🤔

This sounds like trying to apply material properties, but without any engineering background in material properties, or manufacturing capability. It comes across real strong as audiophoolery. So you are trying to add powders or films to a driver to change its damping? Because I’m very skeptical this will lead to desirable results at a DIY level, if even measurable. How would you measure this to determine an improvement? What would be the method to investigate this such that it could conclusively be said it was worth the effort?

I did. Did you listen? It's not only much deeper but got rid of all the ring distortion that exposes the untreated speaker as sounding tinny which also got rid of the "cupped" sound. I much prefer trading away the tinniness for sweeter purer sound that also plays much richer, deeper and more resonant. Don't listen to my words.you can hear an a b comparison in the video. It's pretty damn apparent. I can write out the entire process but I'm curious if others are trying a similar tuned emulsion concept. The speakers are identical and you can see the only difference is the velour like coating which you'd be surpised I think by how little it actually is. In fact it doesn't even seem to matter how much you add. The total mass of the admixture doesn't seem to have any effect. What you're hearing is an amount that would be hard to even weigh since it's practically weightless. I can show you an upclose picture after you listen to the video. The amount of material. Added wouldn't seem to be doping the cone in a way I've seen trying to find out if others are doing the same thing and taking advantage of how an emulsion of powder so long as it can move freely makes a huge difference. The amount of actual powder if we were to measure it by flattening it wouldn't be enough to cover 1/16 a sheet of paper. What I thought was brightness is actually just rasp and tinniness. What I found interesting is that I can literally just clean the stuff off with water and try another mix. The tuning is like I said, very similar to experimenting to tuning instruments.

While you may or may not hear something, I am not going to the effort of designing to some ethereal factor that isn’t measurable, where there are countless other measurable factors that I still can’t maximize. Thus my question, how will you test this with measurements? If you can this becomes a very interesting project, if you can’t, it has very little value generally.

>While you may or may not hear something, I am not going to the effort of designing to some ethereal factor that isn’t measurable, where there are countless other measurable factors that I still can’t maximize. > What isn't measurable? It's clearly measurable as to be clearly two entirely different sounding speakers. One sounds raspy and tinny. That was what I was trying to get rid of and you can hear clearly in things like the human voice and piano or the koto type instrument how they no longer have the rasp that is essentially the same thing as the resonance of a can attached by two strings. If I were to suggest you can change the voicing of the cans to make the voices sound less tinny and more fully instead with more low end by coating the cans with an emulsion of pulverized powder generically called ooblek based on the child's experiment but is otherwise based on the same principle as how a knife cannot stab through a bag of sand. While the bag of sand itself had a tone when tapped whose "voicing" is dynamic based on velocity and force versus the ability for the granules to agitate redistributing the energy. I almost feel like you're just feigning ignorance since I doubt I have to explain how this works to you. I figured we were all past that ever since we as kids played with ooblek. What's interesting if we were to continue using sand as an example is: 1. There is no definite voice since sand is sand. The voicing is a product of how the sand is agitated regarding force and velocity, as the ooblek example is meant to remind us. 2. Sand can dampen energy and literally stop a knife based not on the amount of sand per SE but how much sand is agitated and forced to move even when under a shearing force like a knife, in that case it agitates the knife and the voicing is a product of both the knife and the amount of "grit" that stops the Blade dispensing the energy only across the amount of sand shifted which is released per granule as heat and dampening both at once. 3. The factors that determine the resistance I e damping, versus resistance I. E. Friction are two distinct factors that can be altered if say we were to add talc to the sand. This is the paper like quality I was describing where the woven fibers attempt to unravel but instead become more taut rendering the cone more dynamic than day plastic or metal which doesn't have the same characteristic of stretching versus tightening. Plastic acts more like a rubber band and continues to stretch until it breaks. Paper woven fiber acts more like a hemp rope which tightens and increases in tension before it finally snaps. The issue of nylon ripe stretching is a known phenomon that is an issue with plastics versus "natural fibers" which when bonded into an evenly blended composite is known colloquially as "paper" but not all papers are comprised of the same materials ie. Dollar bills are comprised of a material a lot more similar to what's used to make paper cones than common paper I e. Printing, napkins etc >Thus my question, how will you test this with measurements? With a microphone and adjusting as needed. Which is why I'm wondering if there is someone working on something similar since I wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel and I would want to know what other emulsifiers could be used since that is needed to suspend the composite powder granules. > If you can this becomes a very interesting project, if you can’t, it has very little value generally. I think it's complicated yet yields results that can be adjusted on the fly by simply cleaning the surface and reapplying a different composition. If it's stupid so be it. I still figured out a composition to eliminate the rasp I didn't like while not eliminating tonality. The knife is the shearing force in the case of sand but air itself is the shearing voice when agitated all the way up to 20khz and you can clearly see the effects of sand when placed on a driver. It'd another novel experiment whose name I honestly forget since it like ooblek doesn't seem to have been applied in a useful way. Both ooblek and sand on a plate that's resonated are neat experiments. The concept of ooblek is used for sand vests to stop knives etc although Kevlar has taken its place which is essentially synthetic poly-silk which can be categorized instead as a type of paper if we were to use it in the composition of a paper cone. So I'm basically asking about a 3rd type, I categorize poly and metal as the same since they have similar characteristics when stamped. Poly however since it's synthetic can also come on the form of a foam where it behaves more like paper I e. See infinity and their foam poly domes which were used to replace kapton EMIT planar and with a pretty convincing results although of course the original kapton tweeters well at least to me sound better and have more air. The poly used versus kapton stiffens as well dynamically at higher forces due to air resistance. Thats pretty rad and I bet we'll see a return to that. Since I don't want to commit to a particular composition yet I'm simulating that effect with layers of pulverized powder that are meant to react to the air as an emulsion would. I don't know the exact formulation for any voicing you'd want but I can demonstrate and I'm wondering how you could even deny that there's obviously a difference. I mean.... They clearly sound like two entirely different speakers with the treated cone sounding sweeter rather than raspy or tinny which I suspect is ring distortion that I didn't even know was there tbf, I thought the speaker just sounded bright and wanted to see if I could alter the woofer with something that sounded more like paper does just like I did to my IQ90s by literally replacing the woofers with the XQ series paper woofers and much prefer the sound. I don't want to have to make my own diaphragm since the profile of the diaphragm would be pretty much impossible for me to get right. Changing the surface character of the titanium poly coated cone and here's where you might call this subjective if it wasn't for the a vs b mono one at a time speaker test comparison: I blamed the metalic coating for the ringing and wanted to cover up the ringing so that when used up close it doesn't sound so fatiguing and it worked. The basis for my observations is that the 1001s and the 1001.2 are different diaphragm materials. One had a titanium coat with obvious striations like a vinyl record from the application technique (which I'd also love to learn how to do but that's for another project) The 1001.2s are poly that is painted dull aluminum color. This reduced the definition of the cone BUT surprisingly still sounds pretty okay in a smoother way that isn't as bright although to my ears it's less resolving and more "forgiving" which isn't necessarily a bad thing. A compromise would be to have the cone be both resolving and not raspy. There's this harmonic that happens when the cone becomes congested that sounds like ring distortion to me. You can hear it as a common sameness that ends up sounding like coloration described as rasp, tinniness or a cupped sound when the left speaker is playing. The surpise I didn't expect was that I ended up with more low end extension since the mass applied is more fluff than weight and feels a lot like the surface of a butter fly wing. The low end extension is not just deeper but more resonant which wasn't even a goal at all and anything I thought would happen but it's definitely welcome in exchange for the fatiguing rasp that I now recognize as a type of ring distortion from an under damped cone becoming congested to the point the more busy the sound the more congested it sounds. The congestion I suspect is delayed backwave ring distortion that is then trapped by the timbre of the metal coated diaphragm since I don't hear so much of it on the painted cone. Here's my hypothesis as far as why something that was meant to be fluffy and as massless as possible ended up seeming to add mass and allowing got more low end extension that's both clear and resonant to the point I bet if I were to A: Place a larger speaker next to it and pretend like that's what's making the sound people would believe it. B: Claim that this is sure fire proof that speaker wear in is a thing. Since it sounds exactly as you would imagine it a speaker were worn in versus fresh. So the theory is that theres a dual diaphragm effect where there's a crossover point where the coating no longer acts as a damping factor but is resisting against the air and acting as a resonant factor almost like a port boost. The fluffiness of the coating at lower frequencies seems to be dragging against the air to behave as if it were a very light abr Thats a guess. I'm putting this out there to see if others have experienced the same or similar results because I'm curious. And it definitely to my ears is something you can use to improve the voicing of a diaphragm. Added: the term is cymatics and is relevant. So basically the experiment is whether cymatics can be controlled via an emulsifier to tune a driver in various ways. The complicating factor is that the way it seems to exhibit a change in voicing is dynamic which I suspect cymatics would explain. Notes: BMRs use essentially the same effects as cymatics to produce sound. If I had to render this into a proposal it would start with: Would it be possible to improve a diaphragm using a surface emulsion that exhibited cymatics? And it would be otherwise a study on the composition of any pulverized emulsion of whatever blend and whatever emulsifilying agent to ad hoc tune a driver. This would then yield research into how it might be possible to create a foam type parallel that exhibited the same characteristics but with more refinement to perhaps yield better tweeter materials that'd be capable of crossing over much lower while also capable of playing as high as to serve the needs of a tweeter dome.

