Ah, but despite my science, math, engineering and related backgrounds, I firmly believe that we don't currently - nor perhaps will we ever - have the tools to measure every aspect of every possible change, nor to understand what those changes mean, other than "I like" or "I don't like."
It's like the SS folks of the 70's, duped by the indescribably low distortion figures of sand amps of the time into thinking that less is better. Distortion isn't necessarily the point. Harmonics are what we love about violins, so why wouldn't we love certain harmonic distortion from our amplifiers? Funny how easily our minds can dupe us...
Carl
No, these are custon drivers. I've the 18KHz and 20+KHz seemed to be interrelated. If one goes down, the other comes up. It's a bit frustrating, so I though that getting rid of the lower frequency resonance should be more important.jkeny said:
Sorry, I havent gotton to the JX92S yet.
I am not using Aluminum Oxide paint. But I do use a water based wood paint to help hold the strips in place because the strips are quite stiff and do not follow the curved surface well. The reason for using this kind of paint is to fill in gaps between the strips and the surface, better hold on the strips, quite acceptable drying speed, and quickly removable using alcohol. This is for metal cones. For paper cones, I would not use the paint.
When you use paint on paper cones, you are changing the way the diaphragm flexes in generation of pressure waves, thus may effect the frequency response.
I am showing just a few changes, but probably over 100 test runs were done till I got some feeling what was going on. That's why I always try to find a way to use the same drivers over and over again till I get close to more permanent means application.
I love this point of view. I have listend to some full GoldMund (did I spell that right) equipement, it sounded very nice, and quite addictive. One could do doubt enjoy music and love it. But in terms of fidelity, at least listening about 5 meters from the speakers, I did not feel the fidelity aspects. This is one reason we should respect points of views from others because we each just like different things.Carlp said:
When I put on my designer hat, I like to think I'm just doing the best I can to reproduce the recorded sound. If I hear others that seem better, then I just have to figure out why. Each person designing has his/her own personal touch whether we like it or not, this is similar to art, each knows the basics, but how they are applied and what the trade-off and preferences are become pretty personal. The beauty is that everything is different, and you get to buy what you like.
Hi Ron I think what you want to do, - and can do, I wish I could - is terrific.
The last system I built was a 3 way horn system and it didn't sound so good. I hear a lot of live music and the instruments and voices didn't sound like the real thing. When got the time I set to discovering why.
It was a long road: I have an Arts degree not Science.
Long story short: Psychoacoustic effect of diffraction both in the horns and surrounding baffle was the cause of much deficiency. I've tinkered with those speakers, methodically removing diffraction causes until they actually sound decent. But there's limits: basic design is deficient and the darn things each weigh as much as I do.
Now I want to build a 2 way: direct radiator and King Kong wave guide tweeter. Thanks to contributors at DIYAudio and elsewhere I can now design and build for myself modern waveguide and baffle.
But I didn't know squat about direct radiators. Now I know a bit more than nothing and what I really don't know much about is what the diaphragm actually does. Ideally, it should just move back and forth on its suspension but it doesn't - its material radiates like an acoustic nova, especially at higher SPLs.
Some of that radiation has psychoacoustic effect but I can't know what to do about that if it can't be qualified and measured in some fashion.
So what you propose to do is useful to me and I'm really looking forward to your results.
The last system I built was a 3 way horn system and it didn't sound so good. I hear a lot of live music and the instruments and voices didn't sound like the real thing. When got the time I set to discovering why.
It was a long road: I have an Arts degree not Science.
Long story short: Psychoacoustic effect of diffraction both in the horns and surrounding baffle was the cause of much deficiency. I've tinkered with those speakers, methodically removing diffraction causes until they actually sound decent. But there's limits: basic design is deficient and the darn things each weigh as much as I do.
Now I want to build a 2 way: direct radiator and King Kong wave guide tweeter. Thanks to contributors at DIYAudio and elsewhere I can now design and build for myself modern waveguide and baffle.
But I didn't know squat about direct radiators. Now I know a bit more than nothing and what I really don't know much about is what the diaphragm actually does. Ideally, it should just move back and forth on its suspension but it doesn't - its material radiates like an acoustic nova, especially at higher SPLs.
Some of that radiation has psychoacoustic effect but I can't know what to do about that if it can't be qualified and measured in some fashion.
So what you propose to do is useful to me and I'm really looking forward to your results.
Hi John K,
>> ???????????????? That's supposed to be a joke, right? <<
Well come on then ..... finish the quote from my text !
The bit you have missed off is my real point !
The words which would relate to influence of BL figure, also whether a driver is underhung or overhung with a portion of series voice coil winding inductance outside of the closely coupling magnet gap, as well as amplifier impedance. (There being so many more aspects relating to the clouding of 'reproduction' than the surface of the cone itself, and which by interaction effect can influence the single aspect being investigated here.)
We each 'see' from what we know/understand, thus maybe we cannot always know/understand what the another has written; or why !
Cheers ........... Graham.
>> ???????????????? That's supposed to be a joke, right? <<
Well come on then ..... finish the quote from my text !
The bit you have missed off is my real point !
The words which would relate to influence of BL figure, also whether a driver is underhung or overhung with a portion of series voice coil winding inductance outside of the closely coupling magnet gap, as well as amplifier impedance. (There being so many more aspects relating to the clouding of 'reproduction' than the surface of the cone itself, and which by interaction effect can influence the single aspect being investigated here.)
We each 'see' from what we know/understand, thus maybe we cannot always know/understand what the another has written; or why !
Cheers ........... Graham.
Actually, there are some other issues with this driver that might change the results in a different direction. So I still have my fingers crossed and waiting for some samples.simon5 said:
That looks like a considerable improvement. Keep on going !
I just wonder how far from the EnABL pattern you are at now hehe !
If you keep on removing things, you might need a 0.12 ms windows soon ?
I think I have already posted some recommendations using the EnABL pattern on stiff material, so I'm not going to repeat it. But since I am also tweaking the frequency response, its not possible with the EnABL. The EnABL is one tool to solve some issues, and a good one too. But in order to obtain the best possible results, we need to adjust it to each individual driver model. I intend to use the EnABL pattern according to the stiff cone recommendations earlier because this does not seem to need any FR tuning. It would be interesting to see what can be accomplished.
Well, SoundEasy goes up to 192KHz now, so once I get a new setup completed, I think the window goes down to 0.19ms?
After doing some test measurments for Dave this weekend on a pair of 127 drivers and a pair of SDX7 woofers.I can say without a doubt the SDX7 woofer and the carbon Fiber in the 100-500hz range not only made a difference but a large difference out of this range on this driver to warrent more testing on this driver.
Testest on the 127 were shown to make minor changes in the FR but not enough to say it was anything other than production tolerances of the manufacture BUT the CSD waterfall was benifical for the process.
Now was it the Enabl process or the coating used on the cones or the combo of the coating and the Enabl ?
Will find out in time.
testing
It's a real shame the unbridled proponents of this process don't seem to embrace the very ideals they accuse the skeptics of not embracing, vis a vis an open mind with regards to all possibilities.
Until someone does a rational peer reviewed set of measurements that withstands standard statistical scrutiny, there is at least an equal chance that expectation bias clouds the effects heard and measured by those engulfed in constant barage of positive listening results.
Having had much greater success in my multi-decade career as an inventor, rocket scientist, audio experimenter, electrochemist, and now medical business director, I can assure one and all the rational objective approach is much more rewarding in the long run. I'm actually going to try enabling some ratshack 5 inchers, but only for my own evaluation. I've never doubted that the proponents hear something different. It's the psuedoscience mumbo-jumbo that causes one pause.
John L.
It's a real shame the unbridled proponents of this process don't seem to embrace the very ideals they accuse the skeptics of not embracing, vis a vis an open mind with regards to all possibilities.
