Home-Made IEMs
Aug 19, 2014 at 9:19 PM Post #2,176 of 15,989
So I have a question about UV acrylic. I have just started and have gotten a solid block (working on calc 3 homework and did not pay attention to times at all), a few partial shells, and one good shell. However the good shell had a small portion chip out when I was cleaning it up. I know that the time in whatever chamber is different for each person depending on what they are using, but is there an "optimal" thickness I should be looking for?
 
Aug 20, 2014 at 1:41 AM Post #2,177 of 15,989
  So I have a question about UV acrylic. I have just started and have gotten a solid block (working on calc 3 homework and did not pay attention to times at all), a few partial shells, and one good shell. However the good shell had a small portion chip out when I was cleaning it up. I know that the time in whatever chamber is different for each person depending on what they are using, but is there an "optimal" thickness I should be looking for?

 
you are basically going to have to keep experimenting until you find a process that works for you. I have a box full of failed shells at my workbench so I know how you feel but just keep trying and you will get it. with UV acrylic I found that curing times varied greatly depending on the brand and viscosity. If you are using a nail type light box than 1 minute will probably be enough time with a low viscosity liquid to get a usable shell, if you are using a black-light instead of a dedicated UV light than it will probably take closer to 15 minutes but again this is all highly dependent on the brand of UV acrylic that you are using so you are going to have to keep up the experiments. 
 
Aug 20, 2014 at 7:48 AM Post #2,178 of 15,989
I've been trying to get somewhere between 1mm to 2mm. I only have one UV bulb, so I built a small turntable to rotate the unit to get uniform curing. This works well for me. The time has vary significantly since I have been trying different tint colors. I just keep checking the cure frequently.
 
Aug 20, 2014 at 8:13 AM Post #2,179 of 15,989
I've been trying to get somewhere between 1mm to 2mm. I only have one UV bulb, so I built a small turntable to rotate the unit to get uniform curing. This works well for me. The time has vary significantly since I have been trying different tint colors. I just keep checking the cure frequently.

You can use mirrror or uniform lighting.
 
Aug 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM Post #2,181 of 15,989
I have a opaque black faceplate, and it looks pretty good sanded and matte :p
 
Aug 21, 2014 at 4:15 PM Post #2,182 of 15,989
I'm looking for  opinions on those who have experience with the Knowles GK-31732-000 drivers and the GQ-30710-000 series as well. I've built a couple of units using the GQ-30710-000 with no electronics and various (red or green) dampers. I would describe them as full range and smooth but mid-rangey, with or without the dampers. I'm wondering if the GK series is truly a step up. Baisically, I'm looking for the best "solder the tabs and you're done" package. I have no experience with and Sonion or other products.
DJ
 
Aug 21, 2014 at 7:01 PM Post #2,183 of 15,989
  I'm looking for  opinions on those who have experience with the Knowles GK-31732-000 drivers and the GQ-30710-000 series as well. I've built a couple of units using the GQ-30710-000 with no electronics and various (red or green) dampers. I would describe them as full range and smooth but mid-rangey, with or without the dampers. I'm wondering if the GK series is truly a step up. Baisically, I'm looking for the best "solder the tabs and you're done" package. I have no experience with and Sonion or other products.
DJ

 
The simple answer is yes, the GK is a big step up from the GQ. I have built sets using both of those drivers and I can definitely say you will not be disappointed by the GK. I recommend using separate sound tubes for the CI and TWFK parts but you can use a single tube with good results as well if you have particularly small ear canals. The best sound results when you have a deep insertion ear canal with two sound ports, the sound is quite amazing and I like to compare it to taking a big concert type speaker stack into a quiet room. If you are like me and a long ear canal port gives you headaches, than you can get almost the same effect with a short ear canal section by using a brown damper on the CI side and no damper on the TWFK.
 
