EnABL - Technical discussion - Page 5 - 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 21st March 2008, 12:23 PM   #41
dlr is offline dlr  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canton, MA
Default Re: data interpretation

Quote:
Originally posted by auplater


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.
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2008, 02:39 PM   #42
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Send a message via Yahoo to musgofasa
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2008, 02:46 PM   #43
soongsc is online now soongsc  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
soongsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Taiwan
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.
__________________
Hear the real thing!
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2008, 03:11 PM   #44
dlr is offline dlr  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canton, MA
Quote:
Originally posted by soongsc
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.
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.

Quote:

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.
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2008, 03:35 PM   #45
soongsc is online now soongsc  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
soongsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Taiwan
Quote:
Originally posted by dlr


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.

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.
__________________
Hear the real thing!
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2008, 04:23 PM   #46
soongsc is online now soongsc  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
soongsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Taiwan
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?
Click the image to open in full size.
__________________
Hear the real thing!
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2008, 04:59 PM   #47
soongsc is online now soongsc  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
soongsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Taiwan
Now remember the last JX92S I treated on gut feeling?
Click the image to open in full size.
__________________
Hear the real thing!
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2008, 05:19 PM   #48
soongsc is online now soongsc  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
soongsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Taiwan
Default 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.
Click the image to open in full size.
Quote:
Originally posted by auplater
Here's a typical CSD for RD-75 planars (from Audio-X-Press Magazine)
Click the image to open in full size.
This seems to show ringing artifacts down >30 dB within ~1.2 msec or so, and alot less "hash" than any of the CSD's I've seen for EnABL's drivers.

One wonders what a direct comparison of sound from an EnABL'd (or not) driver with the presented CSD from Dave above would sound like vs. the RD-75.

One of the main problems in these data presentations is no detail regarding error bars and such so that one can evaluate both the qualitative and quantitative issues involved.

John L.
__________________
Hear the real thing!
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2008, 05:24 PM   #49
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 soongsc
I don't know if the Fostex 126E is considered doped-paper cone or not. Anyone care to elaborate on this?
I wouldn't classify the FE126 as doped paper (at least not until i get thru with it). The damar rings soak all the way thru. The 1st layer of PVA dope sits mostly on top.

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, 08:17 PM   #50
diyAudio Member
 
auplater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KyOhWVa tristate
Default CSD's (or not)

Quote:
Originally posted by soongsc
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?
Click the image to open in full size.
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.
__________________
"...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 10:21 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