Godzilla said:
Well my tests obviously aren't extensive, however, I don't see anything in them that can not be supported by consideration that the results of the application of the different treatmens is due directly to alterations in the mechanical vibration of the cone through added mass and changes in damping.
With regard to the Fostex you must have me confused with someone else. I have never heard those drivers. Perhaps I responsed to someone elses comments?
Please BUD.
I respect anybody that has the intestinal fortitude to object.
Now , in my field, i have gotten to a degree of compliency, as nobody conflicts with what i say. This is wrong. I am never the final answer. Only the results are the final answer.
Yes i respect John and others, but the fnal answer is is there a human audible difference? That to me is the only criteria.
ron
I respect anybody that has the intestinal fortitude to object.
Now , in my field, i have gotten to a degree of compliency, as nobody conflicts with what i say. This is wrong. I am never the final answer. Only the results are the final answer.
Yes i respect John and others, but the fnal answer is is there a human audible difference? That to me is the only criteria.
ron
Ron, John et al,
Please go here and read this short note. It is a pretty thorough description of what EnABL does to the ear brain interface, subjectively.
I am only providing this as an adjunct to the test data and discussion of means going on.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1414914#post1414914
Look here for a picture of this beast.
http://picasaweb.google.com/hpurvine/UntitledAlbum/photo#5162267368569076450
Bud
Please go here and read this short note. It is a pretty thorough description of what EnABL does to the ear brain interface, subjectively.
I am only providing this as an adjunct to the test data and discussion of means going on.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1414914#post1414914
Look here for a picture of this beast.
http://picasaweb.google.com/hpurvine/UntitledAlbum/photo#5162267368569076450
Bud
John K
Yes. But if you already have speakers, I think painting both sides of diaphragm with a thin layer of acrylic, as Bud sometimes does, achieves exactly this with a paper cone. When this is done a constrained layer damping system is created because the acrylic is a lot stiffer, has greater SG than the paper, and is viscoelastic.
The way Bud prescribes applying the layer tends to reinforce my thinking: Apply it diluted and check, (for subjective success), before applying more, thus getting to optimal thinness/thinkness by applying extremely thin coating(s).
I thought and I still think the enABL treatment (both whole coating and the pattern) works for people operating paper coned drivers because they get the damping without adding very much mass to something which relies on lightness for its design success.
I don't think acrylic would be that successful in treating aluminum diaphragms because aluminum has a greater Young's modulus than acrylic. In this case for single layer damping it would be necessary to add something to the acrylic to stiffen it further. Or go to a constrained layer enABL pattern as Soonsc does. The latex paint he uses as an adhesive is viscoelastic and - I don't know this for sure but looking at his picture I'd think so - the pieces of aluminum he uses are a bit thicker than than the aluminum diaphragm. He gets the damping with minimum added mass.
I think Mortite and Plastine modeling clay are interesting in this regard because they are both viscoelastic and sticky, very soft. SG of mortite is about 1.3, of acrylic resin about 1.2. I note you're using very thin layer. How much mass did you actually add to the diaphragm?
The pattern.
This type of treatment could be optimized if there was more empirical data (ronc) or/and more understanding of the theory for such an arrangement. Regarding latter, I posted here some pages back about phononic crystals. Since then I've been looking around for something in that area which might be seen as directly applicable to the general problem of damping speaker diaphragm material with least mass applied.
I found something which at first glance appears somewhat applicable. First there is this paper
http://www.topopt.dtu.dk/phonon/pdf/IUTAM03.pdf
which led to the Phonon Project
http://www.topopt.dtu.dk/phonon/
which led to the Topology Optimization page
http://www.topopt.dtu.dk/
which has a couple of neat programs which some folk here might have some fun with. So far I've crashed and burned, but that means nothing, since my technical tool box is deficient and there are people here with very good inventory in this area.
But I think it might be worthwhile to look at this paper first:
http://personales.upv.es/~jsanched/CGoffaux_PRB70_184302_04.pdf
Tentatively, I think it's not unreasonable from a top view to look at a speaker membrane as a platform for possible latticed structures which are acoustic filters.
