Please go over to the technical thread and explain how you determined that there are Rayleigh waves and that these are in fact the mechanism being addressed, especially the part about how they travel around the outer third, in the perimeter of the cone. Describe the experiments and measurements you took that provide the data that supports this. Please add in why they do not occur in the other inner areas.
I know that no one here wants to discuss the technical aspect, but the claim has been made here. Since there is a thread specifically for this, it would be appropriate to elucidate there, not here.
Dave
dviswa said:
Yes, I think that your post is out of line. Somehow you missed where I specifically directed attention to the other thread and pointed out that it is the appropriate place, not here, even though Bud, not I, raised the technical aspect in this thread. I only asked that he move to that thread. This is pretty much in agreement with your position, although I was polite in my post. You took me to task rather than Bud, even though his post had the technical comments. Why do you berate me, but not him?
Dave
Since this has morphed into the "technical" again and I would like to comment on this most recent post, lest I be thrown out for introducing the technical as Bud has done in detail, I ask the moderators to move this post over to the technical thread for debate. As many are so vehement to say when I broach the technical, it's not to be debated here.
Or will there be consistency and I be allowed to discuss it here as Bud did?
I also really think that mention of comprehension should not be broached, lest that devolve into more controversy. Bud, you speak as if the entire origin thread and the partner objective one to this one never occurred.
Dave
Or will there be consistency and I be allowed to discuss it here as Bud did?
I also really think that mention of comprehension should not be broached, lest that devolve into more controversy. Bud, you speak as if the entire origin thread and the partner objective one to this one never occurred.
Dave
LilMik said:
Here is a link to the split of the original thread that is supposed to be where any and all "technical" discussion occurs. There's a link there to the first thread.
Technical thread
You'll find a lot of answers to your questions in those two and far more detailed descriptions of what is and is not occurring. The detailed technical aspect is supposed to be forbidden here.
Dave
Dave,
Actually I was just answering Mikes plea. As for not broaching comprehension, that is the very reason I answered here. The points I am making are entirely within the realm of comprehension, as opposed to a more objective approach.
I really am not ignoring you, or any of the others involved in threads working on figuring out how EnABL accomplishes it's activities. I just do not have much more to provide for the objective side.
Bud
Actually I was just answering Mikes plea. As for not broaching comprehension, that is the very reason I answered here. The points I am making are entirely within the realm of comprehension, as opposed to a more objective approach.
I really am not ignoring you, or any of the others involved in threads working on figuring out how EnABL accomplishes it's activities. I just do not have much more to provide for the objective side.
Bud
"entirely within the realm of comprehension, as opposed to a more objective approach". So you're saying that the objective approach is not comprehensible? It does at least have to start with technical merit.
The points you were making are certainly counter to just about everything as debated in the technical thread. This comment alone is, to be blunt, incredulous:
Fairly obvious? What's your source or support for this claim? The ONLY thing that is affected is the "activity" of the diaphragm. There is no effect of propogation in air outside of the localized effect as was discussed in great detail before and is pretty much an added mass effect. Change yes, esoteric, no. Only on a moving component such as a diaphragm, nothing on vents, nothing on baffles.
You say that you have little more to provide to the objective side, yet the post is filled with "objective" technical misinformation based on nothing but, again, conjecture that has been shown to be in error.
And as far as the link to youtube, it's beyond me how you can make any sort of association of that with enabl. There is no logical inference that is credible.
Then there is "relieved of their last nonlinear transformation of energy into adjacent air". Sounds pretty technically objective to me, but there's nothing to support this conjecture, either.
"EnABL'd drivers do appear...", "If diaphragms will exhibit...", "...EnABL seems to correct for...". Really, Bud, there's nothing of substance in most of this. It says nothing about what is actually happening and claims things that are just not correct.
Enabl will change how a driver sounds. It may be an improvement, it may not be. There are never guarantees. But it has nothing to do with any of the continuing esoteric claims. It's an added mass and/or localized damping effect. This is a prime example were Occam's Razor applies. I'm sure that you're familiar with that.
