Definitive? As John K stated............".Compare A to D and B to C. Pretty obvious that the treated case really smears the response. This is particularly evident if you overlay B with C. I don't know how anyone would call that an improvement. It may sound different. Some may say it sounds better. Some may say it sounds worse. But while neither is close to perfect, in the A to D and B to C comparisons it is apparent that untreated appears more actuate with less time smear. I choose those comparisons because at low frequency A and D, and B and C appear more similar and I would expect such treatment to have little effect at low frequency."
Now you wish for people to trust their subjective ability instead of relying upon actual data because , lets face it, the tests showed that Enabl does mostly nothing good if anything at all. If you want people to take it seriously then you have to rely upon data and not "I hear a difference" with zero controls set up for the subjective "testing". Might as well just paint a cone with whatever and pretend it's "better".
Now you wish for people to trust their subjective ability instead of relying upon actual data because , lets face it, the tests showed that Enabl does mostly nothing good if anything at all. If you want people to take it seriously then you have to rely upon data and not "I hear a difference" with zero controls set up for the subjective "testing". Might as well just paint a cone with whatever and pretend it's "better".
As far as I can see, you have not missed a thing.
Since driver to driver differences are greater than the difference the dots make, the only way to definitively test is to do what you suggested.
I suggested the same thing a couple years ago in this thread, I don't expect to see it done, as it would end the "technical discussion"
.Art Welter
I suggested the same thing a couple years ago in this thread, I don't
expect to see it done, as it would end the "technical discussion"
Art Welter
Hi,
Its been done, and the "technical discussion" has been over for a long time.
rgds, sreten.
Sreten,
What is the number of the post where the same driver was tested before and after the dots were applied?
Art
I think it might have been done already, but the link to the data is broken.
I recall seeing it some time ago. A post by Migeo. He was playing around with the idea and finally got a measurement that worked. He made a point of saying that you can't just apply the dots and get results. It took many iterations before it did anything for him.
That may have been when enable 2 came out and they started doing driver specific patterns by tapping the cone or something.
That may have been when enable 2 came out and they started doing driver specific patterns by tapping the cone or something.
It's a waste of time, you get better results by investing in a measurement setup , mic, preamp, Holm software for instance, learning how to do your own frequency response measurements then determining the crossover to use using Jeff B's programs and Charlie Laub's programs and going slow and LEARNING as you go along. Just painting dots on a cone and hoping for the best is wishful thinking. I don't think the Enabl process is copyrighted, correct me if I am wrong , so if it's not and it actually did something, major speaker manufacturers would be using it all the time.
It's patented, and the patent number is given in the first post of this thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100399-enabl-processes.html
That post also links to a Positive Feedback article on the process.
I read through some of these threads and links a couple years ago, and concluded this is the "Power Balance" (TM, Registered, etc) of the diyaudio forum.
For an alternative to the EnABL Process but with measurements look at the McKenzie acoustical design site mckenzie acoustical design: madspeaker As we tell the children;do not try this at home.
You've said a number of things that indicate that you have a "very limited" amount of familiarity with the process. Just throwing out opinions without facts is not recommended.
Best Regards,
TerryO
The links are in the process of being restored. Check them tomorrow.
http://p10hifi.net/FAL/bud/johnK-test/
http://planet10-hifi.com/mige-test/wavelet/index.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/119677-enabl-technical-discussion-88.html#post2350234
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/119677-enabl-technical-discussion-87.html#post2344189
Bud
Thanks Dave!
A bit of background is due.
Enable Tests
is a project of John K. It is one of four tests he made using different methods of modifying the same aluminum driver. Unfortunately for all of us John cleared out his files and we lost three of the test graphs. Those three were, suspiciously for you cabal seekers, not EnABL at all. None the less they were extremely interesting and as with all of John's work, very well done. The remaining plots were converted into the blink comparison you see. John K applied the pattern ('s?) himself and since he is a rigorous sort of person I am sure they were well done. This is the same driver by the way, for both tests.
This one is another set of blink comparison, of all of migeO's tests.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/119677-enabl-technical-discussion-88.html#post2350234
And the beginning of migeO's posts on his test results. Planet 10 Dave provides all of these blink comparisons.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/119677-enabl-technical-discussion-87.html#post2344189
These are from four full range Selenium pro audio drivers, specified and purchased at the same time by migeO, two sent to me and two to migeO in Switzerland. I treated two and sent them on. The tests are therefor not on the same driver. Do note please that the examples of untreated and treated are quite similar to each other and both sets display very characteristic wavelet analysis. I invite you to read ALL of the comments about this test series. John K and I have opposing views, just as we have from the beginning of our interaction. This is as it should be.
I again must thank John K and dlr for their rigor in defending the known parameters of speaker operation. All of us involved have benefited from the mind stretch and I have benefited from a great educational process. One that lead directly to EnABL gen 2.0, regardless of the intentions of the various folks involved. And then, a very special thanks must go to both Soongsc and migeO for their contributions, without their pro bono efforts, well, not nearly as much would have been possible.
Bud
A bit of background is due.
Enable Tests
is a project of John K. It is one of four tests he made using different methods of modifying the same aluminum driver. Unfortunately for all of us John cleared out his files and we lost three of the test graphs. Those three were, suspiciously for you cabal seekers, not EnABL at all. None the less they were extremely interesting and as with all of John's work, very well done. The remaining plots were converted into the blink comparison you see. John K applied the pattern ('s?) himself and since he is a rigorous sort of person I am sure they were well done. This is the same driver by the way, for both tests.
This one is another set of blink comparison, of all of migeO's tests.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/119677-enabl-technical-discussion-88.html#post2350234
And the beginning of migeO's posts on his test results. Planet 10 Dave provides all of these blink comparisons.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/119677-enabl-technical-discussion-87.html#post2344189
These are from four full range Selenium pro audio drivers, specified and purchased at the same time by migeO, two sent to me and two to migeO in Switzerland. I treated two and sent them on. The tests are therefor not on the same driver. Do note please that the examples of untreated and treated are quite similar to each other and both sets display very characteristic wavelet analysis. I invite you to read ALL of the comments about this test series. John K and I have opposing views, just as we have from the beginning of our interaction. This is as it should be.
I again must thank John K and dlr for their rigor in defending the known parameters of speaker operation. All of us involved have benefited from the mind stretch and I have benefited from a great educational process. One that lead directly to EnABL gen 2.0, regardless of the intentions of the various folks involved. And then, a very special thanks must go to both Soongsc and migeO for their contributions, without their pro bono efforts, well, not nearly as much would have been possible.
Bud
Bud,
So it would appear in almost five years and 1338 posts there is only one before and after comparison of the same speaker, the one done by John K., the results of which show a near identical FR and impulse response, posted below.
And you oppose his view.
Thanks for pointing out his comparison.
Art
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.