G'day chuck55,
I apologise if my post came across as 'busting' on you - not my intention at all.
Regarding your comment: "I think I used too much Mod-Podge as the sound got overly dead". Getting the right amount of Modge Podge onto the cone takes practice.
Your EnABL pattern on the TB is fine.
Tap Tests
My comment regarding "time, practice and patience" was specifically related to the tap test and hearing the nulls as you move across the cone.
Each pattern ring is always the same 18 block pairs that Bud describes.
For my FE167E's I used the tap test to locate the nulls and placed the patterns at those locations.
Have a read here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ing-impressions-techniques-2.html#post1493051
And this one from Bud himself...
Cheers,
Alex
whilst i dont agree, or disagree
I hate to fly in the face of popular opinion but:
1: there is no empirical evidence that this works
2: saying that there is also no evidence that it DOESN'T work
3: It is not universally applicable:
4: it MAY help improve omni-direction-ality of some drivers, but i dont think a large amount should be expected..just go for a smaller cone diameter instead?
5: the cone dia vs 'beaming' debate is old and well documented. no amount of dots and paint will circumvent this. maybe the pattern will effectively do this but, probably via diffraction or other phenomena, which in MY book at least cannot in anyway be construed as a good thing.
6: damping specific area of cone CAN be a very good thing, however i suspect this could be done with judicious doping in certain areas only.
7: again the pattern MAY break up transverse waves in the cone material, but then so would a repeated chevron pattern , as used in some drivers already.
this is not a slight on these techniques, but scientifically, it CANNOT be benefitial to all drivers, and most likely only to those FR drivers which as part of the comprimised nature of their design; have to be tamed in order to sound clean and not fatigueing.
As any DIY mod (doping cones and enable), it cannot improve ALL drivers...some yes, and undoubtedly poor drivers will be 'smoothed' as a result. I seriously doubt the 'OLD'er type of 'ridged' paper cones would see much benefit, and less so elliptical drivers: as there cone wavelength resonances SHOULD be broader and better behaved than others.
This is not in any way a slight on the technique, but i do not see it as a viable option to me; its a little like the OFC of the driver mod world.
It may make a difference, but then it may just be pyschosematic-personally at this stage I think its a little criminal charging for it! i mean after all there are a million patents that were nonsense and have made money, just as there are those that were genius and never got off the drawing board.
just my £0.02
I hate to fly in the face of popular opinion but:
1: there is no empirical evidence that this works
2: saying that there is also no evidence that it DOESN'T work
3: It is not universally applicable:
4: it MAY help improve omni-direction-ality of some drivers, but i dont think a large amount should be expected..just go for a smaller cone diameter instead?
5: the cone dia vs 'beaming' debate is old and well documented. no amount of dots and paint will circumvent this. maybe the pattern will effectively do this but, probably via diffraction or other phenomena, which in MY book at least cannot in anyway be construed as a good thing.
6: damping specific area of cone CAN be a very good thing, however i suspect this could be done with judicious doping in certain areas only.
7: again the pattern MAY break up transverse waves in the cone material, but then so would a repeated chevron pattern , as used in some drivers already.
this is not a slight on these techniques, but scientifically, it CANNOT be benefitial to all drivers, and most likely only to those FR drivers which as part of the comprimised nature of their design; have to be tamed in order to sound clean and not fatigueing.
As any DIY mod (doping cones and enable), it cannot improve ALL drivers...some yes, and undoubtedly poor drivers will be 'smoothed' as a result. I seriously doubt the 'OLD'er type of 'ridged' paper cones would see much benefit, and less so elliptical drivers: as there cone wavelength resonances SHOULD be broader and better behaved than others.
This is not in any way a slight on the technique, but i do not see it as a viable option to me; its a little like the OFC of the driver mod world.
It may make a difference, but then it may just be pyschosematic-personally at this stage I think its a little criminal charging for it! i mean after all there are a million patents that were nonsense and have made money, just as there are those that were genius and never got off the drawing board.
just my £0.02
Last edited:
Ofc
Showing my ignorance again but what does OFC stand for?
I didn't see any likely candidates on the list of 47 different definition at acronym finder (a good site though.)
After doing a few EnABL jobs I have noticed a difference in (how to say) vibrancy meaning a quieting or softening of the sound on a 4 inch FE127e.
My best EnABL job with tapping and painting a 7.5/8 inch full range with whizzer did not give a noticeable result. Maybe I'm just going deaf.
There should be some bit of wow factor for accomplishing this which I have not found.
Showing my ignorance again but what does OFC stand for?
I didn't see any likely candidates on the list of 47 different definition at acronym finder (a good site though.)
After doing a few EnABL jobs I have noticed a difference in (how to say) vibrancy meaning a quieting or softening of the sound on a 4 inch FE127e.
My best EnABL job with tapping and painting a 7.5/8 inch full range with whizzer did not give a noticeable result. Maybe I'm just going deaf.
There should be some bit of wow factor for accomplishing this which I have not found.
mondogenerator,
1.)What is the empirical evidence that would show that it works please? To date the vast majority of people who have followed the careful prescriptions for specific drivers have reported success.
2.)There is plenty of objective evidence that it doesn't work. Or, that the tests are not yet sophisticated enough to show it working. Just four actual instances of proof of principle exist to date. That and one simulation experiment.
3.)To date there have been three drivers that EnABL did not work on and one that is arguable. Within my own experience, over the 37 years I have been privately experimenting, it has worked on 300 multi driver speaker systems. Having said that, I will point to it not being needed for very late production drivers, that are not used outside of their actual minimum phase window, for any benefit other than extended downward dynamic range.
To get a clearer picture of what EnABL provides please view this blink comparison.
Enable Tests
Note the large and specifically not treated resonance node. Note the alteration in the depiction of the ringing as shown in before and after. This refined presentation of very tiny detail information is exactly what EnABL was originally designed to do. This portrayal is what you will hear across the drivers entire frequency range, no matter how much of that range is used. This will be true for all types of electro-magnetic drivers, no matter their configuration. Ridged cones and elliptical cones are every bit as susceptible to treatment as round cones, domes and flat panel drivers are.
4.) & .5) All drivers benefit from a loss of directional beaming. This beaming is a direct result of energy emission patterns that are not uniform across the driver surface. There are two forms of this patterning. One that is transitory and tied to frequency and amplitude and one that is tied to the physical construction of the cone. Both forms can be dispersed with EnABL patterns and the resultant loss of beaming and improvement in nude omni-radiation is CLEARLY audible.
6.) You are correct. However, EnABL is not a damping process. To be so would require that every single molecule within the deeply sprung mesh of the diaphragm material be damped, as would be expected with a "doping" material. Instead, it is applied to the locations on the diaphragm that control errant energy projection from the cone into the adjacent air. This is not accomplished by damping. The same amount of energy exits the cone in the same manner as before EnABL, but the resonance nodes that arise for a variety of reasons are not allowed to do so. EnABL is only the patterns, not the other materials used to either damp cone material internal noise or enforce the patterns use over a broader area, as was done before we began to disperse specific resonance nodes.
7.)EnABL is not meant to "break up" transverse waves. It is meant to disperse the non linear radiation characteristics that exist on diaphragms, which are grossly inefficient transformers of the energy they contain. By dispersing these specific zones where the characteristic "bubbles " of radiating emission form, the minimum phase coherent behavior, of the emitted energy, is kept from being altered and distorted.
You can literally put as many physical surface distortion as pleases you and EnaBL will still perform this activity and will still provide these benefits. We are not controlling what is happening to the diaphragm. And have never claimed to be doing so. We are just controlling the energy, as it is rising off of the diaphragm, by applying a dispersive pattern at the ideal locations, to inhibit non minimum phase behavior.
Really, modern drivers are very well done. We are just providing interface control and as soon as this sort of control is realized in the drivers, by the manufacturers, the need for EnABL will disappear. I have high hopes.
Bud
1.)What is the empirical evidence that would show that it works please? To date the vast majority of people who have followed the careful prescriptions for specific drivers have reported success.
2.)There is plenty of objective evidence that it doesn't work. Or, that the tests are not yet sophisticated enough to show it working. Just four actual instances of proof of principle exist to date. That and one simulation experiment.
3.)To date there have been three drivers that EnABL did not work on and one that is arguable. Within my own experience, over the 37 years I have been privately experimenting, it has worked on 300 multi driver speaker systems. Having said that, I will point to it not being needed for very late production drivers, that are not used outside of their actual minimum phase window, for any benefit other than extended downward dynamic range.
To get a clearer picture of what EnABL provides please view this blink comparison.
Enable Tests
Note the large and specifically not treated resonance node. Note the alteration in the depiction of the ringing as shown in before and after. This refined presentation of very tiny detail information is exactly what EnABL was originally designed to do. This portrayal is what you will hear across the drivers entire frequency range, no matter how much of that range is used. This will be true for all types of electro-magnetic drivers, no matter their configuration. Ridged cones and elliptical cones are every bit as susceptible to treatment as round cones, domes and flat panel drivers are.
4.) & .5) All drivers benefit from a loss of directional beaming. This beaming is a direct result of energy emission patterns that are not uniform across the driver surface. There are two forms of this patterning. One that is transitory and tied to frequency and amplitude and one that is tied to the physical construction of the cone. Both forms can be dispersed with EnABL patterns and the resultant loss of beaming and improvement in nude omni-radiation is CLEARLY audible.
