This is where I had seen the aperture edge felt treatment before.
http://www.t-linespeakers.org/FALL/bd-pipes.html
Cheers .............. Graham.
http://www.t-linespeakers.org/FALL/bd-pipes.html
Cheers .............. Graham.
Graham Maynard said:
Hum, excuse me G. Remember this
Hi John K,
You wrote
>> If a treatment like Enable is suppose to alter the wave propagation in the cone <<
to which you replied:
?? Has Bud ever claimed this ??
Bud likes to revert back to saying he isn't talking about standing wave in the cone but rather "transient" standing wave in the BL. When pressed on what he means by BL his response was that he didn't have a clue.
John K,
Thanks for the graphs. They have helped me to define what I mean by transient standing waves and the perceived effects that EnABL patterns and gloss coat cause.
I am going to have to use words, rather than graphs. I think a piano key stroke might be a useful place to start.
These notes have a characteristic onset. I suppose this is related to rise time of the vibrations of each strings involved. They also have a characteristic additional resonance that arises from the harp and a further one that arises from the sounding board and then the chassis and then the room. All of them in a sequence and all of them with a structure based upon the original rise time, frequency of the vibrations, period of sustain and eventual decay, of the string or strings that create that original tone from the piano.
The initial strike has a percussive element that is available in drivers with good impulse response. The ensuing rise time of the tone has a structure at it's onset, that helps to describe this note as coming from a piano. There are, over the interval the note is being created, a number of "strands" that are seperate threads in frequency and displaced slightly in time (i believe this is phase?). During the interval of the note, this bundle of individual threads describes many things about the devices that they arise within, i.e. grand piano, upright, various manufacturers etc. They also describe the emphasis that the player of the piano applies to the basic notes onset and decay, the emphasis they utilize to convey their peculiar understanding of this note, in a musical composition, or just by itself.
The onset of this bundle of threads and each in it's turn, except for three cases I am aware of, is always delayed. Not in the time placement in very good drivers, but in the rise to the full amplitude shape of the various threads. As if there were either a mass loading problem or a short term out of phase ringing, that dies out quickly, but still affects the shape of this rise to full amplitude. The EnABL patterns, at the voice coil joint with cone and dome, remove this delay to the point that is is no longer noticeable. Not to say it is gone.
The bundle of threads in this tone, in an untreated driver, can interact with threads from other tone bundle generators, during the period of sustain that is the "body" of the note. The gloss coat helps to maintain the coherency of the individual bundles. This coherency is first implemented by the voice coil located pattern and for relatively sparse groups of tone bundles the actions enforced by the initial and final pattern is sufficient. For deeply complex collections of tone bundles, the gloss is required to hold them all in their seperate groups or bundles. This is especially true with loud and complex tone bundles, where an untreated driver begins to seriously degrade in it's ability to present this sort of detailed structural information clearly and coherently.
The decay structured of a tone thread bundle is as complex an event as all of the rest. The final set of patterns deals with these events and again it seems to be either a reduction of a mass related attenuation, or a suppression of very short duration anti waves that allows for an extended reproduction of sustained decay of these tone bundles.
Since the various portions of the note, over time, are held in coherence, with unabated rise time shape, lack of dispersal during sustain and extended decay times, they allow a subjective sense of greater completeness to this event.
This is what that EnABL provides. This is why I choose to portray the effects as elimination of short term standing waves. I couldn't begin to see how it was reducing mass loading effects, to accomplish the clearly audible effects it provides. And the effects just become more audible as music becomes more complex, in collections of tone bundles being held together as information, and louder as either transient or sustained notes.
Bud
Thanks for the graphs. They have helped me to define what I mean by transient standing waves and the perceived effects that EnABL patterns and gloss coat cause.
I am going to have to use words, rather than graphs. I think a piano key stroke might be a useful place to start.
These notes have a characteristic onset. I suppose this is related to rise time of the vibrations of each strings involved. They also have a characteristic additional resonance that arises from the harp and a further one that arises from the sounding board and then the chassis and then the room. All of them in a sequence and all of them with a structure based upon the original rise time, frequency of the vibrations, period of sustain and eventual decay, of the string or strings that create that original tone from the piano.
The initial strike has a percussive element that is available in drivers with good impulse response. The ensuing rise time of the tone has a structure at it's onset, that helps to describe this note as coming from a piano. There are, over the interval the note is being created, a number of "strands" that are seperate threads in frequency and displaced slightly in time (i believe this is phase?). During the interval of the note, this bundle of individual threads describes many things about the devices that they arise within, i.e. grand piano, upright, various manufacturers etc. They also describe the emphasis that the player of the piano applies to the basic notes onset and decay, the emphasis they utilize to convey their peculiar understanding of this note, in a musical composition, or just by itself.
The onset of this bundle of threads and each in it's turn, except for three cases I am aware of, is always delayed. Not in the time placement in very good drivers, but in the rise to the full amplitude shape of the various threads. As if there were either a mass loading problem or a short term out of phase ringing, that dies out quickly, but still affects the shape of this rise to full amplitude. The EnABL patterns, at the voice coil joint with cone and dome, remove this delay to the point that is is no longer noticeable. Not to say it is gone.
The bundle of threads in this tone, in an untreated driver, can interact with threads from other tone bundle generators, during the period of sustain that is the "body" of the note. The gloss coat helps to maintain the coherency of the individual bundles. This coherency is first implemented by the voice coil located pattern and for relatively sparse groups of tone bundles the actions enforced by the initial and final pattern is sufficient. For deeply complex collections of tone bundles, the gloss is required to hold them all in their seperate groups or bundles. This is especially true with loud and complex tone bundles, where an untreated driver begins to seriously degrade in it's ability to present this sort of detailed structural information clearly and coherently.
The decay structured of a tone thread bundle is as complex an event as all of the rest. The final set of patterns deals with these events and again it seems to be either a reduction of a mass related attenuation, or a suppression of very short duration anti waves that allows for an extended reproduction of sustained decay of these tone bundles.
Since the various portions of the note, over time, are held in coherence, with unabated rise time shape, lack of dispersal during sustain and extended decay times, they allow a subjective sense of greater completeness to this event.
This is what that EnABL provides. This is why I choose to portray the effects as elimination of short term standing waves. I couldn't begin to see how it was reducing mass loading effects, to accomplish the clearly audible effects it provides. And the effects just become more audible as music becomes more complex, in collections of tone bundles being held together as information, and louder as either transient or sustained notes.
Bud
BudP said:
Hi Bud,
You make it too easy. Enable does no such thing. There is only one way to maintain coherence between input and output of a system. The system must be linear and have flat frequency response DC to light. Anything else will distort the wave form either in time, amplitude or both. We can get away a little bit at the high end because if the system rolls off at high frequency it introduces constant time delay over much of the low frequency part of the response which uniformly delays the output, thus retaining coherence. As long as the high frequency roll off is sufficiently above the bandwidth of the spectral content of the input, there is no time or amplitude distortion. The same can not be said at the low frequency end of the spectrum. Any low frequency roll off introduces a nonlinear, frequency dependent time delay which extends well above the (low) cut off frequency and destroys coherency in the pass band to some extent.
Oh, please do tell how a driver can decipher which components of the input are associated with different tones?
The only thing I can really conclude form this thread is that apparently it has less to do with audio than it does with the desired for some of us to engage in a debate. You can be Hillary Clinton, saying anything to get a vote and win. I’ll be Obama, fighting for truth, justice and what’s best for America. Who want to be Elliot Spitzer?
John K,
But John, that's just what I have been telling you all this time.
Actually John I don't know how or why these effects show up. I can only assume, that if it requires an intelligent agent to perform these corrections, then what EnABL is actually providing is something our correlator is more able to translate.
Certainly I have never witnessed a microphone relaxing upon presentation of sound through an EnABL'd driver. Walls, rug, drapes, all seem unaffected. Birds don't flock to the windows to celebrate this magnificence of coherence. Dogs seem to notice something that interests them. The only other responses seem to come from humans, pitiful and weak as they are, tortured by a lack of memory, mass delusions, and an inability to utter streams of unequivocally correct data.
Now you are looking at the event with an open mind. I can only imagine increasingly bizarre explanations, unless something simple can be found to account for the very obvious effects that are heard.
It is easy to dismiss all that I have to say on this subject. And you can also refuse to expose your self to treated drivers, so you can maintain your distance from this seductive siren of hallucination.
Life will go on. People will still treat their drivers and hear differences, ones that correspond with my descriptions.
Some folks will yell about fantasy and deliberately stomp all over everyone lost in this sea of delusion. No one in the delusion will care. They can finally hear their music, through speakers that are no longer limited, in the ability to reproduce music, by the limits of design inherent to the limits of the scientific models, of physical reality, that have been brought to bear to this point in time.
I really have been hoping someone could explain what is resulting from EnABL applications, without having to resort to the mumbo jumbo I have had to resort to.
Bud
But John, that's just what I have been telling you all this time.
Actually John I don't know how or why these effects show up. I can only assume, that if it requires an intelligent agent to perform these corrections, then what EnABL is actually providing is something our correlator is more able to translate.
Certainly I have never witnessed a microphone relaxing upon presentation of sound through an EnABL'd driver. Walls, rug, drapes, all seem unaffected. Birds don't flock to the windows to celebrate this magnificence of coherence. Dogs seem to notice something that interests them. The only other responses seem to come from humans, pitiful and weak as they are, tortured by a lack of memory, mass delusions, and an inability to utter streams of unequivocally correct data.
Now you are looking at the event with an open mind. I can only imagine increasingly bizarre explanations, unless something simple can be found to account for the very obvious effects that are heard.
It is easy to dismiss all that I have to say on this subject. And you can also refuse to expose your self to treated drivers, so you can maintain your distance from this seductive siren of hallucination.
Life will go on. People will still treat their drivers and hear differences, ones that correspond with my descriptions.
Some folks will yell about fantasy and deliberately stomp all over everyone lost in this sea of delusion. No one in the delusion will care. They can finally hear their music, through speakers that are no longer limited, in the ability to reproduce music, by the limits of design inherent to the limits of the scientific models, of physical reality, that have been brought to bear to this point in time.
I really have been hoping someone could explain what is resulting from EnABL applications, without having to resort to the mumbo jumbo I have had to resort to.
Bud
BudP said:
Ask Lewis Carroll, or maybe the White Rabbit. Wonderland is a marvelous place. Please join me there. Even my dear, sweet Jeanne constantly tells me I live in a fantasy world. Perhaps I’m just light years ahead of the crowd. I don’t need to Enable my drivers to hear what it does because my delusional nature has already performed the transformation. Performing the modification would only serve to spoil the trip, placing me in the grips of reality.
BudP said:
Since nobody seems interested in exploring advanced experimental designs that would weed out expectation vs. reality, the answer remains "expectation, placebo, wishful thinking" whatever you wish to call it.
... not that there's anything wrong with that.... :-;
Why so much effort to impune the scientific method by insisting that the skeptics be proven wrong? Proof that science doesn't know everything? Get over it...
Most patents require peer review and demonstrable measurable differences to maintain validity ... I believe that's what's going on here, so complaints about questioning the explanations are misguided... if what's written in the patent is irrelevant to the issue, why was it written? An attempt to obfuscate?
I've heard enabl'd speakers... nothing revelatory... and even Soongc seems to be moving away from the all encompassing claims of EnABL'ing everything including the kitchen sink (good for you)
John L.
John you have a good sense of humor...
I just noticed this on a cup of Statbucks coffee a friend just brought over for me.
The way I see it #283
The most important thing in life is to stop saying "I wish" and start saying "I will". Consider nothing impossible then treat possibilities as probabilities. David Copperfield who by a stroke of magic is an audiophile. well I made that last bit up but hey who is ever gonna know?
I just noticed this on a cup of Statbucks coffee a friend just brought over for me.
The way I see it #283
The most important thing in life is to stop saying "I wish" and start saying "I will". Consider nothing impossible then treat possibilities as probabilities. David Copperfield who by a stroke of magic is an audiophile. well I made that last bit up but hey who is ever gonna know?
john k... said:
But this frequency response must be ruler flat at all levels of dynamic range in the precense of all the others not just at the gross level typically shown in FR measurements we see daily.
Is the FR of a device you are measuring ruler flat 40 dB down (20, 30, 50 dB down, pick one) when you are measuring the FR @ zero? This is the kind of question that needs asking if you is going to spearate a good hifi from a great one. And it will be the kind of result necessary to unshroud EnABL.
How would you go about testing for that? If you feed a device a primamry stimulus with an amplitude at 0 dB, and a distinct stimulus 40 dB down from that, how do you extract the response of the 2nd stimulus. It must be doable.
dave
planet10 said:
It is doable now. It's not new. This has all been covered, there is just reluctance to accept the facts. Those facts are that if a system is flat it is flat for all signals and all transients. If it's not, then it will be evident as distortion. Distortion is measurable, even 40db down. This has been pointed out before, yet the same questions are asked again, as if the answer had not been provided.
Denying the facts does not change them. There's been a lot of that in this thread, including this.
If you want some evidence, just go to Mark K's or zaph's site and read up on it, then look at the tests. You'll see that for the better, current drivers with motors that have copper caps for improved non-linear distortion they will have distortion components 40db or more down in level for some of it, but it is easily measurable.
In fact, this is testing for distortion induced by the driver itself for high level signals applied to the driver. It can all be "extracted" now.
If you are truly interested in learning the theory and reality of measurements, you would do well to get a copy of "Testing Loudspeakers" by Joe D'Appolito. It's available at Old Colony Sound Labs.
D'Appolito - Testing Loudspeakers
Dave
planet10 said:
So are you challenging the veracity of the theory and test procedures as covered by D'Appolito? Have you read the book thoroughly? Do you dispute any of it, any at all?
If not, then what's the purpose of that statement other than to try to discredit it though implication?
Probably a better, free source of details of distortion testing can be found at Linkwitz's site. His page has measurements of test results showing the levels easy obtainable for buried distortion components.
In this example, one of many, notice that the signal peak is 120db, the noise floor is about 30db and the distortion components are easily detected down to better than -70db. If you think this is inaccurate or insufficient, please explain how and why. If you don't accept it to be factual, explain why you do not accept it.
Dave
dlr said:
If you read what i said you would know that is not true.
It is true that he made a dumb mistake when he measured the Thor (and published it for all to see)
I have read it thru a couple times and reference it when needed. I will -- given Joe's above mistake -- make sure that if i see something that doesn't seem quite right to invetigate it further and not necessarily accept it as gospel.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.