guess the hemp has good dampening properties.
Sibliant sounds are not grainy anymore and the soundstage is less constrained to the speaker. By this I mean that certain instruments such as violin or sax would at times zip back into the speaker cone during loud passages. The conformal coating (micro gloss) really did its job, it's a must!
I have a question for you Bud; did the FR 4.5's cone soak up a lot of the micro gloss? Because the whizzer of the 6.5 reacted nicely to the coating, not so the main cone. It took in more of the coating than I expected, however the sound seemed to benefit from the treatment, excessive coating or not. Just a heads up before you start on the hemp FR 8 driver.
Best
Kris
I'm would really like to EnABl my Alpha-6 and Beta-15 drivers from my project found here:
This is what I found at my local hobby store.. Is this what I'm looking for?
Have anybody tried EnABl the Eminence drivers?
This is what I found at my local hobby store.. Is this what I'm looking for?
Have anybody tried EnABl the Eminence drivers?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Those are other brands of the same stuff... i have the exact same bottle as you do on the right. I haven't tried it, and i'd guess that it is substantially similar....
Bud?
dave
Bud?
dave
t-head
I was interested in the Tri board and tracked it down. See http://www.triboard.com/triboard.htm
Looks as if our friends "Down Under" have an exclusive that they can tease us with!
I was interested in the Tri board and tracked it down. See http://www.triboard.com/triboard.htm
Looks as if our friends "Down Under" have an exclusive that they can tease us with!
Yunik,
Don't use these materials on your preferred drivers.... just yet. First, find an old table radio or boom box full range speaker and treat it with these compounds.
Put on the pattern and listen as it dries. It should end up with a crisp clear sound, for simple, modest volume, information. It will get congested sounding as things get extreme in content, either with amplitude or information density. Make sure you are quite familiar with the amount, timbre and musically correct information and where things go wrong. Then, put a single, 50% cut with water, coating on the entire driver and listen again for short periods. Allow to cure for 24 hours. Then listen for quite a while and ask your self "have any of the points at which this driver began to loose it's crisp clear sound changed"?
If the sound has lost it's crispness and clarity the material is obviously not good. If the previous limits have been extended, but do show up again, the material is suitable but another coat is needed, on only the cone surface, not whizzer if the driver has one, or center dome. If the sound seems peaked or "zippy" and "brittle" the material is not suitable.
The paint used for the pattern should be a FLAT, not GLOSS acrylic. The flat paints have far more particulate matter in them and usually dry to a harder surface than the gloss will. They will also extend out from the cone surface farther and this too is important. I prefer to use the flat clear paints as they are the hardest dry surface and also the easiest to use in the various pens. The pigment particles of colored paints tend to seriously clog the fine pen points of the technical drawing pens, that were once used for finished mechanical drawings and lettering. The clear flat does not. Even the clear flat must be cut 50% for use in these pens and the pens MUST be cleaned immediately after use, that or just thrown away.
This is how I judge material suitability. I know of no objective tests you can use, so listening with a critical ear, for the above differences is what you have as a tool. However, the differences I note will not be subtle. Very much a good / not good situation.
Bud
Don't use these materials on your preferred drivers.... just yet. First, find an old table radio or boom box full range speaker and treat it with these compounds.
Put on the pattern and listen as it dries. It should end up with a crisp clear sound, for simple, modest volume, information. It will get congested sounding as things get extreme in content, either with amplitude or information density. Make sure you are quite familiar with the amount, timbre and musically correct information and where things go wrong. Then, put a single, 50% cut with water, coating on the entire driver and listen again for short periods. Allow to cure for 24 hours. Then listen for quite a while and ask your self "have any of the points at which this driver began to loose it's crisp clear sound changed"?
If the sound has lost it's crispness and clarity the material is obviously not good. If the previous limits have been extended, but do show up again, the material is suitable but another coat is needed, on only the cone surface, not whizzer if the driver has one, or center dome. If the sound seems peaked or "zippy" and "brittle" the material is not suitable.
The paint used for the pattern should be a FLAT, not GLOSS acrylic. The flat paints have far more particulate matter in them and usually dry to a harder surface than the gloss will. They will also extend out from the cone surface farther and this too is important. I prefer to use the flat clear paints as they are the hardest dry surface and also the easiest to use in the various pens. The pigment particles of colored paints tend to seriously clog the fine pen points of the technical drawing pens, that were once used for finished mechanical drawings and lettering. The clear flat does not. Even the clear flat must be cut 50% for use in these pens and the pens MUST be cleaned immediately after use, that or just thrown away.
This is how I judge material suitability. I know of no objective tests you can use, so listening with a critical ear, for the above differences is what you have as a tool. However, the differences I note will not be subtle. Very much a good / not good situation.
Bud
hasselbaink,
Good news. Another success story.
The pressed fiber cones, regardless of their material base, soak up mad amounts of gloss. Trick is to allow them to dry for 48 hours before applying subsequent coats and listen to make sure you really want more.
Three coatings, 100% material, is the most I have ever needed. That, only on the large thick woofer cones, which then became astoundingly clear and capable. Along with producing bass that uses the entire house as it's projection volume, instead of politely using the walls of the alleged listening room as a boundary. WAF can become a major problem.
If I wasn't so lazy I would go back and copy the information on coating the 4.5 and put it here. I will say that the hemp cone material is much better behaved than the typical paper slurry materials. Not quite as good as the filled and calendered paper for Lowthers, but still very respectable. I would also point out that all slurry cones will benefit from two sets of pattern rings on the back side of the cone. They do not have to be neat and precise and you only want to use one coat of the gloss material.
