|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.188.201.134
In Reply to: RE: Multi-layered, Adhesive-backed Felt Surrounds for Cone-Speakers posted by unclestu on March 27, 2015 at 16:31:24
Uncle Stu,
Thank you for the explanation. Not being technical, was simply adapting from this picture of the Dunlavy V1 and delighted with the sound quality after two weeks. Separately tried a woofer surround but that was a failure.
Suspect that diffraction-blocking of the weak, narrow sound waves of the tweeter also largely removes their vulnerability to interference from the strong, more broadly-dispersed sound waves of the mid-range.
DryGinger
Follow Ups:
hate sharp corners, even soft ones like felt.
I spoke to a manufacturer many years ago about this but felt is punched, so bevels are not possible. I understand with the latest laser cutters this may be possible, though.
The smaller aperture means a more directional projection though.
My using the lines of putty is an attempt, in a way, to limit dispersion of the individual drivers, too.
Keep posting
Uncle Stu,
Many thanks for the continuing education! Have since modified the surrounds by increasing the apertures of the tweeter and mid-range to leave 5mm/10mm of bare metal flange before starting the felt surrounds as can hopefully be seen in this new picture. Used four Madisound diffraction rings on each tweeter and three layers of their felt on each mid-range. The outcome is a much wider and more open sound-stage with the same improved level of treble focus/ depth of base. (The result of exposing some wood surface around the tweeter was not audible and using Madisound's rings definitely makes that part of the job quicker.)
DG
Edits: 04/02/15
DG, i know this is a bit off-topic, but have you tried any sound absorption panels on that bare wall behind the speakers? Seems to me a thick panel that absorbs into the bass region should sharpen up focus and clarity.
It did in my room.
jhrlrd,
Thank you for your suggestion.
I do not have a separate listening room and long ago decided that sacrificing large coffee table, sideboard and two armchairs to sound was fine but covering the walls was an aesthetic sacrifice too far for me. You may well be right abut thick panels although a consultant advised that their best placement would be against the opposite wall behind the sofa on which I listen.
Many people have racks between the speakers that rise two/ three feet to disrupt the sound stage as I did initially. Found that placing components on maple blocks above the carpet led to a significant increase in clarity which was enhanced by wrapping four layers of MuMetal separated by narrow strips of 0.125" cork around the the internal Toroidal transformer of the amplifier. Mounting that Toroidal transformer on a Hexi-Flex Tile (100mm diameter x 6mm thick of hexagonal Deflex) $3.75 each from Michael Percy Audio increases clarity by minimizing the biggest source of amplifier vibration. Moving as many components as possible to a neighboring room (where they are unaffected by the speakers and connected through holes in the wall) results in greater clarity.
Also, if you have a TV hung on the wall where you listen to music and push its sound through your audio system, then there's an increase in clarity resulting from removing the redundant internal TV speakers.
Have included this info in case you missed it earlier.
DG
agreed, absorption behind the listener is probably paramount, I'm sure you've seen those "art" panels that may have a better WAF. The components in the other room is a neat idea as long as the longer runs of cabling don't compromise anything.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: