No info on the displacement published with the scans but I'm sure those who took the data know what it was. I don't, but it has to be very small, micros or less I would guess. Some of the first demonstrations of the use of lasers to gage displacement were developed back in the early '70s at United Technologies Research Center when I was there. The demo was a gear turning on a shaft with a laser focused on it. The output of the system traced out the shape of the gear teeth on a scope, in real time, as it rotated. By the way, the output of these systems is analog, a continuous time signal representing the displacement.
FWIW, I did some testing (FR and CSD) on my own with a number of different treatments and patterns. I don't know if I will present them or not yet 'cause I really don't feel like getting into a brouhaha over this as it's just not that important to me. But I will answer one of your questions from some time back about soongc’s data and phase. All the changes I made, (and I made a lot both with an Enable type pattern and permutation there of, as well as random applications of other damping materials), showed minimum phase response. The phase response remained the same for all cases with the exception of localized changes in regions where the frequency response changed. I didn’t have to make any compensation for changes in the acoustic distance. The mic to acoustic center distance remained constant. So, as I said before, I don’t not understand where soongc’s phase variation originated but I don’t believe it to be correct, for what ever unknown reason. It didn’t make physical sense and my data doesn’t support it.
Oh, what the heck. Here is a link to the web page I started putting together. All I will say is that the driver tested was a 6" metal cone (so I could remove the treatment) and that after each test when I removed the treatment I re-tested the bare cone to make sure it was not permanently altered by any application. In the last test I applied rubberized undercoat which was not removable.
As for audible differences I will only say that they were very dependent on the source material and I considered them consistent with the observed differences in frequency response. I will also say that my listening tests were conducted before making any measurement so as not to be influenced by the measurements. http://www.musicanddesign.com/Enable.html
FWIW, I did some testing (FR and CSD) on my own with a number of different treatments and patterns. I don't know if I will present them or not yet 'cause I really don't feel like getting into a brouhaha over this as it's just not that important to me. But I will answer one of your questions from some time back about soongc’s data and phase. All the changes I made, (and I made a lot both with an Enable type pattern and permutation there of, as well as random applications of other damping materials), showed minimum phase response. The phase response remained the same for all cases with the exception of localized changes in regions where the frequency response changed. I didn’t have to make any compensation for changes in the acoustic distance. The mic to acoustic center distance remained constant. So, as I said before, I don’t not understand where soongc’s phase variation originated but I don’t believe it to be correct, for what ever unknown reason. It didn’t make physical sense and my data doesn’t support it.
Oh, what the heck. Here is a link to the web page I started putting together. All I will say is that the driver tested was a 6" metal cone (so I could remove the treatment) and that after each test when I removed the treatment I re-tested the bare cone to make sure it was not permanently altered by any application. In the last test I applied rubberized undercoat which was not removable.
As for audible differences I will only say that they were very dependent on the source material and I considered them consistent with the observed differences in frequency response. I will also say that my listening tests were conducted before making any measurement so as not to be influenced by the measurements. http://www.musicanddesign.com/Enable.html
BudP said:
I'll answer what I know of these, but I suspect that John will have more to add. This comes (as John noted) from Martin Collom's book of which I have the fourth edition. These graphs are on page 46 and 47 of that edition. They are listed as being laser scans provided by Celestion of 8 inch drivers. The concentric mode scan is a curved paper cone and the bell mode is a straight-sided paper cone, indicative of the importance of geometry.
I thought that they may be representations of cone velocity, not displacement, but I noticed John's post right after posting my response.
There's a good representation at the Polk Audio site:
Polk Audio laser interferometry
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The above animation would have to have been a construction of successive scans at a single frequency, as John was describing the method required. A single scan across the radius of a diaphragm is going to be very limited in what it can present with regard to the diaphragm movement.
Note this statement at that page:
Dave
John K,
Thanks for that John. I too was quite confused about how to normalize soongsc's data.
I am delighted to read that you are looking at this surface treatment. Can only mean you and others will hunt down, which of what, makes the audible "correctness" that most subjective listeners report. Thank you for posting even data you are not comfortable with, from an absolutely rigorous point of view. My opinion is that all data sets are helpful.
dlr,
As usual Dave, useful and helpful information. I will, when I have some available cash, attempt to purchase Mr. Collom's book. I assume I will have no trouble finding it, though I don't think I have seen the title anywhere. If he is poking into these murky waters, I want to read what he has to say.
Bud
Thanks for that John. I too was quite confused about how to normalize soongsc's data.
I am delighted to read that you are looking at this surface treatment. Can only mean you and others will hunt down, which of what, makes the audible "correctness" that most subjective listeners report. Thank you for posting even data you are not comfortable with, from an absolutely rigorous point of view. My opinion is that all data sets are helpful.
dlr,
As usual Dave, useful and helpful information. I will, when I have some available cash, attempt to purchase Mr. Collom's book. I assume I will have no trouble finding it, though I don't think I have seen the title anywhere. If he is poking into these murky waters, I want to read what he has to say.