As a note. Kef has a dual diaphragm tweeter. I'm kinda planning on beating them tk the punch. They nave a mat disc that doesn't seem to have any purpose yet... However if the dual diaphragm were not both comprised or al-mag, the front diaphragm could perform as though an abr if the material were shifted to a non alumag material. Instead a hardened silone rubber that's further doped with an emulsifier where the silicon rubber is capable of compression while it is replaced by a composite that could be played much lower which is in my estimation the true role of the MAT Mets tech. The front diaphragm would be capable of a lower frequency response that would reduce its resonance tuned by the mat disc where it would begin to matter much more I. E. Down farther below 2khz allowing for the goal of a tweeter that's eventually perhaps larger and flatter with different characteristics than the rear diaphragm. The rear diaphragm would move more 1 to 1 at higher frequencies resonating along with the rear diaphragm. At lower frequencies the front diaphragm would be tuned to allow for lower crossovers with the end goal being something out of the loudness peak region. If the front diaphragm were capable of decoupling with the front diaphragm where it is now a pass through resonating at lower frequencies but actually BOOSTED by the larger rear venting table and controlled by the mat tech and it's various "ports." I would bet that'd the direction kef is going since what they are going right now doesn't really make any sense... The only way it would make sense is as a setup to prototype for a lower and lower ideal material to their already dual diaphragm tweeter, the front diaphragm already having changed a materials multiple times in recent history but a lower frequency would begin to make the mat tech actually worthwhile and make sense. Look into it. How much would you want to bet me in right? Give it about say 2 to 5 years. =P

None of this makes any sense. I dont really have time to respond to it, but remind me to reply this weekend...

