Re: This is way off-topic
I have my own understandings, which is OT here. So I'll leave it for another time and place.dlr said:
dlr,
Actually, according to Berenek and Corrington, speaker drivers are not actually pistons over the bulk of their emitted frequencies. They have a decaying ability to act as pistons at all frequencies but one. This entire EnABL process is based upon that small section of "Acoustics" (page 197 to 201) where Beranek worries about misleading everyone by providing simple piston theories for speaker diaphragm behavior. Lincoln Walsh is the other impetus for the patterns.
Back when I could read quadrature I attempted to familiarize myself with Walsh's theories of bending wave emissions being wholly responsible for the compression wave being formed adjacent to an emitter surface. This set of patterns originally were intended to properly terminate a bending wave driver, not an ersatz piston driver. That they do terminate drivers that are aimed at being pistons, rather than bending wave drivers, shows me that Walsh is correct and Beranek was correct in his short sector on non piston behavior of driver diaphragm's.
This does not mean I think the piston model is useless, it obviously isn't. A great deal of the sonic problems created by drivers from 50 years ago have been solved. You have shown me that piston based tests can show small differences in frequency response of EnABL'd drivers. Hopefully SY will show us more evidence of piston based test procedures, discovering other evidence of changes, caused by EnABL. But to date, what tests have been performed, show other, non piston based phenomena, occurring too.
I did post the area and thickness of patterns that cause the changes EnABL brings. So far, no on has commented on how that small a mass might control so large a piston to the extent that observers claim.
If you are going to find creditable evidence that EnABL either does not work at all and is a Hoax, as some have proclaimed. Or works only very slightly, well less than a change brought about by humidity, to a piston based test suite's results. Or begin to actually investigate what an increasing number of people on this forum are commenting on, using what tools you have and then also discover what scale of change the comments are based upon. You really are going to have to also familiarize yourself with Walsh and a tiny portion of Baranek, and begin to look at how to actually characterize a driver that has had it's non pistonic behavior controlled.
I was wondering if CSD analysis on low level signals might not be worthwhile. I was also wondering if the presentation angle can be changed, to allow leading edge portrayal. Then I was wondering if it is possible to take sampled note, just one, perhaps from a piano, with all overtones intact, and compare that in an expanded CSD format to a drivers compression wave emission. I am looking for a way to gather and present data on information content, in a modified CSD format. Looking at the CSD plot as a vector analysis of wide band signals, at a very low level, well within a speakers linear region of behavior. Do you know of any work like this, does anyone reading this know of any?
Incidentally, EnABL does the same things and to the same extent on all drivers. Not just, preferentially, full range single drivers. Until this thread, I had NEVER treated a full range driver. My activities had been, with the exception of an Ohm F pair, on speaker systems, with woofers, mids, tweeters, closed boxes and crossovers. These drivers, in these situations responded to the same degree as the later full range drivers have, neither more nor less "improvement" in information portrayal and coherence, in a broad frequency band signal, like hall echo's and orchestral pressure peaks. Nor is there less "improvement" in internal resonances in individual instruments, even those within an orchestral setting.
Thanks for participating and continuing to present the piston theory expectations. Your rigor will help to drive this investigation. I am not looking to supplant piston based theory and testing, I am attempting to add an additional tool for correcting activities that are not piston based, but do add and subtract from the compression wave that piston based test suites do measure. Hopefully we end up with a useful synthesis.
Bud
Actually, according to Berenek and Corrington, speaker drivers are not actually pistons over the bulk of their emitted frequencies. They have a decaying ability to act as pistons at all frequencies but one. This entire EnABL process is based upon that small section of "Acoustics" (page 197 to 201) where Beranek worries about misleading everyone by providing simple piston theories for speaker diaphragm behavior. Lincoln Walsh is the other impetus for the patterns.
