Interesting. If I had to speculate, it would be that the paint spots increase wave propagation rates in/on a cellulose matrix medium, but decrease wave propagation rates when they are applied to metal. I suppose all that matters is that there be a significant delta.
Cheers,
Frank
Well, we know that patterns applied out in the "breakup" zone of a cone driver cause the phase to return to nominal, with the outer most pattern controlling the highest frequencies and then advance the phase to a plus position with respect to 1kHz as a ridiculous number of them are applied.
We know that there are cyclical repeats of signals within the first 4ms after the original signal and we know that some sort of "fence" develops on vibrating membranes to force lateral compression energy into a rotating torus. Some torii are full diaphragm and some are very small, isolated "nuggets" of rotation.
We know that CSD waterfall plots show a sharpening of all frequency response peaks and a removal of some resonance nodes entirely, while leaving others untouched. Of course, we don't know the underlying cause for any of this last group of changes and can only draw suspect conclusions about the rest. Regardless, the process continues to perform.
We know that there are cyclical repeats of signals within the first 4ms after the original signal and we know that some sort of "fence" develops on vibrating membranes to force lateral compression energy into a rotating torus. Some torii are full diaphragm and some are very small, isolated "nuggets" of rotation.
We know that CSD waterfall plots show a sharpening of all frequency response peaks and a removal of some resonance nodes entirely, while leaving others untouched. Of course, we don't know the underlying cause for any of this last group of changes and can only draw suspect conclusions about the rest. Regardless, the process continues to perform.
Hey dlr!
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100399-enabl-processes-26.html#post1227789 multiple rings phase vs frequency response
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/119677-enabl-technical-discussion-88.html#post2350234 choose wavelet AC and roll your mouse over the pic. Starts with treated driver.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY6z2hLgYuY turn up the volume watch the torus movement
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100399-enabl-processes-26.html#post1227789 multiple rings phase vs frequency response
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/119677-enabl-technical-discussion-88.html#post2350234 choose wavelet AC and roll your mouse over the pic. Starts with treated driver.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY6z2hLgYuY turn up the volume watch the torus movement
Got it. Makes more sense too, considering the pic of the system. Just out of curiosity, how did you get those ruler pictures to do that?
First, I can't believe that you're still trying to rely on the discredited information from that old thread. Second, There's nothing in the video related to specifics of breakup in a driver nor what changes with added mass and damping such as enable. You have no way to demonstrate it. A link to that video proves nothing. Interesting on its own, but that's all.
We mere mortals required something such as laser interferometry to identify breakup as well, so the comments related to phase are pretty much meaningless.
Sorry, I find it incredulous that you still are attempting to pass this off in this manner. But I"m sure that gullible people will accept that.
For those interested in the real science of drivers and vibration, I recommend this link as one example of what real research into driver radiation as a start.
Laser-based acousto-optic mapping: Next-generation design tool for loudspeaker designers
Then there are those who truly understand what is occurring in a driver's cone such as B&W. Their video is actually instructive and not based on wild conjecture. Their director of research does a nice job explaining it.
B&W on Kevlar diaphragms
Then there is the National Physical Laboratory at the UK showing their use of laser interferometry for sound propagation study.
For those interested in more of the real science, here's a good PhD dissertation.
But you manage to determine specifics of the physics with a few discredited SPL measurements and a youtube video. I'm in awe.
Dave
You have no right, nor proof to back up your notion, that any of this information is in any way discredited. Work done by people as good at their jobs or better than you are. However, thank you for the additional links. I await the unfolding of Cymatics.
Hi,
Leave it. You have no hope of talking any sort of sense
in the sea of nonsense that this forum seems happy
to dedicate to one persons utterly nonsensical ego.
In many worlds the pedlar of false elixirs is driven out
of town, by those who know, if they care, despite the
the gullibility of those that don't know. But nonsense
about speakers is not nonsense about medicine.
Nobody dies, please leave BudP to his own small world.
Anyone a fan of EnABL please realise your in a very small
deluded minority, however much you agree with each other.
And sadly this thread is a very poor reference for effective
modification of cheaper drivers, much to DLR's frustration
I very much suspect, who knows lots more than most.
I'd suggest a driver modification thread where any and
all reference to EnABL (which is nonsense) is banned.
The technical EnABL thread has ripped it to bits tens
of times over. We need a decent driver mod thread.
Perhaps similar to EnABL in that technical and subjective
needs to be split, but EnABL must be banned in both.
If that sounds harsh, why does this nonsense thread exist ?
It would have never lived unless split into subjective.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
Hi Sreten
Because a lot of people have enjoyed the results. There may be others that will would like to as well. You are fully entitled to think its nuts and ignore it. I think it sounds far fetched, but I get great sound using my own hands and that's what I came to this site to get. cheers
Because a lot of people have enjoyed the results. There may be others that will would like to as well. You are fully entitled to think its nuts and ignore it. I think it sounds far fetched, but I get great sound using my own hands and that's what I came to this site to get. cheers
Hi,
A thread that ignores all objective evidence is never
going to suggest to you the best way to proceed.
Take it or leave it, the reality is your being conned.
The best results are always based on objectivity.