If I understand correctly what I've read so far, substances like Plasticine and Mortite might be optimal for the kind of experimentation we're doing here. I remember soonsc started with toothpaste which has similar characteristics. Principal ingredient of Mortite, titanium dioxide, of Plasticine, kaolin. They're oil based clays. Anyway, here is more than you ever wanted to know about Plasticine. NASA (!!) has its reasons:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700020165_1970020165.pdf
Speculative odds and ends.
It may be that some really successful applications of the enABL pattern are due to irregularities in size or shape of pattern pieces.
Also, it may possible to add different patterns in series to broaden bandgaps in the filter.
Really bad sounding applications of enABL pattern may actually be acting as waveguides rather than filters.
http://www.paper.edu.cn/downloadpaper.php?serial_number=200601-166&type=1
Yes. But if you already have speakers, I think painting both sides of diaphragm with a thin layer of acrylic, as Bud sometimes does, achieves exactly this with a paper cone. When this is done a constrained layer damping system is created because the acrylic is a lot stiffer, has greater SG than the paper, and is viscoelastic.
The way Bud prescribes applying the layer tends to reinforce my thinking: Apply it diluted and check, (for subjective success), before applying more, thus getting to optimal thinness/thinkness by applying extremely thin coating(s).
I thought and I still think the enABL treatment (both whole coating and the pattern) works for people operating paper coned drivers because they get the damping without adding very much mass to something which relies on lightness for its design success.
I don't think acrylic would be that successful in treating aluminum diaphragms because aluminum has a greater Young's modulus than acrylic. In this case for single layer damping it would be necessary to add something to the acrylic to stiffen it further. Or go to a constrained layer enABL pattern as Soonsc does. The latex paint he uses as an adhesive is viscoelastic and - I don't know this for sure but looking at his picture I'd think so - the pieces of aluminum he uses are a bit thicker than than the aluminum diaphragm. He gets the damping with minimum added mass.
I think Mortite and Plastine modeling clay are interesting in this regard because they are both viscoelastic and sticky, very soft. SG of mortite is about 1.3, of acrylic resin about 1.2. I note you're using very thin layer. How much mass did you actually add to the diaphragm?
The pattern.
This type of treatment could be optimized if there was more empirical data (ronc) or/and more understanding of the theory for such an arrangement. Regarding latter, I posted here some pages back about phononic crystals. Since then I've been looking around for something in that area which might be seen as directly applicable to the general problem of damping speaker diaphragm material with least mass applied.
I found something which at first glance appears somewhat applicable. First there is this paper
http://www.topopt.dtu.dk/phonon/pdf/IUTAM03.pdf
which led to the Phonon Project
http://www.topopt.dtu.dk/phonon/
which led to the Topology Optimization page
http://www.topopt.dtu.dk/
which has a couple of neat programs which some folk here might have some fun with. So far I've crashed and burned, but that means nothing, since my technical tool box is deficient and there are people here with very good inventory in this area.
But I think it might be worthwhile to look at this paper first:
http://personales.upv.es/~jsanched/CGoffaux_PRB70_184302_04.pdf
Tentatively, I think it's not unreasonable from a top view to look at a speaker membrane as a platform for possible latticed structures which are acoustic filters.
If I understand correctly what I've read so far, substances like Plasticine and Mortite might be optimal for the kind of experimentation we're doing here. I remember soonsc started with toothpaste which has similar characteristics. Principal ingredient of Mortite, titanium dioxide, of Plasticine, kaolin. They're oil based clays. Anyway, here is more than you ever wanted to know about Plasticine. NASA (!!) has its reasons:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700020165_1970020165.pdf
Speculative odds and ends.
It may be that some really successful applications of the enABL pattern are due to irregularities in size or shape of pattern pieces.
Also, it may possible to add different patterns in series to broaden bandgaps in the filter.
Really bad sounding applications of enABL pattern may actually be acting as waveguides rather than filters.
http://www.paper.edu.cn/downloadpaper.php?serial_number=200601-166&type=1
Hi Bud,
Let me first make this perfectly clear. I don't care about testimonials based on subjective evaluations from proponents or opponents of the Enable treatment. They are what they are. People either hear a difference, believe they hear a difference, don't hear a difference, or believe they don't hear a difference. I don't care. That's not what I am interested in. I'm interested in what the treatment does and so far all the evidence I have seen suggests alteration of the impulse response which for means alteration of the FR, CSD, burst response......etc. and in a manner which is consistent with added mass and added damping. However, since you pointed me to that testimonial let's look at it.
