loninappleton said:
Just do it... EnABL is an independent mod from the damar or the trifoil or the PK. The idea being that EnABL needs to go on top of wharever was done (if anything) to fix inherent driver anomalies.
dave
Thanks chris.chrisb said:
Thanks dave.planet10 said:
Frontside has a nice 'rustic' appeal I think.
Next time I think I'll use colour paint for outer and inner cone rings and stealth for mid-cone and dustcap.
Yes.loninappleton said:
Cheers,
Alex
Well Alex, just in case no one had offered yet and you were awaiting, welcome to the Professional EnABLing Guild. All three of us. Now.
And I too would like to know how you pulled off that neat magnet covering activity. We can keep it secret if you like, quiet whispering in the corners and such.....
Bud
And I too would like to know how you pulled off that neat magnet covering activity. We can keep it secret if you like, quiet whispering in the corners and such.....
Bud
no glitches
Troubleshooting must have went well during the down time for DIYaudio. Congratulations. I missed my daily fix of speaker talk.
During these days I have got out some old 8 inch speakers which were bought on ebay as closeouts -- ostensibly parts of Roland electric pianos.
This is about EnABL and I'm getting to the point. A phase plug and some scant box treatments have not given me the flat, non hollow sound I look for on voice and instrumentation both. I have some 4 in NSB's (No Stinkin' Badges) Pioneers which have been treated that sound better.
To the question for Budp, Dave and all: Since the EnABL treatments I've attempted tend to reduce loudness (just from listening to levels) how would EnABL tame this hollowness that I cannot seem to correct? Is it just that these are cheap speakers that cannot be improved?
For reference here is what I have on them:
[quoted]
Zene posted these specs back then, so OB or leaky box are the obvious choices:
Roland 8" is/are: (Used Peak Inst. for test, only broke-in 12 hrs.)
Paper cone
Fs = 78.76 hz
Vas = 24.5 L/0.8652 cu ft
Re = 7.309
Le = .2462 mh
Qms = 5.772
Qes = 1.977
Qts = 1.473
Sd = 21.4 sq cm/3.317 sq in
BL = 0.4477 N/A (calc'd)
Spl 89.65 1w/1m
Pe = 30W
GM
ref:
http://fullrangedriver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=447
[closed quote]
I will be back into the EnABL paint soon. Haven't made the trip to the store for a #99 nib.
Troubleshooting must have went well during the down time for DIYaudio. Congratulations. I missed my daily fix of speaker talk.
During these days I have got out some old 8 inch speakers which were bought on ebay as closeouts -- ostensibly parts of Roland electric pianos.
This is about EnABL and I'm getting to the point. A phase plug and some scant box treatments have not given me the flat, non hollow sound I look for on voice and instrumentation both. I have some 4 in NSB's (No Stinkin' Badges) Pioneers which have been treated that sound better.
To the question for Budp, Dave and all: Since the EnABL treatments I've attempted tend to reduce loudness (just from listening to levels) how would EnABL tame this hollowness that I cannot seem to correct? Is it just that these are cheap speakers that cannot be improved?
For reference here is what I have on them:
[quoted]
Zene posted these specs back then, so OB or leaky box are the obvious choices:
Roland 8" is/are: (Used Peak Inst. for test, only broke-in 12 hrs.)
Paper cone
Fs = 78.76 hz
Vas = 24.5 L/0.8652 cu ft
Re = 7.309
Le = .2462 mh
Qms = 5.772
Qes = 1.977
Qts = 1.473
Sd = 21.4 sq cm/3.317 sq in
BL = 0.4477 N/A (calc'd)
Spl 89.65 1w/1m
Pe = 30W
GM
ref:
http://fullrangedriver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=447
[closed quote]
I will be back into the EnABL paint soon. Haven't made the trip to the store for a #99 nib.
hollow speakers
Hi lon.
Here is what I would do.
Take the tip end of the black pen tip holder, held about mid length, and tao up the cone surface in a radial fashion. Tap lightly and bounce the tip off of the cone quickly so that you do not damp the resulting sound. Listen to this sound as you go up an down the cone face. The sound will change, but perhaps most usefully, the decay direction will change. Starting out at the voice coil, the decay should seem to return towards the voice coil.
