EnABL Processes

[Ed LaFontaine]

I think the problem with revealing or seeing something in the results of testing has already been touched upon. Low level detail is buried in measurements which reflect maximum response.

I suggest the plots that look worse are a clue: some level change has occurred...where did that energy go? Was the energy ever intended to be there?

Yea, I know...a bunch of open ended questions

Maybe there are measurement techniques that are up to the challenge.

I'm no expert, but my search leads me to believe there is a lot remaining to be discovered about difraction and sound wave propogation.

[soongsc]

Originally posted by panomaniac
Well I haven't had time to try the EnABL blocks myself, but I hope to soon. I would love to be able to show some sort of objective measurements of the change - if any.

So here's a thought. What about laser inferometry or something similar? I have some software that will run an LED strobe from an audio signal for cone testing. Might that be a "poor man's method" of seeing differences in cone action?

Anyone have any thoughts on strobe/laser/photo methods of testing? I'd be willing to have a stab at it, or help anyone else who wishes to try.

It sounds like a good idea, I wonder how fast these can be taken. Most of the effects are in the KHz region where the wave length in the material is shorter than cone size. Even a Klippel system probably can reach up to 10KHz with their cone vibration module.

[Nanook]

It seems that this tread has been reduced to what some might consider offensive or petty. At some level, I agree with pretty much everyone here, including MJL.

ok, here's a little criticism for all ( I descriminate equally ) :

I'll start with MJL and other pragmatists:
I think you've missed the whole point to this discussion. The fact remains that just because we do not have the tools to quanitfy what we hear, it does not mean that what we hear is not different or improved. It just means that based on existing technology/equipment/techniques/or facilities, we cannot measure "it". Bud and others are stating their experiences, and looking for a complete explaination to the changes that people have heard. Try the EnABL process yourself or the $1.20" trick (for box speakers). Or listen to a Shun Mook or Mpingo tweaked system, with and without "tweaks". Or try the $1.20 trick on electronic enclosures yourself. then judge it for yourself. Until you try some of the ideas presented here, you will not have a basis for discussion, only for criticism. I agree with MJL, potentially damaging expensive drivers is a waste, so go get yerself some salvaged POS speaker and and try it.

to all the rest::
there has been a history of subjective vs. objective "testing" in audio for years. None of this should be new to any here. Trying to explain the EnABL process or the effects of it may seem a little far-fetched to some , even some with a scientific background. So if MJL is as his profile reads, a "tradesman",please cut him a little slack. At least he's attempting to wrap his head around something that may seem to be counter intuitive. And that's worthy in and of itself. It beats the dogma that many subscribe to, just taking word or experiences of someone else on face value. If a principle cannot be defended at this level, how could one expect to defend it at a professional level ? (eg: PhD defense, etc)

to all:
As long as rhetoric and personal attacks are minimized or non existent, and egos are removed from the situation there will always be the opportunity to learn. We should make good use of all opportunities.

What comes to mind is the story of those wacky Australians, Dr. Barry J. Marshall and Dr.J. Robin Warren who won the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery of "the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease". It wasn't so long ago (a couple of decades or so), when they suggested that bacteria was a significant cause of ulcers. They were ridiculed professionally, initially. I recall a 60 Minutes report about it , probably about 15 years ago. Poor old Mike wallace seemed like he couldn't believe his own ears.

Regardless of the ridicule and the lack of hard data (at that time), it is now accepted that they were right. Even by those who initially doubted them.

Morale of the story: All need to understand that there is the possibility that Bud et al are wrong. I happen to disagree with this as I have performed a few non-scientific" studies of my own and come to a similar result in much larger physical systems (loudspeaker enclosures eg: upon reading Sam Tellig's "$1.20 trick", where he suggested to try it, but never claimed anything, one way or the other).

So MJL and others , at some level, provide the opportunity to teach and explain. At some point it has to be done anyway.

to panomaniac:
I'd enjoy the oppportunity to do a study (perhaps to independently verify your outcomes). What do I need for hardware?(I'm poor so please, I hope not expensive). I think the idea of a laser or LED inferometer could be interesting. What about an accelerometer at loudspeaker enclosure boundaries as well?

Just some thoughts, and ideas. No offense intended towards any.

stew

[soongsc]

Originally posted by MJL21193



Any change in the test procedure or hardware from unit to unit invalidates the data.
Soongsc made a hardware change.
Quote from post #173:

"Please note that the measurement sound card is different, and so is the driving amplifier. Black is original, blue is enabled.
I am going to assume that EnABLE process is responsible for the difference and work the other end of the cone."


Jon presented data on a different time base. Why? It looks to me that it was done to make the results from the untreated cone look approximately equal to the treated one.

I specifically asked people to take note of such differences with that first stab so the results should be taken with a grain of salt. However, if you look at the measurements from post #255 and on, two sessions each were it's own same condition. It was the #173 results that prompted further tests. So if one tries to interpret the data in the right sequence, one will find that each test session has it's own purpose. Anyone that has problems understanding, please feel free to ask.

