A random arrangement of local mechanical loading on the cone might disrupt cone resonance modes which have rotational symmetry, by weakening the symmetry. It might be possible to arrive at a good dot pattern by doing Monte Carlo simulation, given a good (finite element?) model of the untreated cone.
Hi Guys,
Dave (Planet 10) sent me some Enabled CHR-70's and Fostex drivers a year or so back. Similar to MJK's findings, when I measured these drivers, I found only small changes in the frequency response and a slight increases in mass compared to standard versions. The measured (LMS V4 anechoic) differences the Enabled and standard drivers were marginal.
We followed up with a listening event with several audio guys of various nationalities. From my memory, the group pretty much split into 2 camps. Around half the group liked Enabled. They felt some damping was evident making the music a little smoother in tone. The others felt the Enabling process masked detail and reduced clarity.
Like so many things in audio, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or ears in this case).
Cheers
Mark.
Dave (Planet 10) sent me some Enabled CHR-70's and Fostex drivers a year or so back. Similar to MJK's findings, when I measured these drivers, I found only small changes in the frequency response and a slight increases in mass compared to standard versions. The measured (LMS V4 anechoic) differences the Enabled and standard drivers were marginal.
We followed up with a listening event with several audio guys of various nationalities. From my memory, the group pretty much split into 2 camps. Around half the group liked Enabled. They felt some damping was evident making the music a little smoother in tone. The others felt the Enabling process masked detail and reduced clarity.
Like so many things in audio, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or ears in this case).
Cheers
Mark.
Hi,
To all the people who think I'm saying they are a moron ....
It seems I'm going to have to repeat the ad nausiam stating of the obvious.
Nobody is claiming it does nothing and that differences are not audible.
(Though I am stating EnABLing a cabinet will do absolutely nothing.)
I don't need to listen to it, I'm not saying there is no difference.
If something allegedly works, but you don't know why; you cannot show
it does, you cannot develop it, you cannot optimise it. You cannot do
anything other than "generate" pretty patterns that allegedly work.
You are stumbling around in the dark.
What is totally moronic :
a)The idea that an "inventor" full of technobabble and pseudotheory
that on on major technical points is complete nonsense, used that
to stumble upon a very good way of modiifying drivers.
b)Given the above the idea that there is any real method to the process.
c)Ludicrous claims and descriptions of the inventor.
d)Ludicrous claims from users of the process (e.g. it adds an octave of bass)
e)A head in the sand attitude towards valid technical infromation, just ignore it ....
f)Due to the latter making any rational point regarding EnABL is near useless,
you will be accused of being a naysayer and dragged down in a sea of invalid
criticism by those that cannot / will not understand what is technically wrong.
How do you choose who fixes your car brakes ?
f) etc... etc... etc...
Taking EnABL seriously is moronic given the conclusions of the technical thread.
There is nothing to take genuinely seriously, its all just smoke and mirrors.
There is no harm putting pretty patterns on paper drivers, and more
likely than not, (but not guaranteed), the SQ will improve somewhat.
I can easily tell interconnects apart, which is better is a different matter.
rgds, sreten.
I could be writing something useful, rather than debunking.
To all the people who think I'm saying they are a moron ....
It seems I'm going to have to repeat the ad nausiam stating of the obvious.
Nobody is claiming it does nothing and that differences are not audible.
(Though I am stating EnABLing a cabinet will do absolutely nothing.)
I don't need to listen to it, I'm not saying there is no difference.
If something allegedly works, but you don't know why; you cannot show
it does, you cannot develop it, you cannot optimise it. You cannot do
anything other than "generate" pretty patterns that allegedly work.
You are stumbling around in the dark.
What is totally moronic :
a)The idea that an "inventor" full of technobabble and pseudotheory
that on on major technical points is complete nonsense, used that
to stumble upon a very good way of modiifying drivers.
b)Given the above the idea that there is any real method to the process.
c)Ludicrous claims and descriptions of the inventor.
d)Ludicrous claims from users of the process (e.g. it adds an octave of bass)
e)A head in the sand attitude towards valid technical infromation, just ignore it ....
f)Due to the latter making any rational point regarding EnABL is near useless,
you will be accused of being a naysayer and dragged down in a sea of invalid
criticism by those that cannot / will not understand what is technically wrong.
