Snake oil all over the SDA's/F1Nut?

madmax

While reading a little about difraction I found an ad for these little ovals of foam rubber which you place on your tweeters. From looking at the pics it appears the opening is maybe 1.5x2.5" and the foam is about 3/8" wide. Not wanting to pay $4 each for nothing I decided to pick up some sticky sided foam (like you use around windows) and try it myself for about $1. What I bought was about 1/4" wide and 1/8" thick. Since the SDA's had 3 tweeters (2.3TL's) and I didn't want to waste much time with it I made one big oval around all three tweeters. (about half way between the dome and edge of the plastic plate) and then made two more loops over top of that so that it ended up being 3/8" thick. It looks like ****!

I played some music and the results are very obvious. As I listened to song after song I kept trying to think of a word that described the sound. The closest I could come up with was "Coherant" sound. Somehow instead of hearing a bit of color all around the group of drivers (including the midbasses) all I hear is a very coherant sound field. It is as if there was originally a gap between the highs and lows originally but now it is all acting as one. Another benifit was that the punch of the music really came out. Almost as if the efficiency of the system had gone up radically. I found no down side as of yet. I'll need to remove what I have now and find a way to pretty it up. I just don't think I could be happy with the sound the way it was before after hearing this. I may try the ovals around each individual tweeter to see if that makes more improvement. If I could describe the sound difference differently I guess I would say it gives it more of the LSi tweeter sound. (just the good stuff, not the bad).

F1Nut especially or anyone else,
If you were to get the urge to try this I think you will be pleasantly surprised and would like to hear your comments. This is really baffling me! Well, back to reading more about difraction.
madmax

cds

While I have not tried this on SDA's, I have used foam and felt diffraction rings on other speakers over the years.

All I can say is that the rings usually stay there.

BTW, did you notice that the original SL3000's have a felt type ring around the dome? I wonder if that was intended as a diffusion ring?

What you’ve done by making the ring thick is probably added some directivity to the HF line array and reduced some boundary reflections from the room surfaces.

Hey, if you like it, who cares what it looks like.

acdds

Madmax,
Do you have any pics? I would be interested to try it.

VR3

Max,
I dont know about you...

But my grills stay on 100% of them time

Do you think this would work on the RT line?

I know my Dad wont try this for cosmetic reasons...but I'll mention it to him or show him this post.

Thanks for the tip though, I will have to try it on a pair when I get my own (if I do)

F1nut

Madmax,

Very interesting! I have a set of those rings, but I never installed them as my new amp and source solved the sibilance problems I was having. I think I'll install them and report back.

F1

madmax

I don't have my camera here right now but when I get it I'll post a pic. Maybe later this evening. I promise you will laugh at my implementation! The problem now is that I'm afraid I'll never achieve the same sound once I clean it up.

F1, are your foam rings circles or ovals. The oval shape is supposed to help some problem they found. Also, it looks as if you don't want to exactly center the ring around the dome for some reason so offset them slightly. (can you say UGLY?) I mentioned your name because I value your opinion.

As for the room boundries that may be true. I have about 6' from the side walls to the speakers though. I usually listen with the grills on. Wouldn't the frame prevent this? I didn't notice this effect get better or worse when I removed the grills either. (without the rings, I didn't try listening with the rings on and the grills off yet. I'm just searching here...

This is almost like having SDA's sitting there for years and never hooking up the SDA cable. As soon as you connect it there is no way you would ever want to disconnect it!

F1nut

They are oval and you're correct, they made them oval to overcome a dip/peak problem with the round ones.

Here is a link, http://www.audio-ideas.com/tweaks.html

I respect your opinions too, you've got me really curious now..lol.
I'll try to install the rings later today, I hope I can still find them in my audio storage room. I don't think it will matter if the grills are on or off and I think Sid's comment was directed to the appearance concerns, not the sound quality.

