EnABL - Technical discussion - Page 4 - diyAudio
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 20th March 2008, 03:39 PM   #31
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Quote:
Originally posted by critofur
Could someone point me to a post about the results of a double blind test on this "EnABL" stuff?

Measured differences?

I just read through a bunch of pages of posts but hadn't found such information yet
Hi,

Statistically significant double blind listening tests would be useful
to decide if a phenomena is detectable, but AFAIA no-one is arguing
EnABLing a driver is not audibly detectable. The claimed effects on
solid surfaces not so ....

sreten.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2008, 05:42 PM   #32
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Quote:
Originally posted by BudP


Sreten, I put those babbles there just for your benefit.

Now, if you had found this driver process out for yourself, just what words would you have used and how would you have conveyed the link between objective tests and subjective responses? dlr has pointed out just how complex an undertaking this is going to be. Since this is a group effort, on both sides of the results that the neutral and innocent patterns bring about, we might over time, actually accomplish this work. Since you have some pretty stiff standards for verbal presentation, perhaps you could begin to share your thoughts and see if we can mold my babble into the languageformat you prefer.

Bud
Bud,

You addressed the mail to All, I didn't.

The link between objective tests and subjective responses ?

Lets get this right as in "ballpark" subjective claims.

If I take MJK's excellent open baffle study, and use planet10's favourite
Fostex mid /treble driver and tweak it a bit* I'll end up with a fairly decent l
loudspeaker of that ilk, one would expect some of the "commonly accepted"
subjective advantages of the arrangement to be apparent and for balance
some of the "commonly accepted" limitations of widerange drivers.

(* Basically improve the classical parameters, tonal balance etc ...)

If I then "correctly" EnABL both drivers something will fundamentally
change and it would appear in a subjective sense something has
been removed / eliminated.
(If this is not the case, just an improvement is claimed then all
I can say is you are an absolute expert in pointless argument.)

If I interprete your technical allusions as to what appears to be
happening in a reasonably correct manner as to the magnitude
of this removal / elimination and thus quote "scarily realistic", I
would have it seems some similarities to pair of Quad ESL57's.

I have not done this. However if I did and it was true then
I would assume whatever the consequences of the process
are, they would be objectively measurable in some manner.

If the case is that it cannot be objectively measured then from my
position a "fundamental improvement " of the magnitude described
is not possible, something has to give, if the effect is real then the
method is inadequate, or vice versa and I'm hearing things.

FWIW "molding my babble into the language format you prefer" is
not the issue. Its what your saying, which makes the assumption
the process does something "fundamental", and therefore such a
thing must have a major explanation. It does not not follow.

Without a sensible explanation (with sensible evidence) of the
effect I cannot take the excessive subjective claims seriously.

/sreten.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2008, 08:18 PM   #33
BudP is offline BudP  United States
diyAudio Member
 
BudP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: upper left crust, united snakes
sreten,

Thanks. I like this presentation of your views much better than previous ones, and I agree with you. Hopefully we will either find no evidence of non standard behavior, in a classical sense, and just the organization of local mass will be the effector, or we will find some evidence of modification to the classical pressure gradient mechanism. Either suits me, so long as the results can begin to be predicted, before the driver is designed. As has already been demonstrated with CSD plots, the EnABL patterns just scratch the surface of some fairly large improvements, in diaphragm performance

auplater,

In soongsc's later plots, he has gone beyond the EnABL surface treatment, though one of the pattern elements still bears some resemblance to an EnABL pattern. His provided CSD plots, closely resemble your provided plot. Other EnABL only drivers are not going to have that sort of energy propagation, in decay, at all.

This is not really the point though. EnABL, as it is currently utilized, is just an optimization tool for existing drivers. Planar and ribbon devices are an entirely different issue, with their own set of drawbacks, except for what RAAL has discovered, and implemented, in their drivers.

No question that ribbon drivers measurements are superior and the sound, when they are properly implemented, is superior to conventional drivers, even when EnABL'd. However, from soongsc's plots, it looks like he has the keys to dynamic driver performance that would fit very well with ribbons

Now, would you like to EnABL a ribbon?. I will tell you how to do it on the other thread. The differences will be subtle, but that is all that is left.

critofur,

A semi blind audition was performed by Jon Ver Halen at the most recent RMAF. He used two sets of Lowther PM6A drivers and changed them on a set of pre positioned, open baffle speakers.

The semi blind portion came from his having put the EnABL'd speakers up first, as the "driver to compare to" rather than in the second set of the demo, as was apparently expected by all of the attendees.

The ENABL'd Lowthers were done by me with a "stealth" aet of patterns. You cannot see these patterns from more than 6 inches away, with light at just the right angle of incidence. Otherwise they are invisible.

Jon waited for a few days to announce which driver was presnted in which order. He is a sly devil.

There are reports on the original thread of the expectations and what people heard. Some were quite insulted to have been confounded in this way. All of the subjective responses reported far less distortion and some went on to discuss other differences.

Not really a double blind test. I believe SY is planning one of those, when his test program gets underway.

