I am a man of few words, but here is what i see so far.
Everybody is considering the wave energies at various times from the launch, but i believe that this effect has to be early in the wave launch. This is before side lobe formation or even in Fresnel. Its the initial radiation from the launch area which may have less low level noise than an untreated driver.
ron
Everybody is considering the wave energies at various times from the launch, but i believe that this effect has to be early in the wave launch. This is before side lobe formation or even in Fresnel. Its the initial radiation from the launch area which may have less low level noise than an untreated driver.
ron
EnABL Port Test Proposal
G'day All,
Is anybody prepared to apply EnABL to the port of bass reflex speaker and run some measurements?
EnABL Port Test Proposal
- bass reflex speaker (or subwoofer)
- single round port, straight (no flare)
- driver firing into free air (ie. not downward firing)
If so, for transparency, then post here:
- details of the proposed test speaker
- the diamater of the port
- proposed types of measurements (for comment by all)
I will post explicit intruction on how to make and apply the EnABL pattern - including diagrams.
Anybody willing to take this on?
Any comments on the merits of this proposal?
Cheers,
Alex
G'day All,
Is anybody prepared to apply EnABL to the port of bass reflex speaker and run some measurements?
EnABL Port Test Proposal
- bass reflex speaker (or subwoofer)
- single round port, straight (no flare)
- driver firing into free air (ie. not downward firing)
If so, for transparency, then post here:
- details of the proposed test speaker
- the diamater of the port
- proposed types of measurements (for comment by all)
I will post explicit intruction on how to make and apply the EnABL pattern - including diagrams.
Anybody willing to take this on?
Any comments on the merits of this proposal?
Cheers,
Alex
Re: Re: wrong thread
No. NOT possibly. It does absolutely nothing to at least 60db down as measured. Repeat, as measured . Why do you continue to deny the facts? If it did anything at all, it would have shown up in john's measurements precisely where he indicated. Continual denial of the data is becoming rampant.
John's methodology was exactly what is required. The test removed all other extraneous influences. That's the appropriate method. What you think would be more conclusive is immaterial. That's simply an attempt to continue to deny the facts.
Of course if it had shown a change, everyone would be ecstatic about the "proof". The fact is, it showed there to be no change to the wave as it passed over. It's conclusive.
Dave
soongsc said:
No. NOT possibly. It does absolutely nothing to at least 60db down as measured. Repeat, as measured . Why do you continue to deny the facts? If it did anything at all, it would have shown up in john's measurements precisely where he indicated. Continual denial of the data is becoming rampant.
John's methodology was exactly what is required. The test removed all other extraneous influences. That's the appropriate method. What you think would be more conclusive is immaterial. That's simply an attempt to continue to deny the facts.
Of course if it had shown a change, everyone would be ecstatic about the "proof". The fact is, it showed there to be no change to the wave as it passed over. It's conclusive.
Dave
Re: EnABL Port Test Proposal
Alex,
Yes, I will do this and the baffle edge tests. I looked at the Excel sheet you linked to.
I spoke to Al from RAW, he'll do measurements on these as well. We might actually be able to do those before the driver tests.
I need to find out from Al, what size ports and so on he has on hand so we can figure out the size of patterns we need to cut for him to test.
Just busy with work right now, but we will get to do these tests as promised.
Cheers
Alex from Oz said:
Alex,
Yes, I will do this and the baffle edge tests. I looked at the Excel sheet you linked to.
I spoke to Al from RAW, he'll do measurements on these as well. We might actually be able to do those before the driver tests.
I need to find out from Al, what size ports and so on he has on hand so we can figure out the size of patterns we need to cut for him to test.
Just busy with work right now, but we will get to do these tests as promised.
Cheers
Re: Re: Re: wrong thread
My guess is the baffle diffraction cannot even be shown under this condition, and that is why it is not shown. If this is true, then of course we will see almost no effect from the patterns.
Possibly a more effective test would be to just use sine waves low enough that the driver is operating more like a point souce.
If this is all true, why not show the baffle diffraction impulse which is much more easily measured. I am not denying the facts, I just think there needs to be data to know what is involved. The fact is when you use MLS signals or impulses to do measurements, the signals have a much narrower angle of radiation so most energy is focused in the front. therefore, to be able to see any effect the pattern height naturally needs to be higher.dlr said:
My guess is the baffle diffraction cannot even be shown under this condition, and that is why it is not shown. If this is true, then of course we will see almost no effect from the patterns.
Possibly a more effective test would be to just use sine waves low enough that the driver is operating more like a point souce.
Re: Re: Re: Re: wrong thread
Because it would a pure waste of time.
You have a lot to learn about an MLS. Your "facts" are wrong. There is no "focusing". I'm sorry, but that's simply absurd. It is a complex audio signal designed to excite all frequencies equally, that has a sound like white noise, but is very specific in content. You should read the paper from the originator of MLSSA who came up with the method. In any case, a driver cannot be made to "focus" anything using a signal of any kind.
No need to guess. It is not true. Period.
This is nothing more than speculating that continues to deny the facts. For this situation there is nothing better than an MLS or a true impulse. John pointed out having used both. There was no difference.
The facts are in on this aspect. There is no change that could remotely be audible for any immobile surface, be it baffle, port, driver frame, whatever. The location, number and pattern is meaningless, since there is no significant change made to the wave passing over. Further testing on those is a waste of time. But I'm there are those with that time to waste. That's their choice.
Dave
soongsc said:
Because it would a pure waste of time.
You have a lot to learn about an MLS. Your "facts" are wrong. There is no "focusing". I'm sorry, but that's simply absurd. It is a complex audio signal designed to excite all frequencies equally, that has a sound like white noise, but is very specific in content. You should read the paper from the originator of MLSSA who came up with the method. In any case, a driver cannot be made to "focus" anything using a signal of any kind.