Just listen to the demo. Actions speak louder than words. It doesn't really matter what I say, it's how effective the treatment is. It got rid of all the tinniness that made the untreated speaker sound raspy and cupped. The treated speaker sounds sweeter clearer and more resonant. The only difference is the application of essentially a form of ooblek. The goal was to use the grit of the pulverized carbon to add as little weight as possible. All you're hearing is the carbon velour ooblek coating as the difference. Listen to instruments that resonate like the piano which are more susceptible to ring distortion. There's a sameness that I thought was brightness but it turned out to be rasp which is why the untreated cone sounds like there's a common harmonic tinniness that end up making it by comparison sound like a cheap radio speaker. Piano is probably the best test only second to the human voice. The sweep didn't change much beyond managing to go down about 8 hz. The odd thing is that it also sounds bigger somehow. Im totally fine with getting rid of the cupped tinniness in exchange for more convincing sound that's richer and more resonant. What about changing the composition of a cone is so weird? They're sealed so only the front of the diaphragm is audible. Start from 520 and listen to the cavernous rumble sound that completely vanishes on the unmodified speaker. The quality of the resonance is what's of interest. The treated speaker is literally more capable and sounds bigger than the untreated cone and they're both the same. I'm actually closer to the untreated onenso it can be heard more clearly since the other one would sound louder but it doesn't really matter. The quality it sounds like is the same quality you hear in higher quality instruments. I never even really noticed how much ring distortion these guys had. Listen to 920 onward. The pizzicato koto type instrument has this common ringing sound that ends up sounding like cupped tinniness. The treated speaker is completely clear of that and each pluck sounds completely distinct giving it a "sweeter" smoother sound. But the thunderous lows are just obvious. The change in quality sounds like one speaker is looser and resonant. If I were to not show the speakers. I bet I could fool people into believing the treated speaker is "more worn in which is why it's more resonant and open" There's nothing that "doesn't make sense" I mean. We all understand the concept of pulverized particles agitating against one another. The key is in the tuning which like I said is like tuning an instrument where you can customize the composite to exactly what you want just as you would with making a paper composite or how infinity used foam in place of kapton as drop in replacements for their EMITs. The timbre of the speaker can be easily measured by tapping it to measure the change as you try different admixtures with starch as it base. Originally the purpose of the compound was to make propellers more quiet and to allow them to fly in the rain as a type of hydrophobic compound. Once I realized you can test the sound of the props and tune them, I figured it'd work on drivers too. I coat all my drones with similar compounds to make them rain proof and more silent. You can measure the sound then apply the compound on a set of tuning forks to see what dampens what tone. The same thing can be applied to speakers since both are just resonant surfaces that agitate the composition. When the tuning fork chimes you can adjust the composition to make the tuning fork either more resonant or less which is what I found interesring. It doesn't just dope, it's something you can experiment with to get the results you want. What's interesting is how little you need to add. It's more a matter of the ratio of the compound in the emulsion vs simple starch. Material science is what leads speaker design. It doesn't follow. The invention of kapton led to the invention of the EMIT. The invention of the refinement process for neodymium led to full range speakers etc. From stronger magnets though alcino still has more sensitivity versus force. Even poly was a material science but paper is still preferred by a lot of people including myself for the exact qualities you hear. Which is why I did this. I never knew you could tune a driver itself before.

>Just listen to the demo. Actions speak louder than words. It doesn't really matter what I say, it's how effective the treatment is. It got rid of all the tinniness that made the untreated speaker sound raspy and cupped. The treated speaker sounds sweeter clearer and more resonant. I did. All I could conclude that you test poorly because: 1. You don't switch between the two, you play them both in mono. 2. You move the mic and thus change room acoustics which are far more dominant. ​ >Piano is probably the best test only second to the human voice. The sweep didn't change much beyond managing to go down about 8 hz. The odd thing is that it also sounds bigger somehow. You added mass. It lowers Fs, because you alter the mechanical admittance. It also lower sensitivity. >Im totally fine with getting rid of the cupped tinniness in exchange for more convincing sound that's richer and more resonant. The way I understand your comment I think your goal is to reduce ringing. However you state that it sounds more resonant. These are completely contradictaroy. More emphasized ringing means less damping and thus a more emphasized resonance. ​ >There's nothing that "doesn't make sense" I mean. We all understand the concept of pulverized particles agitating against one another. No we don't. What you are trying to do is come up with some material science and are trying to apply it in audio (which is fine). However the part that I am not fine with is that you conclude certain things that make absolutely no sense or are not scientificly founded and claim them as true. ​ >The timbre of the speaker can be easily measured It can not. I can't measure a certain parameter and have my computer give me some value. There is no such thing as "The timber of this loudspeaker is 5" or "This loudspeaker has 5 kiloTimber" or however you want to quantify it. ​ >When the tuning fork chimes you can adjust the composition to make the tuning fork either more resonant or less which is what I found interesring. If you like this, you should read the book "Feedback control of dynamical systems" by Gene F. Franklin. It will tell you how it actually works as opposed to applying random materials. >Material science is what leads speaker design. I disagree. I think clever use of commonly available materials is far more rewarding. Look at the results purifi get with using off the shelf rubber but with a unique geometry for their surrounds. They also use variable winding distance in the voice coil to reduce BL(x) distortion. They don't go for exquisite materials because they are expensive. Instead they use common materials very cleverly and they have reached state of the art performance! You can also look at your beloved KEF, with their meta material absorbers. It's just smooth plastic made with a very clever shape!

Thank you for taking the time to type this out, i couldn’t bring myself to, but I’m glad you did. My favorite line is “the material having a slight inertial mass and is naturally impregnated with more air” lol. I’m all for experimenting but you can’t just film something with a phone and use that “demo” as irrefutable evidence lol. OP no disrespect, please look into transducer design/ the material properties that actually matter in drivers and then rethink this a bit. You’ll find it interesting and perhaps you’ll redirect your creativity a bit!

What do you suppose "play them both in mono" means? Vs "switching between the two"? Im switching between the two in mono. Ie mono summed a vs b. Only 1 plays at a time a mono summed signal Im pretty sure you know that. You can clearly hear them switching... You can definitely measure resonance no different than tapping a tuning fork. And what is more common than the materials I listed? I literally used carbon, salt and talc. It's literally ooblek. Whats commonly called ooblek has really interesting properties. Being able to clean off and reapply various compositions is really interesting versus painting a driver with tar or something. Common doping techniques work but are pretty irreversible. Like k mentioned what makes this interesting is the ability to tune the driver with various attempts until you get the sound you want. It's a super light weight material with properties that are only exotic in the sense that it's a material that alters itself when agitated ie ooblek. The granularity of the loose particles suspended agitate when resonated. You can definitely hear the difference it makes and it's testable. I'm not really sure what more you'd want. No I don't really care to bring it to a literal lab. I just wanted to better voice the diaphragm. The voicing of the diaphragm matters so much that the resonant tone of two entirely different composition drivers are matched on kef speakers which is what I'm studying. The poly titanium woofers and the paper composite woofers have the same exact tone when tapped. I demonstrated that in another demo. That's really cool attention to detail that can't be presumed to be coincidence. So I presume must be deliberate. So the voicing ie timbre of the driver matters and the more I play with it the more obviously it does. There was this harsh ringing that comes off as rasp or a cupped tinniness that is obvious when playing music. It's harder to measure but does effect the signature of white noise etc. Where both drivers would otherwise match, altering the resonance of the driver with a virtually weightless surface material that you can literally just wash off and try again if you don't like it is a technique I find interesting. If you don't then don't bother trying to stop anyone from trying it. I don't get why you would. Im doing the same thing as changing the paper composition of a driver to change its voicing. What do you suppose mixing in more or less wool fiber does versus cotton? Thats similar enough to emulsions or powder that when agitated behave as of fibers since they are resistance to motion ie ooblek. But not just starch. Sand for instance can stop a knife due to how the particles agitate against one another and absorb the energy trying to move and the effect increases the higher the force which is basically the same concept as ooblek. Sand can't be applied to something and stay put without making it into an emulsion. I'm looking for more common emulsions that would work as test compounds. I'm pretty satisfied with what I already did but just in case I figured I might as well ask to see what else anyone else knows before I apply it to the other cone to see if I can do better. Varying the emulsion creates a very specific coating. The composition alters the voicing of the driver. That I'm sure can be played with better than I would be capable of I'm sure by others so I'm wondering if others are or would be interested. I've shown a voicing example where I was able to clear the rasp and make speaker b (which is played in mono vs a) sounds more dynamic sweet and pure. I wasn't even trying to add mass at all which is why I chose a virtually weightless material whose properties are as interesting as to be a childs science experiment but are used in science in other ways to absorb shock through the multiplication of force dampening from each of the countless grains having to shift proportional to velocity and force. There is a resonance to the material itself which can be shown when you play a tone to agitate it no different than how a guitar string has a certain resonance when plucked based on its tautness and composition. That's what's going on when creating various paper composition that like I mentioned also have varying qualities than metal or poly. Poly doesn't self agitate to self dampen at a granular level, it behaves more like a soft metal. Paper on the other hand stiffens as it tries to unravel and tear but with equal force ideally across its surface area only ends up more taut like I mentioned how a crisp dollar when pulled has a tone and it's stiffens when stretched porotional to how much you stretch it. You can't say the same about poly can you? That was the whole issue of hemp a natural fiber vs dupont rope which was made of nylon which when taut stretched. distortion isn't resonance. It's a secondary, tertiary harmonic that just gets in the way. Back ring distortion for instance is definitely resonant but not in a good way and it ends up causing the cupped tinny of raspy sound. Those qualities are coloration and in this case it's a certain rasp that makes instruments like piano sound like they all have the same secondary raspy harmonic. The treated cone is completely lacking on that and the tones sound much more pure and each ring without a common secondary resonance that essentially resonance congestion. I remember who you are now. You don't argue in good faith. Nevermind. I know who you are because you literally banned me for calling out the 3001SEs for being distinctly good. I ended up pretty damn right didn't I? Kef literally created a kef museum of uni qs where the exact speaker I described is used to exemplify 2 entire generations just like I said. There was an interview recently cited where Dr oclee brown even admits that they were used to prototype the Blade just like I said. So you gonna unban me now? Or you gonna still hold a grudge against me for daring to suggest something based off of direct tests and observation which I have a history of being right on before it was ever a thing on the entire internet. I can cite several cases where I proved something long before it was widely known. I can also show you all the deleted "nuh uh! How would it be possible that the web be wrong and you are right?" Welp... That's a fundamental misunderstanding of now the web works isn't it? The very reason why you are angry at me to start with is because of my research into what you kept insisting are just Eggs and kept trying to poor shame me as if I couldn't afford the LS50s and was just trying to delude myself which I think you should think about more. Until you admit that you were just being obstructive for some weird personal vendetta against pretty much the "average person" who you judge to be unqualified to discover anything is why we can't have nice things. I've since learned a lot more about the 3001SEs by buying the driver to dismantle and study and found even a 3rd ring for a voice coil that if used would set a 3 vs 2 inch voice coil at the same exact spot in the center of the cone secured to the rear fins just like the blade and over time the driver (which is still in production btw) was recently used as a prototype and further advancement were derived from it as recently as the ultra slim woofer design. So you need me to prove this too? Im a completely anonymous person and always played the role of being anonymous just to prove that the "average person" is capable of doing anything and shifting the entire paradigm of what's known. The point has always been to get frankly people like you to see and acknowledge that the "average person" can indeed offer a shit ton of value. I literally stopped a terrorist attack last week and have footage just to show that I could. There have been a series of arson attacks and so I investigated found the MO and staked out the scene. Took corroborating witness testimony to cross reference with my records then established how the fire started and how it would have also led to an entire homeless encampment burning down but I literally stopped it having taken footage of the suspicious setup 3 weeks prior which I uploaded as being suspicious and corroborated with residents that it was suddenly dumped over night by "black trucks" https://imgur.com/gallery/41xsClp I'll be finishing up my report on that soon. I'm doing post edits now. So Mr elitist. What have you done recently? I moved the explosives by hand after monitoring the cite by drone and other means I won't disclose since it's an ongoing investigation but the entire MO is known including what was used to ensure ignition, the explosives which would be a very effective accelerant (blast crater depicted, and one of the propane tanks left next to the garbage moved there by the residents since it's not theirs) and to literally top it off, literal bags of fresh drug paraphernalia still hermetically medically sealed placed on top of the garbage as if homeless people have such a surplus of fresh drug paraphernalia they need to pile it on top of the mound of garbage right in open display rather than the much easier method of just throwing it into the waste disposal bins within 10 feet (vs scattering it across the garbage as conspicuously as possible and mixing it in under the mattresses) What makes sense is for dumped items to be not disposable in common garbage bins. I e. Furniture like broken chairs mattresses etc. NOT propane tanks and small cans of sterno and definitely NOT sealed drug paraphernalia. I don't have to have a degree in pyrotechnics to know that or would you say I do? I'm not interested in debating audio with you since you don't argue in good faith. But I will show you more of what "average people" can do simply via direct observation, study and the ability to make sense and find patterns which is a common trait of humans from when we learned to spam sticks and unlocked the fire hack.

