BudP said:
I am in the states now - until Thursday. No I am not going to RMAF.
What exactly is EnABL?
Remember that its easy to make something that sounds "different"- the task is to make something that is more accurate - has fewer audible aberations. The audio community are far too quick to attach positive attributes to "different".
Hi Earl,
In short, it is the application of a diffraction grating pattern, in a circumferential manner, at the inner and outer boundaries of an emitter surface or adjacent surfaces. Works by terminating the planar boundary layer and forcing the energy transform, from transverse to compression wave, up off of the planar boundary. This is a very low mass process and causes the surfaces controlled, to become a near perfect, single pass transmission line emitter, rather than an imperfect piston emitter. Based upon Lincoln Walsh explorations and was originally developed for the Ohm F drivers.
There are some interesting test results on the thread, but most pistonic based information retrieval shows only that the treated driver is a worse piston based emitter. This without showing much reason for the rather noticeable reduction in noise, time/phase smear, an increase in dynamic head room and the sudden increase in information content comprehension.
Bud
In short, it is the application of a diffraction grating pattern, in a circumferential manner, at the inner and outer boundaries of an emitter surface or adjacent surfaces. Works by terminating the planar boundary layer and forcing the energy transform, from transverse to compression wave, up off of the planar boundary. This is a very low mass process and causes the surfaces controlled, to become a near perfect, single pass transmission line emitter, rather than an imperfect piston emitter. Based upon Lincoln Walsh explorations and was originally developed for the Ohm F drivers.
There are some interesting test results on the thread, but most pistonic based information retrieval shows only that the treated driver is a worse piston based emitter. This without showing much reason for the rather noticeable reduction in noise, time/phase smear, an increase in dynamic head room and the sudden increase in information content comprehension.
Bud
Bud
Thanks, but your links lacked the scientific rigor that I would look for in support of your claims.
Pistons are not a bad thing. I find in most drivers that it is the rim resonance that is the worst problem, but I don't see EnABLE as being an asset to this problem. In fact I would anticipate it being worse because of the added mass at the cones edge.
Without some very strong scientific data, I think I'll stick with the solutions that I have developed as I know for a fact that they work.
Good luck with your endevours.
Thanks, but your links lacked the scientific rigor that I would look for in support of your claims.
Pistons are not a bad thing. I find in most drivers that it is the rim resonance that is the worst problem, but I don't see EnABLE as being an asset to this problem. In fact I would anticipate it being worse because of the added mass at the cones edge.
Without some very strong scientific data, I think I'll stick with the solutions that I have developed as I know for a fact that they work.
Good luck with your endevours.
Earl,
Thanks for looking and wishing me well.
It really is so unusual an idea and result, that a personal experience is almost required, first. Then, interest in developing methods to test for exactly what is happening, in a scientific manner, can be developed.
Likely long after my passing.
Bud
Thanks for looking and wishing me well.
It really is so unusual an idea and result, that a personal experience is almost required, first. Then, interest in developing methods to test for exactly what is happening, in a scientific manner, can be developed.
Likely long after my passing.
Bud
Yes, I'll be at the RMAF
Don't have much of an excuse not to go - but I'll may keep my show-going hours short ths time around. My ability to walk long distances is limited, I get physically tired fairly quickly, and I need to sit down and elevate my left leg every half-hour or so. I have still have the Disabled parking tag for my car, so the walk in the parking lot won't be so difficult. At the rate I'm improving, it'll probably be a month or two or three until I can carry heavy loads, ride a bicycle, run, or walk long distances - back to normal, in other words. This winter I'll pay somebody else to clear the snow off the sidewalks, that's for sure. I don't trust that white stuff no mo'
One thing I will definitely attend at the RMAF is the Friday evening EnABL'ed vs non-EnABLed listening session in the Lowther USA room. The Bastanis folks will be at the show with the Apollo loudspeaker, and using Ongaku amplification - plan to visit them as well. Curious to see if Fertin and/or PHY makes an appearance with any of the exhibitors.
Been thinking about simple things like the cone mass and BL products of the various 12" candidates. The cone-mass spec (Mms) is almost entirely the weight of the cone, with only a few grams for the surround, spider, and VC former+coil. (By convention only half the mass of the surround and spider is counted, and the VC assembly is intentionally kept as light as possible.)
BL product is nothing more than B, the magnetic force in the gap, multiplied by L, the length of copper or aluminum wire in the gap. Thus the units, Tesla*meters. This represents the electro-motive force available to accelerate the mass of the moving system. So the BL product vs cone mass is directly comparable to the power-to-weight ratio of a car or an airplane - a basic specification that tells you, to a first approximation, the dynamic performance of the system.
