Re: data interpretation
Even more important and totally lacking in all data presented to date, is the fact that the measurements shown are on-axis response only. This I have mentioned before, with a near total lack of acknowledgement by any proponent and no further discussion. It's much easier to just ignore when one is already convinced. There has not been one attempt by any proponent to make a full set of on- and off-axis tests coupled with the equally necessary distortion tests. It amazes me that most of the proponents will make claims of objective measurements as being fully in support of some subjective claims, yet they have only a rudimentary data set (a single on-axis response) from which to base that claim. All of these claims have no validity whatsoever, yet they are repeated.
Anyone who knows anything about measuring speakers knows that the on-axis response provides little information on which to make any final judgement and little as to how it MAY sound. Yet that has been the basis of many claims made from the beginning. It provides almost nothing to describe the power response, much of what one hears when listening and on which much of the perception is based.
So far, there has been no attempt to make a full set of measurements before and after treatment by proponents who do provide measurements. I don't believe that there ever will be. On-axis responses are touted by proponents as definitive. The subjectivists have no desire to learn these details, they prefer to re-hash previously made, simplistic, single on-axis measurements as if they were conclusive.
But as you point out, let a measurement contradict their position and it is questioned, denied or largely ignored. There has been a history of near total denial or dismissal of anything that contradicts by almost all proponents. This "technical" thread will likely lead nowhere. We know changes occur when a driver is treated in any manor with any material in any way. Making a correlation as to what changes in measurements makes what corresponding changes in perceived response will never be answered here. Few even have a desire to learn that connection. It's just so much easier to talk about the "scarily realistic" results, even in the "technical" thread.
Dave
auplater said:
Even more important and totally lacking in all data presented to date, is the fact that the measurements shown are on-axis response only. This I have mentioned before, with a near total lack of acknowledgement by any proponent and no further discussion. It's much easier to just ignore when one is already convinced. There has not been one attempt by any proponent to make a full set of on- and off-axis tests coupled with the equally necessary distortion tests. It amazes me that most of the proponents will make claims of objective measurements as being fully in support of some subjective claims, yet they have only a rudimentary data set (a single on-axis response) from which to base that claim. All of these claims have no validity whatsoever, yet they are repeated.
Anyone who knows anything about measuring speakers knows that the on-axis response provides little information on which to make any final judgement and little as to how it MAY sound. Yet that has been the basis of many claims made from the beginning. It provides almost nothing to describe the power response, much of what one hears when listening and on which much of the perception is based.
So far, there has been no attempt to make a full set of measurements before and after treatment by proponents who do provide measurements. I don't believe that there ever will be. On-axis responses are touted by proponents as definitive. The subjectivists have no desire to learn these details, they prefer to re-hash previously made, simplistic, single on-axis measurements as if they were conclusive.
But as you point out, let a measurement contradict their position and it is questioned, denied or largely ignored. There has been a history of near total denial or dismissal of anything that contradicts by almost all proponents. This "technical" thread will likely lead nowhere. We know changes occur when a driver is treated in any manor with any material in any way. Making a correlation as to what changes in measurements makes what corresponding changes in perceived response will never be answered here. Few even have a desire to learn that connection. It's just so much easier to talk about the "scarily realistic" results, even in the "technical" thread.
Dave
I have read similar responses to the EnABL thread several times over the last few weeks.
I have to admit, I am not one for measurements and analysis. I don't even use software when I am evaluating enclosure design typically. I do take numbers into account most times, but I am far from the mathematician that others here certainly are.
I am actually totally surprised that someone here hasn't done these measurements yet. Is it just that EnABL is still new enough that none of our measurement people have gotten a set of speakers and measured them yet?
I have read a lot of subjective statements and I remember over the years when big statements were made, someone usually volunteered to make measurements such as you describe. (on and off axis, near field, far field, open field, in - room etc). Perhaps I am wrong and that data has been collected and I just haven't seen it, but I am amazed that it hasn't happened already. Who here has the test equipment to perform such tests? Is there readily available equipment that can be used by the common layman (myself) to do such measurements? I would be more than glad to test my two sets of drivers before and after treatment with a full set of on and off axis, but considering my complete lack of experience, I would be terrified of the accuracy of any results I might be able to post..
just wondering who might be able to perform such a test and post the results and why it hasn't been done.
