dlr said:
Patience isn't one of your virtues?
60 days of "where's the data, where's the data". We hear you -- you are like a broken record. Takes a while to put everything together to work towards getting data. Everyone is a volunteer and has a day job. Some of those day jobs are night & day jobs.
MJK has before & after drivers (has had them since before Xmas)
Drivers are on the way to Ron.
Bud has FE127s that Custom Concepts will be testting.
Bud has ordered drivers for testing by RAW.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
EnABL won't be tested over night.
Doesn't make it any less effective.
dave
G'day All,
I have been enjoying listening to my EnABL'd port and baffle so much I thought I should give you and update on the final configuration.
Below is a pic showing where I have applied EnABL on the front baffle. I have used the aluminium kitchen foil and double sided tape.
I calculated the 'circumference' as advised by Bud using 4 x baffle width.
Block size worked out to 11 mm x 5.5 mm. Given that my double sided tape is 12 mm wide, I rounded up to 12 mm x 6 mm.
I removed EnABL from immediately above and below the driver because it seemed to make things too intense.
A few days ago I EnABL'd INSIDE the port (see inset pic).
This brought about a dramatic change in the bass - tighter, fast, more open and powerful.
The detail is astounding! I feel my ear drum pulse with the bass somehow...
To my ears it seems that all the bass energy that the driver produced in the cabinet is now being fully released into the room.
It's like the driver has been freed up somehow??
The way that bass frequencies interact with the room has changed similar to what Bud was describing in an earlier post - and I have a concrete floor.
Again I encourage any of you who are skeptical to try EnABLing a baffle or even a port.
The change is obvious and clearly audible.
Cheers,
Alex
PS: If you own a BIB, EnABL just inside the mouth and see what happens with the bass...
I have been enjoying listening to my EnABL'd port and baffle so much I thought I should give you and update on the final configuration.
Below is a pic showing where I have applied EnABL on the front baffle. I have used the aluminium kitchen foil and double sided tape.
I calculated the 'circumference' as advised by Bud using 4 x baffle width.
Block size worked out to 11 mm x 5.5 mm. Given that my double sided tape is 12 mm wide, I rounded up to 12 mm x 6 mm.
I removed EnABL from immediately above and below the driver because it seemed to make things too intense.
A few days ago I EnABL'd INSIDE the port (see inset pic).
This brought about a dramatic change in the bass - tighter, fast, more open and powerful.
The detail is astounding! I feel my ear drum pulse with the bass somehow...
To my ears it seems that all the bass energy that the driver produced in the cabinet is now being fully released into the room.
It's like the driver has been freed up somehow??
The way that bass frequencies interact with the room has changed similar to what Bud was describing in an earlier post - and I have a concrete floor.
Again I encourage any of you who are skeptical to try EnABLing a baffle or even a port.
The change is obvious and clearly audible.
Cheers,
Alex
PS: If you own a BIB, EnABL just inside the mouth and see what happens with the bass...
Attachments
Dave
Is this what you do for a living?
Let's assume you are a scientist and let's keep things real simple.
There's a guy who does something and observes things. After a while some other blokes hear of this and try this and similar things. They find similar results. They tell people. They use words that have meaning to them and a language of sorts develops.
Now you, the scientist guy, gets to hear of this. Somehow this threatens what you believe and you want to put and end to it. Scientists do science. So what you do is you go set up an experiment (physical or thought) and go do the math. Then you write a paper and have it reviewed by peers. If you're clever enough, it gets published. Then you tell the guys who have been reporting these observations what you think is happening.
If you are too lazy to do this or not up to it, you get off the science podium, eat some humble pie and engage with the guys that are doing more than you do with some measure of humility. Don't expect them to be what they are not and to do what you should have wanted to do in the first place.
If we assume, on the other hand, you're not a scientist, perhaps you should not be occupying a podium that could be used by someone who has some value to add to this process.
Then, maybe, this is just a pastime to some and I must try to be less concerned about the goings on in the sand pit.
Is this what you do for a living?
Let's assume you are a scientist and let's keep things real simple.
There's a guy who does something and observes things. After a while some other blokes hear of this and try this and similar things. They find similar results. They tell people. They use words that have meaning to them and a language of sorts develops.
Now you, the scientist guy, gets to hear of this. Somehow this threatens what you believe and you want to put and end to it. Scientists do science. So what you do is you go set up an experiment (physical or thought) and go do the math. Then you write a paper and have it reviewed by peers. If you're clever enough, it gets published. Then you tell the guys who have been reporting these observations what you think is happening.
If you are too lazy to do this or not up to it, you get off the science podium, eat some humble pie and engage with the guys that are doing more than you do with some measure of humility. Don't expect them to be what they are not and to do what you should have wanted to do in the first place.
If we assume, on the other hand, you're not a scientist, perhaps you should not be occupying a podium that could be used by someone who has some value to add to this process.
Then, maybe, this is just a pastime to some and I must try to be less concerned about the goings on in the sand pit.
planet10 said:
This is excellent. What types of tests will Custom Concepts be doing? As I understand it ron will be looking at cone surface velocity. May I ask for some details? What will be the stimulus? At what points on the cone will data be taken? What is that data expected to represent? Please Ron, don't read this as anything negative. I just interested in the details of what you are expected to do.
Bud, I apologize for my comment about wave speed. I miss read your post and interpreted you comment as to somehow referring to the wave speed in air changing. I would agree that in the cone 3 to 6 times that of air is reasonable.
The reason I said above that I would not expect there to be any significant change in surface velocity of the cone with regard to reflected waves is really pretty straight forward. When an impulse response is recorded using a mic the impulse represents the result of the integrated cone surface velocity over the entire cone area (and any other moving surfaces). 20 dB of suppression (this is the estimated magnitude of the effect according to Bud's post) may not sound like much but in terms of scalar magnitude this would be a reduction of artifacts in the impulse response by a factor of 10. This should be more than obvious in the acoustic impulse, frequency response and CSD. I thought it would be interesting to see what a 20dB reduction is the amplitude of a resonance would look like.
To begin, I looked at a system with a response containing two peaks and one dip of approximately 4dB. This is shown below
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The figure shows the impulse response (inverted), the frequency response and the CSD. In the blue region between the impulse and frequency response it is shown that the peak at 2.5k is 3.9dB and a dip at 4.7k of -3.9dB. The second peak is at 8k and is also about 4dB. These peaks and dip are not in excess of the response variation previously presented for untreated drivers. Ringing in the impulse is clearly evident and the CSD speaker for itself.
The magnitude of the peaks is +4dB or a scalar amplitude of 1.5848. Thus the amplitude of the peak above the nominal level of 1.0 (0dB) is 0.5848. A factor of 10 suppression (-20dB) would reduce this to 0.05848, or a scalar amplitude of 1.05848 which goes to 0.494dB. Thus if the resonances were suppressed by 20 dB would expect to see variation in the response of +/- 0.494 dB at the resonant frequencies. Note that this is also below the level where it is expected that the difference in the level of a pure tone could be identified under normal circumstances. Thus, for practical purposes this would be "acoustically perfect". The figure below shows the impulse, frequency response and CSD for this case.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
It is apparent that the magnitude of these changes is obvious in all measures of the response.
The conclusion is that supression of such resonances (standing waves) by a level of 20 dB should be clearly apparent in conventional measurements.
The idea here is that experiments and tests can be set up to study such events without having to resort to exotic procedures. Set up a controled experiment that is representative of the real case and see what it tells you before jumping in head first.
planet10 said:
Sorry you don't like it, but why don't you likewise point out the broken record from Bud? Bud keeps repeating claims ad infinitum that are all contrary to both theory and empirical results (real data). He then misinterprets that real data, even though he has none of his own. That is the point. You missed it, I can't help that.
We all know by the current evidence that drivers change when some material is applied, any material in any pattern. It's evident in all measurements produced to date. There's nothing new. The effectiveness may vary, but no one has contended that they won't change. That point is moot. The effectiveness has nothing to do with the specific claims from Bud that grow and grow and grow and are related to the mechanism that is unfounded.
Really???
Won't show anything out of the ordinary, either, given all information to date. Tests to date show what's occurring. So far there's nothing reported of yet-to-be-made tests that indicate that there'll be any additional clarity on the issue. But additional grandiose claims keep expanding in the face of nothing but contradictory data and valid, well-researched theory as John has pointed out clearly. No one, not one of you, seems willing to address the topics as John has detailed. That's all conveniently ignored and is very telling. There's no discussing facts, just "broken record" repetition of anecdotal data, except for the ever-expanding, yet unsubstantiated claims introduced.
On drivers, I agree and have from the beginning said that a change occurs. Why do you and others imply otherwise? I also find it curious that this implication enters into it on a regular basis as a point of debate, even though it is moot, so why be a broken record yourself?
The key point is that Bud cannot discuss any of this without his own broken-record repetition of a hypothesis that has been shown to be without basis. If the focus were closer to your points, that is, the effectiveness of whatever changes occur, there probably would be little to discuss. Bud can't do that. He is so vested in the mechanism that it overshadows all else. My responses are directed specifically at his points. He's the one that keeps going there. You should be taking him to task for that repetition, not me.
Dave
john k... said:
John,
I won't be doing any actual testing myself. Driver testing is not my field.
Being that the single largest problem I see in this whole debacle is the lack of scientific testing, the only meaningful contribution that I could offer was to facilitate getting some EnABL'ed drivers tested.
I do have some EnABL'ed drivers here that I will subjectively evaluating.
I have 8 CSS FR 125s drivers. 4 stock, 4 that are EnABL'ed. They are all broken in sufficiently and I will be swapping them in and out of the MTM section of a completed pair of speakers.
I will attempt to do an A/B comparison in as fair a manner as possible, and post my subjective evaluations(for what that is worth) after I do.
I have spoken to Al from RAW Acoustics. He is going to put a real effort here in doing a pretty broad range of measurements, and firmly establish controls. Not just a simple 1 watt/1meter test. It will take quite a while to do all the tests.
We may be able to arrange for another party to do some more tests.
Cheers
dlr said:
People go through life making claims everyday. The world is run on bulls-, ahem, claims these days. Your trying to get broad agreement with your reasoning that the claims laid down, for how enable works, are false. However the difference between you and bud is that your demanding proof of the claims whilst he isn't asking the same from yourself.
Its an effort to read through a page here now, its the same old, same old each time and has been for awhile. Come on chaps, this a hobby.
john k... said:
Thanks for that detail, john. I would ask everyone here to focus on this post from john in all of its detail, not just the short quote above. My post coming after his has likely sidetracked everyone to some degree. The data john presents addresses many questions and challenges made regarding the current set of measurements. That is certainly worth discussing, so how about it? Who's willing to do so? Please reply to john's post, not to this one of mine here.
Dave
I've got my IPL S4 transmission lines with acoustic cloth covering the drivers and the port. The drivers are not EnABL'd.
So I'll EnABL ONE of the ports+baffles (not the drivers) and do some blinded listening. I know what I heard when I EnABL'd my fostexes so if the change is of that magnitude then I expect to detect it.
I am not bothered whether the result is for or against EnABLing ...
Up till now, if somebody said to me that thin acrylic paint patches on speaker cabinets could dramatically improve the sound I would have replied "placebo" with some certainty. However the gauntlet has been thrown down and it's a pretty simple job to pick it up.
Alan
And PLEASE PLEASE don't respond to this post with any repeats of stuff from the last 20 pages of this thread. I've been following it and I know how you all think!!!
So I'll EnABL ONE of the ports+baffles (not the drivers) and do some blinded listening. I know what I heard when I EnABL'd my fostexes so if the change is of that magnitude then I expect to detect it.
I am not bothered whether the result is for or against EnABLing ...
Up till now, if somebody said to me that thin acrylic paint patches on speaker cabinets could dramatically improve the sound I would have replied "placebo" with some certainty. However the gauntlet has been thrown down and it's a pretty simple job to pick it up.
Alan
And PLEASE PLEASE don't respond to this post with any repeats of stuff from the last 20 pages of this thread. I've been following it and I know how you all think!!!
john k... said:
John, et al,
Since we are still in the preliminary stages of all this, what sort of testing do you think would yield the best data to begin isolating and revealing the true effects of the EnABL process?
What specific tests and specific methods would others like to see done?
Cheers
Alan Hope said:
G'day Alan,
Good on you for being open minded enough to give this a try!
Testing EnABL on baffles and ports is not difficult and does produce clearly audible results.
Here is the link to the aluminium kitchen foil + double sided tape process that I have been using on my baffles and ports.
I have also tried cutting up smooth thin plastic bandaids to EnABL subwoofer ports. See links here and this one.
Before you EnABL the baffle, just do the port, then listen to the speakers in stereo.
The change is very obvious and quite strange.
Feel free to drop me an email if you have any questions.
Cheers,
Alex
John K.
Well, it does look as though Dan would have to have been disappointed. May be the reason he went away and I can't say as I blame him.
This multiple ringing in the diaphragm does intrigue me. If I do a solid model mentally and look at the vectors arising straight off of the cone, as is provided for in your excited mesh, it does appear that there will be an interference structure surrounding the original piston induced compression wave, even with a shallow cone, a short cone length and made of paper.
With the less shallow convex cones currently found in many drivers, my thought model presents an even more complex interference pattern arising and the interference extending over a longer period in time, with multiple interference waves involved.
Raising the frequency should just add more interference patterns to that original compression wave. If all of this is true, then the added clarity and narrow angle, of the subjective sweet spot makes sense to me, as the piston event should be carried out across the center dome, across the FR bandwidth and degraded in clarity outside of that volume by interference.
Now, I do not know how much reduction of these reflected waves is needed, to make a more than just noticeable difference. From your plot it is obvious that 20dB is not on the table and so I am interested to find out how much is a subjectively worthwhile amount.
This interests me because one of the EnABL characteristics, that always shows up, is the dispersal of this sweet spot phenomena. Just the pattern application typically opens it up to the included angle of the cone. Addition of the gloss coating insures this and in some cases opens this information up to an angle beyond that of the cone.
The effect at a meter is to disperse the on axis tonal balance information and transient response clarity hot spot, by causing the off axis sound to become closely equivalent to what is directly on axis. In some instances the on axis sound can be deliberately depressed in the higher frequencies and still have the original on axis information dispersal remain intact, off axis. Not often, but I have a pair of Fostex 126 e drivers here, that acted in this fashion, until I corrected them.
The changes should be measurable, as they are quite audible. This, combined with the equally noticeable movement of the perceived point of origin of the sound, back behind the driver by a half meter or more, allows a listener to sit in a wide variety of places and still perceive all of the "stereo illusion" information.
So, this is what I am interested in finding out about, through the tests at RAW and possibly, those done by Ron.
Bud
Well, it does look as though Dan would have to have been disappointed. May be the reason he went away and I can't say as I blame him.
This multiple ringing in the diaphragm does intrigue me. If I do a solid model mentally and look at the vectors arising straight off of the cone, as is provided for in your excited mesh, it does appear that there will be an interference structure surrounding the original piston induced compression wave, even with a shallow cone, a short cone length and made of paper.
With the less shallow convex cones currently found in many drivers, my thought model presents an even more complex interference pattern arising and the interference extending over a longer period in time, with multiple interference waves involved.
Raising the frequency should just add more interference patterns to that original compression wave. If all of this is true, then the added clarity and narrow angle, of the subjective sweet spot makes sense to me, as the piston event should be carried out across the center dome, across the FR bandwidth and degraded in clarity outside of that volume by interference.
Now, I do not know how much reduction of these reflected waves is needed, to make a more than just noticeable difference. From your plot it is obvious that 20dB is not on the table and so I am interested to find out how much is a subjectively worthwhile amount.
This interests me because one of the EnABL characteristics, that always shows up, is the dispersal of this sweet spot phenomena. Just the pattern application typically opens it up to the included angle of the cone. Addition of the gloss coating insures this and in some cases opens this information up to an angle beyond that of the cone.
The effect at a meter is to disperse the on axis tonal balance information and transient response clarity hot spot, by causing the off axis sound to become closely equivalent to what is directly on axis. In some instances the on axis sound can be deliberately depressed in the higher frequencies and still have the original on axis information dispersal remain intact, off axis. Not often, but I have a pair of Fostex 126 e drivers here, that acted in this fashion, until I corrected them.
The changes should be measurable, as they are quite audible. This, combined with the equally noticeable movement of the perceived point of origin of the sound, back behind the driver by a half meter or more, allows a listener to sit in a wide variety of places and still perceive all of the "stereo illusion" information.
So, this is what I am interested in finding out about, through the tests at RAW and possibly, those done by Ron.
Bud
Daygloworange said:
Well personally I think there is no need for additional tests. But I'd be happy to discuss anything anybody else want to do and what might be a good test to perform.
As for ron's little poke, "We can teach or we can do." which I took light heartedly I would just say before we can do we have to be taught what to do and how to do it. I expect to have some additional teaching posted when I get time. It will certainly be before anything gets done.
BudP said:
Bud, and I say this with all due respect, did it ever occur to you that maybe you are looking at the problem inverted? What I mean is that maybe your treatment isn't making things more coherent, maybe it's making them less coherent. Maybe you aren't generating a coherent front over a wider angle but rather reducing the coherence of the sweet spot to better match the loss of coherency somewhat off axis with the result being subjectively considered an improvement?
John K,
Yes, that has occurred to me. I don't discount it as being the mechanism at all, but the perceived event is not one of less intelligible information, in either quantity or quality, quite the opposite, in subjective terms.
Now it does seem quite possible that a slowing of the informing "rate" might well increase intelligible content. Just what this slowing of rate might be about is not very clear to me, except that it would be a slightly longer duration of all information, that would enhance our correlation ability, mentally. Not postulating it here, just another possible mechanism for the actual event.
It also seems like a slowing and subsequent displacement in time of the interference waves would provide this entire event. At the same time I will point out that the Acrylic gloss used to enhance the event is held to about the same speed of transverse wave activity as that quoted for paper. Seems that this could be a tool to peer further into the issue with.
In any case, we still need to look at the cone to see if there is enough of any kind of alteration, to enhance the first arrival predominance event in our correlator, that aids this clarity.
The wider dispersion should also be measurable with current test methods.
Thanks for the plots, those sorts of scale depictions are extremely helpful as were the gone and lamented blink plots.
Bud
Yes, that has occurred to me. I don't discount it as being the mechanism at all, but the perceived event is not one of less intelligible information, in either quantity or quality, quite the opposite, in subjective terms.
Now it does seem quite possible that a slowing of the informing "rate" might well increase intelligible content. Just what this slowing of rate might be about is not very clear to me, except that it would be a slightly longer duration of all information, that would enhance our correlation ability, mentally. Not postulating it here, just another possible mechanism for the actual event.
It also seems like a slowing and subsequent displacement in time of the interference waves would provide this entire event. At the same time I will point out that the Acrylic gloss used to enhance the event is held to about the same speed of transverse wave activity as that quoted for paper. Seems that this could be a tool to peer further into the issue with.
In any case, we still need to look at the cone to see if there is enough of any kind of alteration, to enhance the first arrival predominance event in our correlator, that aids this clarity.
The wider dispersion should also be measurable with current test methods.
Thanks for the plots, those sorts of scale depictions are extremely helpful as were the gone and lamented blink plots.
Bud
"Bud, and I say this with all due respect, did it ever occur to you that maybe you are looking at the problem inverted? What I mean is that maybe your treatment isn't making things more coherent, maybe it's making them less coherent. Maybe you aren't generating a coherent front over a wider angle but rather reducing the coherence of the sweet spot to better match the loss of coherency somewhat off axis with the result being subjectively considered an improvement?"
I was also skeptical until I listened to a set of Enabled Lowthers (DX4s). The Enabled drivers are more coherent, among other things, compared to the unEnabled drivers. In particular, the sound is more focused than without the Enable treatment, which suggests increased coherency acrosss the cone. I think that it will take a certain amount of consistent findings (particularly using double-blind studies) among enough audiophiles before the high level of skepticism can wane. I would suggest trying the Enable treatment with some drivers yourself, although I don't know if all drivers behave the way Lowthers do. Also, the perception of how well the Lowthers perform is system-dependant (see above).
There has been a lot of talk about testing of the drivers to try to identify where there is a difference (improvement). However, if you read abpve. the Enabled Lowther drivers seemed to tested "worse" in the CSD plots than the untreated ones. What was different is that the treated Lowther cones had a longer resonance times in the upper frequences than the untreated cones - which suggests poorer performance. Yet, the treated cones seem to sound better than the untreated cones.
Retsel
I was also skeptical until I listened to a set of Enabled Lowthers (DX4s). The Enabled drivers are more coherent, among other things, compared to the unEnabled drivers. In particular, the sound is more focused than without the Enable treatment, which suggests increased coherency acrosss the cone. I think that it will take a certain amount of consistent findings (particularly using double-blind studies) among enough audiophiles before the high level of skepticism can wane. I would suggest trying the Enable treatment with some drivers yourself, although I don't know if all drivers behave the way Lowthers do. Also, the perception of how well the Lowthers perform is system-dependant (see above).
There has been a lot of talk about testing of the drivers to try to identify where there is a difference (improvement). However, if you read abpve. the Enabled Lowther drivers seemed to tested "worse" in the CSD plots than the untreated ones. What was different is that the treated Lowther cones had a longer resonance times in the upper frequences than the untreated cones - which suggests poorer performance. Yet, the treated cones seem to sound better than the untreated cones.
Retsel
- Status
- Not open for further replies.