Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29th March 2012, 05:41 PM   #1301
jleaman is offline jleaman  Belgium
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Send a message via AIM to jleaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post
Yes. Based on what I heard from enable (I wrote a review indicating I barely heard a difference if any), and what I previously measured (back in this thread somewhere) using basic measurement techniques, and the measurements I've seen posted (very few), I think if there is a difference it's related to CSD. CSD testing should be carried out in some controlled method.

It would be new territory for me, but I'll do testing for anyone who can provide 4 untreated drivers and then treat them.
where is your review ? Can i read it ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2012, 05:49 PM   #1302
diyAudio Member
 
auplater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KyOhWVa tristate
Default Cost issues (among others)

Not much of an argument, unfortunately. Cost issues is a non-starter... ever mass produce anything??

No reason the cones couldn't be molded on a master with the DOT PATTERNS IMPRESSED IN after the presumed improvement for a specific driver was determined.. but, that might require some engineering and credible research... none supportive so far

The supporters don't appease the critics with science because science doesn't support the cause... that's the problem... read the thread. Nobody "spats" on anyone, just ask for reasonable proof rather than anecdotes and innuendo ...

And by the way... it's up to those proffering (Proffering - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary) unsubstantiated claims from a technical aspect to prove their reality, not those skeptical of such hypotheses (Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

it's really that simple
__________________
"...His brain is squirming like a toad..." Jim Morrison
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2012, 05:51 PM   #1303
diyAudio Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by jleaman View Post
where is your review ? Can i read it ?
EnABL - Listening impressions & techniques
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2012, 05:55 PM   #1304
diyAudio Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by auplater View Post

And by the way... it's up to those proffering (Proffering - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary) unsubstantiated claims from a technical aspect to prove their reality, not those skeptical of such hypotheses (Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

it's really that simple
Ya, but my offer puts them in a position to either accept and find out for themselves. I don't mind doing it and I don't mind if it benefits them.

Or reject and make excuses for rejecting. That wouldn't be tough to do. I'm inexperienced. They could say the control isn't adequate. They could say what I measure isn't what changes. etc.

As for control, I would propose each driver mounted to a 2 x 2' baffle each labeled A, B, C, D. 2.83V input. 1m mic distance triple checked each time. Indoors because it's in the treble and I could control noise better. If they felt outdoors is better, that could be done also. I'd unplug every appliance in my house
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2012, 06:31 PM   #1305
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post
Also, some of the claims should be easily measured, like elimination of room modes and perfect off axis response. That's measurable. Is this hyperbole then?
Hi,

Yes and lots of other claims, such as two extra octaves of bass
for an unmounted driver, they are all of course utter nonsense.

Its not even hyperbole, that should be exaggerating something.

Its still utter technical nonsense, that has an accepted minor
effect, the rest simply doesn't exist. The patent is a joke,
(technically) and the latest grabbing of straws (phonomic)
is thoroughly insulting to an enquiring technical mind, so
nothing new at all there, just more pseudotechnodrivel.

rgds, sreten.

All the technical issues have been explored (repeatedly)
to death in this thread. There is nothing worth adding.
__________________
There is nothing so practical as a really good theory - Ludwig Boltzmann
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail - Abraham Maslow
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2012, 06:44 PM   #1306
diyAudio Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Ya, my question was rhetorical. There are many outlandish claims.

And at 131 pages, I'm sure it's been beaten to death. But there are still many consumers to claim to hear a difference without the proper A/B listening sequence.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2012, 01:50 AM   #1307
tade is offline tade  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ralieigh nc
Send a message via AIM to tade
The patent was unintelligible.

I think what might be helpful is a new thread; a glossary of technical terms such as "boundary layer effect", and "phononic crystal effect", which have been used in specific reference to enabling. Then I would like to either have a concise and non circular definition for the term as it relates to enabling. If no definition can be given, I think it ought to be common knowledge that there is indeed no definition for that term and this should dissuade people from it's use.

The reason I care is the fight against what I consider to be pseudoscience. There are people honestly trying to learn about audio, who must feel overwhelmed by so much effort towards an end that they can't possibly understand; because nobody does!


Quote:
Originally Posted by sreten View Post
Hi,

Yes and lots of other claims, such as two extra octaves of bass
for an unmounted driver, they are all of course utter nonsense.

Its not even hyperbole, that should be exaggerating something.

Its still utter technical nonsense, that has an accepted minor
effect, the rest simply doesn't exist. The patent is a joke,
(technically) and the latest grabbing of straws (phonomic)
is thoroughly insulting to an enquiring technical mind, so
nothing new at all there, just more pseudotechnodrivel.

rgds, sreten.

