He published his theories in "Loudspeakers - Ted Jordan" Focal Press 1962. Also several Wireless World articles about that time. They are certainly worth reading, especially for his view of the necessity of cone 'breakup'. But his maths, especially for bass design was seriously wonky. His ideas on stereo sorta live on in modern "sound bars".
I investigated many of his ideas, working for a large speaker maker in da previous Millenium including SCanned Laser Plots & FEA/BEA. You don't need a hyperbolic flare to get the cone 'breakup' behaviour he and I like.
The designs I've listened & measured, including the Jordan Watts module and the Audio & Design Titanium Cone Loudspeaker weren't impressive. Even worse was his 50mm module which, IIRC, used a straight sided aluminium cone.
I haven't heard his Eikona unit (the last he did before he passed on) in present Jordan products which, I think, reverts to a 4" hyperbolic Aluminium cone.
Last edited:
Having had a look at the patent, it mostly mentions "discontinuities" and "patterns". Since we are talking about wave propagation it is implied that the discontinuity has to be relevant to the propagation mechanism, creating scattering centres. For the waves on a loudspeaker cone, embossing or placing a dot of paint might be sufficient. Drawing on the cone with a felt tip pen probably is not. For some effect to take place in an enclosure wall, I would think something else is needed, e.g. a cavity (not such a good idea in a loudspeaker enclosure) or an embedded higher density material of the right shape. As a homework one could of course run the full FEM simulations to see what happens, how much mass is needed, and what is the magic behind the pattern.
From the patent is is obvious that higher density material is not important, but only the specific pattern of painted dots! 🙄
Wombling by this day after an enjoyable stint in cardiology, so my sole post here. Speaking as somebody with zero horse in this non-race / competition, a couple of observations that come to mind:
On the subject of patents [and again speaking generally] it's worth keeping in mind that they're not obliged to 'work' as descibed, or proposed [thank goodness, since I can point to examples for faster-than-light communications through unknown dimensions]. They just have to be original. Many aren't even that -they just got through because the examiner didn't do their job properly, have any knowledge of the field, or both.
A good example: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ef/3b/8b/91cfa120a70f05/US9247339.pdf -the reasoning being, per claim 1,
Earlier in the document, it even references the mass of an open E double bass string. Of course, last I checked, pressing the string at a certain point along its length to the fret not only reduces its effective resonating length, but also its effective resonating mass, which instantly explodes any & all such cobblers about matching Mms [irrelevant too since the air load varies with local climatic conditions] to the ephemeral vibrating mass of some unspecified instrument.
As for wideband drive units, they're not all created the same way, so there are variations in terms of progressive [or otherwise] decoupling of parts of the main cone and / or transitions to additional sub-surfaces e.g. direct-bonded central caps, additional bonded sub-cones etc., so the actual functional / resonating mass of the moving components at a given frequency is unlikely [especially above the notional piston corner and certainly the VC point-source corners] to be equal to the total Mmd relevant to LF measurements at / around Fs / F0. This goes right back to Altec's decoupled biflex designs & earlier [later for that matter] less specifically decoupled types also. So ignoring EnABL itself [since different approaches exist, it's difficult to pigeon-hole it anyway] & simply speaking in general, localised changes to the mass / damping / rigidity of the substrate are likely to have some effect, especially if the starting substrate mass at & around that point is already small. It won't necessarily be large -in most cases it won't be, but the laws of physics mean that there will be something.
Speaking generally, that doesn't mean anybody is obliged to blindly accept everything that is written in a patent in total [or part]. Dave is an example of one who simply took elements of this particular idea and adapted from there.
On the subject of patents [and again speaking generally] it's worth keeping in mind that they're not obliged to 'work' as descibed, or proposed [thank goodness, since I can point to examples for faster-than-light communications through unknown dimensions]. They just have to be original. Many aren't even that -they just got through because the examiner didn't do their job properly, have any knowledge of the field, or both.
A good example: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ef/3b/8b/91cfa120a70f05/US9247339.pdf -the reasoning being, per claim 1,
Earlier in the document, it even references the mass of an open E double bass string. Of course, last I checked, pressing the string at a certain point along its length to the fret not only reduces its effective resonating length, but also its effective resonating mass, which instantly explodes any & all such cobblers about matching Mms [irrelevant too since the air load varies with local climatic conditions] to the ephemeral vibrating mass of some unspecified instrument.
