This all makes me think of the old Little Dot comic book series. For whatever reason, dots did it for her. Wrt EnAbLe itself, I am suspending judgment for the time being.
I am very pro 'grain of truth' oriented wrt audible effects resulting from mechanical, electrical or chemical causes. A good example is speaker cables, where conductor material, insulator material, conductor gauge, conductor spacing, plated or non plated, plating material, single or multiple strand, whether insulated if multiple strand, braided, twisted or straight, surface oxidation or corrosion type, conductor shape, photo electric effects, triboelectric effects, skin effects, etc. are just some of the contributing sources of the sonic differences between speaker cables. Anybody who denies all of that is predictably speaking out of his hat.
And a well known cautionary example of denying the audibility of effects that aren't susceptible to quantification using standard 1930's vintage measurement technicques is all the braying of the 'perfect sound forever' CD enthusiasts who belittled anybody who questioned the absolute sonic accuracy of Redbook standard audio in practice, and the resulting profound and overwhelming negative effects on the SQ of music only recordings which has given us MP3, among other things.
But with EnAbLe, no correlative physical effect could be elicited when I asked, except that there be a particular pattern of dots, etc. Nobody could tell me whether the EnAbLe effect would be present to any different extent if the pattern was due to invisible ink 1 molecule thick or done with barn paint or anything else, or what any thresholds might be in paint material or thickness, or for which types of drivers it may be more or less effective with.
I'm not saying that there is no justification to EnAbLe drivers. However, lacking any plausible correlation to *intentionally* measurable physical phenomena so far, EnAbLe puts me in mind of the venerable 'science' behind homeopathy, and of course, Little Dot.
I am very pro 'grain of truth' oriented wrt audible effects resulting from mechanical, electrical or chemical causes. A good example is speaker cables, where conductor material, insulator material, conductor gauge, conductor spacing, plated or non plated, plating material, single or multiple strand, whether insulated if multiple strand, braided, twisted or straight, surface oxidation or corrosion type, conductor shape, photo electric effects, triboelectric effects, skin effects, etc. are just some of the contributing sources of the sonic differences between speaker cables. Anybody who denies all of that is predictably speaking out of his hat.
And a well known cautionary example of denying the audibility of effects that aren't susceptible to quantification using standard 1930's vintage measurement technicques is all the braying of the 'perfect sound forever' CD enthusiasts who belittled anybody who questioned the absolute sonic accuracy of Redbook standard audio in practice, and the resulting profound and overwhelming negative effects on the SQ of music only recordings which has given us MP3, among other things.
But with EnAbLe, no correlative physical effect could be elicited when I asked, except that there be a particular pattern of dots, etc. Nobody could tell me whether the EnAbLe effect would be present to any different extent if the pattern was due to invisible ink 1 molecule thick or done with barn paint or anything else, or what any thresholds might be in paint material or thickness, or for which types of drivers it may be more or less effective with.
I'm not saying that there is no justification to EnAbLe drivers. However, lacking any plausible correlation to *intentionally* measurable physical phenomena so far, EnAbLe puts me in mind of the venerable 'science' behind homeopathy, and of course, Little Dot.
Last edited:
Buzzforb, you have the right to be skeptical, and thus worried about wasting your money. Don't let markaudio try to sway your skepticism with a brush off; "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."
THAT is EXACTLY why I started this thread!
markaudio, remember that this thread is for skeptics.
THAT is EXACTLY why I started this thread!
markaudio, remember that this thread is for skeptics.
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
I continue to find it interesting / amusing that the word "reader" is used when discussing addressing the subject of an auditory phenomena.
I'm proud to be counted near the top of the list chronologically of "morons" who aren't smart enough to disbelieve what "they think they've heard" from EnABL treatment .
Several years ago I participated in some informal blind A/B tests with unprepared and often non-audiophile listeners. For some folks the difference/improvement was immediately apparent - for others not.
There's no question that the lack of an incontrovertible scientific explanation of how/why this effect works and the decades that Bud has had to ruminate on the subject since his experiments leading up to and writing of patent documentation, or attempt in his own very interesting style to describe it give much room for doubt / debate. Unfortunately not all the "conversations" as good-natured as he is about it.
Personally, and with no particular scientific explanation, I'd opine that the pattern of dots and dashes on otherwise (relatively in the case of some paper types) smooth surface is important ( i.e. more than simply random); and that while the mass of applied material will have some degree of affect in terms of measurable sensitivity / efficiency (and vary among drivers depending on effective moving mass before treatment), that a combination of localized damping of resonances within the cone material as well as disturbance of the air movement at the boundary layer are at play.
