I just saw a few pictures of some "enabled" fullrange drivers with "markings" on the FRAME of the driver. Are there also "markings" on the magnet?
Am I the only one skeptical about the process? I saw it when it began several years ago and thought to myself; "ah, another interesting bit of snake oil."
I saw the enabling thread rise to over 1,400 posts, and was willing to wait until I heard an enabled driver, or to try the treatment myself, to form a final opinion.
BUT; seeing the FRAME of a driver with a pattern of dots on it is the straw which broke the camel's back for me. I am now convinced there is no utility to the treatment.
Seeing as there is a thousand page thread devoted to the glories of enabling, I would like to hear from anyone else who thinks it's in their heads.
Sincerely,
Tade
Am I the only one skeptical about the process? I saw it when it began several years ago and thought to myself; "ah, another interesting bit of snake oil."
I saw the enabling thread rise to over 1,400 posts, and was willing to wait until I heard an enabled driver, or to try the treatment myself, to form a final opinion.
BUT; seeing the FRAME of a driver with a pattern of dots on it is the straw which broke the camel's back for me. I am now convinced there is no utility to the treatment.
Seeing as there is a thousand page thread devoted to the glories of enabling, I would like to hear from anyone else who thinks it's in their heads.
Sincerely,
Tade
While famously a steadfast cheerleader for the magic polka dots since first hearing the difference well over 4 years ago, I kinda agree with the excess of treating surfaces not in direct interface with the air between the enclosure and your ears.
I've heard it make a difference (improvement) when applied to the baffle/side panels of a speaker enclosure with which I'm quite familiar .
Careful loading a question with "who thinks it's in their heads" - that's where all perceptions ("false" or otherwise) live
Seriously though, there's been a continuous and fractious debate on the technical and objective aspects of this subject since Bud first offered the process to the public.
I'm sure you wouldn't have to look far (start at 6moons) to find far stranger and costly "processes", magik colored tin-foil triangles, brilliant pebbles, platinum resonator cups, etc ad nauseum offered to the audio consumer in promise of life changing revelations.
I've heard it make a difference (improvement) when applied to the baffle/side panels of a speaker enclosure with which I'm quite familiar .
Careful loading a question with "who thinks it's in their heads" - that's where all perceptions ("false" or otherwise) live
Seriously though, there's been a continuous and fractious debate on the technical and objective aspects of this subject since Bud first offered the process to the public.
I'm sure you wouldn't have to look far (start at 6moons) to find far stranger and costly "processes", magik colored tin-foil triangles, brilliant pebbles, platinum resonator cups, etc ad nauseum offered to the audio consumer in promise of life changing revelations.
Hi,
EnABL does not do what is says on the tin. If you read the patent and some
of the utter nonsense in the subjective thread you might think its the greatest
thing since sliced bread and the answer to all aural ills, including the drivel in
the patent that claims it fixes all diffraction issues when applied to cabinets.
You have to be a complete moron to take any of this seriously, it is pathetic.
rgds, sreten.
EnABL does not do what is says on the tin. If you read the patent and some
of the utter nonsense in the subjective thread you might think its the greatest
thing since sliced bread and the answer to all aural ills, including the drivel in
the patent that claims it fixes all diffraction issues when applied to cabinets.
You have to be a complete moron to take any of this seriously, it is pathetic.
rgds, sreten.
chrisb,
I totally agree that there are tons of products that make use of the placebo effect. What irks me about "Bud's process" is its ties to DIY, and the fanaticism surrounding it.
To me, It's the difference between a wealthy audio-fool buying some shakti resonators to place around his room, and someone in the DIY community spending hours building shakti resonators when what their system really needs is better bracing in the cabinets etc.
I've never even heard a coherent possible explanation for why the process works; and yes I have looked.
sreten,
Whew, I'm not alone!
Thanks,
Tade
I totally agree that there are tons of products that make use of the placebo effect. What irks me about "Bud's process" is its ties to DIY, and the fanaticism surrounding it.
To me, It's the difference between a wealthy audio-fool buying some shakti resonators to place around his room, and someone in the DIY community spending hours building shakti resonators when what their system really needs is better bracing in the cabinets etc.
I've never even heard a coherent possible explanation for why the process works; and yes I have looked.
sreten,
Whew, I'm not alone!
Thanks,
Tade
Or you could just listen to it in a blind test. I did. At one test Lynn Olsen was sitting right beside me.
So you can count me as one of the complete idiots. As pathetic as that seems.
I can't speak for Lynn.
Chrisb
No, I have not. I would really like to do a comparison someday.
I'm more concerned with the lack of a concrete theory, or even a standard practice of application. I definitely don't demand measurements or the like. I understand that some acoustical phenomenon are quite difficult to quantify, but if there is no theory, AND there is no data...
No, I have not. I would really like to do a comparison someday.
I'm more concerned with the lack of a concrete theory, or even a standard practice of application. I definitely don't demand measurements or the like. I understand that some acoustical phenomenon are quite difficult to quantify, but if there is no theory, AND there is no data...
They show up in the others treads. You're sure to attract a few.
I have no idea whether it works or not as applied to a driver cone as I have not tried it. The other suggestions as to where it might be used are questionable IMHO. It would probably be wise to listen to modified and unmodified drivers in suitable cabs in some sort of blind test before drawing whatever conclusions one might - then one would have the conviction that comes from direct experience rather than conjecture.