Dave
The points you were making are certainly counter to just about everything as debated in the technical thread. This comment alone is, to be blunt, incredulous:
Fairly obvious? What's your source or support for this claim? The ONLY thing that is affected is the "activity" of the diaphragm. There is no effect of propogation in air outside of the localized effect as was discussed in great detail before and is pretty much an added mass effect. Change yes, esoteric, no. Only on a moving component such as a diaphragm, nothing on vents, nothing on baffles.
You say that you have little more to provide to the objective side, yet the post is filled with "objective" technical misinformation based on nothing but, again, conjecture that has been shown to be in error.
And as far as the link to youtube, it's beyond me how you can make any sort of association of that with enabl. There is no logical inference that is credible.
Then there is "relieved of their last nonlinear transformation of energy into adjacent air". Sounds pretty technically objective to me, but there's nothing to support this conjecture, either.
"EnABL'd drivers do appear...", "If diaphragms will exhibit...", "...EnABL seems to correct for...". Really, Bud, there's nothing of substance in most of this. It says nothing about what is actually happening and claims things that are just not correct.
Enabl will change how a driver sounds. It may be an improvement, it may not be. There are never guarantees. But it has nothing to do with any of the continuing esoteric claims. It's an added mass and/or localized damping effect. This is a prime example were Occam's Razor applies. I'm sure that you're familiar with that.
Dave
BudP said:
Do you have any factual data to support increased "efficiency" (I think that you mean sensitivity)? Any time that you add weight to a driver, it will almost invariably reduce the sensitivity. It's basic physics. The phase response change will also be strictly according to any change in frequency response.
A good soft dome such as those by Seas are also not likely to be improved by randomly adding weight, especially near the surround. It's more likely to be detrimental. I find it rather troubling that you would suggest this to someone who may end up with a damaged tweeter.
If you can provide any measurements whatsoever of a soft dome before/after that documents an improved response, I'll retract my concern.
My suggestion, leave that Seas dome alone, unless you're ready to lay out the money to replace them if it doesn't work as advertised. Seas is one of the best at making excellent soft domes.
Dave
dlr
Your concern is noted and appreciated Dave. However, there is a history behind my treatment suggestions, considerably deeper than the one from full range drivers, that you may, by now, be experienced with.
Once again we are confronted with a lack of significant change found in what objective testing I have performed over the last 20 years or so. The treated tweeters, just as with the full range devices, exhibit a great deal more information in the audible signal, that is substantially below that of the first arrival / loudest impulse in amplitude, than the untreated drivers.
I am sure by now that the data is actually in the tests, but have no way to manipulate it to discover data that corresponds with changes that are audible well below that signal portrayed in all of my testing. This data would have to show relationships between low level signals and maximum signal level impulses.
I do also suspect that if we could graph these changes they would be very simillar to what John K found in his test and provided as a roll on roll off mouse controlled flick comparison.
As for the mass increase, the dots themselves are so small and so thin that they will not provide appreciable mass change. The Gloss coating is another matter and beyond one light coating, will stiffen the silk cloth substantially.
As always, the driver should be monitored for the effects of the pattern, before application of the Gloss material. All but one of the silk drivers I have dealt with were aided, and all plastic domes and metal domes have been aided, by Gloss coating after the pattern application.
In addition, the tweeter should be mounted in it's final location, with all of those attendant loadings, for this evaluation, something I have pointed out about multi-way systems previously, but it bears having that caution repeated.
Again, thank you for your concern, especially about the placement of the, in this case, round dots of paint. Just as with the center domes of many drivers with voice coil dust caps, the initial pattern ring set needs to be at the point where the voice coil is attached to the dome, but wholly on the dome. Another ring may or may not benefit the dome, somewhat farther in towards the center and the final small 6 block set pattern and center spot at the tip are there to eliminate on axis beaming.