For those who believe it worth further pursuing, it would be very interesting to investigate whether the same effects would be noted if the patterns could be embossed (either positive or negative) during the cone manufacturing process.
perceptual bias
whatever floats your boat... this is a highly subjective pursuit.
back in the early '70's, I developed the electrochemistry facility at NRAO for microwave hardware mfg. After some research, I determined that, seeing as how all things microwave should be gold, 24k coatings were the ideal finish on mxr blocks, dewar heat shields, waveguides, that sort of thing. Unfortunately, 24k gold plating is dull as plated, as most pure metals grow w/large crystallites in random nucleation events. Sooo... after producing some rather pricey components with this 99.999% Au coating, reports started coming in that said hardware was defective due to the "dullness" of the coating. So, I started using 99.7% cobalt hardened gold coatings, which plate shiney and brite, andd guess what? The problems went away because the components were now brite and shiney. Surface morphology was not a contributing factor other than the specularity of the finish.
And this was about as technical an application as one can get, detecting microwave emmisions at femtowatt levels from distant stellar objects.
John L.
whatever floats your boat... this is a highly subjective pursuit.
back in the early '70's, I developed the electrochemistry facility at NRAO for microwave hardware mfg. After some research, I determined that, seeing as how all things microwave should be gold, 24k coatings were the ideal finish on mxr blocks, dewar heat shields, waveguides, that sort of thing. Unfortunately, 24k gold plating is dull as plated, as most pure metals grow w/large crystallites in random nucleation events. Sooo... after producing some rather pricey components with this 99.999% Au coating, reports started coming in that said hardware was defective due to the "dullness" of the coating. So, I started using 99.7% cobalt hardened gold coatings, which plate shiney and brite, andd guess what? The problems went away because the components were now brite and shiney. Surface morphology was not a contributing factor other than the specularity of the finish.
And this was about as technical an application as one can get, detecting microwave emmisions at femtowatt levels from distant stellar objects.
John L.
You know I bet the enabl process exists because fullrange listeners have so little to tweak. You look at a person who builds fullrange speakers and the speakers they build are beautiful. nice cabs, nice veneer, nice simple setup. Not much left to tweak....
Then you look at a multi-way DIYer. HAHA! wires going everywhere, tweeter attached to the plain mdf baffle with a C clamp... a mess of crossover... omnipoles, bipoles, ripoles, and OBs. Bunch of amps and subs...
hmmmm
Then you look at a multi-way DIYer. HAHA! wires going everywhere, tweeter attached to the plain mdf baffle with a C clamp... a mess of crossover... omnipoles, bipoles, ripoles, and OBs. Bunch of amps and subs...
hmmmm
Chrisb,
"Personally, and with no particular scientific explanation, I'd opine that the pattern of dots and dashes on otherwise (relatively in the case of some paper types) smooth surface is important ( i.e. more than simply random); and that while the mass of applied material will have some degree of affect in terms of measurable sensitivity / efficiency (and vary among drivers depending on effective moving mass before treatment), that a combination of localized damping of resonances within the cone material as well as disturbance of the air movement at the boundary layer are at play."
That is all fluff! The words all sound great, but in total they convey zero information. You are saying something about the fact that the cone shows damped and resonant behavior, and has a surface. Thats it; what does it mean?
Also, and I appreciate your experience with the process; I'm not sure if a truly random pattern of blocks would be better or worse, but when I think of resonances and standing waves, i think of regularity and symmetry. Which the enabl process possesses. I have a hunch that a less regular pattern would perform more effectively.
I do like your idea of forming the dots into the cone during manufacturing though, or perhaps using a laser to remove a small thickness of the cone in certain spots. That is if the process really works...
Auplater,
Wow, sad :/
"Personally, and with no particular scientific explanation, I'd opine that the pattern of dots and dashes on otherwise (relatively in the case of some paper types) smooth surface is important ( i.e. more than simply random); and that while the mass of applied material will have some degree of affect in terms of measurable sensitivity / efficiency (and vary among drivers depending on effective moving mass before treatment), that a combination of localized damping of resonances within the cone material as well as disturbance of the air movement at the boundary layer are at play."
That is all fluff! The words all sound great, but in total they convey zero information. You are saying something about the fact that the cone shows damped and resonant behavior, and has a surface. Thats it; what does it mean?
Also, and I appreciate your experience with the process; I'm not sure if a truly random pattern of blocks would be better or worse, but when I think of resonances and standing waves, i think of regularity and symmetry. Which the enabl process possesses. I have a hunch that a less regular pattern would perform more effectively.
I do like your idea of forming the dots into the cone during manufacturing though, or perhaps using a laser to remove a small thickness of the cone in certain spots. That is if the process really works...
Auplater,
Wow, sad :/
Tade;
in other words when you wrote
what you meant was "they" = "those folks who aren't skeptics like us (who haven't heard the treatment)" ?
There are a few (non audio) things about which I'll remain skeptical myself (until trumped by personal experience) but arguing ad naseum won't solve the matter between believers and non. Eventually can't we can agree to disagree, and move on?
I borrowed Dave's comparison speakers. EL70s. My thoughts real quickly:
- I had them for a couple days is all;
- Barely heard a difference in the treble region, was "nicer" is all I can say;
- The treatments included all of Dave's treatments, not just enable;
- Measured barely any difference, likely driver and measurement tolerances;
- My observations were more surrounding the difference between my reference system and the EL70 rather than the difference between the treatment. No way around that with only a couple days to review;
-Bud makes incredible claims that damage his reputation in my eyes, because his claims aren't true;
So, yes, I heard a difference and that difference was positive. Was it because of enable. Who knows. Was it everything Bud claim. Unfortunitly not even close.