6.) You are correct. However, EnABL is not a damping process. To be so would require that every single molecule within the deeply sprung mesh of the diaphragm material be damped, as would be expected with a "doping" material. Instead, it is applied to the locations on the diaphragm that control errant energy projection from the cone into the adjacent air. This is not accomplished by damping. The same amount of energy exits the cone in the same manner as before EnABL, but the resonance nodes that arise for a variety of reasons are not allowed to do so. EnABL is only the patterns, not the other materials used to either damp cone material internal noise or enforce the patterns use over a broader area, as was done before we began to disperse specific resonance nodes.
7.)EnABL is not meant to "break up" transverse waves. It is meant to disperse the non linear radiation characteristics that exist on diaphragms, which are grossly inefficient transformers of the energy they contain. By dispersing these specific zones where the characteristic "bubbles " of radiating emission form, the minimum phase coherent behavior, of the emitted energy, is kept from being altered and distorted.
You can literally put as many physical surface distortion as pleases you and EnaBL will still perform this activity and will still provide these benefits. We are not controlling what is happening to the diaphragm. And have never claimed to be doing so. We are just controlling the energy, as it is rising off of the diaphragm, by applying a dispersive pattern at the ideal locations, to inhibit non minimum phase behavior.
Really, modern drivers are very well done. We are just providing interface control and as soon as this sort of control is realized in the drivers, by the manufacturers, the need for EnABL will disappear. I have high hopes.
Bud
Loninappleton.
OFC usually means oxygen free copper. Not that such a material actually exists, but it is a fine marketing tool.
There is no WOW factor to Enabl'd drivers. They just produce more music than untreated drivers. There is no audiophile freak out involved. All that occurs is the REMOVAL of shrieks when mid cone rings are applied and the REMOVAL of a sonically opaque overlay that hides internal gradient information that is often described as downward dynamics.
I think you may just have an unfortunate set of expectations. More detail sounds like a softer set of sounds than does a peaked, thinly detailed set of those same sounds. The raw visceral edges of detail starved notes are not going to be made more dramatic by EnABL. Just the opposite.
Bud
OFC usually means oxygen free copper. Not that such a material actually exists, but it is a fine marketing tool.
There is no WOW factor to Enabl'd drivers. They just produce more music than untreated drivers. There is no audiophile freak out involved. All that occurs is the REMOVAL of shrieks when mid cone rings are applied and the REMOVAL of a sonically opaque overlay that hides internal gradient information that is often described as downward dynamics.
I think you may just have an unfortunate set of expectations. More detail sounds like a softer set of sounds than does a peaked, thinly detailed set of those same sounds. The raw visceral edges of detail starved notes are not going to be made more dramatic by EnABL. Just the opposite.
Bud
That's a great description of high end in general. The same applies for top end CD player improvements.
Criminal charging for it? I assume then that you do not provide services for pay? Surely you are not just a ward of the state? Those of us who will provide EnABL'd drivers charge for the time it takes, and it is tedious and time consuming to do, not for the process of EnABL.
EnABL has been in the public domain since 1994 and as a freebie here on DIY audio since I signed up on the 20th of February 2007. Anyone who wants to try it out is welcome to do so. There are quite a few specific treatment texts, pattern application guides and supporting pictures to help that person along the way.
If you do not think that more information, from drivers that are finally functioning as they theoretically should, as single pole minimum phase devices across their entire potential bandwidth, is of interest to you, that is your call, I have no problem with it. To insinuate that EnABL is some sort of criminal hoodwink and that those experimenting with it or providing a post production service utilizing it are fools .... well perhaps you are a ward of the state after all.
Bud
Budp,
Maybe no wow factor for me. Ok for that. I am 62 and a ward of the state (no kidding-- Social Security Disability-- not for hearing though.)
Doing the craft of the process was invested time and my way of supporting the DIY community by buying a kit. I continue to listen to my EnABL jobs and move them around to where my cheap speaks (some sacrificial ones for doing this) may do the most good. To be sure I had expectations. None of this is done yet.
Thanks for bringing your expertise to the DIY gang.
Maybe no wow factor for me. Ok for that. I am 62 and a ward of the state (no kidding-- Social Security Disability-- not for hearing though.)
Doing the craft of the process was invested time and my way of supporting the DIY community by buying a kit. I continue to listen to my EnABL jobs and move them around to where my cheap speaks (some sacrificial ones for doing this) may do the most good. To be sure I had expectations. None of this is done yet.
Thanks for bringing your expertise to the DIY gang.
