I hope us moronic believers are aloud. (sic)
Thank you tade. As always these threads need a little lightening (sic) from time to time.
Come now, I'm still laughing at that one.
I have listened to fully treated FE126eN vs stock FE126e. There is definitely an audible difference but as others have mentioned, i think it has more to do with adding weight to the cone than any sonic superiority. The treatment removed the shrill and put the stage further away. it was like sitting in the middle of a jazz club instead of sitting at the front row. If your ears would be irritated by a trumpet blasting in your face, the enabled drivers might allow you to enjoy the music for longer periods at higher volumes. For a driver like the FE126 which is already wanting in the bass dept, I think it helps tremendously. However, other drivers i don't think would benefit from the same...and I really can't see how dabs of paint on a 3/4" plywood baffle would do anything.
I think the test I would like to see (if I had the money to blow on two sets of speakers) would be to place a properly enabled pair of speakers up against a pair with the same amount of paint, but randomly strewn about the cone. Would they sound the same?
I think the test I would like to see (if I had the money to blow on two sets of speakers) would be to place a properly enabled pair of speakers up against a pair with the same amount of paint, but randomly strewn about the cone. Would they sound the same?
Notch filters, resistors, port length, placement, new cabinets and so on........there is plenty to mess with when dealing or trying to improve on a fullrange setup.......no different than any other aspect of audio.
>>> If your ears would be irritated by a trumpet blasting in your face, the enabled drivers might allow you to enjoy the music for longer periods...
A light coating of dammar helped in this respect with the 1197. I think it comes down to whether or not a driver benefits from coating it with whatever process benefits the listener.
Different cabinet tuning changes the sound of course but not in the same way coating a driver does. Personally, i feel that not every driver benefits from coating it (or enabling it) but there are some that do. If someone has enabled their drivers and has heard a positive contribution to the sound then if they also choose to enable their cabinets (or even tatoo the pattern around the rim of their ears) then they are welcome to do it.
I've heard enabled drivers and compared them to stock drivers. They both sounded good to me. I see no harm in the process.
A light coating of dammar helped in this respect with the 1197. I think it comes down to whether or not a driver benefits from coating it with whatever process benefits the listener.
Different cabinet tuning changes the sound of course but not in the same way coating a driver does. Personally, i feel that not every driver benefits from coating it (or enabling it) but there are some that do. If someone has enabled their drivers and has heard a positive contribution to the sound then if they also choose to enable their cabinets (or even tatoo the pattern around the rim of their ears) then they are welcome to do it.
I've heard enabled drivers and compared them to stock drivers. They both sounded good to me. I see no harm in the process.
I've got a pair of chr -70 enabled and a stock pair and I don't hear a lot of difference but a lesson I learned long ago is that the better your system is the easier it is to hear subtle differences. My system leaves a lot to be desired right now. Could some of the opinions be a product of this?
I'm skeptical of skeptics who haven't listened to a treated driver so I think it's o.k. to post.
I'm skeptical of skeptics who haven't listened to a treated driver so I think it's o.k. to post.
Hi,
Trying to put words into other peoples mouths to make them seem
unreasonable generally means you cannot handle the argument.
I know what I meant and said. EnABL is fiddling around without
any real idea of what you are doing. That is not IMO serious.
I don't take it seriously*, anyone sensible shouldn't, and my original
comments reflect that, unless you also want to take them seriously.
L.B.'s quote below is entirely apposite. There is no theory.
rgds, sreten.
All of this stuff has been said before, and it being pointlessly revisited.
*I did enough originally to work out what it is and isn't, but forget both.
Last edited:
Interesting thread,but it would seem there is rather a lot of taking oneself too seriously on both sides.
I have both enabled and non enabled fostex 126 and the enabled are unanimously preferred by all who have listened to them.This has been a real mix of hifi enthusiasts, musicians,and lay people of all ages.This may well be down to the driver or the cabinet they are in (Mikasa) it really is irrelevent.
I cannot explain scientifically why this is so but I do not really care.After forty years in Medicine and a confirmed scientific background I have seen far too many things happen that cannot be explained scientifically.Remember science has lied to us on numerous occasions.
Live and let live guys and if it works for you then it is right.
I have both enabled and non enabled fostex 126 and the enabled are unanimously preferred by all who have listened to them.This has been a real mix of hifi enthusiasts, musicians,and lay people of all ages.This may well be down to the driver or the cabinet they are in (Mikasa) it really is irrelevent.
I cannot explain scientifically why this is so but I do not really care.After forty years in Medicine and a confirmed scientific background I have seen far too many things happen that cannot be explained scientifically.Remember science has lied to us on numerous occasions.