This quote is clearly indicates that subjectively the listener observed differences in the FR. He made significant changes to the way the system was eqed. We have no idea what the FR was before or after treatment. We only know that the listener found it necessary to use different setting before and after treatment.
The problems here are kind of obvious aren't they? This seems to support the pretreatment more than Enable. The second thing is that assuming the comments about bass extension are correct, this again points to added mass. BAnd again, it also points to different EQ of the system.
The listener then talks about changing amps, changing listening position..... I honestly don't know why you would point to that thread.
Let me first make this perfectly clear. I don't care about testimonials based on subjective evaluations from proponents or opponents of the Enable treatment. They are what they are. People either hear a difference, believe they hear a difference, don't hear a difference, or believe they don't hear a difference. I don't care. That's not what I am interested in. I'm interested in what the treatment does and so far all the evidence I have seen suggests alteration of the impulse response which for means alteration of the FR, CSD, burst response......etc. and in a manner which is consistent with added mass and added damping. However, since you pointed me to that testimonial let's look at it.
This quote is clearly indicates that subjectively the listener observed differences in the FR. He made significant changes to the way the system was eqed. We have no idea what the FR was before or after treatment. We only know that the listener found it necessary to use different setting before and after treatment.
The problems here are kind of obvious aren't they? This seems to support the pretreatment more than Enable. The second thing is that assuming the comments about bass extension are correct, this again points to added mass. BAnd again, it also points to different EQ of the system.
The listener then talks about changing amps, changing listening position..... I honestly don't know why you would point to that thread.
Hi John,
Actually I was ignoring the FR portion... once again. Not because I thought it trivial, but because Kensai actually spoke about the part of EnABL that is to me, the truly important part.
This does require that a time train, within the structure of the information, be retained. By time train, I refer to those cues, whatever they are, by which our correlator reconstructs time and space information and recreates an actionable model of this volume in our mind. I am sure there are official words for this, I just don't know them.
If you ask a person who has lost their sight, but had vision long enough to know what the physical world around them looks like, or a person blind from birth who has used other senses to map their reality "does the sound you here provide you with information about the structures around you?" you will receive an emphatic yes.
To these folks this sort of structural recreation, from what they hear, is not a "subjective" phenomena. They are actually mapping objective reality, using the time train cues buried in the sounds that they are listening to.
What drives me to consider some mechanism other than pure pistonic energy transform for the EnABL process, is the difference pointed to by Kensai. An untreated driver paints a different mental picture, with respect to the time train that sonically describes the physical shapes of real objects in space, than does the treated driver.
I don't doubt for a moment that the EnABL pattern has an effect upon drivers, that can be described by distributed mass upon the surface. How could it not? That is what it is. I wont argue a lack of frequency response alteration, Dave and you have shown me that there is one, however slight. And I wont argue against a smoothing and general dispersal of ringing in time, as shown by CSD either. These are all right here in this thread.
As you have shown, other much more random distributed masses have an equal or even greater effect in these measured changes. I find this quite significant.
All of the alterations you shown, in your informative plots, have been applied in the history of loudspeakers. I got to look at 97 of them as prior art arguments from the patent office. None of them appear to have solved the problem that EnABL solves. All of them were mass damping of a piston or a piston like surface.
If the methods you used were able to provide an improvement in clarity, equal to what EnABL does, they would be in use, right now, and EnABL would not have any further effect upon the information clarity, that loudspeakers provide.
If, in fact, those results that you showed, and pointed to, were indicators of the information clarity from a loudspeaker, then EnABL is not the best method to use. Instead we should paint an absorptive material on the back of all drivers and place mortite droplets on the front.
The reason I look farther than the piston theory for an explanation, is that to date, improving drivers piston behavior, has not accomplished what EnABL does, when applied to those very pistons.
I have been exposed to a number of very advanced and quite expensive loudspeakers, Using, metal ribbons, mylar and polycarbonate sheet, diamond and ceramics, for their piston drivers. All with multiple divisions in frequency bandwidth, to keep the drivers working within their "piston bandwidth".
Not a single one of them had the degree of information clarity I expect to get from a lowly Fostex 127 E after EnABL. They do have broader frequency response, greater dynamic range, fantastically greater power transformation ability, they are prettier and cost an amazing amount more money. I still find them lacking.
I am well aware that the only known test for this information coherence I am describing is subjective, us. The help you have provided has been very worthwhile. I do think we may find these time in space events measurable and they may be buried, or right in front of our faces, right now. I am asking for help in finding them.
Your plots show an interesting characteristic in the fully EnABL'd plot, not available in the others. Look at the energy decay of the ringing structures. They have a much clearer periodicity than the other plots. If you then look at the rest of the field of lines there seems to be a sharper definition applied to any event that is not quickly dispersed. In view of what I am looking for, do you think these might be indicators?
I have never had this sort of array of data presented before. I thank you for going to this trouble to help search out the real signature that EnABL is providing, probably in these plots too.
Again, can someone please teach me how to set up this alternate plot mechanism in Java?
Bud
Actually I was ignoring the FR portion... once again. Not because I thought it trivial, but because Kensai actually spoke about the part of EnABL that is to me, the truly important part.
This does require that a time train, within the structure of the information, be retained. By time train, I refer to those cues, whatever they are, by which our correlator reconstructs time and space information and recreates an actionable model of this volume in our mind. I am sure there are official words for this, I just don't know them.
If you ask a person who has lost their sight, but had vision long enough to know what the physical world around them looks like, or a person blind from birth who has used other senses to map their reality "does the sound you here provide you with information about the structures around you?" you will receive an emphatic yes.
To these folks this sort of structural recreation, from what they hear, is not a "subjective" phenomena. They are actually mapping objective reality, using the time train cues buried in the sounds that they are listening to.
What drives me to consider some mechanism other than pure pistonic energy transform for the EnABL process, is the difference pointed to by Kensai. An untreated driver paints a different mental picture, with respect to the time train that sonically describes the physical shapes of real objects in space, than does the treated driver.
I don't doubt for a moment that the EnABL pattern has an effect upon drivers, that can be described by distributed mass upon the surface. How could it not? That is what it is. I wont argue a lack of frequency response alteration, Dave and you have shown me that there is one, however slight. And I wont argue against a smoothing and general dispersal of ringing in time, as shown by CSD either. These are all right here in this thread.
As you have shown, other much more random distributed masses have an equal or even greater effect in these measured changes. I find this quite significant.
All of the alterations you shown, in your informative plots, have been applied in the history of loudspeakers. I got to look at 97 of them as prior art arguments from the patent office. None of them appear to have solved the problem that EnABL solves. All of them were mass damping of a piston or a piston like surface.
If the methods you used were able to provide an improvement in clarity, equal to what EnABL does, they would be in use, right now, and EnABL would not have any further effect upon the information clarity, that loudspeakers provide.
If, in fact, those results that you showed, and pointed to, were indicators of the information clarity from a loudspeaker, then EnABL is not the best method to use. Instead we should paint an absorptive material on the back of all drivers and place mortite droplets on the front.
The reason I look farther than the piston theory for an explanation, is that to date, improving drivers piston behavior, has not accomplished what EnABL does, when applied to those very pistons.
I have been exposed to a number of very advanced and quite expensive loudspeakers, Using, metal ribbons, mylar and polycarbonate sheet, diamond and ceramics, for their piston drivers. All with multiple divisions in frequency bandwidth, to keep the drivers working within their "piston bandwidth".
Not a single one of them had the degree of information clarity I expect to get from a lowly Fostex 127 E after EnABL. They do have broader frequency response, greater dynamic range, fantastically greater power transformation ability, they are prettier and cost an amazing amount more money. I still find them lacking.
I am well aware that the only known test for this information coherence I am describing is subjective, us. The help you have provided has been very worthwhile. I do think we may find these time in space events measurable and they may be buried, or right in front of our faces, right now. I am asking for help in finding them.
Your plots show an interesting characteristic in the fully EnABL'd plot, not available in the others. Look at the energy decay of the ringing structures. They have a much clearer periodicity than the other plots. If you then look at the rest of the field of lines there seems to be a sharper definition applied to any event that is not quickly dispersed. In view of what I am looking for, do you think these might be indicators?
I have never had this sort of array of data presented before. I thank you for going to this trouble to help search out the real signature that EnABL is providing, probably in these plots too.
Again, can someone please teach me how to set up this alternate plot mechanism in Java?