As for wideband drive units, they're not all created the same way, so there are variations in terms of progressive [or otherwise] decoupling of parts of the main cone and / or transitions to additional sub-surfaces e.g. direct-bonded central caps, additional bonded sub-cones etc., so the actual functional / resonating mass of the moving components at a given frequency is unlikely [especially above the notional piston corner and certainly the VC point-source corners] to be equal to the total Mmd relevant to LF measurements at / around Fs / F0. This goes right back to Altec's decoupled biflex designs & earlier [later for that matter] less specifically decoupled types also. So ignoring EnABL itself [since different approaches exist, it's difficult to pigeon-hole it anyway] & simply speaking in general, localised changes to the mass / damping / rigidity of the substrate are likely to have some effect, especially if the starting substrate mass at & around that point is already small. It won't necessarily be large -in most cases it won't be, but the laws of physics mean that there will be something.
Last edited:
as someone who has been to those rodeos too - some much less pleasant than others -- I hope that your cardiac ride was successful in any event. if not actually enjoyable. remaining vertical is good. mostly. ;-)
best wishes, eh.
best wishes, eh.
I have given that some thot … easier to CNC a pit than preserve a bump thru finishing.
dave
Last edited:
Dave, what are your thoughts about EnABL'ing a subwoofer? Any possible benefit?
The reason I ask is, I'm going to purchase a Caldera 10 sub (when they come back in stock) and the designer, Viet aka XKA, already heavily doped the paper driver. When dealing with such low frequencies, can the process help?
The reason I ask is, I'm going to purchase a Caldera 10 sub (when they come back in stock) and the designer, Viet aka XKA, already heavily doped the paper driver. When dealing with such low frequencies, can the process help?
Last edited:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Budget subwoofers are notoriously 1 note. I was wondering if EnABL be able to improve them to 1.25 notes. 🙂
Right. And Mr Repackaged-19th-Century-RL-Filters while we're at it. 😉
How in the name of fornicating gibbons he ever got a patent for that too will go down as one of life's minor mysteries.
How in the name of fornicating gibbons he ever got a patent for that too will go down as one of life's minor mysteries.
I know that (I have 6 patents on my own). Claims/techniques in the patent may be totally bogus - it is on to user to decide if he want to employ them (if they look logical to him), or to discard them (if they are silly - as in the case of EnABL). But I really can't understand why anyone would expect that those claims/techniques will work, if they don't have any science/logical ground - as in the case of EnABL. You see, the working principle of EnABL is that several slightly raised painted dots over cone surface somehow disperse/eliminate the "standing waves and boundary layer effects"!? I repeat: the height and shape of the dots and their pattern is crucial for this "technique"! How several microns of dot height could eliminate "standing waves and boundary layer effects" is a total mystery and is against all known science evidences.
Coating cones with layers of diluted PVA, or varnish, ModPodge or WetLook are old, known techniques for possible improving of drivers, but those coats are applied to cones in a substantial area, in the shape of wide rings (especially close to the surround) or stripes, or over the whole cone area. But this known coatings techniques do not work on the height of the coating (as in EnABL), but rather on the doping paper cones, changing their mechanical properties.
On the other hand, EnABL "works" on the magical properties of height and the specific pattern of dots:
"Patterns
The basic design divides the circumference of the circle of interest into 36 10 degree segments. Alternating half of these, which then reside on a ,separate diameter circle, with a specific distance between the two diameter rings of blocks. Each 10 degree block is divided into two, 4 degree painted sections, with a two degree space between them..."
Dave (planet10) is blindly following the patent, as evident from pictures of his drivers with EnABL dots on them. But, I will give Dave fully deserved credit for searching the best places of the cone for applying the paint by "tapping cone technique".
So by definition, Dave isn't [wasn't, since he doesn't do it any more and hasn't for several years due to health & finances], in fact, 'blindly following the patent' since realistically speaking only the basic pattern is shared. He hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, repeated many of the claims made in the patent, he changed & adapted the location of the block rings [and often added more] to positions where the substrate apparently went into excess resonance, and incorporated extensive other modifications. Not exactly the definition of 'blindly following'. More the exact opposite.
Yes, I've read that patent. I did when it first came out. Personally I think the physics stated is flat wrong. Does that mean [as I've said several times] there are no potential effects from it -albeit through other, perfectly normal mechanical mechanisms? Of course not, for the reasons I've already given. End of. Obviously, 'you' [i.e. anybody] can complain about the theories in the patent until the cows come home, but it's a waste of time since nobody's really paid any attention to that for years -as illustrated by the changes in application, and is something of an unintentional strawman for that reason.
