Bud,
How about using post-its as a reversible enabl process? Just cut to size and stick on the driver with some tweezers?
I'm still not clear on how close to the edge of the cone are the rectangles? Also there is a double paper seam - does this count as the edge of the cone?
is planet10's photo an accurate depiction of what this is supposed to look like?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1406533#post1406533
(link updated by mod)
I would like to attempt this on my Tang-band W4-616 as it has the best sound quality to my ears, except nasty cone breakup from running full-range hurts my ears:
http://www.tb-speaker.com/detail/1208_03/w4-616sa.htm
How about using post-its as a reversible enabl process? Just cut to size and stick on the driver with some tweezers?
I'm still not clear on how close to the edge of the cone are the rectangles? Also there is a double paper seam - does this count as the edge of the cone?
is planet10's photo an accurate depiction of what this is supposed to look like?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1406533#post1406533
(link updated by mod)
I would like to attempt this on my Tang-band W4-616 as it has the best sound quality to my ears, except nasty cone breakup from running full-range hurts my ears:
http://www.tb-speaker.com/detail/1208_03/w4-616sa.htm
This is just a recommandation to Bud or moderator to edit the OP with this link
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1428990#post1428990
This should come in handy for people that are just discovering this.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1428990#post1428990
This should come in handy for people that are just discovering this.
chuck55,
Cilla, who wanders by and graces our pages occasionally, has used a clear cellulose tape on her Lowther driver (mono only) and reported that she was quite happy with the results. I am not sure who else used tape, but I think post it notes have been used.
I will not guarantee you will get a difference. I have never tried it, only because I am only marginally concerned about whether the paint / pen process will work. When a driver is new to me I do still work slowly, step by step, and let my ears guide my decisions. At some point this will no longer be possible of course. By then I hope the rest of you will be carrying the ball.
As for distance from the edge, for the outer pattern ring. The sizes of the individual blocks are controlled by the circumference of the cone, at the effective edge. I use a long ago written AutoCad lisp routine to generate the pattern for a given conic section, that is based upon the diameters of top and bottom and the length on surface between them. This is a fiddly bit of software to use but it is accurate. In a situation where there is no way to get this information you have to wing it.
The typical application has the space to the first edge of a cone, the actual edge, the joint with surround etc., the same width as the outer blocks. Doing this by eye is good enough and the best way to find this block size is to peruse the links in the page that ecir38 points to. There are PDF pages with detailed rings, many with conic sections that the rings are application patterns for, that you can scale by % in your printer. Find one that looks similar to your cone and mess around with it, till you begin to feel comfortable that you understand the relationship between cone, from conic section, and flat pattern lay out ring. Then the distance to the cone edge will be more or less comprehensible.
The picture you referenced, for a B200 FR driver, is correct. Those patterns and a coat of Micro Scale Gloss are all that are needed to control that driver. The eventual phase plug is another matter and is also addressed in the thread.... somewhere.
Application of the patterns will show you what EnABL provides. Application of the Gloss will just make sure it provides it's intended benefit for a very wide range of complexity and dynamics. The tape format might not be useful for all situations arising from complex signal structure and sharp dynamic changes.
By the way, if you present me with a photo of your driver, in a slightly steeper angle than the B200, I can provide a virtual pattern application for you, if you need help with visualization of how it is going to look on your driver.
Bud
Cilla, who wanders by and graces our pages occasionally, has used a clear cellulose tape on her Lowther driver (mono only) and reported that she was quite happy with the results. I am not sure who else used tape, but I think post it notes have been used.
I will not guarantee you will get a difference. I have never tried it, only because I am only marginally concerned about whether the paint / pen process will work. When a driver is new to me I do still work slowly, step by step, and let my ears guide my decisions. At some point this will no longer be possible of course. By then I hope the rest of you will be carrying the ball.
As for distance from the edge, for the outer pattern ring. The sizes of the individual blocks are controlled by the circumference of the cone, at the effective edge. I use a long ago written AutoCad lisp routine to generate the pattern for a given conic section, that is based upon the diameters of top and bottom and the length on surface between them. This is a fiddly bit of software to use but it is accurate. In a situation where there is no way to get this information you have to wing it.
The typical application has the space to the first edge of a cone, the actual edge, the joint with surround etc., the same width as the outer blocks. Doing this by eye is good enough and the best way to find this block size is to peruse the links in the page that ecir38 points to. There are PDF pages with detailed rings, many with conic sections that the rings are application patterns for, that you can scale by % in your printer. Find one that looks similar to your cone and mess around with it, till you begin to feel comfortable that you understand the relationship between cone, from conic section, and flat pattern lay out ring. Then the distance to the cone edge will be more or less comprehensible.