It also differs in another more significant sense from things like the shakti stone and mpingo disk and that is in that you can cheaply purchase the materials at most craft stores and do it yourself, at the very worst you are out a trivial sum of money and a few hours of time. I suspect on light paper cones typical of Fostex FR drivers that the mod-podge step may have benefits, in my distant diy past lacquer and thinned spar varnish sparingly applied to light paper comes IMLE helped reduce mid-range break up in small woofers like the one found in the Minimus 7.
I have listened to one system with enabled FE126 drivers, can't remember anything - obviously it was neither bad enough nor good enough to stand out in my mind.
I will say the untreated FE167 in my Half Chili Changs sound just dreadful and anything (even delusion) might be helpful here. I guess I should disclose that other than the RCA LC-1A I am not a big fan of FR speaker systems.
It also differs in another more significant sense from things like the shakti stone and mpingo disk and that is in that you can cheaply purchase the materials at most craft stores and do it yourself, at the very worst you are out a trivial sum of money and a few hours of time. I suspect on light paper cones typical of Fostex FR drivers that the mod-podge step may have benefits, in my distant diy past lacquer and thinned spar varnish sparingly applied to light paper comes IMLE helped reduce mid-range break up in small woofers like the one found in the Minimus 7.
I have listened to one system with enabled FE126 drivers, can't remember anything - obviously it was neither bad enough nor good enough to stand out in my mind.
I will say the untreated FE167 in my Half Chili Changs sound just dreadful and anything (even delusion) might be helpful here. I guess I should disclose that other than the RCA LC-1A I am not a big fan of FR speaker systems.
If that is the case, then i'm a moron and proud of it.
Have you heard a set of treated drivers vrs stock? I have a specially matched set of speaker pairs for anyone who wants to judge for themselves.
dave
I am well aware that what we do here is so darned subjective. However, the claims that are made in favor of the process are completely incongruous with the method, or what little theory does exist.
The fact that the same "block" material, and thickness, is effective on paper or metal cones, metal chassis, wooden boxes of any construction, and my favorite, phase plugs, says strongly to me that that there is indeed no effect.
The fact that the same "block" material, and thickness, is effective on paper or metal cones, metal chassis, wooden boxes of any construction, and my favorite, phase plugs, says strongly to me that that there is indeed no effect.
I'm curious as to why there has to be science behind it? Why can't it just be..........let's just say (for giggles) ALL of these people that have enabled speakers are hearing nothing more than a placebo.......what's wrong with that? If it sounds better to them than what's the harm...... I'd buy what ever kind of oil was being sold if it improved my system (even if in my head) for pennies on the dollar to what I have invested already.
There are also some particular speakers that are made without external suspension or without the internal one (spider ? ) , of course not both .
Having a suspension or double as in normal speakers makes them work under the laws of mass & springs , then the cone itself has very nasty breakup modes & nodes and each geometry and construction method brings to the so-called 'compromise' which may end in an excellent product .
Having a suspension or double as in normal speakers makes them work under the laws of mass & springs , then the cone itself has very nasty breakup modes & nodes and each geometry and construction method brings to the so-called 'compromise' which may end in an excellent product .
There is lots of theory/speculation as to why it works. It would be nice to know why, so that it can be further optimized, but in the end, when the butt hits the listening chair, and the music flows, my only concern is that there is more there, there.
With a good recording i know, in a blind test i can tell in 10-15 sec which box has treated drivers & which doesn't.
dave
The more interesting question to me is, can you detect in a blind test the difference between a driver with the "right" dot pattern and one with the "wrong" dot pattern, and if so, will you consistently prefer the "right" one?
The fact that differences can be heard with splatters of paint on a driver cone is, at least to me, plausible, far more so than braids of wire connected to nothing, battery-operated interconnects, teak cable lifts, "near superconductive" resistors, and coiled ELF antennas. But is the pattern something special? I doubt it, but I'd be interested to see real listening test data in that respect and could certainly be convinced if the data were solid.
The fact that differences can be heard with splatters of paint on a driver cone is, at least to me, plausible, far more so than braids of wire connected to nothing, battery-operated interconnects, teak cable lifts, "near superconductive" resistors, and coiled ELF antennas. But is the pattern something special? I doubt it, but I'd be interested to see real listening test data in that respect and could certainly be convinced if the data were solid.
Tade,
I have pairs of Fostex FE-126E drivers with and without the Enable application. I have put them in identical OBs and played them back to back over the same woofer system with minimal time between. I have measured the T/S parameters and the near field SPLs as functions of frequency. My conclusion was that the Enable process added some mass to the cone and not much else. I thought the drivers without the Enable sounded sharper and more detailed. Based on testing and listening results, I can say that I do not believe.
Martin
I've not tried enable, I've not heard it. I don't doubt that a difference can be heard, after all changes such as doping a cone can make substantial differences to the rigidity of the cone and therefore change breakup modes.
without putting much thought in to it, (so this is definitely pseudo science) I would postulate that the pattern is important, getting the right distribution of localized damping/stiffening (I don't know anything about the properties of the spots) all over the cone could, I guess, affect cone resonances in just the right way. However I would have thought that this would vary with cone material and construction.
Tony.
without putting much thought in to it, (so this is definitely pseudo science) I would postulate that the pattern is important, getting the right distribution of localized damping/stiffening (I don't know anything about the properties of the spots) all over the cone could, I guess, affect cone resonances in just the right way. However I would have thought that this would vary with cone material and construction.
Tony.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.