Jump to content

Cloth surrounds


dynaco_dan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi there;

I was day-dreaming, again, about all the write-ups regarding the, KLH butyl speaker surround coating of their many speaker surrounds.

It appears that in a KLH service bulletin, that the warantee depot would apply an additional coating of the KLH supplied butyl material.

I believe that Kent mentioned recently in the KLH forum that a particualr manufacturer does not make it anymore.

Other than, Tom Tyson's, please correct me if I am wrong, suggestion to use ArmorAll to rejuvinate AR cloth surrounds, 2 coats 24 hours apart, there seems to be no other information.

At least at this time, there is no mention of the solution that AR used or any follow-up coatings.

Surely there must be a source for liquid butyl, today, I do not mean only in 45 gallon drums either.

Aleenes watered down glue has been brought up, water downed latex sealant, as well as a liquid compound by a mailorder speaker repair company.

I have been looking at a pair of early used AR-2AX speakers that I bought this past year.

They both have the old aluminum frame, alnico magnet woofer with cloth surrounds.

The woofers both have a set of 4, hand applied x's, of a liquid compound, as well as a smear of it on the dust domes.

The X's are not uniform in size or shape but definitely hand painted on the cone material.

I assume this is to add weight to the cone and cutdown on cone-cry.

Has anyone here used ArmorAll and can say that this is a suitable substitute for the factory original material.

Is two coatings enough, or should we use more?

It is strange that when these speakers were produced, in the 1960's, there has been no mention of a sealant for the surrounds ever since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

<Other than, Tom Tyson's, please correct me if I am wrong, suggestion to use ArmorAll to rejuvinate AR cloth surrounds, 2 coats 24 hours apart, there seems to be no other information.>

Armoral will not seal leaks in butyl-coated surrounds. Never has, never will. It will plug leaks for a minute to see if the cabinet is tight, then evaporate. It may well *maintain* cloth surrounds in a flexible condition; it may *soften* hard surrounds (rejuvinate), but that is not the same as patching holes big enough for a flea and all of his cousins to walk through! Armoral is used on vinyl car upholstery to maintain its suppleness - in the desert we use it on vinyl pool furniture to slow UV and chlorine attack.

The material we formerly used was "Loctite Butyl Rubber Sealant" diluted with hexane or lacquer thinner to the consistency of water before applying with a brush. Unfortunately, Loctite no longer make this material. Roy C has found an alternative, which he will describe in a day or so - when he finishes gathering data.

More than one of us has tried the latex glue formulations that are used for gluing surrounds and find that they increase the Fs of drivers and therefore are not suitable. It is hard to justify the price of the Orange County stuff which is likely similar to that I have used from Parts Express. The beauty of Roy's material is that it is not costly and remains flexible.

But let's allow him to toot his own discovery.

Cheers,

John O'Hanlon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Other than, Tom Tyson's, please correct me if I am wrong, suggestion to use ArmorAll to rejuvinate AR cloth surrounds, 2 coats 24 hours apart, there seems to be no other information.>

Armoral will not seal leaks in butyl-coated surrounds. Never has, never will. It will plug leaks for a minute to see if the cabinet is tight, then evaporate. It may well *maintain* cloth surrounds in a flexible condition; it may *soften* hard surrounds (rejuvinate), but that is not the same as patching holes big enough for a flea and all of his cousins to walk through! Armoral is used on vinyl car upholstery to maintain its suppleness - in the desert we use it on vinyl pool furniture to slow UV and chlorine attack.

The material we formerly used was "Loctite Butyl Rubber Sealant" diluted with hexane or lacquer thinner to the consistency of water before applying with a brush. Unfortunately, Loctite no longer make this material. Roy C has found an alternative, which he will describe in a day or so - when he finishes gathering data.

More than one of us has tried the latex glue formulations that are used for gluing surrounds and find that they increase the Fs of drivers and therefore are not suitable. It is hard to justify the price of the Orange County stuff which is likely similar to that I have used from Parts Express. The beauty of Roy's material is that it is not costly and remains flexible.

But let's allow him to toot his own discovery.

