EnABL - Technical discussion

[auplater]

Unless the surface the pattern is applied to is a driver cone. No?

Well.. yes, I guess to be complete wrt exactitude, one needs to state what would seem to be obvious on this thread. If the EnABL pattern is applied to the surface of a driver cone, then by definition it would have to involve the cone in some way (that is, the surface is the cone ).

Is that better?

John L.

 

[soongsc]

Wrong... what John K. demonstrated is that an audio frequency wave passing over EnABL sized projections on a surface doesn't produce any signicant changes above ~ -60dB or so, regardless of the source of that wave. Has nothing to do with the driver.

Let's at least try to be honest in stating what is or isn't happening, rather than try to bend the results to limit their applicability to not showing what EnABL does or doesn't do, which is really what's going on with this statement.

John L.

Well all the data posted all use the same driver, unless I missed some data. This means that the results are valid for this particular driver. Nothing else can be conclusive. I do not recall JohnK using the same thickness for the ring and the EnABL pattern, so I can only assume it's an easier way to test for thickness variation effects. The data does show that thickness is a factor.

I look for things that might work. Things that don't work might be the talk of the thread, but certainly not a fancy of mine.

 

[Daygloworange]

I'm cooking up my own driver mod that looks incredibly promising. John, would you care to comment on the effects you think this might have:

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

PS. You have to use genuine Crayola and the Apricot variety works best.

I think that driver with those mods will end up sounding too coloured.

Cheers

 

[dlr]

Well all the data posted all use the same driver, unless I missed some data. This means that the results are valid for this particular driver. Nothing else can be conclusive. I do not recall JohnK using the same thickness for the ring and the EnABL pattern, so I can only assume it's an easier way to test for thickness variation effects. The data does show that thickness is a factor.

No, that's wrong entirely. It is conclusive for ALL drivers. This is another case of misunderstanding and mis-stating the facts. The facts are that the results are valid for ANY driver for an application on a fixed surface such as a baffle. As John pointed out, a wave passing over anything, enabl pattern or not, reacts the same no matter what created that wave. The source, driver or anything else that creates a sound wave, is of no import whatsoever. The analysis John provided is valid for any driver. Repeating errors in analysis as you do is, again, just more attempts to deny the results.

As far as thickness being a factor for introducing additional diffraction artifacts to a baffle, that is so obvious that it should go without saying. The claim was, however, that enabl eliminates diffraction. It cannot. It can, however, if of sufficient height, add more diffraction, as John's tests would indicate.

Dave

 

[dlr]

No, that's wrong entirely. It is conclusive with regard to the effect tested and is so for ALL drivers. This is another case of misunderstanding and mis-stating the facts. The facts are that the results are valid for ANY driver for an application on a fixed surface such as a baffle. As John pointed out, a wave passing over anything, enabl pattern or not, reacts the same no matter what created that wave. The source, driver or anything else that creates a sound wave, is of no import whatsoever. The analysis John provided is valid for any driver. Repeating errors in analysis as you do is, again, just more attempts to deny the results.

In addition, it is direct evidence of what does (and does not) occur on a driver. The evidence that an application on the order of enabl has no discernable affect on a baffle extends to its action on a driver diaphragm. That is, it does not alter the wave as it passes over. This is also regardless of the driver. The only logical conclusion that can be made and is the reasonable one is that the mechanism on a driver, any driver, is related to the vibrational characteristics, not wave action passing over the application.

As far as thickness being a factor for introducing additional diffraction artifacts to a baffle, that is so obvious that it should go without saying. The claim was, however, that enabl eliminates diffraction when applied to a baffle. It cannot. It can, however, if of sufficient height, add more diffraction, as John's tests would indicate.

Dave

 

[planet10]

The claim was, however, that enabl eliminates diffraction.

If you go back i think you will find that the claim was that EnABLing the box helped make the box dissappear sonically... then the discussion veered to diffraction as that is an obvious candidate to pounce on.

dave

 

[BudP]

To be more specific, my claim was that placing blocks in the EnABL pattern, one block width away from the sharp edge of the baffle and sized to treat the periphery of the baffle as if it were the circumference of a circle, with EnABL applied, stopped all audible evidence of lobes being created in the sound field beyond and at a fairly low angle forward from the plane of the baffle.

