Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
85.188.73.3
In Reply to: RE: It's probably because I am an old fart but posted by ghost4man on July 23, 2017 at 21:58:29
I know how to do it too. However, you will have problems to fully replicate the original speakers. The Mylar Magnepan uses is said to be out of production and they will not sell you any. It is also difficult to replicate the correct tension of the Mylar, even more so if you use a different type of polyester film. The film material will change its resonant behaviour with time and we want to have that final sound after several hundred of hours of use. As the Magneplanar type of driver has no provision to adjust the tension, you can only guess what tension you should use. This is very important for the quality of bass, especially for the large Tympanis. Too much tension - no low bass. Too little tension - diaphragm will hit the magnets.
Follow Ups:
Hay again,
Absolutely, but my tymps have tuning screws like a drum or better a guitar. The mylar I get from McMaster Carr seems almost identical & blows away worn out flabby fagged tymp mylar. ALSO TIII's always have 2 B totally gutted cause of the archaic wooden tuning bars glued across the whole diaphragm in 2 places I recall. I always sensed they had BAD bass & they did. Here again engineering makes mistakes but always goes forward. Mistakes & failures R the rd 2 success. Cheating IS learning 2.
Thx,
Steve
@ Steve:There are at least three different versions of the Tympani Bass Speakers (a part of the Tympani III or IIIA).
The ones with the wooden crossbars are early production.
The middle production had no wooden crossbars across the Mylar.
The late production had the diaphragm fastened (without butons) in two spots on the mid bass and the low bass driver was single piece of Mylar.
Edits: 07/27/17
Hay Gus,
U'd probably know about new voice coil wire. I used 2 think that the inner 6 double coils were there 2 produce more slam in the middle but after redoing an old MG2, it has doubled coil wire across the entire bass diaphragm section. Supposedly it mite have no particular extra effect. It's only to achieve the correct resistance. Which is it?
Thx,
Also there's a site where this "dude" has completely recoiled tymps w/foil tape & he claims it sounds AOK but the resistance is no longer the same. BUT IT WORKS!!
I really wanna do foil everywhere cause even though it doesn't produce the perfectly circular electromagnetic field that round wire does, it supposedly sticks better, no end jigs needed, dissipates damaging heat better & lasts way longer.
What's U'r take?
What shood I use & where shood I get it. Don't say thru Magnepan please
Steve
Several guys have rebuild drivers with foil. You want to choose the foil that has the same resistivity as the wire to maintain impedance, unless you're biamping in which case you can do whatever you want.
Foil does sound better in the mids and the highs, however, if you redid your Tympani woofer with foil you would very likely reduce the compliance which would shift the resonant frequencies. One thing you could do is turn the 1D into a 2.5 way -- take part of the woofer nearest the tweeter (this is the low bass section) and make a midrange section a few inches wide. Short run so you need high resistivity (thin) foil to maintain impedance. Leave the rest of the wire in place. Now make a 1.5-way XO so that both woofer panels are driven up to about 250 Hz, then from 250 Hz to 1kHz, you're driving only the midrange section. You now have better dispersion and imaging, as well as the advantages of a foil midrange, while the woofing behavior remains much the same as before.
Better yet, you could add a midrange on the M-T panel next to the tweeter, less IM and the woofers remain untouched.
I have no idea where to get the foil but if you look at some ribbon speaker construction projects on DIY audio they probably mention sources.
Hay josh358,
Thank U, Thank U, Thank U,
It's most likely gonna B foil 4 me. I'll look into Ur GREAT suggestions & get it rite the 1st time. Don't wanna do it AGAIN.
Foil's a 4 sure thing on my rebuilt T-1D tweeter panels, but maybe I shood stay w/aluminum wire on the 4 bass panels. Although better, I really don't wanna add or mix drivers rite now. And 4 all U dispersion freaks which I used 2 B 1: Now I totally love beaming. Beaming is intensity even though it sounds worse wen outside of the sweet spot. If beaming is bad then Y wen I do any massive improvements along comes more & more intense beaming?
