terry j,
I would still reccomend youy treat the cheap drivers first.
The PVA works very well for rips in paper cone speakers. Use as little as possible and if you can, squeeze the cone between wax paper sheets or teflon sheets just to get the lump down in size.
I am sure Dave knows more about this than I, as I am maniacal about tools and such around drivers, having once punched a screw driver through a pioneer leaf tweeter diaphragm and not been able to replace it. period.
Bud
I would still reccomend youy treat the cheap drivers first.
The PVA works very well for rips in paper cone speakers. Use as little as possible and if you can, squeeze the cone between wax paper sheets or teflon sheets just to get the lump down in size.
I am sure Dave knows more about this than I, as I am maniacal about tools and such around drivers, having once punched a screw driver through a pioneer leaf tweeter diaphragm and not been able to replace it. period.
Bud
BudP said:
It is native VectorWorks. I can export it in a number of formats. DXF/DWG up to 2004/2005.
dave
Thanks guys ! An image format will do for me (gif or anything else). Here's my email:coconu-at-zib-dot-de. Thanks again !
A few more questions:
- I might have missed something, but I remember various paint thicknesses to be mentioned in the thread, from 3mm down to 0.003". Is that dependent on anything, like cone material ? What is recommended ? How about for the baffle ?
- Bud, is it necessary to align the inner(near VC) and outer(near surround) patterns, or did that happen by accident in the picture you posted ?
Liviu
A few more questions:
- I might have missed something, but I remember various paint thicknesses to be mentioned in the thread, from 3mm down to 0.003". Is that dependent on anything, like cone material ? What is recommended ? How about for the baffle ?
- Bud, is it necessary to align the inner(near VC) and outer(near surround) patterns, or did that happen by accident in the picture you posted ?
Liviu
bzfcocon,
Various paint thicknesses have been the byproduct of materials used and substrates they were used upon. With paper cones the thickness of the Poly S flat clear is measurable at about an 0.002" additional thickness as a max. On non satruable surfaces about 0.0015 is the norm.
Thicker, less viscous paint, like artist's acrylics will provide noticeably thicker blocks, up to perhaps 0.005". All seems to be quite moot, works with the same reports of change in hall of mirrors corruptions whether thick or thin.
I have tried to find a reason for alignment of the blocks in A/B tests. There may have been a slightly more spacious quality to the drivers with aligned patterns, but it was not a major difference, if indeeed their was one. So, they are aligned on the pic because the vector based program I used for overlay is easier to use if I am not attempting to rotate patterns by some odd % while reducing them in size. So, orderliness here is simply due to laziness on my part.
Bud
Various paint thicknesses have been the byproduct of materials used and substrates they were used upon. With paper cones the thickness of the Poly S flat clear is measurable at about an 0.002" additional thickness as a max. On non satruable surfaces about 0.0015 is the norm.
Thicker, less viscous paint, like artist's acrylics will provide noticeably thicker blocks, up to perhaps 0.005". All seems to be quite moot, works with the same reports of change in hall of mirrors corruptions whether thick or thin.
I have tried to find a reason for alignment of the blocks in A/B tests. There may have been a slightly more spacious quality to the drivers with aligned patterns, but it was not a major difference, if indeeed their was one. So, they are aligned on the pic because the vector based program I used for overlay is easier to use if I am not attempting to rotate patterns by some odd % while reducing them in size. So, orderliness here is simply due to laziness on my part.
Bud
Alright, so what about a driver with a ribbed and/or highly textured cone surface like a Pioneer B20? Would the normal pattern like for an FE206/7 apply or would we need to do something at the ridge of each of the concentric rings?
Kensai
Kensai
Dave,
On the phase plugs, is that ring down near the base necessary? I would have thought that the first ring just above the cone resting position would have been sufficient. Do they need the conformal coat over the rings?
Kensai
On the phase plugs, is that ring down near the base necessary? I would have thought that the first ring just above the cone resting position would have been sufficient. Do they need the conformal coat over the rings?
Kensai
Kensai,
You can ignore the ridges on a cone, unless they present a sharply vertical wall of 0.005 or greater. Sinusoidal decoupling ridges can be ignored here as they do not have a vertical wall with sharp break over. If you are faced with one of these vertical walls, then a ring set just before it will take it out of the picture, the energy then seems to just step right over the obstruction. If this ridge is mid cone you will still need another, final ring set, out at the edge. If the ridge is within a half inch or so of the edge, no outer ring will be needed.
