EnABL Processes

[Magnetar]

Originally posted by BudP
Hi Magnetar.

Box faces, horn surfaces, or any other incidental, terminated surfaces, ...SNIP

Bud

I asked a specific question. Please answer it. You said

"Lot of blocks of acrylic paint, but should make the box disappear, through lack of diffraction effects and surface ringing. The mid side line of blocks will set the depth of field to behind the boxes, from a perception stand point."

I asked you to explain that. You dodged the question. I am 99.99999999999 percent sure you are wrong - painting rectangles on speaker boxes does not change the diffraction and waves caused by the box. They are way too small to have any perceivable or measurable effect on the sound caused by diffraction. Please prove me wrong Bud.

[BudP]

Magnetar,

What exactly are the rules for "proving" that what I have to say might be true? Will you perform a series of activities at my direction and witness the results? Others have. This thread is littered with their surprise....

There are no differences in physics between a cone and a baffle, with respect to how the boundary layer affects energy being emitted into a compression wave, while crossing these surfaces. Both have boundary layers, both have transverse energy waves crossing them, both have edges that must be terminated. The driver emitter surfaces arguably have a significantly greater energy emission problem than does a baffle, due to their significantly higher energy per cm sg'd. If I can terminate a transverse wave on a woofer, a mid range or a tweeter, how is this different at the edge of a baffle?

The volume of boundary layer I am affecting, in either case, is only a few hundred molecules thick. The paint blocks might as well be the Andes, as far as the energy within the boundary layer is concerned. Taller blocks can be used, but they don't work any better than the paint. Nor do they work less effectively and if it relieves an uncomfortable mental state for you, to contemplate .005 or .010 thick blocks, then please do so.

The compression wave that is attached to the transverse wave, which is actually crossing the baffle, in the boundary layer, will be controlled absolutely, in it's angular structures, by what the transverse wave does, when it reaches the baffle edge.

If there is no standing wave event possible, at that edge, the energy that would ordinarily ring in the boundary layer, just exits from the edge, in phase coherence with the compression wave it was attached to. The compression wave has no extra phase structures added and so it does not "diffract" into energy lobes. This is the least lossey form of energy transform available and conservation of enrgy is maintained.

I do realize that this does not make sense, if your understanding of speaker drivers is that they are perfect pistons which emit compression waves from their surfaces, without any intervening energy transform between voice coil excitation and compression wave formation.

If this is indeed your understanding of how speakers perform you need to contemplate the situation a bit, read Beranek "Acoustics", page 198 to 201 and dig up Lincoln Walsh's "bending board" theories and patents.

I am just attacking the termination problem, where it is easiest to interfere with the default situations, and so I need the least amount of interference, in the shortest possible window of time, to effect a change from a default energy transformation to one that is controlled.

I am not attempting to bully the compression wave, after it has formed, but instead while it is being formed, on the non pistonic surfaces of the time expansion component of "speakers" we call cones, or domes or ribbons or baffles.

Do any of these words help?

Bud

[leo van doorn]

Hello Bud,

I have heart the difference that EnAbling makes on the Fostex 126 that I received from Dave (Planet 10). I was sitting spellbound for hours glued to the sound. Really a big step forward in clarity and detail. So I thank you very much for enabling us to get that much closer to the music.

Could you do your photoshop miracle also on this speaker.

Many people have built Das Vieh (BLH horn) with the cheap Beyma 8AGN speaker. A very dynamic and lively speaker that is liked much by the many people that built it.

[Magnetar]

Originally posted by BudP
Magnetar,

What exactly are the rules for "proving" that what I have to say might be true? Will you perform a series of activities at my direction and witness the results? Others have. This thread is littered with their surprise....

There are no differences in physics between a cone and a baffle, with respect to how the boundary layer affects energy being emitted into a compression wave, while crossing these surfaces. Both have boundary layers, both have transverse energy waves crossing them, both have edges that must be terminated. The driver emitter surfaces arguably have a significantly greater energy emission problem than does a baffle, due to their significantly higher energy per cm sg'd. If I can terminate a transverse wave on a woofer, a mid range or a tweeter, how is this different at the edge of a baffle?

The volume of boundary layer I am affecting, in either case, is only a few hundred molecules thick. The paint blocks might as well be the Andes, as far as the energy within the boundary layer is concerned. Taller blocks can be used, but they don't work any better than the paint. Nor do they work less effectively and if it relieves an uncomfortable mental state for you, to contemplate .005 or .010 thick blocks, then please do so.

The compression wave that is attached to the transverse wave, which is actually crossing the baffle, in the boundary layer, will be controlled absolutely, in it's angular structures, by what the transverse wave does, when it reaches the baffle edge.

If there is no standing wave event possible, at that edge, the energy that would ordinarily ring in the boundary layer, just exits from the edge, in phase coherence with the compression wave it was attached to. The compression wave has no extra phase structures added and so it does not "diffract" into energy lobes. This is the least lossey form of energy transform available and conservation of enrgy is maintained.

I do realize that this does not make sense, if your understanding of speaker drivers is that they are perfect pistons which emit compression waves from their surfaces, without any intervening energy transform between voice coil excitation and compression wave formation.

If this is indeed your understanding of how speakers perform you need to contemplate the situation a bit, read Beranek "Acoustics", page 198 to 201 and dig up Lincoln Walsh's "bending board" theories and patents.

I am just attacking the termination problem, where it is easiest to interfere with the default situations, and so I need the least amount of interference, in the shortest possible window of time, to effect a change from a default energy transformation to one that is controlled.

I am not attempting to bully the compression wave, after it has formed, but instead while it is being formed, on the non pistonic surfaces of the time expansion component of "speakers" we call cones, or domes or ribbons or baffles.

Do any of these words help?

Bud

We are talking about the effect of sound waves traveling through air meeting the edge of an enclosure (or obstructions on the baffle) as well as the altering of the wave launch going from half space to free space due to the geometry of the baffle and the frequency of the wave. These waves are longitudinal waves (as are all sound waves no?) .

What you propose is these painted rectangles will some how alter (eliminate! the box will disappear- your words!) these proven, repeatable problems that exist on all loudspeaker baffles. I don't think so.

Take a box speaker and paint the baffle with as many dots as you like, measure the response and compare that to the same driver from that same loudspeaker in sphere with the same volume and loading behind it. Contrary to what you suggest there will still a big difference between a sphere and your painted box.

[jrebman]

Magnetar,

Sounds like an interesting experiment. Let us know how it goes, will you?

-- Jim

[Magnetar]

Originally posted by jrebman
Magnetar,

Sounds like an interesting experiment. Let us know how it goes, will you?

-- Jim

It would be a waste of time, and a waste of good paint.

[jrebman]

Naturally.

-- JR

[Nordic]

Look, noone is going to fight with you to get you to do a $2 modification... so move along now... There is no one as blind as he who does not want to see.

[Magnetar]

Originally posted by Nordic
Look, noone is going to fight with you to get you to do a $2 modification... so move along now... There is no one as blind as he who does not want to see.

You guys are so gullible. LOL - and blind too!

[Nordic]

I might be, but I am not the one calling people liars and fools....