Back when I could read quadrature I attempted to familiarize myself with Walsh's theories of bending wave emissions being wholly responsible for the compression wave being formed adjacent to an emitter surface. This set of patterns originally were intended to properly terminate a bending wave driver, not an ersatz piston driver. That they do terminate drivers that are aimed at being pistons, rather than bending wave drivers, shows me that Walsh is correct and Beranek was correct in his short sector on non piston behavior of driver diaphragm's.
This does not mean I think the piston model is useless, it obviously isn't. A great deal of the sonic problems created by drivers from 50 years ago have been solved. You have shown me that piston based tests can show small differences in frequency response of EnABL'd drivers. Hopefully SY will show us more evidence of piston based test procedures, discovering other evidence of changes, caused by EnABL. But to date, what tests have been performed, show other, non piston based phenomena, occurring too.
I did post the area and thickness of patterns that cause the changes EnABL brings. So far, no on has commented on how that small a mass might control so large a piston to the extent that observers claim.
If you are going to find creditable evidence that EnABL either does not work at all and is a Hoax, as some have proclaimed. Or works only very slightly, well less than a change brought about by humidity, to a piston based test suite's results. Or begin to actually investigate what an increasing number of people on this forum are commenting on, using what tools you have and then also discover what scale of change the comments are based upon. You really are going to have to also familiarize yourself with Walsh and a tiny portion of Baranek, and begin to look at how to actually characterize a driver that has had it's non pistonic behavior controlled.
I was wondering if CSD analysis on low level signals might not be worthwhile. I was also wondering if the presentation angle can be changed, to allow leading edge portrayal. Then I was wondering if it is possible to take sampled note, just one, perhaps from a piano, with all overtones intact, and compare that in an expanded CSD format to a drivers compression wave emission. I am looking for a way to gather and present data on information content, in a modified CSD format. Looking at the CSD plot as a vector analysis of wide band signals, at a very low level, well within a speakers linear region of behavior. Do you know of any work like this, does anyone reading this know of any?
Incidentally, EnABL does the same things and to the same extent on all drivers. Not just, preferentially, full range single drivers. Until this thread, I had NEVER treated a full range driver. My activities had been, with the exception of an Ohm F pair, on speaker systems, with woofers, mids, tweeters, closed boxes and crossovers. These drivers, in these situations responded to the same degree as the later full range drivers have, neither more nor less "improvement" in information portrayal and coherence, in a broad frequency band signal, like hall echo's and orchestral pressure peaks. Nor is there less "improvement" in internal resonances in individual instruments, even those within an orchestral setting.
Thanks for participating and continuing to present the piston theory expectations. Your rigor will help to drive this investigation. I am not looking to supplant piston based theory and testing, I am attempting to add an additional tool for correcting activities that are not piston based, but do add and subtract from the compression wave that piston based test suites do measure. Hopefully we end up with a useful synthesis.
Bud
BudP said:
I'm not completely familiar with some of the earlier works. That was 50 years ago. I would refer you to Martin Colloms "High Performance Loudspeakers", Fourth Edition, 1991, page 186. "The theory which concerns controlled smooth transitions from one vibrational mode to another is especially relevant in the case of mid range diaphragms, since they generally operate in piston mode in the lower range and in controlled breakup in the upper band...". This is in the section on cones. He does list Beranek in the Bibliography at the end of the chapter. I suspect that other references would refer to most cones as pistonic or reasonably so within their primary operating range. Material science has come a long way.
I am not familiar with bending wave drivers, no experience here. Do you have any measurements to show the changes made in the bending wave driver's frequency response?
"Piston" drivers do still have breakup (non-pistonic) modes, yes. That's usually where surround termination issues arise and the drivers are amenable to damping treatments.
I would only say that the claims have been primarily perceptions, not empirical data. Control of large pistons is at this point still a bit of conjecture. Changes, yes. Control, unconfirmed other than by testimony based on perception.
The exceptional benefit of current measurement systems is that for this issue, knowledge of the details suggested is not a requirement to providing valid, empirical test data. Familiarization is not necessary. I have not seen the evidence to support the claim of non-pistonic behavior being controlled. I have seen evidence of resonances that have been reduced while in one case having a deviation from a flat frequency range introduced. On balance it conforms to reactions that occur with mass/damping changes. I certainly don't contest the claim that changes occur.
