BudP said:
Bud,
You are discussing speaker driver performance. Logically, you should at the very least use tests designed for measuring speaker driver parameters, pre and post EnABL, and chart them, before you begin looking elsewhere.
Don't be so quick to simply label everyone as merely skeptical. This is an internet forum, and as such, you'll find everything from ditch diggers to quantum physicists, and everything in between.
Two heads are always better than one, I always say.
If there were more hard data on the table, I think it would serve this thread, and the whole EnaABL process a whole lot better.
I have to agree (with others here) to conduct a simple baseline, analyze it, and then start building theories. Otherwise you merely wasting precious resources (time, mainly) on speculations.
I don't really seeing anyone as saying that EnABL couldn't have real merit as a process to improve the performance of drivers. But I see efforts wasted on speculating on some far reaching explanations as to what the effects of EnABL are able to accomplish.
I don't think that the waves from an EnABL'ed driver can pass through walls differently than a non EnABL'ed driver.
I also don't see how the fish tank test proves anything in relation to EnABL treatment on a driver, or on a port or baffle edges. As I see it, the fish tank test is a flawed experiment, with no correlation to speaker drivers. You are playing with a (physically)larger 3D sequence of pattern blocks, which involves laminar flow, boundary layers, and eddy currents at low frequencies that don't dissipate energy through the walls of the tank.... I just don't see that being the direct basis of what the EnABL pattern is doing to a speaker cone, a port (and only mildly possible as a correlation on baffle edges).
I'll offer up some possible direction that I think would be interesting and revealing. I thought about parallels, and I'm keenly aware of one in particular that I see. It has to do with drums.
Drummers have been damping overtones and controlling decay for years with all sorts of methods over the years. Some of the best methods of altering performance come from applying tape at intervals, around different radii of drum heads and cymbals to control resonances, overtones, and decay rates.
Some of these methods yield substantial results despite the very high impulse and SPL generated at point of attack, yet add minimum mass to the drum head. The results are not subtle, and are very easily heard, and measured in simple time domain measurements.
If you'd like to test some patterns out on some drum heads to hear the effects, let me know, I could try some out, record them, and then we could start to perhaps evolve it even further.
Bud, if you like, I have some people that can perform complete measurements on drivers for you (pre and post EnABL), with either CLIO, Praxis, or MLSSA. Let me know if you'd like to do it, and we'll work out the details.
I think you would see this thread take on a more fruitful direction.
As fate would have it, I have 2 sets of (4) FR 125 drivers. 4 with EnABL, and 4 without. Both sets have been fully broken in. There are (4) FR 125's being installed (in the coming weeks) in the MTM section of a pair of custom built RAW Acoustics APEX III speakers we are building from a kit, for a client. I will have the opportunity to listen and swap out the(4) EnABL'ed with the (4) non-EnABL'ed drivers before the speaker ships.
I'll post my listening impressions once I do.
Cheers
BudP said:
Apparently dlr was wrong as I feel compelled to comment. Aside form the fact that you seem to posse no knowledge of boundary layer physics, acoustic or flow, and that you are constantly changing you position I will just make one comment. Or should I say reiterate one comment.
Any acoustic wave that makes its way to the ear or a mic is the result of the distribution of the velocity over the radiating surface at the interface between the radiating surface and the air. If you want to add in spurious reflections, absorption, transmission of waves at the surface, that's fine too. The bottom line is that what is incident on the mic or ear is the integrated effect of all of that. No ifs, and, or buts. Even a cheap mic has sufficient sensitivity and dynamic range to capture anything the ear can. A good measurement system can capture and record signals exceeding the dynamic range of the ear. Thus an impulse response of a driver before and after treatment will captured any changes due to treatment. That impulse response can be analyzed in any number of ways. The problem here is that this has been done in several cases and obvious differences have been observed in the CSD, frequency response, etc. BUT these differences have been dismissed as not consistent with what is heard. Well what I have to say to that is what has been echoed form the other side. Prove what you hear isn't a result of these measured differences! Proooooove it! You can't. So it is denied because it doesn't fit the esoteric, nonphysical argument that Bud wants to make.
Whether or not we have an understanding of the physical processes involved in making a change in the radiated sound, we have clear evidence of what the change is in any case, both through subjective evaluations (listening) and objective evaluation (measurement). One would think that such objective results would be welcomed as supporting the subjective conclusion that Enable does something, perhaps positively, to a driver. But instead the subjective results are rejected because while they support a change, they don't support the nons(ci)ense offered as to the cause-effect relationship. This has to be one of the stupidest, most ignorant responses to objective data I have every seen. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack and then when sitting down on the hay you get pricked in the *** (behind) and denying that you sat on the needle.
I'm still waiting for Bud to show a single endorsement of the process by a reputable driver manufacture. Just one! I haven't seen it and I suspect I won't see it because it is not reliable. It doesn't always result in improvement (if ever), only change. It’s nothing more than a tweak which may or may not produce positive results. And it is impossible to refute the claims because as dlr has noted in the past, if a driver is treated no difference is heard, then it is the listeners fault and if the difference is interpreted negatively, then it is due to an error in application.
That said, I will once again withdraw.
Daygloworange said:
Denny is building a custom ordered pair of Apex III using the FR125S Enabl drivers as he noted.What I have also provided for Denny is 4 other un modified drivers to have a listen.
This way he can listen to the Apex III with the unmodified FR125S drivers, remove them and then install the modified drivers and listen.
I will say our drivers have a coating NOT just Enabl applied.
We are doing tests with Dave in the Enabl process,no treated drivers using the SDX7.We have been testing the drivers over the last few weeks when we get time in the lab.
More testing is in the works for just treated driver with a coating Dave applies.
We will then have tests from the following
8-SDX7 woofers before a coatings (no Enabl will be applied to these)
1-SDX7 coating only
1-SDX7 Enabl only
2-SDX7 Coated plus Enabl
With this random selection we will have a very good idea of the coating process,changes and consistancy range to expect.
So far all the tests done so far are on all the drivers but the return of the 8-SDX7 with coating.Which I will have in a few weeks time frame.
What to expect.So far we have found out !
Have to wait and see.
In relation to EnABL'd drivers
The obvious differences in (CSD, FR etc) do provide objective confirmation that proper application of EnABL does make an audible difference.
On that point there is agreement.
The issue as I see it is that these measured differences appear small in relation to the larger percieved changes when listening.
This may well be simply that people are unable to correctly correlate the measured change with the perceived change.
But, there is also the possibility that the measurements done so far don't reveal the complete story.
With regard to EnABL on ports and baffles
Well, according to some, any audible change does not exist - other than in my wishful thinking.
My claim is that EnABL on ports and baffles consistantly produces an audible change with characteristics which are subjectively similar to EnABL on the drivers.
I have subjective and anecdotal evidence to support this claim.
So logically, when measurements are made, these differences (or lack of) should be obvious as well (as far as I know there has been no measurements done specifically for this).
This is where I am really fascinated because unlike a driver, an EnABL'd port or baffle has no 'added mass' and no other change except for the application of the EnABL pattern.
I believe that investigation of this holds real potential for a exposing the physical processes behind EnABL.
happy.gringo,
That's a happy tale. May I ask how many block sets per ring you used? Did you put a two ring, six block set around the wood glue dot on the dome center. Did you put a three ring set at the cone dome joint.? Basically, can you take a picture and post it.
I must note that when I worked at Nestorovic Labs, we used PVA much thicker than Modge Podge to coat an entire cone, dome and surround to very good effect. I suspect your use of this material has at least equal if not more effect on the sound you are getting than the EnABL pattern and Gloss. Especially if you have more than 20 or less than 16 block sets per ring. If you really slathered the Gloss coat on you may have done more harm than you intended. A bound cotton, surgical pad and some isopropyl alcohol can be used to remove some of the Gloss coat if you want.
Glad to hear you have a more useful set of speakers for your purposes. Interestingly, Andy Marshall of THD, one of our Guitar out put transformer customers, used PVA at my suggestion, for years, on his cabinet speakers. A straight up set of EnABL'd drivers was clearer and he did supply some for studio recording purposes, but for making music with that dynamic an amplification chain, we both preferred the PVA coating. His latest cabinets were designed by a professional designer and have no coating at all on the Celestion drivers. They sound great. I have one for OPT "voice" demo and have no intention of touching it with EnaBL or PVA.
Not rejecting your thanks here, at all.
You might even consider obtaining another set of drivers and using just the EnABL patterns on them. I will be happy to provide a virtual application on a picture for you and you can use one of the graph paper generators to get the appropriate pattern guide sizes and see for yourself if the same performance gains are available.
You were fortunate in your materials choices. Acrylic (as in PVA) seems to be a very useful material on speaker cones.
Bud
That's a happy tale. May I ask how many block sets per ring you used? Did you put a two ring, six block set around the wood glue dot on the dome center. Did you put a three ring set at the cone dome joint.? Basically, can you take a picture and post it.
I must note that when I worked at Nestorovic Labs, we used PVA much thicker than Modge Podge to coat an entire cone, dome and surround to very good effect. I suspect your use of this material has at least equal if not more effect on the sound you are getting than the EnABL pattern and Gloss. Especially if you have more than 20 or less than 16 block sets per ring. If you really slathered the Gloss coat on you may have done more harm than you intended. A bound cotton, surgical pad and some isopropyl alcohol can be used to remove some of the Gloss coat if you want.
Glad to hear you have a more useful set of speakers for your purposes. Interestingly, Andy Marshall of THD, one of our Guitar out put transformer customers, used PVA at my suggestion, for years, on his cabinet speakers. A straight up set of EnABL'd drivers was clearer and he did supply some for studio recording purposes, but for making music with that dynamic an amplification chain, we both preferred the PVA coating. His latest cabinets were designed by a professional designer and have no coating at all on the Celestion drivers. They sound great. I have one for OPT "voice" demo and have no intention of touching it with EnaBL or PVA.
Not rejecting your thanks here, at all.
You might even consider obtaining another set of drivers and using just the EnABL patterns on them. I will be happy to provide a virtual application on a picture for you and you can use one of the graph paper generators to get the appropriate pattern guide sizes and see for yourself if the same performance gains are available.
You were fortunate in your materials choices. Acrylic (as in PVA) seems to be a very useful material on speaker cones.
Bud
Daygloworange & RAW,
I am 100% in agreement with fully testing the drivers.
As John K and Dave (dlr) pointed out, a full suite of off axis, distortion, frequency response and CSD work ups has never been performed, under strictly controlled conditions.
Jon Ver Halen did a fairly broad set of tests, with very little difference to show for it and wanted to know why the audible differences were so much greater and more pervasive than his tests indicated should occur. Those tests are buried in this thread.
Soongsc has done a set of tests on a Jordan driver and posted his resuls too.
Both sets of test results, and some other more limited ones, were denied viability by the skeptics and since the two most vocal ones do know what they are talking about, when it comes to testing untreated drivers, I haven't been particularly argumentative about their opinions.
As for the "theory of operation" situation. Everyone wants to know how it works and why. I had developed a pretty useful viewpoint on EnABL, prior to my afternoon long discussion with Ned Nestorovic about Boundary Layers, in 1989 or so.
Up to that discussion I had not used the patterns to curtail edge related problems on baffles. After the discussion, one in which he pointed out that if the EnABL patterns were working in a boundary layer condition, as he thought, they should also control adjacent panels in the same fashion that they controlled the active driver surfaces. This guy was a graduate level student at Stanford at the time and was studying boundary layer phenomena in the physics department. My assumption was that he might have a better idea than I of what was occurring. So I tried out the patterns specifically at baffle boundary edges and came away with the same subjective results that Alex from Oz has recently reported.
I could go on and tell you what I thought was happening, before that discussion. It had many of the boundary layer features within it, but I agree, let's test and see what comes from that. Perhaps, as a part of that set of tests, you can help to answer RonC's recent question about using his available laser interferometry and CFD computer skills and machinery, to help in the test schemes.
As for the skeptics, I think everyone should be quite skeptical about EnABL. I also think that if someone is going to claim that they EnABL'd a driver, their patterns and placement should fall within the limits I have often put forth. Not because of some magical hocus pocus or a "special circumstances" theory either. The limits I set come from experience in the real world, that you can poke with your finger. Some 300 plus speaker systems, with two or three or four drivers per system, in stereo pairs, for other people and myself.
In addition to that, a dozen or so glued paper/ corrugated surround PA speakers, basically duplicating what was shown in Baraneks book, were used to evolve my understanding of how to apply the patterns on a conventional cone radiator.
The original patterns were applied to OHM F's in 1973. The first conventional speaker system was done in 1974 and it wasn't until 1988 that I treated my first baffle, though I had been applying a pattern around mid and hi frequency drivers, as an aid to blending their output closer to the baffle face, right from the first pair in 1974. I still have access to that original pair of treated speaker systems.
I am more than willing to participate in the testing of the drivers you have, in what ever way I can. I have been willing to find out real data for years, but my own testing produced results I did not think were indicative of the scale of difference I was hearing, across the frequency bandwidth, in expression of detail and coherence of low level wide bandwidth signals, like hall echoes and the various decay structures left in them, from the playing of music.
So please, test as thoroughly as you know how. After witnessing John K's CSD blink presentation, from a pattern only EnABL'd driver and that same driver (a severely challenged 6 inch metal cone of some sort) without modification, I am convinced the results can be found, just not with my limited skills.
Bud
I am 100% in agreement with fully testing the drivers.
As John K and Dave (dlr) pointed out, a full suite of off axis, distortion, frequency response and CSD work ups has never been performed, under strictly controlled conditions.
Jon Ver Halen did a fairly broad set of tests, with very little difference to show for it and wanted to know why the audible differences were so much greater and more pervasive than his tests indicated should occur. Those tests are buried in this thread.
Soongsc has done a set of tests on a Jordan driver and posted his resuls too.
Both sets of test results, and some other more limited ones, were denied viability by the skeptics and since the two most vocal ones do know what they are talking about, when it comes to testing untreated drivers, I haven't been particularly argumentative about their opinions.
As for the "theory of operation" situation. Everyone wants to know how it works and why. I had developed a pretty useful viewpoint on EnABL, prior to my afternoon long discussion with Ned Nestorovic about Boundary Layers, in 1989 or so.
Up to that discussion I had not used the patterns to curtail edge related problems on baffles. After the discussion, one in which he pointed out that if the EnABL patterns were working in a boundary layer condition, as he thought, they should also control adjacent panels in the same fashion that they controlled the active driver surfaces. This guy was a graduate level student at Stanford at the time and was studying boundary layer phenomena in the physics department. My assumption was that he might have a better idea than I of what was occurring. So I tried out the patterns specifically at baffle boundary edges and came away with the same subjective results that Alex from Oz has recently reported.
I could go on and tell you what I thought was happening, before that discussion. It had many of the boundary layer features within it, but I agree, let's test and see what comes from that. Perhaps, as a part of that set of tests, you can help to answer RonC's recent question about using his available laser interferometry and CFD computer skills and machinery, to help in the test schemes.
As for the skeptics, I think everyone should be quite skeptical about EnABL. I also think that if someone is going to claim that they EnABL'd a driver, their patterns and placement should fall within the limits I have often put forth. Not because of some magical hocus pocus or a "special circumstances" theory either. The limits I set come from experience in the real world, that you can poke with your finger. Some 300 plus speaker systems, with two or three or four drivers per system, in stereo pairs, for other people and myself.
In addition to that, a dozen or so glued paper/ corrugated surround PA speakers, basically duplicating what was shown in Baraneks book, were used to evolve my understanding of how to apply the patterns on a conventional cone radiator.
The original patterns were applied to OHM F's in 1973. The first conventional speaker system was done in 1974 and it wasn't until 1988 that I treated my first baffle, though I had been applying a pattern around mid and hi frequency drivers, as an aid to blending their output closer to the baffle face, right from the first pair in 1974. I still have access to that original pair of treated speaker systems.
I am more than willing to participate in the testing of the drivers you have, in what ever way I can. I have been willing to find out real data for years, but my own testing produced results I did not think were indicative of the scale of difference I was hearing, across the frequency bandwidth, in expression of detail and coherence of low level wide bandwidth signals, like hall echoes and the various decay structures left in them, from the playing of music.
So please, test as thoroughly as you know how. After witnessing John K's CSD blink presentation, from a pattern only EnABL'd driver and that same driver (a severely challenged 6 inch metal cone of some sort) without modification, I am convinced the results can be found, just not with my limited skills.
Bud
John K,
Not just now John. I am feeling pretty bruised right at this moment.
I don't know what else to say actually. I can tell you what I told Ned, about what I thought EnABL was doing, that, in addition to listening to a fully treated set of his fathers model 5 speakers, caused him to discuss boundary layers with me.
When I have had a bit more rest and am thinking more clearly I will attempt this, if that is what you are asking for.
Bud
Not just now John. I am feeling pretty bruised right at this moment.
I don't know what else to say actually. I can tell you what I told Ned, about what I thought EnABL was doing, that, in addition to listening to a fully treated set of his fathers model 5 speakers, caused him to discuss boundary layers with me.
When I have had a bit more rest and am thinking more clearly I will attempt this, if that is what you are asking for.
Bud
BudP said:
Avoiding the question ? Ok, can't discuss it now, but at least type in a line to define what you even mean? Let's start with multiple choice. Fluid dynamics BL? Acoustic BL? Material interface? We can get into Ned's comments later. Something else? I spent 1/2 my career doing BL research but I have no idea if we are takling about the same thing here.
What bandwidth/sampling rate is the system setup for measuring? What is being transmitted by the transmitter? What is the sample rate on the receivers?
What bandwidth/sampling rate is the system setup for measuring? 300 hz to 12 Khz, rate is 1500 pps.
What is being transmitted by the transmitter? Sine or square.
Same as above. But either broad or narrow band.
Bud , looking at the energies involved a smoke layer would probably not provide any result. Besides i limit myself to three cigars/day.
I am normally set up for 300Khz to 20 Mhz, this may be a streach for my normal equipment, however we have O scopes.
ron
Fluid dynamics BL?
Gets my vote.
What bandwidth/sampling rate is the system setup for measuring? 300 hz to 12 Khz, rate is 1500 pps.
What is being transmitted by the transmitter? Sine or square.
Same as above. But either broad or narrow band.
Bud , looking at the energies involved a smoke layer would probably not provide any result. Besides i limit myself to three cigars/day.
I am normally set up for 300Khz to 20 Mhz, this may be a streach for my normal equipment, however we have O scopes.
ron
Fluid dynamics BL?
Gets my vote.
Just a quick update...
Bud has contacted me, and we will be arranging to have some stock (but well broken in) drivers fully measured before EnABL, and after EnABL.
The drivers will be Fostex FE 127's.
We'll fill in the details shortly. Hopefully, this will aid in shedding some more light on how EnABL affects the performance of drivers, and narrow down the areas that seem to be affected most by the application of EnABL.
Cheers
Bud has contacted me, and we will be arranging to have some stock (but well broken in) drivers fully measured before EnABL, and after EnABL.
The drivers will be Fostex FE 127's.
We'll fill in the details shortly. Hopefully, this will aid in shedding some more light on how EnABL affects the performance of drivers, and narrow down the areas that seem to be affected most by the application of EnABL.
Cheers
John K,
I haven't a clue John. I can only pass on what I understood from Ned's comments and it is entirely possible that he saw all problems as solvable with the hammer he had at the time and would no longer say the same things. I have not spoken with him about the subject since that day.
Why don't you just explain to me why none of them will work and perhaps discuss what thought you have lurking, about what we are seeing, that might include what Alex is bringing forward on his own time, strictly because he sees some merit in it.
Bud
I haven't a clue John. I can only pass on what I understood from Ned's comments and it is entirely possible that he saw all problems as solvable with the hammer he had at the time and would no longer say the same things. I have not spoken with him about the subject since that day.
Why don't you just explain to me why none of them will work and perhaps discuss what thought you have lurking, about what we are seeing, that might include what Alex is bringing forward on his own time, strictly because he sees some merit in it.
Bud
Philips DVD Home Theater System HTS3455
G'day,
Well here's one for the HT fans.
Just got back from EnABLing the father-in-laws home theatre system Philips DVD Home Theater System HTS3455 DivX Ultra with Video Upscaling up to 1080i
Model HTS3455/98 - see pic below.
I used the sticky sides of bandaids to make the EnABL blocks - the thin smooth plastic ones.
The only change made was the addition of EnABL pattern to the port on the subwoofer.
The port is a bit strange in that the grille cloth wraps around and into the top of the port by about 2 inches.
So I applied EnABL further into the port so that it cleared the grille cloth.
Father-in-law is a reluctant participant because his system is still under warranty, he is NOT an audio enthusiast and he did not believe it would make any difference.
I told him I would remove the EnABL pattern if he couldn't hear anything.
I deliberately chose not to tell him what differences he should hear because I wanted him to tell me what he heard.
His comments immediately after EnABL - bass was deeper and sounded louder.
My impressions after EnABL - bass did sound deeper, though I have no idea why. Bass was tighter, cleaner and did sound slightly louder (again no idea why).
Needless to say that my Father-in-law's attitude has changed somewhat and EnABL will stay in place.
So again no alteration to the drivers yet a clearly audible difference.
Cheers,
Alex
G'day,
Well here's one for the HT fans.
Just got back from EnABLing the father-in-laws home theatre system Philips DVD Home Theater System HTS3455 DivX Ultra with Video Upscaling up to 1080i
Model HTS3455/98 - see pic below.
I used the sticky sides of bandaids to make the EnABL blocks - the thin smooth plastic ones.
The only change made was the addition of EnABL pattern to the port on the subwoofer.
The port is a bit strange in that the grille cloth wraps around and into the top of the port by about 2 inches.
So I applied EnABL further into the port so that it cleared the grille cloth.
Father-in-law is a reluctant participant because his system is still under warranty, he is NOT an audio enthusiast and he did not believe it would make any difference.
I told him I would remove the EnABL pattern if he couldn't hear anything.
I deliberately chose not to tell him what differences he should hear because I wanted him to tell me what he heard.
His comments immediately after EnABL - bass was deeper and sounded louder.
My impressions after EnABL - bass did sound deeper, though I have no idea why. Bass was tighter, cleaner and did sound slightly louder (again no idea why).
Needless to say that my Father-in-law's attitude has changed somewhat and EnABL will stay in place.
So again no alteration to the drivers yet a clearly audible difference.
Cheers,
Alex
Attachments
BudP said:
You don't have a clue what you mean when you use the term Boundary Layer? I presume you're kidding. You repeadedly bring up the term Boundary Layer here and in other explanations of Enable. I'm sure you have something specific in mind when you use the trem. I think the burden falls squarely on your sholders to at least define what you are talking about.
I'm certainly not going to wast any more of my time discussing why some (irrelavent) physical process doesn't account for what is reportedly claimed subjectively. We've already been there and done that.
But I would still be interested in hearing your recolection of what Ned said.
Re: Philips DVD Home Theater System HTS3455
This can be confirmed - ie do you think the bass is "deeper" enough to show up on a FR trace?
However - if the changes are similar to the EnABL effects I hear, then the "deeper / tighter / cleaner" may be that subjective but consistent EnABL effect that so many of us have heard - and that may be pretty much independent of the probably rather small FR changes.
Things seem to be moving - looking forward to these basic tests guys.
Alex from Oz said:
This can be confirmed - ie do you think the bass is "deeper" enough to show up on a FR trace?
However - if the changes are similar to the EnABL effects I hear, then the "deeper / tighter / cleaner" may be that subjective but consistent EnABL effect that so many of us have heard - and that may be pretty much independent of the probably rather small FR changes.
Things seem to be moving - looking forward to these basic tests guys.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.