Bud
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2008, 08:48 PM   #34
diyAudio Member
 
Alex from Oz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canberra, Australia
Looking at the CSD plots taken by John K and the CSD for RD-75 planars that auplater posted, neither of these show anything below 500Hz.

I'm curious to see the effect of EnABL on a CSD plot between say 100Hz and 1000Hz

Is there a resason why the CSD plots don't into the lower frequenices?

Cheers,

Alex
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2008, 11:38 PM   #35
diyAudio Member
 
auplater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KyOhWVa tristate
Quote:
Originally posted by Alex from Oz
Looking at the CSD plots taken by John K and the CSD for RD-75 planars that auplater posted, neither of these show anything below 500Hz.

I'm curious to see the effect of EnABL on a CSD plot between say 100Hz and 1000Hz

Is there a resason why the CSD plots don't into the lower frequenices?

Cheers,

Alex
It's my understanding that data in CSD's at lower frequencies is frought with difficulties, as the sampling conditions and results are liable to be unreliable without alot of extra work.

Bud

Feel free not to use the "chinese takeout menu approach" for support / non-support of EnABL using CSD plots. My point to presenting this data isn't how great RD75's are; it's that CSD data as presented by planet10 to somehow support EnABL doesn't cut it, technically speaking. The drivers ring for 4 times as long, and the lack of testing regimen details negates any conclusions other than they look like crappy drivers, which I believe is what John K. said when he tested them. The differences shown are miniscule compared to that between that dynamic driver and RD-75's (and many other good speakers).

John L.
__________________
"...His brain is squirming like a toad..." Jim Morrison
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2008, 12:43 AM   #36
ronc is offline ronc  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Ten words is all i have left today.

(this does not include the 10 words)

SPC = Statistical Process Control

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

Mr. Deming was the father of SPC. He went to the Big 3 American auto Mfgs and they would not even listen. This was in the late 1950s. Japan welcomed him with open arms. They applied his math principals and that is how , today, they dominate the market.
Prediction: If India can overcome its social status problems then they will become a world power. If China can bring their educational system up to standards , then they will become a world power. America has lost.

Ten words (well maybe a bit more).
1: Any wave launch from a round radiator is spherical in nature.
2: Any wave launch imparts energy to the surface it launches from.
3: This energy is retained in the launch surface until it converts to heat.
4: A secondary energy at a later time interval can react with the initial energy by either re-enforcing or attenuation , depending on the phase.
5: A medium that is to disrupt the energies has to be a consistant mass/volume to affect or to equally disrupt the energies imparted at any position of the launch surface. If it is not then you have unequal energies at different launch positions. (wave deformation)

ron

(OK, so its more than ten words)
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2008, 03:34 AM   #37
rjb is offline rjb  New Zealand
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Piha
John L;-

As I keep saying, Bud has never claimed anything but an improvement to a driver.

The only reasonable comparison is between a treated and untreated but otherwise identical drivers.

I have listened to enough drivers, and seen enough CSDs to be able to tell good from bad from these, but as yet cannot infalliably tell, (looking at "good" CSDs only) which I will prefer when listening to music. Unfortunately no speaker I have heard has every convinced me that the performance is "live". This lack of perfection means there is always differing opinions, and hence subjective testing is still valid.

That is not to decry technical testing, far from it. If we can better relate test results to what we hear, we would all be much happier. Once we do this, better drivers can be manufactured.

That is why this thread, rather than the "listening impressions" one, is to me more important.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2008, 04:28 AM   #38
soongsc is offline soongsc  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
soongsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Taiwan
Listening, measurements, and analysis are all important in the process of improving sound.
__________________
Hear the real thing!
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2008, 04:47 AM   #39
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by auplater
It's my understanding that data in CSD's at lower frequencies is frought with difficulties, as the sampling conditions and results are liable to be unreliable without alot of extra work.
In the case of the CSDs shownm the limits to the data on the bottom has to do with the arrival of the 1st reflection. The further the driver being measure is from the closest surface the lower the plots can go.

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 21st March 2008, 11:20 AM   #40
diyAudio Member
 
auplater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KyOhWVa tristate
Default data interpretation

Quote:
Originally posted by rjb


John L;-

<snip>

That is not to decry technical testing, far from it. If we can better relate test results to what we hear, we would all be much happier. Once we do this, better drivers can be manufactured.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bud


As has already been demonstrated with CSD plots, the EnABL patterns just scratch the surface of some fairly large improvements, in diaphragm performance


part of why it's important to describe what can and cannot be determined from "technical" presentations of data, such as CSD plots, for instance. Much was made of the "overlay" shift in the substantial ringing between 6 and 10 Khz as somehow proving that EnABL improves the sound. This can't be determined from the data as it has been presented. Yet such an attempt is repeatedly made. Pure and simple. You've all but said that yourself in your post, and that was my only point. You can't use some of what looks like maybe supportive results, and then dismiss other equally valid (or not) data that contradicts.

John L.
__________________
"...His brain is squirming like a toad..." Jim Morrison
  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 10:15 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