Bud
I totally give up! This is much a pointless effort.
I am sure that any revelant tests i would perform woulde be critized and questioned. I really dont have the time in my life to attack windmills.
John! the question was not about the overall cone response , but the difference between two different states of energy response at different frequencies and position. I hope you can realize the difference.
So yall have won( gives a boost to the ego,dosent it). I am sure that any measured response i produced would not be accepted. I hereby leave yall to quibble about the ever increasing physical details.
I have better/more important things to do in my life. BTW, i have yet to see any of the detractors in this post actually design or post dwgs that have been built or established viable data. Its very easy to stand back and critize, but its much more difficult to actually produce something, like Bud, Dave, Chris, Martin.
Have a happy and long life.
ron
I am sure that any revelant tests i would perform woulde be critized and questioned. I really dont have the time in my life to attack windmills.
John! the question was not about the overall cone response , but the difference between two different states of energy response at different frequencies and position. I hope you can realize the difference.
So yall have won( gives a boost to the ego,dosent it). I am sure that any measured response i produced would not be accepted. I hereby leave yall to quibble about the ever increasing physical details.
I have better/more important things to do in my life. BTW, i have yet to see any of the detractors in this post actually design or post dwgs that have been built or established viable data. Its very easy to stand back and critize, but its much more difficult to actually produce something, like Bud, Dave, Chris, Martin.
Have a happy and long life.
ron
John K,
For metal cones, direct application of EnABL patterns need to be tuned, and the material of the pattern needs to be according to the criteria Bud had stated the paint is not an option. So I don't know what you are using. If one want's to compare apples to apples with my measurements and question them, they should just use the same driver, and go through the same process that I have made open. There are some addition things about the driver you are using that are noted below.
If you look at the FR and the phase, it seems clear that this 6" driver is relying on the cone modes to get to the higher frequency range. This also shows that the cone shape is not so good as the Jordan JX92S, and it probably was not designed with the experience and understanding that Ted has behind him. If you really use a pattern to suppress these modes, you will end up with reduced frequency response. Actually the next driver on my list is also a 6.5" driver of similar FR extension, the last quick try at it a few months ago with toothpaste resulted in nothing that will reduce the strong modes in the cone. This is why metal cones are more difficult to work with. If you really want to test for phase changes, a driver of an extended phase response should be used.
For metal cones, direct application of EnABL patterns need to be tuned, and the material of the pattern needs to be according to the criteria Bud had stated the paint is not an option. So I don't know what you are using. If one want's to compare apples to apples with my measurements and question them, they should just use the same driver, and go through the same process that I have made open. There are some addition things about the driver you are using that are noted below.
If you look at the FR and the phase, it seems clear that this 6" driver is relying on the cone modes to get to the higher frequency range. This also shows that the cone shape is not so good as the Jordan JX92S, and it probably was not designed with the experience and understanding that Ted has behind him. If you really use a pattern to suppress these modes, you will end up with reduced frequency response. Actually the next driver on my list is also a 6.5" driver of similar FR extension, the last quick try at it a few months ago with toothpaste resulted in nothing that will reduce the strong modes in the cone. This is why metal cones are more difficult to work with. If you really want to test for phase changes, a driver of an extended phase response should be used.
I agree Ron, this thread's energy has become redirected into trying to appease the nit-picking objectivists & has suffered as a consequence!
I have no problem in objective, repeatable measures but these can't be forced or demanded before a suitable gestation period.
I, like you, would like to see some positive help/suggestion/offer from the nit-pickers which would advance rather than retard this concept. I presume being scientific minded people they know exactly the measurement processes to use & have access to such as equipment as will prove/dissprove this effects of this treatment.
Don't come back with the answer that it's not your role to prove the claims of this treatment, I've heard it too often!
I have no problem in objective, repeatable measures but these can't be forced or demanded before a suitable gestation period.
I, like you, would like to see some positive help/suggestion/offer from the nit-pickers which would advance rather than retard this concept. I presume being scientific minded people they know exactly the measurement processes to use & have access to such as equipment as will prove/dissprove this effects of this treatment.
Don't come back with the answer that it's not your role to prove the claims of this treatment, I've heard it too often!
I think if one does not have a goal to improve technology of sound reproduction, then it's easy to drop out when difficulties come up. I'm sure many people won't like the way I swing a golf club.
Once I was in a driving range, and the ball kept hitting the rain cover and bouncing back in. Yeh, I felt it was dangerous too, so I did improve that aspect. But otherwise, I'm just happy with the game.
