Exactly what was done. I had nothing to do with these tests, drivers were EnABLed byn Bud.
ModPodge is an extra step i take with paper cones. Metal cones only getb EnABL.
dave
No-one really knows how it works. The technique has also evolvbed since the patent.
dave
I was comparing physics of dimples applied to airplane and a golf ball. Your example is something very different.
As for the cone vibrating at 20,000 cps etc, it is no wonder who can say what might happen - it is audio/acoustic science, which answered that question already. It is in the books.
The inventor claims he knows how it "works" - it is described in the patent.
I can't see any evolution - EnABL dots are the same as in the patent.
Last edited:
There are 21 measurements. Which measurements are for the metal cone only (untreated vs treated)?
Link to the original source will be appreciated.
’
But the patent author has said afterwards heis still only guessing (educated).
’
As in the patent:
EnABL v2
I wanted pictures of metal cones… note that the rings are right at the surround and dustcap on Gen1. Fixed in place on any driver. Gen2 uses a tap test on the cone to find ideal ring placement.
Out of interest, on the Markaduio, it turns out the updated ringsets fall at the same point on the cone as the transition of the cone profile moves from 1 radius to the next. One uses a tap test to figure out where. Listen to the cone as you tap it, where you hear a change in tone place a rignset there.
I have also used the tap test to find the unique pattern that quells some ringing in FFxx5wk metal dustcaps.
The extra ring at the surround helps with a surround/con termination issue, as does the ZIG on the back.
dave
So - he was lying in the patent. As expected...
Still can't see any difference - dots are the same.
Last edited:
It is a patent … who cares, it is like 3 decades since that was granted. Much has been learned since then.
And Bud has freely shared his technique and has been very helpful.
dave
And Bud has freely shared his technique and has been very helpful.
dave
We are not going anywhere with this... OK, lets go on something more productive. I will repeat my request:
Please?
Last edited:
You’d have to ask Bud or those that did the tests. Even if they were paper cones, Bud did nthing more than EnABL.
dave
Can someone explain to me what is EnABL??
From searching this website & some of Dave's links, I gather it is the use of rings of magic dots on speaker cones. This will certainly change the breakup behaviour of the cone the sound. But I'm not sure Daves's 'waterfalls' are evidence of 'improved' sound.
From searching this website & some of Dave's links, I gather it is the use of rings of magic dots on speaker cones. This will certainly change the breakup behaviour of the cone the sound. But I'm not sure Daves's 'waterfalls' are evidence of 'improved' sound.
If you add mass, something will change for sure.
Its possible we hear changes long before we can measure them.
However, its hard to predict if the change is possitive. If the speaker maker made cone very light on purpose as to obtain certain acceleration, adding mass may cure some breakups, but on the other hand remove some speed. Too much mass and fullrange becomes woofer.
Its possible we hear changes long before we can measure them.
However, its hard to predict if the change is possitive. If the speaker maker made cone very light on purpose as to obtain certain acceleration, adding mass may cure some breakups, but on the other hand remove some speed. Too much mass and fullrange becomes woofer.
I'm not sure the controlled use of cone breakup for high frequency output, pioneered by Ted Jordan, is "in the books" in the sense of a diy-accessible textbook (or even fully published). Exemplified by his JX92S (which I have) flat amplitude and phase truly "fullrange", used and tested by Jim Griffin RIP.
View (preferably in 3D) the second link among the "data" with blue and red (once tapped) waterfalls, source JohnK. Of course not knowing the test signal and conditions one has to make guesses while trying to interpret the data.
The original thread had to be slipt into 2 to keep the bickering down
3 postsbstarting here describe the technique (posts bby Bud Purvine coopied from another forum):
Preceding post has a bunchof examples,
And the later introduction of the “tap test” to find out where to best place the ringsets. This is whatbmakes EnABL 1 different than EnABL2.
dave
EnABL is pure snake oil, applied to speaker cones (and enclosures!) as dots. Those dots are drawn by fine tip acrylic marker.
It will not change anything, because mass and surface area of the painted dots are insignificant compared to the cone mass and area, and especially to the mass of the enclosure. For example, MAOP 7 has 3.9 g mass, Alpair 10 P has 5.2 g mass, Pluvia 11 has 11.4 g mass.
Confirmed by measurements are improvements done by applying ModPodge or WetLook in large continuous rings (or large stripes), or across of the whole cone area, in 3 layers - that mass and effect of changing cone resonance behavior is far greater than those silly dots.
Last edited:
According to the Rules of DiyAudio it is allowed to criticize something in every possible thread.
So, what do you think about this part of the EnABL patent:
Magic EnABL dots (marked with 69 on 8B) on the loudspeaker enclosure - do they have any impact on the sound? According to the EnABL inventor - yes. And according to you?