I will be happy to apply EnABL 2.0 to your drivers Bear, however many you like, though two as a minimum. If we can obtain high resolution impulse data I suspect mige0 could be asked to run them through his wavelet analysis program. Certainly a before and after of two and at least two more untreated to make sure we have a slight spread to look at, to ensure that the drivers have common problems.
John, John K did not debunk the clear differences shown in the blink comparison of his treated and untreated driver. He did point out that those differences did not indcate better performance.
John K also showed that a random placement of a pattern on a hard surface presents no detectable change. We have learned from this and now know how to find the most useful places to apply the patterns, on both diaphragm and baffle surfaces.
Bud
John, John K did not debunk the clear differences shown in the blink comparison of his treated and untreated driver. He did point out that those differences did not indcate better performance.
John K also showed that a random placement of a pattern on a hard surface presents no detectable change. We have learned from this and now know how to find the most useful places to apply the patterns, on both diaphragm and baffle surfaces.
Bud
You guys continue to walk of pretty soft ground. Yes, Kipple would be interesting but it will not prove anything. We have see a host of different tests which all show that spitting paint on a driver makes it behave differently. That has never been disputed. The questions is does it make a driver sound better or worse and that will always be in the ears of the beholder. If you believe you drivers sound better painted to look like Queequeg from Moby Dick great. Some people find their systems sound better with the treble turned up, other turned down. Different is different, not different is the same. Better or worse is a judgment unless it can be measured against a reference. If the reference is to achieve pistonic motion to a higher frequency then that has pretty much been shown not to happen. The characteristics of breakup have been shown to change but breakup has not been avoided or significantly delayed.
There are simply a lot more areas of improvement to audio systems that can be accomplished in a rigorous manner to worry about.
There are simply a lot more areas of improvement to audio systems that can be accomplished in a rigorous manner to worry about.
My goal is not to take a "position".
But john k, when you say "If the reference is to achieve pistonic motion to a higher frequency" it seems like this may be not the goal or purpose? Pistonic motion to a higher frequency would be almost impossible to obtain, unless you are viewing pistonic motion as being present (in some sort of perfection) starting at some low frequency looking higher in frequency. It seems to me that no driver is particularly perfect in terms of "pistonic" motion even at low frequency, thus there are curves showing harmonic distortion at LF for woofers, usually 2nd & 3rd harmonics.
Extending the upper frequency limit, which your statement implies seems implausible.
What one might expect is a reduction or spreading of midband or upper frequency harmonics (ie. distortion) of a treated cone vs. an untreated cone. Is this more "pistonic"? Seems like that is not what it would be, or be called.
As you say: "the characteristics of breakup have been shown to change". well isn't that something important? That's equivalent to saying something like 'the spectra of harmonics have changed, but not the level of THD'. Wait a second now, that is precisely what Earl Geddes is talking about with his GedLee Metric!
I would say that IF the characteristics (and which "characteristics" they are would be of interest) can be definitely shown to change then a possibly useful technique and tool is this EnABL!
So, the real question revolves only around what is changing (is anything changed) and then how is it changed and to what degree. This then relates back to trying to correlate a measurement method to the human perception. That is not so simple or facile, and has never been. Going back again to the GedLee Metric, one key point to come away with looking at Dr. Gedee's work on this is that he has a very complex method that attempts to correlate measurement with perception. AND, what he shows is that it does NOT work as most people expected, and have expected for many decades! So, it think it important to look at this situation as possibly analogous - we don't have a good way to measure and correlate back to perception.
I am not wedded to Kippel.
As I stated, another measurement method or several measurement methods could be used.
What I am looking for is less talk and more results. Volunteers? Participants?
I remain neutral regarding EnABL. No opinion one way or the other.
_-_-bear
BudP, suggest PM or email...
But john k, when you say "If the reference is to achieve pistonic motion to a higher frequency" it seems like this may be not the goal or purpose? Pistonic motion to a higher frequency would be almost impossible to obtain, unless you are viewing pistonic motion as being present (in some sort of perfection) starting at some low frequency looking higher in frequency. It seems to me that no driver is particularly perfect in terms of "pistonic" motion even at low frequency, thus there are curves showing harmonic distortion at LF for woofers, usually 2nd & 3rd harmonics.
Extending the upper frequency limit, which your statement implies seems implausible.
What one might expect is a reduction or spreading of midband or upper frequency harmonics (ie. distortion) of a treated cone vs. an untreated cone. Is this more "pistonic"? Seems like that is not what it would be, or be called.