The picture you referenced, for a B200 FR driver, is correct. Those patterns and a coat of Micro Scale Gloss are all that are needed to control that driver. The eventual phase plug is another matter and is also addressed in the thread.... somewhere.
Application of the patterns will show you what EnABL provides. Application of the Gloss will just make sure it provides it's intended benefit for a very wide range of complexity and dynamics. The tape format might not be useful for all situations arising from complex signal structure and sharp dynamic changes.
By the way, if you present me with a photo of your driver, in a slightly steeper angle than the B200, I can provide a virtual pattern application for you, if you need help with visualization of how it is going to look on your driver.
Bud
A note to owners of OHM F's.
I have been collaborating with Dale Harder for a period of time. Dale is the current mfg. of what was known as the OHM F and A. He no longer calls them that, out of deference and respect for OHM Acoustics.
They are drop dead gorgeous.
http://picasaweb.google.com/hpurvine/NewWalshDriversFromDaleHarderPlusSomeOriginalAllMetalOhmFS
They are also improved, in so far as the original targets have been met, rather better than the original, drivers were able to. Attention to detail and an extremely precise manufacturing process sees to that.
The reason for the post here is to note that the collaboration will produce patterns for the OHM F drivers in existence today. Dale intends to apply an EnABL pattern, in stages, to his personal speakers, made with his own hands. I have those pattern templates and will make them available for brave souls who ask for them. PM me please.
They will become public documents once Dale has succeeded in controlling the F cones with them. I am confident, of course, but I won't be there to supervise, or actually apply the patterns. Which is what I really want to do.
Never the less, this will bring that over rated event, closure, to a 35 year investigation and return EnABL to it's roots, where it belongs.
Bud
I have been collaborating with Dale Harder for a period of time. Dale is the current mfg. of what was known as the OHM F and A. He no longer calls them that, out of deference and respect for OHM Acoustics.
They are drop dead gorgeous.
http://picasaweb.google.com/hpurvine/NewWalshDriversFromDaleHarderPlusSomeOriginalAllMetalOhmFS
They are also improved, in so far as the original targets have been met, rather better than the original, drivers were able to. Attention to detail and an extremely precise manufacturing process sees to that.
The reason for the post here is to note that the collaboration will produce patterns for the OHM F drivers in existence today. Dale intends to apply an EnABL pattern, in stages, to his personal speakers, made with his own hands. I have those pattern templates and will make them available for brave souls who ask for them. PM me please.
They will become public documents once Dale has succeeded in controlling the F cones with them. I am confident, of course, but I won't be there to supervise, or actually apply the patterns. Which is what I really want to do.
Never the less, this will bring that over rated event, closure, to a 35 year investigation and return EnABL to it's roots, where it belongs.
Bud
This does bring up a trampoline topic, something everyone can have fun on.
How do we measure room resonances? With most speaker systems, some sort of bass trap has to be used to absorb localized areas of extra intense energy. Some of these appear to be located right at room boundaries, with an attendant suck out in other portions of the room. Have I stated a problem that others have had to deal with? It has been a long time since I have had to deal with this, so I am not certain what progress has been made here.
In earlier posts I have mentioned a concept of mine, that seems to work. I am sure I have the reasons inside out and backwards, but, an EnABL'd woofer does not appear to excite anything close to the same room resonances that an untreated driver does. My assumption has been that this is due to some lack of feed back between the room and the driver, once treated. Another facet of this is that the bass penetrates room wall barriers far more efficiently from a treated driver. With large drivers, 12 inch a bigger, and a large cabinet for them to work into, the bass seems to utilize the entire house as it's load. Bass just gets everywhere, much to the annoyment of SWMBO.
For this reason, my personal system is currently tuned to roll off pretty dramatically starting at about 35 Hz. Since I use four small ports, rather than one large one, and also make use of variable friction surfaces and thin sheets of material to constrict the vents, I can effect a pretty steep roll off. The room is of average living room damping quality and the bass is notably even throughout the room, with no suck out or high intensity areas. It is also on a suspended floor, which will certainly make a difference.
So, trampoline is open, safety nets are strung.
Thanks Alex, for persevering with your experiments, regardless of the fact that they do not work and you are hallucinating. Obviously a dream time artifact.
