Just want to make note that the stack of drivers I was talking about is not the one in the picture. The small stack in the picture is intended for part time duty in the washing room and part time "luggable" when going away or outdoors.
@Oceanw
did not get any alubutyl but used silicone for deadening the metal frame
added a same size magnet for a little bit more efficiency
bigger brother Fane 15-300tc
used contact glue for fixing the magnet and later secured extra with silicone
does not look as nice but is functional
did not get any alubutyl but used silicone for deadening the metal frame
added a same size magnet for a little bit more efficiency
bigger brother Fane 15-300tc
used contact glue for fixing the magnet and later secured extra with silicone
does not look as nice but is functional
got 70liter polyprop boxes for them and tuned the reflex low
its this kind of lightweight enclosures
tweeter put out of function for a true one way speaker
its this kind of lightweight enclosures
tweeter put out of function for a true one way speaker
@Oceanw
I still assemble the loudspeaker(s). And I had no motivation for doing measurements on the magnet tweak but making the speaker ready to play instead. As I have another untweaked pair of Fane Sovereign 15-300tc and waiting magnets I could still do measurements one day if I manage to finish another pair.
Troels Gravesen once measured a doubling of same size magnets in a loudspeaker project with +1.5 db efficiency and a drop in Qts by 0.1. What looks nice on the spec.
In my project the magnet would only compensate for the heavier loudspeaker cone due to a tweak with household aluminium foil on both sides.
The magnets are not expensive and all tests I did until now with doubling the magnets showed an audible improvement in control and loudness.
Only in one project with a PA 20cm driver I converted to a fullrange driver a same size double magnet did not show any improvement. So here I did not glue a magnet on. This is the only time I did it measurement assisted and it showed no change in efficiency.
Troels test with same size magnets:
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/C20WH.htm
I still assemble the loudspeaker(s). And I had no motivation for doing measurements on the magnet tweak but making the speaker ready to play instead. As I have another untweaked pair of Fane Sovereign 15-300tc and waiting magnets I could still do measurements one day if I manage to finish another pair.
Troels Gravesen once measured a doubling of same size magnets in a loudspeaker project with +1.5 db efficiency and a drop in Qts by 0.1. What looks nice on the spec.
In my project the magnet would only compensate for the heavier loudspeaker cone due to a tweak with household aluminium foil on both sides.
The magnets are not expensive and all tests I did until now with doubling the magnets showed an audible improvement in control and loudness.
Only in one project with a PA 20cm driver I converted to a fullrange driver a same size double magnet did not show any improvement. So here I did not glue a magnet on. This is the only time I did it measurement assisted and it showed no change in efficiency.
Troels test with same size magnets:
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/C20WH.htm
Hello, which STP foil is this exactly (STP Bomb Aero, STP Aero, STP Black Silver, STP Black Gold, ...)? I'm asking because the different foils also have completely different damping properties.
I have another question: I built this pair of speakers with the Fane 12-250TC to listen to them with a powerful subwoofer. The enclosures have 90 liters and are closed. This works without crossover. But without a subwoofer, I would like to have a little more low frequencies and a little less midrange. Are there any useful passive crossovers (my system is analog and I don't want a DSP or equalizer)? I've already tried a few crossovers, but they were all high-pass filters, which give me more bass but less treble... Is there a kind of high-pass filter for more bass and less mids, but a kind of “overdrive” for the treble?
The magnet tweak topic is interesting. In VituixCAD's enclosure tool, it is possible to model woofers with added mass to the cone. It lets us to see, among other things, how the sensitivity decreases when trying to lower Fs. According to your previous mention, the additional magnet could compensate for this by raising the sensitivity 1.5 dB.
I would like to try lowering the Fs with added mass sometime, already played with enclosure tool. I have one JBL 2225H that could be used. I might take it for a test run at some point, even at the risk of something going wrong.
I understand that your situation is more delicate with that foil mod (not targeting lower Fs but different tonality?) If you have weighed, approx how much in grams of foil does 15" woofer/FR take with your method?
I am eagerly looking forward to your findings with the 15-300TC!
