Hi,
You cannot have it both ways. Do not pretend for a second there is
anything more to EnABL than there really is. Turn on the BS meter.
The above is just inviting an avalanche of insubstantiated claims.
Which has all been done to death in the technical EnABL thread,
many times over. That thread is on rinse repeat BS cycle.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
Over 100 posts since yesterday. This has to be one of the fastest growing threads I've seen.
So far as I can see:
- there could be a possibility that, occasionally, the dots manage to damp cone resonances to give better results. I suspect the associated cone coating does most if not all of the changing of the sound.
- the main problem people seem to have is that the treatment doesn't live up to the claims: there may be a marginal change, but nothing close to what Bud suggests.
- However. This isn't an expensive thing to do. In terms of performance to price ratio, it's worth considering - certainly cheaper than a different set of drivers.
So, yes, there may be a slight change. And you don't pay much for it. Even if it's mostly in your head, if it improves your enjoyment as much as expensive capacitors, then why not?
Chris
So far as I can see:
- there could be a possibility that, occasionally, the dots manage to damp cone resonances to give better results. I suspect the associated cone coating does most if not all of the changing of the sound.
- the main problem people seem to have is that the treatment doesn't live up to the claims: there may be a marginal change, but nothing close to what Bud suggests.
- However. This isn't an expensive thing to do. In terms of performance to price ratio, it's worth considering - certainly cheaper than a different set of drivers.
So, yes, there may be a slight change. And you don't pay much for it. Even if it's mostly in your head, if it improves your enjoyment as much as expensive capacitors, then why not?
Chris
Hi Tade, (guys),
I've split and arranged your comments into sections to make easier to answer (hope this is OK).
Answering in their number order.....
1 - Please check out my post No. 35 on this thread. Take a look at its second paragraph. Your observation is getting close with your "laser" reference. I'm one of a few design engineers that have facilities to test and evaluate emitter technology in greater detail. I'm by nature an empiricist so much of my time is spent on research, testing and observation. Still a major problem remains. Yes, I can measure such processes in micro-mechanical detail and observe changes in emittance between additionally applied coated, standard coated and non-coated cones. But this type of empirical observation can't accurately determine how much such changes in emittance will be perceived by humans. For that we need to move into a slightly soft science area of blind trailing with a sufficiently large sample of audio people (2000 or more) to reduce external and internal variables; And to be representative. But there's also allot of debate within the science community between the empiricists and the non-empiricists as to the accuracy and reliability of human trials. Some non-empiricists question the supposed neutral nature of artificial and/or controlled environments. I think it can be done, but it needs allot of resources and will remain a tough call for science to reliably and clearly illuminate the outcomes on these issues.
2 - Appreciate your first sentence, my thanks for your acknowledgement. Yes, I sympathise with skeptics who see the need for statements in support of such process that purport to be science based, to validate their research, can be examined and tested by others.
3 - Yes, good point but retraction works both ways so this should also include skeptics. Simply saying "I don't believe it" is inadequate, requiring rigor in its counter arguments and submissions.
4 - Yes, I understand and appreciate what your saying but comes back partly to my reply point No 1.
5 - Yes, understood, controlling the size and position of dots on emitting surfaces sufficient to be accurately repeatable would be better than random application. As regards predictability, yes to observing the changes (point No. 1) then we head back to the issue of human perception and scientific interpretation.
I'm likely to remain leaning towards the skeptical side of the debate but I try to temper my thinking by acknowledging those guys who've got Enabled and similar drivers and may genuinely believe its an improvement. For some of them, there is a audible difference. They might have a point with a certain amount of justification based on standardised test outcomes from guys like MJK and myself. Are they right if they claim science can't always deliver outcomes, or do their observations have reliable merit? Or do us empiricists see their observations and claims as at best anecdotal, at worst misguided?
I think this thread could go on for allot longer and that could be a good thing. Maybe it could help to generate an interest in enough members to experiment, take part and co-ordinate a research project centred from diyaudio.com. That might be a really cool thing to do.
Cheers
Mark.
Last edited:
Well yes. It was one set, then the next. The drivers were switched, nothing else. So it was one set of speakers with the FR drivers swapped out. It was Nelson's rig.
Or so I thought. But is was untreated, then treated, IIRC. Just one play each, the same music tracks. CD and LP.
Very much so. I was in the front row.
I'm not sure, but I believe this was the "dots only" treatment. Since the treatment was transparent, you couldn't see it except right up at the driver. Maybe someone else will know.
Thanks for asking!
Hi,
As the issues have been done to death in the technical thread,
many of those interested can knock up a comment in their sleep.
Like the other threads it will go on and on, and very likely like
the other threads, start repeating itself, many times over, as
people chime in without reading the whole thread.
Its that sort of nebulous subject.
Retracted ? Not a chance in hell, see the technical thread.
You cannot substantiate nonsense, they don't even bother
trying, they just say it works, so something is happening.
Fact is it doesn't work as advertised, end of story.
Good modding is specific to every particular driver :
e.g. I could take a paper driver, cut slits in it, PVA the
slits and say it sounds amazing, no-one is any wiser.
What PVA ? how much ? What slit pattern ? What driver ?
etc ....
Only option is to copy what might be informed guessing ....
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure Zapf or someone else did a very controlled experiment on this and documented completely online somewhere. If I remember correctly he used enable patterns and compared to random patterns. Charts of the results were published. I will try to find the link later today. If someone has it please post.
Hi, we are heading towards the rinse and repeat cycle of the technical thread, rgds, sreten.
Chris,
Excellent comment. The results do not live up to the hype. While I would agree that the process makes an audible difference, my experience is that it is subtle at best. Some people feel it is an improvement and some feel it is a degradation.
In my opinion, the biggest frustration is the decreasing number of topics on the full range forum that are not testimonials/advertisements for Enable or Mark Audio drivers. Many people who used to contribute on a wide variety of topics have stopped posting and gone someplace else. The full range forum, and to some extent the multi-way speaker forum, content has become boring.
Martin
Hi Dave, I've not read the enable thread at all, and at over 3000 posts I'm not about to start
could you post a link to what the process is that indicates where the dot's should go? I'm curious Tony.
I love how the ones doing the most complaining about the subject
has been beaten to death or is in repeat mode, are the ones chiming
in saying the same thing over and over.......priceless
Hi,
Utterly pointless comment. If you keep insisting 2+2=5,
you will be continually told it doesn't, that it does=4.
rgds, sreten.
well, who wouldn't be happy with the exstra free one
Hi, True, but you won't be when you don't get it,
, rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
>>> If you keep insisting 2+2=5...
>>> well, who wouldn't be happy with the exstra free one...
>>> Hi, True, but you won't be when you don't get it...
LOL sreten!
Enable seems to be like religion... you have your believers and non-believers. I don't believe it does anything but add mass to the cone and damp it. On certain drivers this will help but on others it will hurt. I don't believe dots on the box or phase plug do anything at all other than decorate it.
Thank goodness for meetings at work... or i would be reading thru this tread on enable still!
>>> well, who wouldn't be happy with the exstra free one...
>>> Hi, True, but you won't be when you don't get it...
LOL sreten!
Enable seems to be like religion... you have your believers and non-believers. I don't believe it does anything but add mass to the cone and damp it. On certain drivers this will help but on others it will hurt. I don't believe dots on the box or phase plug do anything at all other than decorate it.
Thank goodness for meetings at work... or i would be reading thru this tread on enable still!
Last edited:
I'm not insisting anything. You are the one insisting it doesn't work because science won't let it or it can't be explained. There are things in this world that just are what they are and 2+2=5 is not even close to what we're talking about here.
For the record I don't believe or disbelieve.....never heard the things. But one thing is for sure, my mind is mature enough to stay open, even against your science until I hear them for myself.
Hi,
Oh dear - the closed mind argument, the last refuge of the clueless.
There is nothing closed in my attitude to EnABL or any else for that matter.
You have to hear it for yourself ? Give such nonsense a rest. You cannot
follow the salient issues but what you think matters ? It doesn't. If you
haven't spent the time or cannot consider the issues - who cares ?
Your mind is not open - its just making up self justifying conjecture.
You have no basis to challenge what I'm saying whatsoever, as it
seems you simply don't understand it, I don't care what you think.
Say something informed rather than attempt personal judgements.
Or say you don't like my attitude, but that is all that you know.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
Sreten,
I understand your perspective, but i think you are taking too aggressive a position. So you don't believe or think it is even possible. OK. You have shared your opinion, although in the absence of any documented proof, move on. Would you have believed 20 years ago that we would be programming cells to do specific things?
I understand your perspective, but i think you are taking too aggressive a position. So you don't believe or think it is even possible. OK. You have shared your opinion, although in the absence of any documented proof, move on. Would you have believed 20 years ago that we would be programming cells to do specific things?
Hi Dave, I've not read the enable thread at all, and at over 3000 posts I'm not about to start
Tony.
Here is the 1st post i found which explains the tap test to determine ring placement.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ng-impressions-techniques-48.html#post2246427
On a cone with a multi-radius section profile, these zones often happen right where the radius changes.
dave
I have never tried any "enAbled" drivers before so I can't really judge via auditions, I have however read the patent papers of the treatment.
Having those dots on phase plug and cabinets shouldn't do much other than as decorations as their mass is so insignificant when compared with that of the phase plug and baffle. I don't see much advantages or disadvantages in doing so.
Cone treatment is another matter though. By placing masses in strategic positions should alter the sound signature of the driver. That should be able to suppress some resonance modes of the cone but with such tiny dots, I am not sure how much that can be improved. Cone slicing may work better in resonance suppression though.
Just my 2 cents.
Having those dots on phase plug and cabinets shouldn't do much other than as decorations as their mass is so insignificant when compared with that of the phase plug and baffle. I don't see much advantages or disadvantages in doing so.
Cone treatment is another matter though. By placing masses in strategic positions should alter the sound signature of the driver. That should be able to suppress some resonance modes of the cone but with such tiny dots, I am not sure how much that can be improved. Cone slicing may work better in resonance suppression though.
Just my 2 cents.
Sreten, you've been warned previously about personal attacks. Taking action is work for me. I hate work. Don't make me cranky.- Status
- Not open for further replies.