EnABL Processes

[MJL21193]

Originally posted by OzMikeH

Concisely and politely explaining why you disagree with a particular point will be most helpful. I'd love for you to scientifically pick this theory to pieces so I can learn something.
Virtually stomping about bellowing it's all rubbish and looking for things to pick on is not constructive. The "it's all rubbish" approach is equally as pointless as the mutual masturbation some exotic tweak discussions devolve into. I appreciate you for providing some balance, but it might be a little heavy handed. Don't let my little whinge deter you from sharing your opinions, I'm just suggesting you put a gentle spin on them so people are more inclined to listen.

Hi Mike,
The science. Have you read Bud's paper explaining this process? I did. I jumped in here with an opening statement questioning the science, expecting someone to pipe up and intelligently defend the process. I'm still waiting.
At no point did I say:"it's all rubbish!"I didn't even say it doesn't work.

The article tries to sound more technical than it really is.
The gist of what he's saying in the article is that while the cone is active, as in producing sound, it is also vibrating along it's surface. The idea is that this vibration starts at the centre of the cone near the voice coil and radiates out toward the surround. His process of painting rectangles on the cone surface is meant to disrupt this wave, preventing it from doubling back on itself (standing wave).

The clever part is that the rectangles are offset, therefore all wave energy will be disbursed in phase.
Is this a valid theory? Yes. Are painted rectangles effective for wave disruption? Maybe. Can this make an audible difference? Possibly.

If there is an audible difference, it can be measured, especially if there is less of something from the treated cone (namely noise from standing waves within the cone material).
Show me the valid, unbiased test results clearly showing an audible improvement, and I'm on board.

[MJL21193]

Originally posted by BudP

No doubt that a few advanced loudspeaker makers are going to get involved. No doubt that this has been aided by this forum. But, you know, I see many other people, with very good ideas turned into reality, posting here, offering their knowledge and at the same time offering their products. If someone does not feel comfortable applying the pattern to their own property, I will do it for them. Why shouldn't they also get to participate and benefit from the changes the patterns bring about?

As for "using the forum", well, that is what humans do, use their tools. If I was forcing others to pay some form of tribute, to buy some sort of "kit" only I could provide, offering partial information as a dangling carrot to be consumed for the small price of $29.95 then I would consider it misuse of the forum.

Were I to disappear from this forum, and all of my scribblings were to be removed, it would not alter what comes about with EnABL, in a commercial sense. It would appear it's time has just finally come. Much to my surprise.

Seem like I pretty much hit the nail right on the head.

There's a lot of pseudo marketing going on here, some even by the mods themselves (or at least one). Do I care? Not really.
Innocent denial, and self effacing double talk ring a bell for me.
Come clean.

[BudP]

Innocent denial, and self effacing double talk ring a bell for me.
Come clean.

What? Please be a little more precise. You won't hurt my feelings.

Bud

[soongsc]

Originally posted by MJL21193



Seem like I pretty much hit the nail right on the head.

There's a lot of pseudo marketing going on here, some even by the mods themselves (or at least one). Do I care? Not really.
Innocent denial, and self effacing double talk ring a bell for me.
Come clean.

Marketing is everywhere! Flip out a card to introduce yourself, people presenting patents, people just talking about ideas, someone got a new something. These are all marketing to gain recognition. If we want to eliminate marketing, we just won't have anything to talk about. Certainly dull.

[BudP]

Jon Ver Halen,

Thank you for stirring the pot Jon. No, really, it's just possible we will get some useful directions and a hint of what sort of tools we need to find or develop, to answer your query.

Now would someone look at these and tell me why I hear any difference.

I can tell that a lack of appropriate test tools and procedures is causing some folks, who include John, quite a bit of discomfort. Perhaps only FEA analysis will be useful. Certainly nothing has yet drug the offending data out of what ever grass it is hiding in.

At least sonngsc has also provided some useful data, although, he is being accused of not knowing or applying proper test procedures and data acquisition techniques. I am glad to have your and his data and questions here. Please forge ahead.

Bud

[soongsc]

Originally posted by MJL21193


.....
The article tries to sound more technical than it really is.
The gist of what he's saying in the article is that while the cone is active, as in producing sound, it is also vibrating along it's surface. The idea is that this vibration starts at the centre of the cone near the voice coil and radiates out toward the surround. His process of painting rectangles on the cone surface is meant to disrupt this wave, preventing it from doubling back on itself (standing wave).