All the technical issues have been explored (repeatedly)
to death in this thread. There is nothing worth adding.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2012, 01:58 AM   #1308
BudP is offline BudP  United States
diyAudio Member
 
BudP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: upper left crust, united snakes
Another interesting phenomena. I can no longer access beyond page 129 directly, but can read all of the posts here in the post reply portion. Anyone have a guess about what undisclosed location I have been removed to?
Not that I will be able to read them unless I get one of the only occasional emails. Perhaps the thread is better off.....
Bud
__________________
"You and I and every other thing are a dependent arising, empty of any inherent reality" Tsong Ko Pa
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2012, 02:19 AM   #1309
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Bud, try clearing your browser cache.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th March 2012, 03:43 AM   #1310
FrankWW is offline FrankWW  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by auplater View Post
so where's the precise repeatable periodicity in eNabl???
I don't think Bud and company have numbers on that. I brought up the idea of phonic crystals years ago because eNabl is adding mass in a regular pattern to speaker membranes.

Their subjective reports said sometimes it 'worked' and sometimes did not. Boiled down, the subjective reports said that when the eNabl 'worked', it 'de-grunged' the sound. That's not a whole lot but it's an empirical thing....

You know about the yada yada that went on and the inconclusive measurements and about the explanations put forth that didn't make a whole lot of sense even to a non-technically trained person like me so I won't recapitulate that. But the P 10 guy was messing with it and given his background I didn't think he'd be devoting his time to it unless he was getting favourable subjective results. That's another sort of empirical thing....

My background is philosophy and after some years that I've learned to be very skeptical of premises and theories. If I don't know bupkus about the phenomena being discussed, then it really pays me not to believe anything anybody says but to look at the things themselves. Work up a description and see what it tells me.

A speaker cone is a stiff annular membrane attached at its interior circumference to a rigid boundary (voice coil, dust cap) and at its outer circumference to a floppy, lossy boundary (surround). Sort of like an "inside out" drum. Like a drum, if we tap part of the speaker diaphragm it vibrates and its surface divides up into patches that radiate sound separated by boundaries where the vibrations cancel each other. How strong and how long these vibrations last depends on the mass and stiffness of the membrane, on the compliance of the surround, the impedance at the boundaries, force of the tap, etc. A voice coil taps the speaker membrane at the rigid inner boundary at a continuous rate varying between 20 Hz and 20 kHz and thus areas on the membrane continuously radiate sound. This is what I know for sure.

[This is not exactly description but it's not exactly speculation either]: At some SPL, the radiated sound from the membrane surface might subjectively "fuse" itself to the musical signal produced by the pistonic action of the speaker, either as an added component or as a masking component.

Folk have added mass to damp diaphragm vibration by applying coatings but applying mass in patterns is a bit different. [A line of speculation, not description]: But, what might be the same in both approaches is that the SG and stiffness of the two materials are different possibly giving rise to damping through impedance losses at their boundary.

As I remember it, Bud was using acrylic paint for his eNabl pattern. Cast acrylic has a SG of about 1.2 so I figure the dried paint with its pigments is possibly greater depending on how much water is retained after solidification. And I'm pretty sure it has different stiffness to the paper used in loudspeaker cones.

So he was apparently modifying the damping of the speaker membrane by applying acrylic in patterns around both circumferences. Where the acrylic attaches to the paper constitutes an impedance to the sound waves travelling through the diaphragm.

It seemed to work - sometimes - and the only model I could find that seemed to fit was phononic crystals or acoustic metamaterials.

The most simple phonic crystals look a lot like the enable patterns: A line of impedance barriers with openings to let wavelengths of interest past all scaled to size of those wavelengths; then behind that set of barriers and openings another line offset; and then another.

Quote:
not to mention the precision and accuracy,or the physical scale vis a vis phononic xtals? Lets see an analytical comparison, rather than more hand waiving
Indeed. If I were going to pursue this, (and I'm not), but if I were, I'd take a cheap paper speaker and measure every possible parameter I could think of including off axis frequency responses and that of the diaphragm's resonance frequency. Then I'd give it an eNabl pattern scaled very deliberately to wavelengths of frequencies of interest. (What might they be? I'm not sure, but I suspect the membrane's Fr or some multiple of it might be good candidates since the membrane is essentially a drum with the cancellation nodes and radiating areas that entails. As multiples of the Fr increase the radiating areas change so do their position, size and number and also their axes of radiation).

Then I'd re-measure. My suspicion is that I would not find huge changes but perhaps a flattening of broad SQ humps and perhaps an increase or appearance of sharp SQ peaks. That would square with the subjective reports of less grungy sound.

Anyway, I've no dog in the squareoff. I go for husky speakers and horns and waveguides and CDs.

Now, where's the little hand wavy thing? There we are!
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:02 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2