There won't be a way to create a CSD as you would like using a music signal, though presentation angles can be changed in much of the software available. A CSD is simply the decay that exists in a driver output when the signal is suddenly removed. The CSD is generated from an impulse response by successive FFTs with the start marker moved forward in time incrementally. The display of the full CSD can indeed mask some of the decay troughs that might be of interest in analyzing a driver. I have CSD plots at my site (can't recall which pages off-hand) that I interrupted during the generation that show this situation. Running the software on an old, slow PC has its benefits at times.
Excuse me if I find this part of the claims to yet be without basis of support. No direct evidence exists to support it. All drivers may show changes, but I cannot believe that all undergo it to the same extent. This requires more than perception-based opinion. It requires empirical evidence.
I'll follow the thread to see what develops. My interest is in seeing some objective, empirical data, whatever it shows. I hope it will be thorough, including a range of off-axis measurements, with a good analysis of the results with whatever limitations there may have been in test environment and measurement tools.
Dave
dlr,
I agree. Materials science has opened the pistonic bandpass for all modern drivers.
I would like to push my synthesis thought a bit. EnABL is only intended to work on that energy that does not exit the drivers emitter surface as a perfect piston transform, from driver to adjacent compression wave. Arguably there is some portion of this activity at all frequencies, except for that perfect piston point.
In reality, this argument is not nonsense, though the audible and measurable effects on the pistonic band, will not be abrupt. The "effective" pistonic band is much wider than it was 50 years ago, but the "break up" does have an onset slope. That onset is just the energy that is not emitted coherently, as frequencies go up or down within the pistonic pass band. These are the energies that EnABL terminates, without mass damping, as would be required of the pistonic activity.
Since a listen is all the evidence I have for this, let me point to what this would mean, in a treated driver, as opposed to an untreated driver.
The basic tonal activities should remain identical. A sinusoidal tone, applied within either drivers pistonic band should not differ. As we either raise the frequency of the sinusoidal wave or add energy on the leading edge and trailing edge and deform the sine wave, the two drivers will begin to diverge. The untreated driver will begin to "break up" audibly, and this might happen somewhat before it is easily measurable. The EnABL'd driver will not audibly "break up", even well past the point that this character should be measurable. Again, this will alter in amount as the extremes of the pistonic band are approached.
The EnABL'd driver will also eventually "break up".It's "character" while doing so will be more...... graceful, than that of the untreated driver. And, the breakup event will be over sooner and with less after effects.
In less extreme situations, with complex signals occurring, the sinusoidal performance of both will be identical. When we begin to add information that modifies these sine tones, with non sinusoidal entries or exits, the untreated cone will be less able to portray these non sine events. Not by a lot, but noticeably.
So, from a synthesis point of view, EnABL keeps the energy that escapes from the pistonic transform, from exiting the emitter in a non coherent fashion, with respect to that pistonic energy.
EnABL does not correct poor pistonic activity. A lousy speaker still sounds lousy, but it is a very precise and orderly lousy.
The added "low level definition" is not EnABL creating things, that the pistonic portion doesn't create. Rather, it causes the portions that get out of control, on an untreated driver and affect the intelligibility, to remain coherent to the portions of the signal that are not out of control, with the driver acting as a piston.
Based on this sort of synthesis approach, what do you suggest as tests and how would differences of this sort be found? Please accept that these are the differences that the "believers" are finding, audibly. Once exposed to this sort of "cleanliness" the infected are loath to return to untreated drivers. Not because those drivers sound bad, they don't, but because they sound confused.
Bud
I agree. Materials science has opened the pistonic bandpass for all modern drivers.
I would like to push my synthesis thought a bit. EnABL is only intended to work on that energy that does not exit the drivers emitter surface as a perfect piston transform, from driver to adjacent compression wave. Arguably there is some portion of this activity at all frequencies, except for that perfect piston point.
