How will removing Ferrofluid from a Celestion CDX14-3050 affect it's response?

Art Welter

Senior
Jan 11, 2011
907
45
28
Florida
I am about to finish the second of two cabinets loaded with Celestion CDX14-3050 high frequency (HF) drivers using three inch Titanium/Polyimide surround diaphragms.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ual-single-point-source-horn.html#post4114406

I received a production sample of the driver from Phil Graham (thanks again Phil!) but unfortunately it was 16 ohms, the factory politely refused to sell me another 16 ohm driver without purchasing the minimum order of 96 units, 95 more than I require.

The CDX14-3050 is available in single units in the 8 ohm version, so to get a matched pair I purchased one and another 8 ohm diaphragm.Upon removal of 16 ohm diaphragm, to my surprise the gap was partially filled with Ferrotec’s APG S17N Audio Ferrofluid, a mixture of a reddish-brown viscous fluid with a synthetic ester oil carrier liquid supporting ferrous metal particles. The specification sheet for the CDX14-3050 does not mention ferrofluid, no packet of ferrofluid accompanied the diaphragm, so unsure whether the oil is even currently used I replaced the diaphragm without cleaning the gap.

Over the course of four decades I have replaced dozens of HF compression driver diaphragms of all sorts, but this was only the second time I've encountered ferrofluid in the gap. Since I had no idea what type of oil used, much less having any on hand, had to put the new diaphragm in without cleaning the gap, about the equivalent of changing the oil in your car without changing the filter.

After installation of the new diaphragm (after putting the cabinet back on) and testing found the HF polarity was now reversed, and knowing the oil possesses damping and heat wicking properties, I asked these questions to Celestion's "Dr. Decibel ":
1) The CDX14-3050 specification sheet does not mention ferrofluid, does it use ferrofluid currently?
2) If the answer to question # 1 is yes, what is the proper ferrofluid type and volume in cc or ml for a standard "fill", and where can I obtain it?
3) How long does the ferrofluid used last before it's properties degrade?
4) Since the 8 ohm diaphragm shipped with no new ferrofluid, not knowing the answer to the above questions, I left the existing ferrofluid (which still looks brownish, not black) in the gap. Some fluid was retained on the old coil, so whatever volume originally used has been reduced by perhaps 5-10%.
How critical is the volume of ferrofluid used regarding frequency, phase, transient, distortion, and power response performance?
5) Since much of the driver's use will be in dusty environments that will eventually contaminate the ferrofluid and may require an "oil change" before it normally would "go bad", my preference would be to simply not use ferrofluid at all. What differences in frequency, phase, transient, distortion, and power response performance will the driver*exhibit without ferrofluid?
6) Does the diaphragm move forward (towards the horn) when positive (+) signal is applied to the red terminal?
7) Do both the 8 and 16 ohm diaphragms the same polarity convention?
8) Any suggestions on who might be willing to buy a used 16 ohm diaphragm or swap for an 8?

After a few weeks time, the answers received (after the first reply of "Sorry. Another awkward one….Can I just tell him not to worry about the ferrofluid? and second "don’t worry about the ferrofluid when you replace the diaphragm, it’s basically there to perform a secondary cooling function, but will not affect the operation in any meaningful way.") after pressing the "Doc" are as follows:

1) No answer, but implications both the 8 and 16 ohm still use ferrofluid.
2) A"fill" is .5ml of Ferrotec’s APG S17N .
3,4) We would anticipate the ferrofluid lasting as long as the compression driver. But of course it entirely depends on usage. If you find yourself replacing the diaphragm multiple times, it’s probably worth refreshing the Ferrofluid.
As the magnet assembly is a closed system, we wouldn’t anticipate it being contaminated in dusty environments.
5) Any test data for the compression driver without ferrofluid isn’t available to me. So either it hasn’t been done, or more likely it’s buried in a 10 year old notebook somewhere having never seen the light of day. So unfortunately I’m not going to be able to supply that information.
6) Yes.
7) Yes. (This means I probably put the diaphragm in backwards, resulting in the red wire going to the "-" terminal, doh.)
8) I don’t know of anyone who might like to buy a used diaphragm, but a lot of the Internet audio forums have trade and sale sections, so it might be worth taking a look at those…


As anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of compression drivers knows, the "magnet assembly" contains a gap with a voice coil in it, and the gap collects airborne particulates, requiring occasional cleaning when operated in dusty environments, and anybody who has ever changed engine oil knows that it can turn to sludge if not filtered and changed regularly.If anything, ferrofluid is more subject to problems than engine oil, reports of it having differing response as it ages, or even drying up to the point where the coil is stuck are easy to find.