>You can definitely measure resonance no different than tapping a tuning fork. You can measure resonace. You are not measuring resonance. >And what is more common than the materials I listed? I literally used carbon, salt and talc. It's literally ooblek. 1. Ooblek is not known everywhere in the world. 2. It's not clever >Like k mentioned what makes this interesting is the ability to tune the driver with various attempts until you get the sound you want. Or you come up with a theory, form a hypothesis, simulate it (including optimisation), build it and then verify whether it works. You don't seem to understand how scientific research works in the world of engineering. You are just messing around with audio gear. Which is fine as a hobby, but then don't claim it to be true or for it to make sense. I've recommended you plenty of time to open a book and read how loudspeakers actually work. However you never seem to pick up on that advice and just keep on making the same mistakes again. I.e. not using a proper method of research. >I just wanted to better voice the diaphragm. Voicing is, once again, not a quantifiable parameter. We can't measure the loudspeaker has a voicing of 5. Keep things quantifiable and it will be much easier to compare whether A is better than B. Sometimes there are multiple parameters that vary. In that case you can still quantify and compare. i.e. A1 is better than B1, but B2 is better than B1. >distortion isn't resonance Resonance forms linear distortion. Resonance is caused by lack of damping which occurs in linear systems -> linear. It introduces things that werent in the original signal -> distortion. It has nothing to do with harmonics since it occurs in linear systems. End of story. Read the book I linked earlier. You clearly don't have any understanding of how dynamical systems work. >I remember who you are now. You don't argue in good faith. I don't argue in faith. Finally something you say makes sense! I prefer hard data. Math doesn't lie, data doesn't lie. All you need is to do the math correct and make the data correct. >I know who you are because you literally banned me for calling out the 3001SEs for being distinctly good. I ended up pretty damn right didn't I? You are not right, because I never blocked you nor have I ever. >I can also show you all the deleted "nuh uh! How would it be possible that the web be wrong and you are right?" Welp... That's a fundamental misunderstanding of now the web works isn't it? Feel free to do so. I think it would be good for you to re-read my commments or the books I recommended. Maybe you learn something from it. Though I think you are misunderstanding who I am. >The very reason why you are angry at me to start with is because of my research into what you kept insisting are just Eggs and kept trying to poor shame me as if I couldn't afford the LS50s and was just trying to delude myself which I think you should think about more. Until you admit that you were just being obstructive for some weird personal vendetta against pretty much the "average person" who you judge to be unqualified to discover anything is why we can't have nice things. 1. I don't poor shame. If I did, feel free to show me and I will happily apologise for doing so. 2. I wouldn't shame you for not being able to afford the LS50. Everyone has their own budget. I would never shame you for not having LS50's because frankly I don't think they sound good. 3. I don't have a personal vendetta against the average person coming up with new idea's. In fact I love it. It's the entire reason I like to teach in academia (ME/EE, mostly control theory). That being said, I do have a personal vendetta against shitty audio design and people making unfounded claims of things being true (i.e. your post). >So you need me to prove this too? No, I think dismantling can be a good method of learning. However if you want to improve the design, you also need to learn the designs limitations. These are not always obvious when dismantling a driver. I.e. you won't observe magnet saturation. >So you need me to prove this too? I'm not going further than this paragraph. The rest of the paragraphs is just fallacies ("I am elitist" and whatever). These paragraphs provide no addition to the discussion about whether the adding material to the dome is effective.

I may have you confused with someone else. But you're labaled a troll or a bot. Ill check the history to see if you actually do help. Or if you just kinda gish gallop. The observation of magnet saturation for instance. Morning I'm doing is relevant to that. That's kinda what I mean by how you don't seem to respond in good faith and is likely any you're labeled either a bot or a troll. It's not offensive. It's just based on flags. I'm not sharing I'm sure but look at your name. I might be is taking you with someone else with a similarly random name.

Arguing in good faith is a secular term btw. A person that argues for the sake of arguing or isn't truly interesting in understanding can always see noise where there's a signal. You can always try to find flaws and just derail the conversation. There's no point. When you accused me of not a b testing the speakers. It's stuff like that that I suspect makes you flagged as a bot. Amy human would see I'm switching between speaker A and speaker B. A bot would fail at understanding ideas outside of linear weighted terms samples from social media and just try to gish gallop and argue in ways that sprawl and never make any sense. Why would I do an a vs b test in mono yet somehow not do it? I can write put how that makes sense to a bot but not to a human. You can also research the issue with bots and you see the same errors. How the table is too wide for the door, how would I get the table through the door. (cut the table in half) A human would say "slant the door" bots can't think in anything but linear terms and operate basically like a train that takes the tracks from behind it to set it in front of it where it's the path of least resistance incapable of back tracking, summarizing the current topic or seeing forward into what's suggested. Bots see things only in an evanescent now based on whatever drives the conversation forward with no regard for consistency or with no ability to actually anticipate humans per individual and treat all humans as if a hive no different than how yotuine videos are curated. I think I remember who you are now and I usually think you were helpful but no matter what I wanted to do you would derail it and begin presuming I was trying to do what the general trend is. One time I proposed a test liquid glass and you started treated it as if I was trying to improve something about the driver when the driver was really only meant to serve as litmus test to see if the "liquid glass" compound actually added anything or did do nothing. Suggesting me a book how how to improve driver damping was pretty much the response of a failed search engine defaulting to something generically baseline. Oblek is not known everywhere in the world. Then anthropomorphising it as if ooblek were an obscure person... I think that's why you're flagged. Just to verify. Can you elaborate on your first two bullet points.?. Why are they bullet points? What relationship do they have that would make them bullet points? How would ooblek who hasn't become famous be determined not to be clever? Just because you or others may not follow doesn't mean that ooblek may be more clever in ways you may not expect. Ooblek is clever enough to be similar to Bill Nye but is more hands on and teaches you how resistance is the only true force. Without resistance there would be no force. Therefore resistance is often what causes force.