At the point where most dust caps are placed on the cone this decay will seem to loose direction and a bit farther up the cone it will seem to head in the surround direction. That place on the cone where the echo lost it's way, is where we place a pattern ring set. If your drivers have a dust cap placed on the cone, the change point is almost always just beyond the dust cap edge, sometimes right under it. This is the reason for putting a pattern right at this joint.
Another null point will occur further up the cone. For most 8 inch cones, this is the point where a peculiar ringing begins. Up to this point the tap has been a localized event, with the sound emitting from the point of contact. If your cone does exhibit this unusual ringing the sound will suddenly seem to be coming from the entire cone surface, but only out at this radial point and above, towards the surround. This is the most likely cause of the hollowness, I think it is evidence of a Raleigh wave, bouncing around the cone in a circular direction.
If you apply a pattern ring set at the beginning of this zone, and one at the outer cone edge, most of the problem will disappear. In a majority of the 8 inch cones I have dealt with, I have had to apply a thin damping compound on the back side of the cone, under this area between the mid cone ring and the outer cone edge. This is the ever sticky compound mentioned in a number of places on various EnABL threads and can be obtained either from a JoAnns or through Ed Lafontaine. Typically two coats of this sticky material and one coat of 50% gloss, applied just over the glue, will kill this odd resonance issue.
This all sounds very complicated, and it is to begin with. Once you have learned how to hear these zones, where things change in decay propagation, and have applied EnABL to cure them, you may also begin to hear true null zones. These were already there, applying the patterns just makes it possible to find them. I have taken to putting a pattern at these points also.
When you do this you will find that the high frequencies seem louder. They are not. Just as Soongsc showed two years ago, you are altering the phase relationship between the minimum phase portion of the drivers frequency response range and the range where "breakup" has set in.
Bud
Hi lon.
Here is what I would do.
Take the tip end of the black pen tip holder, held about mid length, and tao up the cone surface in a radial fashion. Tap lightly and bounce the tip off of the cone quickly so that you do not damp the resulting sound. Listen to this sound as you go up an down the cone face. The sound will change, but perhaps most usefully, the decay direction will change. Starting out at the voice coil, the decay should seem to return towards the voice coil.
At the point where most dust caps are placed on the cone this decay will seem to loose direction and a bit farther up the cone it will seem to head in the surround direction. That place on the cone where the echo lost it's way, is where we place a pattern ring set. If your drivers have a dust cap placed on the cone, the change point is almost always just beyond the dust cap edge, sometimes right under it. This is the reason for putting a pattern right at this joint.
Another null point will occur further up the cone. For most 8 inch cones, this is the point where a peculiar ringing begins. Up to this point the tap has been a localized event, with the sound emitting from the point of contact. If your cone does exhibit this unusual ringing the sound will suddenly seem to be coming from the entire cone surface, but only out at this radial point and above, towards the surround. This is the most likely cause of the hollowness, I think it is evidence of a Raleigh wave, bouncing around the cone in a circular direction.
If you apply a pattern ring set at the beginning of this zone, and one at the outer cone edge, most of the problem will disappear. In a majority of the 8 inch cones I have dealt with, I have had to apply a thin damping compound on the back side of the cone, under this area between the mid cone ring and the outer cone edge. This is the ever sticky compound mentioned in a number of places on various EnABL threads and can be obtained either from a JoAnns or through Ed Lafontaine. Typically two coats of this sticky material and one coat of 50% gloss, applied just over the glue, will kill this odd resonance issue.
This all sounds very complicated, and it is to begin with. Once you have learned how to hear these zones, where things change in decay propagation, and have applied EnABL to cure them, you may also begin to hear true null zones. These were already there, applying the patterns just makes it possible to find them. I have taken to putting a pattern at these points also.
When you do this you will find that the high frequencies seem louder. They are not. Just as Soongsc showed two years ago, you are altering the phase relationship between the minimum phase portion of the drivers frequency response range and the range where "breakup" has set in.
Bud
Gotta keep on topic here but last question on this operation from above: the only way I can figure out how to do this listening test is to put the cabinet across my lap like a dulcimer and play some tones or music while fiddling with a pen cap.
Hmmm. Certainly a fun idea. However it won't get you to the level of predictive skill you need, to perform a detailed analysis of where a driver is going wrong.
You need to do the tapping test in a very quiet space. These decay tones that are going to inform you of where a resonance node is, are tiny sounds. Once you catch on to them, they are quite obvious and can be heard in a relatively noisy environment. For learning to find them you want quiet, with the only thing energizing the cone being the tip of the pen holder.