Bud
I agree we should look into areas that make sense to us. I also think that the boundary layer effects do not make much difference in most drivers. But it would be interesting to see how it effects front horns and wave guides. I would expect more differences there, but would still think investigation in optimum placement is needed to get the best results.john k... said:
soongsc said:
I would expect no differences there. If the mods are not on the moving components such as at at the surfaces of a horn or waveguide and the edges of baffles, there isn't going to be any change whatsoever with this treatment. I've experimented literally for years with differing materials and methods to control diffraction (the root cause of frequency response alteration in this area) and will say unequivocally that there there is not going to be any change, neither measurable nor audible.
dlr
I see nothing in JohnK's graphs that proves that mass damping is the (sole) culprit behind the changes observed. Indeed, given the data presented, I think JohnK is just as guilty of handwaving as BudP --- but to a lesser extent. JohnK, please explain how the graphs you have presented show that mass damping is the driving force...and that the changes observed are not caused by some other mechanism.
Sorry if this has been explained before...I'm only going by your web page.
ps...I'm not a believer in Bud's process, and I have no intention of trying it on the drivers in my possession. I'm just trying to level the playing field.
Sorry if this has been explained before...I'm only going by your web page.
ps...I'm not a believer in Bud's process, and I have no intention of trying it on the drivers in my possession. I'm just trying to level the playing field.
dlr,
Dave, you might want to qualify that last as a "within your own experience" sort of comment.
Unfortunately, EnABL patterns, applied with just the usual paint, are as effective at removing diffraction effects on boxes as they are on drivers. Other incidental surfaces are equally addressable, including horn flares. Sometime this summer, hopefully, I will also have my first Open Baffle experience.
Horns, are to date a 2 to 1 proposition. With the only failure being the EV TH350 that Romy provided me to treat fully. No audible difference when compared to another horn with the same run of dome mfg, a replacement in both cases. Oddly, the EnABL process, and it was a complete one on all surfaces inside and out, did not alter the sound quality at all, down to the 8 kHz FR cut off with a first order filter.
The other horns were from a Radio Shack two horn and a 15 inch woofer system and the changes there, exceeded the typical direct radiator speaker in both information/detail content and intensity.
In all three cases both dome, compression chamber and flares were EnABL patterned.
I realize that for EnABL to work on inert surfaces it pretty much has to be some sort of boundary layer event, but there it is.
As for boxes, I remove diffraction effects from front plates and sides on a consistent basis. An approximate count on front plates is in excess of 250, with sides a few less than that. This has been going on for 25 years now, heretical as that may be.
Bud
Dave, you might want to qualify that last as a "within your own experience" sort of comment.
Unfortunately, EnABL patterns, applied with just the usual paint, are as effective at removing diffraction effects on boxes as they are on drivers. Other incidental surfaces are equally addressable, including horn flares. Sometime this summer, hopefully, I will also have my first Open Baffle experience.
Horns, are to date a 2 to 1 proposition. With the only failure being the EV TH350 that Romy provided me to treat fully. No audible difference when compared to another horn with the same run of dome mfg, a replacement in both cases. Oddly, the EnABL process, and it was a complete one on all surfaces inside and out, did not alter the sound quality at all, down to the 8 kHz FR cut off with a first order filter.
The other horns were from a Radio Shack two horn and a 15 inch woofer system and the changes there, exceeded the typical direct radiator speaker in both information/detail content and intensity.
In all three cases both dome, compression chamber and flares were EnABL patterned.
I realize that for EnABL to work on inert surfaces it pretty much has to be some sort of boundary layer event, but there it is.
As for boxes, I remove diffraction effects from front plates and sides on a consistent basis. An approximate count on front plates is in excess of 250, with sides a few less than that. This has been going on for 25 years now, heretical as that may be.
Bud
BudP said:
I will not qualify anything on this one. It's ludicrous, plain and simple.
If you really believe it, I suggest that you consult with Dr. Geddes. I'm sure that he'd be ecstatic to learn the details and just how effective it is on wave guides alone. I'd suggest starting here:
Geddes thread on waveguides
Dave
I have not seen any data from Dr. Geddes related with wave guide termination. Nor have I seen any explanation relating the measured data versus audible differences. When I inquired about what specific drivers he used that were of good results, I did not get an answer either. So I must say that what we listen for are totally in different directions.dlr said:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.