Thx,
Steve
Well, beaming is controversial. There are people who prefer it, like Roger Sanders, but it also means that the power response of the speaker changes which can interfere with imaging and naturalness. I think part of it depends on room acoustics -- if you have early reflections, you're probably better off with beaming -- or if you want an analytical, headphone-like sound.
I do know that my IVA's, which don't beam, sound more natural than my 1-D's, which did, but then I had better high frequency hearing when I had my 1-D's! And of course other things are changing as well.
Hay Roger,
THANKS, U R into it, really,
As I said, my removable diaphragm skins R tunable or shood I say tightenable AFTER final installation. That shood make up 4 mylar variance. Also the mylar I use acts identical in tension testing, physical feel & it's the exact 1/2 thousandth" thick. And did U ever touch removed mylar from a set of tymps: feels like ragged nasty dried up celluphane. Though maybe not absolutely flawlessly perfect, new McMaster Carr mylar is 92% or maybe 100% more like the orig'l then what all old tymps R now & they still work wen worn out & flabby. Y woodn't 92% of orig'l B better than trashed cigarette wrapping?
What's U'r take?
Steve
Good info and advice Roger, but you're wasting your breathe. This Steve guy doesn't seriously consider what anyone here says, clinging to his incorrect assumptions and false beliefs.
Hay again,
Thanks but I must've hit the wrong buttons. I have no intention on believing that I am GOD though I sound that way many times. Maybe I shood've worded things better & U wood C I'm trying 2 get the absolute BEST 4 the absolute LEAST. I once paid $2500 on a demo Mark Levinson ML10-A pre because it sounded 93% as good as the $6600 ML reference. Not bad but it was 2-1/2 times my $1000 limit/pc. Took it home & loved that "DARK" sound. WOW. I'm sure 2day there's far better but I C 'em on Ebay at $1200. Not a great investment but better than most aging electronics.
Thx,
Steve
The guy was given some incomplete info from someone with a very particular philosophy and it will take him a while to figure out how to integrate what we all found out over years of experimentation. So please don't berate him for taking time to acclimate.
Hay Satie,
Thanks, but please don't tell me a Belles pre blows an ML pre away. I'm dying 2 hear some of the nu wave of clean electronics though. It seems that ever since CD's came out, nobody is really into audio like B4. Is the golden age gone?
Steve
I don't know if Belles preamps have improved that much but that tiny boutique is producing well regarded stuff at more reasonable prices than ML did.
I don't expect that there is much improvement to be had over the ML 10 and its contemporary Classe DR5. If you want better from them give them new schottkys and lower ESR and bigger PS caps and put in foil caps where he used metalized polyprop. There are also better connectors and pots. But the basic circuit is fabulous.
The biamp issue is that there are many ways to do it and not all of them make for a more complex signal path with more "dirt". The bass usually remains ok or benefits from an electronic crossover, the top end requires more care and can be done with as few parts as the speaker level crossover if the preamp has enough output and the crossover is simple enough.
I'm not as nice as you, Satie ;-). I don't hold mere ignorance against anyone, myself included---I possess a lot it! But this Steve fella seems to be completely ignoring what ya'll are telling him, not just putting no effort into understanding what you are saying and why you are saying it, but actually not interested in improving his understanding of the issues involved in bi-amping and both active and passive speaker-level and line-level x-overs, or thinking he perhaps needs to. I wouldn't call him a know-it-all, but he doesn't appear to be open to even considering new or alternative information, instead preferring to merely parrot what he was told long ago. He just keeps repeating his adopted beliefs, not even acknowledging the information and ideas offered as a rebuttal to those mistaken beliefs. Weird!
Edits: 07/24/17
Hay again & thanks,
It's not that I'm old school & not open 2 nu ideas. It's just I haven't heard much better & I can't afford 2 buy & install dull stuff. Make sense?
Thx,
Steve
LOL, I've said it to myself and others more times than I can remember. I admire Satie's patience, understanding and willingness to share what he knows. AND, I also envy him for his thick skin, big time. Every now and then his positive attitude has forced me to remember that I still have some growing up to do.Anyway, it feels wrong to burn someone at the stake just as he offers something. We are too quick to focus on the negatives first, and "we" has included me often enough. Time may tell but we have nothing to lose. Though I may never really need them, I sent for the details minutes ago. There is always something to be learned, me thinks.