The bottom ring set on Dave's phase plugs is there because we are dealing with energy that will traverse on the surface in both directions when it strikes that surface at any angle of incidence. The ringing is best controlled over the entire surface of the plug.
One of the problems with treating Lowthers from the factory is that I cannot remove their phase plug and so cannot treat the bottom edge. This does compromise the situation and I am forced to use a pretty thick conformal coating to control the IM shrieking between phase plug and whizzer cone. It can be done with just two ring sets, but three will be audibly superior.
Bud
Panomaniac,
Chaos requires energy. Life allows only so much railing against the orderly stasis of entropy, so we choose our struggles against that dark curtain. knowing the war has already been lost.
Bud
You can ignore the ridges on a cone, unless they present a sharply vertical wall of 0.005 or greater. Sinusoidal decoupling ridges can be ignored here as they do not have a vertical wall with sharp break over. If you are faced with one of these vertical walls, then a ring set just before it will take it out of the picture, the energy then seems to just step right over the obstruction. If this ridge is mid cone you will still need another, final ring set, out at the edge. If the ridge is within a half inch or so of the edge, no outer ring will be needed.
The bottom ring set on Dave's phase plugs is there because we are dealing with energy that will traverse on the surface in both directions when it strikes that surface at any angle of incidence. The ringing is best controlled over the entire surface of the plug.
One of the problems with treating Lowthers from the factory is that I cannot remove their phase plug and so cannot treat the bottom edge. This does compromise the situation and I am forced to use a pretty thick conformal coating to control the IM shrieking between phase plug and whizzer cone. It can be done with just two ring sets, but three will be audibly superior.
Bud
Panomaniac,
Chaos requires energy. Life allows only so much railing against the orderly stasis of entropy, so we choose our struggles against that dark curtain. knowing the war has already been lost.
Bud
BudP said:
I thought all Lowther phase plugs unscrewed so that you could install optional plugs (ie like the meat grinders)... the ones i had (circa 1975 certainly did)
dave
Dave,
Perhaps they do and my wimpy attempts to grab onto their very slick, hard surface have been insufficient to the task. I will nudge Jon Ver Halen about this.
Bud
Perhaps they do and my wimpy attempts to grab onto their very slick, hard surface have been insufficient to the task. I will nudge Jon Ver Halen about this.
Bud
Three latex covered fingers? To nudge Jon with? Or two latex covered fingers and a thumb to twist on the phase plugs with?
Bud
Cool, guys, thanks for the advice. November is not the month for this, but maybe December . . .
Kensai
Kensai
Bud,
Thanks very much for sharing this with us. I applied the pattern to a Fostex 208S and I'm very pleased with the result. Especially the combination with Dave's phase plugs works miracles on this particular driver.
Here's a picture of the EnABLed driver
Here are some Cumulative Spectral Decay plots
The rest of the story can be found here
I just put a single coat of microgloss on the driver. It seems to have further reduced the nasty peaks, I will have to confirm that with measurements.
Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed in this particular case? And another question: What would be the proper way to refer to your work?
Gerrit
Thanks very much for sharing this with us. I applied the pattern to a Fostex 208S and I'm very pleased with the result. Especially the combination with Dave's phase plugs works miracles on this particular driver.
Here's a picture of the EnABLed driver
Here are some Cumulative Spectral Decay plots
The rest of the story can be found here
I just put a single coat of microgloss on the driver. It seems to have further reduced the nasty peaks, I will have to confirm that with measurements.
Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed in this particular case? And another question: What would be the proper way to refer to your work?
Gerrit
Gerrit Boers said:
IMHO, freekin out of the box genius, but then I'm only relying on the smile on my ears when ever I listen to the EnABL'd vs stock driver comparison. (most recently just yesterday evening)
VERY nice work Gerrit... are you interested in doing other people's drivers? (for a fee of course)
Any chance of getting those CSDs all in the same scale -- i can then overlay them for easier comparison.
dave
Any chance of getting those CSDs all in the same scale -- i can then overlay them for easier comparison.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.