EnABL - Technical discussion

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Apart from John K's CSD on Planet 10, after a long search in the EnABL threads, I can't find any other measurements. Have I missed something? Are there some measurements buried among all the discussion that can show us something?

I've done drivers mods in the past and they were based on controlling breakup modes and came with frequency response and time domain measurements showing an obvious improvement. Despite that, I didn't actually notice an improvement, although I may have in a better set up comparison with instant switching. However, if that's needed then the benefit is questionable.

Out of curiosity I was wondering if I could find some real data. If I'm not mistaken, isn't that the point of this thread?

Why are the painted dots so thin? If the treatment relies on modifying the behaviour of the cone itself, then surely paint would be insigificant. If it relies on having some impact on sound waves travelling along the surface, which seems to be the idea, then surely a significant profile is needed. Otherwise I can't see how it would not be swamped by the impact of the geometry of the driver and box.

Has anyone done any blind testing?

I have a pair of very cheap paper drivers with some serious cone breakup. I just might test them out myself, both with Enabl and a balsa wood cone reinforcement mod.
 
Uh oh. Here we go again...

Little or no data of the sort you're looking for thus far, so any you want to contribute would be welcome. I've offered to host a double-blind test - I'd even supply the beverage of choice, including a nice Talisker or Lagavulin single malt. No takers yet. For myself, I haven't even been able to try enabl yet much less do any measurements, as my bench is stacked with half-finished projects I'm making my way through.
 
Hi Paul,

Soongsc posted a number of tests fairly early in the original thread, that used a Jordan JX92 driver and tooth paste to apply the blocks with. It is a bit tedious to go looking for them and while he does demonstrate a rise in phase without a significant change in FR, which was a highly disputed result, he also shows the complete dispersal of the Jordan's major resonant node, when an incremental progression of ring size arrived at a particular location on the cone. This particular investigation has pushed us to EnABL 2.0 and the dispersal of all of the cone diaphragm non linearity characteristics.

A pair of Selenium 8W4P drivers have been sent to mige0, from this forum, for testing. They have been treated to the 2.0 standards and Michael is intent on testing them and discovering what he can. Since he is an expert with wavelet analysis I am certain we will see something and hopefully it will begin to open up what John K's blink test and Soongsc's toothpaste tests have hinted at. Or shown quite clearly, dependent upon you personal bias in the ongoing investigation and congruent applications for enjoyment.

I have no idea of Michael's planned test schedule and I do know that he does not yet have the drivers in hand.

Bud
 
It is real data. The patterns found on cone surfaces come from Baranak's seminal book on acoustics, from the chapter in which he does cast doubt on the first order approximations, for analysis of loudspeaker physical activity, he presents in the rest of the text. Quite an interesting chapter. The FR tests come from a series done on a phenolic ring tweeter from a BIC speaker system back in the late 80's. The tests were performed by Larry Arnst, a cohort of Cal Perkins, in the pacific NW.

Bud
 
technical discussion? another one?

ive read many of these threads over the months and i have to say im a sceptic.

TRUELY NO OFFENSE MEANT

BUT...

if there was any FACTS/PROOF to talk about/share then this thread would not be nearly 900 posts long.

please understand, I am NOT debating the effectiveness of enable, neither for nor against, and I, like others who WOULD be interested; am NOT going to trawl thru millions of posts, to attempt to glean some morsel of useful fact from the entire thread.

you enable guys must be able to set up a group, OR at least just consolidate the proof (when and if you have/get it) in a thread "enable proof of the pudding" or something.

PLEASE....

I would read it, this 'technical discussion' is nothing but speculation, with a few fisticuffs thrown in.

once again, truely no offense, get some proof. ID LOVE TO SEE IT BE PROVED TRUE.

best of luck folks
 
So, tell us what you would consider proof please. And, what is it you think we need to prove?

We already show a great deal of order being added to the FR signal in John K's blink comparison. We have shown changes in phase relationship between pistonic and non pistonic portions of the frequency bandwidth of a full range driver, without meaningful changes in the amplitude of the two zones and we have shown that a severe resonance node can be dispersed with a pattern application.

None of this "proves" the EnABL'd speaker is "better" than it's plain counterpart. All it shows is that there are discernible and repeatable differences, made by patterned application of extremely low mass blocks of very thin paint, placed in specific places.

As John K rightly points out, much greater measurable differences can be obtained by putting modest lumps of modeling clay, in a random fashion, on the cones surface. Do you suppose this would sound better? Do you think that this change, one that provides a smoother measurement graph, proves that this would be a better sounding speaker? If so, shouldn't all speakers have random lumps of clay on their surfaces? Why don't they?

So, you see, proving that EnABL is, true, or better, or effective is really not so straight forward as we all might hope.

The only way I see that is going to prove anything to anyone is for someone who needs further proof, than what has already been shown, is to try it for themselves. There is a whole thread devoted to showing you how easy and inexpensive it is to try it for yourself. I have absolutely no doubt you will obtain the proof you need from this activity, whether it be proof of a positive benefit, or proof of it being a spoof.

