Alternative EnABL Processes

[Alex from Oz]

G'day All,

Firstly, congrats to Bud P - EnABL really does work!!
See http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100399&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

I wanted to try EnABL, but was uncomfortable with the idea of 'painting' my cabinets or drivers.

Here is a way to try the EnABL process that can be easily reversed and without using paint.

How? Heavy Duty Aluminium Kitchen Foil and double sided tape
(Sellotape "Acid free" 10mm x 5 metres).

1. Apply the double sided tape to the dull side of the foil - leave about 1.5 cm on either side of the ds tape.
2. Press down on firmly on the back of the ds tape to get a good bond with the foil.
3. Carefully tear the foil along the edge of the tape - keep tension on the tape with one hand and you will get a clean edge.
4. You now have a strip you can cut to fit the block size you need for applying the EnABL process to speaker cabinet or driver.


I used a blade and a cutting mat to cut the blocks.
For smaller blocks, I peeled off the backing and stuck the strip to the cutting mat. The blocks can be 'picked off' using a blade and applied.
I have applied blocks as small as 2mm x 4mm!

I have applied this to my cabinets and drivers.
Foil blocks can be easily removed from the driver cone using a fingernail.


Results are stunning ! - is it the same as doing it properly using paint?
I don't know, but if you are skeptical about EnABL like I was, try this and see for yourself.

Bud, what are your thoughts on this?


Cheers,

Alex from Oz

 

[Cal Weldon]

It sounds like your method will raise the height of the 'dots' quite a bit. Do you have pics of this?

 

[Secips]

Thanks for the link, Alex from Oz.

I always wanted to try EnaBL as well but didn't have the time to practice. This is perfect. It might be a good idea to compare this with the original paint process or even different types of tape.

 

[planet10]

This would probably work just as well with just the tape.

dave

 

[Alex from Oz]

It sounds like your method will raise the height of the 'dots' quite a bit. Do you have pics of this?

I haven't got a working camera at the moment so I can't post pics...sorry.
I used the pics here as a guide http://homepage.mac.com/tlinespeakers/FAL/downloads/EnABLE-US5304746.pdf

Thanks for the link, Alex from Oz.

I always wanted to try EnaBL as well but didn't have the time to practice. This is perfect. It might be a good idea to compare this with the original paint process or even different types of tape.

Thanks Secips. I would love somebody with test gear to do a comparison - I don't have any apart from my ears

 

[Secips]

Thanks Secips. I would love somebody with test gear to do a comparison - I don't have any apart from my ears

You have all the equipment you need. Wouldn't even dream of doing tests.

 

[Alex from Oz]

Quick note of clarification on my first post in this thread.

The double sided tape is not the padded stuff.
It is completely flat just like normal sticky tape except that it is sticky on both sides.

Also the Sellotape is actually 12mm not 10mm.

Cheers.

 

[BudP]

Alex,

My thought is "good for you". I am quite certain that your work is every bit as good as paint. You might try the paint at some point, just to hear a comparison, but if you are getting the sound field to hang behind the speaker box or OB, then you have what is available.

You can pattern a box's sides, vertically, at mid box, and across the top and bottom. This should bring forward instruments right up to this point. Just deepens the sound field in general.

One of the things I practice is, a pattern in paint, at every joint, wall or edge, including the final edge of a driver basket. Another thing you can do is hide a painted pattern under a flat black interior wall paint, or have the color mixed to your spec. You will need to put a coat of Micro Scale Gloss over the pattern first, but not any where else.

Thanks for having the courage to experiment. After you have your drivers treated and they are no longer giving you a localization on the front of the driver, when you are on axis, meaning that even there the sound field is behind the boxes or baffle face, then we can show you the next step.... called Electron Pools. Even weirder than EnABL!

Thanks again for doing this and posting about it. I think you have dlr very concerned, over on the main sprawl.

Bud

 

[Alex from Oz]

Thanks Bud.

Some interesting ideas for me to play with...
I will move to paint for the driver cone because I think it will perform better over the long term.
I hope dlr is not too concerned. My intention is just to encourage people who have not heard EnABL to try it for themselves.
Then the science argument can focus on why EnABL does what it does and other ways we might be able to apply it.

I'm keen to see some info on the Electron Pools. Do you have a link?

Cheers,

Alex

 

[BudP]

Hi Alex,

Here is the link for the EP's.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102180&highlight=

They have progressed to a fairly elaborate tool to help tuck in the tiny ragged edges of some drivers, add even more coherent detail, especially in the decay of notes, and adjust the amount of "dynamic color" retained within an overall and above 4 kHz frequency range. There is even a color code scheme for the Litz wire / shrink tube items I make.