For all I know, Steve may have the perfect way NOT to do this...or more likely, a seemingly minor trick that may make someone's day. It may be for U, me, or someone else. I'd be just as grateful in any of those cases.
Edits: 07/25/17
Hay again,
I'm not always rite & I'm not a billionaire so I don't have the time or money 2 buy all of 'em then rtn the doggz. I'm hoping 2 improve in solid steps, not mistakes like KEF, Klipsch or McINT.
Thx,
Steve
I'm not sure if he's a troll or not but there's nothing worse than someone who ask for advice/help; receives it from a hand full of folks only to respond by saying to a single individual: "finally someone who know's what he's talking about (or similar)".
THAT pisses me off.
Hay again & thanks,
Coloration is super EZ 2 hear on headphones but I hate headphones.
I'm not GOD but heard many a dull stuff like AR SS pre, what a dogg. Doesn't mean all AR is doggy. I'm very very open.
Steve
It is a common behavior and the more complex and broadly believed a mistake is, the harder it is to let go of it.
The worst ones are in fields where professionals think they have knowledge that later turns out to be groundless or even outright wrong, or to have been based on fake science performed by someone's marketing department.
Hay again,
R U saying old ML stuff is doggy? Maybe it is nowadays. BTW what speaker wire do U use. What brands do U recommend. Hope they don't have dirty tone controls. Come on, I'm ready. Just joking.
Steve
Boy, those are cynical and naive comments.
I will certainly stipulate marketing departments can skew product images and fool some of the public, but (generally) professionals DO have the knowledge and are (generally) grounded with decent education and years of real-world experiences. If not, they're (generally) not professionals in their trade much longer. :)
The audio industry is not special in this aspect. Free-thinking, creative types are no more/less full of shit than any other profession.
It's time to start considering the validity of your comments much more on this forum
Dave.
Hay Davey,
Makes full sense but it doesn't get 2 the bottom of what the BEST 4 the LEAST.
Thx,
Steve
every profession suffers from fashion, group think, and sell outs. the most common problem is mythology. in some areas like medicine it can take an entire generation to clear out mistakes. the more complex the field so it relies more on other fields to base its principles on. when new discoveries are made, old ones refined, or outright errors corrected, the complex expertise relying on these foundations may retain misconceptions for decades after they were discovered and corrected.
the larger the amount of money involved the larger the temptation to create fake science and continue teaching documented errors to the next generation of professionals.
"the larger the amount of money involved the larger the temptation to create fake science and continue teaching documented errors to the next generation of professionals."
A fairly good synopsis of the "high-end" audio industry. :)
It's important to understand that some things in basic electronics are....basic. They will not be refined, or errors corrected, or similar. Ohm's Law is not going to found in error by some creative genius in the "high-end" audio industry. :)
Dave.
"Ohm's Law is not going to found in error by some creative genius in the 'high-end' audio industry."
LOL, you haven't spoken to any designers of exotic cables lately, have you.
Ah, well, off to put another batch of CD's in the freezer.
Well, as a matter of fact I have. :)
I recently told one of the "high-end" cable manufacturers at the AudioCircle jerk forum that his $8000.00 speaker cables were ridiculously overpriced.
Considering the business model on that forum and the whiney mentality of some of the "industry members", you can guess what happened. :)
Dave.
Heh -- I'm definitely in the wrong business. Want to be the first customer for my alluvial mouse whisker enhanced endrohence superconducting etheric quantum cables? Only $7000 -- see, I'm undercutting the other guy, and rumor has it that he's cutting corners by using whiskers from run-of-the-mill savanna mice on the sly.
high end audio has its share of issues, but where the big money is is in consumer and pro audio electronics not in the high end. it is in the large companies selling convenience audio and marketing based features rather than sound quality as a guide. the costs are held down to increase margins and the products are often just a tad better than trash, so long as they work. on the other hand you can obtain some mighty good performance from some low cost products, but those are not that common.
the disregard for sound quality is ingrained with attempts to cut costs using cheap parts and components backed up by blind tests with listener test pools with no interest in sound quality or experience of live acoustic music with which to judge fidelity.
high end is a tiny business and the top flagships win interest in the rest of the range and prop up margins on the lower end of the line. but that creates a trap for the companies where they need to retain the audio bling appearance on lower priced goods. often leaves little for the parts inside.