The reference efficiency (1W/1 meter SPL into a half-space) isn't the measured pink-noise SPL in the midband, it's the calculated piston-band (flat-response region) efficiency that comes out of the Theile/Small equations. As a result, it isn't biased by the mid/high directivity gain or HF resonances, and can be calculated to a three-digit accuracy.
Here's an assortment of diverse 12" drivers:
Tone Tubby, Alnico magnet, 8 ohms
Mms = 20.7 grams BL = 10.7 Tesla/m Eff = 97.3 dB
Tone Tubby, Ceramic magnet, 8 ohms
Mms = 26.0 grams BL = 12.6 Tesla/m Eff = 97.3 dB
18Sound 12NDA520 Midbass (8 ohms)
Mms = 36.0 grams BL = 14.4 Tesla/m Eff = 98.9 dB
18Sound 12ND710 Midbass (8 ohms)
Mms = 40.0 grams BL = 18.0 Tesla/m Eff = 100 dB
18Sound 12NLW9300 Subwoofer (8 ohms)
Mms = 72.0 grams BL = 18.0 Tesla/m Eff = 95.4 dB
Madisound/NHT 1259 Subwoofer, 8 ohms
Mms = 90.1 grams BL = 11.14 Tesla/m Eff = 86.0 dB
It's a safe bet to say the 12" Alnico TT has a very light cone, light enough that controlled breakup is probably part of the design. Conversely, the cones of the 12" subwoofers are heavy enough that the added mass isn't so much about added strength, but to get the Thiele/Small alignment down to low frequencies.
Don't have much of an excuse not to go - but I'll may keep my show-going hours short ths time around. My ability to walk long distances is limited, I get physically tired fairly quickly, and I need to sit down and elevate my left leg every half-hour or so. I have still have the Disabled parking tag for my car, so the walk in the parking lot won't be so difficult. At the rate I'm improving, it'll probably be a month or two or three until I can carry heavy loads, ride a bicycle, run, or walk long distances - back to normal, in other words. This winter I'll pay somebody else to clear the snow off the sidewalks, that's for sure. I don't trust that white stuff no mo'
One thing I will definitely attend at the RMAF is the Friday evening EnABL'ed vs non-EnABLed listening session in the Lowther USA room. The Bastanis folks will be at the show with the Apollo loudspeaker, and using Ongaku amplification - plan to visit them as well. Curious to see if Fertin and/or PHY makes an appearance with any of the exhibitors.
Been thinking about simple things like the cone mass and BL products of the various 12" candidates. The cone-mass spec (Mms) is almost entirely the weight of the cone, with only a few grams for the surround, spider, and VC former+coil. (By convention only half the mass of the surround and spider is counted, and the VC assembly is intentionally kept as light as possible.)
BL product is nothing more than B, the magnetic force in the gap, multiplied by L, the length of copper or aluminum wire in the gap. Thus the units, Tesla*meters. This represents the electro-motive force available to accelerate the mass of the moving system. So the BL product vs cone mass is directly comparable to the power-to-weight ratio of a car or an airplane - a basic specification that tells you, to a first approximation, the dynamic performance of the system.
The reference efficiency (1W/1 meter SPL into a half-space) isn't the measured pink-noise SPL in the midband, it's the calculated piston-band (flat-response region) efficiency that comes out of the Theile/Small equations. As a result, it isn't biased by the mid/high directivity gain or HF resonances, and can be calculated to a three-digit accuracy.
Here's an assortment of diverse 12" drivers:
Tone Tubby, Alnico magnet, 8 ohms
Mms = 20.7 grams BL = 10.7 Tesla/m Eff = 97.3 dB
Tone Tubby, Ceramic magnet, 8 ohms
Mms = 26.0 grams BL = 12.6 Tesla/m Eff = 97.3 dB
18Sound 12NDA520 Midbass (8 ohms)
Mms = 36.0 grams BL = 14.4 Tesla/m Eff = 98.9 dB
18Sound 12ND710 Midbass (8 ohms)
Mms = 40.0 grams BL = 18.0 Tesla/m Eff = 100 dB
18Sound 12NLW9300 Subwoofer (8 ohms)
Mms = 72.0 grams BL = 18.0 Tesla/m Eff = 95.4 dB
Madisound/NHT 1259 Subwoofer, 8 ohms
Mms = 90.1 grams BL = 11.14 Tesla/m Eff = 86.0 dB
It's a safe bet to say the 12" Alnico TT has a very light cone, light enough that controlled breakup is probably part of the design. Conversely, the cones of the 12" subwoofers are heavy enough that the added mass isn't so much about added strength, but to get the Thiele/Small alignment down to low frequencies.