Bud
You need to do the tapping test in a very quiet space. These decay tones that are going to inform you of where a resonance node is, are tiny sounds. Once you catch on to them, they are quite obvious and can be heard in a relatively noisy environment. For learning to find them you want quiet, with the only thing energizing the cone being the tip of the pen holder.
Bud
G'day lon,
I do the tap test with the driver out of the box.
It took a few 'tapping sessions' for my ears to become really attuned to the change of direction that Bud refers to.
Initially, I found it was easier to find the spot where the tap sounds became really 'tight' and 'hard' sounding. That's where the mid cone pattern needs to go.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Alex
I do the tap test with the driver out of the box.
It took a few 'tapping sessions' for my ears to become really attuned to the change of direction that Bud refers to.
Initially, I found it was easier to find the spot where the tap sounds became really 'tight' and 'hard' sounding. That's where the mid cone pattern needs to go.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Alex
Ok, I guess this is sort of on topic as EnABL how-to.
What you're saying is I need something that looks like a really tiny xylophone mallet that I can bounce on the cone without damaging it and listen for sound changes. Maybe a teeny wooden ball on the end of a bamboo skewer.
I must say I don't think I'll be able to hear anything worth noting, but may pursue it tomorrow. Any further details or corrections?
[I miss the old smileys]
What you're saying is I need something that looks like a really tiny xylophone mallet that I can bounce on the cone without damaging it and listen for sound changes. Maybe a teeny wooden ball on the end of a bamboo skewer.
I must say I don't think I'll be able to hear anything worth noting, but may pursue it tomorrow. Any further details or corrections?
[I miss the old smileys]
This is definitely on topic.
Whatever you choose to use must be small, and a dense wood is best. The thin end of the pen tip holder, the black one, for the A series calligraphy pens that I believe you obtained from Ed La Fontaine, is ideal.
If you sit quietly and trust your hearing and do not discard any evidence as "too foolish", you will be up to speed rather quickly.
Had Soongsc not pointed to these exact phenomena, by using a very sophisticated test rig and well schooled procedures, I would not have known how to do this either. Once the location was pointed out, on a Jordan driver I happened to have a pair of, I found the same location by both careful dimensional measurements, from his photograph of where the "magical" ring location was. And then, a subsequent invention of the tap test, which unerringly found the same spot by how the decay changed character, as I tapped radially up the cone.
Interestingly, every cone I have treated since has been analysed in this way too, much to the benefit of the sound. I recently treated an Audio Nirvana 8" driver, based soley upon the findings from this sort of test.
An already superb driver, became a true musical delight to listen to and significantly more dynamic.
Bud
Whatever you choose to use must be small, and a dense wood is best. The thin end of the pen tip holder, the black one, for the A series calligraphy pens that I believe you obtained from Ed La Fontaine, is ideal.
If you sit quietly and trust your hearing and do not discard any evidence as "too foolish", you will be up to speed rather quickly.
Had Soongsc not pointed to these exact phenomena, by using a very sophisticated test rig and well schooled procedures, I would not have known how to do this either. Once the location was pointed out, on a Jordan driver I happened to have a pair of, I found the same location by both careful dimensional measurements, from his photograph of where the "magical" ring location was. And then, a subsequent invention of the tap test, which unerringly found the same spot by how the decay changed character, as I tapped radially up the cone.
Interestingly, every cone I have treated since has been analysed in this way too, much to the benefit of the sound. I recently treated an Audio Nirvana 8" driver, based soley upon the findings from this sort of test.
An already superb driver, became a true musical delight to listen to and significantly more dynamic.
Bud
Well I didn't know if I'd have to play it like a steel drum or what.
🙂
I will see if I can do any good with the pen holder.
🙂
I will see if I can do any good with the pen holder.
tin ears
I can't say I did any good doing this listening for the change from inner to outer.
There is a whizzer cone on the Roland NSB and I have removed the dustcap for a phase plug (homebrew phase plugs in a separate thread.)
What I heard indicated that a ring should be put about midpoint where the motor wires are attached to the cone. This speaker also has an inverse surround rather the usual toroid shape. The surround is concave rather than convex.
