EnABL - Technical discussion

[ronc]

Quite interesting how this thread keeps expanding.


HAHAHAHA! So very true.
Lets see i have been critized for :
1. Being human and saying i am sorry.
2. My evaluation methods were incorrect.
3. Stating the obvious.
4. Declining to be involved in technobable.
5. Actually investigating realistic answers.

If this was an industry question:
1. Does it actually improve performance.
2. How much does it cost.
3. Does the cost/performance ratio justify the added expense.
4. Can it be implemented with controls and what is the additional cost.
5. Will it sell, and can the customer be satisfied with the results and can it be delivered on time.

do a fishbone analysis.
6. Will we profit from this.

ron

[soongsc]

Properly applied patterns will improve performance. And quite significantly. The catch is if there are other problems, they may stand out and become annoying if not solved altogether.

If you want low recurring cost, then there is an up front investment. Otherwise the recurring cost is higher. I think companies can profit if the quality is stable enough. The key is finding the right balance between recurring and non-recurring cost.

[ronc]

The greatest question i see is if there is a consistancy in the application of the medium. A felt pen or other(manually applied) is not an adequate answer.

My initial tests indicate that if there is a change then it has to be a consistant change, I keep seeing a variable. The effect has to be over the entire surface of the cone and equal over any degree change.

ron

I think companies can profit if the quality is stable enough. The key is finding the right balance between recurring and non-recurring cost.


Thats called SPC.

[BudP]

The greatest question i see is if there is a consistancy in the application of the medium. A felt pen or other(manually applied) is not an adequate answer.

Luckily we poor pen twiddler's, and our legions of devoted fans and groupies, don't even have chart recorders in our feeble brains, so we have no reference except the lies we remember telling.

But I have little doubt that you will find even greater clarity through optimization of the process. What in the world you would do with something that scarily realistic sounding, escapes me just now, but then, I am one of the feeble minded ones.

Bud

[soongsc]

Originally posted by ronc
The greatest question i see is if there is a consistancy in the application of the medium. A felt pen or other(manually applied) is not an adequate answer.

My initial tests indicate that if there is a change then it has to be a consistant change, I keep seeing a variable. The effect has to be over the entire surface of the cone and equal over any degree change.

ron

I think companies can profit if the quality is stable enough. The key is finding the right balance between recurring and non-recurring cost.


Thats called SPC.

Just from experiments, 1mm location difference was when difference becomes measurably significant.

What's SPC?

[Ed LaFontaine]

SPC = Statistical Process Control

If we (in the US) had only listened to Deming when we had the first chance.

[Alex from Oz]

As I see things, the fastest and most profitable way for a company to introduce EnABL lies in application to speaker ports.

This would involve some re-tooling to get the EnABL pattern into the ports:
- either by incorporating it into the injection mould, or
- appliying it using some other material.

- It is easier to maintain consistent quality in manufacture of ports (eg. no moving parts, no assembly of discrete components).
- There is no visible change to the speaker.
- The drivers will not have to be re-engineered or undergo additional processing.
- The existing speaker designs will not have to be modified in any way.
- The EnABL ports can be easily introduced across the full range of ported speakers from sub woofers to multi-way.
- The audible improvement is significant enough to justify a premium price over an identical model without EnABL'd ports = more profit for minimal extra cost.

A very powerful demonstration to a prospective company would be to give them a blind listening test using four identical ported speakers they currently sell:
- Two will have EnABL in the port
- the other two will remain unchanged.

Cheers,

Alex

[auplater]

Originally posted by Ed LaFontaine
SPC = Statistical Process Control

If we (in the US) had only listened to Deming when we had the first chance.

Try it! It works....




John L.

[auplater]

Originally posted by Alex from Oz
As I see things, the fastest and most profitable way for a company to introduce EnABL lies in application to speaker ports.

This would involve some re-tooling to get the EnABL pattern into the ports:
- either by incorporating it into the injection mould, or
- appliying it using some other material.

- It is easier to maintain consistent quality in manufacture of ports (eg. no moving parts, no assembly of discrete components).
- There is no visible change to the speaker.
- The drivers will not have to be re-engineered or undergo additional processing.
- The existing speaker designs will not have to be modified in any way.
- The EnABL ports can be easily introduced across the full range of ported speakers from sub woofers to multi-way.
- The audible improvement is significant enough to justify a premium price over an identical model without EnABL'd ports = more profit for minimal extra cost.

A very powerful demonstration to a prospective company would be to give them a blind listening test using four identical ported speakers they currently sell:
- Two will have EnABL in the port
- the other two will remain unchanged.

Cheers,

Alex

Putting the cart b4 the horse here, technically speaking... as there has been no confirmed valid analysis as to whether this even works...

maybe you can convince Floyd Toole though...

John L.

[musgofasa]

I don't know if this is the correct place to pose a question of this nature but if it should be somewhere else, some mod, please put it there. (disclaimer over)

I have been reading the EnABL threads for months and have tried to put my own thoughts into the process. There have been lots and lots and lots of testimony and argument over how it does work and how well it works. I worked in the automotive audio industry for a long time and I remember several speaker manufacturers building drivers from cheap plastic materials that included stamped shapes int he design. In fact, I am trying to recall if it wasn't pioneer that had a set of speakers that had what looked liked diamond plate right around the edges that would have been a very consistent way of putting "EnABL" on a speaker cone. Unfortunately, IIRC, these were just very cheap speakers that wouldn't have been anywhere close to comparable with the drivers most people have applied the process to.

In short order, the question I have is this. Could someone suggest a repeatable (controllable) way to apply the process to different types of cones? I see a lot of Fostex banana cone drivers done and I can think of no legitimate way to control the process here as any paint, ink, or other material will leech into the material at an undetermined rate. I would think this would cause inconsistencies similar to the differences in basic T/S paramaters. I could see it working very well in a metal or plastic cone driver, but who wants that material in a full range speaker? Or even a Hi-Fi speaker of any kind? (although I have heard some that sounded very good). Is it possible to have some sort of shaping to a paper cone? Or a wool cone? Or ...........

I have been in the business of business management and sales for a long time so I do agree with the above statements about profit. I am thankful that things such as EnABL are part of the DIY community and can be a part of my hobby where profit isn't a concern personally. I wouldn't mind helping someone to produce a driver that was consistently better than others though and I am good at such things as the financial analysis and marketing aspects of such a venture.

The objective part of this discussion I think Cal started the thread for would be related to measurable results and reliability of feedback on the process. Subjective opinions aside, I was just wondering if anyone had thought of a really consistent way to apply the process so that say 100 drivers could be modified and tested and the results controlled. Perhaps a robot or some sort of stationary stand that would hold the driver and the application apparatus? I could see making something like this. Although, from descriptions, the calligraphy pens et al aren't as consistent as we would like.

Just poking my nose in and stirring the pot, lol.

What have you guys seen or worked with that might accomodate that?

Take care,
Robert