Fozzibae
I noticed in my friend's 12-250TC project during test listening that many audiophile vocal and acoustic tracks sounded great, but when switching to rock or other genres, the sound was too bright and lacked fullness and warmth. The situation improved when we tried a baffle step correction, which was implemented using the free EQ APO software. We had a computer as the audio source anyway, and adjusting the level of the BSC filter in EQ APO was easy to do during listening.
How wide is the front baffle of your speaker? If it is similar or close in size to my friend's, I can check the filter details for you. I would recommend trying this first without the subwoofer. If it works, you could then design a passive version of the filter and invest in the necessary components.
Last edited:
Search for bandstop filters. To get the result you want you must use the impedance curve for right values and desired stop by taste, not nominal values. This will be a very subjective topic as everyone have different hearing and preference so maybe try with software eq first then measure with and without the ew then try get the same curve in simulation. I started this path myself with my 12” and 15” fanes but eventually gave up.
@fabricadetabaco
I have a thread around this tweak I consider being it worth a try - with theory from D.A. Barlow and others (AES society) and measurements.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/how-to-make-a-loudspeaker-sandwich-cone.402917/
The big Fanes were measured, too, but without a proper enclosure. I will do this one day. But my motivation for measurement assisted work was alive some years ago so today I only do it spontaneously. Everyone can try the same and do his own validation with own equipment. For sure its worth the work.
I have a thread around this tweak I consider being it worth a try - with theory from D.A. Barlow and others (AES society) and measurements.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/how-to-make-a-loudspeaker-sandwich-cone.402917/
The big Fanes were measured, too, but without a proper enclosure. I will do this one day. But my motivation for measurement assisted work was alive some years ago so today I only do it spontaneously. Everyone can try the same and do his own validation with own equipment. For sure its worth the work.
I built the loudspeaker enclosures according to this plan:
https://postlmg.cc/cK60jVTB
The construction is described from post 325:
https://www.audio-talk.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=200539#p200539
I liked this one with measurements and what a dsp can do to a fullrange. Phase and impulse response profit, too. From this work.
I am only a fan of correcting a fullrange loudspeaker in the nearfield of 20cm but not at listening position. But everyone can try out what works better in his room. Orthodox is to correct the speaker and later to do some room treatment and maybe a little bit dsp in the bass and highs due to the room reverberation characteristics. But not too much. And I would not linearize to much all small peaks. In my eyes its better to apply filters with a parametric EQ and to hear every filter and variate it in listening tests also checking your own recordings of real instruments - using the instruments live in the room and let play your box against the original at the same time(!) For indirect sound field I would add indirect tweeters which should do nothing below 5khz for that and have directivity for not interfering with the main signal.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...overeign-12-250tc-project-measurements.35301/
the uncorrected measurement is a typical far field measurement I know this looks quite different in the near field.
I am only a fan of correcting a fullrange loudspeaker in the nearfield of 20cm but not at listening position. But everyone can try out what works better in his room. Orthodox is to correct the speaker and later to do some room treatment and maybe a little bit dsp in the bass and highs due to the room reverberation characteristics. But not too much. And I would not linearize to much all small peaks. In my eyes its better to apply filters with a parametric EQ and to hear every filter and variate it in listening tests also checking your own recordings of real instruments - using the instruments live in the room and let play your box against the original at the same time(!) For indirect sound field I would add indirect tweeters which should do nothing below 5khz for that and have directivity for not interfering with the main signal.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...overeign-12-250tc-project-measurements.35301/
the uncorrected measurement is a typical far field measurement I know this looks quite different in the near field.
Last edited:
Sorry for delay.
Fanetastic´s front baffle is approx 516mm and my friends speaker is 375mm so the BSC that worked for us is not necessarily suitable. There is also other factors like speakers distance to front wall and other room effects, BUT you could try this with EQ APO easily: (made rough sim with Vcad)
Add: Low shelf filter and use center freq: 141Hz, Gain: 0-6db (adjust on the fly when playing music) and Q: 0,5510
Last edited:
