It's not a stretch to think of the stance taken as closed minded. You imply that science won't let it work and because it can't be explained (sufficient to you) that it also doesn't work........
How is having to hear something for myself before I make a choice nonsense?
I'd say that's a bit smarter than your approach which is......you can't tell me how it works so it doesn't. You say my mind is closed but I stated more than once I was open to it working or not but I wasn't going to rely on what people say good or bad about it or what science would suggest (because that's all science really is).....I want to listen for myself......what's the harm in that?
You sure do a lot of whining about being called out but then turn and call out others.
(my bolding, of course)
You talk of science as if it were some sentient thing, doling out information to us lowly humans.
I was on another forum where someone stated that (I forget the exact prices, but this is an example) he had found $30 speaker cables to sound better than $100 speaker cables. He claimed a scientific career and I have no reason to doubt it, but when I asked him if he had measured the resistance, capacitance and inductance of the cables, it was clear he had no electrical knowledge, nor any equipment to measure any of these parameters.
So yes, he may be a scientist in a reductionistic sense of carrying out an experiment to compare two things, documenting all the equipment used spelling out the results and coming to some conclusion, but he treats these things as black boxes ("black box A sounds different from black box B, and IMHO black box A sounds better"), but he doesn't think of digging deeper, trying to learn WHY there might be a difference This is basic DC and AC electronics, and there are many sites that teach it online for free. I see this attitude of using science at only a surface level very often in hifi audio. I've seen it for many decades.
As far as science "lying" the rotation of Mercury is a good example. The initial belief was that it was, like Earth's moon orbiting the Earth, tidally locked to its orbit around the Sun, but this was later found to be false:
Mercury (planet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think it's a great story. Science doesn't lie, but data is often inadequate and/or misinterpreted. In DSP terms, the early photographs of Mercury's surface were undersampled (too few and too far in between), and the true rotation rate was aliased down to a lower one.
I also like things to have as much technical rigor as practical, but in general, the
burdon of proof is on the positive.
There are many online skeptics who debunk things such as homeopathy, but only because so many people in the general public believe in things that have no basis in fact, partly because of limited or no knowledge of basic science.
This enAble thing is intriguing because there "could be something to it" - certainly adding small masses to a cone can change how it breaks up at higher frequencies, possibly improving sound - but the huge threads on it (and I certainly haven't read every post) don't seem to have anything in the way of what I might call "deep explanation." The reports of the blind test seem to indicate it does something different, but there seems to be no overall conclusion as to whether it's better or worse.
Cool it. No further warnings.At the risk of rinse and repeat of this thread and the giant technical thread on EnABL, may I attempt to summarize the core thing we are debating? OP and moderators, this is not an attempt to moderate this thread in any way 
if it comes across as such, my apologies in advance.
1. EnABL process - does it have any effect/change for the listener? Yes, many people who have listened to EnABLed drivers say of smoother, less harsher sound from same driver. But others have said that it makes drivers sound dull. So there is a change (most people say it is subtle), but not perceived as an improvement to everybody universally.
2. EnABL process - does the patterns have any merit? Or the treatment is contributing to most of the change (for good or bad)? Some opine that the cone treatment itself is a major contributor. Do the EnABL skeptics (with their reservations) allow the bumps to be also viewed as a form of mass loading which have an effect on cone breaking up behavior?
3. EnABL process - do the design/shape/size of patterns have any science behind them? Or random patterns would do just as well? According to Markaudio, random patterns and location of bumps would be detrimental, so an arrangement like EnABL does have some merit. However if that is true, other patterns and techniques of adding mass might work also - has anybody tried alternative patterns/arrangements?
4. Main issues with EnABL for skeptics are:
a. Claimed benefits/effect of EnABL are too bold vs actual effect - this is a point of concern for the "neutrals" too.
b. The process and pattern are not actually very scientific in nature; hence the application will not have predictable or beneficial results as claimed by EnABL proponents.
5. Stance of EnABL fans:
a. EnABL has a very tangible effect - improved clarity, less cone break up and harshness, more musical, more 3D sound and sound stage
b. Always beneficial if done right
c. EnABL process is scientific in nature and the correct execution will definitely bring sonic benefits
if it comes across as such, my apologies in advance.1. EnABL process - does it have any effect/change for the listener? Yes, many people who have listened to EnABLed drivers say of smoother, less harsher sound from same driver. But others have said that it makes drivers sound dull. So there is a change (most people say it is subtle), but not perceived as an improvement to everybody universally.
2. EnABL process - does the patterns have any merit? Or the treatment is contributing to most of the change (for good or bad)? Some opine that the cone treatment itself is a major contributor. Do the EnABL skeptics (with their reservations) allow the bumps to be also viewed as a form of mass loading which have an effect on cone breaking up behavior?
3. EnABL process - do the design/shape/size of patterns have any science behind them? Or random patterns would do just as well? According to Markaudio, random patterns and location of bumps would be detrimental, so an arrangement like EnABL does have some merit. However if that is true, other patterns and techniques of adding mass might work also - has anybody tried alternative patterns/arrangements?
4. Main issues with EnABL for skeptics are:
a. Claimed benefits/effect of EnABL are too bold vs actual effect - this is a point of concern for the "neutrals" too.
b. The process and pattern are not actually very scientific in nature; hence the application will not have predictable or beneficial results as claimed by EnABL proponents.
5. Stance of EnABL fans:
a. EnABL has a very tangible effect - improved clarity, less cone break up and harshness, more musical, more 3D sound and sound stage
b. Always beneficial if done right
c. EnABL process is scientific in nature and the correct execution will definitely bring sonic benefits
With the purpose of enabling the EnAbLers to develop a theory for their process, why don't some of them select a driver or drivers that benefit optimally from the full EnAbLe treatment as well as portions of it (dots, coatings), and measure the differences (presumably mostly improvements from each), so they can start adding a little rigor to their recommendations?
Last edited:
>>> Could you please explain what we are seeing....other than "science"
Maybe it would be better to say these are 'measurements' of a driver that's been enabled vs stock. Adding the dots changed the frequency response slightly. It seems to reduce some of the high frequencies. If the driver being enabled benefits from this than it's a good tweak. Some do and some don't. I've used dammar on paper drivers and heard similar results that i preferred over the stock driver. I've cut out dusctaps and added phase plugs... added polyfill around a whizzer... all simply tweaks that worked for some drivers and not for others. We could be having the same discussion over the sonic benefits of dammar... or removed dustcaps, etc.
>>> Looks like a nice place to hike wherever it is!!
Agreed!
>>> the enabling process causes merely difference, rather than improvement...
Agreed! But the difference can be considered an improvement... or not.
Consider it a tweak that makes a difference some will appreciate and others won't.
Peace.
Maybe it would be better to say these are 'measurements' of a driver that's been enabled vs stock. Adding the dots changed the frequency response slightly. It seems to reduce some of the high frequencies. If the driver being enabled benefits from this than it's a good tweak. Some do and some don't. I've used dammar on paper drivers and heard similar results that i preferred over the stock driver. I've cut out dusctaps and added phase plugs... added polyfill around a whizzer... all simply tweaks that worked for some drivers and not for others. We could be having the same discussion over the sonic benefits of dammar... or removed dustcaps, etc.
>>> Looks like a nice place to hike wherever it is!!
Agreed!
>>> the enabling process causes merely difference, rather than improvement...
Agreed! But the difference can be considered an improvement... or not.
Consider it a tweak that makes a difference some will appreciate and others won't.
Peace.
Last edited:
Well, of course that depends on the driver and the quality of the treatment, but so far this is the only data we've got here...
From the waterfall graph, I don't see much improvement after the treatment.
Note the caption: 'full treatment'
I think that this includes painting the full cone as well as the 'dots' application?
IMO, the two 'treatments' need to be separated. As I understand it, the theme of this thread is debunking (or not) the importance of the dot pattern.
I can't imagine much controversy about the idea that painting a speaker cone will change its response. 'Doping' speaker cones has been done for years, with well-accepted results (visit the guitar amp speaker world, or order your choice of cone doping from WeberVST...).
sreten - I've read through the patent and can't find this claim. Patent #5304746 right? Maybe I missed it. I see where it claims to substantially reduce standing waves but nothing about fixing all diffraction issues.
That graph comes from Sooongsc (spelling?). If you read what he actually did to come to that results, there is more to it that a single graph. He strongly expressed the requirement to rigerously test every driver type to find the pattern. If you take a look at his current work, it barely resembles EnABL. He's using strips of weight (aluminum maybe, can't remember). He went through many interations of no change. It's unknown to me if the current practice tests every driver the way Sooonsc did.
Just wanted to add context to the link.
Just wanted to add context to the link.
I find there to be substantially more generosity than advertising IMO and I very much appreciate it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.