Bud
Your concern is noted and appreciated Dave. However, there is a history behind my treatment suggestions, considerably deeper than the one from full range drivers, that you may, by now, be experienced with.
Once again we are confronted with a lack of significant change found in what objective testing I have performed over the last 20 years or so. The treated tweeters, just as with the full range devices, exhibit a great deal more information in the audible signal, that is substantially below that of the first arrival / loudest impulse in amplitude, than the untreated drivers.
I am sure by now that the data is actually in the tests, but have no way to manipulate it to discover data that corresponds with changes that are audible well below that signal portrayed in all of my testing. This data would have to show relationships between low level signals and maximum signal level impulses.
I do also suspect that if we could graph these changes they would be very simillar to what John K found in his test and provided as a roll on roll off mouse controlled flick comparison.
As for the mass increase, the dots themselves are so small and so thin that they will not provide appreciable mass change. The Gloss coating is another matter and beyond one light coating, will stiffen the silk cloth substantially.
As always, the driver should be monitored for the effects of the pattern, before application of the Gloss material. All but one of the silk drivers I have dealt with were aided, and all plastic domes and metal domes have been aided, by Gloss coating after the pattern application.
In addition, the tweeter should be mounted in it's final location, with all of those attendant loadings, for this evaluation, something I have pointed out about multi-way systems previously, but it bears having that caution repeated.
Again, thank you for your concern, especially about the placement of the, in this case, round dots of paint. Just as with the center domes of many drivers with voice coil dust caps, the initial pattern ring set needs to be at the point where the voice coil is attached to the dome, but wholly on the dome. Another ring may or may not benefit the dome, somewhat farther in towards the center and the final small 6 block set pattern and center spot at the tip are there to eliminate on axis beaming.
Bud
BudP said:
There is nothing to substantiate this. It is purely conjecture. You do not know the specifics of the change. You cannot know them without proper measurements.
You "suspect". Again, you cannot and do not know what is happening without proper measurements. More conjecture.
Reference comment above. Soft domes are often extremely light to begin with. Small dots may be a significant percentage of the mass.
That it will do and very possibly to detrimental effect. Reference comment above. What you are suggesting is essentially counter to what essentially ALL manufacturers apply to their soft domes, if they apply anything, and most do. That is, they apply a damping compound, sometimes remaining tacky. What you suggest stiffens and negates the damping, even that damping inherent in an untreated dome. And you do not know the specifics of the changes that you suggest other than conjecture at this point.
Much as you may believe otherwise, any additional mass, especially placed close to the former attachment point where it's mass effect is highest on a soft diaphragm, is going to lower the sensitivity. This is aside from any possible non-linearities that it may introduce. There is one and only one way to determine what is changing with any accuracy. That is by measurements. They are not difficult.
And again, to those who would consider modifying a good, soft dome tweeter, I suggest that you be prepared to replace it. This will not be reversible. And tweeters made today are likely very much different than those you may have tested in years past.
With good tweeters the most effective way to deal with any dome "issues" is a re-design or simply tweaking of the crossover. The changes are far more controllable and are at minimum, reversible.
It's one thing to suggest modifying full range drivers that are almost guaranteed to have issues. It's another to say that as some kind of "general rule" when you have no data on the driver in question and no evidence of the changes proposed, especially for any recent models. That is cavalier and not reliable.
Maybe you'd be willing to offer replacement costs if someone is ultimately dis-satisfied with your "qualified" suggestions that are not reversible.
Dave
Gentlemen,
Please try and keep your technical discussion here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1792669#post1792669
Cal Weldon said:
Gentlemen,
Please try and keep your technical discussion here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1792669#post1792669
I agree completely. I have not been introducing any technical discussion, I'm replying to technical details that keep getting woven into posts as though they were simply techniques. So far, I have not seen a single case of those introducing technical issues here (e.g. increases in efficiency, phase issues) doing so by directing attention to the other thread and then following up by posting there. The posts occur here.
But I do believe that pointing out that descriptions of sound changes as uniformly positive that do not address the real possibility of detrimental effects are not being forthright with those who read the thread. Some might consider it misleading.
This was triggered by someone with no experience modifying a tweeter. The response implied universally positive outcome. There was no circumspection, no referral to the other thread to discuss the technical merits/demerits, nothing. I hope that those who wish to make any of this open will not be effectively silenced by the "other thread" rule that in reality means that debate in that vein will end, since it requires that claimants here put forth the effort to make and support their claims in the other thread. So far the latter actions are distinguished by their absence.
Dave
dir I must post my listening impression
dir
I appreciate your cautionary advice concerning the Seas tweeter. I am approaching this step with caution because I do value the performance I am getting.
I must say however that with or without substantiating technical measurements, I have followed Bud's advice on several occasions, and the results have been positive to say the least.
Read his post you will see that he suggested caution with respect to the microgloss coat to silk domes.
dir
I appreciate your cautionary advice concerning the Seas tweeter. I am approaching this step with caution because I do value the performance I am getting.
I must say however that with or without substantiating technical measurements, I have followed Bud's advice on several occasions, and the results have been positive to say the least.
Read his post you will see that he suggested caution with respect to the microgloss coat to silk domes.
dlr,
I thought, as you do, that the micro gloss and/or pattern would add mass and therefore reduce sensitivity, but (speaking to the potential effects of such a technique, and certainly not technically
as I'm technically challenged re: speakers 😀 ) what do you think would be the impact of increasing stiffness and/or reducing porosity of the dome fabric due to the micro gloss treatment? Could that account for sensitivity INCREASE? I too would be very reluctant to monkey with such tweeters without lots of positive experience with EnABL.
Carl
I thought, as you do, that the micro gloss and/or pattern would add mass and therefore reduce sensitivity, but (speaking to the potential effects of such a technique, and certainly not technically
as I'm technically challenged re: speakers 😀 ) what do you think would be the impact of increasing stiffness and/or reducing porosity of the dome fabric due to the micro gloss treatment? Could that account for sensitivity INCREASE? I too would be very reluctant to monkey with such tweeters without lots of positive experience with EnABL.Carl
wlowes,
Caution that is unqualified as to any possible detrimental impact is not caution. Nothing in the post even hinted that matters could be made worse, quite the contrary:
Someone reading this might easily (likely) infer that any and all drivers regardless of quality and price will benefit positively. The statement essentially says that in an unqualified manner. That is irresponsible.
I can only say what I think, because I do not know precisely.That requires measurements (there's a theme developing here). Having worked with a lot of tweeters, many very expensive ones, I would not attempt to modify the dome at all, soft or hard. The micro gloss will likely add more mass than the dots do, simply due to surface area treated. It is likely to create rather erratic response with a possibility of peakiness and odd breakup introduced at higher frequencies. Some consider this as more "air" and "detail". Crossover changes can do the same thing without resort to irreversible mods.
Soft domes are designed to radiate from the entire dome at lower frequencies. Added mass will reduce the magnitude, not linearly. The only way it could increase would be if damping is decreased more than the drop due to mass. What may be more important, soft domes are designed to radiate less in the tip of the dome area at higher frequencies through damping as frequency increases. Ideally they become effectively a ring radiator. Stiffening the area near the former attachment point is going to increase the radiation at higher frequencies farther into the dome. The effect will be odd breakup since part of the damping is reduced. It's related to why hard domes have phase shields. Since they don't damp, a phase shield must be used to block the radiation at the tip to extend the top end. It's a crap-shoot if done without measuring to verify the changes.
If something such as this were beneficial (it's a simple thing for a manufacturer to do), don't you think that it would be done now? I'll bet that it's been researched long past.
Any more than this and we should move to the other thread.
Dave
Caution that is unqualified as to any possible detrimental impact is not caution. Nothing in the post even hinted that matters could be made worse, quite the contrary:
Someone reading this might easily (likely) infer that any and all drivers regardless of quality and price will benefit positively. The statement essentially says that in an unqualified manner. That is irresponsible.