In reality, this argument is not nonsense, though the audible and measurable effects on the pistonic band, will not be abrupt. The "effective" pistonic band is much wider than it was 50 years ago, but the "break up" does have an onset slope. That onset is just the energy that is not emitted coherently, as frequencies go up or down within the pistonic pass band. These are the energies that EnABL terminates, without mass damping, as would be required of the pistonic activity.
Since a listen is all the evidence I have for this, let me point to what this would mean, in a treated driver, as opposed to an untreated driver.
The basic tonal activities should remain identical. A sinusoidal tone, applied within either drivers pistonic band should not differ. As we either raise the frequency of the sinusoidal wave or add energy on the leading edge and trailing edge and deform the sine wave, the two drivers will begin to diverge. The untreated driver will begin to "break up" audibly, and this might happen somewhat before it is easily measurable. The EnABL'd driver will not audibly "break up", even well past the point that this character should be measurable. Again, this will alter in amount as the extremes of the pistonic band are approached.
The EnABL'd driver will also eventually "break up".It's "character" while doing so will be more...... graceful, than that of the untreated driver. And, the breakup event will be over sooner and with less after effects.
In less extreme situations, with complex signals occurring, the sinusoidal performance of both will be identical. When we begin to add information that modifies these sine tones, with non sinusoidal entries or exits, the untreated cone will be less able to portray these non sine events. Not by a lot, but noticeably.
So, from a synthesis point of view, EnABL keeps the energy that escapes from the pistonic transform, from exiting the emitter in a non coherent fashion, with respect to that pistonic energy.
EnABL does not correct poor pistonic activity. A lousy speaker still sounds lousy, but it is a very precise and orderly lousy.
The added "low level definition" is not EnABL creating things, that the pistonic portion doesn't create. Rather, it causes the portions that get out of control, on an untreated driver and affect the intelligibility, to remain coherent to the portions of the signal that are not out of control, with the driver acting as a piston.
Based on this sort of synthesis approach, what do you suggest as tests and how would differences of this sort be found? Please accept that these are the differences that the "believers" are finding, audibly. Once exposed to this sort of "cleanliness" the infected are loath to return to untreated drivers. Not because those drivers sound bad, they don't, but because they sound confused.
Bud
Oh computers !
Bud replied while I wrote my post and then mine was deleted when I sent it - what a waste of time ! Had my text all sorted and have to start again, but have not time to do all.
Hi Dave,
You say we hypothesise and make conjecture - are such comments based upon an assumption related to the pistonic behaviour of air motion in front of a cone ?
Hi Bud,
How about going back to the 'old fashioned' live nulling of a test sine to observe low level distortion components.
Set up a microphone, but subtract the original (delayed) sine to reveal lower level artifacts.
Once set up, then switch the continuous sine to single or burst mode in order to observe the products of dynamically energised characteristics due to cone shape/size/surface/terminations etc.
The results may be visualised using conventional bench test gear and should reveal more of EnABL's behaviour once the masking effects of the high level fundamentals have been nulled.
Cheers ........... Graham.
Bud replied while I wrote my post and then mine was deleted when I sent it - what a waste of time ! Had my text all sorted and have to start again, but have not time to do all.
Hi Dave,
You say we hypothesise and make conjecture - are such comments based upon an assumption related to the pistonic behaviour of air motion in front of a cone ?
Hi Bud,
How about going back to the 'old fashioned' live nulling of a test sine to observe low level distortion components.
Set up a microphone, but subtract the original (delayed) sine to reveal lower level artifacts.
Once set up, then switch the continuous sine to single or burst mode in order to observe the products of dynamically energised characteristics due to cone shape/size/surface/terminations etc.
The results may be visualised using conventional bench test gear and should reveal more of EnABL's behaviour once the masking effects of the high level fundamentals have been nulled.
Cheers ........... Graham.
Had run out of time above.
