white speaker advice. please
- Thread starter Van Presence
- Start date
- Status
hey everyone. thanks for all the replies. seems to be a small amount of in house fighting on the best/easiest/proven or just personal choice. classic!
so i was in the city on the weekend an decided to go with paint brush and acrylic. cant say iv done much spray painting so thought id be safer with hand and paint. goin to have a go now, test out how thick/wet will start with.
no one even had a guess on what they are out of. you will just have to wait till i get it all back together
so i was in the city on the weekend an decided to go with paint brush and acrylic. cant say iv done much spray painting so thought id be safer with hand and paint. goin to have a go now, test out how thick/wet will start with.
no one even had a guess on what they are out of. you will just have to wait till i get it all back together
did 1 coat light last night, could still just see the big yellow smudge so i did another tonight. really happy with the result.
Hisrudeness
Member (SA)
BoomboxLover48
Boomus Fidelis
Sure it does! Even better with one more layer!Hisrudeness said:
Those upgrades are not for audio lovers.
The ideal loudspeaker diaphragm would never flex and would exhibit perfect pistonic motion. It would be infinitely rigid, well damped(stops on a dime), and the speed of sound through the material would be
unlimited. The mass would ideally be zero and the break up mode frequency would be infinity.
If you change the mass you lose the sound quality. One cannot dance and do fast movements with a heavy butt!
Just for a compromise Better believe in ultra thin layer application with an aerosol rattle can rather than getting 'muddy sound' with brush application of w/b acrylic on PAPER substrate for the looks.
I am totally against painting speakers and increasing the mass of cone paper.
Just my opinion! Please don't be offended!
My apologies in advance!
BoomboxLover48
Boomus Fidelis
It is not minute amounts and will be several milligrams. A side by side sound evaluation/listening will should show the difference to good ears.T-STER said:
It is pretty easy to measure this with a weighing lab scale. Take a weight before and after full cure of the paint. I would say an aerosol paint will have better even film thickness and less weight when compared to a brush application with w/b acrylic paint.
A simple test will be to gently tap the painted cone paper with one end of a splinter and on the unpainted one.
They will sound different and the painted one won't be that crisp and will sound dampened.
Hisrudeness
Member (SA)
I've done dozens of boxes wig acrylic paint and had no issues at all.
If at any point I thought I would lose anything acoustically I wouldn't do it, especially on some of the big hitters.
You're objections are theoretical at best or have you tried it?
If at any point I thought I would lose anything acoustically I wouldn't do it, especially on some of the big hitters.
You're objections are theoretical at best or have you tried it?
I agree that increasing the mass of the speaker cone is not desirable. However, a Boombox is far from HiFi and I doubt anyone without superhuman hearing would detect the difference between the before and after sound signature.
One thing everyone will notice is the beautiful white speakers!
James....
One thing everyone will notice is the beautiful white speakers!
James....
oh crap, did i miss a step? prep as in? i wiped/got all dust off then paintedMyOhMy said:Good result.
no need to apologize. everyone is allowed an opinion. but as i said im not confident with a spray can, last time i used i made a huge mess, lucky it was a fancy dress costume so didnt matter. im happyBoomboxLover48 said:Sure it does! Even better with one more layer!
Those upgrades are not for audio lovers.
The ideal loudspeaker diaphragm would never flex and would exhibit perfect pistonic motion. It would be infinitely rigid, well damped(stops on a dime), and the speed of sound through the material would be
unlimited. The mass would ideally be zero and the break up mode frequency would be infinity.
If you change the mass you lose the sound quality. One cannot dance and do fast movements with a heavy butt!
Just for a compromise Better believe in ultra thin layer application with an aerosol rattle can rather than getting 'muddy sound' with brush application of w/b acrylic on PAPER substrate for the looks.
I am totally against painting speakers and increasing the mass of cone paper.
Just my opinion! Please don't be offended!
My apologies in advance!
yep thats about right. happy to do to a $100 radio but when it comes to my $2500 B&Ws i would even think about it.jimmyjimmy19702010 said:I agree that increasing the mass of the speaker cone is not desirable. However, a Boombox is far from HiFi and I doubt anyone without superhuman hearing would detect the difference between the before and after sound signature.
One thing everyone will notice is the beautifull white speakers!
James....
how do you know they behind some black grills. ha. but yes they do look good behind them
samovar
Member (SA)
I have just had a couple of badly stained white speakers repainted by a friend who is an artist of the brush. Two almost invisible layers of white worked wonders, as I hope to show as soon as I understand how to upload pictures (apparently I can't in reply to a post).
Soundwise, I cannot perceive any difference to speak of. I wouldn't hesitate repeating the experiment, because it is not really invasive. Does it jeopardize sound quality? In theory, yes; in practice, I doubt it, as boomboxes are hardly audiophile items.
Soundwise, I cannot perceive any difference to speak of. I wouldn't hesitate repeating the experiment, because it is not really invasive. Does it jeopardize sound quality? In theory, yes; in practice, I doubt it, as boomboxes are hardly audiophile items.
- Status