Once I was in a driving range, and the ball kept hitting the rain cover and bouncing back in. Yeh, I felt it was dangerous too, so I did improve that aspect. But otherwise, I'm just happy with the game.
jkeny, et all
I for one am not trying to appease them, or you. EnABL will continue just as it has. It's usefulness not blighted in the least. I do think that it is a significant step forward that both John K and Dave (dlr) are beginning to look into this odd activity, brought about by applying funny bumps of paint, in very particular places. This is not intuitive for folks who have been investigating a different performance model, with a ton of test data sets behind it. Their skepticism is valid.
Equally valid is the skepticism of those who have gone ahead and tried EnABL out, on cones that Planet 10 or I have at least had a look at, if not actual experience with. Their experiences are valid experiences, the difference in audible performance is just too abrupt and unequivocal, to ignore it as some form of hysteria.
Soongsc and John K are very correct, this is a driver specific sort of termination program. Basic guidelines apply, in almost every case, but you will note that I take a lot of time over the treatment process for each of the drivers I have posted on. This, after 35 years and 300 plus, full system's, with multiple drivers, cross overs and boxes.
The skepticism does not affect whether EnABL works or not. This is not magic. It is a physical reality and it is repeatable. ronc has shown that there is even reason to think that a different physical model is required, to understand the non magical functionality of an EnABL'd driver. I certainly hope he pursues his investigation, because we will all learn from it.
We are all going to have to challenge one another's comfort zone over this. It is even good that a company like POLK is investigating some unusual methods for improving speakers. I am quite interested to see if EnABL makes a difference in their products.
There is nothing to "give up on". This investigation is just bound to be a tumultuous process, but it is rooted in physical reality. Not a whit of magic attached.
Bud
I for one am not trying to appease them, or you. EnABL will continue just as it has. It's usefulness not blighted in the least. I do think that it is a significant step forward that both John K and Dave (dlr) are beginning to look into this odd activity, brought about by applying funny bumps of paint, in very particular places. This is not intuitive for folks who have been investigating a different performance model, with a ton of test data sets behind it. Their skepticism is valid.
Equally valid is the skepticism of those who have gone ahead and tried EnABL out, on cones that Planet 10 or I have at least had a look at, if not actual experience with. Their experiences are valid experiences, the difference in audible performance is just too abrupt and unequivocal, to ignore it as some form of hysteria.
Soongsc and John K are very correct, this is a driver specific sort of termination program. Basic guidelines apply, in almost every case, but you will note that I take a lot of time over the treatment process for each of the drivers I have posted on. This, after 35 years and 300 plus, full system's, with multiple drivers, cross overs and boxes.
The skepticism does not affect whether EnABL works or not. This is not magic. It is a physical reality and it is repeatable. ronc has shown that there is even reason to think that a different physical model is required, to understand the non magical functionality of an EnABL'd driver. I certainly hope he pursues his investigation, because we will all learn from it.
We are all going to have to challenge one another's comfort zone over this. It is even good that a company like POLK is investigating some unusual methods for improving speakers. I am quite interested to see if EnABL makes a difference in their products.
There is nothing to "give up on". This investigation is just bound to be a tumultuous process, but it is rooted in physical reality. Not a whit of magic attached.
Bud
This the tough one I'm talking about. Really wish I could be part of wide range driver development from the start. Hey, if anyone is hiring...soongsc said:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
think if one does not have a goal to improve technology of sound reproduction, then it's easy to drop out when difficulties come up.
What would be the point. The detractors in this post appear to be the same thing as an overweight 60 year old with a beer in his hand sitting in a recliner critizing a college quarterback in a football game on TV.
Its easy to critize, its difficult to actually produce/perform.
Anything i could produce insofar as actual results would have endless critique by ppl who dont actually produce,but by ppl who have found a safe haven in critique.
ron
What would be the point. The detractors in this post appear to be the same thing as an overweight 60 year old with a beer in his hand sitting in a recliner critizing a college quarterback in a football game on TV.
Its easy to critize, its difficult to actually produce/perform.
Anything i could produce insofar as actual results would have endless critique by ppl who dont actually produce,but by ppl who have found a safe haven in critique.
ron
OK! I will stay on for a bit, but if the endless BS continues i have to leave. I have six(6) different projects at work at present, i have no life other than work, i am human and old, there is a limit.
Again, this is a simple process, If you cant understand the process then find other physical actions to critize.
Thanks
ron
Again, this is a simple process, If you cant understand the process then find other physical actions to critize.
Thanks
ron
I used to get 5 hours of sleep every day, from 2am to 7am. It was fun. The guys we worked with on the other side of the globe always wondered when we slept because to seem to be in contact whenever necessary. But wine and dine and dance and games and excercise. etc. are still the spices of life. Just have to get something different once in a while.