Yes, I've read that patent. I did when it first came out. Personally I think the physics stated is flat wrong. Does that mean [as I've said several times] there are no potential effects from it -albeit through other, perfectly normal mechanical mechanisms? Of course not, for the reasons I've already given. End of. Obviously, 'you' [i.e. anybody] can complain about the theories in the patent until the cows come home, but it's a waste of time since nobody's really paid any attention to that for years -as illustrated by the changes in application, and is something of an unintentional strawman for that reason.
Some EnABL pporn.
Native Douglas Fir, originally installed on the floor of Bernie’s house 80+ years ago. Originally for Alpair 12m, but kids… same volme as needed for the EL70, Cernie installed dark maple insets, and extra vent spacers to tune lower. Driver spots were chosen to complement the fir. I added the ring on the Bezel justb in case, it is the easiest ringset to apply. When they came back i told Bernie that they werencreaming out (cosmetically) for a ringlet. He shaped 72/speaker little fir blocks in just the right place.
One of my personal pairs.
dave
Native Douglas Fir, originally installed on the floor of Bernie’s house 80+ years ago. Originally for Alpair 12m, but kids… same volme as needed for the EL70, Cernie installed dark maple insets, and extra vent spacers to tune lower. Driver spots were chosen to complement the fir. I added the ring on the Bezel justb in case, it is the easiest ringset to apply. When they came back i told Bernie that they werencreaming out (cosmetically) for a ringlet. He shaped 72/speaker little fir blocks in just the right place.
One of my personal pairs.
dave
I already gave Dave credit for his effort to find the position of cone resonances - that is not in dispute. But he continues (continued) to use EnABL dots instead of proven shapes (and bigger areas!) - full, wide rings or radial stripes of the same "paint". That is definition of "blindly following". Area and mass of the paint applied in conventional wide rings/stripes on the cone will always be a magnitude or two bigger than those dots, so the success of killing the cone resonance will be also be a magnitude or two bigger. Increasing the number of EnABL dots can not change that much.
Thank you!
That perfectly normal mechanical mechanism is known from before - applied coating change the cone mechanical resonances. Why would anyone want to use smaller area and mass of the coating (e.g. EnABL dots) when that leads to a smaller effect and benefit?
EnABL dots on the enclosure!? I think this qualifies as "blind following":
Last edited:
Sonce,
Dave mentioned that it was done for "cosmetic" reasons. 🙂
Looks nice along with the patterned cone.
Dave mentioned that it was done for "cosmetic" reasons. 🙂
Looks nice along with the patterned cone.
Okay, so you're saying that 'blind following' is a synonym for using a basic pattern, even though it's being done for different purposes, and in different ways? I can't honestly say that sounds like 'blind following' to me, since that normally implies total acceptance of everything, without question or variation, which clearly isn't the case here. And you seem to be complaining about that pattern because you think something else might work better. And perhaps it would, depending on details, circumstances etc. But so what? The world isn't obliged to adopt any of our preferences.
Yes. But that is assuming it's actually wanted / required.
...which is working on an assumption that the only functional mechanism is localised mass-damping and ignores other effects on the resonant profile of the substrate at that point. No offense, but this argument is also as generic as the speculation in the EnABL patent itself -just in the opposite direction, since the 'success of killing the cone resonance' actually depends on the degree of that resonance and how much you want to adjust it. From a practical POV also, when making permanent mechanical modifications, it's usually better to start with, or simply use, less rather than an excess. Otherwise, to take it to a silly extreme, we'd all be nailing sheet lead to the cone. 😉
Which mechanism in particular? There is localised mass-damping, there are changes to resonant profiles of the substrate from the distributed stiffening & adjusting of the bending rates also. You seem to be focused on the first, but I've already covered that above: you may not require more [more not necessarily always being 'better' or beneficial, especially in these cases], you may not actually care to make further additions, and you may prefer the looks. Nothing wrong with that.
Dave said it was done purely for aesthetic reasons:
Last edited:
No.
He said it will not stick/scream out visually/cosmetically much, which is quite different:
Also, he applied EnABL dotst on the speaker frame/flange, which doesn't have any impact on cone resonances. He added them "just in case":
But there is no case at all..
Last edited: