Pano: what was the joke? Maybe im having a humourless day 
Art: as usual your posts convey my perception (rather than knowledge) in a far better way than I manage.
I agree with your post completly.
Corner loading of cabinets is useful for better bass directivity, perhaps? Maybe awful for mids and HF without careful pattern control. Unless you have a pentagonal listening room
Art: as usual your posts convey my perception (rather than knowledge) in a far better way than I manage.
I agree with your post completly.
Corner loading of cabinets is useful for better bass directivity, perhaps? Maybe awful for mids and HF without careful pattern control. Unless you have a pentagonal listening room
Last edited:
The best dissapearing loudspeakers that I have heard/built are the Linkwitzlab Pluto (clones in my case).
This leads to my understanding that they need to be:
- Physicall/visually small
- Illuminates the room uniformly.
A picture would be worth a thousand words. Google would not take long.
In the interests of fair disclosure frank.
IF people still accept your word, then they'll definitely be wanting to know the ins and outs of your approach.
And I guarantee you I will let you hold court.
Unless I become the jester
(I only added that cause I suddenly noticed it in the panel)Um, you see, taking enable as proof of this disappearing act will either gain you or lose you disciples.
Show the pic, throw your hat in with enable, and then those who want to learn more of your (enable like) approach will know where to go to achive this feat.
For the 1 or 2 who might be curious, and to get Terry to pipe down, , here's a bit of a rundown on what it is: A Search for Truth and Tonality, along with a "healthy" round of feedback from the locals ...
Frank
, here's a bit of a rundown on what it is: A Search for Truth and Tonality, along with a "healthy" round of feedback from the locals ... Frank
Funny that you just posted, I was about to make some comments about EnABL thing ...Frank,
While the conversation's EnAbled, is there any good information in the enable thread that could help with cone tuning in general, ie: with sticky foam? (To be fair I have partially read the very long thread
The "joke" is, that I was totally unaware of this tweak until now, apart from having noticed that some people were doing this weird thing of having dots around the cone, etc. I've just started diving into some of the conversation myself, and the concept makes sense: it helps yet again to lower the level of distortion in the playback chain, by working on the very last link, the surfaces coupling to the air.
What's the best thing to do in your circumstance is a question I would direct to the EnABL "experts", they have the real experience here. On the speaker side I have only focused on achieving 100% integrity of the carcase's electricals, that's pushed me over the line up 'til now.
But it highlights yet again what the real quest here is! The things that stop the speaker "disappearing" are specific weaknesses in the replay chain, and what has to be done is eliminate each such weakness, one after another after another. Obviously not all problems need to be solved, because I don't do EnABL, as yet; and I've got the invisible trick happening. But enough issues to make a sufficient difference have to be resolved, and if you tune into the EnABL idea that's as good a thing to try as any.
My way has been with the electronics because then I also get an extremely clean musical signal, I can listen to really "bad" recordings and enjoy them - I've been happy with that so far ...
Frank
Last edited:
Doing a bit more reading on the EnABL thing, I can see where the doubters don't any problem finding issues: the change of behaviour is hard to pin down using standard measuring techniques, yet to the converts the subjective variation can be quite dramatic.
This to me says this is all about low level behaviours, notoriously hard for instrumentation to pick up cleanly and separate; yet the ear/brain finds an irritating misbehaviour at such levels very obvious ...
This in turn has led me to think it may be a variation of the visual system's abilities, which I've just been persusing a bit, to build a "false" image of a scene. Put simply, the eye is very clever in handling areas of high brightness, and low brightness, in a real scene -- the image you mentally see is a "fake", the brain takes a "snapshot" of the high brightness area, with the intensity wound back; and a split-second later does another of the dark zone, with sensitivity wound up; then just as rapidly collates, stitches the 2 together in your mind, and a lovely image of your outdoor scene floats in your mind. Yet, if you try and take a very high quality camera image of that scene, to match that mental scene it won't work: either the dark, or the light area, will lose all detail.
Check out the myriads of photo tips, etc, sites which explain this; all sorts of techniques, special camera settings and Photoshop tricks are discussed, in endless detail, on how to handle this "problem" ...
So, here the measuring instrument is the camera, and the human eye "tells it like it is"; and the measurer fails miserably. I still get the message that the ear is more capable than the eye in my latest readings, so this implies there could be an even bigger problem with "measuring" human meaningful audio behaviours.
Some food for thought ...
Frank
This to me says this is all about low level behaviours, notoriously hard for instrumentation to pick up cleanly and separate; yet the ear/brain finds an irritating misbehaviour at such levels very obvious ...
This in turn has led me to think it may be a variation of the visual system's abilities, which I've just been persusing a bit, to build a "false" image of a scene. Put simply, the eye is very clever in handling areas of high brightness, and low brightness, in a real scene -- the image you mentally see is a "fake", the brain takes a "snapshot" of the high brightness area, with the intensity wound back; and a split-second later does another of the dark zone, with sensitivity wound up; then just as rapidly collates, stitches the 2 together in your mind, and a lovely image of your outdoor scene floats in your mind. Yet, if you try and take a very high quality camera image of that scene, to match that mental scene it won't work: either the dark, or the light area, will lose all detail.
Check out the myriads of photo tips, etc, sites which explain this; all sorts of techniques, special camera settings and Photoshop tricks are discussed, in endless detail, on how to handle this "problem" ...