How do you choose who fixes your car brakes ?
f) etc... etc... etc...
Taking EnABL seriously is moronic given the conclusions of the technical thread.
There is nothing to take genuinely seriously, its all just smoke and mirrors.
There is no harm putting pretty patterns on paper drivers, and more
likely than not, (but not guaranteed), the SQ will improve somewhat.
I can easily tell interconnects apart, which is better is a different matter.
rgds, sreten.
I could be writing something useful, rather than debunking.
Last edited:
Ah here we go again. EnABL is very cheap to try and IME does everything that BudP says it does. I say pull your finger out and try it for yourself.
I too was skeptical, so started my EnABL exploration on baffles.
At the time I was unwilling to risk damaging a driver on something so unusual.
Years later I'm still amazed by it's effectiveness.
I now treat drivers, baffles, cabinets, horns and ports. And room corners.
To those who have no experience with EnABL I say get some.
Otherwise, dismiss it, get over yourself and focus on the things you 'know' are proven and effective.
BTW, my comments are general and not directed at anyone in particular.
I too was skeptical, so started my EnABL exploration on baffles.
At the time I was unwilling to risk damaging a driver on something so unusual.
Years later I'm still amazed by it's effectiveness.
I now treat drivers, baffles, cabinets, horns and ports. And room corners.
To those who have no experience with EnABL I say get some.
Otherwise, dismiss it, get over yourself and focus on the things you 'know' are proven and effective.
BTW, my comments are general and not directed at anyone in particular.
Last edited:
This subject has already had far too time expended on it.
Save us from the non-technical who argue white is black,
(and cannot manage one single piece of evidence).
/Sreten.
Last edited:
I must admit i am discouraged. I have a pair of A7.3 EnAbled coming, and now have to face the fact that I may have spent money on something that Mark and MJK seem to discount. I have some 10.2 to compare to, but no A7's, so i will not be ale to provide direct lstening comparison. I do know the A7 is said to be critical and in this way, the EnAbling process may help smooth that. Man this sucks.
My only experience with enabled drivers was a pair of FE167E's. I could compare the treated drivers with a pair of stock drivers. There was a definite difference that did not take A/B'ing to detect. The treated drivers sounded softer and less edgy. The catch is that this was a full-boat mod: Doping with PVA; inserting a phase plug; applying the dots. I know the effect of the phase plug. That puts a hole in the FR in the 6-7kHz range which goes a long way to killing sibilance in female voice. I really can't say what the effect of the dots was because of the other treatments. The real test would be on one of the MA drivers where the dots are the only treatment.
Bob
Bob
I remember folks around here enjoying the Fostex 127e but many felt it had an ‘excitable’ sound at some frequencies. Enable helped audibly and measurably reduce this.
I view Enable as I view other cone treatments like dammar (which I found audibly helped my old and excellent Radio Shack 1197s and piezo tweeters). Dammar made audible improvements that were also measurable. The drivers sounded less sizzly.
Not every driver is perfect and if a cone treatment helps, then enjoy!
I view Enable as I view other cone treatments like dammar (which I found audibly helped my old and excellent Radio Shack 1197s and piezo tweeters). Dammar made audible improvements that were also measurable. The drivers sounded less sizzly.
Not every driver is perfect and if a cone treatment helps, then enjoy!
If you want to retract your statement, why not just say so? Nothing wrong with that.
Remember, you said exactly this:
Not much wiggle room in that.
There are a number of us who have posted here (and others who have not) who have taken it seriously enough to try it, listen to it, test it or continue to use it. By your statement all of these people must be complete morons.
Since that is obviously not true, then your statement can not be true. Pretty simple.
That's how I formed my opinion. My description is about as simple as it gets: It sounds less like the driver from which the sound emanates. Less coloured if you will.
I honestly don't hear what some others describe but that doesn't bother me. I don't hear the difference cables, interconnects, power cords, receptacles or Bybee devices make but that doesn't bother me either.
Where can I find explanations on the phase-plug subject? Or can you summarize the effect and how it works?
Thanks.