The snake-oil salesman

madmax

Yes, That is the link I was looking at. On some other site I was looking at a fellow said he couldn't believe the improvement when you cover the whole front (not over the speakers) with felt. That would be hard to do but may have some merit. After hearing the diffuser difference I am really thinking the way to upgrade my sound may be through speaker tweeks rather than components etc.
madmax

madmax

Tonite I added divider strips between each tweeter. I really could not tell a difference afterward. It may have made it sound a little smoother but I can't tell for sure. I wish this was something I could measure somehow.

Pics tomorrow, I didn't have a chance to get my camera.
madmax

F1nut

Ok, I actually found the suckers after looking just about everywhere except where I should have looked first...oh well.

I installed them after listening to a few songs first. The one thing I noticed was that they seem to have taken a bit of a edge off the highs on some material. I have been playing with them for hours and I can't make up my mind, so I'm going to listen some more before I comment further.

Strong Bad

Hmmmmm...very very interesting to say the least. May have to order some for myself and give it a shot.

Jesse, please report back and let us know what ya think.


John

F1nut

John,

I'm driving myself crazy here. I can't decide if I like them or not. On some material they seem to smooth out a edge to the highs and then on other material they seem to take away a certain crispness that sounds better to me. I'm going to enlist Doro's ears and see what he thinks as we usually hear the same things.

madmax

Originally posted by F1nut
John,

I'm driving myself crazy here. I can't decide if I like them or not. On some material they seem to smooth out a edge to the highs and then on other material they seem to take away a certain crispness that sounds better to me. I'm going to enlist Doro's ears and see what he thinks as we usually hear the same things.

Hmm, although you are getting a difference it doesn't sound nearly as dramatic as what I'm getting. Different too. Although mine smoothed out the treble a little more (made it sound more as one with the woofers) it gave it more bite at the same time. Enough in fact that after listening last night I was wondering if it was too much.

Here is an idea of what may be happening. The shape, width and depth of my foam is very different than the purchased oval rings you have. Will the rings come off easily without damage to them? Maybe still try some of the tape and see what that does?

I think I am going to play with some different size foam as well.

madmax

madmax

New data to report.

OK so this has been pissing me off all day. I think I have a clue now.

Originally with no foam around the tweeters it sounded a particular way.

With three layers of foam in an oval around the set of tweeters it sounded much more coherant.

With dividers between each tweeter I wanted to say it sounded smoother but no real data.

Tonite I put dividers in that were much closer to each dome. Disaster! Very peaky sound and very annoying.

Remove the dividers and get back to what I had.

Add another layer in the oval around the 3 tweeters: more peaky than before and more annoying.

Add yet another layer in the oval around the 3 speakers and it seemed to come back to the original sound with no foam.

Remove the foam all toghether and yes, it sounds the same. !?!!????!!!

So,
Right now I think the foam needs to be a decent distance from the dome. I'm thinking depth of the foam is the real determining factor here. I played around with some 3/8" foam in the same position as the 1/4" foam and am not hearing a difference. Around 3/8" depth of either 1/4" or 3/8" foam seemed to be the best. You know, what this is reminding me of is taking a tweeter out of a box, sitting it on top of a speaker and moving it very slighty forward and backward to get the phase correct.

I think the best ideal is to get a very thin foam and add layers until the sound is the best then stop. I'm thinking the standard depth foam ovals is not the best idea. It seems that having the correct depth of foam is everything. When it got too deep I kinda felt like it sounded as you were saying f1nut.

As I said, I am annoyed right now. I'll resume testing later.

madmax

dorokusai

Beings that I have been on the receiving end of Jesse's phone calls....why don't the two of you stop **** around, and leave things as is? You are driving me crazy!

Both of you have stellar setups for the SDA, what's the next step....the De-Natured Alcohol Fueled Interconnect? or maybe the Nerf Football Isolation Device?

L O L

madmax

Originally posted by dorokusai
Beings that I have been on the receiving end of Jesse's phone calls....why don't the two of you stop **** around, and leave things as is? You are driving me crazy!


L O L

Hey,
That is a great idea! If I come up with a new theory at 3AM this morning maybe I can give you a call and run it by you?

Seriously, given the proper shape and depth of foam this little tweak has the possibility of moving the SDA's to the next listening level. I think I got lucky to start with and am very close to nirvana but more testing is necessary.

Just as a clue when I got to a certain depth and the sound went back to normal, I saw no reason to continue listening. The difference is definately worth the work! As I said I think what we are doing is setting the phase of the tweeters. This is a night and day difference!

So, what is your phone number?? Another 3 or 4 hours I should be on a roll...

madmax

dorokusai

Actually you know it, I don't mind as I am a night owl.....always love talking audio, even to you crazy fooks

madmax

I'm normally in bed by 9:30 or so unless there is an SDA problem nagging at me. I mean, what is the sense of getting up and going to work on time if there are unresolved SDA issues?? I'm sure the boss understands this. (my boss used to work at polk years ago...) heh heh!
madmax

madmax

F1Nut,
I've found that 1/4" of foam around the tweeters in a single oval is the best in my room. Just wanted to let you know.
madmax

Edit: while there was only a reasonable improvement with CD's I found that when I went to the turntable source it was night and day. 1/4" made the difference between live and just good. I have no clue why there was such a difference between the two. Previously the two sources sounded very similar. Now it is extremely obvious that the turntable sounds very live. You got me...

F1nut

Ok, I'm still playing around with mine and waiting for Doro's ears to arrive, so I can test this on him. I'll report back when I have some new info.

madmax

Too thick sucks, I can tell you that.
madmax

F1nut

Ok, I'm sitting around here today listening to music and I'm not happy with what I'm hearing. I'm thinking that I'm having one of those days where for some unknown reason the music just sucks. I then remembered that I had the rings around the tweeters, so I figured I play around with them, that maybe they were the problem. After a few hours of this and that I think I've got the sound to my liking again. With all tweeters ringed I sensed that there was a loss of crispness/detail. With only the bottom 2 tweeters (each speaker) ringed it didn't sound much different than not using the rings at all. So, then I tried the rings on the top tweeters only and believe I had found the answer. The smoothness is there and as you've stated before there does seem to be more coherance between the tweeters and the mids, but the crispness/detail that I felt was missing has returned. In general, I would say there is more tonal balance with just the right amount of edge. The music is sounding good again!

How is this little experiment going on your end?

George Grand

Don't you guys remember seeing the "Acoustic Blanket" covering the entire front baffle of those AR-9's of mine? Thick, gray, kind of felt material? It stops cabinet diffraction dead. These things have images 4 or 5 feet to the side of each speaker with no SH and obviously no SDA.

Told youse guys a long time ago to treat the front baffles.


I swapped out one of the Onk's and am now using a Carver TFM-35 to drive the lower mids, upper mids, and tweets on those AR-9's. The Onk M-504 was up to the task, but I felt things could be sweeter. I was right. Big **** Onkyo driving the woofs, sweet as silk TFM-35 driving the rest. I RARELY venture these days into the room with The Amazings. These AR-9's are nothing short of breath-taking. I can easily state that if I had owned these before The Amazings, the quest for a better speaker may never have been undertaken. The low end on these is to kill for. I want a bigger Onk to drive the woofers now. I have to find one of those M-510 300wpc, dual mono, Grand Integras.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grands)

madmax

George, George, George...
First you give me a taste of a Giant Killer CD setup which quits after a few weeks (Not your fault obviously) causing me to start looking towards high end transports/DAC's. Then I pick up a pair of CA's to see what all the fuss is about. Now you are enjoying something else even more?

F1,
I'm finding that some music is better with some configureations, some worse. That tells me I may be compensating for material problems. I'm still trying to find the right combo to make everything sound the best. I'll try the top two tweets only. On my setup there is a real hot spot in the treble when I circle all the tweets. Maybe just the characteristics of these SL-2000's? I'm not giving up by any means. There IS improvement to be had!

madmax

George Grand

Chuckles,

Really sorry to hear about the transport problem! That is a downer.

So you picked up a pair of Amazings huh? Good for you. Drive them with enough power and you'll see up close and personal what the fuss is. They're magnificent.

I like the AR-9's a lot. I'll go out on a limb to say, "Because of the way they need to be placed in a room in order to achieve max low end performance, these just might be the perfect wide range speaker for Home Theater." Put four of these in one room (as usual, no center required), and you'll get some of the deepest low-end you've ever felt (no sub required), in addition to pinpoint imaging and smooth frequency response. After living with the Amazings for 10 years before I got the 9's, I didn't think that performance like this was available from a speaker system housed inside a cabinet.

The way the Carvers have to be brought out from the front wall, 4 of them in one room would be impractical. The 9's, with their right up against the wall placement, are the ticket. Only stipulation is (there's one, 12", acoustic suspension woofer on either side of the cabinet at the bottom) the outer woofers need to be at least 3' from the nearest wall. If I didn't have a conscience, there'd be 4 of them in this room right now! It's my wife's HT room, I have the room with the Amazings.

Deserted island speakers? The Amazings for sure. But instead of having rescue on my mind, I'd be thinking more about the scummer who said I could only have one pair of speakers. These things really are special. Considering how they can be had fairly cheap (mine were local pick-up, and $200 with about $180 worth of re-foaming thrown in), it's a no-brainer. You need real amps though.

There was a model 9L or LS a few years later. Again a big tower, it had one, 12" downward firing woof, and one, 10" forward firing woof, as opposed to the 2 x 12" side firing woofs in a standard AR-9. As you would expect, the owners of the later one say it is an "improved" model, while original owners doubt any room for improvement. But this was easily it for AR, as far as far as a true reference loudspeaker. The 9's, and the LST's, and the LST's were a 1972 design, addressing wide dispersion and off-axis response, rather than AR's normal quest for flat frequency response (3a, 9).

George Grand (of the Jersey Grands)

madmax

I hate to get so far off the topic but you are saying you re-foamed the woofers on the CA's? I figured that would be impossible considering how they are made. Could be you had a later version? Even if so, have you heard of refoaming the originals which had the flat shiney plate instead of a conventional cone?
Thanks,
madmax

PS: That CD-3400/AA setup really woke me up to what CD can sound like... I'm going to start by finding a good used transport.

Tour2ma

Ditto on the surrounds question...

GG,
Are these your 9's? Not sure here because the pics look a little distorted.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3085059056&category=14993

George Grand

Yes, those are the AR-9's I'm raving about in the ebay auction. The guy says they compare well to his JBL's, Snell's, DQ's, and something else. Oh yeah, a Klipsch "Chorus". A good analogy might be.... "The way M-16's compare well to the 16" guns on the battleship New Jersey." Guy needs somebody to write his ads for him.

NO, I have never had the Amazings re-foamed.

Yes, I had to have 4 x 12" woofers, and 2 x 8" lower midrange drivers on the 9's re-foamed to the tune of about $180. Total expenditure was about $380 less gas, tolls, and driving time across the river into freakin' Transylvania.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grands)

RuSsMaN

I don't know that I've ever spent a better $380.

Worth more than most will ever know, that's for sure.

A TRUE mid-20's reading at 3db down - and THAT was in the chamber, g'head and give any average living room a few more hertz, will ya?

Cheers,
Russ

madmax

Originally posted by madmax
On my setup there is a real hot spot in the treble when I circle all the tweets. Maybe just the characteristics of these SL-2000's?

madmax

What was I thinking?? These are the SL3000's, not SL2000's...

madmax