So, here the measuring instrument is the camera, and the human eye "tells it like it is"; and the measurer fails miserably. I still get the message that the ear is more capable than the eye in my latest readings, so this implies there could be an even bigger problem with "measuring" human meaningful audio behaviours.
Some food for thought ...
Frank
I might just mention it, because I just thought of it in relation to another post: I've done some pretty dumb "hifi" things over the years and gotten away with it. Like, having 2 completely different speakers for left and right channel, one a floorstander, the other a bookshelf on a stand, completely different manufacturers, styles of cabinets - this sounded completely OK, other people heard it and noticed nothing.
And worse again: right channel driven by big momma discrete device amp, left by chip amp in a semi-active configuration. No nasty anomalies, nothing screaming at you saying "this is wrong!"
I ran the system in these weird ways for a few weeks each with no concerns. Meaning, when the disappearing qualities are near at hand that the ear/brain is easily satisfied with the "compromise" ...
Frank
And worse again: right channel driven by big momma discrete device amp, left by chip amp in a semi-active configuration. No nasty anomalies, nothing screaming at you saying "this is wrong!"
I ran the system in these weird ways for a few weeks each with no concerns. Meaning, when the disappearing qualities are near at hand that the ear/brain is easily satisfied with the "compromise" ...
Frank
I'm with Alex
I have to weigh in here. I have completely experienced the same. There is no hint that the speakers are the source of the sound. And they are not small like the Plutos.
I am using Boston Acoustics I purchased in 198?. I pulled them out of storage and refoamed them. Reading Planet10 stuff, put mac tac on the cheap stamped 10" baskets. Ripped out the crossover. Replaced internal wiring with solid core copper. Drivers are run full range. The Tweeters have a 10uf Blackgate (the blue one). Sound much better but still from the speakers.
Then Enable the drivers. Pretty good. Enabled the front baffle. They disappeared for all time. Gone. Sometimes marvel at why they are sitting there. The sound stage is wider than the speakers. Often instrument is behind one of the boxes but never actually coming from the box.
Enabled the Seas silk tweeter. Slightly better. Most recently enabled the sides, top and back. Still invisible but now much more natural precise 3d soundstage.
Oh along the way added a second set of old Alnico 10 drivers running open baffle on top. Also Enabled. They are wired parallel to to the original 10" drivers giving about a 13ohm rating. Nice full natural bass.
I only mention this as it was no question that Enable brought this home. $20 thrift shop specials and seems like they beat a lot of stuff out there largely due to Enable. I do run the pigtail things which do offer a nice little pop in clarity and coherence. But to my ear, the disappearing act is all Enable.
Of course all the upstream stuff has a major impact. It all has to work, but the speaker effect can be had for very little $$ with paper cones and Enable.
I do plan on seeing if I can do better with a scratch built open baffle. Certainly the driver and the baffle will be Enabled. No question. Don't care about the science, only the sound.
I have to weigh in here. I have completely experienced the same. There is no hint that the speakers are the source of the sound. And they are not small like the Plutos.
I am using Boston Acoustics I purchased in 198?. I pulled them out of storage and refoamed them. Reading Planet10 stuff, put mac tac on the cheap stamped 10" baskets. Ripped out the crossover. Replaced internal wiring with solid core copper. Drivers are run full range. The Tweeters have a 10uf Blackgate (the blue one). Sound much better but still from the speakers.
Then Enable the drivers. Pretty good. Enabled the front baffle. They disappeared for all time. Gone. Sometimes marvel at why they are sitting there. The sound stage is wider than the speakers. Often instrument is behind one of the boxes but never actually coming from the box.
Enabled the Seas silk tweeter. Slightly better. Most recently enabled the sides, top and back. Still invisible but now much more natural precise 3d soundstage.
Oh along the way added a second set of old Alnico 10 drivers running open baffle on top. Also Enabled. They are wired parallel to to the original 10" drivers giving about a 13ohm rating. Nice full natural bass.
I only mention this as it was no question that Enable brought this home. $20 thrift shop specials and seems like they beat a lot of stuff out there largely due to Enable. I do run the pigtail things which do offer a nice little pop in clarity and coherence. But to my ear, the disappearing act is all Enable.
Of course all the upstream stuff has a major impact. It all has to work, but the speaker effect can be had for very little $$ with paper cones and Enable.
I do plan on seeing if I can do better with a scratch built open baffle. Certainly the driver and the baffle will be Enabled. No question. Don't care about the science, only the sound.
This is very interesting to hear. Obviously the EnABL treatment is a major shortcut to getting the effect, apparently because it diminishes the level and impact of disturbing distortion being projected into the listening space. IME, this is key, so if the technique works, go for it!
Do you find the "sweet spot" to be everywhere, and that difficult recordings are much better to listen to?
Do you find the "sweet spot" to be everywhere, and that difficult recordings are much better to listen to?
For me the concept of a sweet spot is mute when your speakers are invisible. The music is just 'there'. Loud volume levels become unnecessary because the engagement with the music is there in spades. Details and nuances are alive - even at very low volume levels. I can also appreciate music that is not my cup of tea as well.
Watching movies is fun because your body will twitch involuntarily at certain sounds - even when you've seen a movie many times before and you know they're coming. I got in trouble with the wife once because I didn't get up to answer the knock at the front door - it was a sound in the movie that we were watching together! :-D
Cheers,
Alex
I agree with everything you say ... however, many people tune into the normal terminology used, so that's why I used that phrase,
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.