Hi,
Quite true. I gave up on this thread ages ago. Technical my butt .......
rgds, sreten.
What it needs is someone who knows what is technical and what
isn't, irrespective of the context, to remove all the nonsense.
It would be a lot shorter and a lot more informative.
EnABL is hyped up nonsense, therefore it has to be technical BS.
Unfortunately loads of hyperbole also equals loads of hypocrisy.
"Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with
hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he
neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of
the advantages of conquering his passions, without having
yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the
advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage
or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to
others, those attempts which he neglects himself."
Last edited:
A Practical Suggestion For Exploratory Method?
Personally, I am interested in any means that may render an improvement in the characteristics of a given driver. Preferably said means should be determinant and repeatable.
So, I've been reading and watching...
There is a raging debate in the previous posts as the the precise nature and mechanism in the process.
May I suggest a practical means to explore the nature and substance of the technique called EnABL?
My suggestion is to exaggerate the technique by utilizing substantially heavier &/or larger "treatments" on the surface of test cones? While doing this may not yield an acoustically preferred result, it is likely to dramatically increase the effect of said treatments upon the response, making it far easier to "see" the general nature and mechanism(s) at play.
At the very least it would serve to highlight a bit more about this treatment.
Put it another way, the "treatment" appears to do something. It matters not if you think the treatment is good or bad, but it does matter that those interested find out more about what it is actually doing. Given that the preferred methodology and technique utilizes obviously subtle applications of materials to the surface of the cone, that alone makes it difficult to define and detect it. So don't be subtle!!
One could use "junk" (ie. ultra cheap surplus new stock speakers) for the testing.
This is a standard technique for testing - anyone going to try it?
_-_-bear
Then we might have something to really discuss...
Personally, I am interested in any means that may render an improvement in the characteristics of a given driver. Preferably said means should be determinant and repeatable.
So, I've been reading and watching...
There is a raging debate in the previous posts as the the precise nature and mechanism in the process.
May I suggest a practical means to explore the nature and substance of the technique called EnABL?
My suggestion is to exaggerate the technique by utilizing substantially heavier &/or larger "treatments" on the surface of test cones? While doing this may not yield an acoustically preferred result, it is likely to dramatically increase the effect of said treatments upon the response, making it far easier to "see" the general nature and mechanism(s) at play.
At the very least it would serve to highlight a bit more about this treatment.
Put it another way, the "treatment" appears to do something. It matters not if you think the treatment is good or bad, but it does matter that those interested find out more about what it is actually doing. Given that the preferred methodology and technique utilizes obviously subtle applications of materials to the surface of the cone, that alone makes it difficult to define and detect it. So don't be subtle!!
One could use "junk" (ie. ultra cheap surplus new stock speakers) for the testing.
This is a standard technique for testing - anyone going to try it?
_-_-bear
Then we might have something to really discuss...
Hi bear,
Your flogging a dead horse, all those points have been made before.
Whilst it does something, it does nothing like what is claimed, and
the "techical" justifications for its principles are pure fantasy.
It never did what it "says on the tin" and never will. Given the patent
is pure garbage, claiming it works anyway is pathetic. It does not
remotely do the things originally claimed because its nonsense.
If you don't know how something works, you cannot develop it.
rgds, sreten.
All the technical issues have been done to death, they are obvious.
Your flogging a dead horse, all those points have been made before.
Whilst it does something, it does nothing like what is claimed, and
the "techical" justifications for its principles are pure fantasy.
It never did what it "says on the tin" and never will. Given the patent
is pure garbage, claiming it works anyway is pathetic. It does not
remotely do the things originally claimed because its nonsense.
If you don't know how something works, you cannot develop it.
rgds, sreten.
All the technical issues have been done to death, they are obvious.
This is a standard technique for testing - anyone going to try it?
Bring it on bear!
sreten, sure, ok, I did not read the ENTIRE thread(s).
Has anyone TRIED to do what I suggested so far? Anyone?
I really care not at all about the "patent" or the "claims".
Only the effect and if and how it works is of interest to me.
You know they do bang the surface of cymbals during the production (making dents), and this does change the sound they make... I know it is metal, but...
_-_-bear
Has anyone TRIED to do what I suggested so far? Anyone?
I really care not at all about the "patent" or the "claims".
Only the effect and if and how it works is of interest to me.
You know they do bang the surface of cymbals during the production (making dents), and this does change the sound they make... I know it is metal, but...
_-_-bear
Hi,
You will if you go the painful process of
trying to sort the wheat from the chaff,
rgds, sreten.
Your ears must certainly be detecting the change in the boundary layer that makes the wave to now lift off of the cymbal, alter its phase (with no SPL change) and form a flat wave launch. Remember, ears can detect these sorts of changes well enough to actually identify them precisely.
It can't be from altering the resonant nature of the cymbal itself.
Dave
I will add that as a mod to a driver, I have no doubt that it can change its response measurably. Throughout the threads that was not seriously in doubt, except maybe for Bud. Read the threads, no need to re-hash it now. Whether or not it is an improvement is subjective and to each individual. Many like it, but evidently some do not. The risk is yours.
Dave
Dave
you finally get it!!
Except:
you forgot the dramatic improvement in the polar response, elimination of cone breakup modes, suppresion of room modes, enhanced micro-dynamics, lowering of the micro-noise floor... those sorts of thingies...
time to drink the Kool-Aid now...
John L.
Your ears must certainly be detecting the change in the boundary layer that makes the wave to now lift off of the cymbal, alter its phase (with no SPL change) and form a flat wave launch. Remember, ears can detect these sorts of changes well enough to actually identify them precisely.
It can't be from altering the resonant nature of the cymbal itself.
Dave
Except:
you forgot the dramatic improvement in the polar response, elimination of cone breakup modes, suppresion of room modes, enhanced micro-dynamics, lowering of the micro-noise floor... those sorts of thingies...
time to drink the Kool-Aid now...
John L.
30 years ago, as I was attempting to understand what eventually became EnABL, I did some experiments along the lines you propose. On one test driver I added 48 block pairs, rather than the original 36. On another I applied 24 sets. The 48 sets sounded like they had increased the high frequencies. I doubted this was possible and assumed it was a phase change, bringing the high frequencies forward in the time envelope of the music I was using to judge with. Fewer and larger blocks had the opposite effect. I had no test gear at the time so no data for those who need it.
Having thought about this again it does occur to me that a slight reduction in block pairs, perhaps to 32 sets, would offset the amount of phase leveling we are getting with EnABL 2.0 with the increase in numbers of ring sets.
No need to read the entire thread by the way, you have an complete encapsulation of the claims of the "debunkers" at hand.
Bud
Having thought about this again it does occur to me that a slight reduction in block pairs, perhaps to 32 sets, would offset the amount of phase leveling we are getting with EnABL 2.0 with the increase in numbers of ring sets.
No need to read the entire thread by the way, you have an complete encapsulation of the claims of the "debunkers" at hand.
Bud
The quote comes from Buddhist teachings on "emptiness" and is the root meditation from that form. As to the actual existence of Tsong Ko Pa, we only have the oral teachings from the Tibetan Buddhist's to rely upon.
If this comment upon reality truly interests you I would suggest you find a Buddhist teacher near you and speak with him/her. Living in the US is of great benefit in this endeavor. A non secular set of meditation experiences can be had from a local chapter of Shambhalah, Shambhala - Vision, Lineage, Meditation, Community a world wide teaching group. Almost any book supported by the Dalai Lama will be of interest to you. For more on Emptiness meditation you might google Dr. Jeffery Hopkins from the University of Virginia Center for South Asian Studies. He has published a book on the methods of realizing the middle way, called Emptiness Yoga, ISBN 0-937938-31-9 from Snow Lion Publications in Ithaca NY.
Bud
If this comment upon reality truly interests you I would suggest you find a Buddhist teacher near you and speak with him/her. Living in the US is of great benefit in this endeavor. A non secular set of meditation experiences can be had from a local chapter of Shambhalah, Shambhala - Vision, Lineage, Meditation, Community a world wide teaching group. Almost any book supported by the Dalai Lama will be of interest to you. For more on Emptiness meditation you might google Dr. Jeffery Hopkins from the University of Virginia Center for South Asian Studies. He has published a book on the methods of realizing the middle way, called Emptiness Yoga, ISBN 0-937938-31-9 from Snow Lion Publications in Ithaca NY.
Bud
Well, I guess there is a way of trying to figure out if it is just a subjective preference or if it bring us closer to the music - that would be to listen to a live event & a mic feed through enabled speakers Vs stock speakers. I know the mic to speakers playback chain will introduce some of it's own flavour but this will be common. Has anybody done this?
Hmmm... scraping the bottom of the barrel of hypocrisy is not technical, as are none of your posts, rgds, sreten.
EnABL is for the most part, hyped up nonsense, but not completely, however the advocates do not want the truth.
Last edited:
The problem is that you think that your assumptions are factual and try to convince others that they are, yet you provide nothing but conjecture. Lacking hard evidence through lack of measurement ability then is no excuse for ignoring that for years. Your comment would have one assume that you actually had a desire to make measurements at one time. You've had years, yet done nothing. Simply stating it as if it is fact is no support.
Until someone provides objective support, it remains conjecture. But those who want to believe will believe that conjecture.
Dave
This is strictly subjective, it would provide nothing towards the "technical" conjecture. What you propose would be fine for the other thread, not this one, as it relates to perception and preference.
Dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.