Hi All,
Lynn weighs in here for those who haven't read it yet.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1326088#post1326088
I cannot speak to his summation of what, to us here, is support equipment. His comments upon the changes wrought exactly mirror mine, except, the distortion bits.
I have measured a number of before and after treatment drivers with my archaic Liberty Audio suite, which will portray all divisions of THD. I have seen some shift in frequencies, where the distortions seemed to remain at the same level and move a half octave. I have never seen a reduction.
Not saying Lynn is wrong here. My skills with test equipment are notorious for their lack.
Lynn is a seasoned observer and his comments do reflect what anyone that proceeds with this process will discover, including the hidden critters.
Alexsander from RAAL was also there and Lynn says privately that Alex's comments were very close to his, so I will assume two positive votes for EnABL. Though, I am sure Alex would enjoy "straightening me out" on some of the points he found important and others he found useless. Fortunately for me he makes a point of not posting on forums.
You can all go and read my thoughts on the PM6A here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1248682#post1248682
I will point out that ALL of my work on ALL of these various drivers is auditioned without baffle, standing upright as if mounted on a baffle and acting as an omni directional point source.
I suspect that any thing Lynn found objectionable was not directly related to the drivers themselves, because in the difficult conditions I had them under, they were very very impressive. So much so, that I now own a pair, and I usually do not even consider drivers costing more than $100 for my own use. Mostly because I don't have to.
On another note Hemp Acoustics has provided a pair of FR 8 drivers to be EnABL'd and I will be engineering patterns and applying blocks of paint over the next two weeks. So, hooray for Perry, he finally found some he could send to me.
Bud
Lynn weighs in here for those who haven't read it yet.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1326088#post1326088
I cannot speak to his summation of what, to us here, is support equipment. His comments upon the changes wrought exactly mirror mine, except, the distortion bits.
I have measured a number of before and after treatment drivers with my archaic Liberty Audio suite, which will portray all divisions of THD. I have seen some shift in frequencies, where the distortions seemed to remain at the same level and move a half octave. I have never seen a reduction.
Not saying Lynn is wrong here. My skills with test equipment are notorious for their lack.
Lynn is a seasoned observer and his comments do reflect what anyone that proceeds with this process will discover, including the hidden critters.
Alexsander from RAAL was also there and Lynn says privately that Alex's comments were very close to his, so I will assume two positive votes for EnABL. Though, I am sure Alex would enjoy "straightening me out" on some of the points he found important and others he found useless. Fortunately for me he makes a point of not posting on forums.
You can all go and read my thoughts on the PM6A here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1248682#post1248682
I will point out that ALL of my work on ALL of these various drivers is auditioned without baffle, standing upright as if mounted on a baffle and acting as an omni directional point source.
I suspect that any thing Lynn found objectionable was not directly related to the drivers themselves, because in the difficult conditions I had them under, they were very very impressive. So much so, that I now own a pair, and I usually do not even consider drivers costing more than $100 for my own use. Mostly because I don't have to.
On another note Hemp Acoustics has provided a pair of FR 8 drivers to be EnABL'd and I will be engineering patterns and applying blocks of paint over the next two weeks. So, hooray for Perry, he finally found some he could send to me.
Bud
EnABL process. Blind Test
I was fortunate enough to listen the to the EnABL test on the Lowther drivers in the Lowther USA Nelson Pass room this past Friday night at RMAF. Jon from Lowther USA conducted the test.
I was sitting right next to Lynn Olson in the front row, so we probably got much the same "View." We did not know if we were hearing treated or untreated.
The system was open baffle with Lowther drivers on top running down to 75Hz then actively crossed over to twin woofers (12 inch?) below.( Maybe someone has more info.)
3 cuts were played, all on vinyl. I don't know the titles of any of them.
First was a small jazz ensemble with sax
Second was female vocal
Third was orchestral.
The system sounded quite good to me. Good solid bass and a large image. Very little FR driver "shout, bark or bite." The system stayed pretty smooth and clean even on the midrange peaks where a FR driver will normally bite you. Good space, good depth. Enjoyable to listen to without obvious faults or farts.
I did hear what I thought was serious tape flutter, or maybe turntable flutter, but it did not seem to bother anyone else.* (The stylus was a little dirty on the 1st round).
For the second round the Lowther drivers were switched and the cuts played in reverse order.
The difference was immediately noticeable.
The chimes in the orchestral piece sounded darker and more muffled, the low strings were also not as clear and the breathing of what must have been a string player was not as distinct. Intsruments were more jumbled together. Lynn Olson was right in with comments that distortion seemed about 10dB lower. But before or after?
The female vocal did not soar as it did with the 1st set of drivers and the hot mid peaks would bite and bark much like you hear with most FR drivers. The first set seemed to be able to get loud and dynamic without breakup, like a good 2" CD on a good horn.
At this point it was beginning to be clear that I did not like the second set of drivers much, although on some passages it was a toss up.
Then Jon asked if we wanted to hear the last/first cut, the jazz piece. "Yes!" we all said. Lynn asked for the woofer/Lowther balance to be adjusted about 2dB to regain the balance of the 1st run.
The jazz set was most relieving to me. I had been careful to listen to space and imaging on that cut. On the second set of drivers, it was not nearly as good, not as wide, deep or high. Plus there was the FR bark and bite. Big difference.
I was sorely disappointed because I thought the second set was the EnABL'd drivers and I did not like them. But I was wrong! The EnABL's driver were the first set, the set that sounded so good, so effortless. Bravo Bud! And thanks to Lowther USA for the great A/B test.
*The flutter was not at all present on a Michel Jonasz CD played later.
I was fortunate enough to listen the to the EnABL test on the Lowther drivers in the Lowther USA Nelson Pass room this past Friday night at RMAF. Jon from Lowther USA conducted the test.
I was sitting right next to Lynn Olson in the front row, so we probably got much the same "View." We did not know if we were hearing treated or untreated.
The system was open baffle with Lowther drivers on top running down to 75Hz then actively crossed over to twin woofers (12 inch?) below.( Maybe someone has more info.)
3 cuts were played, all on vinyl. I don't know the titles of any of them.
First was a small jazz ensemble with sax
Second was female vocal
Third was orchestral.
The system sounded quite good to me. Good solid bass and a large image. Very little FR driver "shout, bark or bite." The system stayed pretty smooth and clean even on the midrange peaks where a FR driver will normally bite you. Good space, good depth. Enjoyable to listen to without obvious faults or farts.
I did hear what I thought was serious tape flutter, or maybe turntable flutter, but it did not seem to bother anyone else.* (The stylus was a little dirty on the 1st round).
For the second round the Lowther drivers were switched and the cuts played in reverse order.
The difference was immediately noticeable.
The chimes in the orchestral piece sounded darker and more muffled, the low strings were also not as clear and the breathing of what must have been a string player was not as distinct. Intsruments were more jumbled together. Lynn Olson was right in with comments that distortion seemed about 10dB lower. But before or after?
The female vocal did not soar as it did with the 1st set of drivers and the hot mid peaks would bite and bark much like you hear with most FR drivers. The first set seemed to be able to get loud and dynamic without breakup, like a good 2" CD on a good horn.
At this point it was beginning to be clear that I did not like the second set of drivers much, although on some passages it was a toss up.
Then Jon asked if we wanted to hear the last/first cut, the jazz piece. "Yes!" we all said. Lynn asked for the woofer/Lowther balance to be adjusted about 2dB to regain the balance of the 1st run.
The jazz set was most relieving to me. I had been careful to listen to space and imaging on that cut. On the second set of drivers, it was not nearly as good, not as wide, deep or high. Plus there was the FR bark and bite. Big difference.
I was sorely disappointed because I thought the second set was the EnABL'd drivers and I did not like them. But I was wrong! The EnABL's driver were the first set, the set that sounded so good, so effortless. Bravo Bud! And thanks to Lowther USA for the great A/B test.
*The flutter was not at all present on a Michel Jonasz CD played later.
From another thread.
Ok, there was a noticable difference in the performance of the two PM6A drivers. How do you assess how much of the difference was due to the EnABL treatment and how much was due to the driver to driver differences? If you had two non-EnABL Lowther drivers with the differrent voice coil impedances, what would be the audible performance difference? It would seem that an 8 ohm and a 16 ohm voice coil would change the basic performance of the Lowther PM6A drivers when the same signal was applied from the same amp.
Ok, there was a noticable difference in the performance of the two PM6A drivers. How do you assess how much of the difference was due to the EnABL treatment and how much was due to the driver to driver differences? If you had two non-EnABL Lowther drivers with the differrent voice coil impedances, what would be the audible performance difference? It would seem that an 8 ohm and a 16 ohm voice coil would change the basic performance of the Lowther PM6A drivers when the same signal was applied from the same amp.
MJK said:
This is a valid point and I have no idea of the sonic difference between the 2 models. It is a pity that the test did not consist of the same driver models.
I can say, however, that after Lynn asked for the small adjustment to the tonal balance of the active system, they seemed tonally identical. It was an adjustment of 1~2dB.
The Nelson Pass amps were the low output Z type, so there "should" not have been much difference there. (Active filter)
I do know that the changes I heard at the test where very much like the changes I heard on my Hemp FR8c at home. A more open sound, less transient bite. Was that due to the EnABL or the Lowther voice coil or both? Don't know...
MJK,
The treated Lowther was the 8 ohm version, with a 1 mm xmax. the untreated was the 15 ohm version with a longer voice coil, and an xmax of 3 mm.
Seems to me the heavier voice coil and greater travel, for peak energy excursions, would weight a mechanical performance gain towards the 15 ohm driver.
That is what Jon Ver Halen had to say about the relative merits and upon his recommendation I now have a pair of the 15 ohm drivers.
However, Panomaniac and others are piling up evidence that the smoother and more transient amplitude capable speaker was the one with the shorter voice coil. And that this same driver also exhibited a far more detailed performance and much less of the usual complaints, laid at Lowthers door.
No doubt that it would have been a more perfect world had both drivers been from the same specification. However Jon did not have a 15 ohm treated driver and Nelson Pass insisted upon bringing his OB speaker system, with a 15 ohm driver in place. Perhaps on a different day or at a different show we will get a more careful specification match.
However, do not expect this to make the results any closer than folks say these were. An EnABL'd driver is a unique experience. They perform so much closer to the theoretical mark that piston theory aims for and default piston mode drivers attempt to provide, that the experience actually takes a period of time for all of the changes to sink in.
In every single case, over more than 300 treated speaker systems, the recipients later complained of not being able to stand to listen to untreated systems. None of them felt that way upon first hearing their treated system. Some actually had mirror systems, with untreated drivers for comparison, and found that they had difficulty expressing just what the difference they were hearing actually was.
The uniform initial response has been one of surprise and engagement with the music being played, not the fact that the speakers were better or worse.
I am delighted with Jon's test, regardless of what small issues arise between the mechanical specs of the drivers. I think we are all in his debt and I take pleasure in saying "Thanks Jon, nice work".
Bud
The treated Lowther was the 8 ohm version, with a 1 mm xmax. the untreated was the 15 ohm version with a longer voice coil, and an xmax of 3 mm.
Seems to me the heavier voice coil and greater travel, for peak energy excursions, would weight a mechanical performance gain towards the 15 ohm driver.
That is what Jon Ver Halen had to say about the relative merits and upon his recommendation I now have a pair of the 15 ohm drivers.
However, Panomaniac and others are piling up evidence that the smoother and more transient amplitude capable speaker was the one with the shorter voice coil. And that this same driver also exhibited a far more detailed performance and much less of the usual complaints, laid at Lowthers door.
No doubt that it would have been a more perfect world had both drivers been from the same specification. However Jon did not have a 15 ohm treated driver and Nelson Pass insisted upon bringing his OB speaker system, with a 15 ohm driver in place. Perhaps on a different day or at a different show we will get a more careful specification match.
However, do not expect this to make the results any closer than folks say these were. An EnABL'd driver is a unique experience. They perform so much closer to the theoretical mark that piston theory aims for and default piston mode drivers attempt to provide, that the experience actually takes a period of time for all of the changes to sink in.
