Bud,
Thanks for the prompt response. I used the formula you cite above and the size of the blocks I used are the same as those you specify. After receiving your message I counted exactly eighteen pairs of blocks around the periphery of my baffle. Go figure!
I used blue masking tape taped directly on the baffle. I then used an X-acto knife and a rotary knife. I used the rotary knife to cut three strips 0.3 inches wide. I removed the middle strip leaving two 0.3-inch wide strips of masking tape. I then used digital calipers and the X-acto knife to cut the individual blocks and remove the interspersing square/blocks.
What prompted my question as to the size of blocks was trying to find a pinstripe (narrow tape) of the proper width. White correction tape, is a narrow tape I came across that is readily available at stationary stores. The tape comes in a few different widths. I was just trying to reduce the labor involved in slicin' n dicin' blocks.
Sometimes it's reasonable to believe something is true, because an overwhelming majority of spectators have experienced it to be true and bear witness to it's trueth.
However, I'm not sure why I'm sticking up for this as I also doubt that enable on baffles would do anything, and I'm being slammed in the listening impressions thread by Bud for offering him advice he really should take.
However, I'm not sure why I'm sticking up for this as I also doubt that enable on baffles would do anything, and I'm being slammed in the listening impressions thread by Bud for offering him advice he really should take.
The '4 x baffle width' was Bud's advice to me when I was first exploring treatment for baffles. I was using Voigt pipes which IIRC had a baffle width around 9-10 inches and a height around 6 ft or so.
Both methods will achieve the desired result of rendering the cabinet sonically invisible.
Works great for nonbelievers.
IME the more skeptical people are, the funnier their reaction!
Then don't. Move on and leave the rest of us to our delusion.
Please note that paint is not used to treat baffles.
Also, if you agree with Newton's Laws, applying a raised pattern to a baffle must have an effect.
The relevent questions are:
1) is it audible
2) does it makes things sound better
Cheers,
Alex
I think that a lot of the serious speaker building people have moved on as a direct result of the Enable threads. Many of the technically oriented engineers that used to post here are no longer regular contributors. The technical content and accuracy of the thread responses has dropped significantly over the past year or so. What is left is the deluded and people who want to argue with non-physics based rational, it is hard to have a technical discussion with somebody who does not understand but insists on restating the same physically impossible techno-babble. How do you reach common ground with a zealot? The DIYaudio speaker building forums are dying.
Martin
Move On
Thomas,
I can appreciate your skepticism. I have tried any number of suggestions such as enABL and Ground Loops. For me it is just a matter of seeing if there is any validity to what reads as unbelievable.
I believe I may be a little more pro-active than yourself. I have tried these ideas, and quite often to my surprise they work. How many things do you utilize without definitive explanation as to how or why they work. i.e. GPS, cell phones, or television. Did someone really have to explain in detail how a TV worked before you took advantage of the experience? I doubt it.
Television is something the majority of us that frequent this forum can not remember when there was no TV. Just as children today use computers and cell phones without a second thought; so did you when it came to TV.
So either get off your high horse and join us in the fun or ride off into the sunset. None of us went out and rattled your chain. Either contribute something or take your doubts to the enABL Technical Discussion thread where your doubts might be adequately addressed.
You are taking up a lot of bandwidth and as a possible troll you need to substantiate yourself. Otherwise, ........you and that high horse you rode in on!
Thomas,
I can appreciate your skepticism. I have tried any number of suggestions such as enABL and Ground Loops. For me it is just a matter of seeing if there is any validity to what reads as unbelievable.
I believe I may be a little more pro-active than yourself. I have tried these ideas, and quite often to my surprise they work. How many things do you utilize without definitive explanation as to how or why they work. i.e. GPS, cell phones, or television. Did someone really have to explain in detail how a TV worked before you took advantage of the experience? I doubt it.
Television is something the majority of us that frequent this forum can not remember when there was no TV. Just as children today use computers and cell phones without a second thought; so did you when it came to TV.
So either get off your high horse and join us in the fun or ride off into the sunset. None of us went out and rattled your chain. Either contribute something or take your doubts to the enABL Technical Discussion thread where your doubts might be adequately addressed.
You are taking up a lot of bandwidth and as a possible troll you need to substantiate yourself. Otherwise, ........you and that high horse you rode in on!
Last edited:
Seriously? Nobody ever explained TV or GPS to you? You are taking part in what is supposed to be a technical forum and you think TV is magic.
I can't believe you are actually comparing a well-understood product of engineering with snake-oil that has absolutely no theoretical basis or supporting data. If you choose to go around putting dots on things, be my guest, but please don't pretend it is like TV or telephony.
I fully understand how a TV works. The point I am trying to convey is that I fully appreciated the television long before I understood the theoretical aspects of the device. This amongst any number of other modern marvels are utilized daily without definitive explanation of the underlying technology.