Bud
BudP said:
I hardly know what to say or even where to begin, this is THE most ridiculous post of the thread.
So bass penetrates room wall barriers far more efficiently from a treated driver! It's not that your reasons are inside out and backwards, it's that you think anything of the sort could even occur and that it is occurring! OMG, I still can't even believe that you wrote that post! I'm sorry Bud, you've gone beyond rational thought. I really hope others will consider carefully just what you're saying explicitly and what you're implying, that is, a total rejection of known physics. If you or anyone here actually believes any of this, well, what more can be said?
Where will the nonsense end? It appears that it won't. And I'm SURE that there's going to be a lot of jumping on the bandwagon, even with this.
Dave
Whoa!
What kind of waves could do that????
A Sine wave is a sine wave is a sine wave.
The only possible far fetched explanation I could see for that would be that (at bare minimum) that the surface area of the driver has exponentially increased it's potential as a membrane absorber due to the EnABL process.
In this instance, I could only see mass added to the driver as increasing any meaningful damping ablility.
In any event, I just don't see this as viable...
Cheers
Isn't this fun?
I don't even try to believe it anymore. Just reporting.
A number of years ago I did run an AD HOC experiment with a long, narrow fish tank. I placed 4 foot long florescent tubes under the tank, with white reflector attached. Then hung a 4 foot long piece of white cellulose board over the tank, with about 3 feet between tank top and board. I then made a full sector patten set (two sets of blocks from an outer ring and a center pair from the inner ring) from appropriately thick pieces of wood, as fingers that would stick down into the water from above and cover the tank width as an alternating EnABL pattern..
These two rows were placed at about 1/8 the length of the tank and a dipper was constructed to excite the full width of the tank, but only about 1/4 inch thick.
When lights were on and the dipper was active and the fingers withdrawn, the tank showed a fairly choppy surface, as shadows on the overhanging panel. A pattern of waves formed and reflections occurred with eventual cross chop showing up. This was all quite clearly displayed, with wave tops coinciding with dark bands, or portions of a band.
Then the fingers were inserted. A checkerboard pattern arose between fingers and dipper. Out of the opposite side of the fingers a very straight wave, with a very even gradient to it's darkest portion, arose and moved down the tank. When it reached the other end it stopped. There were no reflections observable.
A high energy (read lightening bolt research) physics trained friend of mine, witnessed the phenomena a few times. His conclusion was that I was practicing magic, and it was Black. He could offer no reason for the phenomena.
A number of years later, I stumbled across something with similar characteristics. It is called Soliton Waves. I don't know if they apply here and I don't intend to argue the usefulness of this wave tank test, to explain anything. It is, however, one of the dark bodies, here on the trampoline.
This latest insult is the last, by the way. I have presented them all before, in this thread, so nothing new to the veterans.
Bud
I don't even try to believe it anymore. Just reporting.
A number of years ago I did run an AD HOC experiment with a long, narrow fish tank. I placed 4 foot long florescent tubes under the tank, with white reflector attached. Then hung a 4 foot long piece of white cellulose board over the tank, with about 3 feet between tank top and board. I then made a full sector patten set (two sets of blocks from an outer ring and a center pair from the inner ring) from appropriately thick pieces of wood, as fingers that would stick down into the water from above and cover the tank width as an alternating EnABL pattern..
These two rows were placed at about 1/8 the length of the tank and a dipper was constructed to excite the full width of the tank, but only about 1/4 inch thick.
When lights were on and the dipper was active and the fingers withdrawn, the tank showed a fairly choppy surface, as shadows on the overhanging panel. A pattern of waves formed and reflections occurred with eventual cross chop showing up. This was all quite clearly displayed, with wave tops coinciding with dark bands, or portions of a band.
Then the fingers were inserted. A checkerboard pattern arose between fingers and dipper. Out of the opposite side of the fingers a very straight wave, with a very even gradient to it's darkest portion, arose and moved down the tank. When it reached the other end it stopped. There were no reflections observable.
A high energy (read lightening bolt research) physics trained friend of mine, witnessed the phenomena a few times. His conclusion was that I was practicing magic, and it was Black. He could offer no reason for the phenomena.
A number of years later, I stumbled across something with similar characteristics. It is called Soliton Waves. I don't know if they apply here and I don't intend to argue the usefulness of this wave tank test, to explain anything. It is, however, one of the dark bodies, here on the trampoline.
