dlr said:
As has previously been commented on, you seem to be without patience. The heavy lifting in getting subjective data to work with is proceeding (without your help), until it arrives, John K & Bud are having a somewhat fruitful discussions and Bud continues to use that to modify & explore his model -- they have never been claims, just an empirical model that lets him examine a driver and apply something that works.
If you think -- despite his having said so quite often -- that this is anything beyond an empirical working model based on cause & effect, you are sadly mistaken.
You do do a good job of attacking, but your input would be much more useful if you were more open-minded and carried on in a more civil manner.
My take is that John K has much the same POV, yet he conducts himself in a helpful, gentlemanly manner and is helping push things foward. You are not.
John is trying to help explain things within convential constaints, you are inputting nothing but "evangelical rage". Please. if you don't have something constructive to add, just be quiet.
Most significant scientific breakthrus are accompanied by wide ranging attempts to explain what was happening, most of them totally wrong, but you have to come up with those possibilities to be able to find the right one (who would have even imagined in the 1890s that the faster you went the heavier you got). Your attitude towards all this is very unscientific and bordering on religious dogma.
Just watch out... someone is going to trick you into listening to a set of EnABLed speakers and your world is going to be shattered
dave
John K...
As usual your comments are interesting. However you should add another possibility to your last one.
That is,
Either our measurement, or our understanding of the effect of a change that we measure, is incomplete.
I am far from certain that frequency response, ( and the various ways of looking at it) tell the whole story about what individuals actually hear in their brain.
Sure, Bud uses a lot of words which to me don't convince. However I am mindful that Graham Maynard some years ago (also in a lot of words), tried to explain why class A amps usually sound better to many people than other amps that measured similarly (or better). He, like Bud, copped a lot of flack, but as with this thread, nobody produced either measurements that proved him wrong, or a convincing alternative theory.
It has taken a long time and a lot of "statements" for this thread to reach the present point. At least we slowly seem to be reaching a point of rational discussion, without the (to me rather rude) personal comments that prevailed earlier.
Perhaps I can summarise;-
a) Sufficient people have now applied enable and found it made an improvement (as distinct from just a change) to justify further investigation.
b) The added mass and damping do not seem large enough to justify the perceived change.
c) The effects measured so far again do not seem to justify the perceived change.
d) The effect of Bud's form of treatment on metal speakers is substantially less, even with gross changes to added mass etc.
e) Bud has advanced a personal theory, that seems on the face of it rather unlikey, but no-one has produced a better one, or disproved it, (by measurements and fact, rather than theoretical comment and opinion).
Science has always advanced by carrying out measurements, then suggesting a theory that fits the facts. This theory then holds until disproved, and a better theory suggested. In fact this is just what Bud is doing. The only problem you and dlr seem to have is that he is using subjective measurement, rather than lab measurement.
The way I now see it is that someone has to either
a) prove Bud's "measurements" wrong by alternative subjective testing
or
b) carry out sufficient lab tests to support an alternative theory.
I do not accept that it good enough to say that lab tests do not show a difference, therefore there is no perceived difference.
There are enough cases of suggestions from lay-people being decrided by scientists but subsequently proved correct, (eg continent drift, which every schoolchild knew was true simply from making a jigsaw of the world map) to make me cautious of simply saying "it cannot be"
As usual your comments are interesting. However you should add another possibility to your last one.
That is,
Either our measurement, or our understanding of the effect of a change that we measure, is incomplete.
I am far from certain that frequency response, ( and the various ways of looking at it) tell the whole story about what individuals actually hear in their brain.
Sure, Bud uses a lot of words which to me don't convince. However I am mindful that Graham Maynard some years ago (also in a lot of words), tried to explain why class A amps usually sound better to many people than other amps that measured similarly (or better). He, like Bud, copped a lot of flack, but as with this thread, nobody produced either measurements that proved him wrong, or a convincing alternative theory.
It has taken a long time and a lot of "statements" for this thread to reach the present point. At least we slowly seem to be reaching a point of rational discussion, without the (to me rather rude) personal comments that prevailed earlier.
Perhaps I can summarise;-
a) Sufficient people have now applied enable and found it made an improvement (as distinct from just a change) to justify further investigation.
b) The added mass and damping do not seem large enough to justify the perceived change.
c) The effects measured so far again do not seem to justify the perceived change.
d) The effect of Bud's form of treatment on metal speakers is substantially less, even with gross changes to added mass etc.
e) Bud has advanced a personal theory, that seems on the face of it rather unlikey, but no-one has produced a better one, or disproved it, (by measurements and fact, rather than theoretical comment and opinion).
Science has always advanced by carrying out measurements, then suggesting a theory that fits the facts. This theory then holds until disproved, and a better theory suggested. In fact this is just what Bud is doing. The only problem you and dlr seem to have is that he is using subjective measurement, rather than lab measurement.
The way I now see it is that someone has to either
a) prove Bud's "measurements" wrong by alternative subjective testing
or
b) carry out sufficient lab tests to support an alternative theory.
I do not accept that it good enough to say that lab tests do not show a difference, therefore there is no perceived difference.
There are enough cases of suggestions from lay-people being decrided by scientists but subsequently proved correct, (eg continent drift, which every schoolchild knew was true simply from making a jigsaw of the world map) to make me cautious of simply saying "it cannot be"
The way I now see it is that someone has to either
a) prove Bud's "measurements" wrong by alternative subjective testing
or
b) carry out sufficient lab tests to support an alternative theory.
I really do not agree.
The first is to define the difference, then to define why the difference (actions)and if the difference really changes the performance. This, however may take an alternate theory.
I recieved the EnABL 166e drivers today.
First obseration, there appears to be a very heavy black coating OVER the dots. I brought a driver to the Met lab and looked at the dots under a 500x measuring microscope. The dots height from the coating are only on the order of .0000" (flush with surface) to .0009". The coating appears to be of a density and thickness to actually add enough mass to change the Qms.
ron
a) prove Bud's "measurements" wrong by alternative subjective testing
or
b) carry out sufficient lab tests to support an alternative theory.
I really do not agree.
The first is to define the difference, then to define why the difference (actions)and if the difference really changes the performance. This, however may take an alternate theory.
I recieved the EnABL 166e drivers today.
First obseration, there appears to be a very heavy black coating OVER the dots. I brought a driver to the Met lab and looked at the dots under a 500x measuring microscope. The dots height from the coating are only on the order of .0000" (flush with surface) to .0009". The coating appears to be of a density and thickness to actually add enough mass to change the Qms.
ron
I don't know anything about the black coating. The block height does sound a bit thin, but within what I have applied and found to be useful. If you are uncomfortable spending time looking at these drivers, I have four Fostex 127 e drivers and could provide them to you for a test set, in any of a number of configuration patterns.
1.) Fully treat two and leave two untreated. Send them to you
2.) Send all four or just two to you for characterization of their untreated activity. Then pay to have one or two sent back for full treatment.
3.) Send three for characterization and then treat one with patterns only and one with patterns and gloss, which for me is the full treatment.
Any of these, or your own set of test stages will be fine with me. These do not have a whizzer, but they are not a straight cone form either. With a bit of time, I can likely come up with other drivers, and they may be even more suitable. Looks like the B200 would work well as a test subject, but I suspect there are others.
Bud
I fail to see why anyone is obligated to answer all questions asked by another in this forum. Nobody is obligated to answer any questions, especially when the tone of question is just an attempt to humiliate another. I've met many engineers that just don't do well with words but turn out very good results, and others that talk a lot but deliver nothing.dlr said:
G'day sreten,
What do you base your observations on?
I don't know whether EnABL eliminates diffraction or not.
I do know that EnABL on a baffle makes an audible difference.
I have used EnABL on the baffles (and ports) of numerous speaker systems - all of which have produced an audible difference.
I have reported these in this thread and encouraged others try it for themselves.
Likewise, I would encourage you to try EnABL on a port or baffle and hear for yourself.
Cheers,
Alex
ronc said:
The black is under the dots.
When these drivers were started they were simply a gift to Ron in recognition for what he has given the community,
Iit was indicated that the best colour for the cones should be black to match the cabinets (SO consideration). In a normal case this coating would have been clear... it is in fact 2 thin coats of mod podge. On top of that planet10-hifi treatment are the EnABL spots (in a dark grey yo get as close to stealth as i am comfortable with). On top of the EnABL and he entire cone are 3 coats of 50% gloss, each one dimininshing in quantity.
This is the standard treatment i do, the mod podge/pva intended to deal with some of the FR anomolies inherent in a typical Fostex cone before EnABL since Enable does little if nothing to deal with these.
No pre-mod data on this pair was taken (the mod process had already started on these before i obtained ownership, so no pre mod data was obtained), and i can't find the post mod data. (i do know how it could be hidden from me, and if that is the case finding it could be difficult)
Attached is impedance of a pair of earlier FE166e -- the treatment on these is a heavier handed version of the current pretreatment, but since i do not test in a climate controlled room the 5-day separation in measures makes the error bars larger,
I am currently starting on a set of 166 that will get the same treatment as Ron's drivers and they will be documented more thoroughly.
dave
Attachments
planet10 said:
It is incumbent on Bud to do this, not me. The only "heavy lifting" has been John's input, most of which Bud rejects, despite the occasional statements of thanks. Read John's last few posts again. I would hope that one does not have to "toe the line" and jump in trying to prove something they don't believe has merit if they are going to take issue with it.
I am not making the claims. I do not believe the claims. There has not been one single piece of objective evidence to support the claims. This isn't personal, much as many state, including Bud. It's based on the physics. There is nothing to believe in them insofar as the mechanism, the central part of the claims, and claims they are. You need to re-read Bud's posts. There has been nothing provided to make me believe anything in any of the claims other than changes in driver frequency response (originally stated categorically to not occur). I've always believed that it does that, but it's nothing exceptional other than being a unique pattern. Bud (and you, apparently) will say I'm attacking him, but I'm just challenging the claims. Forcefully, sure. But up to the present time nothing has been provided other than wide-ranging anecdotes based on perception.
Fruitful? Are you and I reading the same posts? Ask John about fruitful.
Bud is not in any way only claiming to have "an empirical model", he has stated quite explicitly at various points that known physics are altered or don't account for its properties (with nothing to show for it but subjective listening impressions):
1 . It is a boundary layer phenomenon (unsupported and without merit as John has explained in detail). Unequivocal in that claim (yes, a claim, not an empirical model). This is the entire basis of his patent. It is far from an empirical model.
2. The frequency response of a driver is not altered at all, but it changes the perception of the driver. Even by references to measurements he provided, this was shown to be false early on.
3. The application makes dramatic changes, as in total control, in diffraction (this is nothing short of ridiculous, I've literally studied and measured this for years).
4. It controls room resonances by making low frequencies pass through walls.
5. It changes the properties of air, as in creation of Soliton waves (an empirical model again?). That isn't worth any more discussion.
This list was just from a brief attempt to recollect various claims made at different points in the thread. It would take time to collate them all.
In light of the partial list above, do you still stand by that? My reading is that the claims have been very specific and far exceed that of an empirical model. I take issue with the claims. In the absence of something other than subjective anecdotes, there won't be any change. All of this additional subjective testing of multiple drivers is a dead-end as well. Adding a mass changes the response. We all know that. What will that prove beyond what we know now?
Dave
Hi rjb,
Yes, and even though I illustrated via simulations - the more I tried to explain how NFB could make class-AB amplifiers worse - the more the 'experts' said that my simulations were not valid.
Ultimately it was not me who was responsible for the way other people perceived amplifier operation, as is the case here with Bud not being responsible to other armchair critics thinking about EnABL and air-side wave-motion ahead of a driver cone, so I left others to their own ideas and enjoyed the fruits of my own class-A//AB development.
Only now I've ended up having to improve LS driver transduction characteristics in order to better enjoy the well amplified output.
Your comment made me think about LS radiation in a manner similar to the amp work, and how the time delayed reactions were affecting on-going driven output.
A voice coil transduces much more than is heard or can be measured at one or two meters in a room or anechoic chamber !!!
What has happened to those components we do not hear - they have become phase shifted and rendered incoherent before they reach the listening position. Reproduction at one metre, 10cms or 1cm are all different, and it is not all down to driver cone size/shape induced modification of radiation, but to interacting wavemotions ahead of the cone.
Modify the wave flow and cone edge terminations and some previously unheard transduced energies will become audible, whilst others which were heard will become less so.
I have been doing some experiments with the B200, and I am astounded at the degree of HF voice coil transduction observed close up from its underhung construction, but which does not make it to a listening position.
Yes much of this is due to cone shape and interferences due to symmetrical wave motion between cone volume and the radiating aperture at the region of cone edge.
CI have noted that changes to frequency/pressure/velocity relationships on the air side of surfaces can do so much to improve listening.
Similar dynamically energised (more that one half cycle) wave interaction relationships above the cone surface must occur at higher frequencies with decreasing symmetrical diameters towards the cone centre, both those edge and centre regions being where Bud notes improved reproduction when EnAbled.
Cheers ............ Graham.
Yes, and even though I illustrated via simulations - the more I tried to explain how NFB could make class-AB amplifiers worse - the more the 'experts' said that my simulations were not valid.
Ultimately it was not me who was responsible for the way other people perceived amplifier operation, as is the case here with Bud not being responsible to other armchair critics thinking about EnABL and air-side wave-motion ahead of a driver cone, so I left others to their own ideas and enjoyed the fruits of my own class-A//AB development.
Only now I've ended up having to improve LS driver transduction characteristics in order to better enjoy the well amplified output.
Your comment made me think about LS radiation in a manner similar to the amp work, and how the time delayed reactions were affecting on-going driven output.
A voice coil transduces much more than is heard or can be measured at one or two meters in a room or anechoic chamber !!!
What has happened to those components we do not hear - they have become phase shifted and rendered incoherent before they reach the listening position. Reproduction at one metre, 10cms or 1cm are all different, and it is not all down to driver cone size/shape induced modification of radiation, but to interacting wavemotions ahead of the cone.
Modify the wave flow and cone edge terminations and some previously unheard transduced energies will become audible, whilst others which were heard will become less so.
I have been doing some experiments with the B200, and I am astounded at the degree of HF voice coil transduction observed close up from its underhung construction, but which does not make it to a listening position.
Yes much of this is due to cone shape and interferences due to symmetrical wave motion between cone volume and the radiating aperture at the region of cone edge.
CI have noted that changes to frequency/pressure/velocity relationships on the air side of surfaces can do so much to improve listening.
Similar dynamically energised (more that one half cycle) wave interaction relationships above the cone surface must occur at higher frequencies with decreasing symmetrical diameters towards the cone centre, both those edge and centre regions being where Bud notes improved reproduction when EnAbled.
Cheers ............ Graham.
Just for the record, I want to point out that Bud has is at best a hypothisis (def: an assumption of how something works). It is not a model. It is not empirical. It has no predictave capability. It has no correlation with data. What I was doing with my wave diagrames and spring mass systems was the initiation of a simple model that could grow into something which would allow some predictive capability of the wave motion in what migh be a related system, and at the same time provide some physical insight of the problem in a simpler to understand way. (The little spring mass figure I posted was not what I was working on.) If it is truly desired to model the driver, then what is required is a finite element solution approach:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I wouldn't put it that way. I think the measurements are definitive. We do A and we measured and hear the result. We make a single change, B, and we measure and heard a different result. The cause/effect relationship is established. How someone labels the audible results is really quite irrelevant.
Well you have to remember that we really aren't looking at frequency response per say. The measurements I have presented are obtained from the time continuous output of the driver stimulated by some time continuous input. The stimulus is chosen to be what it is because it will excite all frequencies equally. We then look at various means of processing the output and present it as frequency response, CSD, Step response, Burst response, etc. These are all just looking at the time continuous output of the system in different ways. The all represent the same measured data.
Not having been privy to that discussion I can't comment. However, there are many factors which contribute to why a class A amp should potentially sound better than class AB, B, C, etc. You can find some of the basic reasons in any decent EE 101 text book. It's not speculation or idle chatter.
Well I would say:
1) I don't know about a.
2) b: what it seems to be and what it is are two different things.
3) c, the measured differences are what is heard. There is just a failure to accept that result. Denial doesn’t change the result.
4) d who knows? According to Bud it was originally developed using the Ohm F which has a sectioned cone, two of which were metal.
5) Certainly there have been better theories produced. Ones based on sound physical arguments. The treatment alters the vibrational characteristics of the cone in accordance with classical mechanics. That is F = ma.
This isn't about advancing science. It's about applying it.
Again, all the measurements from all sources clearly show that Bud's hypothesis is incorrect. All the measurements from all sources clearly show a change. Bud has even recently countered that it doesn't matter what he has said anywhere in the this thread (or other places?). Just treat your drivers and you will hear the benefit. Additionally, all the drivers being held up as examples are drivers which are being used well above the point of break up, have serious response problems to start, and are labeled as full range drivers only be cause they produce some semblance of high frequency response. (Opinion follows) In fact, all the drivers are being used well above what would normally be considered their useful range and are pathetic excuses for hi fidelity drivers. (That ought to raise some hairs.
)
empirical vs. anecdote
I think John K. once again illuminates a key point in the impasse so clearly demonstrated in this thread. The proponents of EnABL are (either deliberately or indirectly) using the jargon of the scientific method to attempt to validate their admittedly anecdotal observations of positive response to the process. RonC's latest adventure with an unkown driver supplied by planet10 clearly demonstrates the uncontrolled nature of the EnABl'ing procedures used by the various proponents. No controls on what constitutes the process; no deference to experimental procedures, just a blind trial and error approach using any number of techniques to "see what happens". Nothing wrong with this, nor is there any problem with the subjective observations hence put forth. Just don't imply or call it "proven" from a scientific method or engineering standpoint.
So, I would suggest that, were the proponents to refrain from absolute statements regarding what does or does not happen, instead using phrases like
"when I EnABL'd a driver, I heard such and such, could this be due to standing wave suppression, reduction of resonance, etc.",
and cease with the arguments that the skeptics / objectivists / engineers should "just try it and you'll see", a more fruitful and enlightening discussion might proceed. Instead, all we get is the same old "your 'scientific methods'" are woefully inadequate to ascertain the "transcendant, breakthrough, technologically innovative" EnABL'ing process that is so readily apparent to those that have tried it.
I think John K. once again illuminates a key point in the impasse so clearly demonstrated in this thread. The proponents of EnABL are (either deliberately or indirectly) using the jargon of the scientific method to attempt to validate their admittedly anecdotal observations of positive response to the process. RonC's latest adventure with an unkown driver supplied by planet10 clearly demonstrates the uncontrolled nature of the EnABl'ing procedures used by the various proponents. No controls on what constitutes the process; no deference to experimental procedures, just a blind trial and error approach using any number of techniques to "see what happens". Nothing wrong with this, nor is there any problem with the subjective observations hence put forth. Just don't imply or call it "proven" from a scientific method or engineering standpoint.
So, I would suggest that, were the proponents to refrain from absolute statements regarding what does or does not happen, instead using phrases like
"when I EnABL'd a driver, I heard such and such, could this be due to standing wave suppression, reduction of resonance, etc.",
and cease with the arguments that the skeptics / objectivists / engineers should "just try it and you'll see", a more fruitful and enlightening discussion might proceed. Instead, all we get is the same old "your 'scientific methods'" are woefully inadequate to ascertain the "transcendant, breakthrough, technologically innovative" EnABL'ing process that is so readily apparent to those that have tried it.
john k... said:
Additionally, all the drivers being held up as examples are drivers which are being used well above the point of break up, have serious response problems to start, and are labeled as full range drivers only be cause they produce some semblance of high frequency response. (Opinion follows) In fact, all the drivers are being used well above what would normally be considered their useful range and are pathetic excuses for hi fidelity drivers. (That ought to raise some hairs.
Hi John k
!
Isn't it good we have some diversity in the world. Would you want a world population of John K's?
Peter
Hi John.
Yes. We read you before. You obliged us to !
That is an interesting simulation you show, but what are such response curves supposed to prove ?
Loudspeakers can have similar 'measured responses' and yet sound so very different !
It does however show a typical *circular* driver peak at approx 3.5kHz - where does that come from ?
Raised dust-cap affecting wave radiation?
Are you simulating wave motion at a listening position ?
There are some differences between measured and simulated which look as if resonant too - air side resonances which are beyond simulation, and yet which would be seriously audible ?
Cheers ........ Graham.
Yes. We read you before. You obliged us to !
That is an interesting simulation you show, but what are such response curves supposed to prove ?
Loudspeakers can have similar 'measured responses' and yet sound so very different !
It does however show a typical *circular* driver peak at approx 3.5kHz - where does that come from ?
Raised dust-cap affecting wave radiation?
Are you simulating wave motion at a listening position ?
There are some differences between measured and simulated which look as if resonant too - air side resonances which are beyond simulation, and yet which would be seriously audible ?
Cheers ........ Graham.
Graham Maynard said:
This is a preliminary calculation of the sound radiated by a driver as computed using FEA. It comes form some preliminary work by the developer of SoundEasy. I do not know if or when it might be available. In essence it is composed of two parts: One part is that associated with simulation the vibration of the cone, surround, dust cove, voice coil. That is, simulation of the generation and propagation of transverse waves in the cone and surround. The second part is that associated with the transfer of this vibrational energy from the cone to the air in contact with the radiating surfaces. The measurement is for a driver in a box. The simulation is for the driver radiating into free space. The simulation does not include such effects as cabinet diffraction, etc. It is as if the radiated response is void of all diffraction and other external effects. Thus it reflects the components of the SPL arising directly from the vibration of the cone/surround/dust cover at a pre-specified point in space, in this case 1M, on axis, as was used for the measurement. Obviously there will be differences between simulated and real world results. However, if this type analysis were extended to the application of enable treatment it would provide a direct means of simulating the difference in the behavior of transverse wave in the cone due to application of the treatment. This is real world modeling. Done correctly it would show quantitative and qualitative differences in the results uncontaminated by external influences.
I believe that a much simpler model could be used to first investigate the behavior of a transverse wave when it encounters an enable patch. That is really the crux of the problem and where to start to gain understanding of what enable might to. How it effects the cone vibration over the entire surface and the resulting radiated SPL is far more than is currently needed.
john k... said:
That is false.
Bud uses his model to reliably treat drivers to his satisfaction. It was developed empirically. So it is his emprical model that he uses to predict the performance of treated drivers. It may be totally inaccurate as far as actual physics, but he does get useful wotk done with it. It does not matter that he may be the only one that understands how to use it.
dave
Re: empirical vs. anecdote
As i said, when that adventure started out, its sole purpose was for me to make the best driver i could so that Ron (& his SO) could take greater pleasure in the music. It was not intended to be a test guinea pig. To further confound things it has phase plugs.
I do think that even so, it will help Ron get some insight into what is happening. Especially after he listens to it.
What the EnABL does to the driver is still very clear.
dave
auplater said:
As i said, when that adventure started out, its sole purpose was for me to make the best driver i could so that Ron (& his SO) could take greater pleasure in the music. It was not intended to be a test guinea pig. To further confound things it has phase plugs.
I do think that even so, it will help Ron get some insight into what is happening. Especially after he listens to it.
What the EnABL does to the driver is still very clear.
dave
planet10 said:
That's quite a contradiction. "Predict" the performance of "treated" drivers. This is after-the-fact, not prediction. If one could predict the performance based on an actual model, one would not need the experience of treated drivers at all. Anyone could do it. There is no model, it's all been based on trial-and-error. No one, not Bud himself, can yet predict what the specific change in response to a driver will be. Go back early in the thread, re-read where Bud said that the first treatment made some drivers worse, then additional applications made them better (based on trial-and-error subjective response, nothing objective whatsoever). There is no model involved in that. Even more disconcerting I would think, now he's the only one who understands how to use it. Not much for predictive capabilities.
Dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.