Aug 22, 2014 at 11:10 AM Post #2,184 of 15,989
Thanks CMOS. My next design will be as you suggest. GK with 2 tubes deep with no dampers. What has been your best method of attaching tubes to the 2 ports? Also what tubing if I might ask? I just tried a combination of a little super glue followed by UV gel on the GK sound port and ruined one of the tweeters (bought an extra though). I don't understand how the ports are not designed for a specific tubing. I've never felt good about any of the connections I've made on Knowles drivers.
 
Aug 22, 2014 at 8:34 PM Post #2,185 of 15,989
  Thanks CMOS. My next design will be as you suggest. GK with 2 tubes deep with no dampers. What has been your best method of attaching tubes to the 2 ports? Also what tubing if I might ask? I just tried a combination of a little super glue followed by UV gel on the GK sound port and ruined one of the tweeters (bought an extra though). I don't understand how the ports are not designed for a specific tubing. I've never felt good about any of the connections I've made on Knowles drivers.

 
I am most satisfied with the connection I get using UV gel. put a small amount of UV gel on the end of the tube, slip it over the sound port, and cure under a UV light. Once the tube is attached, apply a 2nd layer if UV gel around the base of the tube to give you a solid connection with no leaks. 
 
attaching 2 tubes to GK is a bit tricky and it took me several attempts before I worked out a reliable method. I have come up with 2 solutions that both work pretty well. 
 
method #1 is using standard sized acoustic tubing (AT from here on). The difficult part about using 2 tubes of this type on GK is that the distance between the CI audio port and the TWFK audio port is exactly the same as the wall thickness of the tubing, this means that you can only fit one tubing wall in between the two ports. In order to solve this, make a small diagonal cut out on the side of one of the tubes and than bond the two tubes together using UV gel. The result is 2 tubes that share 1 wall for a short section on one end. Next, attach the dual tube to the driver ports using the method stated above. You want to be careful on that last step not to cover over the driver ports, it is impossible to not cover the CI port partially since it is on the front of the driver, just make sure that it is not fully covered.
 
method #2 is to use heat-shrink tubing (HST from here on) instead of AT, The HST has much thinner walls and you can easily fit 2 of them together over the audio ports. Attach the HST using UV gel as noted above. 
 
There are 2 down sides of using HST. One is that it has a slightly smaller internal diameter and it will be nearly impossible to fit a damper into the tubing if you decide you want to tune the sound further after assembly. The other is that the HST is less bendable then AT and if you bend it to much it will collapse at the bend, completely blocking the sound, AT will do the same thing but you can bend it further before that happens.
 
It is possible to attach the 2 types of tubing together if you want to make a mix of the two methods because the OD of the smallest HST is about the same as the ID of standard AT but jest keep in mind that the HST is more flimsy than AT and it will tend to bend first resulting in the tubing claps as noted above. 
 
Good luck and have fun.
 
Aug 22, 2014 at 9:51 PM Post #2,186 of 15,989
Thanks again CMOS. It seems your experience with materials is the same as mine. For me, I think if the drivers had much longer ports that easily accepted AT with minimal adhesive and hada ribbed design like in beer tubing connectors all this stupidity would go away.
Also I would like a 2 prong male/ female coupler for the cord/IEM that had a threaded lock like old school tube mics. You plug them in and then lock them down and forget it. 

 
Aug 22, 2014 at 10:00 PM Post #2,187 of 15,989
  Thanks again CMOS. It seems your experience with materials is the same as mine. For me, I think if the drivers had much longer ports that easily accepted AT with minimal adhesive and hada ribbed design like in beer tubing connectors all this stupidity would go away.
Also I would like a 2 prong male/ female coupler for the cord/IEM that had a threaded lock like old school tube mics. You plug them in and then lock them down and forget it. 

I think the JH audio Roxanne uses a threaded cable connector but I don't know of a source to buy the connection parts.
 
Aug 23, 2014 at 9:14 AM Post #2,190 of 15,989
So....When you use lots of drivers inside a shell do you just not use any individual tubing and let the drivers play into the shell? Those Roxanne IEMs are 12 driver. How does all the sound get to the ear hole?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top