Bud
 
Last edited:
We already show a great deal of order being added to the FR signal in John K's blink comparison.
John has taken exception to your interpretations of his measurements in the past and I'm sure he would not agree with this assessment this time around. I see no relationship between this new take on it and the measurements he provided.

We have shown changes in phase relationship between pistonic and non pistonic portions of the frequency bandwidth of a full range driver, without meaningful changes in the amplitude of the two zones and we have shown that a severe resonance node can be dispersed with a pattern application.
This is simply not true. You interpret things in a rather unusual way, almost always intended to support your conclusions that are not based on the data as presented. There can be no change in phase without a corresponding change in frequency response unless a driver is not minimum-phase. I have no doubt that John would point out that the driver he used is a minimum-phase device and thus your conclusions, at least based on his tests, are not accurate. There has also been no measurement presented that supports a complete dispersal of breakup, simply a shifting in frequencies that is in line with the physics of drivers and mass/damping distribution on the cones.

None of this "proves" the EnABL'd speaker is "better" than it's plain counterpart. All it shows is that there are discernible and repeatable differences, made by patterned application of extremely low mass blocks of very thin paint, placed in specific places.
Now this is a rational statement with which I can certainly agree. Changes occur, whether for the better or worse, if audible (not all changes are proven so), the judgment will certainly be subjective based opon the individual. This is, of course, only for drivers. Applications on fixed surfaces is another issue altogether.

As John K rightly points out, much greater measurable differences can be obtained by putting modest lumps of modeling clay, in a random fashion, on the cones surface. Do you suppose this would sound better? Do you think that this change, one that provides a smoother measurement graph, proves that this would be a better sounding speaker? If so, shouldn't all speakers have random lumps of clay on their surfaces? Why don't they?
Quite the straw man argument. Cheap drivers may benefit greatly from mods. Good drivers seldom show significant improvement, that's why the better manufacturers use their manufacturing techniques and materials. The mods aren't needed or would be of little benefit, whether enabl or lumps of clay.

So, you see, proving that EnABL is, true, or better, or effective is really not so straight forward as we all might hope.
As many have pointed out, it would require the same methods used for anything subjectively tested. That changes are made that can be measured is without doubt. Whether better or worse, that's highly subjective and subject to the usual caveats when sighted testing is used. Expectation will play a large role.

Dave
 
Last edited:
So, you see, proving that EnABL is, true, or better, or effective is really not so straight forward as we all might hope.

The only way I see that is going to prove anything to anyone is for someone who needs further proof, than what has already been shown, is to try it for themselves. There is a whole thread devoted to showing you how easy and inexpensive it is to try it for yourself. I have absolutely no doubt you will obtain the proof you need from this activity, whether it be proof of a positive benefit, or proof of it being a spoof.

Bud

I haven't seen any proof that the process makes anything better. Only subjective testimonials that "it sounds better". Proof requires that a treated component conclusively reproduces the input more accurately than an untreated component, and not limited to a single coincidental case. In all the tests I perfromed the results showed that there was either an unquantifiable change, with regard to accuracy, or in the case of baffle surfaces, no change at all. Yet while the CSD data I showed is repeatedly held up as a example, it shows nothing other than a difference and the baffle tests, which showed absolutely no change, have been ignored.
 
enable: proof is in the (modge)Podge?

wow!

I cant believe how incendiary this thread is.

@ Budp:

I have no opinion either way, why so defensive? And , proof is required morally even if not legally, since money is made from Enable, however little.

I have no doubt enable makes a difference, and it is measurable, but whether it is audible, OR an improvement, OR BOTH is the main focus of this thread, B]UNFORTUNATELY[/B] not the publication of various tests.

My only complaint is that there is more hand waving, gesticulation, and clashing egos than there is proof. Its a bit like asking a new age hippy to prove the existence of spirit guides..........

I have messed with pva on cones and it CAN improve things, even just doping, CAN help TO A PoINT.
 
Yes, incendiary is a good term.

There has actually been a blind, semi unsighted test, run in a public place and having a few audio luminaries in it's cast.

Jon Ver Halen took a pair of stealth EnABL'd Lowther PM6A drivers to RMAF 2008 (i think) and offered an evening of listening to both the treated and untreated pair. The semi unsighted is that clever Jon let people assume that the first pair they were to listen to, as a "reference", would be the untreated.

He ran the demo and everyone went away with their own thoughts about what they had heard. Lynn Olson made the comment that one pair were audibly some 20 db better in distortion and vastly better in other important areas of sound reproduction, He pointed to the first pair auditioned as the obviously superior pair of drivers. Panomaniac agreed and seemed embarrased for me due to the rather poor showing of the second driver pair.