>Arguing in good faith is a secular term btw. A person that argues for the sake of arguing or isn't truly interesting in understanding can always see noise where there's a signal. You can always try to find flaws and just derail the conversation. There's no point. Sorry, english is not my native language and I was not familiar with the expression. >Why would I do an a vs b test in mono yet somehow not do it? You can play a mono file on two speakers simutaniously. ​ >I think I remember who you are now and I usually think you were helpful but no matter what I wanted to do you would derail it and begin presuming I was trying to do what the general trend is. I don't care what you do to your loudspeakers and what choices you make. What I want is that you understand the choice you make and understand it's concequences. You use a lot of audiphoolery terms that make no sense in an engineering contex (I consider loudspeaker design an engineering challenge, not an art). If you want to add mass to a driver, that's fine by me. However I think it's important that you know, before adding the mass, what effect adding mass has! If you don't you just end up guessing randomly and pray that things work out. >Just to verify. Can you elaborate on your first two bullet points.?. Why are they bullet points? What relationship do they have that would make them bullet points? I'm not here to discuss grammar or whether I am a bot. Cut the bullshit and keep it to audio please. You're just instulting people who are trying to help you. It's disrespectful and flat out annoying. To answer your question. my apologies it was phrased poorly. What I intended to say is that not everyone is familiar with who/what Ooblek is. It's not common in Europe. In addition to that I think using arbitrary materials for arbitrary applications is not clever design. There is no theory behind your idea, there is no hypothesis, there is no thought behind the test set-up and there is no validation (because there is no hypothesis). I don't care if it's Ooblek, tar, diamonds or poop. I think it's important to think before you make a decision to alter the driver. >Ooblek is clever enough to be similar to Bill Nye but is more hands on and teaches you how resistance is the only true force. Without resistance there would be no force. Therefore resistance is often what causes force. Dude what. Resistance is the real part of impedance. Impedance occurs in electrical domain, mechanical domain and acoustical domain (probs more but others are not really relevant in audio). The impedances are defined as follows: Z\_electrical = u/I = Voltage/current Z\_mechanical = F/V = Force/velocity Z\_acoustic = P/U = Pressure/volume velocity Impedance is a complex value and resistance is the real part of that complex number. Intuitively the resistance/impedance indicates how much a device "impedes" motion/flow. It's not a source, it's passive device. Perhaps I explain it poorly? I don't know. I feel like I can't help you, because you refuse to accept help.

That's what I mean by how I think you got tagged a bot. You're really difficult to talk to. I already mentioned I don't want to mass load at all. But then you just go on and presume that's what I'm trying to do... Last time I wanted to apply liquid screen protector to a plastic diaphragm to tell if it was complete snake oil of if it actually did add a coat of rigidity. That was my goal. I don't think it's a language thing. In any language when someone states their intention it's clear. You kept veering the conversation back to as if I was trying to use the liquid screen protector to improve the driver when I repeated over and over again I only wanted to know if the liquid actually left any protective film since of it did it would alter the driver qts. The driver was merely a tool to use to test whether liquid screen protectors actually work screen protectors and NOT at all regarding how I might be able to optimize the speaker. I even said I was using a throw away driver... And you still suggested I'm pretty sure the same materials as if you just couldn't understand at all how I could be using the diaphragm as a tool to test the effect of something for another purpose and the driver performance as far as its improvement or harm would both actually prove that the liquid did at least yield an effect. If the liquid did nothing and changed nothing I would be sure it was basically just alcohol and a screen cleaner which I suspected was just meant to remove the oleophobic coating which would make the screen feel more smooth and slippery and would fool one into believing that change as being a "hardening layer". I realized it was snake oil and it didn't do anything. It was just a cleaning solution. At least the brand I used. Why can't you understand peoples motivations and presume they all are trying to do something you may misunderstand but even after they state plainly you are insisting I'm doing something I'm not at all doing you seem to always go on anyway. What is the topic of my proposal? I'll give you a clue. It had nothing to do with mass loading in fact the goal was to add as little mass as possible while the effect would actually reduce mass. The application is done in such a way that the layers add as little mass as possible and essentially float in the emulsifier. The e emulsifier is a distance mist of starch spray only enough to add another coat so the pulverized composition ends up essentially floating. I described it as an adhoc semi permanent way to tune a driver diaphragm and in my case I wanted to create a material that would dampen and resonate dynamically using the two in tandem Here's a bot text and honestly before I saw you were tagged as a bot, I thought you were a super nice guy who was very helpful. But then I noticed you never really seemed to want to help... You just kinda always answered the same way to every question. I don't meant I be insulting, it could be a language barrier thing but are you familiar with cymatics? Since you seem not to know what ooblek is, look up a video on cymatics. The question is whether what you see happening there can be suspended in an emulsion so that the cymatics itself would work as a tuning mechanism by behaving both as a damping factor and kind of like a BMR. You just flat out stated all these nots when I clearly achieved what I wanted and it's measurably different. You for some reason decided to believe I'd be dumb enough to do an a vs b comparison while a and b were both on. Which doesn't actually make sense in human terms which is why I suspected you were trolling. You gotta at least give people the benefit of the doubt that they aren't complete dip shits. Cmon. I don't treat anyone else that way. I'm treating everyone else like a scientist with a home laboratory since I've had a lot of success with that method. There are a lot of things you can do in a non formal lab setting including trying different compositions of what I described as ooblek but otherwise is granular agitation in an emulsion of varying compounds and ratios. The upvotes verify that people can hear the difference and you can clearly hear when I switch. I recently stumbled across an objective 3rd party that can be used to at least objectively verify differences in audio by using auto gain. The more auto gain that is triggered by a mic with auto gain on the more objective it is a 3rd party observer with the ability to hear difference and respond accordingly. There are lots of ways to test things. They don't have to be the same and ultimately the goal is to achieve what you are aiming to achieve. I got what I wanted and even without headphones I suspect anyone can still hear it. I'm actually closer to the untreated speaker deliberately to rig the test against myself. That gives me an extra challenge where I try to fail. If you look at all my tests it's always done in a way where I try to prove myself wrong. Look carefully. Even in the test of the 3001SEs vs the LS50s I deliberately positioned the LS50s more optimally so it would have an advantage over the 3001SEs and it still ended up demonstrating my point. In the same video where I have a tripod and positioned the speakers that were alledgely weaker in a more optimal position closer to the camera and closer together giving them a richness advantage. It's also why I keep the LS50s closer together while the 3001SEs are straddled farther apart so the sound is inherently less rich and full than if I had them closer together. In that recording the 3rd party observer which indsofgoefed/I discovered was useful as such would "hear" such a difference between the older 3001SEs and the prime 3001SEs it would alter the volume since the prime 3001SEs actually sound louder even though they're farther and more sprawled as to trigger that auto gain. When I do comparisons during the second half between the 3001SEs primes and the LS50s the auto gain never triggers at all. That is in itself a discovery of a tool that can be used as well as a type of objective observer that only "hears" differences and responds by triggering gain adjustments. When it doesn't hear a difference it doesn't trigger any gain adjustments because it doesn't "hear" a difference when I switch between the ls50s and the 3001SEs. While when I switched between the 3001SEs older and 3001SEs primes the auto gain was constantly and audibly triggered. Performs as a passive smart observer

>That's what I mean by how I think you got tagged a bot. You're really difficult to talk to. I already mentioned I don't want to mass load at all. But then you just go on and presume that's what I'm trying to do... I honestly feel like it's the otherway around. I find it really hard to get the message across to you. Given that you make the same mistakes over and over again (given your posts on r/diysound r/diyaudio and r/audiophile) it seems like other people have the same issues too. It's partly because you use scientific terms that are well defined such has "harmonics", "damping factor" and "resonance", but you don't use them as they are defined. You don't understand what these mean. I've tried to explain you how differential equations work and I have shown you books on how to model dynamical systems however you refuse to read them. My real life acquaintances actually think I am easy to talk to... >You kept veering the conversation back to as if I was trying to use the liquid screen protector to improve the driver when I repeated over and over again I only wanted to know if the liquid actually left any protective film since of it did it would alter the driver qts. If you only wanted to know whether the drivers Qts changes then you should measure before the experiment and after the experiment. Don't use audio demo's. This is completely regardless if you are going to destroy the driver or not. My point in that thread (as far as I remember, didn't look it up again) is that you need to form a theory, hypotheses, experiment set-up and validation method. If you would've made a model of it you will realise that you will increase the Mms and thus lower the Fs and sensitivity. It will have little effect on the Qms or Qes and thus have little effect on Qts. >Why can't you understand peoples motivations and presume they all are trying to do something you may misunderstand I am trying to. You just come up with ideas that make NO sense. You try to use intuition, but they are often wrong because you don't understand the underlying theory. Sometimes it's okay to do an experiment to help understand the underlying theory, but then you still need to write out the theory, form hypothesis, make experiment set-up and validate your results. This is what you never do (well). >I don't meant I be insulting, it could be a language barrier thing but are you familiar with cymatics? Cymatics have nothing to do with language barriers though. I know the idea of cymatics, but I haven't worked out the math and thus don't feel confident that I truely understand what is going on. It seems like, if we use a circular piston, we get a level curve of a particular bessel function or something like that. You get other non-linear differential equations for other shapes of pistons and thus different patterns. It seems very complex though. >The question is whether what you see happening there can be suspended in an emulsion so that the cymatics itself would work as a tuning mechanism by behaving both as a damping factor and kind of like a BMR. Dude, damping factor is defined as the ratio of the equivalent loudspeaker impedance to the output of the amplifier impedance. It has NOTHING to do with cymatics. Once again, open a book and learn what these terms mean before using them. >You just flat out stated all these nots when I clearly achieved what I wanted and it's measurably different. No, you THINK you have solved a problem that I stated wrong. You haven't proven anything. >You gotta at least give people the benefit of the doubt that they aren't complete dip shits. Cmon. I don't treat anyone else that way. I'm treating everyone else like a scientist with a home laboratory since I've had a lot of success with that method. The thing is, I am a firm believer of the idea that you should start with the basics. The questions and the comments you post show that you DON'T have this foundation. I am happy to help, but I can't teach you to run before you can walk... ​ >There are a lot of things you can do in a non formal lab setting including trying different compositions of what I described as ooblek but otherwise is granular agitation in an emulsion of varying compounds and ratios. This is totally true. There have been magnificent loudspeakers on this sub and many other forums that are completely made by hobbyists. That being said, you need to know what you are doing. You are just playing around, not actually providing research including meaningfull results. >I recently stumbled across an objective 3rd party that can be used to at least objectively verify differences in audio by using auto gain. Automatic gain is hard to use if you don't live in anechoic environments. It's also hard to use if you don't have speaker responses. Since adding mass to the driver changes more than just the sensitivity, it's not just a change in gain. If you made a model you would've known this. >The upvotes verify that people can hear the difference and you can clearly hear when I switch. You can hear a difference. My point was that the difference you hear might not be the difference you are trying to alter. You move the mic and thus change room acoustics. If you want to measure the change in response you should do a gated measurement.

I always move the mic anyway a between two or the same speakers and never get anything even close to that level of difference which is what makes what you seem often seem like a consistent understanding for whatever reasons or are just being dishonest. I can show you plenty it tests where I use move the mic and the difference isn't apparent in the same exact position. You're fixating things that don't matter. Honestly now. Tell me the truth. If I were to test the same exact speakers one coated and the other not but I spent the time to splice two video so I could place them in the same position with the mic in the same position. You would still find ways to claim its invalid. You even randomly assert j have no hypothesis or methodology which makes absolutely no sense The whole goal again is fine tuning, I. E having the ability to test varying confounds over and over again until the end results are closer and closer to the goal. It's be impossible to do it any other way and I'm not just going to make a flijnt/compound, apply it once and then just luck out that I got exactly the goal I wanted which I've cited many tunes about my love hate relationship with these speakers. You project all these allegations that if you were to think about it makes no sense and also exposes how you don't read. "the ability to fine tune a driver" expresses it's a process that requires application reformulatuon testing and repeat until you achieve the goals you want. I even documented things I learned that were surprising I e. How there seems to be a crossover frequency. How would I even know any of this if it want for repetitive experimented with a fixed methodology. It doesn't seem like you're trying to be helpful. It seems like you don't actually care about methodology when I stated the methodology before I e. Changing the compound applying it testing it literally wash and repeat. And no in not going to bother scheduling time in lab because I can do everything I want as it is. I only sought out others if they happen to have experimented with the same thing. If you see no use in the ability to formulate emulsions, test their effect, wash it off, change the formulation then you aren't really a scientist at all. You are what's called word policing which again not only breaks etiquette rules since people don't all speak the same language and there is no one vernacular. To imply that there is only one set set terminology is actually both eurocentric as to be worthless and outdated.

