Sreten,
Boy, you seem to think you know what I'm thinking. Wish I could read minds like you. Did I say they would be like EnABL? Please re-read my post. Someone posted them on this thread, and I simply was interested in listening impressions. I'd like to educate myself on speaker treatments, and THIS thread isn't the place for listening impressions.
Carl
Boy, you seem to think you know what I'm thinking. Wish I could read minds like you. Did I say they would be like EnABL? Please re-read my post. Someone posted them on this thread, and I simply was interested in listening impressions. I'd like to educate myself on speaker treatments, and THIS thread isn't the place for listening impressions.
Carl
G'day daygloworange,
Thanks for the reply.
There is some interesting activity around cabinet EnABL happening in the Fullrange forum.
This would certainly be an interesting candidate for some tests as there are no modification to the drivers, yet very audible changes are being reported - by someone other than myself for a change.
Cheers,
Alex
Thanks for the reply.
There is some interesting activity around cabinet EnABL happening in the Fullrange forum.
This would certainly be an interesting candidate for some tests as there are no modification to the drivers, yet very audible changes are being reported - by someone other than myself for a change.
Cheers,
Alex
Daygloworange,
Thanks for the link to Danny's post. He had said he would post his results, but never notified me, so I had no idea. I agree with everything he said in those posts. Excepting no audible change. Some improvement in low level information, a noticeable improvement in clarity above 7 khz and a broader sweet spot were all made available. However, just as I told the fellow that wanted this done, these are very good drivers, with very few of the audible problems that EnABL is used to correct. So good in fact, that I recommend them to friends and folks who contact me asking for my opinion on drivers for a simple system, treated or not.
I also recommend Planet 10's Fonken / 127 eN duo, with the note that overall clarity and depth of field will be slightly better with the Planet 10 combo but dynamic range will not be. So, for those wanting theater sound systems, the GR drivers will work best, whether they are EnABL'd or not.
If there is any interest I can post the PDF files for treatment ring guides. You will benefit from the patterns on the drivers, but the larger benefit will come from treating the baffle with Alex's offerings.
Bud
Thanks for the link to Danny's post. He had said he would post his results, but never notified me, so I had no idea. I agree with everything he said in those posts. Excepting no audible change. Some improvement in low level information, a noticeable improvement in clarity above 7 khz and a broader sweet spot were all made available. However, just as I told the fellow that wanted this done, these are very good drivers, with very few of the audible problems that EnABL is used to correct. So good in fact, that I recommend them to friends and folks who contact me asking for my opinion on drivers for a simple system, treated or not.
I also recommend Planet 10's Fonken / 127 eN duo, with the note that overall clarity and depth of field will be slightly better with the Planet 10 combo but dynamic range will not be. So, for those wanting theater sound systems, the GR drivers will work best, whether they are EnABL'd or not.
If there is any interest I can post the PDF files for treatment ring guides. You will benefit from the patterns on the drivers, but the larger benefit will come from treating the baffle with Alex's offerings.
Bud
By tests, you of course mean objective measurements, this being the technical thread and since anyone posting wrongly in the other thread has their posts deleted. We wouldn't want to see a double standard applied, would we?Alex from Oz said:
This would certainly be an interesting candidate for some tests as there are no modification to the drivers, yet very audible changes are being reported - by someone other than myself for a change.
Cheers,
Alex
What a surprise.
Dave
Carlp said:
Hi,
No I'm not a mind reader and it seems you cannot follow
a perfectly sensible interpretation of what I actually said.
Which was agreeing with AfO. The subjective EnABL thread
is not the place to discuss listening impressions of those
particular drivers or what are other forms of modification.
Even in this thread there is no before /after scenario so
your not even talking modification, its a design feature.
/sreten.Hi,
I suppose I ought to re-iterate the conclusion of this fairly dead
discussion, which is : subjective impressions are irrelevant, the
subjectivists simply ignore or dismiss anyone who says that
EnABL seemed to have no significantly audible effects.
(Not the right drivers for EnABL blah.. blah..blah.. etc.)
Technically it is agreed EnABL on a cone has some effect.
EnABL on a a solid surface related to diffraction none at all.
It does not do anything like what is claimed in the original patent.
It is claimed it does but it is not measurable, this is technical :bs:.
If it did this would readily show up in measurements, all so far
measurements have illustrated EnABL's minor effects, these
minor effects being explainable by standard physics.
Technically it is predicted measurements on cone EnABL will show
minor effects, if at all, because the effect can be not large enough
to be measurably significant.
EnABL on solid surfaces will never show significant measured effects.
