Hi,
As a new one on me care to quote your source.
10% is a ridiculous number for something I've
never heard of (ex telephony / speech quality).
And suggest what you think they might hear.
Don't tell me two separate mono sources,
as that is utterly ridiculous, as localisation
i.e. stereo is required to hear two sources.
Don't tell me mono either, as that requires
the brain to be stupidly wired, not learn.
Pardon the pun, but I'm all ears for the reply.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
I have been a little busy building amps lately but plan to get back to speaker testing soon.
I have a set of enabled FF85WK's from Planet10 and I have a pair of pristine ones for the control. Should be interesting.
This time I will give the driver a nice class A or class AB amp (I have built about 6 discrete transistor stage amps). Probably still using Dagger enclosure inside FAST box with RS225 for bass. Still will be using miniDSP.
I have a set of enabled FF85WK's from Planet10 and I have a pair of pristine ones for the control. Should be interesting.
This time I will give the driver a nice class A or class AB amp (I have built about 6 discrete transistor stage amps). Probably still using Dagger enclosure inside FAST box with RS225 for bass. Still will be using miniDSP.
Last edited:
Hi,
Inevitably measurements won't show up anything conclusive.
The EnABL effect is minor. So you will be left with subjective.
rgds, sreten.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
You mean among stock drivers before the break-in / mods? Almost certainly to a small degree, but that depends very much on the particular maker's QC & consistency - and could require larger sample groups than most folks might want to invest in to accumulate a benchmark of averages and variances
Hi,
Reality perhaps. But according to the chalk and cheese
proponents of EnABL, it really shouldn't come into it.
rgds, sreten.
How?
xrk's have to date suffered from an awful lot of things convolved with what you are trying to sample. One of the 1st things to get lost will be the low-level detail that is the big distinguishing factor with EnABL. You have to be there in person.
The measures will be interesting.
dave
It could be.
I do measure T/S. The last batch of 20 had a maximum unit-to-unit variation of +/- 12% (my metric).
With the 2 pair of uFonkenPlus i have here with treated & untreated drivers i matched pairs and ensured that the 4 drivers were all the same sensitivity.
dave
I do enjoy your comparison tests so far, but this one will be flawed, unfortunately. You are going to compare two different sets of drivers, so you can't find if the difference is coming from a normal production variation, or a real difference due to the "enabling".
The correct procedure should be: get one pair pristine, "brake-in" (for about 200 hours!?), measure it, than send to Planet10 to be "enabled" and than measure it again. IMHO too much trouble to find that the same difference (if any) can be achieved with painting random dots - to the contrary of the "scientific" procedure of "enableing".
Not sure what I will find but I think FF85WK's are pretty standard fare in that variations are minimal from standpoint of the cone surface. Effects of TS parameters won't be so important as a sealed FAST setup. It's the cone material and how it is attached to the spider and surround and how the dust cap is attached that are important. I am not going to even break it in - or do you all feel that 200hrs playing music is important?
Last edited:
I don't mean to be off topic but I wanted to let Dave know his effort on the 12lta is appreciated.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...asured-improvements-ff85wk-2.html#post4725141
I like like this driver because it recreates a larger sense of scale than the smaller full rangers I've tried. Stock it has a cupped sound. Removing the dustcap reduces this (not completely) and adding the phase plug smooths out the frequency response making it neutral enough. I prefer it on open baffle (also had it in a sealed box). In both cases they sat on top of H-frames. They need helper tweeters but I felt the little Radio Shack pod a bit too 'small' sounding. The 12lta is big and beautiful IMO. On open baffle and with the support it needs on top and bottom it might just be my favorite speaker.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...asured-improvements-ff85wk-2.html#post4725141
I like like this driver because it recreates a larger sense of scale than the smaller full rangers I've tried. Stock it has a cupped sound. Removing the dustcap reduces this (not completely) and adding the phase plug smooths out the frequency response making it neutral enough. I prefer it on open baffle (also had it in a sealed box). In both cases they sat on top of H-frames. They need helper tweeters but I felt the little Radio Shack pod a bit too 'small' sounding. The 12lta is big and beautiful IMO. On open baffle and with the support it needs on top and bottom it might just be my favorite speaker.
These are the REAL improvements (measurable AND subjective!) supported by the science and hands-on experience, not the EnABL pseudoscience!
I support tweaking and have coated cones (piezo tweeters and small full range drivers) both good effect and bad. When it's good, these drivers became less excitable. They became calmer and less fatiguing. When it's bad the drivers simply became dull sounding.
Many audiophiles will pay a lot for small improvements. If someone feels a tweak is worth it than it's worth it.
Many audiophiles will pay a lot for small improvements. If someone feels a tweak is worth it than it's worth it.
Well the only way to tell will be measure, record and blind test listen to a pair of each in identical enclosures (or IEC test baffles) http://www.rjbaudio.com/Audiofiles/IEC baffle.jpg
I would be curious to see some CSD tests on the same driver with the following different levels of modification:
1) raw driver
2) coated driver - no dots
3) dots only - no coating
4) coated driver with the dots
IMO any listening tests over the internet are going to be fairly useless except as a general indication of frequency response.
1) raw driver
2) coated driver - no dots
3) dots only - no coating
4) coated driver with the dots
IMO any listening tests over the internet are going to be fairly useless except as a general indication of frequency response.
The files are sent via Internet but the listening is truly local using your favorite headphones/speakers and the source/amp that goes with them. I may try to post high res lossless FLAC files at 96kHz and 24bits this time. Might be better for preserving the detail. I can also put some sound absorption foam screen behind the mic like they do with a portable recording setup for voice. I think Byrtt previously offered to host the files on his server - but will have to check. Otherwise it's 320kbps MP3 files.
Sound will be from FLAC or WAV source to UCA202 DAC, then to my Circlophone with JFET input class A amp. These are mono blocks with about 50w into 8ohm capability. I will skip the miniDSP this time by using the old left/right as LF/HF 2 channel DSP XO in mono from software. Remove the miniDSP from the signal chain as so many people think it detracts the sound.
Sound will be from FLAC or WAV source to UCA202 DAC, then to my Circlophone with JFET input class A amp. These are mono blocks with about 50w into 8ohm capability. I will skip the miniDSP this time by using the old left/right as LF/HF 2 channel DSP XO in mono from software. Remove the miniDSP from the signal chain as so many people think it detracts the sound.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.