In every single case, over more than 300 treated speaker systems, the recipients later complained of not being able to stand to listen to untreated systems. None of them felt that way upon first hearing their treated system. Some actually had mirror systems, with untreated drivers for comparison, and found that they had difficulty expressing just what the difference they were hearing actually was.
The uniform initial response has been one of surprise and engagement with the music being played, not the fact that the speakers were better or worse.
I am delighted with Jon's test, regardless of what small issues arise between the mechanical specs of the drivers. I think we are all in his debt and I take pleasure in saying "Thanks Jon, nice work".
Bud
BudP said:
Not just the experience, the paint! My first listen to treated hemp drivers was good, but not world changing. As the paint began to cure, it got better and better. Coming home from RMAF, almost all the harshness these drivers had is now gone. I even removed the small inductor on the driver that pulled the top end brightness down. Don't need it now. Strange....
Yes indeed! And a big thanks to Bud for sharing this process.
I'll be interested to learn what you do to the Hemp FR8c, Bud. I've done 2 pair now. Need to find the Microgloss coating.
Well, gosh, all of you who have thanked me, are more than welcome. It pleases me no end to find that something sprouted in my pea patch is bringing enjoyment to others.
I will say that there is not another forum I would have presented this on. I am deeply appreciative of the critique, questions asked, tests performed and, of course the odd bit of praise.
I am quite certain that in a less civilized setting both EnABL and Electron Pools would have been flamed to carbon dust, rather than have them affect the narrow points of view, tenaciously held.
So, thank you all.
Bud
I will say that there is not another forum I would have presented this on. I am deeply appreciative of the critique, questions asked, tests performed and, of course the odd bit of praise.
I am quite certain that in a less civilized setting both EnABL and Electron Pools would have been flamed to carbon dust, rather than have them affect the narrow points of view, tenaciously held.
So, thank you all.
Bud
It really is funny that all these people playing with the patterns, and nobody ever tempting to show differences via measurements. I would think even with free software with a simple setup would be enough to show the improvements. Of course, if everone just want to handle it like wine tasting, then so be it.MJK said:
I was there as well with a friend of mine, sitting in the second row. When we were leaving, we wanted to examine (what we thought) were the Enabl'd drivers, which would have been those used in the first part of the demo. Knowing nothing of the process, I just observed some varnish on the drivers. So now that I have read the thread, I have ask: Were these drivers actually treated as recommended or just coated all over with some kind of varnish?
John
John
jlsem,
Actually they were treated fully. Jon specifically asked that the treatment be invisible. I cannot quite pull that off, but obviously came close enough.
Back in the days when I thought that surely this idea would be accepted, I spent some time on "hiding" exactly what I was doing. So many drivers have been treated with this mindset, that I had some very uncomfortable moments, deciding whether or not ot "go public" and release data sheets and pics on the first Lowther, a DX 4.
You have heard the limits of my skill set. You have not heard the limits of resolution that treated drivers are capable of. The EnABL process has caused me to research unusual solutions for audio transformers, cables and a very strange aid to ground planes, or the typical lack thereof. All in an attempt to find a limit to the resolution and micro dynamic coherence that something as good as a PM6A or a Hemp 4.5 C are capable of when treated.
You really should get the inexpensive kit that is required and treat some inexpensive drivers, from your computer or car. That will give you a clear idea of what is possible.
Bud
Actually they were treated fully. Jon specifically asked that the treatment be invisible. I cannot quite pull that off, but obviously came close enough.
Back in the days when I thought that surely this idea would be accepted, I spent some time on "hiding" exactly what I was doing. So many drivers have been treated with this mindset, that I had some very uncomfortable moments, deciding whether or not ot "go public" and release data sheets and pics on the first Lowther, a DX 4.
You have heard the limits of my skill set. You have not heard the limits of resolution that treated drivers are capable of. The EnABL process has caused me to research unusual solutions for audio transformers, cables and a very strange aid to ground planes, or the typical lack thereof. All in an attempt to find a limit to the resolution and micro dynamic coherence that something as good as a PM6A or a Hemp 4.5 C are capable of when treated.
You really should get the inexpensive kit that is required and treat some inexpensive drivers, from your computer or car. That will give you a clear idea of what is possible.
Bud
- Status
- Not open for further replies.