As you say: "the characteristics of breakup have been shown to change". well isn't that something important? That's equivalent to saying something like 'the spectra of harmonics have changed, but not the level of THD'. Wait a second now, that is precisely what Earl Geddes is talking about with his GedLee Metric!
I would say that IF the characteristics (and which "characteristics" they are would be of interest) can be definitely shown to change then a possibly useful technique and tool is this EnABL!
So, the real question revolves only around what is changing (is anything changed) and then how is it changed and to what degree. This then relates back to trying to correlate a measurement method to the human perception. That is not so simple or facile, and has never been. Going back again to the GedLee Metric, one key point to come away with looking at Dr. Gedee's work on this is that he has a very complex method that attempts to correlate measurement with perception. AND, what he shows is that it does NOT work as most people expected, and have expected for many decades! So, it think it important to look at this situation as possibly analogous - we don't have a good way to measure and correlate back to perception.
I am not wedded to Kippel.
As I stated, another measurement method or several measurement methods could be used.
What I am looking for is less talk and more results. Volunteers? Participants?
I remain neutral regarding EnABL. No opinion one way or the other.
_-_-bear
BudP, suggest PM or email...
Quality of data
In my mind, having participated in many experimental designs over 4 decades or so, often with life and death consequences if misinterpreted results are accepted, I find all the "data" presented here grossly suspect.
The experimental setups are never adequately described, the error analyses are totally absent, the selection criteria for acceptance or rejection are never described... just mindless trial and error tests and meta-data results (like the so-called "blink" test, for example).
This would all be fine if allegedly sound technically conclusions weren't being drawn and stated as fact, as they have throughout, by the ideologues here. Especially all the arguments about the resolution being too coarse and such, when convenient to the argument at hand.
But they are, and they're nothing more than speculation or wishful thinking, either due to naivete about correct methodology or outright dishonesty to promote one's position.
As such, I remain a skeptic, and have yet to see (or hear, as I have heard several enabled speakers over the years) any sonic improvement attributable to the process that has been technically proven to bear a causal relationship to the technique.
IOW, it's just a "tweak", not that there's anything wrong with that...
John L.
BTW: are we talking Klippel, or Kippel? here's the wiki for the latter...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kippel
In my mind, having participated in many experimental designs over 4 decades or so, often with life and death consequences if misinterpreted results are accepted, I find all the "data" presented here grossly suspect.
The experimental setups are never adequately described, the error analyses are totally absent, the selection criteria for acceptance or rejection are never described... just mindless trial and error tests and meta-data results (like the so-called "blink" test, for example).
This would all be fine if allegedly sound technically conclusions weren't being drawn and stated as fact, as they have throughout, by the ideologues here. Especially all the arguments about the resolution being too coarse and such, when convenient to the argument at hand.
But they are, and they're nothing more than speculation or wishful thinking, either due to naivete about correct methodology or outright dishonesty to promote one's position.
As such, I remain a skeptic, and have yet to see (or hear, as I have heard several enabled speakers over the years) any sonic improvement attributable to the process that has been technically proven to bear a causal relationship to the technique.
IOW, it's just a "tweak", not that there's anything wrong with that...
John L.
BTW: are we talking Klippel, or Kippel? here's the wiki for the latter...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kippel
Last edited:
I couldn't care less about Klippel, Kippel, Joe or Blow and what they have to say about measurements. I need to HEAR a pair of EnABL treated drivers and let the ULTIMATE measuring device decide (my ears) what I am hearing.
I can pick up subtle differences when "tweaking" my system and if there is ANY difference whether good or bad, I'm fairly certain I would hear it. Why does it have to be any more difficult than that?
Any one in the Portland area have a pair of treated FE126's or FE127's? I have both (non-treated) in open baffles and would LOVE to swap in a pair of treated drivers for a spin. Beer is on me
I can pick up subtle differences when "tweaking" my system and if there is ANY difference whether good or bad, I'm fairly certain I would hear it. Why does it have to be any more difficult than that?
Any one in the Portland area have a pair of treated FE126's or FE127's? I have both (non-treated) in open baffles and would LOVE to swap in a pair of treated drivers for a spin. Beer is on me
Recent tuning of amplifiers tell me that there are too many factors that effect listening impressions. If the speakers are good enough, they reveal flaws in the amplifier and upstream. Are we going to blame speakers? How would one distinguish what is causing problems by listening? Not that I don't use listening, but it takes lots of time to learn what to listen for to help diagnosis in combination with measurement data.
John,
They will continue to be inadequate in your mind unless and until you get involved in protocol design. Bear is offering to start a project, and you have the opportunity to help him design a protocol that would put this issue to bed for most thread observers (remember there are a lot of people out here - me included - who are reading but not posting and remain inexperienced and/or skeptical but open-minded). For the life of me I can't understand why you wouldn't want to get involved. You'd have the chance to say "I told you so" and demonstrate to the silent majority out here what you've been saying (but not demonstrating) for so long. Of course some will ignore negative results, but that doesn't mean everyone will ignore them.
Of course, there is the chance that the test will reveal something...but your confidence in your position suggests you shouldn't have anything to worry about.
Last edited:
Well Carl...
Your continued attempts to shoot the messenger are sincere, I'm sure. Why I don't "get involved" is for several reasons. I have no horse in this race; it's not my idea being promulgated as technically proven somehow; a decent experimental design would take alot of work to get it right, and I have absolutely nothing to gain from that. I don't need to say "I told you so"... it's already given that if nothing is done to prove a hypothesis, it's unproven...
Maybe you should read up on a proper design and put it forth... since you seem so interested in discrediting my observations...
Your continued attempts to shoot the messenger are sincere, I'm sure. Why I don't "get involved" is for several reasons. I have no horse in this race; it's not my idea being promulgated as technically proven somehow; a decent experimental design would take alot of work to get it right, and I have absolutely nothing to gain from that. I don't need to say "I told you so"... it's already given that if nothing is done to prove a hypothesis, it's unproven...
Maybe you should read up on a proper design and put it forth... since you seem so interested in discrediting my observations...
There can be masking effects. It could also happen in measurements. That is why it is necessary to use both methods.
John, I'm not trying to "shoot" you nor your observations. I have no idea what is right. But...while I'm well versed in the scientific method and have built several speakers, I know little about acoustics, acoustic testing and/or speaker design and would be a poor choice to set up an experimental design for this purpose. You, on the other hand, would seem to be a good candidate for that. Hence my post. I'd rather have a skeptic design a methodology than a "believer."
Plus, you've demonstrated that you DO have a horse in the race. If you didn't you wouldn't post.
I'll check back in a week or so, and see if anyone raises a hand with offers of participation or protocols based on the volunteered testing apparatus.
In the mean time you folks can continue to slap each other around with flounder as you wish...
Fwiw, it would be nice to have a retrofit method that has some positive, controllable, and repeatable effect on existing drivers; especially those with obvious issues like the one I have in hand...
Ta.
_-_-bear
In the mean time you folks can continue to slap each other around with flounder as you wish...
Fwiw, it would be nice to have a retrofit method that has some positive, controllable, and repeatable effect on existing drivers; especially those with obvious issues like the one I have in hand...
Ta.
_-_-bear
...just catching up on this thread...
Excellent point, and as Soongsc points out, "Recent tuning of amplifiers tell me that there are too many factors that effect listening impressions."
To which I add... How does one know that any differences one observes on testing are the same differences a listener claims they are able to perceive??? Currently, the neuroscience of auditory perception is "soft ground" indeed. And Soongsc's point is well taken to which I add these two anecdotal experiences: a) positive tweaks to my DAC power supply effectively 'un-tweaked' my ENABL'd midranges, revealing new flaws (that I was fortunately able to tame), and b) I found ENABL had a greater impact on 44.1kHz digital music sources than on 96kHz or 176.4kHz sources.
So what should standard test conditions look like? Point is: equipment and protocols in this quest are very important from the standpoint of reproducibility and interpretation. Remember that your ears are not microphones and music is not pink noise or frequency sweeps - most of our source material has been pre-degraded as a little challenge for us! At the end of the day, no single kind of reproducible test method will adequately establish cause-effect in this technology. We will want a convergence of different data types. [I like the idea of laser interferometry in addition to what is being talked about!]
Frank
Excellent point, and as Soongsc points out, "Recent tuning of amplifiers tell me that there are too many factors that effect listening impressions."
To which I add... How does one know that any differences one observes on testing are the same differences a listener claims they are able to perceive??? Currently, the neuroscience of auditory perception is "soft ground" indeed. And Soongsc's point is well taken to which I add these two anecdotal experiences: a) positive tweaks to my DAC power supply effectively 'un-tweaked' my ENABL'd midranges, revealing new flaws (that I was fortunately able to tame), and b) I found ENABL had a greater impact on 44.1kHz digital music sources than on 96kHz or 176.4kHz sources.
So what should standard test conditions look like? Point is: equipment and protocols in this quest are very important from the standpoint of reproducibility and interpretation. Remember that your ears are not microphones and music is not pink noise or frequency sweeps - most of our source material has been pre-degraded as a little challenge for us!
