is he? so everything will be good
and yes, I've heard this C37 stuff. not even fullrange drivers treated with it. even the cables, the CD player and the amp were painted with this stuff. I guess this had a big influence - on the total costs of the setup
Well if there were any difference between treated and untreated drivers, they aren't big enough discussing about. And really not worth the money! I think you can even meassure a slightly different waterfall, having added mass to the system
. I guess you'll get the same effects with an convenience synthetic resin laquer.
I agree with You on this.is he? so everything will be good
IMO the pricing is just rediculous as well as this C37- "theorie" although I do believe that different laquers may yield different results and that violin laquers in particular may have some special (beneficial) properties.
I guess with more reasonable pricing (and honest IMO) arguing and of this laquer he could sell bigger quantities (I assume that with this price he does not sell much
) while not making less (or maybe even more) profit finally.In my experience cone treatment can have quite some noticable difference (measurable too) depending of what and how much You apply and not only due to the added mass but due to effects of actually changing cone damping properties.
cocolino said:
Yes, I agree Christoph.
It does make quite a difference - much more than the difference changing from a reasonable cable to a more expensive one. Cone treatments certainly don't fall into the same category as "Perpetual motion machines". The question is: Is the difference good or bad?
In my particular application there's virtually no weight added. This is because my cones are spun, anodized aluminium and the lacquer doesn't soak in to it. So any differences heard are not due to added mass. Even with paper cones I don't think that the C37 has a significant mass.
For the same reason it's actually not so expensive per cone (for aluminium cones that is).
Clearly C37 is expensive (although not quite up there in the perfume class). I've had conversations with Dieter Ennemoser (the developer) and I've found him to be pleasant and very helpful. Of course he's totally passionate about hi-fi and that makes him a bit of a nut - just like the rest of us. I would be very surprised if he was making this lacquer for nothing and then charging us a fortune.
The sound must be a matter for the individual.
Still, as with most things in hi-fi, our opinions usually carry considerably more weight if we have actually listened to the product in question.
Steve
Steve, the question is not, "Does the cone treatment make a difference?" Well, of course it will- Elmer's Glue=All will make a difference, too. The question is, more properly, what is the optimum cone treatment for a particular driver in a particular application? There are well-known and proven ways to treat paper, cloth, plastics, and metals for various design goals.
If you're going to mess with things like that, it's probably worth looking at your particular design goals and researching what reputable people have done. Use that as a starting point, rather than relying on questionable claims, outrageous pricing (this is unrelated to quantity produced), shaky analogies, and tons of hot, steaming BS.
If you're going to mess with things like that, it's probably worth looking at your particular design goals and researching what reputable people have done. Use that as a starting point, rather than relying on questionable claims, outrageous pricing (this is unrelated to quantity produced), shaky analogies, and tons of hot, steaming BS.
It's even easier than that, Sy. I try things out.SY said:
I treat the drivers of one enclosure and compare the sound with the untreated enclosure. I swap the positions and try again. I bring in my wife and various other "good ears" and ask which side they prefer (they don't know which is which). Then I swap sides and ask again.
Through this process, listening to a variety of different recordings, I get a pretty good idea of what the stuff does and whether I want to use it.
The risk is that, if I don't like the sound of the coated drivers, I have to get them re-coned. However, as it does make a significant difference to the sound and I want to design the best I can, I'm prepared to take that risk. After all, if C37 or similar stuff does make a better sound, can I really afford NOT to use it?
I realise that this approach won't always hold true for many DIYers (for financial reasons) so they have to consider more carefully before jumping in.
Naturally, I have to have a good sense that something is worth trying and this is where I would listen to the views of "reputable people". However, in making any final decision I prefer to listen to the speakers.
This is not to say that I don't value the views of experts (and DIYers), I do. I also value theoretical arguments and good measurement. But I value listening above all.
My advice to all DIYers out there is to listen to everyone, study the theory carefully and then ...
... do what you want. In the end it's your own ears you have to satisfy.
Steve
SY said:
I was making a more general point.
When it comes to cone treatments, you can say that if there is a significant added mass, the normal T/S parameters of the driver will be changed and the performance will be changed in this way.
With or without added mass, the frequency at which the cone experiences break-up may change and the behaviour of the cone during the break-up will also be changed. There are ways of viewing the behaviour of cones as they exhibit their break-up patterns but I'm not familiar with that technology.
I agree with you that other than that there is no theory at this time for these coatings. However, some of the best drivers ever built were designed when much of the theory used today by drive-unit manufacturers was unknown.
Steve
You misunderstand me- there ARE well-established theories and knowledge bases for speaker coatings. A trip to a reputable driver manufacturer will make that very clear to anyone. What's missing is any theory regarding the action of THIS particular goop. That's why I'm somewhat mystified that you didn't do any real experimentation or analysis with different *known* materials. What it sounds like (pardon the pun) to me is the use of brand-name snake oil as a substitute for really getting in there and understanding what your drivers are doing. For casual weekend amateurs, that's understandable. For someone in the business of selling speakers, I have less sympathy.
mrfeedback said:
Well Eric, the methodology was the simple one outlined in my post above.