We get good at anything we really enjoy doing, and I like to just find enjoyment in what I do. I've been working on ways to improve sound of drivers for only a few years. When I looked at the EnABL pattern, I knew this would work if one could grasp on the concept and understand how it effects vibration of the cone. If we look though many designs that had attempted to treat the cone in different ways, we can learn how each type of treatment effects the cone and how to combine the effects to acheive a better product. I still have the first driver that inspired me while I was in highschool.
But really, if anyone is doing this just to prove a point, it is not worth the time. But if the purpose is to probably learn something, and one is interested in improving sound reproduction, then just approach it with an open mind and not worry about status and posture. If we look back on one post that was about an MLS based sequence pattern, it is actually a good idea, but we still need to understand that each concept has it's limitations.
We get good at anything we really enjoy doing, and I like to just find enjoyment in what I do. I've been working on ways to improve sound of drivers for only a few years. When I looked at the EnABL pattern, I knew this would work if one could grasp on the concept and understand how it effects vibration of the cone. If we look though many designs that had attempted to treat the cone in different ways, we can learn how each type of treatment effects the cone and how to combine the effects to acheive a better product. I still have the first driver that inspired me while I was in highschool.
But really, if anyone is doing this just to prove a point, it is not worth the time. But if the purpose is to probably learn something, and one is interested in improving sound reproduction, then just approach it with an open mind and not worry about status and posture. If we look back on one post that was about an MLS based sequence pattern, it is actually a good idea, but we still need to understand that each concept has it's limitations.
soongsc said:
Well, I'm not trying to tune anything. I chose the driver I did because it obviously had a host of high frequency breakup problems. Thus it was a perfect candidate for investigating how different patterns of different damping materials affects these break up modes. If it is neceassary to optimize the treatment for evey different cone shape/material/size then you can hardly call this a unique treatment at all. It's just finding the optimum damping of the cone by trial and error. Nothing wrong with that, butit's just another audiophile tweak, IMO. I do agree with you on the high frequency side but if you look at the FR plots form the data I posted you will see that the rubberized coating was evey effective at eliminating resonances above 10k Hz. Below 10K there is some damping but there is also a frequency shift of the resonances which is consistent with the more or less uniform addition of mass.
For who ever asked, here is a drawing of the square treatment. You get the idea.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
kaan said:Hi John
I like that you went and did these tests.
Could you please provide a drawing of the rectangle you mention?
It would have been nice to see pictures af the different treatments you made.
Thanks for sharing your data
-Klaus
I guess you have seen the drawing of the square. The Enable patterns look like what they are supposed to look like. The Mortite patterns started by following the Enable patterns but soon became just random placement of 1/8" to 1/4" diameter blobs of Mortite anywhere on the cone, but more specifically in the area between 1/4 and 3/4 of the radius. More toward the middle of the cone rather than concentrated near the surround or VC junction. I also place the Mortite on the back side of the cone which had similar results as front side placement. This sort of discounted any surface BL disruption theories in my mind.
The tests were well controlled and repeatable, but I don't claim any of them to be optimum.
Take them for what they are.
John K, Dave (dlr), I don't want to see resonant mode displacement pictures and movies.
We all know diaphragms do that. So what? You're just seeing resonant drum modes.
Because diaphragm has near continuous energy input, what I want to see is a distribution of all radiation across the diaphragm before and after treatment. A sort of power spectrum for each small area of the diaphragm which can be mapped onto the whole diaphragm.
I believe Ron is proposing to get data which could be used to show it: "the difference between two different states of energy response at different frequencies and position."
In what what fashion is that not "useful"?
He has to demonstrate, if not measure, a difference in surface displacement to do what he proposes. If he measures it, then he has real data related to energy radiated in audible frequency range.
Perhaps that could be correlated to intensity, frequency and phase of original signal?
Because it's a transducer in its own right, perhaps then we could actually know for real the power spectrum of a diaphragm's own noise floor at various signal intensities?
Before and after treatment.
What's so un-useful about that?
We all know diaphragms do that. So what? You're just seeing resonant drum modes.
Because diaphragm has near continuous energy input, what I want to see is a distribution of all radiation across the diaphragm before and after treatment. A sort of power spectrum for each small area of the diaphragm which can be mapped onto the whole diaphragm.
I believe Ron is proposing to get data which could be used to show it: "the difference between two different states of energy response at different frequencies and position."
In what what fashion is that not "useful"?
He has to demonstrate, if not measure, a difference in surface displacement to do what he proposes. If he measures it, then he has real data related to energy radiated in audible frequency range.
Perhaps that could be correlated to intensity, frequency and phase of original signal?
Because it's a transducer in its own right, perhaps then we could actually know for real the power spectrum of a diaphragm's own noise floor at various signal intensities?
Before and after treatment.
What's so un-useful about that?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.