I will get back to the FE127e's. What I would like to settle for good and all is how EnABL effects loudness/muting of the driver itself. To that end I installed one of my Pioneer NSB EnABL jobs in a BIB which had housed one of the Fostex 127e's.
There always seems to be a noticeable muting (regardless of the EnABL enhancements not related to volume) in the process. I have another NSB with phase plug and no EnABL for comparison. FYI these are tests by ear only. I have no test rig.
I can't say I did any good doing this listening for the change from inner to outer.
There is a whizzer cone on the Roland NSB and I have removed the dustcap for a phase plug (homebrew phase plugs in a separate thread.)
What I heard indicated that a ring should be put about midpoint where the motor wires are attached to the cone. This speaker also has an inverse surround rather the usual toroid shape. The surround is concave rather than convex.
I will get back to the FE127e's. What I would like to settle for good and all is how EnABL effects loudness/muting of the driver itself. To that end I installed one of my Pioneer NSB EnABL jobs in a BIB which had housed one of the Fostex 127e's.
There always seems to be a noticeable muting (regardless of the EnABL enhancements not related to volume) in the process. I have another NSB with phase plug and no EnABL for comparison. FYI these are tests by ear only. I have no test rig.
You do not need to look for proof of that "muted" activity. It is there, in spades.
My take on this is that the brain's semi-autonomous threat assessment correlator "hears" noise and distortion as louder. Noise / Distortion is unnatural, not on our millions of years old "safe sounds" list and is considered potentially threatening. We are required to pay attention to it consciously, until we have consciously considered all of it non threatening. Then we begin to no longer hear it.
Try putting an EnaBL'd and untreated driver of the same type side by side. Play a mono signal through both. You will not be able to hear the EnABL'd driver. Measuring them will show them to be within less than a single db different across the frequency range. What is it that is missing, how can we hear it as missing, if it is measurably there?
Take a look at this blink comparison test. Look very carefully at the "noise/distortion" that covers over the major peak resonance, in the untreated graph. Compare just this resonance peak to the very obvious steppes of the decaying ringing in the treated display.
http://planet10-hifi.com/johnK-test/
This is what you are not hearing any more. It is actually happening everywhere else on the CSD also, but finding it in that sea of writhing snakes is not an easy task. On the ridge line, it is quite clear what is missing, and just how tiny a difference it is, to objective test equipment.
Now you have an idea of why "subjective" results are consistently ignored in acoustical comparisons by designers, until they have the objective test results in hand.
By the way, your note on what you found with your tap test, is very likely exactly correct. There are, seemingly always, one or two nodes out in the mid cone area.
Bud
My take on this is that the brain's semi-autonomous threat assessment correlator "hears" noise and distortion as louder. Noise / Distortion is unnatural, not on our millions of years old "safe sounds" list and is considered potentially threatening. We are required to pay attention to it consciously, until we have consciously considered all of it non threatening. Then we begin to no longer hear it.
Try putting an EnaBL'd and untreated driver of the same type side by side. Play a mono signal through both. You will not be able to hear the EnABL'd driver. Measuring them will show them to be within less than a single db different across the frequency range. What is it that is missing, how can we hear it as missing, if it is measurably there?
Take a look at this blink comparison test. Look very carefully at the "noise/distortion" that covers over the major peak resonance, in the untreated graph. Compare just this resonance peak to the very obvious steppes of the decaying ringing in the treated display.
http://planet10-hifi.com/johnK-test/
This is what you are not hearing any more. It is actually happening everywhere else on the CSD also, but finding it in that sea of writhing snakes is not an easy task. On the ridge line, it is quite clear what is missing, and just how tiny a difference it is, to objective test equipment.
Now you have an idea of why "subjective" results are consistently ignored in acoustical comparisons by designers, until they have the objective test results in hand.
By the way, your note on what you found with your tap test, is very likely exactly correct. There are, seemingly always, one or two nodes out in the mid cone area.
Bud
Last edited:
plenty of learning
Dave called me Grasshopper a while back. I suppose that is true.
The question that is begging is: if you have one EnABLed build and one not EnABLed in the same stereo pair, is some gain shift (balance control) inevitable to get the sound at the same loudness? Or is it a fool's errand and just do both?
As to the Roland with the whizzer, I doubt if I can get a pattern under there near the dustcap edge. Doing a pattern set at the null range and out on the edge (once I get a good nib match for these larger dots) should be doable.