When back to check for any responses I see my brief question to Dave looks bad, and the Forum software prevents me from correcting it !
This had been three paragraphs on my original lost post, which was still in my mind, so what I ought to have written as way of summary was;-
We know we hypothesise and make conjecture - so are your rebuttals based upon an 'assumption' relating to the pistonic behaviour of air motion in front of a cone ?
Cheers ........... Graham.
When back to check for any responses I see my brief question to Dave looks bad, and the Forum software prevents me from correcting it !
This had been three paragraphs on my original lost post, which was still in my mind, so what I ought to have written as way of summary was;-
We know we hypothesise and make conjecture - so are your rebuttals based upon an 'assumption' relating to the pistonic behaviour of air motion in front of a cone ?
Cheers ........... Graham.
measuring EnABL
Wouldn't the diaphragm of the measuring microphone have to be EnABL'd itself to prevent masking of the "low level artifacts" being removed from the signal and DUT being studied?
Come to think of it, as Bud seems to points out above that the process applies to everything , shouldn't EVERY surface that has a discontinuity with which the studied device/signal comes in contact with (including ones ears), the instruments used to produce the signal, etc. be treated to prevent confounding the results with artifacts not related to the DUT?
John L.
Wouldn't the diaphragm of the measuring microphone have to be EnABL'd itself to prevent masking of the "low level artifacts" being removed from the signal and DUT being studied?
Come to think of it, as Bud seems to points out above that the process applies to everything , shouldn't EVERY surface that has a discontinuity with which the studied device/signal comes in contact with (including ones ears), the instruments used to produce the signal, etc. be treated to prevent confounding the results with artifacts not related to the DUT?
John L.
Re: measuring EnABL
Things that are common between live listening and listening through an andio playback system need not be consider.😀 Hope your ears are still there.auplater said:
Re: measuring EnABL
Some peoples ears are mare difficult to get to than others.auplater said:
BudP said:
We need to look a bit more closely at just what is being addressed by any damping attempts.
Energy that isn't damped by the surround and is reflected back to the former attachment point is what creates the concentric standing waves. The radial resonances are another issue altogether and are unlikely to be affected by damping at or near the perimeter. The magnitude peak of the concentric standing waves are directly related to the distance between former and surround interface points. That's why these resonances are seen as a fundamental breakup resonance with harmonics of it. If the cone/surround can damp well enough, these will almost disappear. Highly damped PP and doped paper cones can often nearly fully damp them, at least within the intended passband. A good example is the (very) old Seas 6.5" drivers, no longer in production.
The radial resonances that EnABL will not likely affect at all are those based on flexing of the cone in way similar to the bending that would occur if you grabbed a cone and twisted it to fold it in two. these are radial resonances. EnABL can't do much of anything due to the fact that these resonances are not due to insufficient damping, they are due to flexure of the diaphragm, a rigidity issue. Internal damping and full coatings may reduce them, but EnABL in all likelihood will not, just as the well-known damping seen at the cone/surround joint has little damping for this type.
Agreed, most resonances are not abrupt and have a characteristic bandpass nature. This is due to the phase issue related to the former/surround distance. Hard diaphragms usually have much higher Q while softer cones have the converse.
Oh captain, my captain
Perchance we don't see what is happening to the forest because of all the trees?
All this consideration for wideband may be too much clutter...how about using a narrow band input and look for artifacts OUTSIDE the band?
Perchance we don't see what is happening to the forest because of all the trees?
All this consideration for wideband may be too much clutter...how about using a narrow band input and look for artifacts OUTSIDE the band?
Bud,
I think I see what you're driving at.
When the bending wave is extinguished, so also, is the acoustic emission caused by it.
There are two parts to this tale: The acoustic part and the psychoacoustic part.
Acoustic part
See here:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-09172001-144121/unrestricted/Blanc_MsThesis.pdf
This thesis is not long as these things go. I can't say I read it very carefully and what he is mainly concerned to do is not something we can do (exactly) with a speaker diaphragm. But it is concerned with controlling acoustic emissions from surfaces caused by bending waves. And he has to cover the waterfront before he can get on with what he wants to do.