The use of fluorescent, incandescent, led, quartz crystal, etc. generate illumination, but you don't have to have in depth understanding to flip the light switch on to take advantage of the light.
I am not pretending that enABLing is as profound an invention as the TV. However, the microwave oven was an unintended by product of another invention. Just because the intent was not to burn something did not make it work any less. The explanation came after the observation.
I suggest to you that the "enABL process" is such a construct. It is in forums such as this that underlying science/theory can evolve to explain what is observed.
Mathematicians formulate equations today that may not be used for centuries by scientist and mathematicians in the future.
I find it surprising how deliberately obtuse some have opted to be. Take the time and test out the dots/blocks then help to explain why or why not the phenomena as observed is bogus or not.
Dismissing it out of hand does not help in the least. The technical aspects of the discussion is in another thread.
The use of fluorescent, incandescent, led, quartz crystal, etc. generate illumination, but you don't have to have in depth understanding to flip the light switch on to take advantage of the light.
I am not pretending that enABLing is as profound an invention as the TV. However, the microwave oven was an unintended by product of another invention. Just because the intent was not to burn something did not make it work any less. The explanation came after the observation.
I suggest to you that the "enABL process" is such a construct. It is in forums such as this that underlying science/theory can evolve to explain what is observed.
Mathematicians formulate equations today that may not be used for centuries by scientist and mathematicians in the future.
I find it surprising how deliberately obtuse some have opted to be. Take the time and test out the dots/blocks then help to explain why or why not the phenomena as observed is bogus or not.
Dismissing it out of hand does not help in the least. The technical aspects of the discussion is in another thread.
Well we need respect the MJK opinion and is tecnical in constructive view...btw he is one usefull user here with all is work on openbaffle.....
Bud have a lot respect as is a great OPT producer and tecnical background.....
On my side I'event Enables my speakers/baffle but I thinks is a FREE trick ,some report that work... why not ?try to know ! in a pure diy spirit...
DIy I learning that good resistor /caps/ pot/diode make a big difference,the tricks to ground the speakers basket work too,vinyl/tube work great (better for me) then ss/digital and so on .
why a peace of Ag sound different the copper ?? only a few know here...
Bud have a lot respect as is a great OPT producer and tecnical background.....
On my side I'event Enables my speakers/baffle but I thinks is a FREE trick ,some report that work... why not ?try to know ! in a pure diy spirit...
DIy I learning that good resistor /caps/ pot/diode make a big difference,the tricks to ground the speakers basket work too,vinyl/tube work great (better for me) then ss/digital and so on .
why a peace of Ag sound different the copper ?? only a few know here...
The only way to really test this is to do a double blind trial, I would suggest that believers in this process never were skeptical in the first place.
As for TV GPS etc, the comparison is ludicrous, the technology behind these is perfectly well understood, as is the power of suggestion and the placebo effect. This is supposed to be a technical discussion and if your best response is to say go away if you don't agree with us, no wonder you are so credulous.
As for TV GPS etc, the comparison is ludicrous, the technology behind these is perfectly well understood, as is the power of suggestion and the placebo effect. This is supposed to be a technical discussion and if your best response is to say go away if you don't agree with us, no wonder you are so credulous.
Maybe the "believers" would be more amenable to challenges if they were presented less personally and with less attack (note I'm neither believer nor critic yet). Keep in mind "believers" truly believe they are hearing great differences, so placebo or not, it makes sense they would describe things with superlatives and grand statements. So if you really want to advance the technical challenges to enabl, try a less emotional reaction (ironic, huh?).
As to MJK, I respect his work on TL and open baffles, but that doesn't make him right on everything. I for one would take issue with his assessment of DIY speaker building forums. While it's a muddy field to wade through right now, I would argue there is undeniably immense amounts of info and guidance available. I also believe there are incredible "advances" in DIY building that may be driving transducer development.
Then there's:
As to MJK, I respect his work on TL and open baffles, but that doesn't make him right on everything. I for one would take issue with his assessment of DIY speaker building forums. While it's a muddy field to wade through right now, I would argue there is undeniably immense amounts of info and guidance available. I also believe there are incredible "advances" in DIY building that may be driving transducer development.
Then there's:
Well, for a start, by not calling them zealots...
on topic...
well all know that round the corner of front baffle helps the diffraction....I don't thinks that is clear audible ...but better do...no placebo here (or blind test that is fault...read John Curl please) the enable work in this area is not so crazy that can do some things.....
PS
this is Diyaudio ,we make not endless blabla
well all know that round the corner of front baffle helps the diffraction....I don't thinks that is clear audible ...but better do...no placebo here (or blind test that is fault...read John Curl please) the enable work in this area is not so crazy that can do some things.....
PS
this is Diyaudio ,we make not endless blabla
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.