This latest insult is the last, by the way. I have presented them all before, in this thread, so nothing new to the veterans.
Bud
Dave,
I'm all ears and awaiting an explanation. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve Bud's post, it seems to me his own observation with an attempt at an explanation (good or bad), but your response doesn't provide me ANY information. I find your posts quite frustrating because I want to understand but I don't have anywhere near enough background to do so. Your post is only helpful if you explain yourself. Please remember that not everyone here has the depth of understanding that you have.
Carl
I believe, based on my experience, that I continue to be surprised and fascinated by those things I discover about the world every day. My experience also tells me that I learn less from those things that I dismiss without trying than the things I give some room to.
What Bud describes in post 2545, I have not experienced. I have experienced things (audio) that I can't begin to explain. I'm willing to listen to someone who has a better explanation than me. I do want to learn.
Carlp said:
If you're awaiting an explanation, ask Bud, why do you not question and ask for details? He keeps making more and more claims without any valid explanations. He postulates, hypothesizes, asks some unrelated questions, but provides nothing more than that.
Bud is saying that he's created a sound wave that has some "special" property that makes it move through air differently than other sound waves and that when those sound waves impinge on a wall, they move through it differently, more "efficiently" as he says. Somehow the physics of air is changed and that of the wall. That is BS, pure and simple. I don't care what Bud thinks is happening, a treated driver in a room is not going to alter wave motion in air in the room differently from an untreated one other than for the different, small changes in that driver's transfer function, a frequency response issue. But the movement of the waves created will not change the manner in which they propagate.
He then adds an entire post on something unrelated, saying that he doesn't know if it applies. After reading a bit, it sure looks like it doesn't apply at all. But it sure adds to the "mystique", even though it has no bearing on it.
But you guys go right ahead and accept any and all claims, however outlandish they may be. That's your choice. Few here seem to have any desire for anything other than for Bud to make fanciful claims, then everyone lauds him for his genious.
At this point, what's the use, you guys are convinced the moment Bud makes a claim, any claim.
Dave
chuck55 said:
I use kitchen foil and double sided tape see here.
I thought about post-it notes as well, but wasn't sure that paper was the correct medium to make the EnABL blocks from.
Try it anyway and let us know what happens.
BudP said:
I'm not sure about what's going on in the bass department. Although I would describe similar things to you in relation to the bass when I EnABL'd the PA speakers - ports & horns only NOT drivers!
Bass seems to become bigger, more open and natural but I don't really understand why. It just does.
Hey Bud,
Here is another 'mind job' idea - if a folded horn behaves like a series of individual resonant sections, what would happen if EnABL was applied INSIDE the horn at the start and end of each of these resonant sections? Any ideas?
planet10 said:
That is a cop-out. Do you believe that there is some new physics related to the movement of the sound waves in air such that they don't follow the known physics of room resonances? Either you believe it or you don't. Direct answers, too often lacking here, will be telling.
Dave
planet10 said:
Absolutely agree with you! Well said.
It is interesting that people who have never properly experienced EnABL demand 'proof' in the form of objective measurements and scientific explanation based on 'known scientific facts'.
Those who have properly experienced EnABL are looking for measurements and explanation to better understand what EnABL is doing and how to make it better.
Oh yeah, and bumble bees can't fly either because 'they don't follow the known physics' of aerodynamics.
I must say, the bass penetration described sits a bit uncomfortably with what I (think I) know.
The wave tank experiment: there'll have to be either reflection or something absorbtive at the end of the tank. Conservation of energy. Perhaps the reflections were in phase with the incident wave.
Bud, have you looked at NXT as a possible parallel? Or looked at Prigogine?
Way out thoughts, but no more so than your observations.
The wave tank experiment: there'll have to be either reflection or something absorbtive at the end of the tank. Conservation of energy. Perhaps the reflections were in phase with the incident wave.
Bud, have you looked at NXT as a possible parallel? Or looked at Prigogine?
Way out thoughts, but no more so than your observations.
Explanations are quite handy for extrapolation. Saves a lot of cut and try.
Good to know you concur. Difficult to get one's head around though.
Seeing the thread is headed "EnABL Processes " it would be nice if some generally accepted theory is also developed.
My day is starting. Have to get away from this PC
Good to know you concur. Difficult to get one's head around though.
Seeing the thread is headed "EnABL Processes " it would be nice if some generally accepted theory is also developed.
My day is starting. Have to get away from this PC
- Status
- Not open for further replies.