You and everyone else could do much better with a
thoroughly objective approach to modifying drivers.*
rgds, sreten.
* I realise the very sad split of EnABL is simply due to this fact
and its simply still very true, but more sadly the technical thread
could not maintain sensible modifications against the onslaught
of EnABL nonsense from the rabid subjective thread.
In a similar vein the EnABL thread split was caused by BudP's
ability to spout phenomenally copious quantities of pure BS.
Last edited:
nah
It's not that the information is "discredited"; rather, that the "information" you so readily hijacked with bizarre and unsubstantiated interpretations was never "credited" in any way shape or form as having anything to do, relationship to, or correlation with the perceived improvements stated for the process of tweaking speaker cones with what amounts to bird droppings.
John L
It's not that the information is "discredited"; rather, that the "information" you so readily hijacked with bizarre and unsubstantiated interpretations was never "credited" in any way shape or form as having anything to do, relationship to, or correlation with the perceived improvements stated for the process of tweaking speaker cones with what amounts to bird droppings.
John L
Well, let's see John. I do hope you are healthier?
The first bit of evidence to my mind is the movie made a few years back. Just shows what it shows. Large and heavy grains of Lipomic powder, (compared to the weight of an equivalent volume of ordinary living room air, pick your humidity). These grains show very clear patterns of activity while being abused. A flow across the vibrational surface being the result of this activity.
Second are George Soon's tests. He and I did write before he made some of his data public. Discussion of how far away from the EnaBL pattern could he get and still be using the basic specific patten set I patented so long ago. He was a college professor at the time, with an acoustics lab at his disposal. Before he adopted the EnABL patterns he had obtained a useful amount of information using random dabs of tooth paste across the metal cone he had chosen to use. His adoption of Enabl pattern in steps, adding rings from inner diameter to outer diameter brought him the information he needed to later, by a year or two, produing his own line of commercial speakers, using the information he obtained from the evolution of his thoughts and work. The graphs show what they show, you don't need to interpret them.
The third, from Michael Gerstgriner. He contacted me and asked if I would treat a pair of commercially available high wattage, high impedance drivers from Selenium. Those four are the drivers he used for the wavelet analysis of untouched and EnABL'd drivers. I do admit to pointing out that there is a distinct difference in what we see. John K and I disagree about which would be better to listen to. There is no obvious "better" in the test data, so, interpretations will be made. I have made mine.
The first bit of evidence to my mind is the movie made a few years back. Just shows what it shows. Large and heavy grains of Lipomic powder, (compared to the weight of an equivalent volume of ordinary living room air, pick your humidity). These grains show very clear patterns of activity while being abused. A flow across the vibrational surface being the result of this activity.
Second are George Soon's tests. He and I did write before he made some of his data public. Discussion of how far away from the EnaBL pattern could he get and still be using the basic specific patten set I patented so long ago. He was a college professor at the time, with an acoustics lab at his disposal. Before he adopted the EnABL patterns he had obtained a useful amount of information using random dabs of tooth paste across the metal cone he had chosen to use. His adoption of Enabl pattern in steps, adding rings from inner diameter to outer diameter brought him the information he needed to later, by a year or two, produing his own line of commercial speakers, using the information he obtained from the evolution of his thoughts and work. The graphs show what they show, you don't need to interpret them.
The third, from Michael Gerstgriner. He contacted me and asked if I would treat a pair of commercially available high wattage, high impedance drivers from Selenium. Those four are the drivers he used for the wavelet analysis of untouched and EnABL'd drivers. I do admit to pointing out that there is a distinct difference in what we see. John K and I disagree about which would be better to listen to. There is no obvious "better" in the test data, so, interpretations will be made. I have made mine.
Bud, I hope you have not forgotten about me? No rush. Just tell me that you have not forgotten and then all is good.
No I haven't forgotten. Tomorrow during the day I should have time to construct the document. I have been on vacation, with no internet devices....and I didn't care.
Hope your vacation was good. Please, like I said - no hurry and take your time. I just needed to know that the document would eventually come my way.
Here is the data sheet....or paper dolly sheet..... The pics are of ring placement on drivers. The dolly rings need to be cut out. The very thin rings actually sit above the ring sets you need to apply. This is easier than it sounds. You do not have to be perfect in applying these dots. Ask questions as you become confused.
I wouldn't argue, but the idea of this thread was, in my understanding, to allow crazy speculation while discussing the application techniques. In some cases, being able to apply the pattern may rely on understanding the theory behind applying the dots, however crazy that idea may be. Whether real or not, that theory is a part of the "techniques" involved, so it seems absolutely relevant here. And since this wasn't the "science" thread, there's no need to "justify" the theory presented.
I'd much rather see the discussion regarding theory in the "science" thread (it was, to say the least, an amusing read), but unfortunately, that thread has died. Maybe because there's no common ground on how to even discuss EnABL (and maybe because there's no defensible scientific theory behind it, or none that has yet been elucidated). But in the end that discussion is for the other thread. Period.
I'm neither a believer nor a skeptic. I haven't even tried it yet despite my buying one of ed's early kits. It just fell too low on the priority list with my kids growing up!