Subjective double listening tests will follow the measured results.
No accepted phenomena relating to audio has been found that
does not follow the above, audible differences are measurable.
(Unless of course the measurement techniques are limited.)
The final conclusion is whilst EnABL is unlikely to make a driver
worse, it is ad-hoc, unpredictable and impossible to optimise
without referring to a "guru" that claims the "optimisation".
Seems we are flogging a dead horse somewhat .....
/sreten.
I suppose I ought to re-iterate the conclusion of this fairly dead
discussion, which is : subjective impressions are irrelevant, the
subjectivists simply ignore or dismiss anyone who says that
EnABL seemed to have no significantly audible effects.
(Not the right drivers for EnABL blah.. blah..blah.. etc.)
Technically it is agreed EnABL on a cone has some effect.
EnABL on a a solid surface related to diffraction none at all.
It does not do anything like what is claimed in the original patent.
It is claimed it does but it is not measurable, this is technical :bs:.
If it did this would readily show up in measurements, all so far
measurements have illustrated EnABL's minor effects, these
minor effects being explainable by standard physics.
Technically it is predicted measurements on cone EnABL will show
minor effects, if at all, because the effect can be not large enough
to be measurably significant.
EnABL on solid surfaces will never show significant measured effects.
Subjective double listening tests will follow the measured results.
No accepted phenomena relating to audio has been found that
does not follow the above, audible differences are measurable.
(Unless of course the measurement techniques are limited.)
The final conclusion is whilst EnABL is unlikely to make a driver
worse, it is ad-hoc, unpredictable and impossible to optimise
without referring to a "guru" that claims the "optimisation".
Seems we are flogging a dead horse somewhat .....
/sreten.
I assume you are refering to john k's tests in post #123 and post #233?
These are not representative of the cabinet EnABL process I have clearly described.
While I don't dispute john k's results on his tests, I don't regard them as definitive either.
I think examination of EnABL on cabinets (and ports) deserves a far more thorough set of appropriate measurements to settle the question as to what effects are measurable.
The audible changes are there to be heard by all who actually try this.
Cheers,
Alex
These are not representative of the cabinet EnABL process I have clearly described.
While I don't dispute john k's results on his tests, I don't regard them as definitive either.
I think examination of EnABL on cabinets (and ports) deserves a far more thorough set of appropriate measurements to settle the question as to what effects are measurable.
The audible changes are there to be heard by all who actually try this.
Cheers,
Alex
Alex from Oz said:
Alex from Oz said:
Hi,
FWIW you are flogging a dead horse.
No-one sensible is that dumb.
That is, no-one will set out to measure something that has
no physical explanation for, or prediction of the artifact of
the effect you are trying to measure. You want someone
to stumble around in the dark looking for something.
You insist there is something to be found, and therefore
will insist not finding anything is looking at it wrongly.
But you have no idea what should be looked for.
It is not logical. It is not the scientific method.
/sreten.
Given the wavelengths involved and the dimensions of any enabl marks, it is ludicrous to think that there can be any significant impact of any kind, measurable or audible. It's all placebo, nothing else.Alex from Oz said:
Of course, at this point I've yet to see any definition of other "appropriate measurements". This has been a common refrain, yet remains nebulous. Necessarily so, of course, to maintain the delusion. What john k provided is sufficient. The question remains unsettled only to believers. I've spent literally years testing and measuring diffraction (the only real change that occurs with discontinuities on non-moving parts). There is nothing of significance in tiny strips painted on a surface, especially at the frequencies involved with ports and even cabinets. It's all in the mind.
Dave
I don't recall the specifics of your measurements, but if the frequency response output of the driver was changed due to the added mass and any localized damping/stiffening, then it follows that the phase will change, since phase of a raw driver is directly related to the frequency response and vice-versa. Move the mass and the response again changes again, easily demonstrated. There's nothing special about it.soongsc said:
There can be no change in the phase response if the magnitude response is unaltered. If so, then the driver is not minimum-phase, a contradiction since on a given measurement axis the response is in most cases minimum-phase. It has been so in every driver with which I've ever worked.
Dave
p.s. My reference to this thread was meant to be the original thread.
It is not worth my time. There may be some nearly infinitesimal change made, so there is no worth in it. I have no doubt that it is inaudible, it's all placebo. I use what works, proper diffraction control for baffles. Ports benefit from large radius roundovers and proper sizing of the pipe radius. All of this is easily demonstrated and is unquestionably significant in measurements, even though some question the ultimate worth in perception of diffraction control even when proven by measurements to be significant.
Dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.