Looking again at this blink test provided by John K, with only an eye to the Q of the resonant ridges, it is clear that their Q has increased in the EnABLed driver. As Toole shows in his book this makes them less audiable.
dave
ward of the state? well for one i dont live in a state, i live in a monarchy!! And im an electrical machines tester working with EM machines, so im definately NOT on the rock n roll. sarcasm aside though, surely the same could be achieved using a 'textured' cone, albeit with the 'bumps' in the right places?
So ok then, a wee misunderstanding on operation of enable.
however, as good as increasing point dispersion is; would this not increase coincident diffractive reinforcement/cancellation of the wave from different points of the cone surface?
The Q here is the ratio of a resonances height to its width. Higher/narrower is higher Q,
Attached is a chart from Toole of 3 resonances at an equal detection threshold.
In each of the waterfalls are 3 significant ridges. In the EnABLed one these are narrower, and at least as tall, so higher resonance, and less audiable.
dave
Attachments
mondogenerator,
I am pretty sure appropriately spaced lumps would do it. Have almost gotten there twice. The real crux of the question is does it need a different mass as the lumps?
As for the dispersion issue. Well, there just isn't one. The sound comes off the cone and out into the room. Room reflections don't seem to matter much and everything you can hear is what you would expect from a live performance. I know, this is the usual cant, but in this case it does appear true. Phase and time train coherent actually seem to mean something with these treated drivers, even in multi-way systems. And, the sweet spot is huge, the entire included angle of the cone with hardly any change in anything audible.
There are a number of folks in your monarchy that have these devices to hand. If you let on where you are located we might be able to get you a listen without any penalty payments or the like.
Bud
I am pretty sure appropriately spaced lumps would do it. Have almost gotten there twice. The real crux of the question is does it need a different mass as the lumps?
As for the dispersion issue. Well, there just isn't one. The sound comes off the cone and out into the room. Room reflections don't seem to matter much and everything you can hear is what you would expect from a live performance. I know, this is the usual cant, but in this case it does appear true. Phase and time train coherent actually seem to mean something with these treated drivers, even in multi-way systems. And, the sweet spot is huge, the entire included angle of the cone with hardly any change in anything audible.
There are a number of folks in your monarchy that have these devices to hand. If you let on where you are located we might be able to get you a listen without any penalty payments or the like.
Bud
Last edited:
freddi,
I have treated the super 8 and the, I think, super 15. They are quite good drivers without EnABL, with specific ranges in frequency where the downward dynamics exceed any other untreated speaker I have encountered. Unfortunately they do have a couple or three shrieks in them, but that can be relegated to very high SPL only. You might PM inclinedplane as he has a pair of treated and a pair of untreated Super 8's he switches in and out of an OB speaker he is developing. He also posted a comment here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...p-your-ears-off-high-volumes.html#post2011011
I can treat yours for you, though I am not cheap, or you can learn to do the process and I will be happy to help you to discover what the 10 inch drivers need. The 15's were just big 8 inch drivers, when the pattern locations are considered, I suspect we could shrink the 15 inch pattern set by the relevant percentage and get very close to what is needed for the 10".
Bud
I have treated the super 8 and the, I think, super 15. They are quite good drivers without EnABL, with specific ranges in frequency where the downward dynamics exceed any other untreated speaker I have encountered. Unfortunately they do have a couple or three shrieks in them, but that can be relegated to very high SPL only. You might PM inclinedplane as he has a pair of treated and a pair of untreated Super 8's he switches in and out of an OB speaker he is developing. He also posted a comment here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...p-your-ears-off-high-volumes.html#post2011011
I can treat yours for you, though I am not cheap, or you can learn to do the process and I will be happy to help you to discover what the 10 inch drivers need. The 15's were just big 8 inch drivers, when the pattern locations are considered, I suspect we could shrink the 15 inch pattern set by the relevant percentage and get very close to what is needed for the 10".
Bud
The photo this link points to showed up in Romy the Cats comments (most rather positive) on the European Triode Festival.
European Triode Festival 2009/cg/DSC_0913
Does anyone know whose speaker system this is and who was so brave as to bring EnABL to the attention of the ETF veterans? And then, what driver is this and did anyone actually hear it? I like the box and the speaker looks like it could be capable of some strong performance. Just curious, really.
Bud
European Triode Festival 2009/cg/DSC_0913
Does anyone know whose speaker system this is and who was so brave as to bring EnABL to the attention of the ETF veterans? And then, what driver is this and did anyone actually hear it? I like the box and the speaker looks like it could be capable of some strong performance. Just curious, really.
Bud
They are Yves du Pont's speakers.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/tubes-valves/72536-el84-amp-baby-huey-18.html#post2000121