Originally posted by Carlp dlr,
I thought, as you do, that the micro gloss and/or pattern would add mass and therefore reduce sensitivity, but (speaking to the potential effects of such a technique, and certainly not technically
Carl
I can only say what I think, because I do not know precisely.That requires measurements (there's a theme developing here). Having worked with a lot of tweeters, many very expensive ones, I would not attempt to modify the dome at all, soft or hard. The micro gloss will likely add more mass than the dots do, simply due to surface area treated. It is likely to create rather erratic response with a possibility of peakiness and odd breakup introduced at higher frequencies. Some consider this as more "air" and "detail". Crossover changes can do the same thing without resort to irreversible mods.
Soft domes are designed to radiate from the entire dome at lower frequencies. Added mass will reduce the magnitude, not linearly. The only way it could increase would be if damping is decreased more than the drop due to mass. What may be more important, soft domes are designed to radiate less in the tip of the dome area at higher frequencies through damping as frequency increases. Ideally they become effectively a ring radiator. Stiffening the area near the former attachment point is going to increase the radiation at higher frequencies farther into the dome. The effect will be odd breakup since part of the damping is reduced. It's related to why hard domes have phase shields. Since they don't damp, a phase shield must be used to block the radiation at the tip to extend the top end. It's a crap-shoot if done without measuring to verify the changes.
If something such as this were beneficial (it's a simple thing for a manufacturer to do), don't you think that it would be done now? I'll bet that it's been researched long past.
Any more than this and we should move to the other thread.
Dave
If they make these irreversible mods to an already good soft dome tweeter and they then don't like it as well, will they still be having fun?
Dave
Re: Takes a day?
Since you brought it up, if it was measured adequately (not being done even minimally to my understanding) and no change was found, the change in perception is due to psycho-acoustic changes in the person, not in the sound. Expectations must be taken into account if one desires to be credible.
The brains "filtering system" as you put it is the psycho-acoustic aspect. There's usually a very large gulf between what's real and what's perceived (psycho-acoustic). That's not opinion, either, people spend their entire careers in this sort of study.
This is the listening thread and what is being discussed is based entirely on psycho-acoustics, so it seems to me that debate on that topic would be appropriate in this thread. It sounds like you are very aware of that. But take it up at the other thread. See what debate ensues, if any. That is always enlightening.
Dave
Since you brought it up, if it was measured adequately (not being done even minimally to my understanding) and no change was found, the change in perception is due to psycho-acoustic changes in the person, not in the sound. Expectations must be taken into account if one desires to be credible.
The brains "filtering system" as you put it is the psycho-acoustic aspect. There's usually a very large gulf between what's real and what's perceived (psycho-acoustic). That's not opinion, either, people spend their entire careers in this sort of study.
This is the listening thread and what is being discussed is based entirely on psycho-acoustics, so it seems to me that debate on that topic would be appropriate in this thread. It sounds like you are very aware of that. But take it up at the other thread. See what debate ensues, if any. That is always enlightening.
Dave
BudP said:
Ok, now you folks are tossing in all kinds of technical discussion that would BAN my posts. Why is it that in the "listening" thread, you get a pass every time you speculate on the technical aspect? The hypocrisy is amazing. I challenge everyone here who is discussing technical pseudo-science to move to the other thread and actively debate.
Or will the moderators ban my comments, but not those of the proponents?
I find it interesting that no one is willing to respond to my post and debate at the "technical" thread. Not one. You all seem so willing to accept "I suspect", "seems plausible", "I wonder" and other such speculation. How about taking your technical theories to the technical thread and lay out your technical theories for a real debate? As confident as everyone is that there's some science to it somehow, isn't it curious that not one of you seems willing to debate the technical there? Rather you do it here where no one is allowed to challenge it if it's counter to the positive speculation.
If this post is deleted, it will be obvious where the moderators stand on being even-handed.
Dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.