Three days later Jon let on that the EnABL'd drivers were actually the first pair played, the reference pair. The comments are available in that first general thread, along with Jon's measurements.

To date all other A/B tests have also been compromised by the rather extreme differences in the illusion of depth of field, the detail retention, unconstrained dynamics, tonal purity and 80 to 90 db down of coherent track able information readily available. Some people cannot hear this difference.

Bud
 
ok. well nevermind. i ask what i mean since im not here to set more ablaze, but suffice it to say that there are fewer advocates than doubters, no; let me rephrase. there are many followers of experts(for camp) and many experts and follwers for the con camp.

john K and others are just as respected(by me at least lol) as are some of 'your' supporters (well... enable-0-philes), and they crave the same as I.

easily accessable, test data publication, and not pseudo blind tests, or reverse pysch pseudo blind tests, and not personal accounts. Whether it works or not, these kind of accounts only undermine the credibility of enable.

Just like spam email for penis enlargement does :D ...even if the drug DID work only a desperate fool would pay for the priviledge to test whether it does or not.

I have no doubt enable in some form will improve transient behavior of a loudspeaker cone, but i find it difficult to believe that with listening tests alone, one cannot optimise the pattern or distribution of pattern. I read the 'tap test' method, but i found my Al cone drivers rang most at about 2/3 cone dia and the dustcap point was non existent or maybe under the cap itself. Also i would probably prefer to put dots on the inside cone surface, which may defeat the object entirely. I also have to agree with some poster (sorry cant remember names) who riffed that to maximise the diffusion of boundary wave resonances the 'dot' profile would surely need to be greater that a 0.1mm paint dot.

Also those seas(?) drivers with the slitted cones.....dont they also achieve the same end? reduced/smoothed breakup modes and the slits should be pretty dispruptive the same resonances, as also would the perforated 'ears' on Accuton drivers, OR perforations in the actual cone, if implemented correctly.

Enables advantage here is you dont have to ruin drivers in the experimantal process unless you use paint.

I am however, going to experiment with the black PCB prototyping tapes, since it will be removable...i hope.
 
I have no opinion either way, why so defensive? And , proof is required morally even if not legally, since money is made from Enable, however little.

Probably not worth mentioning, but there's no "moral" need to prove anything, even if money is made. Ever since a market economy first existed, there have been sellers of snake oil. It's buyers beware out there. Heating oil is snake oil where I live, yet many people buy it, and there's no whining about the sellers. This thread is about technical aspects of enabl - for which I remain open minded until I try it. In my mind, technical aspects include theory as well as data, so I remain interested in what Bud and other advocates say, as well as John K, Auplater, dlr and others. Let's keep this civil. Opponents have had their say, as have proponents. Unless some other data or theory arises, let's keep this thread technical.

Carl
 
Taken the low cost, and some free software available, What could prevent anyone from doing measurements, expecially the original designer. The only reason I see is that measurements done cannot show convincing information, and thus not shown. If my data gets qouted too, and it shows improvement, why not just use SoundEasy to conduct individual test?
 
Because I, for one, don't know enough to properly mic and measure the sound/speakers... and I use a Mac. Furthermore, I certainly don't see that SoundEasy is free, much less easy to use. I don't do this kind of thing unless I truly know how to use it. Free doesn't equate to proper use and dissemination of data.

So...I really don't see how it's so simple as using free software to do measurements. Proper measurements are one thing, knowing the proper tools and/or software to use and how to use it is another. Not all DIYers are EEs. I doubt I'm alone in this.
 
I'm not an EE either. My point is, if someone uses a tool and presents the data in the way I'm looking for, then I use it if the data is important enough to outweight the cost. Klippel scans aren't cheap, but it presents data in a way no other lower cost software can, so I use it too.

So, it just means that for most people, the data is not important enough for them to take the effort. Nor is the satisfaction of proving the designer wrong.:D
 
Last edited:
For my part, I have a calibrated microphone, LAUD audio software, an appropriately quiet computer, with a DSP based sound card, modified to be flat and stable for low frequencies, a battery powered mic preamp and really, quite a bit of confusing data. Changes in distortion components that were never repeatable. Frequency response tests that showed what certainly looked and overlaid like, the same measurement, also different from day to day, no dedicated space for careful measurement of physical relationships between driver and mic and eventually an understanding that my skills either were not up to the task, or there really was nothing but self deception going on.

So I dropped the whole thing. The patent was issued in 1994. And even though I had been trained in test methodology by Mille' Nestorovic I finally, simply, gave up on my ability to find any reliable data, much less convincing data. And EnABL languished from 1998 to 2007.

Having joined up merely to mention another interesting possibility to Dr Mamboni (anyone remember him?) in the ersatz OHM F thread, you cannot begin to imagine my surprise at Soongsc's findings and even more surprise at what John K provided.

The lack of testing from me has not been for lack of having tried nor from a belief that testing was either a waste of time or not applicable. I am delighted to see what has been found.

Bud
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.