No need to guess. It is not true. Period.
This is nothing more than speculating that continues to deny the facts. For this situation there is nothing better than an MLS or a true impulse. John pointed out having used both. There was no difference.
The facts are in on this aspect. There is no change that could remotely be audible for any immobile surface, be it baffle, port, driver frame, whatever. The location, number and pattern is meaningless, since there is no significant change made to the wave passing over. Further testing on those is a waste of time. But I'm there are those with that time to waste. That's their choice.
Dave
5 or 6 pages of post whit nothing but bickering about, "What does it all mean". It's no wonder that audio is such a mess.
Here is a result for my MG10 driver mounted in a 8" circular baffle, bare, with my tape enable pattern (double ring) , and a 1/8" Mortite single ring. The distance between the outer most ring and the baffle edge was about 3/8". The mic was about 9" off the dust cover, on axis.
The result for the Mortite ring (orange trace), since it does alter the result, shows where about in time the rings are encountered and after that both the effects of the obstructions and baffle edge are in the result. Again, the data speaks for itself. But just to be clear, there is no difference with or without the enable patches that would be audible.
Feel free to argue about this for another 5 or ten pages. I'll check back in a few days.
The horse is still dead but I'm sure there are those among you who will want to continue to beat it.
Here is a result for my MG10 driver mounted in a 8" circular baffle, bare, with my tape enable pattern (double ring) , and a 1/8" Mortite single ring. The distance between the outer most ring and the baffle edge was about 3/8". The mic was about 9" off the dust cover, on axis.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The result for the Mortite ring (orange trace), since it does alter the result, shows where about in time the rings are encountered and after that both the effects of the obstructions and baffle edge are in the result. Again, the data speaks for itself. But just to be clear, there is no difference with or without the enable patches that would be audible.
Feel free to argue about this for another 5 or ten pages. I'll check back in a few days.
The horse is still dead but I'm sure there are those among you who will want to continue to beat it.
but what if...???
... you place a mirror in front of the dots, stand on your head, take the complex conjugate of the signal, play the sound backwards, dimple the surface, remove the speaker..... 
something might happen to prove something...
John L.
john k... said:5 or 6 pages of post whit nothing but bickering about, "What does it all mean". It's no wonder that audio is such a mess.
Here is a result for my MG10 driver mounted in a 8" circular baffle, bare, with my tape enable pattern (double ring) , and a 1/8" Mortite single ring. The distance between the outer most ring and the baffle edge was about 3/8". The mic was about 9" off the dust cover, on axis.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The result for the Mortite ring (orange trace), since it does alter the result, shows where about in time the rings are encountered and after that both the effects of the obstructions and baffle edge are in the result. Again, the data speaks for itself. But just to be clear, there is no difference with or without the enable patches that would be audible.
Feel free to argue about this for another 5 or ten pages. I'll check back in a few days.
... you place a mirror in front of the dots, stand on your head, take the complex conjugate of the signal, play the sound backwards, dimple the surface, remove the speaker.....
something might happen to prove something...
John L.
Who's going to claim the hide?john k... said:5 or 6 pages of post whit nothing but bickering about, "What does it all mean". It's no wonder that audio is such a mess.
Here is a result for my MG10 driver mounted in a 8" circular baffle, bare, with my tape enable pattern (double ring) , and a 1/8" Mortite single ring. The distance between the outer most ring and the baffle edge was about 3/8". The mic was about 9" off the dust cover, on axis.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The result for the Mortite ring (orange trace), since it does alter the result, shows where about in time the rings are encountered and after that both the effects of the obstructions and baffle edge are in the result. Again, the data speaks for itself. But just to be clear, there is no difference with or without the enable patches that would be audible.
Feel free to argue about this for another 5 or ten pages. I'll check back in a few days.
Graham Maynard said:
Well, I wouldn't necessarily call me open minded about this. Just trying to follow through with empirical testing, just for ****s and giggles.
Just for the record, despite knowing much less on the topic than others here, I also predict that EnABL will show zero results when applied to ports or baffle edges.
And even "if" it were to "work" by disrupting the BL, I feel that it would cause turbulence which would then equate to distortion, which would then be measurable.
Is it beyond the realm of possibility that EnABL could work on ports and baffles?
No. (but that would be my answer if you were to ask me about smearing peanut butter on my baffle edges as well)
Is it probable?
No. I think it is beyond the realm of probability.
Cheers
Hi John K,
I was not aware that EnABL dots next to a baffle edge is a recommended 'baffle edge' treatment !
Looks like the second 'EnABL' test you have just done is as un-related to driver application (having alternating dimensional/frequency dependent pressure/velocity relationships) as the first, though you have established beyond doubt that the effect of thousands thick dots upon transient wave motion over a flat baffle surface is negligible.
Is it not substatially raised physical blocks arranged in the EnABL pattern which should be applied at a baffle edge ?
Cheers ......... Graham.
I was not aware that EnABL dots next to a baffle edge is a recommended 'baffle edge' treatment !
Looks like the second 'EnABL' test you have just done is as un-related to driver application (having alternating dimensional/frequency dependent pressure/velocity relationships) as the first, though you have established beyond doubt that the effect of thousands thick dots upon transient wave motion over a flat baffle surface is negligible.
Is it not substatially raised physical blocks arranged in the EnABL pattern which should be applied at a baffle edge ?
Cheers ......... Graham.
Graham Maynard said:
Why are you posting here if you don't have a clue? Just to be contrary? Gobbledygook pseudotechnobabble phraseology doesn't prove anything. Why not show us results of YOUR TESTS that demonstrate your contrary opinions to be more than nonsensical. Or are you just trolling?
John L.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.