The clever part is that the rectangles are offset, therefore all wave energy will be disbursed in phase.
Is this a valid theory? Yes. Are painted rectangles effective for wave disruption? Maybe. Can this make an audible difference? Possibly.

If there is an audible difference, it can be measured, especially if there is less of something from the treated cone (namely noise from standing waves within the cone material).
Show me the valid, unbiased test results clearly showing an audible improvement, and I'm on board.

I think there is more technology involved than meets the eye. There are actually two issues involved, the vibration of the diaphram that you mentioned, and also the boundary layer disruption. My first measurements in the JX92S convinces me the boundary layer effects.

Later measurements on the JX92S reducing cone resonances shows the results, but the reason may not be exactly due to the specific pattern. Note that for the pattern to work, each block in the pattern must create enough impedance change to disrupt the wave. This can be done using mass or stiffness of the applied material. For paper cones, both aspects take effect due to the nature of the cone material. For metal cones, it's a bit diffucult due to stiffness of the material, and you are left with expensive stiff material, or mass only.

Nobody is trying to get you one board. But you are certainly welcome find any technical flaws if you can. Right now I see only one other member posting test results. Why should we work for those that just sit on their butt?

[soongsc]

Originally posted by BudP
Jon Ver Halen,

...

At least sonngsc has also provided some useful data, although, he is being accused of not knowing or applying proper test procedures and data acquisition techniques. I am glad to have your and his data and questions here. Please forge ahead.

Bud

I do think that John K questioned some aspects, but since I applied and altered the patterns without moving the mic or the driver, he did not seem to have any other concerns. If you could point me to the other aspects people have questioned, it is much appreciated. Just the words "not knowing or applying proper test procedures and data acquisition techniques" is quite meaningless and ignorant unless one can address the specific issues what is not proper.

Lots of people just express doubt without any technical bassis, I think this kind of talk is meaningless.

[soongsc]

Originally posted by Jon Ver Halen
Hee, hee, hee. Stirred up a bit of a hornets nest, didn't I.

Anyway, as much as I would like to publish a waterfall with greater detail, my room has a noise floor of about 55 db. The signals I used were at 85 db, so all the resultion you are going to get is 30 db. That is what I showed. There is more resolution available, and it neatly shows the white noise in my room. Sorry, no help here.

...

I was wondering that many MLS based tests allow multiple runs to reduce the noise effects, is this not a valid application?

[Nanook]

who cares if someone doesn't believe the effect could be real? Personally I don't.

MJL and others of the subjective ilk are welcome to their opinions. As I and many others here have stated, it's pretty obvious that the EnABL process is a boundary issue, or more appropriately a boundary perturbation occurance.

Us homo sapiens sapiens are pretty complex animals and our senses are more so. As suggested by me a few posts back, we may not be able to "hear" something (or measure it), but that doesn't deny the existance of impressions (in a scientific manner of speaking), as demonstrated by Mati Otala.

We can't see dark matter, black holes (hence the name), etc, etc. Is that reason enough to deny their existance or the outcome if matter and anti-matter collide? or God?(never seen him/her/it)

So lighten up, MJL and others. Please understand that unless you experience certain "effects" that may fly in the face of convention for yourselves, don't worry about it. Think of it as audio mysticism, or religion. Just because I can't proove the existence of God doesn't mean I'm right in saying "God doesn't exist". I just don't have the tools to proove "God exists".

now go listen to some tunes...back ta Lucile and company

[BudP]

soongsc,

You are aware of my thoughts about your test results and methods. They have passed the scrutiny of the individual that has run the FEA simulations.
Here is the a quote from post # 436

The "tests" that have been run (on suspect instrumentation) show little difference, in fact the most recent show this treatment to be detrimental. The very problem that this treatment is meant to fix, is shown to be worse than untreated.
Oh, but ignore that, because it sounds better.

As you have noted, there are only two test results contributors, so I have to assume your results are included in this seeming blanket statement.

I apologize for the offensive attitude that this poster perceives as scientifically based questioning. I also thank you again for your time and effort. It has made a considerable difference in the tone and information content of this thread.

Bud