Adding colour to a driver

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#102
I am actually asking, which you would pick if faced with a choice between just these two, to use in a speaker system. So tuxedocivic has answered and I will point you to the blink comparison for which is which.
No other kind of treatment, just EnABL 2.0 utilizing the empirical "tap test" to locate positions for rings of .... splotches.

Art, you don't get preferences or endless examples. Too much shipping cost between Seattle and Switzerland and it would be three trips plus purchase of even more drivers plus Michael Gerstgeiner's additional time (mige O on this forum). So, same question as asked and answered by tuxedocivic please.

When Dave has time to do a blink comparison I will have two untreated and two treated to show you. I will mention that there is little difference between the two in each category.

Bud
 
Last edited:
#103
I think the best that can be said of this discussion is that some people want to believe, and some demand proof. Science thankfully is driven by the latter though this might make it seem a forbidding environment to those who need more kumbaya, reality can after all seem rather harsh and joyless, each to his own.
In the field of HiFi a charlatan is only going to exploit gullible people who are pursuing an indulgence, unfortunately the same thinking extends to more dangerous areas like medicine where a cancer or aids sufferer might be induced to abandon conventional treatment in favour of fringe medicine, it happens all the time.
 
#107
BudP said:
I am actually asking, which you would pick if faced with a choice between just these two, to use in a speaker system. So tuxedocivic has answered and I will point you to the blink comparison for which is which.
No other kind of treatment, just EnABL 2.0 utilizing the empirical "tap test" to locate positions for rings of .... splotches.

Art, you don't get preferences or endless examples. Too much shipping cost between Seattle and Switzerland and it would be three trips plus purchase of even more drivers plus Michael Gerstgeiner's additional time (mige O on this forum). So, same question as asked and answered by tuxedocivic please.

When Dave has time to do a blink comparison I will have two untreated and two treated to show you. I will mention that there is little difference between the two in each category.

Bud
Click to expand...
Bud,

If there is little difference in the treated and untreated blink comparison as you say, I doubt I’d hear a difference.

I find detecting the difference in frequency response difficult on colored charts, though the left hand speaker appears to be slightly flatter response than the right.

The spectral decay is different between the two different speakers, the left, having more HF, also has a more prominent decay at 1.75 ms, and some in the 2-3K region.
The right hand speaker has less of that decay, but more upper decay.
That said, the decay in either case accounts to only around 1/4 wavelength at 10K Hz, I doubt I’d be able to discern a sound quality difference other than frequency response, room reflections would most likely swamp the minor variations in decay time.

Even if I were to assume the different speakers were tested under identical conditions, I still could not decide a preference based on the charts presented.

And since the two speakers are different to start with, with no visual confirmation that they were identical to start with, I have no opinion which speaker was treated.

As far as “preferences or endless examples”, my only desire was to see the same driver tested before and after the process, to see what difference the process makes.

If, as you say, there is little difference after treatment, don’t bother posting more charts on my account.

Art
 

Attachments

  • Enable?.png
    Enable?.png
    156.9 KB · Views: 183
#108
Bud, I thought I had previously seen some other CSD plots from migeo?

Again, both have trade offs. I'd still say the hot spot at 1.5ms and 2-3khz would light up my ears. It would be reasonable to say though, the treatment just moved the "unwanted energy" to different frequencies and times. The one I'd pick is much cleaner approaching 4ms.

If you have more of these Bud, it would be really helpful. A part of me wonders if it's actually related to the pattern or mass though. I seem to remember a post from migeo saying it took many iterations to find the sweet spot.
 
#110
I have to say I don't believe any treatment could be appropriate for every listener, driver, or application. There are just too many variables. I came to this thread out of curiosity about cone doping. I've noticed my paper coned drivers have quite a different sound at the same frequency than a naked aluminum diaphagm in a VOT horn, for example. I figured that the relative softness and flexibility of the cone was responsible for a certain lack of presence. In the case of a driver relieved of duties above say 500Hz, it occured to me that doping the cone would provide a harder, stiffer surface, and perhaps a sound which I preferred. Although I never quite found the answer here, I must say reading this thread from front to back, has been not the worst way I've spent an hour or so. Thanks to all.
BTW are my assumptions sensible about doping?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom