Thanks, I'm indeed very curious, because I see lots of applications to this process (I wonder why it is not applied everywhere there's a vibration.
Thanks again! I've opened a thread trying to summarize things and find equivalent products in Europe.
There are a lot of information and hints spread on the forum, I would like to summarize it to make it easier for others to approach it.
Even though I have the plans on order, I will try these drivers in the cabinets that I presently have because the drivers being used now are not correct for these cabinets and make exaggerated bass. Then perhaps I will try out the treatment on the cones after break in. The path continues.
A12PW X2 ordered. Thank you guys for the info. I thought that I would never have a pair of these.
A12PW X2 ordered. Thank you guys for the info. I thought that I would never have a pair of these.
Last edited:
If i would use a tweeter, i would use the 10p, not the metal cone. It's almost the same driver, but with less resonance on top (rolled of high) so easier to cross to a tweeter, and i would cross it high, more arround 4kHz.
The metal cone driver does not need a tweeter, certainly not with a filter. Response is higher than our hearing and dispertion is very good for a fullrange driver of this size, exceptional good even i would say. I had mine next to monitor speakers that are fairly flat, and the difference is not that big. And if you want ultimate accuracy, fullrange drivers are not what you're after, then a multiway is a way better choice. A fullrange is accurate enough to enjoy music fully and has a very coherent time and phase response as it is a true point source system with no or little filtering, something that is very rare in multiway speakers.
The driver that I am referring to is the A12PW. I don't believe that is a metal cone. I know the A12P wasn't. I have been a fan of full range drivers for a long time because of what I hear. Of course, not every one of them would I own. In fact, some are unlistenable for me, due to the usual 1K peak and other problems.
As mentioned in another thread I'm doing a cheaper driver before the Mark Audio Alpair 10.3, namely Michael Audio 4" AlMg cone (same cone size as MAOP 7), kind of an experimental edition of the "drum paper" 4.5-5.5" drivers I often praised. So I applied one coat of half-strength MicroScale Gloss to one driver (call it R) and couldn't even see a difference -- I thought both drivers must have been pre-coated already, the way the diluted liquid ran and pooled over the cone. Aack so much for "as little as possible"! I soaked up any excess, pooled, over-ran Gloss and waited 24 hours. First listened to tone sweep and R sounded barely fainter than L, easier to tell at high frequency but still not so definitive. Then I listened to music, swapping listening ear or channel hookup to try to prevent bias. The short answer is: L presented detail more up-front; R presented them fainter, but also the next level of detail. For example, the long trailing-off violin uber-high note was more pronounced on L, but the tail was actually longer on R. I was impressed. Overall more MAOPy.
Now a dilemma. As I laid on the first coat too thick probably, should I forego the second coat?
THANK YOU dave
p.s. I ordered three spare pairs before the procedure.
Now a dilemma. As I laid on the first coat too thick probably, should I forego the second coat?
THANK YOU dave
p.s. I ordered three spare pairs before the procedure.
Last edited:
So the thin layer L got maybe half to 2/3 the refinement of the thick layer R, while maintaining a very small edge in loudness. Put another layer on L, a bit thicker and the dustcap too. Wait another 24....
Comparing AlMg R to the original drum paper cone, R is a bit smoother and cleaner, more realistic sounding. The drum paper cone is more dynamic with better 10-12khz response (than even the untreated AlMg) hence more detailed, but also a bit resonant/cluttered. I placed a small rubberband on the paper cone up-firing and that solved the clarity problem -- dead heat between the two versions (other than small trace of sound character difference due to cone material). In their Michael Audio slot-loaded 4.5L cabs the AlMg has just a tad more 50hz but I suspect it would comp better if converted to TLonken or similar.
Will probably try "ringing" the paper cone with plast-tape or ZIG-glue or (even) EnABL-like spots. The paper cone is pre-treated with water-proof "nano" coating (haha) so probably no Mod Podge.
Comparing AlMg R to the original drum paper cone, R is a bit smoother and cleaner, more realistic sounding. The drum paper cone is more dynamic with better 10-12khz response (than even the untreated AlMg) hence more detailed, but also a bit resonant/cluttered. I placed a small rubberband on the paper cone up-firing and that solved the clarity problem -- dead heat between the two versions (other than small trace of sound character difference due to cone material). In their Michael Audio slot-loaded 4.5L cabs the AlMg has just a tad more 50hz but I suspect it would comp better if converted to TLonken or similar.
Will probably try "ringing" the paper cone with plast-tape or ZIG-glue or (even) EnABL-like spots. The paper cone is pre-treated with water-proof "nano" coating (haha) so probably no Mod Podge.
Last edited:
Michael Audio 4" AlMg cone: L (two thin coats) and R (one thick coat) sounded the same loudness at every khz up to 12, maybe 10-11 L was (at most) a hair strand louder. Music just fine, similar to Alpair 5.2 (from memory), perhaps not quite as airy and holographic. Against MAOP 7 (same cone size) the cheaper driver is a tad brighter, more detailed, dynamic, and open sounding, though not as refined, smooth, and focused sounding. Both in company-issue, high quality slotted BR; MAOP 7's 2.5 times bigger and a little louder at the port but they reached down about the same. (Both cabs will be TLonken in due time.)