Until someone does a rational peer reviewed set of measurements that withstands standard statistical scrutiny, there is at least an equal chance that expectation bias clouds the effects heard and measured by those engulfed in constant barage of positive listening results.
Having had much greater success in my multi-decade career as an inventor, rocket scientist, audio experimenter, electrochemist, and now medical business director, I can assure one and all the rational objective approach is much more rewarding in the long run. I'm actually going to try enabling some ratshack 5 inchers, but only for my own evaluation. I've never doubted that the proponents hear something different. It's the psuedoscience mumbo-jumbo that causes one pause.
John L.
Then there is the agurment that good measurements to not always yield good sounding products. I doubt any amount of data is going to convince anyone. Everyone has a biased opinion. The old saying goes: "A man convinced beyond his will, is of the same opinion still."
Peer review works if there is a schedule and budget pressure.
Basically, we just have to get rid of energy in the cone either transfering it to air, to surround and spider, electronically depending on the frequency range. It ends up as heat finally.
Peer review works if there is a schedule and budget pressure.
Basically, we just have to get rid of energy in the cone either transfering it to air, to surround and spider, electronically depending on the frequency range. It ends up as heat finally.
auplater,
Were you going to allow the pseudo people to show you where and how much of what? There are 300 plus systems and 30 plus years of ignorance vile that we can use to help out with.
So far EnABL is following the typical course of implementation for an innovation that does not fit accepted practices. The market place will actually determine whether or not it is ever proven with many reliable tests and eventual lumped sum formula that allow reliable results.
Takes time and money.
Anyway, if you would like a virtual application pattern I will be happy to provide one. If you just want to experiment on your own, as did John (MJL21193), without asking if there are any rules to follow, please forge on. Please, just don't claim that it is EnABL'd .
Soongsc is using EnABL as a spring board for his own explorations and from what data he posts, appears to be doing a pretty good job of advancement. But he does not call it EnaBL.
Mumbo Jumbo: I am just doing the best job I can, with the words available, to describe what I think is going on. Based upon what concepts I have, I make predictions about what will be a useful and practical application on a particular driver. The predictions follow some simple rules and the results are consistent, in a subjective sense. I have yet to see objective test data that supports or eliminates the concepts I work with.
Accepted Procedures: I have yet to receive a believable answer for my questions on phase normalization and how it might apply to Soongsc's careful testing. The series of CSD plots that rather clearly shows a trend in phase advancement, from negative to positive, without the required change in frequency response. So far, only poor test procedures, lack of time of flight normalization procedures or lying have been presented. I still do not understand how you can use the accepted normalization practices, to correct these unusual phase displacement measurements.
Bud
Were you going to allow the pseudo people to show you where and how much of what? There are 300 plus systems and 30 plus years of ignorance vile that we can use to help out with.
So far EnABL is following the typical course of implementation for an innovation that does not fit accepted practices. The market place will actually determine whether or not it is ever proven with many reliable tests and eventual lumped sum formula that allow reliable results.
Takes time and money.
Anyway, if you would like a virtual application pattern I will be happy to provide one. If you just want to experiment on your own, as did John (MJL21193), without asking if there are any rules to follow, please forge on. Please, just don't claim that it is EnABL'd .
Soongsc is using EnABL as a spring board for his own explorations and from what data he posts, appears to be doing a pretty good job of advancement. But he does not call it EnaBL.
Mumbo Jumbo: I am just doing the best job I can, with the words available, to describe what I think is going on. Based upon what concepts I have, I make predictions about what will be a useful and practical application on a particular driver. The predictions follow some simple rules and the results are consistent, in a subjective sense. I have yet to see objective test data that supports or eliminates the concepts I work with.
Accepted Procedures: I have yet to receive a believable answer for my questions on phase normalization and how it might apply to Soongsc's careful testing. The series of CSD plots that rather clearly shows a trend in phase advancement, from negative to positive, without the required change in frequency response. So far, only poor test procedures, lack of time of flight normalization procedures or lying have been presented. I still do not understand how you can use the accepted normalization practices, to correct these unusual phase displacement measurements.