Hello Buzz, guys
Don't be too discouraged. LMS, MLSSA, CLIO and other testing systems aren't always capable of operating with sufficient sensitivity to illustrate subtle changes in a cone's emittance. For many humans, their hearing capacity will likely be more sensitive to minute changes in tempo, pitch and tone as a product change in emittance. Therefore, its quite possible to have drivers with similar trace frequency outputs, yet be audibly different to some human ears.
I can only report the technical findings while also qualifying possible sensitivity limits of standardised test systems. I'm one a few people on the planet who have advanced fully isolated lab based equipment capable of measuring several fundamental properties of a cone's emittance profile. I have observed that there are differences between the micro-emittance properties of cones that have additional coating processes applied to them compared to those that don't.
In the end it comes down to personal taste. Those who like the properties of coated cone processes will offer their praises, while some others who've listened to such modified drivers remain unconvinced. What isn't convincing are some of more intense comments in some posts from those members on either side of the debate, who haven't actually heard/compared coated drivers and standard equivalents.
One way to determine what is a benefit (or not) is to find someone with these drivers, visit and listen. Or as I do, try to get groups of audio guys together and make a comparison listening events. Or check out these types of drivers at Audio-fests, or group events. Even then, its rarely possible to get a consensus.
Cheers
Mark.
Last edited:
it's interesting the actually mr. lynn does not enabel his drivers: whatever this means; it's up to the reader to make his own conclusion
503Timber,
You have a good point. There doesn't HAVE to be science behind something subjective. For instance a nice paint job. Why I am interested in enabling is the huge amount of pseudoscience surrounding it. There are pages and pages and pages of people making vague yet affirming statements filled with science sounding words such as "standing wave". Placebo is fine! Pseudoscience is evil because it devalues real science.
picowallspeaker,
Are you referring to designs such as the Goodman's Axiom, and B&W's uncoupled surround Kevlar mid? If you were, you stole my thoughts! Better adjust my foil hat...
I think that the claims made about what the treatment treats are indeed sound; that waves do traverse the cone due to it's finite speed of sound, and that these waves need to be terminated in some way. I just don't think the dots are the way to go about it.
Plantet10,
Of what further optimization do you speak? I am looking at the patent: What changes specifically have led to a better design over the past 17 years?
I would really like to hear the difference for myself.
Sincerely,
Tade
You have a good point. There doesn't HAVE to be science behind something subjective. For instance a nice paint job. Why I am interested in enabling is the huge amount of pseudoscience surrounding it. There are pages and pages and pages of people making vague yet affirming statements filled with science sounding words such as "standing wave". Placebo is fine! Pseudoscience is evil because it devalues real science.
picowallspeaker,
Are you referring to designs such as the Goodman's Axiom, and B&W's uncoupled surround Kevlar mid? If you were, you stole my thoughts! Better adjust my foil hat...
I think that the claims made about what the treatment treats are indeed sound; that waves do traverse the cone due to it's finite speed of sound, and that these waves need to be terminated in some way. I just don't think the dots are the way to go about it.
Plantet10,
Of what further optimization do you speak? I am looking at the patent: What changes specifically have led to a better design over the past 17 years?
I would really like to hear the difference for myself.
Sincerely,
Tade
I've heard several eNabled drivers and was unimpressed. My complaint is mostly due to the feeble but insistant psudoscientific attempts by believers to ascribe some sort of technical rationale beyond personal preference, placebo, expectation bias, whatever you wish to call the in-your-head thingie that's responsible for perceived improvements from the process...
Another problem (aluded to above) is that most of the "evidence" of improvements involves other changes mAde to the system/driver(s) beyond just the dots, yet enabling improvements are held as solely responsible for perceived results... (no acknowledgement of confounding allowed)
not that there's anything wrong with that.. just accept it for what it is... an emotional tweak for those who choose to use it... and move on
John L.
Another problem (aluded to above) is that most of the "evidence" of improvements involves other changes mAde to the system/driver(s) beyond just the dots, yet enabling improvements are held as solely responsible for perceived results... (no acknowledgement of confounding allowed)
not that there's anything wrong with that.. just accept it for what it is... an emotional tweak for those who choose to use it... and move on
John L.
Last edited:
Are you saying that a speaker with a beautiful hand rubbed finish sounds better than one in raw MDF?
Bob
- Status
- Not open for further replies.