EnABL - Technical discussion - Page 41 - 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 3rd April 2008, 07:29 PM   #401
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Hi,

The

PRINCIPLE OF THE DECWARE PHASE GUIDE NOV 2003 by Steve Deckert
http://www.decware.com/newsite/main...per94.htm&intro

Does not go directly to the article.

speakers>drivers>DFR-8> read about the phase guide here

You may suffer from deja-vu in a section of the article ............

/sreten.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2008, 07:35 PM   #402
...truth seeker...
diyAudio Member
 
Ed LaFontaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: where the Appalachians rise from the Blue Grass
Default Please review

It goes directly to "File Not Found"

  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2008, 08:25 PM   #403
diyAudio Member
 
Graham Maynard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Hi John K.

I have been communicating that your test for the baffle surface pattern was only 5 thousandths high.
To me 5 thou is not a block, and certainly not high enough to reflect a transient, as per your results.

A figure still in my mind from reading early on about EnABL and the block pattern was 1.5mil., which I read (past tense now unless I am informed otherwise) as 1.5mm ~= 1/16". I must now conclude that this meant as 1.5/1000"

I did ask Bud for clarification above in Post#241, so maybe I have made a mistake and my challenge to the relevence of your surface transient was erroneous on my part.

This does not mean I accept your 'No' answer to my last question related to coincidentally arising pressures/velocities at different frequencies. It is just that I cannot answer this one myself, and there has been no proof.

Thus I still cannot accept your transient test was sufficient to prove that an EnABLE tape pattern has no audible effect at any change of contour once a tuned pressure/velocity gradient has developed which is not directly related to the driven source.

Surely white noise is the best method for observing diffraction induced distortion, our ears being notably sensitive to fractional resonant effects and their modification - as indeed they are to a purely circular baffle. With spectral observation of white noise a critically short distance/time limitation need not then be imposed before dimensionally related peaks and troughs can develop.



Hi Bud,

My Post#241 question still stands. Is there a recommended height for EnABL 'blocks' at the baffle edge, or did I make a mistake based upon my reading of the descriptions such that here too it just a 5/1000" tape pattern ?

Cheers ........... Graham.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg block pattern..jpg (22.3 KB, 323 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2008, 09:13 PM   #404
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
First my number of 0.0035" being representative of an enable pattern on a driver was based on one of Bud's posts where he mentioned the height.

Second, a mil is a common using of measure equal to 1/1000". 1.5 mils is, as you note, 0.0015".

Third, it is your prerogative as to what to believe and what not to believe. I presented the measurement as it was. You can make you own, or interpret mine it as you like. It makes no difference to me. I see no need to defend objective data. It is what it is.

Fourth the term “block” seems to be used loosely here, more in a 2-dimensional sense, defining the length and width of the patch. The topic of height didn't come up until people other than Bud started using things like tooth paste and tape to apply the patterns. AFAIK, the basic intension was always to use the model paints Bud indicated to apply patches. When the patches start getting significantly thicker and thicker I question whether it would qualify as an enable patch in the original sprit of the topic. Of course, if it improves the sound (or not) I suspect surrounding you listening position with bricks lain out in an enable like pattern might be claimed to be EnABLe.

Fifth, according to Alex in Oz he used duct tape and aluminum tape for baffles and ports. The aluminum tape I have in house is just over 0.002" thick. My duct tape is about 0.003".
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2008, 09:30 PM   #405
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally posted by sreten
Hi,

The

PRINCIPLE OF THE DECWARE PHASE GUIDE NOV 2003 by Steve Deckert
http://www.decware.com/newsite/main...per94.htm&intro

Does not go directly to the article.

speakers>drivers>DFR-8> read about the phase guide here

You may suffer from deja-vu in a section of the article ............

/sreten.

Not the right link but I knew how to get there. That is funny. Thanks for pointing to it. It sure was a Yoggie moment when. I also liked this quote, "The results are too close to be measured,..."
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2008, 09:47 PM   #406
chrisb is offline chrisb  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: victoria BC
Steve has significantly "upgraded" the format and content of his site during the past year or so, and there are still a few dead-end links

for some interesting reading, try this most recent page regarding his customized drivers

http://www.decware.com/newsite/DFR8.htm


and to inject even more glorious Tube sound in your full range system:

http://www.decware.com/newsite/DFR6.htm
__________________
you don't really believe everything you think, do you?
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com commercial site planet10-HiFi
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2008, 11:16 PM   #407
BudP is offline BudP  United States
diyAudio Member
 
BudP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: upper left crust, united snakes
Graham Maynard.

5 mils, or 0.005" is rather taller than I have measured the Poly S paint, when applied to a sheet of mylar, where it cannot sink into the material. On the mylar 0.0015" to 0.002" is typical. On a paper cone the overall height above the cone is still about 0.0015" with usually an unknown amount of sink into the cone material. For large diameter bass drivers, molded out of soft fiber, with very little binding agent or fill, a sink depth of 0.007" is not an unrealistic expectation. For filled paper cone material, as found in all Lowther and Fostex drivers I have dealt with, sink is not likely to be more than 0.002".

As for the diffraction at baffle edge, I have never listened with an artificial test signal. As with all of my subjective findings, music is always the source. I use particular music, in a particular sequence, to learn about a drivers in use performance, with each of these sequential steps used to inform me about initial and subsequent treatment steps. I begin with a recording of a single piano, with considerable decay time and very few chords. This eventually progresses to the Hallelujah Chorus.

I intend to continue in this practice until some reliable cues are found that allow me to relate the changes in test data to what I rely upon currently. I would prefer to use artificial test signals and an objective test suite. My own efforts to find even repeatable data, from the same driver, treated or untreated, much less differences between them, that were reliable, is what has kept me from using objective testing. And this before any attempt tp correlate objective data with the results obtained by using the subjective tests I employ.

Thanks for continuing to move the investigation along John. I am sure we will find out what Alex is doing to obtain his results and it will be something that can be tested. It will be interesting to see what those eventual tests results look like, when compared to the distant from baffle edge tests you have already presented.

Bud
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2008, 11:40 PM   #408
...truth seeker...
diyAudio Member
 
Ed LaFontaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: where the Appalachians rise from the Blue Grass
Default method of acceptance

In construction, a method of acceptance for something made by craftsmen is the mock-up. An example of what the customer, architect or owner describes is made for approval. If it meets with the approval of the buyer, fine. If not, then adjustments are made and another round of approval continues until an example of what is expected is available on the site where the work will be produced.
This is in most cases a visual approval process. Sure,...color, texture & dimensional attributes come into play. Rarely, in my experience, are measuring devices brought to bear on the suitability of the work provided by the contractor.
Millions of dollars are traded on this basis every year. Those who use the method find it to be satisfactory to their needs.
Just a thought...
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2008, 03:24 AM   #409
diyAudio Member
 
Alex from Oz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canberra, Australia
Quote:
Originally posted by john k...
First my number of 0.0035" being representative of an enable pattern on a driver was based on one of Bud's posts where he mentioned the height.

Second, a mil is a common using of measure equal to 1/1000". 1.5 mils is, as you note, 0.0015".

Third, it is your prerogative as to what to believe and what not to believe. I presented the measurement as it was. You can make you own, or interpret mine it as you like. It makes no difference to me. I see no need to defend objective data. It is what it is.

Fourth the term “block” seems to be used loosely here, more in a 2-dimensional sense, defining the length and width of the patch. The topic of height didn't come up until people other than Bud started using things like tooth paste and tape to apply the patterns. AFAIK, the basic intension was always to use the model paints Bud indicated to apply patches. When the patches start getting significantly thicker and thicker I question whether it would qualify as an enable patch in the original sprit of the topic. Of course, if it improves the sound (or not) I suspect surrounding you listening position with bricks lain out in an enable like pattern might be claimed to be EnABLe.

Fifth, according to Alex in Oz he used duct tape and aluminum tape for baffles and ports. The aluminum tape I have in house is just over 0.002" thick. My duct tape is about 0.003".

G'day john k,

I actually use aluminium kitchen foil and double-sided tape.
I don't know if this makes any difference whatsoever, but here is what I do for foil blocks.

Making Aluminium Blocks

Parts list:
- Heavy Duty Aluminium Kitchen Foil
- Double sided tape - Sellotape "Acid free" (12mm) - thin stuff not the padded kind
- Cutting knife or blade
- Cutting Mat
- Ruler

Instructions
1. Place a length of foil shiny side down on a hard flat surface
2. Stick strips of double sided tape onto the foil - leave about 1.5 cm on either side of each strip
3. Press down on firmly on the back of the double sided tape to get a good bond with the foil
4. Carefully tear the foil along the edge of the tape - keep tension on the tape with one hand and you will get a clean edge.
5. You now have foil strips you can cut
6. Peel off the backing and stick the foil strips onto the cutting mat
7. Cut the strip into blocks of the required size
8. Pick the blocks off the cutting mat using the blade and apply.

FWIW, I use 48mm duct tape and based on some numbers provided by auplater in another post, I believe the thickness is probably closer to 0.007".

Cheers,

Alex
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2008, 03:30 AM   #410
dlr is offline dlr  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canton, MA
Quote:
Originally posted by BudP

Thanks for continuing to move the investigation along John. I am sure we will find out what Alex is doing to obtain his results and it will be something that can be tested. It will be interesting to see what those eventual tests results look like, when compared to the distant from baffle edge tests you have already presented.

Bud
On a baffle, there is nothing more one can do to "move the investigation along". The contradictory facts, both empirical and mathematical, keep piling up. What John has presented is conclusive, face it Bud. I expected this from day one, but I expected a bit more rationality once hard data was presented. There is not one, single piece of hard data to support anything other than added mass on a driver. All you have left is platitudes. You are in an unbelievable, absolute state of denial. What anyone hears on a baffle or a port is placebo.

Dave
  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 01:42 AM.


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