I think you should work with the demo CLIO and see how much control you have over it. It has some nice features, but some really needs upgrade. Just don't start accusing someone of something that they may not have had the intention of doing. Might end up in court.

[soongsc]

Nanook,

Some people use the technique of using provoking words and sit back and have fun with the responses. We just have to learn if MJL is that kind or not.

I have tried to make people aware that the same pattern may not have the same effect on different drivers. For optimum application, each driver really needs to be tried. Not any easy task. We would not have to worry about this if the driver designers matched impedance between surround and cone, a luxury most manufactuers cannot afford.

[MJL21193]

Originally posted by Ed LaFontaine
John, I think you are more concerned with being right about something, anything than finding any truth....
I truly wish the best for you....I don't think you will find it here....& I have a suspicion you already know that.

Hi Ed,
I barged in here to accomplish one thing: to stir things up. Up till my arrival there hasn't been one opposing point of view. An opposing point of view or the posing of provocative questions are needed for the health of any civilized discussion. My effect here is wholly positive - it made everyone involved think, not just follow along.

I'm not one bit concerned with being right about anything. I merely point out some things that are are obvious to me that everyone else seems to ignore.

Careful re-reading of my posts will reveal my intention. At no point did I condemn the process, or even hint that the basis for it was flawed.
My tone here has been argumentative for a reason. To get a reaction here, you need to arouse an emotional response. Indeed, traffic on this thread has tripled since my incursion, it's to the good, is it not?

BTW, thanks for your sympathy, but it's not necessary.

[leadbelly]

Originally posted by MJL21193
I barged in here to accomplish one thing: to stir things up. Up till my arrival there hasn't been one opposing point of view. An opposing point of view or the posing of provocative questions are needed for the health of any civilized discussion. My effect here is wholly positive - it made everyone involved think, not just follow along.

LMAO! I'd like to meet you in person to find out how such an ego developed

[BudP]

Actually, I agree with John's questioning, and appreciate it, though perhaps not his manners. And, he has asked one very good question, though somewhat obliquely.

Why, if what we are doing with EnABL is removing "noise", are we not seeing a loss in signal strength of any appreciable amount?

The problem with objective tests are that they have no means for discrimination. By this I mean, we can see a change and we can equate the change to a frequency band and it's relationship to another frequency band, but that does not at all mean we can pin that change onto whether we can hear something better, within the information being presented. And the test is using s format that specifically limits the information content being transfered.

it seems to me that what we need is some sort of test for information coherence. If we are seeing little or no alteration in the objective tests we have to apply, and the alterations we are hearing are ones of information transfer coherence, then, without that "sort" of scope in our test regime we cannot expect the current test types to show anymore than they do.

What they are showing is that we are not damping the energy coming off of the driver. We are not changing frequency response, distortion levels, distribution of distortion make up, or amounts of emitted energy, so no sort of damping is occurring.

So if damping is not occurring then we must be reconstructing the original signal with a more coherent information transform than an unEnABL'd speaker can process.

Sonngsc's phase change results are then the only clue we have and these phase change results did not come with the appreciable frequency response alteration that the Hilbert transform requires.

I am beginning to think that the folks that claim that information transfer drives all energy transform have actually got the correct view of reality.

The lift in phase to a coherent and then back out of coherence point, without any notable frequency alteration, in the sequential steps that soonngsc shows, has to be related to information coherence, not the sorts of nondiscriminatory testing results provided by the rest of our currently available test suites. Not to say that the information they provide is worthless, at all. It is pointing out to us, quite clearly, that we are not using the correct tools.

I wish I knew what the rest of the correct tools were!

Bud

[BudP]

Panomaniac,

So here's a thought. What about laser interferometry or something similar? I have some software that will run an LED strobe from an audio signal for cone testing. Might that be a "poor man's method" of seeing differences in cone action?

I am certainly willing. What do I have to buy?

A number of years ago Greg Mackie made their new laser interferometer and the services of Dave Bee available to me, on a time available format. I got one good look, with what ever signal they used, at a titanium dome with and without the EnABL process. I had no idea what I was seeing and Dave was pretty pressed for an explanation too. That opportunity disappeared because the machine suddenly left for Italy, to help a speaker company that Mackie Designs had acquired, along with Dave. The machine did not return, I think Dave did, but I have never been able to find him.

There are some very compelling, rather ancient video clips of distortion made apparent. Possibly we could do the same, but with some sort of mapping using coherent information as the test signal and the laser instead of dust, or seeds on a vibrating panel?

Bud

[t-head]

soongsc,

I am unable to contact you via e-mail or pm due to probationary period still in effect. I have a pair of the Jordans in a TL and would like to discuss your work and experience with these drivers. PM or e-mail me. Bud has my e-mail if you have difficulty. Thanking you in advance.

richard