Sorry if that stirs the pot, I am just wondering why that is such a sore spot for something that I have seen resolved quickly in the past.
Take care,
Robert
I have to admit, I am not one for measurements and analysis. I don't even use software when I am evaluating enclosure design typically. I do take numbers into account most times, but I am far from the mathematician that others here certainly are.
I am actually totally surprised that someone here hasn't done these measurements yet. Is it just that EnABL is still new enough that none of our measurement people have gotten a set of speakers and measured them yet?
I have read a lot of subjective statements and I remember over the years when big statements were made, someone usually volunteered to make measurements such as you describe. (on and off axis, near field, far field, open field, in - room etc). Perhaps I am wrong and that data has been collected and I just haven't seen it, but I am amazed that it hasn't happened already. Who here has the test equipment to perform such tests? Is there readily available equipment that can be used by the common layman (myself) to do such measurements? I would be more than glad to test my two sets of drivers before and after treatment with a full set of on and off axis, but considering my complete lack of experience, I would be terrified of the accuracy of any results I might be able to post..
just wondering who might be able to perform such a test and post the results and why it hasn't been done.
Sorry if that stirs the pot, I am just wondering why that is such a sore spot for something that I have seen resolved quickly in the past.
Take care,
Robert
One issue to consider is that reducing CSD as fast as possible to a low level gives you clean sound. However, this is when other issues become more audible. One is cone breakup modes; these become unbearable, and it's really hard and necessary to get rid of them as well. Another is dry sound, which is associated with cone or former material absorbing the low level signals. Really not easy to handle.
In reality, it's good to have stiff material without strong cone breakup modes. Of the metal drivers I have seen, only the Jordan drivers have this characteristic. The main reason I have not worked more on these is that they are too expensive for our target market.
I would say that if any pattern is optimally applied, probably we should see about 4~6db improvement in the CSD over a wide frequency range. This is the most simple way to put it.
In reality, it's good to have stiff material without strong cone breakup modes. Of the metal drivers I have seen, only the Jordan drivers have this characteristic. The main reason I have not worked more on these is that they are too expensive for our target market.
I would say that if any pattern is optimally applied, probably we should see about 4~6db improvement in the CSD over a wide frequency range. This is the most simple way to put it.
soongsc said:
If you reduce the CSD as you describe, then you reduce all resonances, breakup related or otherwise. If "breakup modes...become unbearable", then you have not reduced the CSD as stated. The CSD covers the full bandwidth of the driver, impedance mismatch resonances, breakup, all of it. The CSD, as presented in the enabl thread, is representing one tiny aspect of the response of a driver. If it sounds worse as you state, then it is likely that the heretofore never measured distortion profile has been made worse, or if improved in one area, has been worsened in an area that is more audible to the human ear. In any case, the CSD shows little of the total contribution to the perceived sound inherent in a driver. Any and all conclusions based solely on a couple of CSD measurements are lacking in sufficient data to make any reliable correlations between measurement and perception.
First, this is a totally subjective opinion and should not be in this thread, it is more appropriate for it to be in the other subjective thread. Second, as an opinion, I totally disagree. I do not find any metal drivers, especially full-range, to come as close to being true to the source as do the excellent doped-paper type. But all of this is better left out in this thread. That's the problem with breaking up the thread as has been done. Much of the "objective" conclusions have been largely based on subjective grounds.
Dave
Just sharing my experience rather than dreaming through lots of theory.dlr said:
If you look through my posted data from the previous threads, I could give explanation how most of the data a posted sounded like. Hope you can do the same and post it here some day.
I have also addressed, and previously posted data showing no strong breakup modes in the JX92S, This is technical enough for this thread.
Show us some data on doped-paper, and also tell us the material properies of it please.
Would anyone care to comment on these non-EnABLed drivers?
I don't know if the Fostex 126E is considered doped-paper cone or not. Anyone care to elaborate on this?
I don't know if the Fostex 126E is considered doped-paper cone or not. Anyone care to elaborate on this?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Re: CSD's
Now if a showed about the same amount of data above the water as the RD-75, things start to look interesting.
Now if a showed about the same amount of data above the water as the RD-75, things start to look interesting.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
auplater said:
CSD's (or not)
Why are you going on about CSD's? They don't tell much about what one hears from those that are presented here. The only conclusions that can be drawn are that, from a single on axis csd compared with a like plot for another driver tested under the same conditions, the one with faster settling, with smoother response, indicates the better driver, other things being equal (power handling, dispersion, etc.) That's all. And unless multiple runs of the same 2 drivers are presented, you can only speak about the 2 drivers under test. And it seems lost on believers what the meaning of variance, standard deviation, experimental error, all the accepted tools for evaluating data sets means.
Unless proponents move beyond cheerleading with lame "informative snippets" of limited merit, this thread seems doomed to an early death. By design, no doubt.
soongsc said:
Why are you going on about CSD's? They don't tell much about what one hears from those that are presented here. The only conclusions that can be drawn are that, from a single on axis csd compared with a like plot for another driver tested under the same conditions, the one with faster settling, with smoother response, indicates the better driver, other things being equal (power handling, dispersion, etc.) That's all. And unless multiple runs of the same 2 drivers are presented, you can only speak about the 2 drivers under test. And it seems lost on believers what the meaning of variance, standard deviation, experimental error, all the accepted tools for evaluating data sets means.
Unless proponents move beyond cheerleading with lame "informative snippets" of limited merit, this thread seems doomed to an early death. By design, no doubt.
Waterfals and such
We have a lot of waterfalls here in Hawaii. They're very pretty.
We have a lot of waterfall plots here on this thread. Also very pretty.
I understand ours here in Hawaii - but the plots......
Can someone here please help an ignorant guy like me understand the waterfall plots a little better? I know it's a 3 dimension thing, time/frequency/amplitude - but I'll be darned if I understand what "sounds better" (or worse) by looking at the plot.
Can someone please point me to a source for understanding these? For example, if a certain speaker where perfect, what would the plot look like? And when we see imperfections, what are the causes, or at least the sonic results?
Sorry for the detour, but I'm a bit lost in all these cascading plots.
We have a lot of waterfalls here in Hawaii. They're very pretty.
We have a lot of waterfall plots here on this thread. Also very pretty.
I understand ours here in Hawaii - but the plots......
Can someone here please help an ignorant guy like me understand the waterfall plots a little better? I know it's a 3 dimension thing, time/frequency/amplitude - but I'll be darned if I understand what "sounds better" (or worse) by looking at the plot.
Can someone please point me to a source for understanding these? For example, if a certain speaker where perfect, what would the plot look like? And when we see imperfections, what are the causes, or at least the sonic results?
Sorry for the detour, but I'm a bit lost in all these cascading plots.
Re: Waterfals and such
That's been done.
Go back to the original EnABL thread, find the post by john k that shows a comparison of a driver with three resonances and what its CSD looks like, then the one right after it for one if all resonances were removed and you'll see it. You'll also notice that even a "perfect" driver does not have a "perfect" CSD, because any real driver is a bandpass device. Keep in mind, even a "perfect" CSD would be on one axis only, since no driver is a point source radiator.
The causes are usually fairly easy to determine, the sonic results are never clear. But again, you can't tell much about the sound from any single CSD.
Dave
panomaniac said:
That's been done.
Go back to the original EnABL thread, find the post by john k that shows a comparison of a driver with three resonances and what its CSD looks like, then the one right after it for one if all resonances were removed and you'll see it. You'll also notice that even a "perfect" driver does not have a "perfect" CSD, because any real driver is a bandpass device. Keep in mind, even a "perfect" CSD would be on one axis only, since no driver is a point source radiator.
The causes are usually fairly easy to determine, the sonic results are never clear. But again, you can't tell much about the sound from any single CSD.
Dave
Re: Re: data interpretation
There will be a full set of tests. The processs is already underway.
Bud had contacted me right away when I offered to help arrange for the tests. So, in all fairness to Bud, he's not hiding from objective analysis of EnABL.
Bud has sent out the drivers to RAW Acoustics for testing. Al from RAW will be doing a number of on axis/off axis tests from different proximities. He's got a pretty elaborate set of tests in mind.
Al will take take steps to ensure consistency and provide the comprehensive data that all of us would like to see.
We will also have someone else test the drivers after RAW has completed their tests, as an additional control.
In short, we will have proper data to analyse the effects, before, and after EnABL.
Cheers
dlr said:
There will be a full set of tests. The processs is already underway.
Bud had contacted me right away when I offered to help arrange for the tests. So, in all fairness to Bud, he's not hiding from objective analysis of EnABL.
Bud has sent out the drivers to RAW Acoustics for testing. Al from RAW will be doing a number of on axis/off axis tests from different proximities. He's got a pretty elaborate set of tests in mind.
Al will take take steps to ensure consistency and provide the comprehensive data that all of us would like to see.
We will also have someone else test the drivers after RAW has completed their tests, as an additional control.
In short, we will have proper data to analyse the effects, before, and after EnABL.
Cheers
I also have an idea to test if there are indeed any measureable differences in EnABL'ng ports and baffle edges.
I haven't been following the technical details of what the EnABL patterns used in those instances are.
If those that are experimenting with this can provide me details of the patterns for ports and baffle edges, I can produce decals of various thicknesses of vinyl, and have them cut and pre masked, ready to be applied for RAW Acoustics to test as well.
Can anyone send me the EnABLE patterns for these?
I can accept PDF, AI, DWG, DXF as well as others.
Cheers
I haven't been following the technical details of what the EnABL patterns used in those instances are.
If those that are experimenting with this can provide me details of the patterns for ports and baffle edges, I can produce decals of various thicknesses of vinyl, and have them cut and pre masked, ready to be applied for RAW Acoustics to test as well.
Can anyone send me the EnABLE patterns for these?
I can accept PDF, AI, DWG, DXF as well as others.
Cheers
What I have asked for is a characterization of six Tang Band 3 inch alleged full range drivers. After characterization that includes dlr's off axis CSD and off axis distortion tests. Al will pick two and send them to me for EnABL patterns. Another set of the same tests will be run with a retest of the other drivers. A pair of these may also go to Planet 10 for his appraisal, of applying his particular materials. After all testing is finished, all go off to another facility to have the final tests done again.
Are there suggestions on more complete methods or additional tests that should be run? Optimum test distances etc.?
Bud
Are there suggestions on more complete methods or additional tests that should be run? Optimum test distances etc.?
Bud
testing design???
Anyone care to share the testing protocol / design / method that will be used for all these tests? No? I thought not... there probably isn't much of one in existence....
Not much discussion here about what would be useful experiments to run. Just alot of diffuse talk of "we'll test on axis, off axis, characterization (whatever that means). What tests will be run? How will the results be evaluated? Will any kind of explanation of errors in the tests, their limitations, how to present the data, number of trials, what variables will be examined? Or are we just gonna get more extraneous data of dubious merit to hash through again as if it represents the holy grail? Do any of the testers have any sort of understanding of treatment combinations, confidence intervals, alpha error, that sort of thing?
Otherwise, why bother doing the tests? The results will be no better than subjective anecdotal evidence as far as determining what (if anything) is going on unless there is some serious planning involved on how to do them and how to interpret the results.
John L.
Daygloworange said:
Anyone care to share the testing protocol / design / method that will be used for all these tests? No? I thought not... there probably isn't much of one in existence....
