Worth a visit anytime...
If speaker demo should not be satisfying - go listen pure nature...
Last edited:
BC has a very good and big ferry system. A lovely 95 minute ride either way. WA is just south of BC (across the border). Part of Cascadia.
The yanks bought Alaska from Russia.
must google...alaska, the short history.
In Google Earth, create a placemark (pushpin), and copy the coordinates in, name it, and click OK. The map won't move but the placemark will. Then you should be able to double clik the placemark in the places listing in the tile on the left and it should zoom you right in.
dave
You can start with Google Maps. Enter Dave's lat long and you can choose among a map, satellite view, and a link to Google Earth (if you have it). BC has nice ferries from/to the island but you will need a car to drive around to Dave's place.
In this thread you will get both yes and no, from proponents and debunkers. From me you will get a maybe.
In the techniques thread here EnABL - Listening impressions & techniques - diyAudio we will be happy to show you how to do the process correctly.
The maybe comes from not knowing what sort of horn system you have. Were you asking about an EV 350 tweeter I would say no, a waste of time. Won't hurt anything, but wont help either. If it is from the other end of the spectrum, a cone driver in a horn load, then yes it will help.
There are caveats to that yes. Drivers, like the Lowther DX4, which are already extremely dynamic, will become clearer and more precise, loose their edginess and tendency to beam when horn loaded. They will also become insufferably dynamic, with an intensity that rivals that of sitting in the orchestra pit and with roughly equivalent clarity.
You can also affect the horn response patterns with application of patterns in specific locations on the horn surface. This has to do with beaming at higher frequencies and removes a slight blur to the overall sound.
All told, it is much less predictable than a bare driver and we would need quite a bit more information. Perhaps you can put pictures up on the other thread and we can discuss the process of discovering what will help.
Bud
In the techniques thread here EnABL - Listening impressions & techniques - diyAudio we will be happy to show you how to do the process correctly.
The maybe comes from not knowing what sort of horn system you have. Were you asking about an EV 350 tweeter I would say no, a waste of time. Won't hurt anything, but wont help either. If it is from the other end of the spectrum, a cone driver in a horn load, then yes it will help.
There are caveats to that yes. Drivers, like the Lowther DX4, which are already extremely dynamic, will become clearer and more precise, loose their edginess and tendency to beam when horn loaded. They will also become insufferably dynamic, with an intensity that rivals that of sitting in the orchestra pit and with roughly equivalent clarity.
You can also affect the horn response patterns with application of patterns in specific locations on the horn surface. This has to do with beaming at higher frequencies and removes a slight blur to the overall sound.
All told, it is much less predictable than a bare driver and we would need quite a bit more information. Perhaps you can put pictures up on the other thread and we can discuss the process of discovering what will help.
Bud
Well, the compression throat and attendant slotted hemisphere are designed to eliminate the recursive loop back resonances, that ordinarily disturb wave front propagation in free air drivers. EnABL is also aimed at this activity. In my limited experience what you will get are a very noticeable increase in intensity. The sound will be very "solid" across the FR bandwidth. The drivers will still break up at the bottom end of the FR but beaming and lobes will be less noticeable, in a non circular horn, as the FR nears the top end.
Part of the problem is that horns have recursive feedback mechanisms, just as cone drivers do, and these are as, if not more important, than the compression driver mechanism. The LeCleach, Tractix and JBL baby cheeks horns I have spent time with were the least obnoxious in this area. The rectangular flare horns were the most problematical and oddly enough, the few I have dealt, with responded to EnABL quite well.
However, this is the wrong thread to continue with these discussions on as, other than OT trip meandering, it is supposed to be for measurements and arguments about the process and it's usefulness. While Cal (the thread moderator) is very patient and tolerant, he is of Nordic ancestry.
Bud
Part of the problem is that horns have recursive feedback mechanisms, just as cone drivers do, and these are as, if not more important, than the compression driver mechanism. The LeCleach, Tractix and JBL baby cheeks horns I have spent time with were the least obnoxious in this area. The rectangular flare horns were the most problematical and oddly enough, the few I have dealt, with responded to EnABL quite well.
However, this is the wrong thread to continue with these discussions on as, other than OT trip meandering, it is supposed to be for measurements and arguments about the process and it's usefulness. While Cal (the thread moderator) is very patient and tolerant, he is of Nordic ancestry.
Bud
It would a simple matter for anyone with measuring capability to prove that this is true, were it so. A simple full set of polar response measurements before/after treatment would close the case with regard to polar response, which is precisely to what you claim. No one has done it, yet you could easily request someone with a measurement system to do it. Step up to the plate, get the support that you know is there.
That Mark Audio driver only shows out to 30 degrees. Typically manufacturers show at out to 60 degrees. Even at 30, it is rolling off significantly, close to 20db at 10K. I wouldn't call that wide dispersion. It's probably 30db down at 60 degrees, maybe more. But at least they do better than a few manufacturers who only show on-axis. I'll grant that it's an improvement over many, but not wide dispersion within the "included angle" if good multi-way systems or horn/OS systems are compared.
Maybe one should ask you to specifically define what you call "full frequency range". Are you claiming flat, smooth, some specific rolloff rate, what? That claim could be made of many/most drivers, since they rolloff, but are not zero, even at extreme angles. Practically every driver extant has "full frequency range" depending on how one defines it.
But hey, why not ask someone to make a full set of polar plots, easily done, from 0 to 90 as is customary, Enabl that Mark Audio driver, and re-measure? It's simple. Or even do so for any selected driver, since you claim that any driver will then have "Full frequency response across the included angle" as you unhesitatingly claim? It can be done, it's not rocket science to do simple SPL measurements. Folks seem to be impressed with the Mark Audio (heretical) measurements, how about some actual measurements of before/after with any driver, any driver that anyone would care to treat, and prove me wrong? It's easy. Shoot, ask Mark Audio if they would measure one of their drivers that you treat and return. I'd bet that they'd jump at the chance.
Certainly there has to be one person with some measurement capability to prove me wrong and you correct. I'm really interested in seeing the support for all of these perceptions based on hearing that are no doubt so acute.
Anyone?
Dave
jeez... has it been 3 years since this thread was split from the technical aspects (or lack thereof)??? One would think SOME kind of legitimate rigorous evaluation of such a subjectively profoundly general improvement of all things obfuscatory about speakers, walls, listening rooms, hearing mechanisms, etc. would surface.
After all, speaker manufacturers are constantly improving the reproductive capabilities of their profferings; why haven't we seen any commercialization??? Even from the subjective, non technical perspective, no less.... doesn't stop Machina Dynamica, for instance...
John L.
After all, speaker manufacturers are constantly improving the reproductive capabilities of their profferings; why haven't we seen any commercialization??? Even from the subjective, non technical perspective, no less.... doesn't stop Machina Dynamica, for instance...
John L.
BudP's A/B Comparison of EnABLE'd Drivers.
BudP brought his four speakers (Two treated and two not.) to our audio society and we A/B compared them. All I can say is WOW! The treatment REALLY works. I am converted AFTER hearing them. Buy the kit and just do it!
MikeD
BudP brought his four speakers (Two treated and two not.) to our audio society and we A/B compared them. All I can say is WOW! The treatment REALLY works. I am converted AFTER hearing them. Buy the kit and just do it!
MikeD
I have the kit (for a while now) & a pair of Jordan JX92s drivers in boxed speakers & have always meant to give this a try, I just have been motivated in other areas.
So I look back into this & the other EnABLe thread & am happy to see what appears to be more measurement confirmation (Wavelet plots) that there is an actual, measurable change that can be seen from this treatment. This is a big step forward for some but I was always of the opinion that if there was nothing in this, then the wisdom of the masses would prevail & it would die off as a fad that came & went.
It seems that the usual measurements mob are still hacking away at the subject & at BudP with various cries of "prove it to me", and "do it on my terms", etc. Although they now have changed their tack from "it makes no difference" to "the difference may not be preferable". A significant change in perspective but like so many others from the same camp on this forum they have painted themselves into a corner where they now have to defend their position in ever decreasing labyrinths of argument, always of course invoking the great god of "physics". It's hilarious really, psychoacoustics might be a better approach, don't you think but I'm not even sure if this sort of "intelligibility of sound" has been specifically studied in psychoacoustics.
BudP, I believe you are onto something both fundamental and at the same time at the bleeding edge of speaker technology. Congratulations on sticking with this for many years against such incessant criticism.
So I look back into this & the other EnABLe thread & am happy to see what appears to be more measurement confirmation (Wavelet plots) that there is an actual, measurable change that can be seen from this treatment. This is a big step forward for some but I was always of the opinion that if there was nothing in this, then the wisdom of the masses would prevail & it would die off as a fad that came & went.
It seems that the usual measurements mob are still hacking away at the subject & at BudP with various cries of "prove it to me", and "do it on my terms", etc. Although they now have changed their tack from "it makes no difference" to "the difference may not be preferable". A significant change in perspective but like so many others from the same camp on this forum they have painted themselves into a corner where they now have to defend their position in ever decreasing labyrinths of argument, always of course invoking the great god of "physics". It's hilarious really, psychoacoustics might be a better approach, don't you think but I'm not even sure if this sort of "intelligibility of sound" has been specifically studied in psychoacoustics.
BudP, I believe you are onto something both fundamental and at the same time at the bleeding edge of speaker technology. Congratulations on sticking with this for many years against such incessant criticism.
Last edited:
You are wrong altogether, there has been no change in position. I suspect that you haven't read through the early thread and missed much in the others. Not once has anyone of us said that no change is made to a driver (and of course the nonsense about mechanism). That primary focus was, in fact, originally Bud's claim that it made no measurable change to a driver, when in fact the measurements he used to extoll it's virtues showed without question that it does, as would be expected when adding mass/damping to a diaphragm. What really is hilarious is that he continues to foist what is patently and proved false. Why he would insist on this is beyond me, the reason I pointed out that he is in denial, on much of it for that matter. That's being generous about his claims.
That there would be a change when applied to a driver also never been denied, though the absolute audibility would vary wildly depending on the change that occurs. You really should read the threads more careful before making baseless and provably false statements. It's all in the original thread and much of it in this one. That's a frequently made false charge and not productive if you really care to discuss the topic.
The fact is, he continues to make claims that are in total opposition to the physics of drivers with nothing but his esoteric descriptions that so many seem to ready to believe, much of it due to the same sort of distortions that you made here. Repeat a falsehood often enough and people start to believe it's true. The internet is famous for that. This is a prime example.
Now I will state that the claims made by anyone that any change made to a non-moving surface will have any effect beyond the tiniest one only measurable by a microphone are all placebo. That is a powerful influence and the only reason behind anyone "hearing a change" due to this. It's pure belief system on display. If you know anything about psycho-acoustics you will recognize this.
Dave
Last edited:
Proof is in the threads. If you won't take time to inform yourself of what was said, it's not my problem.
Dave