I have personally heard system operators "warming up" drivers after a system was pulled from sub freezing trucks, the difference in sound between cold and warm ferrofluid was easily audible.

I certainly don't buy the good Dr.'s suggestion that Celestion engineers would import and use Ferrofluid if it didn't make much difference in response.

My inclination is to remove the ferrofluid so I don't have to deal with oil contamination and breakdown, but at the same time, the CDX14-3050 measures so smooth (other than one HF dip around 11 kHz) that I'd hate to mess with it, and cleaning out the ferrofluid is a time- consuming process.

So these questions remain:

1) How long does Ferrotec’s APG S17N used last before it's properties degrade?
2) How many hours of driving dust storms (like every other show..) before the Ferrofluid's properties change?
3) What measured differences will .5ml of APG S17N make in a 3" Titanium/Polyimide surround driver's phase, transient, distortion, and power response performance?
4) Anyone interested in buying a 16 ohm ohm CDX14-3050 diaphragm, or trading for an 8 ohm ?


Art
 
Last edited:
Re: How will removing Ferrofluid from a Celestion CDX14-3050 affect it's response?

Thems some hard questions Art!

It is my experience and observation that ferrofluids are introduced to a product as a power-handling/anti-failure gambit.

Distortion reducing benefits are a difficult measure and across a broad gradient of temperature and frequency spectrum. I suspect that distortion reductions are assumed/intuitive rather than proven. (Except in gross cases - like a wildly mis-tuned vented box. Load it with lots of glass/polyester and dampen peaks).

Anecdotal and opinion-based I know. Perhaps a counter-argument will arise.
 
Re: How will removing Ferrofluid from a Celestion CDX14-3050 affect it's response?

Thems some hard questions Art!

It is my experience and observation that ferrofluids are introduced to a product as a power-handling/anti-failure gambit.

Distortion reducing benefits are a difficult measure and across a broad gradient of temperature and frequency spectrum. I suspect that distortion reductions are assumed/intuitive rather than proven. (Except in gross cases - like a wildly mis-tuned vented box. Load it with lots of glass/polyester and dampen peaks).

Anecdotal and opinion-based I know. Perhaps a counter-argument will arise.
Actually, all the benefits can easily be measured, but for me to do that would require removing the goo on one of the drivers and comparing the response to the other with a battery of frequency response, power handling and distortion tests.

Others must have have done that type of testing on this or similar drivers, or ferrofluid never would have been used.

I have to re-install the diaphragm I put in backwards (causing the polarity reversal) so could remove it's ferrofluid and re test, but I'm still hoping someone will share their test (or listening) results so I don't have to repeat their work.

Testing would require me purchasing replacement ferrofluid if I find the response was worse without. I have not checked with Ferrotec, but often there is a minimum order that could make for an expensive, as well as time consuming test.

Art
 
Last edited:
Re: How will removing Ferrofluid from a Celestion CDX14-3050 affect it's response?

Actually, all the benefits can easily be measured, but for me to do that would require removing the goo on one of the drivers and comparing the response to the other with a battery of frequency response, power handling and distortion tests.

Art

I am ever the contrarian Art. "Easily" and "battery of frequency response, power handling and distortion tests" do not seem a complementary pair.

When ferrofluids were introduced to loudspeakers they appeared a silver bullet: eliminate the air gap and enhance heat transfer away from coil. The "damping" was an assumed advantage, but likely a variable over a temperature range as fluid viscosity changed.

That ferrofluid has not become routinely utilized in top products by most high end pro and consumer speaker/driver mfrs. makes me suspicious of real audible benefit. Or is it a power handling Hail Mary?

Maybe someone here can offer a paper/publication otherwise.
 
Re: How will removing Ferrofluid from a Celestion CDX14-3050 affect it's response?

I am ever the contrarian Art. "Easily" and "battery of frequency response, power handling and distortion tests" do not seem a complementary pair.

That ferrofluid has not become routinely utilized in top products by most high end pro and consumer speaker/driver mfrs. makes me suspicious of real audible benefit. Or is it a power handling Hail Mary?
Jim,

The tests are easy, but as mentioned, time consuming.

You may not consider Meyers as having "top products", but they routinely utilize ferrofluid.

Art
 
Re: How will removing Ferrofluid from a Celestion CDX14-3050 affect it's response?

Meyer's white paper on developing their own driver only mentions ferrofluid in relation to increased power handling. This reinforces my observation that distortion reducing benefits in normal power range are a widely assumed but undemonstrated benefit.

Fluid should reduce impedance peak at resonance, but we should also be designing and implementing drivers with resonance peaks outside use range.