"high end is a tiny business and the top flagships win interest in the rest of the range and prop up margins on the lower end of the line. but that creates a trap for the companies where they need to retain the audio bling appearance on lower priced goods. often leaves little for the parts inside."
Isn't it common here for inmates to berate Magnepan for using mediocre parts in both their lower priced entry level and flagship speakers? It appears common to find discussions describing their replacement. It might follow then that one needn't travel far to see a good example.
the point is made with the magnepan and vandersteen exception though vandersteen did go the royal barge way with its top end speakers over the last decade. but both did go for the value market and provide good value in part by not marking up their top end product and not gold plating it nor using exotic parts. that does leave us room to improve performance but the stock speakers compete successfully with speakers priced 10 fold higher.
I think the point is whether or not a manufacturer willingly cuts corners in the quality of their product (e.g., Magnepan's speaker terminals, set-screws and jacks or cross-overs parts) to maximize profits, and perhaps pay for 'bling'? IIRC Magnepan was here accused of offering bling in their use of wood-like side-rails in some Tympanis, when neither required nor used in other Tympanis. In fact didn't that poster say he preferred their look without side-rails?
The IVA had different bracing for the frame and were downright flimsy without the wood siderails. They were not at all bling just a necessary structural element that was incorporated into the aesthetic.
When Magnepan introduced their connection scheme it was a major upgrade over the terminal strip and screw terminals. But those were pretty much standard for the day along with nickel plated RCA connectors that we know today are a no no.
Satie, thank you for informing me of that information, which is very much appreciated.
Satie wrote: "The IVA had different bracing for the frame and were downright flimsy without the wood siderails."
Can you give details in which way it was changed? I have not seen a great difference fron the IV. Same kind of structure or have I missed something? I like the look of the Tympanis without the side rails. Mine are solid oak and do not help very much in order to reduce the "flimsiness" of the baffles.
My 1982 TIV have hardwood frames on the bass panels, not MDF. They are stiff and solid. The MDF mid/tweeter panel is stiffened with sheetmetal.
For the T IVa you can compare notes with Josh and other T IVa owners. IIRC he noted that the panels are flimsy without the oak side panels.
My Tympani IIIA (1975) had hardwood around the edges. The drivers were glued and riveted on 1/8" board.
My Tympani IVa (1985) have 3/4" MDF but where the drivers are mounted it is rather thick, more than 1/8", about the half of the 3/4".My 3.6 (2003) are similar to the IVa.
All three are stiffened with strips of sheetmetal, both front and rear along the height of the baffles.
Edits: 07/29/17
I didn't remember how the steel bracing was mounted on the bass panels, but now that you describe it it seems right and familliar. I only had the bass panels partially uncovered to fix cracks in the wood frame corners from shipping with epoxy and using carpenter's clamps. Then I sowed it up. When they had problems a few years later I sent them to Magnepan for the repair. That was 15 years ago.
The steel crossbars? The number of crossbars and its positions seems identical on IV and IVa. A picture of my friends IV looks very much like my IVa, even look like MDF. Very old Tympanis (like the IIIA) have them secured by glue and screws. My IVa have hem just glued and they can come loose after some 10th of years. The 3.6 also have them glued.
Yes, I think the crossbars are what I saw at the top where I was working. I don't remember screws or the lack of them.
Satie, you're just rationalizing now. That explanation might work outside the weird venue of an audio forum like this, but not here.
Dave.
A high-end amplifier manufacturer told me once that he tried making a budget amplifier by using a functional faceplate rather than the expensive milled aluminum thing and that they didn't sell.
I suppose that those of us with speakers bigger than we are shouldn't talk. :-)
You fellas have already wasted way more time on this guy than you should have. He's a troll.
I've received numerous (unsolicited) emails that demonstrate he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.....and that he can't even put three words together to form a coherent thought/sentence.
Giving a newbie poster the benefit of the doubt is fine, but this situation is something else completely.
Cheers,
Dave.
My sentiments exactly.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: