Carlspeak

I posted a note somewhere here at CSP or on another forum that I've gotton 2 pairs of Allison 4 eight inch woofers to work on that were so encrusted with dust and lint I thought at first they had been treated with floc. However, Howard Ferstner assured me those (in-cabinet) up-facing woofers were not flocked when new, but instead had a sticky coating put on them during manufacture. Nice to see some life in this otherwise quite forum as of late. Summer doldrums I guess.

I think that was Jeff Goldblum's line in the remake. I liked the first one with Vincent Price when I saw it as a teenager. Not as gory except how he ended his misery by crushing his flyhead in a giant indusrial hydraulic press.

I have a funny story to share. I recently coated a pair of older style AR3 woofers with Roy's new formulation. The next morning I went down to my shop and discovered a fly had become stuck to the cloth surround on one of them. Feeling sorry for the littly guy, I took a popsicle stick and gently nudged it free of the goo. Lookls like I may have uncovered another use for Roy's new fabric surround sealant - fly paper!

Doug/anybody: could you give us a rough range of ser. No's for the 16/16/3 types and the 16/8/3 types? Thanks,

I have a NLA and its original tan grille cloth TPI is 16X16. It also has a very open, fine mesh black backing fabric.

Same advice as I gave over at AK regarding advantagious' post: 12x12 is an extremely coarse weave for grille cloth. However, with the black backing cloth also, I guess it will be okay. For single cloth grilles on classic speakers, I recommend linen in the 20-30 TPI range and 4-7 osy.

Zilch: "Parameter changes after high-power testing are common; they return to original after "resting." Yup, I forgot to add that sentence in my last post. The Fs does go back up with rest.

I've also noticed when checking Fs numerous time during some spider softening experiments that Fs drops after extended cycling at relatively high power. I guess the extreme flexing sort of softens up the joints in the foam like my arthritis does in my hands in the morning after waking up

No, I don't Roy. It may simply be that while we're striving to find someting like the 'original' sealant, even the original applied to the surrounds met the same fate you site above. I write this because if they did stiffen over time, it would explain why on many vintage cloth surround woofers we see numerous areas where light shines thru that resulted from the sealant hardening and falling out with flexure of the cloth during normal use.

Hi Vern. Nice to see you back. Haven't 'heard' much from you lately.

My first post was focused on how the job was done. This post made to simply report the customer re-installed the reconed woofer and reported yesterday he was extremely satisfied with the results.

Attached is a blog document account of a recent Model A woofer recone job. The woofer was made by RCF, an Italian mfg. (Model L12P48). The challenge was to salvage the original cone, install a new surround, VC and spider and properly position and align the VC without shimming it. The document speaks for itself. Snell_Model_A_recone_blog.pdf

Read thru and downloaded this thread today and was impressed with the volume of info. provided. However, many important details are no longer accessible. In particular, KK's testing of a driver provided by TT. KK's research assistant provided a few links in a few posts that now are dead ends (e.g. file no longer found). KK: can this data be accessed again? Your fine report on the 3/4 inch tweeter testing project also is no longer accessible. Just a suggestion here, but I've found numerous instances of dead end links to important information in threads going back a few years. I think all important data should be embedded in a post to best preserve prosperity should the site be once again upgraded to another format by Mark.. Another thought would be for key authors to CC the library when making important posts. Perhaps that location is less vulnerable to 'evaporation' issues.

Careful Klaus. That Calluns' ESR may also be way off. Did you test that also? Just adding the parallel cap may bring the crossover point back to spec, but the mid's potential output may suffer due to elevated impedance across the caps.

Nice job Kent!

Hello again Kent. The Clarity cap size you quoted indicates you chose their SA Range which are rated at 630 Vdc. Cap size is roughly proportional to its rated voltage. Clarity's PX range cap is rated at 250 Vdc, the same as the Dayton and costs less than the SA. MPP film thickness also affects cap size. the SA uses 10 um film. PX uses 6 um film. 250V is plenty for a passive xover application. Attached are before and after pics of one of a pair of Polk SDA SRS crossovers I recapped and re-resistored with a mix of VERY high end Duelund caps and resistors for the tweeter section and Sonicaps and Solens for the mids and bass sections. Now that was a challenge! The Duelund resistors are quite unusual. They look like cinnimon sticks! They were so long I had to stand them on end.

Hi Kent. 1) No, I removed the original components that were replaced with new ones 2) I like to replace the sand cast series-wired resistors with wire wound, non-inductor types like Mills. No preference regarding resistors. You may have a tough time fitting in the Clarity caps. I believe they are bigger than the Solens. The biggest fitting problem will be in the lower left corner where the bundle of caps is and also 2 new resistors have to be crammed in there. 3) The correct cap values will be the ones you find on the boards you get to work on. I have found some minor variations as evidenced in my hand drawn vs formal schematics you referenced. I didn't replace the 25 uF cap wired in parallel for the woofer. You can if you want. The resistor values you listed seem correct. p.s. If Rob has a later ser.#, you may find a different looking xover board than the one in my picture. I have recently worked on a later version which is a PC board and not hard wired like the original in the pic. Have pics of the newer one also if you need them.

Well, I'm still around at least. Didn't use anything fancy. Solen caps and mills resistors as shown in the attached pic.

I may have measured the drivers but can't remember. That was 5 yrs ago. The speaker is rated at 4 ohms as noted in the copy of the Model A owner's manual which should also be in the library. Didn't note the model numbers of the drivers. [i hope Mark reads this]

I've attached some stuff IMO belongs in the library. Schematics, pictures and a chronological history by model (can't vouch for accuracy) that was available for downloading from the oroginal CSP site. Snell_model_a_component_layout.doc

I have my own hand drawn version made during a rebuild of the upper section. It does not include the woofer section. Anyone interested? Was puzzled to see no reference to Snell in the Library section. I thought there was some stuff back in the old site.

Wouldn't it be funny if we somhow found out that Permatex (or something very similar) is what was used originally to seal these classic speaker's cloth surrounds? It behaves pretty much the same with respect to its tackiness.

Vance Dickason says in the 4th Ed. of LCB that "Enclosures for closed-box speakers should be air tight........Air leakage caused by a speaker's lossy surround or porous dust cap should probably be ignored since attempts at correction can create as many problems as they solve."...... He doesn't seem too worried about some surround air leakage. The question remains, how much is too much? - at which time it may be prudent to reseal it. Can anyone shed some light on this? Is the point when a fix is needed measurable? How much air leakage is there in a 1/2 cycle at the lowest frequency encountered? I agree as you state in point #3 above, go easy on the sealant as Dickason cautions so as not to make matters worse.

The answer to your question lies in the low end natural woofer's roll off in a vented (24 dB/octave) vs an acoustic suspension (12 dB/octave). It follows then that as a sealed box behaves more like a vented box the -3 dB point will start to creep up - assuming the rolloff's original starting point of both the vented and AS speakers is the same (see attached sketch). This is all theory of course. In the case of cloth surrounds where the miniscule open area of a paratially deteriorated old cloth surround is further sealed a bit, does it make any measurable difference? Perhaps not as I noted earlier in my tests. I agree will others who posted here that sealers that stiffen the surround will increase Fs. Now, could someone demonstrate with test data the benefits of sealing an old surround whilst maintaining original Fs? v_vs_as_roll_offs.doc v_vs_as_roll_offs.doc

Vern: Having used this stuff today, I didn't find it that bad. Other adhesives I use in speaker repair are much more oderous from their VOC's.