Not much discussion here about what would be useful experiments to run. Just alot of diffuse talk of "we'll test on axis, off axis, characterization (whatever that means). What tests will be run? How will the results be evaluated? Will any kind of explanation of errors in the tests, their limitations, how to present the data, number of trials, what variables will be examined? Or are we just gonna get more extraneous data of dubious merit to hash through again as if it represents the holy grail? Do any of the testers have any sort of understanding of treatment combinations, confidence intervals, alpha error, that sort of thing?
Otherwise, why bother doing the tests? The results will be no better than subjective anecdotal evidence as far as determining what (if anything) is going on unless there is some serious planning involved on how to do them and how to interpret the results.
John L.
Gidday all.
I have been reading this and other threads regarding this process and am fascinated.
My next project will be using PHY-HP drivers and have emailed Bud for his files to EnABL them.
A general question for all:
As I live in the tropics of Australia, my house is in a Rain Forrest, the environment is very humid and mold abounds every "Wet Season".
I believe the PHY drivers are untreated paper, after the EnABL process, what should I coat them with so they can live happily in this environment?
Regards
Mark
Cairns Australia
I have been reading this and other threads regarding this process and am fascinated.
My next project will be using PHY-HP drivers and have emailed Bud for his files to EnABL them.
A general question for all:
As I live in the tropics of Australia, my house is in a Rain Forrest, the environment is very humid and mold abounds every "Wet Season".
I believe the PHY drivers are untreated paper, after the EnABL process, what should I coat them with so they can live happily in this environment?
Regards
Mark
Cairns Australia
Re: testing design???
I posed the question (in the other thread) asking what tests people might think would be helpful.
I don't remember seeing anyone person respond.....
The testers are individuals who agreed to donate their time to do the tests that they feel will shed useful data on the effects of EnABl simply to investigate for themselves.
Should the tests not meet your criteria, feel free to arrange a more comprehensive set of tests yourself, and present them here for everyone's approval.
That would be great.
Cheers
(Seriously John L, why the negative attitude dude?)
auplater said:
Anyone care to share the testing protocol / design / method that will be used for all these tests? No? I thought not... there probably isn't much of one in existence....
Not much discussion here about what would be useful experiments to run.
I posed the question (in the other thread) asking what tests people might think would be helpful.
I don't remember seeing anyone person respond.....
The testers are individuals who agreed to donate their time to do the tests that they feel will shed useful data on the effects of EnABl simply to investigate for themselves.
Should the tests not meet your criteria, feel free to arrange a more comprehensive set of tests yourself, and present them here for everyone's approval.
That would be great.
Cheers
(Seriously John L, why the negative attitude dude?)
Re: CSD's (or not)
I am not the chearleading type, and I don't care whether a thread dies or not. But if people that don't know how to get things to work start throwing wrong information around, I will show personally tested information. Whom can really show their own data and test that they measured?
Because I see a very close relationship with CSD and what is heard. I know for a fact that the clean Fostex 126E needs the taming.auplater said:
I am not the chearleading type, and I don't care whether a thread dies or not. But if people that don't know how to get things to work start throwing wrong information around, I will show personally tested information. Whom can really show their own data and test that they measured?
Re: Waterfals and such
I do recall an article on it at the Liberty Praxis site.
There is now perfect CSD for speaker, but amplifiers get pretty close with resistive loading. In short, a perfect CSD would look more like a flat wall than CSD.
I do recall an article on it at the Liberty Praxis site.
There is now perfect CSD for speaker, but amplifiers get pretty close with resistive loading. In short, a perfect CSD would look more like a flat wall than CSD.
panomaniac said:We have a lot of waterfalls here in Hawaii. They're very pretty.
We have a lot of waterfall plots here on this thread. Also very pretty.
I understand ours here in Hawaii - but the plots......
Can someone here please help an ignorant guy like me understand the waterfall plots a little better? I know it's a 3 dimension thing, time/frequency/amplitude - but I'll be darned if I understand what "sounds better" (or worse) by looking at the plot.
Can someone please point me to a source for understanding these? For example, if a certain speaker where perfect, what would the plot look like? And when we see imperfections, what are the causes, or at least the sonic results?
Sorry for the detour, but I'm a bit lost in all these cascading plots.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.