They can be quite useful, but you need to be attentive when developing them with whatever wire/dielectric you choose to use. Too much plastic to wire area will cause a rise in performance and then a sudden drop off into pretty thick and dull sound.

The effects are subtle, unless you have EnABL in hand and have begun to hear a "lack" of information. Almost as if the system is hinting that it could do more. I suspect it is really information that is just outside of our range of comprehension in some fashion. This because it turns out to be things like the decay of a single piano note and all of the interplay of resonances that occur, through the harp, into the chassis and finally into the supports. All of this from Red Book audio no less!

First you need the EnABL tool set up and your correlator educated by that level of performance. Then you will easily be able to wring astounding performance from the gear you have. Unless, of course, your boxes have a poured ground plane, with instrument grounding plan inside. Then it will only provide a benefit for the commercial CD player and the speaker's drivers.

Keep in mind at all times, while investigating this, that it is complete madness. It's mechanism is less comprehended than that of EnABL. It's implications for affecting electronic circuit performance, through further disassembly of ground planes, into individual circuit component correction methods, from their current lumped sum parameter, is quite seductive.

Bud

 

[dlr]

Alex,

My thought is "good for you". I am quite certain that your work is every bit as good as paint. You might try the paint at some point, just to hear a comparison, but if you are getting the sound field to hang behind the speaker box or OB, then you have what is available.

You can pattern a box's sides, vertically, at mid box, and across the top and bottom. This should bring forward instruments right up to this point. Just deepens the sound field in general.

One of the things I practice is, a pattern in paint, at every joint, wall or edge, including the final edge of a driver basket. Another thing you can do is hide a painted pattern under a flat black interior wall paint, or have the color mixed to your spec. You will need to put a coat of Micro Scale Gloss over the pattern first, but not any where else.

Thanks for having the courage to experiment. After you have your drivers treated and they are no longer giving you a localization on the front of the driver, when you are on axis, meaning that even there the sound field is behind the boxes or baffle face, then we can show you the next step.... called Electron Pools. Even weirder than EnABL!

Thanks again for doing this and posting about it. I think you have dlr very concerned, over on the main sprawl.

Bud

Concerned? Not in the least, there's nothing to be concerned about.

Dave

 

[auplater]

No MicroGloss?

So... to try this, all that's needed is small strips (blocks) cut from something handy, stuck to the port/cabinet/wall whatever?

I thought using microgloss was a necessary adjunct to this process working... you don't mention using it over the foil/bandaids/whatever

Have things changed?

John L.

 

[BudP]

Auplater

No Micro Gloss, that is correct. Even on the diaphragm the EnABL pattern alone provides all of the claims. The micro Gloss does aid in maintaining those claimed benefits with very complex or very dynamic music. The quality maintained is intelligibility.

Bud

 

[Alex from Oz]

Re: No MicroGloss?

So... to try this, all that's needed is small strips (blocks) cut from something handy, stuck to the port/cabinet/wall whatever?

I thought using microgloss was a necessary adjunct to this process working... you don't mention using it over the foil/bandaids/whatever

Have things changed?

John L.

G'day Auplater,

I haven't used conformal coating of any kind so far.

My initial aim was to test the merits of EnABL in a way that could be completely reversed.

If you were to consider trying this, EnABLing a port on one speaker is relatively quick and easy (compared to a baffle).
This will provide immediate and obvious audible changes.

If you choose to EnABL the baffle, it just keeps getting better...

Cheers,

Alex

 

[auplater]

Re: Re: No MicroGloss?

G'day Auplater,

I haven't used conformal coating of any kind so far.

My initial aim was to test the merits of EnABL in a way that could be completely reversed.

If you were to consider trying this, EnABLing a port on one speaker is relatively quick and easy (compared to a baffle).
This will provide immediate and obvious audible changes.

If you choose to EnABL the baffle, it just keeps getting better...

Cheers,

Alex

then it would seem to me that duct tape (aluminum type) might be the ideal candidate...

Duck tape (vinyl w/adhesive) ~ .007" thick
Duct tape (aluminum w/adhesive) ~ .002" thick
Electrical tape (scotch) ~ .0065" thick
masking tape ~ .004" thick
aluminum foil (plain) ~ .001" thick
Curad bandage strip ~ .004" thick
Scotch magic tape ~ .0025" thick
RTR polyester recording tape ~ .0015" thick
gold leaf ~.000005" or less
of these, which would you suggest would yield the best results?
Or does it matter?

Do you think it might help sub woofer ports? How large to make the blocks? Is there any sort of frequency / block size correlation I should be aware of/ Lower freqs. => larger block dimensions?

I might even try using audyssey multi eq. b4 and after to see if IT detects a difference

Still not too sure about those electron pool ground plane theories, though Bud... too much materials science practice under my belt

thanx

John L.

 

[Alex from Oz]

then it would seem to me that duct tape (aluminum type) might be the ideal candidate...

Duck tape (vinyl w/adhesive) ~ .007" thick
Duct tape (aluminum w/adhesive) ~ .002" thick
Electrical tape (scotch) ~ .0065" thick
masking tape ~ .004" thick
aluminum foil (plain) ~ .001" thick
Curad bandage strip ~ .004" thick
Scotch magic tape ~ .0025" thick
RTR polyester recording tape ~ .0015" thick
gold leaf ~.000005" or less
of these, which would you suggest would yield the best results?
Or does it matter?

There are so many untested possibilities when you are looking at baffles and ports - so I can't say which is best.
I do know that cutting up and sticking individual blocks in place is tedious regardless of which material you use.

I think the most important thing is the EnABL pattern itself.

My suggestion for ports: (this is what I will be trying next)
1. Lay a strip of Scotch magic tape sticky side down on a clean bench or table and then build the block pattern on top using the aluminium duct tape or any other material you wish to try.
2. Peel of the completed EnABL strip and apply to the port (I suggest cutting the strip into two pieces - easier to apply and remove).

This way you can create EnABL strips which are easy to remove and reposition.

Do you think it might help sub woofer ports?
How large to make the blocks?
Is there any sort of frequency / block size correlation I should be aware of/ Lower freqs. => larger block dimensions?

I've done two subwoofer ports so far with clearly audible (and positive) results.

Block size is directly related to the chosen number of 'block pairs' and the circumference of the port.
18 block pairs is ideal - but within 16 - 20 is still OK (see attached file below).

I'll leave the frequency / block size correlation question for Bud.


Cheers,

Alex

 

[BudP]

Auplater,

Second you on the electron pools. Very foolish idea. Almost as silly as EnABL. Equally as efficient at rooting hide bound engineering types out of the woodwork as EnABL is, though. Wait till you see what I do with transformers, or cables of any audio pile kind. Just nutz, all of it. Might be why it all seems to work so well in OZ......

Alex, Very nice calculator, exactly correct in all respects. The block sizes do increase in mass and size, as the area to be controlled does. Until it is just too silly and then I don't make them any bigger. Doesn't seem to matter much, for those scary baffle thingy's though.

Bud

 

[Alex from Oz]

Thanks Bud.

I have a couple of questions for you.
For ports and baffles, as block size increases, should the height of the blocks increase also?
If so, how do you determine the correct block height for a given block size?

Cheers,

Alex

 

[BudP]

Alex,

Haven't a clue about height vs size vs effectiveness. I know that just the paint is effective in ports, horn throat and mouth and baffles. How much more effective a taller and less permeable event works in comparison, is what you are exploring, and good on you for being brave enough to do so. I was not kidding when I referred to you as the expert here.

Comes down to whether the port event is actually a compression wave, with an attendant boundary layer on the tube surface, or is a transverse wave in a bounded event, as occurs in a cone.

I know the paint works to a degree, you know the blocks work to a degree. I am going to leave it to you to discover their relative value. I will accept your conclusions. Don't get too wrapped up in measurements here, let your creative intuition lead you and then go back and measure to see if the test events agree with where your ears and mind have lead to.

As a side note, blocks of dissimilar materials, tape and the like, also appear to work on driver surfaces, when applied in the recommended patterns. Again, I have no idea of their relative effectiveness, though the people involved report a similar experience to what I am familiar with in the painted devices.

Bud

 

[Alex from Oz]

Thanks Bud.
I don't have any measuring tools at the moment. Just my ears.
I will have to get some software and a mic in the not too distant future.


Bought some magic tape and vinyl duct tape today.
Found a couple of interesting things at the hardware store:
Clear duct tape - it's three times the price of the black stuff I bought!!
Silicon tape - possibly a good candidate for drivers.

You can write on magic tape with a pen.
So you can mark up and lay the blocks really accurately.
Built some duct tape blocks on top of the magic tape - makes a great removable EnABL strip.

I then laid another strip of the magic tape sticky side up and laid some duct tape blocks on top - also sticky side up.
I applied the completed test strip to the baffle and went over the blocks with my fingernail to ensure they were stuck down.
The magic tape peels right off leaving the duct tape blocks in place on the baffle.

This makes life much easier because you can apply EnABL very accurately to ports and baffles in strips.

Unfortunately magic tape sticks too well to aluminium foil and double sided tape blocks - pulls them right off the baffle.

Cheers,

Alex