terry j said:
I've been struggling with that for a couple weeks now.
The only price that is settled is the FE126/127. A fully treated driver (tripodal pattern, EnABL (+ the pre & post coats), basket stiffening, and pair matching) will take a pair of drivers up to $225 CAD. The whizzer cone drivers with phase plugs are more work, and i'm struggling with a balance of what it costs & what it is worth.
Having heard what EnABL does, the more expensive drivers may give more of other things but they will not give you that huge increase in downward dynamic range that EnABL gives. And once you have been bitten, you find it very hard to go back.
I predict a treated 206 or 207 will creme a 206eSR or 208e∑
beta units are starting to go out, and between them & the tests i can conduct locally we will know how valid that prediction is.
I will have an opportunity to compare Fonkens (or Frugel-horns) to FE206eSR & FE166eSR directly sometime soon when it can be arranged.
dave
terry j,
Well, it sure is not cheap to purchase treated drivers. PM Planet 10 and I for the scary truth.
I am pretty much pricing myself out of the Fostex and Hemp market place. That is Dave's specialty. However, if anyone wants to turn their Lowthers into nirvana machines, I can help.
Really, you are money ahead to become proficient in this. There are a ton of drivers in the world that really do need this kind of help, so no reason why you couldn't set up shop, make an agreement with me and provide a service to all sorts of folks with theater thunder systems and other somewhat more promising items. Just refurbishing old two and three way shelf speakers, from the 70's through 90's, could take 50 lifetimes.
And really, multi way systems, that are treated carefully and are maybe 85 to 90 dB efficient, sound just wonderful. But they do not take less time to treat than a FR driver, more in fact.
Bud
Well, it sure is not cheap to purchase treated drivers. PM Planet 10 and I for the scary truth.
I am pretty much pricing myself out of the Fostex and Hemp market place. That is Dave's specialty. However, if anyone wants to turn their Lowthers into nirvana machines, I can help.
Really, you are money ahead to become proficient in this. There are a ton of drivers in the world that really do need this kind of help, so no reason why you couldn't set up shop, make an agreement with me and provide a service to all sorts of folks with theater thunder systems and other somewhat more promising items. Just refurbishing old two and three way shelf speakers, from the 70's through 90's, could take 50 lifetimes.
And really, multi way systems, that are treated carefully and are maybe 85 to 90 dB efficient, sound just wonderful. But they do not take less time to treat than a FR driver, more in fact.
Bud
planet10 said:
Ahh, so it wasn't a stupid question and I didn't offend anyone..good.Just had a look at your site and have seen the updates, if you are off and running with it the we can at least conclude you like what you hear!!
I couldn't quickly find the answer, but regarding your last statement how much is an untreated 206eSR? Is it still more than the treated 206? If it is, you will have to extend the treatment to ALL drivers else the demand for the expensive one might dry up
BudP said:
Thanks Bud, but the hi fi market over here is pretty small, I have enough trouble just trying to get people to audition the deqx!!
I'm NOT saying this process is woo woo but maybe people would take to a 'strange tweak' more readily than trying good audio engineering like the deqx, so maybe there is a good business opportunity ha ha.
But being the lazy bloke I am, it would HAVE to be automated!
Must have a rumble and see what drivers I have laying around to try this on, it would take a bit before I started on my $900 bass drivers for example!
BudP said:
Hi Bud,
When you say continue the horizontal pattern around the entire perifery, do you mean up and over the triangular shape as shown in the attached photo, or staying horizontal and connecting front and back patterns? Or, could you mean running parallel to the pattern that has been applied around the front side of the tweerer baffle surface, but on the chamfer side?
What about the edges of the mid baffles as shown in yellow?
Thanks!
Dan
Terry, et al - please note the following is (mostly) in jest:
Forgive me, but it does sound like you're sounding the "woo-woo" alarm
So, just because it's not "traditional", EnABL fails to meet the criteria of "good audio engineering" in addressing a well recognized phenomena acoustically at the source, while deqx and other EQ/room methods attempt to correct for both room and system deficiencies, thereby allowing (among other things) sloppy system design / matching? "Don't worry about the FR/ phase shifts, the black box'll fix that"
but, don't we need to suffer for our art?
Someone needs to bite the bullet and get a quote for production small run of drivers with blocks molded/sprayed onto the cones.
It's not particularly difficult to get OEM makers to supply custom spec'd drivers from their stock parts bins, or even add minor engineering "tweaks", but I'd imagine the engineering/tool set-up charges for something as different as the EnABL blocks would make the hand labor for small batch runs seem cheap by comparison.
And don't forget the appeal of individual handcraftmanship vs cookie-cutter stampings
At $900 for a bass driver, shouldn't problems such as Bud's tweak remedies, have already been solved?
terry j said:
Forgive me, but it does sound like you're sounding the "woo-woo" alarm
So, just because it's not "traditional", EnABL fails to meet the criteria of "good audio engineering" in addressing a well recognized phenomena acoustically at the source, while deqx and other EQ/room methods attempt to correct for both room and system deficiencies, thereby allowing (among other things) sloppy system design / matching? "Don't worry about the FR/ phase shifts, the black box'll fix that"
but, don't we need to suffer for our art?
Someone needs to bite the bullet and get a quote for production small run of drivers with blocks molded/sprayed onto the cones.
It's not particularly difficult to get OEM makers to supply custom spec'd drivers from their stock parts bins, or even add minor engineering "tweaks", but I'd imagine the engineering/tool set-up charges for something as different as the EnABL blocks would make the hand labor for small batch runs seem cheap by comparison.
And don't forget the appeal of individual handcraftmanship vs cookie-cutter stampings
At $900 for a bass driver, shouldn't problems such as Bud's tweak remedies, have already been solved?
Scottmoose said:
Don't you dare treat the 208eS before you get a chance to compare them to treated FE206.207 & FE167
The feedback is important.
Here is a pic of our mule FE108eS, as i asked Bud the same question before starting this one.
Also notethe extreme basket shaping/damping (4-5 months in process that one)
dave
Attachments
terry j said:
Once you hear what is there after you remove the viel of the "hall-of-mirrors" there is no going back.
untreated 206eSRs were $440 pair but are sold out. The treated FE206eN will be in the same ball-park, but will do things that the eSR just can't (my educated guess only at this point)
EnABL addresses a very well know issue (at least if you talk to any knowledgable speaker designers -- the reflections caused by the change in impedance at the surround and voice coil/dustcap. That it makes such a dramatic difference is what is stunning. The removal of something we have all grown used to living with all our lives is also a bit shocking and can take a bit to get used to.
I speculate that part of the appeal of otherwise cheap-*** vintage drivers with a surround that is just a pressed accordian in the edge of the cone, is that because these have a minimum impedance change at the surround, they suffer much less hall-of-mirrors distortion than a driver with a more robust surround.
dave
Attachments
I should also mention this line of thot re machine vrs manual pattern application.
The EnABL pattern "throws off" the surface wave in a manner that is de-correllated from the main signal. By its very nature a manual applied pattern is somewhat random & caotic in the details (i relized this after looking at the close-ups of Bud's DX4 -- i was wondering when i'd get really good at applying the pattern, but saw that Bud's pattern spots had the same kinds of deviations as mine (and he has 34 years more practise). I wonder if a very regular machine applied pattern might suffer from being too regular.
We could well find out soon if the "virus" that Bud sicced onto the manufacturers bears fruit.
dave
The EnABL pattern "throws off" the surface wave in a manner that is de-correllated from the main signal. By its very nature a manual applied pattern is somewhat random & caotic in the details (i relized this after looking at the close-ups of Bud's DX4 -- i was wondering when i'd get really good at applying the pattern, but saw that Bud's pattern spots had the same kinds of deviations as mine (and he has 34 years more practise). I wonder if a very regular machine applied pattern might suffer from being too regular.
We could well find out soon if the "virus" that Bud sicced onto the manufacturers bears fruit.
dave
planet10 said:Don't you dare treat the 208eS before you get a chance to compare them to treated FE206.207 & FE167
The feedback is important.
Here is a pic of our mule FE108eS, as i asked Bud the same question before starting this one.
Also note the extreme basket shaping/damping (4-5 months in process that one)
Cheers Dave.
The 167s & 126s will be done first so I'll be able to let you know how things compare to unmodified Sigs. Be an interesting comaprison to Marc's EnABLed 207s too.