The first speakers that we tried were three ways with a 12" paper-coned bass and a 3" paper-coned mid-range. The tweeter was a strange German contraption with no moving parts, valves (tubes) and a blue spark. I've forgotten the type. It was quite impressive though. We applied one coat of C37 to the mid and bass drivers on one side only.
The general impression on the listeners was that there was quite a difference in sound. The speaker treated was thought to sound warmer and sweeter. It was difficult to exactly define the differences but they were quite easy to detect.
We the coated the other speaker of the pair and applied a second coat to the first speaker. We then repeated the tests.
Over the next few days (it takes about 3 days between coats) we continued in this way until we had 3 coats of C37 on each. At this point we decided that we probably wouldn't gain much by going further.
Later, I went through exactly the same process with my Nonsuch 4 full-range loudspeakers. The drive units here were aluminium so the lacquer didn't soak into the material but formed a thin coating on the surface. A similar sort of improvement was noticed in the sound (sweeter and warmer). I also felt that the high frequencies sounded more 'live' and more natural.
I'm afraid that the process wasn't very "scientific" but it still left me in no doubt that I preferred the sound with the lacquer.
Steve
Mystical goop ?
Apart from the price , what puts me off speaker 'goop' is the fact it is a one-way mod . Once done , that's it , like it or lump it , it's there to stay . This C37 stuff is also so pricey that it would be too risky to use , an interesting concept but I'd tread with caution . $10 drive units fair enough but I'd not want to try on my £100 a piece Jordan JX150 drivers . At the end of the day though , would $10 drive units warrant the use of such expensive stuff in the first place ?
316a
Apart from the price , what puts me off speaker 'goop' is the fact it is a one-way mod . Once done , that's it , like it or lump it , it's there to stay . This C37 stuff is also so pricey that it would be too risky to use , an interesting concept but I'd tread with caution . $10 drive units fair enough but I'd not want to try on my £100 a piece Jordan JX150 drivers . At the end of the day though , would $10 drive units warrant the use of such expensive stuff in the first place ?
316a
37 Questions...
Thanks.
Even if the process is not scientific (ie you have not tried to measure the changes yet) your use of C37 obviously changes driver sounds.
Have you tried painting a little onto a piece of polished wood to see how it compares to more normal varnishes ?.
Does it seem similar to hardware shop varnishes ?.
Have you tried other coatings ?.
Years ago I have used pva wood glue on a 10" and that damped the cone nicely, and I did try a polyurethane varnish once too, but the conclusions were inconclusive at the time and rotten driver - I think I was not overly keen on the hardened and stiffened but not very lossy cone caused.
I also have KEF drivers that have a clear dry damping coating, and have seen other drivers with a sticky latex ? type coating.
Dave has mentioned some stuff called 'puzzle coat' too.
Eric.
7V said:
Thanks.
Even if the process is not scientific (ie you have not tried to measure the changes yet) your use of C37 obviously changes driver sounds.
Have you tried painting a little onto a piece of polished wood to see how it compares to more normal varnishes ?.
Does it seem similar to hardware shop varnishes ?.
Have you tried other coatings ?.
Years ago I have used pva wood glue on a 10" and that damped the cone nicely, and I did try a polyurethane varnish once too, but the conclusions were inconclusive at the time and rotten driver - I think I was not overly keen on the hardened and stiffened but not very lossy cone caused.
I also have KEF drivers that have a clear dry damping coating, and have seen other drivers with a sticky latex ? type coating.
Dave has mentioned some stuff called 'puzzle coat' too.
Eric.
Eric, have you seen the thickish coatings used on some of the Scan-Speak drivers? I won't come out and say that it appears to be Permatex, but...
Re: 37 Questions...
I'm not sufficiently familiar with the varnishes out there but, from the smell, I would say that C37 is different.
No, I haven't tried other coatings.
Sy, I wasn't looking to coat my speakers but, having been present when my father-in-law tried C37 on his paper cones (which I cautioned against), and having witnesses the results (post #30), I thought it was worth a try on my Nonsuch 4s.
Steve
PS: Amazing how much interest and disagreement this subject generates, isn't it?
I haven't compared it with more normal varnishes and I would hesitate before trying a normal varnish on my drivers. I suppose that I should - in the interests of scientific curiosity - but I won't - in the interests of my pocket.mrfeedback said:
I'm not sufficiently familiar with the varnishes out there but, from the smell, I would say that C37 is different.
No, I haven't tried other coatings.
Sy, I wasn't looking to coat my speakers but, having been present when my father-in-law tried C37 on his paper cones (which I cautioned against), and having witnesses the results (post #30), I thought it was worth a try on my Nonsuch 4s.
Steve
PS: Amazing how much interest and disagreement this subject generates, isn't it?
Well, in my case, I've been formulating coatings professionally for a variety of non-audio applications for a lot of years now. So this sort of thing *****s my ears up more than it probably is worth.
edit: Now THAT's a funny filtering side effect! I guess I can't ***** my finger with a pin, either.