Interestingly, even after Johns careful test's this is still the case.

Are the lobes that I am familiar with from untreated baffles evidence of diffraction? I frankly have no idea. In any case the sound field decreases in intensity in a very smooth fashion as you approach a position in near space that is on plane with the baffle. Beyond and behind that plane the sound remains relatively constant in intensity level until you pass beyond the back of the speaker cabinet.

The audible effects when sitting in front of the speaker and listening is a lack of typical "sweet spot" found in most speakers. This is aided by also EnABLing the drivers and once all has been treated properly you can sit in any location, between or outside the width between the baffles and obtain the same character and clarity that you get directly on axis of either baffle/driver.

The image that is provided in our correlator is clearer, with respect to details of internal note structure and placement within the perceived sound field than an unEnABL'd speaker/baffle by a significant amount, even with all metal drivers. In addition the perceived location of the emission of the sounds has lost it's reference to the baffle plane, entirely, and is perceived as coming from behind the speakers, without in any way being blocked by the volumes actually occupied by the baffles, of course.

This is what occurs, always. And, I agree with Feynman, it is absurd.

Thanks for the testing John, we should be able to move on to finding the actual mechanism that brings about these effects.

Bud

 

[auplater]

To be more specific, my claim was that placing blocks in the EnABL pattern, one block width away from the sharp edge of the baffle and sized to treat the periphery of the baffle as if it were the circumference of a circle, with EnABL applied, stopped all audible evidence of lobes being created in the sound field beyond and at a fairly low angle forward from the plane of the baffle.

Interestingly, even after Johns careful test's this is still the case.

Are the lobes that I am familiar with from untreated baffles evidence of diffraction? I frankly have no idea. In any case the sound field decreases in intensity in a very smooth fashion as you approach a position in near space that is on plane with the baffle. Beyond and behind that plane the sound remains relatively constant in intensity level until you pass beyond the back of the speaker cabinet.

The audible effects when sitting in front of the speaker and listening is a lack of typical "sweet spot" found in most speakers. This is aided by also EnABLing the drivers and once all has been treated properly you can sit in any location, between or outside the width between the baffles and obtain the same character and clarity that you get directly on axis of either baffle/driver.

The image that is provided in our correlator is clearer, with respect to details of internal note structure and placement within the perceived sound field than an unEnABL'd speaker/baffle by a significant amount, even with all metal drivers. In addition the perceived location of the emission of the sounds has lost it's reference to the baffle plane, entirely, and is perceived as coming from behind the speakers, without in any way being blocked by the volumes actually occupied by the baffles, of course.

This is what occurs, always. And, I agree with Feynman, it is absurd.

Thanks for the testing John, we should be able to move on to finding the actual mechanism that brings about these effects.

Bud

Has anyone ever measured whether or not this "lobing" (which presumably consists of the typical nulls from conventionally uncorrected multiple driver interactions in the nearfield radiation pattern) exists using something as simple as a ratshack meter? Shouln't require a PhD or gobs of equipment to find this out, pre / post treatment.

I wonder why we never see any data wrt this? I might test it, but since my linesources are single driver planars, they don't suffer significant lobing.

John L.

 

[john k...]

To be more specific, my claim was that placing blocks in the EnABL pattern, one block width away from the sharp edge of the baffle and sized to treat the periphery of the baffle as if it were the circumference of a circle, with EnABL applied, stopped all audible evidence of lobes being created in the sound field beyond and at a fairly low angle forward from the plane of the baffle.

Interestingly, even after Johns careful test's this is still the case.

Are the lobes that I am familiar with from untreated baffles evidence of diffraction? I frankly have no idea. In any case the sound field decreases in intensity in a very smooth fashion as you approach a position in near space that is on plane with the baffle. Beyond and behind that plane the sound remains relatively constant in intensity level until you pass beyond the back of the speaker cabinet.

The audible effects when sitting in front of the speaker and listening is a lack of typical "sweet spot" found in most speakers. This is aided by also EnABLing the drivers and once all has been treated properly you can sit in any location, between or outside the width between the baffles and obtain the same character and clarity that you get directly on axis of either baffle/driver.