Bud
EnABLing
Actually, I'd like to get a pattern for these... I was going to make a stencil and try spraying the pattern (I've done alot of microlithographic work, building inkjet nozzle arrays, microwave polarizing filters, etc. etc.) through an electroformed mask... might save some time, also ought to be able to hold mil tolerances with some effort
the drivers are ratshack 40-1354A's...
"So far EnABL is following the typical course of implementation for an innovation that does not fit accepted practices. The market place will actually determine whether or not it is ever proven with many reliable tests and eventual lumped sum formula that allow reliable results."
trust me, been there, done that. Ended up with patents after making sense of other's gibberish involving amorphous nickel-phosphorous alloy electrodeposits and applications, after years of applying ANOVA and Hadamard designs..
http://books.google.com/books?id=nC...6aQ4&sig=s26l_Ca_wob0bw_eJxTutv9tAeo#PPA94,M1
you might want to consider the use of multifactorial designs... can save alot of work and mis-understandings.
John L.
Actually, I'd like to get a pattern for these... I was going to make a stencil and try spraying the pattern (I've done alot of microlithographic work, building inkjet nozzle arrays, microwave polarizing filters, etc. etc.) through an electroformed mask... might save some time, also ought to be able to hold mil tolerances with some effort
the drivers are ratshack 40-1354A's...
"So far EnABL is following the typical course of implementation for an innovation that does not fit accepted practices. The market place will actually determine whether or not it is ever proven with many reliable tests and eventual lumped sum formula that allow reliable results."
trust me, been there, done that. Ended up with patents after making sense of other's gibberish involving amorphous nickel-phosphorous alloy electrodeposits and applications, after years of applying ANOVA and Hadamard designs..
http://books.google.com/books?id=nC...6aQ4&sig=s26l_Ca_wob0bw_eJxTutv9tAeo#PPA94,M1
you might want to consider the use of multifactorial designs... can save alot of work and mis-understandings.
John L.
auplater.
I don't have any of that driver. Are they still selling them? If so, a pattern set is just an order away.
As a question. Do you think that an ink jet print head of any sort could be used with robotics to apply a printed pattern? I know exactly nothing about them or the inks they use, or could be corrupted into using. P.Pecker says he has a friend who can do the arm robotics. Where might I begin to look for information?
Thanks for the link on the book. To date I have just followed branching logic chains.
Bud
I don't have any of that driver. Are they still selling them? If so, a pattern set is just an order away.
As a question. Do you think that an ink jet print head of any sort could be used with robotics to apply a printed pattern? I know exactly nothing about them or the inks they use, or could be corrupted into using. P.Pecker says he has a friend who can do the arm robotics. Where might I begin to look for information?
Thanks for the link on the book. To date I have just followed branching logic chains.
Bud
Bud and all,
It took months of hearing about it and close to 2000 posts in this thread before I was able to step in and say I have now had a chance to listen. It was the small Fostex (126?) in the mini fonken box seen here near the bottom. I was very surprised by lack of relief to the pattern. Barely discernible dashes.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1412351#post1412351
I am not interested in the technical jargon but here is what I heard:
Like so many others that have tried to describe what the difference is, all I can tell you is this: It's not easy to describe it other than to say it sounds less like a dynamic cone speaker. By that, I simply mean that the sounds we have become accustomed to and have accepted for eons seem to have been reduced. It was less cluttered sounding. It now sounds less like a 'speaker' and more like a pure transducer. To try and describe it further than that is fruitless until you have listened also.
Thank you Bud, I am glad I finally got to weigh in on the issue.
It took months of hearing about it and close to 2000 posts in this thread before I was able to step in and say I have now had a chance to listen. It was the small Fostex (126?) in the mini fonken box seen here near the bottom. I was very surprised by lack of relief to the pattern. Barely discernible dashes.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1412351#post1412351
I am not interested in the technical jargon but here is what I heard:
Like so many others that have tried to describe what the difference is, all I can tell you is this: It's not easy to describe it other than to say it sounds less like a dynamic cone speaker. By that, I simply mean that the sounds we have become accustomed to and have accepted for eons seem to have been reduced. It was less cluttered sounding. It now sounds less like a 'speaker' and more like a pure transducer. To try and describe it further than that is fruitless until you have listened also.