Top suppliers FerroTech and Liquids Research Ltd. promote their products as power handling and response aids, but offer no data regarding damping.

These many fluids have specific viscous/temp/gauss range properties, which makes for more difficult benefit/deficit calculations. Most global players have decided that ferrofluid variables just aren't worth it in this app.

All right. I am done. Thanks for listening. Love you, Art!
 
Last edited:
Re: How will removing Ferrofluid from a Celestion CDX14-3050 affect it's response?

Hi Art, with some drivers the gaps are optimized for impedance, and switching the impedance on your diaphragms will offer less than optimal results.
You might want to check with Celestion before doing the switch.

Regards, Jack
 
Re: How will removing Ferrofluid from a Celestion CDX14-3050 affect it's response?

Some quick measurements if you need them. I did nothing but open a fresh driver and measure on the plane wave tube with and without the Ferro-fluid. This one looks a little funky to begin with. A lot of times the torque on the cover bolts significantly effect the distortion. CDX 3050-16

Data is available from http://www.cascadeacoustic.com/Data/CDX3050-16.zip

Let me know if you want anything else.

report.jpg
 

Attachments

  • report.pdf
    61.2 KB · Views: 4
Re: How will removing Ferrofluid from a Celestion CDX14-3050 affect it's response?

Thank you Mark!

Conclusion(s) anyone?

This is one particular driver on one particular test, but....?

And why is there no HPF apparent on charts?
 
Last edited:
Re: How will removing Ferrofluid from a Celestion CDX14-3050 affect it's response?

Hi Art, with some drivers the gaps are optimized for impedance, and switching the impedance on your diaphragms will offer less than optimal results.
You might want to check with Celestion before doing the switch.

Regards, Jack
Jack,

I did, "Dr. Decible" responses are in the OP. The driver is available in both 16 and 8 ohms, same magnet structure, though only the 8 ohm version is standard, the 16 is OEM. I have tested both the 8 and 16 ohm version with the ferrofluid in the gap, they both are quite smooth, and the frequency response seems the same for both.
The same diaphragms are also used in other Celestion HF drivers.

Art
 
Last edited:
Re: How will removing Ferrofluid from a Celestion CDX14-3050 affect it's response?

Some quick measurements if you need them. I did nothing but open a fresh driver and measure on the plane wave tube with and without the Ferro-fluid. This one looks a little funky to begin with. A lot of times the torque on the cover bolts significantly effect the distortion. CDX 3050-16

Data is available from http://www.cascadeacoustic.com/Data/CDX3050-16.zip

Let me know if you want anything else.
Mark,

Thanks for the tests. It does look funky, can't see the forest for the trees ;^).
I don't have a program to open the data, could you post the two frequency responses with smoothing from 500 Hz - 20 kHz, as well as the 400 and 1000 Hz distortion sweeps?

Thanks again,
Art
 
Re: How will removing Ferrofluid from a Celestion CDX14-3050 affect it's response?

Art the data is just an excel file. Should be able to open it in any office apps or MATLAB, octave. I can export them to CSV if you would like.
I repeated the test with a second driver and was surprised to see the same result. I will explain. Lets ignore the giant resonance bump at 10k because that is kind of random between drivers. The common thing, which I did not expect was the undulation at 1k, 2k, 2.5k etc. So it seems the damping provided by the ferro-fluid is helping to keep that in check.

What I should do is measure the impedance response on the plane-wave tube to see if that matches up with the bumps and dips which appeared in the frequency response.

I know the plot is hard to look at you really need to mentally snip off the data below 500Hz.

Another test which might be interesting would be amplitude vs. distortion plot. I'll see if I can grab another fresh driver, hopefully without an issue this time, and try that one.

Mark
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 2
  • 2.png
    2.png
    1 MB · Views: 1
Last edited:
Re: How will removing Ferrofluid from a Celestion CDX14-3050 affect it's response?

Art the data is just an excel file. Should be able to open it in any office apps or MATLAB, octave. I can export them to CSV if you would like.

I know the plot is hard to look at you really need to mentally snip off the data below 500Hz.
Mark,

Cool test set up!

I'm using a Mac, don't have MATLAB, "octave", or CSV.

Even using Smaart with 32K sampling, (1/2 Hz resolution) no smoothing I have never seen a chart so peaky, the rapidly undulating +/- 25 dB variation in frequency response (not response below 500 Hz) is why I requested seeing frequency response charts with smoothing applied. Smoothing would make it easier to detect what the ferrofluid does to the frequency response, as presented I can hardly see any difference other than below around 500 Hz.

Thanks,
Art