Cheers,

John O'Hanlon

Hi John;

What do you have against flea's and their cousins? LOL

Do you know approximately when the, "Loctite Butyl Rubber Sealant", was discontinued?

Looking forward to Roy's report on a new and available solution.

Thank you, John, for your write-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Vern and John,

Attached are some photos of the sealant John mentioned.

It is "High Tack Gasket Sealant" made by Permatex (product # 80062 for a 4oz can or 80063 for a 15oz can). It is butyl rubber based, does not harden, and remains sticky, much like the original woofer surround sealants. John had luck thinning it with acetone, which makes it easier to apply, though it seems thin enough right out of the can for most applications. One thin coat does the trick. A 10" KLH woofer I recently treated had an fs of 34-35hz before and after treatment..virtually unchanged.

Along the way I experimented with a number of the white surround "treatments". This group included the stuff sold by Simply Speakers, Orange County, M-Sound, and Global Adhesives (who labels it "white surround dampener"). These are all water soluble/PVA based, and as advertised, dry more flexibly than regular white glue. They are also advertised as being able to be used for a "wet look" on woofer cones. The problem with all of them is that they gradually stiffen. One 3a woofer I experimented on went from an fs of 16hz upon treatment to 32hz after one month! I experienced similar results with all brands on a variety of surrounds. As for Armorall, I have not found it to improve performance in any way. It certainly doesn't seal anything.

Before applying the Permatex sealant, it is advisable to try to carefully remove the old sealant with alcohol and/or acetone if it has stiffened. Care must be taken not to un-glue the surround from the cone.

Unfortunately I cannot recommend using the Permatex sealant on foam surrounds, as the solvents in it appeared to shrink or deform some of the surrounds I experimented with.

Roy

post-101150-1196310464.jpg

post-101150-1196310379.jpg

post-101150-1196310593.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Vern and John,

Attached are some photos of the sealant John mentioned.

It is "High Tack Gasket Sealant" made by Permatex (product # 80062 for a 4oz can or 80063 for a 15oz can). It is butyl rubber based, does not harden, and remains sticky, much like the original woofer surround sealants. John had luck thinning it with acetone, which makes it easier to apply, though it seems thin enough right out of the can for most applications. One thin coat does the trick. A 10" KLH woofer I recently treated had an fs of 34-35hz before and after treatment..virtually unchanged.

Along the way I experimented with a number of the white surround "treatments". This group included the stuff sold by Simply Speakers, Orange County, M-Sound, and Global Adhesives (who labels it "white surround dampener"). These are all water soluble/PVA based, and as advertised, dry more flexibly than regular white glue. They are also advertised as being able to be used for a "wet look" on woofer cones. The problem with all of them is that they gradually stiffen. One 3a woofer I experimented on went from an fs of 16hz upon treatment to 32hz after one month! I experienced similar results with all brands on a variety of surrounds. As for Armorall, I have not found it to improve performance in any way. It certainly doesn't seal anything.

Before applying the Permatex sealant, it is advisable to try to carefully remove the old sealant with alcohol and/or acetone if it has stiffened. Care must be taken not to un-glue the surround from the cone.

Unfortunately I cannot recommend using the Permatex sealant on foam surrounds, as the solvents in it appeared to shrink or deform some of the surrounds I experimented with.

Roy

Hi Roy;

Thank you very much for your very thorough report.

Certainly gives us all an option for rejuvenating our old AR and KLH cloth surrounds.

I tried to think of another speaker company that used cloth surrounds in our classic speakers, I couldn't think of any.

As a side note, I wanted to print out this write-up.

I wasn't successful finding a way to print it out, yet.

I did save the attachments, but not the printout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Roy;

Thank you very much for your very thorough report.

Certainly gives us all an option for rejuvenating our old AR and KLH cloth surrounds.

I tried to think of another speaker company that used cloth surrounds in our classic speakers, I couldn't think of any.

As a side note, I wanted to print out this write-up.

I wasn't successful finding a way to print it out, yet.

I did save the attachments, but not the printout.

Congratulations Roy,

You deserve the thanks of so many of us that work with cloth surround speakers. I have been experimenting as well, and am very glad you found the answer to a problem that has been mentioned in these Classic Speaker Pages for YEARS.