At the end of the day, no single kind of reproducible test method will adequately establish cause-effect in this technology. We will want a convergence of different data types. [I like the idea of laser interferometry in addition to what is being talked about!] Frank
Last edited:
And, once again, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/119677-enabl-technical-discussion-123.html#post2835340
Bending wave deices.
Anyone?
Bending wave deices.
Anyone?
As has been pointed to, all drivers are bending wave devices.
EnABL does not control "breakup". I am not even sure anyone actually knows what "breakup" means. It is obvious that it is related to +, null and - zones out beyond the more or less piston response area, but I am not convinced we actually understand them.
EnaBL shows a distinct sharpening effect on the peaks of these "breakup" plus and minus traces in a CSD. Supposedly this will sound worse, more harshness, poorer dispersion, less coherence to broad band information content. Instead we find EnABL providing just the opposite changes in audible performance, than this intuitive and logical deduction of worsening in various sonic characteristics, that a sharpening of the CSD peaks and valleys logically seems to imply.
The application of ring sets to other than periphery zones of diaphragms and the increase in intelligibility, smoothness of dispersion, utter lack of hot spots in a listening environment and even more detail to the already coherent sound field found with the original application scheme, without materially improving the CSD depicted peaks and valleys, seems to point to changes in the interface between diaphragm and air, rather than changes to the mechanical aspects inherent to the diaphragm performance.
While the results of applying EnABL patterns certainly sound like a more perfect piston is at work, objective measurements show this to not be the case.
Again I point to mige0s wavelet analysis as showing a distinct "reprinting" of specific performance characteristics, within a 4ms window, from an untreated driver and a significant loss of this characteristic in the EnABL'd version.
Easy to call this meaningless, since we cannot make sense out of a 4ms pulse, but a speaker that provides this sort of reprinting of a characteristic response pattern is going to sound significantly more confused than one that doesn't, when an orchestra, or any other complex analog sound, is compared between the two.
I am becoming more certain that it is this reprinting, driven by a mechanism similar to that shown in the U tube movies I point to, that is the actual cause of most of the audible characteristics we currently ascribe to "breakup".
Bud
EnABL does not control "breakup". I am not even sure anyone actually knows what "breakup" means. It is obvious that it is related to +, null and - zones out beyond the more or less piston response area, but I am not convinced we actually understand them.
EnaBL shows a distinct sharpening effect on the peaks of these "breakup" plus and minus traces in a CSD. Supposedly this will sound worse, more harshness, poorer dispersion, less coherence to broad band information content. Instead we find EnABL providing just the opposite changes in audible performance, than this intuitive and logical deduction of worsening in various sonic characteristics, that a sharpening of the CSD peaks and valleys logically seems to imply.
The application of ring sets to other than periphery zones of diaphragms and the increase in intelligibility, smoothness of dispersion, utter lack of hot spots in a listening environment and even more detail to the already coherent sound field found with the original application scheme, without materially improving the CSD depicted peaks and valleys, seems to point to changes in the interface between diaphragm and air, rather than changes to the mechanical aspects inherent to the diaphragm performance.
While the results of applying EnABL patterns certainly sound like a more perfect piston is at work, objective measurements show this to not be the case.
Again I point to mige0s wavelet analysis as showing a distinct "reprinting" of specific performance characteristics, within a 4ms window, from an untreated driver and a significant loss of this characteristic in the EnABL'd version.
Easy to call this meaningless, since we cannot make sense out of a 4ms pulse, but a speaker that provides this sort of reprinting of a characteristic response pattern is going to sound significantly more confused than one that doesn't, when an orchestra, or any other complex analog sound, is compared between the two.
I am becoming more certain that it is this reprinting, driven by a mechanism similar to that shown in the U tube movies I point to, that is the actual cause of most of the audible characteristics we currently ascribe to "breakup".
Bud
sayonara
Here's the thing...
Now that the proponents have reclaimed this thread...I'm outta here...
besides, I've moved on from the fantasy (and dying) hobby of constant tweaking upgrad-itis and testosterone poisoning rampant in many of these threads... the recent technobabble masquerading as "science and/or engineering" is simply dis-honest.
I'm off to faceting gemstones, cabochons, and treasure collecting anyway... life's too short, and no one here seems interested in reality anyway...
John L.
Here's the thing...
Now that the proponents have reclaimed this thread...I'm outta here...
besides, I've moved on from the fantasy (and dying) hobby of constant tweaking upgrad-itis and testosterone poisoning rampant in many of these threads... the recent technobabble masquerading as "science and/or engineering" is simply dis-honest.
I'm off to faceting gemstones, cabochons, and treasure collecting anyway... life's too short, and no one here seems interested in reality anyway...
John L.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.