Live and let live guys and if it works for you then it is right.
I stand by my statement.
When you say:
When you say:
It can't get much clearer than that. Did you mean to say something else?
Hi Tade,
So you're moderating this thread and demanding only skeptics need comment? There's at least 2 moderators challenging your opinions on this thread so remember this is an open part of the forum.
To date, I've designed 32 driver models and nearing my 100,000th driver build. I've spent countless hours in anechoic chambers testing drivers. Members will work out which of us has the most experience and knowledge on issues relating to testing and on properties of cones and their emittance.
For the record, I'm not disagreeing with you or other skeptics. Being an Mech. Eng. I err on the side of skeptical when reading about performance claims for more "exotic" audio stuff. Most every claim (cables is the other classic thread), there's little (or no) authoritative research that demonstrates their effective outcomes. On the other hand, additional coatings on cones can have an effect on a their emittance and for some people, these effects are sufficiently audible to give what they perceive as a beneficial difference.
Proving these benefits technically is problematic as the relationship between actual measurable technical differences in emittance, and how humans perceive these outcomes remains difficult to determine. I'm on record recommending that businesses who produce additional processes applied to cones try to run independently managed blind trials to further evaluate outcomes.
Cheers
Mark.
Last edited:
Since this issue has been highlighted in the previous post perhaps I need to remind people that anyone regardless of outlook is welcome to participate here as long as discussion remains civil and respectful. And only moderators have the power to moderate this thread..Hi,
Well that depends on what you mean by serious.
Serious in my book means academically valid.
It isn't, never has been, and never will be.
I'm not, and no-one is, saying it might not improve a driver.
What I'm saying is the theory and some claims are deluded drivel.
It is moronic to ascribe to nonsense theory and ludicrous claims.
People who do don't know any theory and can't prove anything,
or don't want to or don't need to, seem the most suggestible.
EnABL is utterly over-hyped, what it isn't dominates what it is.
Which is worth trying, but its far more mundane than advertised.
rgds, sreten.
Debunking is tedious, unfortunately making up stuff
is a lot easier than actually proving it really exists.
Last edited:
Can you describe the test conditions?
Have the test and the results been published?
Sorry to tack this on to the 2nd page- I didn't realize the length of the thread.
Last edited:
Tade, Sreten.
Words have power and we must always be mindful of the possible consequences of the things that we say. I am skeptical, at least enough to put off getting them EnAbled from the beginning. I will however, get the treatment done and listen in an A->B test before trashing the process. Science has always been catching up with reality. Just read your history books. I listen to those who have the courage to reach out into the unknown and try to explain what they find. Sometimes they can explain it, sometimes they can't. Sometimes they are ahead of the science. Things that are academically valid change every day
Hi,
Fair enough. But if they are better :
Have they been modified optimally ?
Could you get a far better improvement ?
What is the rational behind the mod ?
This is where you will come severely unstuck.
As the mods are purely conjectural drivel that makes no sense.
You might as well use a pattern derived from any conjecture
you care to make, as the patterns have no whatsoever any
technical basis in reality. Random dots of random size of
random density within sensible limits are just as likely
to work as well as the EnABL "improvement".
The above may or may not be true but EnABL fans don't care.
Not being random makes it appear to be more deterministic.
What is true is the "theory" behind EnABL is complete nonsense.
It is certainly true that in terms of modding drivers its smoke
and mirrors, but looks pretty, but is pseudotechnical nonsense,
that doesn't mean it can't make changes for the better, but
like most BS you simply are guessing and cannot optimise.
(EnABL has its Guru's who allege optimum patterns, its BS.)
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
Hi Sreten
Some of your comments are interesting and useful (although at times, overly intense), others aren't correct and could mis-lead the less experienced members.
Please guys, don't follow Sreten's assertion on randomised dots. Please Don't see his comment as a "green light" to plaster dots anywhere you choose. On Full-Range low mass high sensitivity cones, such practice will likely risk creating un-controlled wave breakup across the cone. There's no way to predict the effectiveness of such treatment. It will be near impossible to accurately repeat the same size and positional application of dots from one driver to the next. You risk creating an a increased output miss-match between driver pairs.
By all means experiment but I'd recommend doing so on drivers you can afford to bin if the outcome isn't to your liking.
Thanks
Mark.
Last edited:
ahh, please, no
that could be badly misunderstood
just humble 'ordinary' members
without the mod hat on, I could be wrong and right, just like anyone else
- Status
- Not open for further replies.