I have been planning to construct home theater speaker systems based on pairs of KLH six woofers and have held off proceeding until a satisfactory method of resealing the surrounds was announced. Also thanks for the advice to clean up & remove old hardened sealant before application of the thinned down Permatex High Tack Gasket Sealant.

I'd give you my vote for solving one of the oldest problems ever discussed in this forum, which should warrant some kind of award for a job well done.

Thankyou Very Much,

Ampex :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Roy;

Thank you very much for your very thorough report.

Certainly gives us all an option for rejuvenating our old AR and KLH cloth surrounds.

I tried to think of another speaker company that used cloth surrounds in our classic speakers, I couldn't think of any.

As a side note, I wanted to print out this write-up.

I wasn't successful finding a way to print it out, yet.

I did save the attachments, but not the printout.

Hi Vern,

Go to the Options drop-down and select "Print this topic."

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Roy for doing the research. I'm sure members here and visitors alike will benefit from your work. I think it's just fun researching and finding ways to improve our audio hobby. I very much injoyed doing the grill cloth, stuffing and capacitor studies.

You may want to consider artificially ageing that 10" KLH woofer to see if the Fs changes. Put it in an oven at 100 deg. F for an hour, let it cool and re-measure. That should age it somewhat without damaging the woofer.

BTW, did you measure the before and after treatment on box Fc? That's really the bottom line. If the surround was indeed sealed better, the improved seal should have lowered the Fc a bit.

Mark/Vern:

The option list print function will print all the posts. Another approach is to choose 'download the file to word' from the same options list. My M'Soft 2007 Office word program did a nice job of opening everything up, including Roy's pics. I then simply deleted all the posts except Roy's and printed it. Voi-la a nice hard copy for my records!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Roy, my curiosity got the best of me. Having a KLH 5 woofer in my posession prompted me to visit my local AutoZone store and pick up a can of 98H. Same stuff as yours, only in a smaller can.

I first ran a WTII scan on the woofer as is and got an Fs of about 27. Then cleaned the cloth surround with Isopropyl alcohol, dried it and applied the 98H with a small brush. During the application process I held the woofer up to the light and noticed quite a bit of light coming thru the small holes in the cloth were it had NOT been coated with the Permatex. After I finished the application and dried it, I looked again and almost all of the visible holes were gone. The technique I used was to apply light pressure to the brush to try and force the stuff into the interstices of the fabric. I did not thin it.

Next, tested Fs again and it came out the same.

Next, put the woofer back in the cabinet and tested Fc and got about 46 hz. - about the same as I got prior to sealing the surround with Permatex.

Next took the woofer out and put it in my oven at 170 deg. F for 1/2 hr. (couldn't get the oven to control any lower temp.).

Took the woofer out after the alloted time and let it cool outside. The coating wasn't as tackey then.

Next, tested Fs again and got about the same as original and treated prior to ageing/curing. Good news, the butyl coating didn't seem to harden with forced ageing.

Next, put the woofer back in the cabinet and tested Fc and again got about 46 hz.

Yes, the Permatex treatment seems to perform as you described, even after some deliberate ageing. What bothered me though was the lack of change in box Fc. I presume I was successful in sealing most of the visible holes and yet no lowering of Fc.

So, what's the point again in 're-sealing' cloth surrounds?

Hey, maybe mine were a one-off. I don't know, but thought I should share.

I can post all of the WTII test curves I generated. Just don't have time now. If anyone is interested, let me know.

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there;

I just went to the Loctite website.

They have a Material Safety Data Sheet, 3 pages long, that MUST be read by all potential users!

It must be treated as a very touchy item and great care must be exercised, if used.

Use it outdoors!

There maybe a skin or respiratory reaction.

Basicly treat it the same as you would Acetone.

As I was reading the product information, I was seeing that maybe it could also be used as a surround re-foam adhesive.

It would be nice if it can be used as a dual purpose solution.

Nice that it is readily available, locally as well.

Sorry if this kinda puts a damper on this topic, but we must be very careful in it's application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, did you measure the before and after treatment on box Fc? That's really the bottom line. If the surround was indeed sealed better, the improved seal should have lowered the Fc a bit.