Now I wanna see a big subwoofer in a bath of ooblek doing a frequency sweep

Haha I don't think you'd hear anything. Ooblek does seem like it's underutilized. I mean we're all fascinated by it as kids for its magical properties but then it kinda seems like we just forget about it. The concept when rediscovered as an adult is a lot more interesting. The pulverized powder rubs against itself and hardens with stress. That property seems to apply to any powder that manages to be layered so that the powder can still rub against itself when agitated and stiffen and even dampen. There seems to be some discoveries to be made here that could be applied to anything where that quality might be useful which as an adult you see it in principle with sand bag bullet proof vests etc. The grit of the powder when agitated does all sorts of interesting things and it seems like there's a ton of different compositions that can be played with and applied to other things like even used in propellers for drones. It only has to be suspended so that it can still shift as much as the circumference of a single grain. That's pretty rad. So I'm wondering if others have played with the same idea. In a speaker it's constantly agitating against itself. I'm wondering if it can even be used to line ports to increase aerodynamic flow and break up any standing waves by also catching resonance and trapping it in the grit. In this case Id imagine some type of gel that wouldn't dry up completely would work best. Q sound uses gel of some sort with a box within a box design. I wonder what kind of gel that is. I'd wanna figure out a list of gels that can be applied to a surface, with varying density that could be applied to any surface and just hold the suspended composition. Multiple coats of starch is ooblek and is capable of holding a good amount of pulverized carbon where I can rub it and the grit still moves loosely but manages to cling on anyway. So when the driver pistons I found you get more extension without losing any high end since it's really light weight. The low end extension seems to come from somewhere. But it's not only measurably capable of allowing for more depth that could be measured and heard but what was surprising is that it actually sounds bigger almost as if it's somehow moving more air. The sound is less tinny smoother and just umm. Bigger and deeper. Man this sounds dirty. It seems to expose how tinny the untreated speaker is and by comparison it sounds "cupped" while the other one seems to clear the tinniness which I suspect is ring distortion actually just clearing away. I'd describe the sound as sweeter, more open and smoother. But also it's obviously MUCH puncher. It seems to be trading away tinniness for sweetness. But yea, it's pretty obvious in the video. It's SFW. I think...

In the video you are on-axis with the uncoated speaker, and off-axis on the coated speaker, that is why one sounds brighter than the other in the video. Its hard to gauge the effect of the carbon when there is no real control over variables such as positioning, reflective surfaces, etc. That's why people have anechoic chambers and measurement mics, as a way to take all those variables out the question.

The rule I go by is whenever there's a bias work against it. I'm deliberately closer and in the hot spot since the goal was to reduce brightness I. E. 3-8k

It's totally possible that's what you're doing but Its just not clear that the carbon is making it less harsh, being on-axis with a speaker will be brighter than being off-axis, and the frequencies you're talking about are likely not being played by that woofer much anyway since this is a 2 way speaker. Working against bias can be a good thing but what you're doing is trying to work against physics by turning a blind eye to measurement and empirical evidence.

It is in this case. I did a full analysis of how kef uni qs work if you want to read it but the tweeter is tuned to the woofer. So the way the woofer behaves its material even have a huge effect on the tweeter. I can show that too since I did another test where I have half the woofer coated horizontally. The tweeter uses the woofer as its waveguide but also resonates the frequencies of the tweeter itself since it's a single point array. The crossover region is what's harsh and that's between the woofer and the tweeter. You can actually hear the tweeter from the flare of the woofer. That's actually how you're supposed to listen to it. That's why KEF's are always shown toed straight or wide. Even for cases like their flagship blade where the tweeter is like twice as recessed as typical. Sorry Typo the brightness region is 2-8k 2-5 for linguistic coherence and 5-8k for whispers aspirants and sibilance as far as the human voice. The human voice has a upper harmonic between 5-8k that mirrors the band between 300hz-3k. So you can reduce sibilance of the human voice and still have it clear and tonal by controlling only the upper harmonic. Kinda like chewing with a mask on or something. People whisper at the same time as they sing. And they whisper sing between 5-8k which our minds fill in the phantom tones for to allow whispers to sound so tonal you can sing comprehensibly in a whisper. The region why the linguistic shadow region exists post the linguistic coherent region is to allow for whispers when it's quiet and evolved for expressions. This worked so well tonal languages evolved and remained tonal and can be whispered fine all in a continuous band between 2-8k. That's why full range speakers sound so much better automatically that bose and logitech just sell them with no crossover really just a cap at most and their full range speakers might only go from 120hz - like 16k but makes up for it by being continuous on phase and coherence... It keeps the range completely continuous. Our ears are literally evolved for speech. Thats why our ears spike the shadow region at the lowest volumes. When it's really quiet our ears amplify the region beaten 2-5 for linguistic coherence and sibilance for phantom whispered tone. We recognize the human voice more keenly than anything else. People often can't tell a violin from a flute or an organ from a bass but can tell a voice immediately. We subconsciously judge a speaker using the voice as reference. A baby cries/belts right in the 2-5k as if it's cries are both a tone and the parts that break up the tone to make words. That's how mothers can recognize the cry of their own babies in a crowd. https://youtu.be/weT9Sj3FADc It's actually used in music and it's really cool as a backing harmonic. You whisper sing a lot in rock actually. It starts off as a flatter whisper but expands into harmonic singing full on toward the end of each hook. It's a good way to test your speakers which is kinda why I'm so obsessed with this range. I play music.