sser2; do my eyes (or subconscious bias) deceive me, or is there a difference between the vertical scales of the two graphs you posted in #13 above that might unintentionally misrepresent the differences between the drivers?
One of the first things I learned when starting to play around with my very amateur REW measurements in preparation for creating and importing PEQ filter text files into my miniDSP boxes was how much the vertical scaling and smoothing could change what you see, and the targets you task for correction. How much those differences might impact or relate to what the burnt out hearing of a 70+ year old perceives is a totally different subject.
One of the first things I learned when starting to play around with my very amateur REW measurements in preparation for creating and importing PEQ filter text files into my miniDSP boxes was how much the vertical scaling and smoothing could change what you see, and the targets you task for correction. How much those differences might impact or relate to what the burnt out hearing of a 70+ year old perceives is a totally different subject.
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/mid_dist.htm
There would be a way to test resolution I think............
There would be a way to test resolution I think............
At least very subtle, T/S measures were well within the statistical range, and given that the numbers cannot be compared day-to-day (with weather changes) they are not directly comparable. But they do change. If i match pairs stock, vrs after treatment, the pairs are not the same so some drivers got closer or further awayfrom their previous match which shows they change.
Typical FR measurements, those that measure the "smoothness" of the surface and the changes EnABL make aremostly at greater depths. An exception (metal cone Markaudio)is that the subtle changes of mass at the geometric join point of the curves that make up the cone and the coatnof gloss reduce — at least somewhat — the HF ringing.
I do have some measures that show some differences but they are bvery oprn to interpretation.
dave
Arthur Jackson. I also agree that it's not worth putting any value on described audio impressions. But the same applies to measurements, to some extent. What I can't understand, however, is that you refuse to test the EnABL yourself while simultaneously demanding other measurements. Test and measure yourself. If no difference is measurable, that would be interesting. You put a lot of effort into your aluminum coatings. So why not try the small effort with EnABL yourself? Regards.
Thanks for your effort, sincerely.
This is the first sign where "snake-oil alarm" should turn on, loudly. How it is possible all subjective improvements explained by the science to be measurable (i.e. to be able to change speakers characteristics), but all "subjective improvements" explicitly declared by science as impossible (science theory can predict outcome in advance of measurements!) always is impossible to measure!?
My opinion: EnABL is pure snake oil of the highest grade, which is obvious when you would read the original patent application. The "inventor" claims the same positive effect on sound can be obtained by painting dots on the loudspeaker enclosure!!!
Important additional explanation: A far as I know, member planet10 was treating speaker cones with two-step process. The first step was treating the whole cone with uniform application of some liquid, the second step was treating the cone with those silly EnABL dots. The first step will make measurable and audible changes, the second step will not.
Hello Sonce, so have you ever heard of EnABL yourself? Or do you simply not need to try every single thing?
Have I ever heard EnABL-ed loudspeaker? No.
Yes, that is true - I really don't need to try to drink toilet sewer to know if it tastes good. The same for EnABL.
Have you ever tried to EnABL your loudspeaker's enclosure (not the cone itself!), as per inventor's patent claim? If yes, is micro-dynamic better?
Thats silly, data is data. If there are differences they should be easily identified in data and repeatable. Just post the data rather than claiming you have it.
"Open to interpretation" tells me the differences are within margin of error, not really there at all, or the person running the measurements didn't know how to do them right or is presenting them in a misleading way.
Seems silly that a speaker modification like this doesnt have data to back it up.
Interesting way of profiting off said "snake oil" - Provide templates and instructions for free, and making himself available to troubleshoot for free. Somebody alert the authorities! 🙂
Funny how people get upset. I can't imagine EnLAB on the housing either. I can on the membrane, especially if it's made of paper. But what about metal? A test costs about $1 and a bit of time. I'm refinishing my Rubanoid with titanium and aluminum foil, which will take time. I'll test the sample, at least in three months. So, after a lot of listening. Regards
Well, unsmoothing speaker cones into zones is ancient art. The classic Japanese P-610 fullrange (exponential-shaped) layered down paper rings to achieve graduated diaphram thickness and rib-effect. Monitor Audio RST (resonance suppression technology IIRC) AlMg cones were covered with dimples/craters of graduated size. Etc. The EnABL dots have mass and can be felt "raised" with a finger (I presume). So they ought to change the sound -- like adding hundreds of dimple marks or glue nodules. The challenge would be to identify audible differences in a way that could lead to measurement -- by sensitive instrument or expert listener under controlled conditions. Unfortunately I misplaced the EnABLE kit I purchased years ago so never did one. I did apply dave's MicroScale coating tweak to AlMg cones -- it reduced background resonance noise very substantially. Possibly, very high frequency signal/noise (S/N ratio being very poor) both got filtered for a net gain in perceived sound quality. Phenomenon like this has been ancient art; for example transformer-coupled signal wire.
edit: please someone 3Dprint EnABL stamps.
edit: please someone 3Dprint EnABL stamps.
Last edited:
Not imposible we just haven’t figured out to measure everything.
Once you actually listen to to as set of properly EnABLed drivers any mdissing is meaningless.
Boxes, i’m not convinced, but i have not heard a decent demo of that.
dave
It is, but interpretation of that data isadifferen thing:
The spikier one is untreated: http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/garyP-test/
Have fun:
Gary Pimm
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/garyP-test/
John Krevosky
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/johnK-test/
@mige
IR: initial graoh is stock:
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/IR/AC/
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/IR/AD/
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/IR/BC/
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/IR/BD/
spectra:
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/spectro/AC/
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/spectro/AD/
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/spectro/BC/
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/spectro/BD/
spectra:
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/waterfall/AB/
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/waterfall/AC/
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/spectro/AD/
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/spectro/BC/
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/spectro/BD/
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/waterfall/CD/
spectra:
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/wavelet/AC/
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/wavelet/AD/
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/wavelet/BC/
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/bud/mige-test/wavelet/BD/
dave
My 30sec impression of esteemed JohnK waterfall: 12-14khz blue much smoother/cleaner than red. I did this comp using my one-eye 3D trick, toggling back and forth (on phone, enlarge pic, tap pic, refresh, tap pic, refresh, etc.). Two-eyed pic is a mess; one-eyed it becomes a 3D mountain slope.
BTW I have refined my theory of visual depth perception to encompass at least ten degrees including super-normal. This has obvious applications so....
p.s. are the other waterfalls EnABL vs control or two EnABL samples?
BTW I have refined my theory of visual depth perception to encompass at least ten degrees including super-normal. This has obvious applications so....
p.s. are the other waterfalls EnABL vs control or two EnABL samples?
Last edited:
You don't have to have anechoic chamber or Klippel machine - free ARTA or REW software and low-cost UMIK mic can do all the measurements you will ever need.
No need for suspicious interpretation - the only logical and indisputable way to compare is: untreated cone vs cone treated with EnABL dots only! Not untreated cone vs cone treated with WetLook/ModPodge plus EnABL dots!
If you treat the cone first with WetLook/ModPodge and after that with EnABL dots - how can you be sure which one brings the change/improvement? Is it WetLook or EnABL?
Please give us measurements of untreated cone vs cone treated with EnABL dots only!
According to the patent, principle of operation of EnABL is the same, no matter where it is used - on the box or on the cone. So, you have to be convinced about EnABL-ing boxes too. Otherwise, you shouldn't be convinced about EnABL-ing cones at all.
I really don't know how you can't see this logical fallacy in your praising of the benefits of EnABL-ing cones?
It does not need to be a logical fallacy. The physical parameters of loudspeaker cones and enclosures are quite different. I would think that bracing an enclosure has a similar function, changing the available vibrational modes and their damping. Dimples make a golf ball fly further, they might not do the same on an airplane. 🙂
In this case - it is.
But the patent claims EnABL dots work the same way, irrespective of the applied surface - EnABL transcendent the difference between physical parameters of loudspeaker cones and enclosures! You should read the patent application - more fun than the best comedy movie!
Not similar function at all - bracing is fully described by the science and it is easy to measure. Proponents of EnABL tell us benefits can not be measured!?
Golf ball rotate from 2,000 to 10,000 RPM while it fly - that is why dimples work. If Boing 747 airplane with all 400 passengers in it rotate with the same speed, maybe dimples on its wings may do the same trick? 🙂
As you know the speaker cone vibrates up to 20,000 "CPS" as hundreds of large beads (up to 1/10 relative to wavelength) grab a "load" of air. Who can say what might happen at the scale of very high frequency sound.