Terryj,
I resent your implication that this is not voodoo science. I have sacrificed many bottles of innocent paint, to ensure that the great MAMMON will look favorably upon my effort, to delude and mislead my fellow demons.
dlneubec,
I am not entirely sure of the geometry of your pyramidal portions, but think of the peripheral pattern as a sort of hat band, running around the beveled portions, just above where they go vertical. You can also place rectangular pattern rings on all four vertical surfaces. Doing all of this will eliminate mounting block errant ringing, after the signal has passed by.
Definitely treat the inside of the titanium dome. It will make a difference. The treatment is just like that for the outside iof a dome, including the tiny drop of PVA on the center paint dot, surrounded by six block sets in two rows.
Bud
I resent your implication that this is not voodoo science. I have sacrificed many bottles of innocent paint, to ensure that the great MAMMON will look favorably upon my effort, to delude and mislead my fellow demons.
dlneubec,
I am not entirely sure of the geometry of your pyramidal portions, but think of the peripheral pattern as a sort of hat band, running around the beveled portions, just above where they go vertical. You can also place rectangular pattern rings on all four vertical surfaces. Doing all of this will eliminate mounting block errant ringing, after the signal has passed by.
Definitely treat the inside of the titanium dome. It will make a difference. The treatment is just like that for the outside iof a dome, including the tiny drop of PVA on the center paint dot, surrounded by six block sets in two rows.
Bud
chrisb said:Forgive me, but it does sound like you're sounding the "woo-woo" alarm
Was not able to get two quotes in one reply?? maybe because they were on different pages?
Yeah, can never tell how you'll come across, but really didn't mean it that way. I most assuredly WAS however commenting on the sort of 'rubbish' you can see on hi-fi forums, "should I build my equipment rack out of expensive and hard to source Canadian rock maple because of it's sonic and musical qualities? After all, many good musical instruments utilise it's wonderful musical sound" etc etc. Sheesh, gimme a break will ya? Then often you can catch a gander at their setup (not talking equipment here) and yep, speakers crammed up against walls and one in the corner, no rugs on a bare floor, assymetric layout (all due to WAF??) and here they are talking about 'magical' acoustic resonators, or the different sonic attributes of carbon cones vs brass cones under their gear.
Now lets assume this has positive sonic benefits (I don't know, never heard it - but I'm here watching with interest and not outright dismissal). I think you'd be on a hiding to promote a 'scientific' angle, but push some sort of 'subjective unmeasurable' quality and then you might have a chance of arousing interest.
It's my cynical view of the high end hi-fi world coming to the fore I spose.
In fact, I could GUARANTEE you I could organise a group of around thirty people no sweat on our local hi fi forum to listen to 'specially treated drivers', yet there is/has been not the slightest interest in the deqx.
Again, I'm not labelling it woo woo as such, but I know woo woo DOES get peoples interest. Sad really.
chrisb said:So, just because it's not "traditional", EnABL fails to meet the criteria of "good audio engineering" in addressing a well recognized phenomena acoustically at the source, while deqx and other EQ/room methods attempt to correct for both room and system deficiencies, thereby allowing (among other things) sloppy system design / matching? "Don't worry about the FR/ phase shifts, the black box'll fix that"
Sure, but don't forget you are coming from it as a DIYer. It may not seem that way as a member here, but DIYers are in the minority. The deqx is also totally applicable to any mainstream offering....and don't some of them also violate the points you made?? ha ha.
Nonetheless, apply the deqx to a DIY job that IS correctly designed..!
chrisb said:but, don't we need to suffer for our art?
SNIP
At $900 for a bass driver, shouldn't problems such as Bud's tweak remedies, have already been solved?
Sure we do, but this bit of discussion was relating to commercial output such as Planet10. For DIY well, we can totally forget about the labour component and what it's worth, but if we did that commercially then we wouldn't be in business long.
Re the $900 driver (that's Aus dollars, not US) not needing it well I was kinda asking about that above, and Bud at least feels that all drivers could benefit, and indeed if the type of problems addressed are basic and endemic to the actual construction of drivers then it should be applicable to all regardless of price.
I must admit I'd still be nervous...
Maybe this question/view could be addressed. Often when I hear or read about some 'vast' improvement of some sort of tweak, I tend to dismiss or wonder about it, NOT because I'm a dyed in the wool nay-sayer, but because I usually question MY ability to hear it. I don't hear differences in cables, I doubt my ability to REALLY hear a difference if a rug were draped over the coffee table in front of me (not that I have one but get what I mean) or the TV screen between the speakers, ya know what I mean??
I really don't think I have bad hearing (it's quiet good actually) but I shake my head at some of that sort of stuff and say 'I could never hear that'.
So, from your experience, is it likely an uneducated yet interested ear would pick the difference? Or is it the sole preserve of the 'golden eared' reviewer with his $30 000 interconnects blah blah blah with his liquid mids and chocolate bass?
I do gather it's kind of subtle and one that possibly does not grab you in the switch TO it, but after familiarization grabs you in the switch FROM it.
Of course the answer is for me to get out and do it, time prevents that for a while but (hopefully at least) these sort of question may serve a purpose to any future readers of this thread (and I'm curious ha ha ha)
terry j
Hmmmph, if you think you're worried read, between theses two posts, this thread.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1275431#post1275431
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1275590#post1275590
Can you imagine my dismay,in finding that no current testing regimen, except CSD, shows any "improvement"? Jon's reaction to the treated drivers is typical. Jon's measurements of the drivers are also typical.
Only soongsc has found a clue, to a small part of what is going on. See here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1227789#post1227789
And then here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1231568#post1231568
There are many who have called his test rigor into question and he has pointed out, in subsequent posts, how, why and what he did to insure commonality.
If you can think of an objective test that would uncover more information please pass it along, we really are starved here, not even THD with all categories of odd and even distortion broken out, show anything that could not also be attributable to differing air pressure during the tests.
And yet here is a very recent comment by Lynn Olson, from an A/B comparison of speakers, using amplifiers he has no personal interest in.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1326088#post1326088
So, I do think this is foolishness, but you really have to look around the DIY site, 'cause, if this worries you, I have some real live snakes in my shirt pocket and I could let you play with them........ no really, we named them Electron Pools.
Bud
Hmmmph, if you think you're worried read, between theses two posts, this thread.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1275431#post1275431
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1275590#post1275590
Can you imagine my dismay,in finding that no current testing regimen, except CSD, shows any "improvement"? Jon's reaction to the treated drivers is typical. Jon's measurements of the drivers are also typical.
Only soongsc has found a clue, to a small part of what is going on. See here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1227789#post1227789
And then here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1231568#post1231568
There are many who have called his test rigor into question and he has pointed out, in subsequent posts, how, why and what he did to insure commonality.
If you can think of an objective test that would uncover more information please pass it along, we really are starved here, not even THD with all categories of odd and even distortion broken out, show anything that could not also be attributable to differing air pressure during the tests.
And yet here is a very recent comment by Lynn Olson, from an A/B comparison of speakers, using amplifiers he has no personal interest in.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1326088#post1326088
So, I do think this is foolishness, but you really have to look around the DIY site, 'cause, if this worries you, I have some real live snakes in my shirt pocket and I could let you play with them........ no really, we named them Electron Pools.
Bud
...can't decide
terry j said:
Yes. You can change where the pages break in your contreol panel (ie number of posts/pg)
My biggest problem with the deqx is that the software only runs on a 3rd rate POC
If i'm spending 3k for a dedicated computer i want the software to run on my Mac under OS X.You talk to a speaker design and inevitably the problem of the impedance change at the surround comes up... how do you minimize that and still get all the other features you want out of the surround. EnABL makes that moot. Very little gets to the surround to reflect, and anything that does has to go back thru the "fence"
Yes. It is easy to hear. What is much harder is to shake that brain filter that has gotten used to the hall-of-mirrors being there. It can be quite startling and hard to adjust to it disappearing.
Yes. Start with any speaker you have kicking around. Bud has been very helpful outlining things in this thread, and in that spirit i will also be detailing what i'm doing to drivers. Enuff diyers (and just end users) are going to be more than willing to pay me to put the spots on (and all the other associated mods) that i should keep plenty busy. I'm up over 30 drivers and am just getting comfortable enuff to start calling some of them production units instead of R&D units (read that as "getting up to speed) units). If you start with a poly or metal cone you can "erase: the pattern if you screw up or decide you need more practise.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.