The image that is provided in our correlator is clearer, with respect to details of internal note structure and placement within the perceived sound field than an unEnABL'd speaker/baffle by a significant amount, even with all metal drivers. In addition the perceived location of the emission of the sounds has lost it's reference to the baffle plane, entirely, and is perceived as coming from behind the speakers, without in any way being blocked by the volumes actually occupied by the baffles, of course.

This is what occurs, always. And, I agree with Feynman, it is absurd.

Thanks for the testing John, we should be able to move on to finding the actual mechanism that brings about these effects.

Bud

Monitor: Doesn't this belong in the Listening impressions and techniques thread?


Bud, I'm really having a hard time restraining myself. You have a tremendous sense of humor. I've finally realized that you have been egging us along at our own expense since the start. Fantastic, the joke is on us. I have to hand it to you. I really though you were serious at one point.


What a wonder birthday presnet. I'm 61 years old today an starting my 12th year of retirement. Can't wait till next year when I can start collecting social security and I'll be able to afford that hearing aid I need so bad.



Oh, one other thing Bud. I seriously doubt you agree with Feynman. His point is that as absurd as Nature is, it's behavior is very measurable and very predictable.

 

[dlr]

To be more specific, my claim was that placing blocks in the EnABL pattern, one block width away from the sharp edge of the baffle and sized to treat the periphery of the baffle as if it were the circumference of a circle, with EnABL applied, stopped all audible evidence of lobes being created in the sound field beyond and at a fairly low angle forward from the plane of the baffle.

Bud

As John suggested, everything after the first paragraph should be in the other thread. The moderator should move or delete this response if the intent to separate was serious. Bud is not, apparently. There is no evidence, it's all anecdote here or in any reports such as this. All evidence, hard evidence, is in total contradiction.

And I've got to point out the similarities with the Totem Beaks. Four of them sold on ebay for $178 just a few days ago. The proponents of that use descriptions of their perceptions that are eerily close to those here.

Another "lobing effect" tweak

Thanks for the testing John, we should be able to move on to finding the actual mechanism that brings about these effects.

We already know what that is. It's called the placebo effect for any baffle treatment. It can be nothing else since it's been shown that there is no significant change to a wave passing over enabl on a baffle.

Dave

 

[dlr]

Has anyone ever measured whether or not this "lobing" (which presumably consists of the typical nulls from conventionally uncorrected multiple driver interactions in the nearfield radiation pattern) exists using something as simple as a ratshack meter? Shouln't require a PhD or gobs of equipment to find this out, pre / post treatment.

John L.

You can't get any reliable measurements using that type of meter. It's subject to room effects such as floor, wall and ceiling reflections in addition to any nearby objects. This is why MLS and windowed swept sine systems (such an LMS of LEAP/LMS fame) were developed in the first place. You'd have to have a true anechoic chamber otherwise.

Dave

 

[soongsc]

No, that's wrong entirely. It is conclusive for ALL drivers. This is another case of misunderstanding and mis-stating the facts. The facts are that the results are valid for ANY driver for an application on a fixed surface such as a baffle. As John pointed out, a wave passing over anything, enabl pattern or not, reacts the same no matter what created that wave. The source, driver or anything else that creates a sound wave, is of no import whatsoever. The analysis John provided is valid for any driver. Repeating errors in analysis as you do is, again, just more attempts to deny the results.

As far as thickness being a factor for introducing additional diffraction artifacts to a baffle, that is so obvious that it should go without saying. The claim was, however, that enabl eliminates diffraction. It cannot. It can, however, if of sufficient height, add more diffraction, as John's tests would indicate.

Dave

I agree with the latter part but disagree with the first part. But anyone can accept what they feel reasonable if they find it beneficial to their endeavor.

One thing I have not challenged is the sensitivity of the mic. The specs of the mic are unknown.

 

[soongsc]

In addition, it is direct evidence of what does (and does not) occur on a driver. The evidence that an application on the order of enabl has no discernable affect on a baffle extends to its action on a driver diaphragm. That is, it does not alter the wave as it passes over. This is also regardless of the driver. The only logical conclusion that can be made and is the reasonable one is that the mechanism on a driver, any driver, is related to the vibrational characteristics, not wave action passing over the application.

Lots of oriental medicine methods are applied in the same way of thinking. How interesting!

But since my data shows different results, still, each person can just trust the data they wish if it benefits their endeavor.

