EnABL - Technical discussion

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
A fellow who proclaimed himself to be a luthier phoned me to say he had applied patterns based upon the Gen 2 tap test to the sound board of a guitar and a violin he had made. Claimed benefit too.

Bud
There's been an awful lot of "proclaiming". Anybody can "proclaim" anything they wish, it means nothing, certainly not in the technical thread. Keep the proclaimin' in the other thread.

Dave
 
so I didnt have to trifoil a 126en . the thinned modpodge is what warped the cone. Its a good thing I didnt screw up like this ,when i welded pipe in a nuclear plant 30 years ago. I have a quote from Adam Sandler " ya might have brought this to my attention YESTERDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! your like weatherman, if your wrong you still have you jobs .............. Thanks
 
I jumped through more than 20 pages in the beginning, trying to find some measured proof that this thing works. Was anyone ever able to objectively measure any differences with and without?

I have done and posted some measurements using the JX92S Jordan driver. Not sure if the picts can be found because one location where pics were stored has stopped services. Basically, I recall a change in phase response and CSD.
 
The pages George mentions are in the original thread, you are now in the split of that thread that deals with technical issues. There are wavelet expressions out at this end of this thread but there is nothing jaw dropping about any of the tests, until George Soon began to use a subset of EnABL and ended up with some startling test results, again from the early portion of the original thread. Mostly what you will are just arguments without data, both pro and con. I do have copies of all of the pictorial material from what testing has been done and I can provide it to you privately if you want to pursue this.

However an earthquake geologist thinks that the basic formulas from their unique science apply rather directly. I am learning about P and S waves and what might happen when P waves reflect within a diaphragm and force S waves to emit into open air at physically defined resonance points. The thinking being that those emitted S waves are what we see guiding direct pressure emissions into torus shapes that repeat the information that is contained in all three formats, a number of times within the first 4 ms of direct pressure emission from a transient signal. To get a visual idea of what this torus repeater looks like view this you tube video.
YouTube
The torus activity begins at about 40 seconds into the video. Be sure and have volume turned up enough to hear the test tones and commentary.
 
Member
Joined 2007
Paid Member
just wonder if it would be worth EnABLING Lowther DX2 drivers in Hedlund horns.

There will always be doubters, but one of the confounding features of the discussion concerning EnABL driver modifications is that the effectiveness of the modifications will differ significantly among different physical driver designs. A second factor relates to the quality, type (and amplitude?) of signal that the driver is reproducing. Some signals are simple to play well, other signals develop quite alot of distortion on/within the cones. I find that the higher the signal 'resolution', the more benefit is realized with EnABL.

Anyway... The DX2 has a poorly designed cone but a really good motor. The Lowther DX line is really worth EnABL treatment! I have DX4s that, after EnABLing, are as resolving as expensive electrostatics. Just realize that when you remove so much bad cone behavior, you are also removing (unwanted) sound that you may be accustomed to.

The process can be multi-step, or you can just go all-in. I went in stages and by the time I was satisfied, the cones and whizzers were completely covered with dots on the front and latex (Zig) on the backs. :D

Cheers,

Frank
 
I jumped through more than 20 pages in the beginning, trying to find some measured proof that this thing works. Was anyone ever able to objectively measure any differences with and without?
There surely is a difference, even if it's very small. it's hard to imagine adding paint to a speaker cone, effectively adding mass at different places, doesn't change things.

The question of whether it's an improvement is harder to answer. This would involve not just comparing an original driver to a modified one (though this can give a preference), but comparing both to an original sound source, and determining which sounds more similar to the original source. But then I rarely see or hear of doing that in any audio testing.

There's a patent number mentioned in one of these threads, I looked up the patent years ago and read it, and still didn't "get it."
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.