Dave and I had a chat about my review. I fully admitted that my time was too short (my fault not his) and that my findings leaned towards the frequency response differences between my very flat FR reference system, and the not flat full rangers. I actually quite like those little EL70s, but my brain was overwhelmed with the differences to be able to focus on the small differences that may be there.
- I had them for a couple days is all;
- Barely heard a difference in the treble region, was "nicer" is all I can say;
- The treatments included all of Dave's treatments, not just enable;
- Measured barely any difference, likely driver and measurement tolerances;
- My observations were more surrounding the difference between my reference system and the EL70 rather than the difference between the treatment. No way around that with only a couple days to review;
-Bud makes incredible claims that damage his reputation in my eyes, because his claims aren't true;
So, yes, I heard a difference and that difference was positive. Was it because of enable. Who knows. Was it everything Bud claim. Unfortunitly not even close.
Dave and I had a chat about my review. I fully admitted that my time was too short (my fault not his) and that my findings leaned towards the frequency response differences between my very flat FR reference system, and the not flat full rangers. I actually quite like those little EL70s, but my brain was overwhelmed with the differences to be able to focus on the small differences that may be there.
Note that Martin's FE126eN-B are VERY early units i did, one of about 5 sets done to that formula (a cross between my original and new procedures). Someone else's comments on one of these pairs.
dave
I have a 'treated' fostex fe 103. It has enable on it, but it also has the cone dunked in something. The response just falls off the chart beyond 7k. The original response (from manufacturer specs: http://www.madisound.com/pdf/fostexdrivers/fe103erev.pdf) extends out to 20k. So, whatever the treatment was and I think the effect is due to dunking the cone in something rather than enable, it cut the treble so much that it renders the driver unusable. Sure, someone might say, "Oh, wow! The shoutiness is gone," but its really because you've changed the cone mass/material.
The difference between EnABL1 and EnABL2 is that 1 uses generic ring placement, EnABL2 has the driver "tell" you where to place them.
dave
I think it might be true that we're inclined to like the finished speaker more. It's obvious that our eyes tell us a lot about what we hear, and inform our opinion of what we're hearing. Even the color of the finish can influence the opinion.
I think of it like this, You're out at the market and you SEE something that looks like it TASTES good and say....."that LOOKS good". Your eyes just formed that opinion of what will/may TASTE good...........until you taste it you'll never really know
chrisb,
Of course we can agree to disagree on the subjective outcome of enabl ing, but I can't stand idly by allowing so much conjecture to stand as rigor. We should not "move on" when such claims are faithfully perpetuated.
"what you meant was "they" = "those folks who aren't skeptics like us (who haven't heard the treatment)" ?"
I did not mean to imply that the only skeptics are those who have not heard the treatment. They was meant to mean persons who believe the enabl process improves the sound of a loudspeaker system despite no solid theory as to why the improvement is not placebo.
That was a rather rash statement. Sorry. But I did intend to imply that I do think it is placebo and I wanted to hear from others who think the same.
tinitus,
There are plenty of complaints right here in this thread. Sure they aren't "this makes the driver sound like doo doo." But there are opinions which fall flagrantly short of the claimed benefit of the process. Those are important opinions to consider too.
Of course we can agree to disagree on the subjective outcome of enabl ing, but I can't stand idly by allowing so much conjecture to stand as rigor. We should not "move on" when such claims are faithfully perpetuated.
"what you meant was "they" = "those folks who aren't skeptics like us (who haven't heard the treatment)" ?"
I did not mean to imply that the only skeptics are those who have not heard the treatment. They was meant to mean persons who believe the enabl process improves the sound of a loudspeaker system despite no solid theory as to why the improvement is not placebo.
That was a rather rash statement. Sorry. But I did intend to imply that I do think it is placebo and I wanted to hear from others who think the same.
tinitus,
There are plenty of complaints right here in this thread. Sure they aren't "this makes the driver sound like doo doo." But there are opinions which fall flagrantly short of the claimed benefit of the process. Those are important opinions to consider too.
gotcha - I think - I'm still among the group who have heard the process and (the noise surrounding the debate notwithstanding) consider what it does to be an improvement of musical relevance
BTW, it took concerted effort to compose that fluff
Though I have not done all the things Martin has to test EnABL I have to agree. I did homebrew enabling with Bud's kit on one driver of a couple of pairs: an inexpensive 8 inch (which was much easier to do the application) and also on some fours, one set of NSB's and my first set of FR's, the FE127e.
I have retired all of the treated speakers or will replace them soon.
The element of faith- based audio comes in where after you do the listening test and find the treated driver heavier and muddier, the true believers will tell you that your ears have to be trained to hear it correctly. At some point in time you have to declare your independence.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.