Thank you Bud, I am glad I finally got to weigh in on the issue.
1: Set up a 3 axis stepper motor drive system to follow the contour of the cone.(Done)
2: Had the dimensional lab establish the driver cone contour using a CMM.(This data will be programmed in as G Code in .001" steps and recorded)(Done)
3 Designed a holding fixture to allow the same tangential response between the laser/detector. (to be built by the machine shop).
All tests will be run on a stock 166 vrs a Dave(planet 10) supplied EnABL equipped 166 on a 24 " square baffle.
All tests will be performed in an acoustically dead enclosure of dimensions of 34"H x 18 D" x 30" W. Tests on the enclosure shows > 64 Db loss @ 1000 hz. This is used to prevent outside influence.(Unit i used to do vibrational analysis)
Any critique , please step up to the plate.
ron
It was less cluttered sounding. It now sounds less like a 'speaker' and more like a pure transducer.
To me, now as i stand back and examine the actions, it should.
2: Had the dimensional lab establish the driver cone contour using a CMM.(This data will be programmed in as G Code in .001" steps and recorded)(Done)
3 Designed a holding fixture to allow the same tangential response between the laser/detector. (to be built by the machine shop).
All tests will be run on a stock 166 vrs a Dave(planet 10) supplied EnABL equipped 166 on a 24 " square baffle.
All tests will be performed in an acoustically dead enclosure of dimensions of 34"H x 18 D" x 30" W. Tests on the enclosure shows > 64 Db loss @ 1000 hz. This is used to prevent outside influence.(Unit i used to do vibrational analysis)
Any critique , please step up to the plate.
ron
It was less cluttered sounding. It now sounds less like a 'speaker' and more like a pure transducer.
To me, now as i stand back and examine the actions, it should.
As a question. Do you think that an ink jet print head of any sort could be used with robotics to apply a printed pattern?
Of course it could. Its a basic 3 stepper motor system in which you can establish the points as a 3D (X,Y,Z) in a drawing (DXF). You convert the DWG to G Code then send to the controller then to the breakout boards then to the motors. I have no idea about controlling of ink jets.
ron
Of course it could. Its a basic 3 stepper motor system in which you can establish the points as a 3D (X,Y,Z) in a drawing (DXF). You convert the DWG to G Code then send to the controller then to the breakout boards then to the motors. I have no idea about controlling of ink jets.
ron
ronc,
Thanks for updating us on your seemingly aggressive plans for testing. The tiny bit of laser interferometry I was exposed to used an analysis package to provide a graphic view of the surface. Haven't the faintest idea what I was looking at, but it did seem there was a lot more even height to the sea of sharp points shown. There was also less going on beyond the pattern too, all of this on a titanium dome, rather than a cone.
Cal Weldon,
Good. I like it when EnABL struts it's stuff in a difficult venue. Thanks for the descriptions, they are what I am used to hearing too.
Wanna try your beloved horns....? Same sort of changes, but doused with an additional level of impact. Very seriously energetic sound.
Bud
Thanks for updating us on your seemingly aggressive plans for testing. The tiny bit of laser interferometry I was exposed to used an analysis package to provide a graphic view of the surface. Haven't the faintest idea what I was looking at, but it did seem there was a lot more even height to the sea of sharp points shown. There was also less going on beyond the pattern too, all of this on a titanium dome, rather than a cone.
Cal Weldon,
Good. I like it when EnABL struts it's stuff in a difficult venue. Thanks for the descriptions, they are what I am used to hearing too.
Wanna try your beloved horns....? Same sort of changes, but doused with an additional level of impact. Very seriously energetic sound.
Bud
- Status
- Not open for further replies.