Maybe you should have a look at room 9014, too:
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=36511.new;topicseen#new
(TurboFC3S post at 18:58)
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=36511.new;topicseen#new
(TurboFC3S post at 18:58)
It's supposed to be very effective on paper cones. Works pretty much the same way sea-side wave breakers do. Although these don't really add much mass (much less than what I had experimented with when just studying mass distribution effects on cones which was less than 0.3g on 3" drivers), the stiffness variation is the main part that works like wave breakers.gedlee said:
But I do think that more testing on specific drivers with data certainly can be evidence that research is done with better understanding of the functionality of the pattern. Bud is really giving the others a chance to understand for themselves rather than he trying to use data to convince people.
Another member Mark also seem very knowledgable in similar techniques, and have data to show how the results can differ.
gedlee said:
Just like the amplifier tests you have recently been showing us, what needs to be measured is at the floor of the signal... it won't show up in a FR plot and it is buried at the bottom of the CSD,
I speculate that some sort of pulsed laser interferometry might well be able to detect it.
dave
Hi Earl,
That is just the problem. No one seems to know why the ordinary test suites, using reasonably rigorous methods do not show much, if any, change from untreated to treated drivers. Please look at the following posts in the EnABL thread for what has been found
These first two show a lifting of high frequency phase to beyond nominal from lagging, without alteration of frequency response.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1227789#post1227789
Post #255
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1231568#post1231568
Post
This post shows the destruction of systemic ringing by specific placement of a single set of rings.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1231856#post1231856
Post #289
These are from Jon Ver Halen of Lowther America. They are a mirror of all of the tests I have run. The drivers will show some CSD differences but all other tests, including THD and components, show equal or worse performance after treatment.
ttp://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1275431#post1275431
Post #415
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1275581#post1275581
Post #421
Jon asks the same question you have in this final posting.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1275590#post1275590
Post #426
The very reason I bothered you about this was because you have so much rigorous testing in your history and you back it up with listening tests. I hoped you might have some idea of where else to look.
Can I invite you to join us on the EnABL thread, though Lynn does not seem to mind off topic comment.
Bud
That is just the problem. No one seems to know why the ordinary test suites, using reasonably rigorous methods do not show much, if any, change from untreated to treated drivers. Please look at the following posts in the EnABL thread for what has been found
These first two show a lifting of high frequency phase to beyond nominal from lagging, without alteration of frequency response.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1227789#post1227789
Post #255
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1231568#post1231568
Post
This post shows the destruction of systemic ringing by specific placement of a single set of rings.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1231856#post1231856
Post #289
These are from Jon Ver Halen of Lowther America. They are a mirror of all of the tests I have run. The drivers will show some CSD differences but all other tests, including THD and components, show equal or worse performance after treatment.
ttp://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1275431#post1275431
Post #415
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1275581#post1275581
Post #421
Jon asks the same question you have in this final posting.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1275590#post1275590
Post #426
The very reason I bothered you about this was because you have so much rigorous testing in your history and you back it up with listening tests. I hoped you might have some idea of where else to look.
Can I invite you to join us on the EnABL thread, though Lynn does not seem to mind off topic comment.
Bud
gedlee said:
The impulse response will change, and the Cumulative Spectral Decay in the first 0.4ms will change. I judge cleaness of sound by the decay drop in the first 0.02ms or so and from that to the 0.4ms point.pedroskova said:
The CLIO software for some reason does not have the capability to give good resolution in this time frame.
I've seen distortion tests from other members, but none from gedlee, can you point me to where it's shown?planet10 said:
Normally the EnABL treatement has more effect in the higher frequencies which could be close to or beyond the frequency limit of laser based measurement. I once tried to look for laser that might be able to allow measurement of driver motor only response, but could not find one of adequate resolution and bandwidth.
I'm sure if you use SoundEasy with a good sound card, you should be able to see differences.planet10 said:
Just a few days ago, I just asked one driver designer to search for the EnABL thread, and he came back with good understanding with what that kind of process is supposed to do without any explanation from me. He is also a PhD.
I referred him to the subject because I was trying to persuade him to look into those aspects two years ago, and he did not have the time. Now he has instructed me how to open up his drivers to do some tweaks "carefully".
