Help me ID please...
- Thread starter Slimshade73
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
crazy-in-az
Uhhhh....
I have a tweeter like that,a nd I've seen a couple with styrofoam on them. I think they may be 100% original.
Looks like a homemade kludge to me. I suspect the tweeters aren't improved over all by the modification, but I could be wrong -- though styrofoam has a pronounced resonance, it's lower than the tweeter range if my memory of 400 hz is correct, and since the mass is low and it might damp resonances in the cone, it might be a worthwhile change.
Since I'm not sure you can remove it, it might make sense to assume the best, and that your speakers are even better than factory. Self delusion can be a useful technique if the alternative is disappointment.
Since I'm not sure you can remove it, it might make sense to assume the best, and that your speakers are even better than factory. Self delusion can be a useful technique if the alternative is disappointment.
PastTechFan
Super Member
What you've got there is a (factory) PST4. No "kludge". As I understand it, the polystyrene foam let the mid-tweet run lower (300Hz(!)
See http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=19055&page=4
at post 55
and see second from the bottom:
Attachments
Well well well! Live and learn. Briggs was in the forefront of the adopters of foam surrounds so I shouldn't have been surprised that he (along with Leak) would have tried styrofoam. I'm just surprised it looks so amateurish -- but that was, to some extent, the genius of British technology in the twentieth century -- they'd try something, sticking it together with whatever was around (spirit gum seems to have been their duct tape), and if it didn't work out, they would try something else.
Len Deighton (the spy story writer) made the argument in Fighter that the British started WWII behind the Germans with much worse equipment, but because they just cobbled together stuff, whereas the Germans carefully designed and specified everything, the British simply out innovated the Germans. Certainly the Germans developed very advanced equipment, but they couldn't get it efficiently into mass production.
The same argument has been made about the German atomic bomb program -- that it was slowed by overly specified equipment designs when just getting something that works often is a more efficient way of doing experimentation. Of course Gleick makes the argument in his biography of Heisenberg that Heisenberg may have deliberately slowed German progress by such a strategem in order to keep Hitler from having the bomb.
Just a bit of seven degrees of Kevin Bacon...
Len Deighton (the spy story writer) made the argument in Fighter that the British started WWII behind the Germans with much worse equipment, but because they just cobbled together stuff, whereas the Germans carefully designed and specified everything, the British simply out innovated the Germans. Certainly the Germans developed very advanced equipment, but they couldn't get it efficiently into mass production.
The same argument has been made about the German atomic bomb program -- that it was slowed by overly specified equipment designs when just getting something that works often is a more efficient way of doing experimentation. Of course Gleick makes the argument in his biography of Heisenberg that Heisenberg may have deliberately slowed German progress by such a strategem in order to keep Hitler from having the bomb.
Just a bit of seven degrees of Kevin Bacon...
Slimshade73
New Member
Wow....thanks so much Past Tech. I had no idea. This forum once again comes through...