Why would you say Fc should have dropped? If I ported the speaker would Fc necessarily rise? It's a real question, not a challenge.

What it certainly should improve is power-handling and distortion. Ought to make the roll-off more smooth, too.

BTW - you'll see my "handle" changed. I could no longer get to my old mail address. Sorry about that, folks. I couldn't do a password recovery, couldn't reset an account I couldn't get into. I didn't want to bug Mark.

Besides, the new "handle" kinda describes my new speaker situation.

Bret

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the encouragement! There are those around me who would say you are simply enabling a madman.

Carl, I agree that the fun part is sharing this stuff...and, as always, your input is very appreciated. I was about ready to bake a woofer in your honor, as your recipe sounded delicious :-)! Actually, I was using a hair dryer on the test subjects, and found fs goes down with heat, and increases a few hz in a cold room. The important thing is that the Permatex sealant's properties seem to remain consistent.

As to the fc question...I have never noticed fc to decrease with sealed surrounds...only to increase with stiffer surrounds resulting from old or poor sealant. I believe the relatively airtight cabinet changes the character of the bass frequencies above resonance (making it sound less "flabby"), and offers protection from over-excursion. In fact, a cabinet that is "too sealed" can actually lose some of its bass appeal in my experience. As (I believe) Tom T. commented, we don't want it to act like a "barometer". Some versions of the 4x woofer, for example, really cannot be completely sealed due to porous dust caps and alnico magnet covers. Glopping too much stuff on the 4x surrounds will raise fs and fc, compromising bass response.

Vern, Permatex was owned by Loctite from 1972 to 1999. The msds sheet for the high tack sealant can only be found on the Permatex website. Loctite made the stuff John mentioned above. With that said, our high tack sealant does have acetone and hexane in it, and should be applied in a well ventilated area (as with any material containing volatile organic chemicals).

Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if this kinda puts a damper on this topic, but we must be very careful in it's application.

Why would the knowledge that a material is made from an organic compound "put a damper on this topic?" This material is no different than a hundred others found in any auto supply store. Here we are brushing on perhaps a half cc of liquid and letting the volatiles evaporate in a place where no one will breath their fumes. We simply use this material carefully like we do with any chemical. Lots less exposure than redoing a head gasket! :-)

Cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you say Fc should have dropped? If I ported the speaker would Fc necessarily rise? It's a real question, not a challenge.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl,

I've been reading Villchur's original patent document for some insights.

The question of "how sealed" a cabinet needs to be is a good one, as "a small amount of air bleeding or air leakage is permitted" according to the document. It also states that "the enclosure is designed to provide an acoustic seal, that is, one which does not allow significant air leakage over a period corresponding to a half-cycle of the lowest frequency encountered". Nowhere in the document, however, does it suggest that the "acoustic seal" lowers fc, only that it provides "uniformity of frequency response at lower frequencies". According to Villchur the surround must "be substantially air-tight to confine the acoustical pressures produced by the diaphragm".

The low fc of an acoustic suspension speaker is largely a function of an extremely compliant woofer suspension. It appears that the "elastic restoring force" of the trapped air inside the cabinet simply provides control, and prevents over-excursion. According to the document over 90% of the restoring force is provided by this cabinet pressure, and the rest by the woofer's mechanical suspension...so obviously the seal's integrity is very important to the scheme of things.

Acoustic suspension speakers (like our old AR speakers) are more akin to aperiodic loading designs, which attempt to precisely regulate cabinet pressure through the restricted release of air pressure within the cabinet. A typical vented, or ported, speaker uses a much stiffer woofer suspension, and uses a cabinet hole to help produce low frequencies. It is difficult to compare a "leaky" acoustic suspension speaker to this design...apples and oranges, IMO.

It is therefore probably prudent:

1) To make sure the old surround sealant has not stiffened to the point of compromising compliance.

2) That a satisfactory new sealant be sparingly applied to insure the integrity of the "acoustic seal".

3) Not to compromise compliance by glopping on too much sealant in an attempt to cover every tiny hole.

Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Roy;

Have you given any thought of using this solution for re-foaming the foam surrounds, instead of the white glue?

According to the spec sheets it is a non-hardening gasket adhesive.