I am gratified that maybe I did the tap test correctly. I like specialized tools. I still think a tiny mallet would be fun to make. We'll see.
Dave called me Grasshopper a while back. I suppose that is true.
The question that is begging is: if you have one EnABLed build and one not EnABLed in the same stereo pair, is some gain shift (balance control) inevitable to get the sound at the same loudness? Or is it a fool's errand and just do both?
As to the Roland with the whizzer, I doubt if I can get a pattern under there near the dustcap edge. Doing a pattern set at the null range and out on the edge (once I get a good nib match for these larger dots) should be doable.
I am gratified that maybe I did the tap test correctly. I like specialized tools. I still think a tiny mallet would be fun to make. We'll see.
I have not been able to overcome the lure of noise/distortion of an untreated driver, by balancing a treated driver to it with gain. The treated driver always sounded recessed and impossible to locate as a source, at least until ridiculous levels were attained and then it was noise and distortion I was hearing.
I have stopped trying to place a row of dots on the main cone, under a whizzer cone, at or near the voice coil. I will apply them to a whizzer, but the tap test will tell me if a row is needed at the base of the inside of the whizzer cone or not. Has been 50/50 so far.
The whizzers seem to be sized so that the first main cone resonance node is visually directly under their edge. I assume this is deliberate. I treat this one and place one out at the outer edge and then go tapping to find anything in between. Seems to work just fine.
Bud
I have stopped trying to place a row of dots on the main cone, under a whizzer cone, at or near the voice coil. I will apply them to a whizzer, but the tap test will tell me if a row is needed at the base of the inside of the whizzer cone or not. Has been 50/50 so far.
The whizzers seem to be sized so that the first main cone resonance node is visually directly under their edge. I assume this is deliberate. I treat this one and place one out at the outer edge and then go tapping to find anything in between. Seems to work just fine.
Bud
Armadillos come in pairs
It's fairly easy for me to get a pair going. But it's a long way up the food chain to doing actual Fostex. I have to control the pen nib a lot better than I do between bouts of rheumatoid arthritis. I am not ancient but that stuff has kicked in for me. Some days I can handle tools well.
Budp what did you mean where it says 'I have stopped putting dots on the main cone?' I am now confused.
For the Roland I see the job as a pattern at the outer cone edge of the cone, a pattern at the null point I found and maybe decorate the phase plug. The whizzer on these is stubby. I have put some puzzlecoat on it because it got creased.
It's fairly easy for me to get a pair going. But it's a long way up the food chain to doing actual Fostex. I have to control the pen nib a lot better than I do between bouts of rheumatoid arthritis. I am not ancient but that stuff has kicked in for me. Some days I can handle tools well.
Budp what did you mean where it says 'I have stopped putting dots on the main cone?' I am now confused.
For the Roland I see the job as a pattern at the outer cone edge of the cone, a pattern at the null point I found and maybe decorate the phase plug. The whizzer on these is stubby. I have put some puzzlecoat on it because it got creased.
Sorry. Just that I used to put a ring of dots on all cones, right at the voice coil join with the cone, if available, or at the join between dust cap and cone. I no longer do this by rote. For the whizzer cone drivers, I tap test the main cone, under the whizzer, down towards the voice coil, and if I do not find a resonance node in that area under the whizzer, on the main cone, I do not automatically put a ring down in there.
Bud
Today I hooked up a couple of my early experiments in applying the pattern.
I say experiments because before printing the pattern jpg I was winging it.
From the discussion above, I think I have heard the two EnABLed 4 inchers come into balance. This rather than trying to compare a treated driver to a plain. It was pretty obvious that the untreated driver overshadowed the treated one completely from these rough listening tests. This has to do with the noise cancellation properties of the pattern.
I have not seen this discussed much in general theory or listening tests-- say in the Quarter wave Martin King forum or TL website. Dave may have explored this at TL but I haven't seen it.
I say experiments because before printing the pattern jpg I was winging it.
From the discussion above, I think I have heard the two EnABLed 4 inchers come into balance. This rather than trying to compare a treated driver to a plain. It was pretty obvious that the untreated driver overshadowed the treated one completely from these rough listening tests. This has to do with the noise cancellation properties of the pattern.
I have not seen this discussed much in general theory or listening tests-- say in the Quarter wave Martin King forum or TL website. Dave may have explored this at TL but I haven't seen it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.