New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Home-Made IEMs - Page 109

post #1621 of 2191

I have successfully created acrylic shells using UV curing acrylic. I've got pics and will post what I did soon. I'm still trying to get some info on how to attach the tubing to the driver. I've got 2mm tube and the dampers will fit in that. But the sound hole on the Knowles BA is too small. Suggestions?

 

DJ

post #1622 of 2191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Jarros View Post
 

I have successfully created acrylic shells using UV curing acrylic. I've got pics and will post what I did soon. I'm still trying to get some info on how to attach the tubing to the driver. I've got 2mm tube and the dampers will fit in that. But the sound hole on the Knowles BA is too small. Suggestions?

 

DJ

super glue

post #1623 of 2191

May be you can add small tubing on Knowles shroud and then the 2mm( Something like W3)

post #1624 of 2191

 

 

 

post #1625 of 2191

I wasn't able to post pic here (stupid) so I've got a video of the pics from my first build. 

 

 

Aside from equipment costs which would include a dremel tool with various bits, a UV curing station, UV curing gel, soldering stuff, and some cheap stuff like silicone tubing gelatin, glycerin and shrink tubing the total cost of the cans was less than $115. That's using the Knowles full range dual driver with single sound port, Knowles dampers and a borrowed cable from a dead set of cans. Here's the quick rundown of the process:

 

Molds were created using megasils and dremeled to shape.

 

The molds were dipped in wax from tealight candles melted in a can.

 

The negative mold was created with 1 package of knox gelatin, 1/2 a cup of water and a tablespoon of glycerin heated in a microwave for 35 seconds. The mixture was cooled in the fridge until room temp and the wax coated earpieces were lowered in with thread and suspended in the liquid. The first mold was pulled after 2 hours and was stiff enough to create the shell. The second one was left overnight and the gel was noticeably stiffer and better for the task.

 

The gelatin molds were filled to the top with the Loctite UV curing gel purchased on EBay for $20. A black cap was placed on top so the liquid could be poured out after 45 seconds of curing in the 36 Watt nail salon UV station. The excess liquid was drained into a small opaque container (contact holder worked perfectly)  for further use. The negative was placed back inside and allowed to cure for 5 more minutes.

 

The shells were removed and the top ring cut off with a Dremel cut off wheel to form the back plate. It was placed on glass and UV gel poured inside. Into the UV oven for 5 minutes. I chose to veneer tiger maple onto the plate and seal it with the same UV gel. The hole for the tubing was drilled from both sides of the shell.

 

Shrink tubing attached to the BA driver, heated in place and then super glued. The shrink tubing slid inside the 2mm-4mm silicone tubing and was also super glued in place. A 2500 ohm damper was place in the silicone tubing half an inch from the driver. The tube was then carefully fed through the shell and the driver wired up with a "helping hands" type soldering station. 

 

The back plates slid into place and the gap closed with more UV gel. My cables were hard wired with the gel giving it strength.

 

The buds were lightly sanded for imperfections and then painted with UV gel and a nail polish brush and cured in the UV oven. 

 

 

They sound great and seal completely and comfortably. I'll be using the triple drivers next time around.

 

So there you go, acrylic shell CIEMs that sound great for a fair price. Any questions?

post #1626 of 2191

Congrats!!! Great work for first try. Sound & fit wise how they compare to your previous CIEM?

post #1627 of 2191

 

I think you need some post count before you can attach pictures here.

post #1628 of 2191

In a nutshell they sound great and I will feel good about building and maintaining all the CIEMs for the band. I think with a little experimentation I could make the shells a little clearer and visually appealing like the pro companies. It's a little tricky with the Loctite stuff I used because it felt a little rubbery even after curing and any drilling or imperfections would still stay a little rough looking if you put more acrylic over that. Also the wax layer may have given a bit of orange peel texture to the initial pour of the shells. It might be possible to use uncoated silicone molds and then brush in a layer or two of UV gel after the initial casting to get a better seal. 

 

 The fixed cord idea worked fine but I would consider trying some of the brass looking round connectors I've seen some companies use. Has anyone used them? If so is there a supplier for them? I'm not fond of the two prong cable connectors as they have broken on our gigs many times.

 

In terms of the Knowles BA drivers I would say they give great detail. I feel that the drivers may not be matched well. The construction on both ears is basically identical with the tube length, dampers and gluing but from my very first listen I felt the soundstage was shifted a bit to the left especially in the low end. Some people say break in for BA drivers is important and some say it isn't. Perhaps the right driver will "loosen up" in time. Any thoughts on this? In my experience with BA drivers I feel they all need a heavy amount of eq-ing to make them really sound correct. Even though they are "full range" drivers, there's nothing below 40hz and nothing above 13k just as the Digi-Key spec sheet said. So on my IPhone I used the EQ10 app which gives you graphic or parametric EQ and balance. The best tones came with a lot of gain around 60hz and everything above 13k all the way up. I also shifted the balance about 10% to the right (unfortunate). The upper midrange is VERY sensitive between 1k and 7k. It makes sense that there are so many dampers to tame this volatile zone of BA drivers. 

post #1629 of 2191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Jarros View Post
 

 

I'm not fond of the two prong cable connectors as they have broken on our gigs many times.

 

 

 

I appreciate that it's not easy to do it, but have you considered making recessed sockets? I have found these much more durable than flush-mounted sockets.

post #1630 of 2191

your channel imbalance most likely has nothing to do with burn in

 

1) tube not airtight to driver (bass roll off occurs)

2) glue blocking part ot the sound port of the driver

3) bad driver

post #1631 of 2191
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIke M View Post
 

your channel imbalance most likely has nothing to do with burn in

 

1) tube not airtight to driver (bass roll off occurs)

2) glue blocking part ot the sound port of the driver

3) bad driver

 

4) ear wax

 

:tongue:

post #1632 of 2191
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIke M View Post
 

your channel imbalance most likely has nothing to do with burn in

 

1) tube not airtight to driver (bass roll off occurs)

2) glue blocking part ot the sound port of the driver

3) bad driver


5) connection issues - ground is soldered or touches positive terminal. or one driver is wired with reversed polarization and your brain can't make sens of the same sound coming in two different phases.

 

My guess though is the first point.  driver plays into shell space rather than tubing.

post #1633 of 2191
See if you can suck air through it, if you can, that's your issue
post #1634 of 2191

DELETE


Edited by Mython - 4/1/14 at 4:57pm
post #1635 of 2191
Not unless you can suck a golf ball through a garden hose, LOL
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home