It would be nice if it is dual purpose.

I know that 3M has a similar adhesive that works great on foam surrounds and it may also be usable as a surround coating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Vern,

The solvents in the Permatex stuff seem to have a negative effect on the foam surrounds that I've tried to seal with it, so I doubt it would make a good glue for re-foaming. It really is a "sealant" rather than a glue or adhesive, which is a good thing.

Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl,

I've been reading Villchur's original patent document for some insights.

The question of "how sealed" a cabinet needs to be is a good one, as "a small amount of air bleeding or air leakage is permitted" according to the document. It also states that "the enclosure is designed to provide an acoustic seal, that is, one which does not allow significant air leakage over a period corresponding to a half-cycle of the lowest frequency encountered". Nowhere in the document, however, does it suggest that the "acoustic seal" lowers fc, only that it provides "uniformity of frequency response at lower frequencies". According to Villchur the surround must "be substantially air-tight to confine the acoustical pressures produced by the diaphragm".

It is therefore probably prudent:

1) To make sure the old surround sealant has not stiffened to the point of compromising compliance.

2) That a satisfactory new sealant be sparingly applied to insure the integrity of the "acoustic seal".

3) Not to compromise compliance by glopping on too much sealant in an attempt to cover every tiny hole.

Roy

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest speedracer

Hi Guys, I'm confused , is the Permetex used to rejuvinate or re-seal ? Earlier it was mentioned Amour-All to rejuvinate, but not for sealing. Or, as read later, clean (remove) old sealant, then apply Permatex which will then do both. (?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Guys, I'm confused , is the Permetex used to rejuvinate or re-seal ? Earlier it was mentioned Amour-All to rejuvinate, but not for sealing. Or, as read later, clean (remove) old sealant, then apply Permatex which will then do both. (?)

Hi there;

I would delete the word re-juvinate and just use re-seal and preserve our cloth surrounds, with the non-hardening and flexible Permatex High Tack Adhesive.

As of a recent discoverey by RoyC, thank you again RoyC, forget using ArmorAll for any speaker use at all.

It appears that ArmorAll is not applicable for the cloth surround re-sealing, with our speakers at least.

It has been suggested that, alcohol/acetone, be used to, clean/re-move, some/all, factory coating, only from the surround.

Not from the cone!

When cleaning, be careful around the surround/frame/cone glue area, so as to not to disolve the factory glue.

This procedure is only if the surround is in need of re-coating.

Using the Permatex High Tack Adhesive, one light coat, un-thinned, to re-seal the cloth surrounds.

Do not attempt to seal absolutely every surround pore.

If the dust cap has a coating from the factory, this may also need a slight touch-up.

This is also applicable to KLH drivers, but do not touch the 12.5 dust cap.

The cleaning/removal of the earlier factory applied compound may or may not needed.

Obviously a virgin material will accept and seal better than a dusty and previously coated material.

As a suggestion, acid swabs, used to apply acid flux when soldering copper piping, are only about 5 or 10 cents each and if you want you can just throw it away when finished, rather than a paint brush.

These are usually available at any plumbing supply house/Home Depot.

My suggestion is to place a sticker or label on the rear of each driver re-coated, if out of the enclosure and/or rear of the cabinet, if not, with the date and what was done.

It will be interesting to read our results here in 10 or so years.

We are indebted to you RoyC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello guys;

A few weeks back I posted that I was going to seal the surrounds of my AR-4's. I did it with thinned down latex sealer and some black acrylic paint. Like I reported, the difference was significant.

Since then I bought some of the Global WD Dampener Adhesive and proceeded to reseal the cloth surroundson my AR -2ax and AR-3's. Thinned with some water and another drop of black paint

I can't say if the resonances were changed because I don't own a generator, but I notice that the bass has improved with the AR-3's. I really can't detect any changes to the AR-2ax's but I had to recap all the x-overs anyways (cap values had increased X4 in some cases) and I also tore apart and cleaned out all the pots.

The Global WD solution may be PVA, but it sure didn't smell like any PVA that I've ever used. I telephoned the company and spoke to Rhett Molitor, I think he is the manager there. He assured me that this formulation was developed not to dry or stiffen over time. I put a fairly thin coat on so I'm crossing my fingers hoping that I didn't change the Fs too much.