If I understand correctly, A bending wave driver has to give the bending wave a "soft landing" when it gets to the base of the cone thus extinguishing its accompanying acoustic emission (longitudinal wave).
A piston driver has a requirement that bending waves either are never created in the diaphragm, or are, in some fashion, extremely diminished in their effect - If I understand reality, the former is not possible, so it's the latter strategy we have to take.
A conventional speaker diaphragm is like a drum membrane and bending waves cause it to radiate modally.
Drum modes do not radiate as whole integer multiples of the fundamental frequency.
See here:
http://www.kobushi.com/acoustics/index.html
and here, "Basic physics of the ideal circular membrane"
http://www.tabla.com/tablaph1.html
I suspect, with many speakers, modal emission formation gets established long before they actually get to what's called break up or controlled break up stage.
At modes bending waves cause the material surface to radiate both diaphragm resonances and elements of the original musical signal.
These elements may be out of phase with original pistonic emission, they may be quiet or loud, they may have directional characteristics different from the pistonic signal.
This gets us, in an incomplete, untidy, error-ridden, and speculative way to the
Psychoacoustic story
Soft sounds may be perceptually attached to previous louder sounds.
Two sounds close in frequency may be heard as a single sound.
Over given frequency bands, louder near by frequencies may mask quieter signals, or some of the harmonics of quieter signals.
Harmonics of LF notes may mask HF notes or their harmonics.
Masking effects may persist after masking stimulus has stopped.
Psychoacoustic effects mix.
If, generated by spurious modally radiated sound, enough of these psychoacoustic effects combine, then they may mask from our hearing some of the harmonics of a note, or mask the "air' (the low level non-harmonic sound characteristic of a given instrument), or mask the low level sounds of the venue, or mask the quieter parts of an ensemble.
I think it's simple minded to say it, but I will anyway, "if you can't hear it, you don't hear it".
(Masking effects are a big deal - hearing "masking" gets 295,000 Google hits, codecs "masking" gets 92,800, and audio "masking" gets 380,000).
Or, they may reinforce or "supplement" the harmonic structure of instruments and voices giving them spurious timbre. (I heard Luciano Pavarotti up close and he sounded fabulous and very loud, but I can tell you his voice did not have the incredible ring that some loudspeakers give it).
These spurious sounds, in psychoacoustic realm, serve to give a speaker a characteristic sound thus making us continually aware of its existence and location. A Bad Thing. Our need is to hear the music, not the speaker.
I think (am sure) phase differences also have a psychoacoustic effect and are in the masking mix but their effect might work inversely with respect to listening levels than other masking effects.
............................
With regard to enABL type processes, it may not take huge changes in measured diaphragm surface radiation, to make more than just noticeable differences in the psychoacoustic effect. If enough of the components in the masking mix are suppressed in most sensitive parts of our hearing, then perhaps just a few dBs diminishment may well make a large positive qualitative difference to listening experience.
I don't think any of this is mysterious or even subtle. We just have to keep our wits about us.
You talked about how some speakers have a sort of 'confused sound' - to be more exact, they generate 'pyschoacoustic confusion'.
I think I see what you're driving at.
When the bending wave is extinguished, so also, is the acoustic emission caused by it.
There are two parts to this tale: The acoustic part and the psychoacoustic part.
Acoustic part
See here:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-09172001-144121/unrestricted/Blanc_MsThesis.pdf
This thesis is not long as these things go. I can't say I read it very carefully and what he is mainly concerned to do is not something we can do (exactly) with a speaker diaphragm. But it is concerned with controlling acoustic emissions from surfaces caused by bending waves. And he has to cover the waterfront before he can get on with what he wants to do.
If I understand correctly, A bending wave driver has to give the bending wave a "soft landing" when it gets to the base of the cone thus extinguishing its accompanying acoustic emission (longitudinal wave).