Listen to what you have for a good long time before you do this. You will gain about 30% in clarity, mostly in parsing of fine detail and finesse in handling transient spikes. Only draw back is absolute transparency to backside reflection, from cabinet walls and standing waves from OB baffle boards. This is what interested me so strongly about the Mamboni part of this thread. Control of the back side, without this transparency drawback.
Very happy to hear you have civilized those wild weeds...
Bud
Good news. Another success story.
The pressed fiber cones, regardless of their material base, soak up mad amounts of gloss. Trick is to allow them to dry for 48 hours before applying subsequent coats and listen to make sure you really want more.
Three coatings, 100% material, is the most I have ever needed. That, only on the large thick woofer cones, which then became astoundingly clear and capable. Along with producing bass that uses the entire house as it's projection volume, instead of politely using the walls of the alleged listening room as a boundary. WAF can become a major problem.
If I wasn't so lazy I would go back and copy the information on coating the 4.5 and put it here. I will say that the hemp cone material is much better behaved than the typical paper slurry materials. Not quite as good as the filled and calendered paper for Lowthers, but still very respectable. I would also point out that all slurry cones will benefit from two sets of pattern rings on the back side of the cone. They do not have to be neat and precise and you only want to use one coat of the gloss material.
Listen to what you have for a good long time before you do this. You will gain about 30% in clarity, mostly in parsing of fine detail and finesse in handling transient spikes. Only draw back is absolute transparency to backside reflection, from cabinet walls and standing waves from OB baffle boards. This is what interested me so strongly about the Mamboni part of this thread. Control of the back side, without this transparency drawback.
Very happy to hear you have civilized those wild weeds...
Bud
c2cthomas said:t-head
I was interested in the Tri board and tracked it down. See http://www.triboard.com/triboard.htm
Looks as if our friends "Down Under" have an exclusive that they can tease us with!
Well that makes a change!
Interesting that the product description sates that the outside layers are mdf. When you actually have the triboard in your hands you will note that the oter layers appear MUCH harder than mdf, so mush so that itis difficult to dent the surface with the point of a screw. The surface also reveals strands of fibre to the naked eye as opposed to mdf which appears to be compressed reconstituted sawdust.,with no stranding visable at all.
Rob.
triboard
Thomas and Robert,
Well it seems the 'land of the free and home of the brave' will have to wait for the triboard...maybe if I lived in New Caledonia I could build non-resonant speakers...
Thanks for the replies...now to import the stuff under exclusive contract and clean up...
Tea
Thomas and Robert,
Well it seems the 'land of the free and home of the brave' will have to wait for the triboard...maybe if I lived in New Caledonia I could build non-resonant speakers...
Thanks for the replies...now to import the stuff under exclusive contract and clean up...
Tea
c2cthomas said:
That stuff is available in Canada & the US. Occxasionaly they use it at Chris' work and i have seen samples from a company in Oregon.
dave
Hi Dave & Chris
Perhaps you can track it down as to where they are getting it from - perhaps it's from a new distributor or made under license with a different name here.
Just to keep things on topic - I want to use it for some open baffles and use BudP's EnABL pattern around the edges!!
Perhaps you can track it down as to where they are getting it from - perhaps it's from a new distributor or made under license with a different name here.
Just to keep things on topic - I want to use it for some open baffles and use BudP's EnABL pattern around the edges!!
Thanks Dave and Bud for your reply..
I will follow your advice and do some experiments first.. Got to find those old car spks lying around in my garage 🙂
I will follow your advice and do some experiments first.. Got to find those old car spks lying around in my garage 🙂
I've now read most of this thread and found it very interesting and informative, (I havn't done that much physics since 6th year, many many years ago).
I have stencils made at work for the application of solder paste to PCB's, these can be either stainless steel (laser etcehd) or occasionaly plastic (for short runs), these are extremely thin (0.008" - 0.004"), it would seem to me that if certain drivers are going to become popular candidates for the EnABLE process that a stencil made using this process for the correct size technical pen would be cost effective.
I printed this thread out (294 pages) and am having trouble finding links to templates, (i didnt staple the pages together and as I've gone back and forth there a little muddled) if someone could send or point me to a template I would be interested at the cost (a 2'x3' PCB stencil with 9000 holes cost us £195, so I would expect the cost to be much less.
Obviously EnABLE works on baffles, I am curious whether it would be benefitial on the openings of the horn mouths (large!) or whether there would be no discenable difference when t=you get over a certain size. This is especialy of interest as my current build if MDF, and I belive the structure of MDF dosn't attenuate (or should i say encourages) surface waves (having had to chisel some, its effectively thick paper!).
I have stencils made at work for the application of solder paste to PCB's, these can be either stainless steel (laser etcehd) or occasionaly plastic (for short runs), these are extremely thin (0.008" - 0.004"), it would seem to me that if certain drivers are going to become popular candidates for the EnABLE process that a stencil made using this process for the correct size technical pen would be cost effective.
I printed this thread out (294 pages) and am having trouble finding links to templates, (i didnt staple the pages together and as I've gone back and forth there a little muddled) if someone could send or point me to a template I would be interested at the cost (a 2'x3' PCB stencil with 9000 holes cost us £195, so I would expect the cost to be much less.
Obviously EnABLE works on baffles, I am curious whether it would be benefitial on the openings of the horn mouths (large!) or whether there would be no discenable difference when t=you get over a certain size. This is especialy of interest as my current build if MDF, and I belive the structure of MDF dosn't attenuate (or should i say encourages) surface waves (having had to chisel some, its effectively thick paper!).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.