I do not care to get into discussions that do not address the specifics that support a certain conclusion.

 

[dlr]

If you go back i think you will find that the claim was that EnABLing the box helped make the box dissappear sonically... then the discussion veered to diffraction as that is an obvious candidate to pounce on.

dave

Just to clarify, if a baffle is treated as described, the only thing that could change would be the diffraction signature. But since the wave passing over an application on the order of enabl does not significantly alter the wave as has been proven, then it cannot alter the diffraction signature of the baffle. Therefore the only remaining effect is... placebo.

It's a simple process of elimination.

Dave

 

[dlr]

But since my data shows different results, still, each person can just trust the data they wish if it benefits their endeavor.

I do not care to get into discussions that do not address the specifics that support a certain conclusion.

Your data does not show different results. You have not provided any evidence that differentiates any of the changes in driver response that you measured. You simply showed a change in frequency response, a change initially claimed to not exist and which claim was blindly accepted by almost every proponent in the thread up to the time that this glaring error was made clear. Why should anyone accept an analysis by those who were evidently not able to see this? It goes to credibility.

The problem related to your second statement is that if you believed what you said, you could not accept your own initial analysis because there was insufficient data to support any conclusion other than the change to FR that was also initially denied.

Dave

 

[auplater]

ratshack

You can't get any reliable measurements using that type of meter. It's subject to room effects such as floor, wall and ceiling reflections in addition to any nearby objects. This is why MLS and windowed swept sine systems (such an LMS of LEAP/LMS fame) were developed in the first place. You'd have to have a true anechoic chamber otherwise.

Dave

I understand the limits of ratshack meters. As a relative detector, they have their uses.... not much good for absolute for sure

Yes, I understand the need for mls, etc. As a b4/after detection device, as in "if I hear nulls b4, and they register on the meter, do they go away after treatment with no other changes?"

Simple discrimination of b4 after... I've done this myself with multidriver arrays in my back yard to re-position / remove offending geometry. Hey, I'm just trying to see if any of the proponents have even pretended to do any measurements...

bye... too many john's here

John L.

 

[soongsc]

One thing we should be aware when looking at JohnK's ring data, is that like the rounding of baffle edge corners, the radius effects the performance. If a ring is used, then there is a possibility of creating diffraction. However, as the pattern sizes are reduced, I predict that the diffraction effects caused by the pattern are reduced, just like increasing baffle edge radius can possibly reduce baffle edge diffraction. How changing the thick ring to a pattern will effect the baffle edge diffraction still should be verified through measurement.

Also note that looking at the said data with the driver mounted on the round baffle, we are not able to differenciate what is caused by the baffle.

When the baffle edge diffraction becomes a dominating factor IMO, then it might be worth doing more testing. Fortunately, it's on the lower priority of my list right now. Not even a plan for it yet. I think there are much more meaningful things to do in sound reproduction improvement. Driver placement already reduces the effects to an acceptable level right now.

 

[soongsc]

Your data does not show different results. You have not provided any evidence that differentiates any of the changes in driver response that you measured. You simply showed a change in frequency response, a change initially claimed to not exist and which claim was blindly accepted by almost every proponent in the thread up to the time that this glaring error was made clear. Why should anyone accept an analysis by those who were evidently not able to see this? It goes to credibility.

The problem related to your second statement is that if you believed what you said, you could not accept your own initial analysis because there was insufficient data to support any conclusion other than the change to FR that was also initially denied.

Dave

Show me which data set you are talking about so that we can make sure we are talking about the same thing. I have posted some very early data that shows difference, but probably no improvement, and some that show quite significant improvement.

 

[dlr]

Show me which data set you are talking about so that we can make sure we are talking about the same thing. I have posted some very early data that shows difference, but probably no improvement, and some that show quite significant improvement.

And none of it differentiated anything as to effects, meaning mechanism. It showed that changes occurred when mass was added to a driver, to be expected in the vibrational characteristics, nothing more.

Dave

 

[soongsc]

And none of it differentiated anything as to effects, meaning mechanism. It showed that changes occurred when mass was added to a driver, to be expected in the vibrational characteristics, nothing more.

Dave

Doctors can look at the same data and draw different conclusions, so I'm not surprised it happens in this hobby.