At this point this is only a mental (stretching?) exercise.
What if I removed the faceplate from my tweeter and mounted the tweeter from inside the speaker cabinet?
For this execise the tweeter is not specified and assumes the diaphragm is not mounted on the faceplate.
1. I could duplicate the profile of the original faceplate. I think the benefit of this would be appearance. I imagine a select or figured wood that I would like to see more of.
2. I could alter the profile. I would like discussion or direction to sources that will help me understand "horn loading" and difraction as they would relate to the changes in tweeter response.
I will consider these things for incorporation into another set of home-built speakers.
Yee Ha!
What if I removed the faceplate from my tweeter and mounted the tweeter from inside the speaker cabinet?
For this execise the tweeter is not specified and assumes the diaphragm is not mounted on the faceplate.
1. I could duplicate the profile of the original faceplate. I think the benefit of this would be appearance. I imagine a select or figured wood that I would like to see more of.
2. I could alter the profile. I would like discussion or direction to sources that will help me understand "horn loading" and difraction as they would relate to the changes in tweeter response.
I will consider these things for incorporation into another set of home-built speakers.
Yee Ha!
Somebody here replaced the front plates of his Vifa XT25 with hand-carved wooden plates... I can't remember who it was.
Yes
That's along the lines of what I'm considering. However, I would make the tweeter mount integral with the cabinet instead of attached to or "on top" of. Thanks for the heads-up.
That's along the lines of what I'm considering. However, I would make the tweeter mount integral with the cabinet instead of attached to or "on top" of. Thanks for the heads-up.
I happen to have that link handy in case it's helpful at all.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31214
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31214
Not quite the same thing but done with aesthetics in mind.
I don't know how far the aperture in the baffle could be reduced before the sound of the tweter was affected.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I don't know how far the aperture in the baffle could be reduced before the sound of the tweter was affected.
If you have the woodworking skills for such a job, why not simply use a compression driver tweeter? You can mill the horn into the front using a CNC router of some kind, or sand down concentric rings to get the shape... It'll make the tweeter better time-aligned to the mid/woofer too.. 🙂
bg40403 said:
There is a variety of horn contours to choose from.. The Single Driver website will explain you some concepts.
Rocky, Thanks for the reference to The Single Driver Website, I'll spend some time with it this weekend. Woodworking skill? I have a shop and am handy with wood turning. A stack laminated horn behind the cabinet face could be considered. It could be finish-turned, mounted inside the cabinet and then the cabinet face opened up and profiled with a router or other shaping method. I like the concern for time alignment. Sweet.
kingdaddy, Yours is the "faceplate" I found when doing a search prior to my post. The change in sound you refer to is one of the things concerning me, one of my motives for research of this. Read, plan then do.
My "bulls eye" at this time is to cover all of the tweeter except the diaphragm, allowing the profile of the opening to do the same job as a "normal" faceplate. Until now I hadn't considered a compression driver. The list grows and
The saga continues
kingdaddy, Yours is the "faceplate" I found when doing a search prior to my post. The change in sound you refer to is one of the things concerning me, one of my motives for research of this. Read, plan then do.
My "bulls eye" at this time is to cover all of the tweeter except the diaphragm, allowing the profile of the opening to do the same job as a "normal" faceplate. Until now I hadn't considered a compression driver. The list grows and
The saga continues
Good references from the above posters
bg40403, please keep us up to date. You are obviously taking this project with a good perspective of sound and aesthetics. This is good for people like myself. I look forward to your success and hope to see your implementation.
Thanks all for the good source information.
Sandy.
bg40403, please keep us up to date. You are obviously taking this project with a good perspective of sound and aesthetics. This is good for people like myself. I look forward to your success and hope to see your implementation.
Thanks all for the good source information.
Sandy.
That is quite fantastic! a wooden face plate! i would have choosen a darker wood but it looks very earthy, that is passion and wood working skill right there, Well done Kindaddy, you want to make me a pair for my esotars and revelators?lol,
Verity audio have the tweeter mounted with no faceplate.
I like the look of it
http://www.verityaudio.com/Tamino.html
F
I like the look of it
http://www.verityaudio.com/Tamino.html
F
The only real problem I ran into was a directivity issue, if your not careful with the depth and angle of the throat opening you will cause the tweeter to beam unnaturally. I had to shave off a mm at a time, then compare it to the stock tweeter to get good results. I did however do something that was a complete guess, by extending the ring's of the tweeter's radiator surface onto the faceplate, you can tell by looking closely at the picture that there is a slight trough near the middle of the faceplate that mimics the rings in the cone, a fixed extension if you will. I don't know if this has any effect or not, I could not verify it, however, I found it interesting that Sonus Faber did something very similar to the SS Tweeter on there new Stradivari speakers.
Well I tried to attach a good picture but this site must be having problems, keeps saying that the file sixze is too big, and it's only 270K, oh well.
Well I tried to attach a good picture but this site must be having problems, keeps saying that the file sixze is too big, and it's only 270K, oh well.
270K is way overkill. Try reducing the file to 60K or so. That will also help with the effort this forum is making to reduce non-essential traffic.
I got it down to 130K and it still wont upload, now the picture is so small it's not worth posting. This place used to take pictures this size, I thought.
If I recall , the file size limit for posting is 100K.
How did you reduce the file size? Perhaps you don't know how to do it correctly.
How did you reduce the file size? Perhaps you don't know how to do it correctly.
I use a built in utility in Thumbs Plus (picture viewing program), it has a dialog for resizing a picture, you can input the Pixel width or height and it will auto resize to that parameter. It's only 300Pix's wide and its at 130K, so it must be a very hi rez with high color and contrast to be that big. Anyway I'm trying to post a picture of the Sonus Faber Stradivari tweeter, it has a similar ring in the faceplate as mine.
Here is the site I got the pic from.
http://www.cinenow.com/us/reportage.php/sid,781/
Here is the site I got the pic from.
http://www.cinenow.com/us/reportage.php/sid,781/
That's odd. I visited the Sonus site and the pic that shows the tweeter closeup is only 90K to begin with. I'm wondering how you wound up with a 270K pic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.