Sy, I notice that you have given your occupation as an inventor and that you work in the field of coatings. Also, speaker design is obviously a passion of yours.SY said:
So why not do your own experimentation with coatings for speaker cones? I doubt if anyone is better placed to do this. You could use inexpensive drivers (Tangbands or similar?) and really get to the bottom of this issue.
If you could come up with a coating that would improve the sound of a driver without destroying it in the process I'm sure that you could sell it by the bucket-load. After all, you'd have a "fish-in-a-bucket" market here, wouldn't you? I would certainly try such a formulation and I'm sure that others would too.
Say what you want about C37 but there is one thing in its favour. It's so expensive that it has single-handedly created a market for other coatings at less extravagant prices.
Of course you would have to suffer the 'slings and arrows' of the audiophile market but it's worth a thought, isn't it?
Steve
I'm not of the school of "all speaker drivers are the same." So the idea of a universal treatment is, in my mind, silly. I prefer to work on useful things. Now, if you're talking about making a specific coating to accomplish a specific task for a specific driver, I'm available for consulting at my usual extortionate rates.
I think what 7V meant....
Granted, different cones will behave differently.
I see your point, but I think what 7V meant was that. If one could find a common point, or come up with some "rule of thumb" to go by.
Perhaps, with "X" varnish, speaker cone made out of "Y" material will provide "Z" amount of damping or some other positive effect.
David
Granted, different cones will behave differently.
I see your point, but I think what 7V meant was that. If one could find a common point, or come up with some "rule of thumb" to go by.
Perhaps, with "X" varnish, speaker cone made out of "Y" material will provide "Z" amount of damping or some other positive effect.
David
SY said:
Suppose one starts with the assumption that the substance, for instance C37, is an alternative material for the manufacture of speaker cones. Perhaps the ideal C37 cone would just be a lightweight lattice or skeleton ("Y"), filled with C37 ("X"). The function of the lattice would be to keep the cone sufficiently rigid. The cone would then effectively be of C37. This may be what we get when we treat paper cones with the stuff.EternaLightWith said:
In the frequency range where the cone acts as a piston, any lightweight rigid material would do provided it was of the right shape. Above that we're talking break-up behaviour.
So, the specific task would be "sounding good, through break-up" ("Z+"). If the original assumption is correct, then you may not be correct when you say that a universal treatment is silly.
In summary, I would postulate that for any coating to work for this particular acoustic function, it must exhibit the properties of a good, alternative material for the manufacture of cones, with the exception that it may need some other material to give it sufficient rigidity.
Just some thoughts. Shoot them down. I'm only an enclosure designer.
Steve
All effects like that are trade-offs- well, the vast majority, anyway. There's so much difference in things like cone construction and its interaction with the other pieces of the driver and system design that universalizing is futile. For example, a felted paper cone might work well in my dry California living room, but have tuning problems in the dampness of Kuala Lumpur. If I hawk a Saran or EVOH composition as a cone "improvement," it will probably help the guy in KL but degrade my system.
Here's a freebie: if you want to make a paper cone more moisture insensitive and stiffer, make up a solution of Saran F-310 to about 15% by weight in a solvent which will not eat your surround or cone adhesive. Candidate solvents would include THF, MEK, acetone, DBE, carbitol acetate, or similar. I haven't tried isopropyl alcohol yet, but it might work. If you want to stay aqueous, partially hydrolyzed Saran ("Daran") is available in dispersions. I'd start with something like ethanol as a solvent.
If you don't want the stiffening effect but want better waterproofing, use a solution of a paraffin emulsion like Mobilcer C. Alternately, partially hydrolyzed polyethylene waxes can be emulsified in water or alcohol.
Heavy damping at the expense of added mass can be done with Permatex undercoating, plasticized with 10% by weight of Dow-Corning 200 fluid.
And if you're lucky enough to have a few of the old Dynaudio paper cone drivers (like the 21W54), don't even THINK about coating them. Send them to me.
Here's a freebie: if you want to make a paper cone more moisture insensitive and stiffer, make up a solution of Saran F-310 to about 15% by weight in a solvent which will not eat your surround or cone adhesive. Candidate solvents would include THF, MEK, acetone, DBE, carbitol acetate, or similar. I haven't tried isopropyl alcohol yet, but it might work. If you want to stay aqueous, partially hydrolyzed Saran ("Daran") is available in dispersions. I'd start with something like ethanol as a solvent.
If you don't want the stiffening effect but want better waterproofing, use a solution of a paraffin emulsion like Mobilcer C. Alternately, partially hydrolyzed polyethylene waxes can be emulsified in water or alcohol.
Heavy damping at the expense of added mass can be done with Permatex undercoating, plasticized with 10% by weight of Dow-Corning 200 fluid.
And if you're lucky enough to have a few of the old Dynaudio paper cone drivers (like the 21W54), don't even THINK about coating them. Send them to me.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.