Global does have a Black Nitrile adhesive BC series. According to their site

http://www.globaladhesives.net/surround_adhesives.htm

"These nitrile rubber cements are designed to bond cloth and foam surrounds to the frame and cone. They are also excellent for bonding gasket and spider to frame."

I wonder if this would be another suitable sealer for the surrounds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Guys, I'm confused , is the Permetex used to rejuvinate or re-seal ? Earlier it was mentioned Amour-All to rejuvinate, but not for sealing. Or, as read later, clean (remove) old sealant, then apply Permatex which will then do both. (?)

Martin:

Permatex and Armor All do different things. Armor All is a surface coating that appears to maintain the long-term flexiblity of rubber and plastic surfaces. It would appear to prevent those surfaces from drying - that is why one uses it on interior plastic auto surfaces and such. It would be applied infrequently for such purposes. Just because there is no visible effect in a day does not mean that it is not doing its job! Armor-All is, if you wish, rejuvinating these surfaces, or slowing their aging.

Permatex is a thin rubber or rubber-like coating that seals. Roy C noted that it tends to mix with the existing butyl rubber; that's a good sign, it means it is bonding well with the exisiting coating. Permatex is re-sealing the cloth surround. Roy's comment about the use of solvent to remove the loosly bonded old seal before adding new material makes a lot of sense, as this keeps the final seal as thin as possible.

In order to measure / hear the difference in performance, one must repair one of a pair, then remeasure / listen. Neither Roy nor I has found any thick latex or paint-based product that will not adversely affect the free resonance of a woofer. As far as we know we are the only ones who are speaking from experience with Permatex - we welcome others to try it and report their results to TCSP. Especially, if you own Woofer Tester or the like and can made a before / after measurements!

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Martin:

Permatex and Armor All do different things. Armor All is a surface coating that appears to maintain the long-term flexiblity of rubber and plastic surfaces. It would appear to prevent those surfaces from drying - that is why one uses it on interior plastic auto surfaces and such. It would be applied infrequently for such purposes. Just because there is no visible effect in a day does not mean that it is not doing its job! Armor-All is, if you wish, rejuvinating these surfaces, or slowing their aging.

Permatex is a thin rubber or rubber-like coating that seals. Roy C noted that it tends to mix with the existing butyl rubber; that's a good sign, it means it is bonding well with the exisiting coating. Permatex is re-sealing the cloth surround. Roy's comment about the use of solvent to remove the loosly bonded old seal before adding new material makes a lot of sense, as this keeps the final seal as thin as possible.

In order to measure / hear the difference in performance, one must repair one of a pair, then remeasure / listen. Neither Roy nor I has found any thick latex or paint-based product that will not adversely affect the free resonance of a woofer. As far as we know we are the only ones who are speaking from experience with Permatex - we welcome others to try it and report their results to TCSP. Especially, if you own Woofer Tester or the like and can made a before / after measurements!

Cheers

Hi John;

Just in case other members want to buy the, Permatex High Tack Gasket Adhesive, compound it is readily available from most all auto supply houses.

I just looked at two samples, the smaller 4 oz #80062 can is less than $10.00 CDN retail.

The larger 16 oz #80063 can is less than $19.00 CDN retail.

Please read all precautions before using it.

It is too dangerous to mail.

Since I started reading this web sites many interesting write-ups, ArmorAll has been brought up here and there for using on AR cloth surrounds to re-seal them.

I do not believe that the use of ArmorAll has done any harm to those surrounds, it just didn't seal them as we would have liked, no matter how many coats were applied.

Certainly very much less than latex paint, glue or silicone thinned.

ArmorAll was never designed to be our final solution.

As with the passing of time, another more appropriate current solution has been discovered which will help prolong those classic cloth surrounds of, AR and KLH, to name but two brands, that used them.

This non-hardening sealant, brushed on, will seal those surrounds and dustcaps where applicable.

EXCLUDING only the 12.5 KLH dustcap.

One coat application, direct from the can, with no concern for the few holes in the surrounds not filled in.

The cans even come with a dauber for applying the solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...