BudP said:
This may be easier to visualize if instead of thinking about lifting the wave up, the pattern and gloss coat are just thought of as part of the cone and what happens is the thickness of the cone increases. The gloss coat and patterns applied to the cone bond with the cone material and effectively this means the cone material and acoustic properties change.
I strongly disagree with this description. The transverse wave is basically a shear wave. I have uploaded a video of a shear wave. You can view it here.[ (I don't remember where I got it or I'd provide a link directly to it.) Imagine that the vertical direction is the thickness of the cone or cone plus any applied pattern/coating. The wave moves from left to right. The arrows indicate the motion of the cone as it flexes and bends due to the propagation of the wave. The kinetic energy associated with the wave at any point in the cone is just KE = rho x U^2/2 where rho is the effective density. The potential energy is just PE = rho x H where H is the vertical displacement from the cone's rest position. If the cone is broken down into little radial slices it can be though of as a series of small, inner connected masses sitting on springs as in this figure.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This is a very crude approximation made only to make a point. The VC forces the first mass at the left to move up and down. The interconnection between masses thus makes the next mass to the right to start to move up and down as well, and so on as the wave propagates to the right. Each mass and spring represents the cone plus any applied coating or pattern. The third mass and spring are different because this is where the additional mass of the inner pattern is applied. Then we move past this and return the same mass and spring as to the left of the pattern. Moving out further another pattern region is encountered and then all the way out a large mass with different spring is depicted representing the surround. If as the wave propagated outward the kinetic remained constant for each mass point then the vertical velocity would have to change where the mass changes. If the enable patches add only small additional mass then only a small change in velocity would occur. At the surround, however, the much increased mass would result in a much smaller vertical velocity. But these masses are all connected together so if conservation of energy required that they each move with different velocity, but the interconnections requires the move at the same velocity, then something else must happen. Some of the energy must be reflected or excess energy transferred to the different masses where things change.
It’s not an issue of energy being held off the surface by any applied coating.
What other energy systems? What skin effect? Please provide a reference. Please Google skin effect and show me where it relates to transverse waves in elastic mediums. This is new physics to me. Obviously the reflected wave from the surround is much greater that you believe or there would be very little excitation of the standing waves in the diaphragm. The Vifa MG10 data show what to expect when the termination in the surround is sufficient to absorb and dissipate most of the incident energy. The data for the Fostex and Lowther drivers, before and after treatment, show what happens when this energy is not absorbed and dissipated in the surround, or in a freely terminated whizzer.
We have been here so many time Bud. The measured data clearly, CLEARLY shows a lack of damping after treatment.
What more can I possibly bring to the table? You have a visual picture of what is happening which has been shown over and over again to be incorrect by the data presented in all places in this thread. There isn’t a single piece of objective data that supports you model. Subjective evaluations don’t support any model. They don’t offer any explanation of how something works. They can only say A is better or worse than B with no information about why.
Your statement above basically says that you are not of an open mind. Your statement says that, for you, it is insufficient to show that your model is incorrect. Rather, you insist that a new model, shown to correctly describe the behavior, is required before you will discard you model. This is like claiming that classical physics will allow computation of the energy released in a nuclear reaction. Yet experiment upon experiment produce results which clearly demonstrate that the energy released in not predicted by classical mechanics. You choose to ignore this because a theory which correctly predicts hasn’t yet been developed.
This has been, and continues to be the problem with the discussion in the thread. This has nothing to do with subjective or objective evaluations of enable. It is all about the continued dismissal of experimental evidence which contradicts you views. In fact, I believe the only model you would accept is one that consistently predicts that treatment will result in a subjective improvement over untreated cases.
So, in my spare time I will continue to examine the problem, not to produce a model to your satisfaction, but to look at simplifications of various aspects of the problem which will provide insight into what the applications do, irrelevant of whether that would result in a favorable subjective change or not.
Daygloworange said:
You are more than welcome but don't count on too much more effort on my part. My conclusion remains that Bud only wants two things out of this discussion, continued presence and some one to develop an analysis that his mental model is correct. The computational tools necessary to predict what Enable does and doesn't do are around but the cost of obtaining and applying them is prohibitive unless you are a multimillion dollar company with a large research budget. And they would only serve to demonstarte what Bud has already rejected time and time again.
It simple isn't worth much more effort other than to repeat the simple answer that all the data presented in this thread contradicts Bud hypothesis.
John K,
I was actually responding to someone else's understanding of my mental model. Of course I am going to use the tools I have. They work. They are based on exactly the same understanding you have proffered to date and I have repeatedly stated that I am more than willing to alter the model I have, to one that provides a workable tool from the models you have. A real tool John, one a practical person can use to determine how to either apply EnABL, or like Soongsc has done, move beyond EnABL.
I am a transformer engineer by trade and I have an extremely practical point of view about theories. If I cannot predict a particular behavior that I am measuring, using first approximation derivatives of Maxwell, I do my own research and construct a practical tool that allows me to solve the problem at hand. And, I use that tool to examine other like problems, that arise in barely related areas of transformer design and some completely unrelated areas.
In the case of EnABL I could not find any correlation between what I was measuring and what I was experiencing. Your data has shown me the error of my thinking and given me an insight into the scale of measured changes that might relate to an EnABL'd driver. I appreciate that. Your recent data has confirmed for me, the guy doing the work, that my personal mental model, that does allow me to predict a drivers response to EnABL, is based on real science.
There is no question in my mind that a CSD plot will show the results of a treated driver. With enough CSD plots of treated and untreated drivers I will have an actual data set and it will show trends, of drivers I have already treated. They will not provide me with any useful tool to predict how a different driver will respond, until after I have treated it.
When, and if, enough data has been collected, that a statistical analysis of driver types, treatment methods used, audible changes found, is amassed, then some useful predictions, based upon the simple models you have generously provided, will be available for the engineers tasked with designing drivers and DIY folks interested in altering their purchased drivers.
This will be fine, good for everyone. But, until that all happens, I still must have a personal model that works. I have one, it works. The results have been attested to by a wide variety of people, utilizing a wide variety of drivers.
I do sympathize with you. I don;t particularly like this situation. Any further thoughts or models you care to contribute will be as well received as their predecessors. But as you have pointed out, the tools and money needed for a deeper analysis, just are not available, and so, I will continue to do what works.
Bud
I was actually responding to someone else's understanding of my mental model. Of course I am going to use the tools I have. They work. They are based on exactly the same understanding you have proffered to date and I have repeatedly stated that I am more than willing to alter the model I have, to one that provides a workable tool from the models you have. A real tool John, one a practical person can use to determine how to either apply EnABL, or like Soongsc has done, move beyond EnABL.
I am a transformer engineer by trade and I have an extremely practical point of view about theories. If I cannot predict a particular behavior that I am measuring, using first approximation derivatives of Maxwell, I do my own research and construct a practical tool that allows me to solve the problem at hand. And, I use that tool to examine other like problems, that arise in barely related areas of transformer design and some completely unrelated areas.
In the case of EnABL I could not find any correlation between what I was measuring and what I was experiencing. Your data has shown me the error of my thinking and given me an insight into the scale of measured changes that might relate to an EnABL'd driver. I appreciate that. Your recent data has confirmed for me, the guy doing the work, that my personal mental model, that does allow me to predict a drivers response to EnABL, is based on real science.
There is no question in my mind that a CSD plot will show the results of a treated driver. With enough CSD plots of treated and untreated drivers I will have an actual data set and it will show trends, of drivers I have already treated. They will not provide me with any useful tool to predict how a different driver will respond, until after I have treated it.
When, and if, enough data has been collected, that a statistical analysis of driver types, treatment methods used, audible changes found, is amassed, then some useful predictions, based upon the simple models you have generously provided, will be available for the engineers tasked with designing drivers and DIY folks interested in altering their purchased drivers.
This will be fine, good for everyone. But, until that all happens, I still must have a personal model that works. I have one, it works. The results have been attested to by a wide variety of people, utilizing a wide variety of drivers.
I do sympathize with you. I don;t particularly like this situation. Any further thoughts or models you care to contribute will be as well received as their predecessors. But as you have pointed out, the tools and money needed for a deeper analysis, just are not available, and so, I will continue to do what works.
Bud
John K, reread Bud's post and the post that he was responding to. I'm no scientist, but I do believe he was responding tongue-in-cheek to a similarly tongue-in-cheek post by Auplater. I both respect and appreciate your posts, but you seem to take Bud to task at any chance you can get. Lighten up.
Carl
Carlp said:
Tongue-in-cheek, maybe. It seemed to be more of a mocking tone to me, based on Bud's somewhat inane language. The crux of the matter is that Bud's vain attempts to describe the physics are not based in reality. Almost every point has been contradicted by all objective measurements with significant objective definitions and descriptions provided that he rejects. Bud will not accept the objective if, in the end, it does not support his hypothesis. More to the point, as John said, Bud rejects everything that does not support his perception on which almost all of his claims are based, up to this point as well.
When Bud says:
he highlights his rejection of the objective. His hypothesis is based solely on the subjective, his. According to him, everything has to comport with his perceptions and his view. To quote John again on what may be the most salient comment of the entire discussion:
Bud rejects this, implicitly of course. What really surprises me is how readily most here accept it all, in the face of nothing but contradictory data. If someone says they hear it, then Bud's "physics" must be the reason for it.
Dave
Found this Diffraction elimination post on the art of sound website.
The author of the post used compressed wool felt on the front of his baffle.
The thing that struck me is his description of the difference the felt made.
This is very similar to the changes that EnABLing my baffles has produced.
I assume that aluminium foil and double sided tape doesn't have the same accoustic properties as a 3/8" layer of compressed wool.
So how does EnABL produce similar sonic improvements on a baffle??
The author of the post used compressed wool felt on the front of his baffle.
The thing that struck me is his description of the difference the felt made.
This is very similar to the changes that EnABLing my baffles has produced.
I assume that aluminium foil and double sided tape doesn't have the same accoustic properties as a 3/8" layer of compressed wool.
So how does EnABL produce similar sonic improvements on a baffle??
BudP said:
I think the problem is that you and others who have made subjective evaluations reject that the correlations is what it is. Measurements are made and interpreted as not correlation with what is heard. It's been stated before. A mic is capable of recording an audio signal with greater resolution that the human ear hear. If you don't believe the differences in the measured results correlate with what is heard it, it is not a matter of the measured differences not correlating, it is not recognizing how to make the correlation that is the problem. The measurements clearly show what is going on. If the choose is made to dismiss them it's of no concern to me. I don't think at this point it behooves me to do anything more. I'm quite comfortable with my understanding of what enable does or doesn't do.
BudP said:
BudP said:
Yes, of course, by repeating the same old spiel. Implying that you model must be correct because it is what you use to base the placement of the pattern and further insisting that any new model must include the subjective results. How does your model include subjective effects? Here's a clue for you Bud, models and simulation are incapable of predicting anything but objective behavior. Subjective results are human observations and opinions, nothing more.
From what has been presented in this discussion your model has little to do with where you place the patches. Your own recollection of the events has been that you produced this pattern over a 30 year effort by trial and error.
It's just the same old broken record, over and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.
It's the historic battle: Science against salesmanship. Science can never win because it is confined to the world of reality.
And where is that reference to acoustic wave skin effects, along with answers to all the other questions addressed to you which have gone unanswered?
soongsc said:
In the area where diffraction is significant, at and a little above the baffle step, it's not smaller. Diffraction is most significant in the area where dome tweeters are essentially omni-directional, primarily below about 4K, although there is some above that where increasing directionality does enter into it.
Ring radiators such as the Vifa XT series are exceptions as are any horn or wave-guide loaded ones.
Dave
Hi John, You wrote;-
>>>
It's just the same old broken record, over and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.
<<<
You write words which apply to yourself too, and which made me leave this thread.
If something cannot be written that does not move this *INVESTIGATION* forward, then it cannot be at all productive.
(Of course I do expect you to argue that disproving is as useful as proving, but you have not done experiments either way on the enable patterns, only 'stated'.)
The solution does not lie in 'browbeating' or in 'teaching' Bud, nor 'teaching' anyone else, but in everyone 'learning' about the changes being heard. Have you learned enough about EnABLE in particular to be able to 'teach' others about what IS happening?
What is going on at the LS aperture, where EnABL and felt have an audible effect ? An effect arising within the circular (focusing) radiating aperture at a boundary of dynamically energised pressure/velocity changes which occur after initial voice coil drive, and become time delay related to that drive.
How do symmetrically delayed edge related pressure/velocity change effects impinge upon cone centre *wave* motion, and upon induced wave motion above the cone centre out to the radiating aperture with respect to and not within the cone, though acting with respect to the cone?
Clearly Bud has learned 'hands-on' what different patterns do, and has a developing image in his mind of what is happening, and yet after all this time and all your words nothing you have said undermines the reported improvements, nor provides direct proof of what is, or is not, happening.!
Cheers ......... Graham.
>>>
It's just the same old broken record, over and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.
<<<
You write words which apply to yourself too, and which made me leave this thread.
If something cannot be written that does not move this *INVESTIGATION* forward, then it cannot be at all productive.
(Of course I do expect you to argue that disproving is as useful as proving, but you have not done experiments either way on the enable patterns, only 'stated'.)
The solution does not lie in 'browbeating' or in 'teaching' Bud, nor 'teaching' anyone else, but in everyone 'learning' about the changes being heard. Have you learned enough about EnABLE in particular to be able to 'teach' others about what IS happening?
What is going on at the LS aperture, where EnABL and felt have an audible effect ? An effect arising within the circular (focusing) radiating aperture at a boundary of dynamically energised pressure/velocity changes which occur after initial voice coil drive, and become time delay related to that drive.
How do symmetrically delayed edge related pressure/velocity change effects impinge upon cone centre *wave* motion, and upon induced wave motion above the cone centre out to the radiating aperture with respect to and not within the cone, though acting with respect to the cone?
Clearly Bud has learned 'hands-on' what different patterns do, and has a developing image in his mind of what is happening, and yet after all this time and all your words nothing you have said undermines the reported improvements, nor provides direct proof of what is, or is not, happening.!
Cheers ......... Graham.
Graham Maynard said:
Actually I am in total agreement with you. It is quite simple. There are subjective changes in the sound of an enabled driver. Form there it has been basically 1) dlr and me indicating why the description of what is going on provided by Bud is inconsistent with the measurements, and 2) Bud and other saying that the measurement don't correlate with what is heard.
(1) leads to either the measurements being wrong or Bud's hypotheses being wrong. Take your pick.
(2) on the other hand, just indicates that the correlation hasn't been found.
And you are correct in that there is very little that can be written to move this thread forward.
Hmmm........
Seems 114 pages is a lot easier to fill with hot air than any technically
rigorous subject.
My observations :
EnABLng any solid edges to "eliminate" diffraction will not work.
EnABLing cones does something, sadly beyond the proponents understanding.
The claims are entirely fanciful, not demonstrated and not measured.
Coating a cheap 2" tweeter improves it ? really ? who'd have thought ....
And FWIW I have no interest in a pseudotechobabble "mental
model" of what is going on, it is simply arrogant and ignorant.
/sreten.
Seems 114 pages is a lot easier to fill with hot air than any technically
rigorous subject.
My observations :
EnABLng any solid edges to "eliminate" diffraction will not work.
EnABLing cones does something, sadly beyond the proponents understanding.
The claims are entirely fanciful, not demonstrated and not measured.
Coating a cheap 2" tweeter improves it ? really ? who'd have thought ....
And FWIW I have no interest in a pseudotechobabble "mental
model" of what is going on, it is simply arrogant and ignorant.
/sreten.
If you only read a book once, normally the most important parts are overlooked.sreten said:Hmmm........
Seems 114 pages is a lot easier to fill with hot air than any technically
rigorous subject.
My observations :
EnABLng any solid edges to "eliminate" diffraction will not work.
EnABLing cones does something, sadly beyond the proponents understanding.
The claims are entirely fanciful, not demonstrated and not measured.
Coating a cheap 2" tweeter improves it ? really ? who'd have thought ....
And FWIW I have no interest in a pseudotechobabble "mental
model" of what is going on, it is simply arrogant and ignorant.
soongsc said:
If you only read a book once, normally the most important parts are overlooked.
Hmmm.....
I'll bite for a bit.
I've read the article / patent several times and I'm not overlooking anything.
Your implying I have, but I suspect you will be unable to technically justify that position.
Allusion of something is fairly meaningless.
/sreten.
Sreten,
Actually, reading anything I have written is unimportant to the effects of EnABL. The only way to make an informed judgment is to apply the patterns, in the manner shown in the numerous photos. You can also down load patterns from various postings here on this thread to allow you to correctly apply EnABL to a specific driver. I do provide a detailed guide for those particular drivers and if you follow it, step by step you will have a working EnABL'd driver. However, even if all you were to read were the posts of other people who have been successful and obtained what they thought of as worthwhile results, you could still proceed to try this out for yourself.
Until you do, you are unqualified to make any statements, negative or positive about the effects of EnABL.
You are completely qualified to attack me however. I don't have a problem with this, as should obvious. After all dlr, who has been a member of this forum since 2005 and has 300 plus posts in that period, has seen fit to devote his last two months and 170 posts solely to attacking my thoughts and the intelligence of everyone who thinks enough of them to try out EnABL and explore it's effects in areas other than drivers. So, certainly you are entitled to jump on too..
Bud
Actually, reading anything I have written is unimportant to the effects of EnABL. The only way to make an informed judgment is to apply the patterns, in the manner shown in the numerous photos. You can also down load patterns from various postings here on this thread to allow you to correctly apply EnABL to a specific driver. I do provide a detailed guide for those particular drivers and if you follow it, step by step you will have a working EnABL'd driver. However, even if all you were to read were the posts of other people who have been successful and obtained what they thought of as worthwhile results, you could still proceed to try this out for yourself.
Until you do, you are unqualified to make any statements, negative or positive about the effects of EnABL.
You are completely qualified to attack me however. I don't have a problem with this, as should obvious. After all dlr, who has been a member of this forum since 2005 and has 300 plus posts in that period, has seen fit to devote his last two months and 170 posts solely to attacking my thoughts and the intelligence of everyone who thinks enough of them to try out EnABL and explore it's effects in areas other than drivers. So, certainly you are entitled to jump on too..
Bud
BudP said:
You cannot or will not respond substantively to specific, relevant questions, you cannot support your "objective" claims as laid out in your patent, most of what you claim has been shown both objectively (even in measurements you yourself originally used to support your claims) and through specific, detailed descriptions with valid, supporting references in John's posts to be without merit, but when those failings are laid out, it's attacking. Fine, play the part of victim. It's not flattering.
Interesting that John and I both have made pointed reference to the many unanswered questions that are relevant, but you choose now to play victim rather than answer them. It's just another way to ignore the questions and is just more mis-direction, an attempt to turn the spotlight away from the unanswered questions.
I'm the kind that simply prefers to call a Spade a Spade. I'm sorry that you don't like the position you're in. That's not of my making.
Dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.