A piston driver has a requirement that bending waves either are never created in the diaphragm, or are, in some fashion, extremely diminished in their effect - If I understand reality, the former is not possible, so it's the latter strategy we have to take.
A conventional speaker diaphragm is like a drum membrane and bending waves cause it to radiate modally.
Drum modes do not radiate as whole integer multiples of the fundamental frequency.
See here:
http://www.kobushi.com/acoustics/index.html
and here, "Basic physics of the ideal circular membrane"
http://www.tabla.com/tablaph1.html
I suspect, with many speakers, modal emission formation gets established long before they actually get to what's called break up or controlled break up stage.
At modes bending waves cause the material surface to radiate both diaphragm resonances and elements of the original musical signal.
These elements may be out of phase with original pistonic emission, they may be quiet or loud, they may have directional characteristics different from the pistonic signal.
This gets us, in an incomplete, untidy, error-ridden, and speculative way to the
Psychoacoustic story
Soft sounds may be perceptually attached to previous louder sounds.
Two sounds close in frequency may be heard as a single sound.
Over given frequency bands, louder near by frequencies may mask quieter signals, or some of the harmonics of quieter signals.
Harmonics of LF notes may mask HF notes or their harmonics.
Masking effects may persist after masking stimulus has stopped.
Psychoacoustic effects mix.
If, generated by spurious modally radiated sound, enough of these psychoacoustic effects combine, then they may mask from our hearing some of the harmonics of a note, or mask the "air' (the low level non-harmonic sound characteristic of a given instrument), or mask the low level sounds of the venue, or mask the quieter parts of an ensemble.
I think it's simple minded to say it, but I will anyway, "if you can't hear it, you don't hear it".
(Masking effects are a big deal - hearing "masking" gets 295,000 Google hits, codecs "masking" gets 92,800, and audio "masking" gets 380,000).
Or, they may reinforce or "supplement" the harmonic structure of instruments and voices giving them spurious timbre. (I heard Luciano Pavarotti up close and he sounded fabulous and very loud, but I can tell you his voice did not have the incredible ring that some loudspeakers give it).
These spurious sounds, in psychoacoustic realm, serve to give a speaker a characteristic sound thus making us continually aware of its existence and location. A Bad Thing. Our need is to hear the music, not the speaker.
I think (am sure) phase differences also have a psychoacoustic effect and are in the masking mix but their effect might work inversely with respect to listening levels than other masking effects.
............................
With regard to enABL type processes, it may not take huge changes in measured diaphragm surface radiation, to make more than just noticeable differences in the psychoacoustic effect. If enough of the components in the masking mix are suppressed in most sensitive parts of our hearing, then perhaps just a few dBs diminishment may well make a large positive qualitative difference to listening experience.
I don't think any of this is mysterious or even subtle. We just have to keep our wits about us.
You talked about how some speakers have a sort of 'confused sound' - to be more exact, they generate 'pyschoacoustic confusion'.
Re: Oh captain, my captain
And then there is the one about the woman who happens upon a man on his hands and knees under a lamppost outside a tunnel. What is he doing? Looking for his keys. Is that where he lost them? No, he lost them inside the tunnel. Why isn’t he looking there? It’s dark in there; it’s light under the lamppost
Ed LaFontaine said:
And then there is the one about the woman who happens upon a man on his hands and knees under a lamppost outside a tunnel. What is he doing? Looking for his keys. Is that where he lost them? No, he lost them inside the tunnel. Why isn’t he looking there? It’s dark in there; it’s light under the lamppost
FrankWW said:
Holy Sonic Euphoria, Batman! Progress!
Hold on there Robin, I see the Evil Wet Blanket coming...
t
FrankWW,
Thank you. Your reasoned comments are extremely helpful and links to investigations are amazing. How do you find these things? Boolean search engines and I are mortal enemies apparently... they just cannot seem to understand what I want....
dlr,
I agree that EnABL does not affect gross cone deformations. It was never intended to. Frank actually makes far more sense than I do, in his description of what I have always been after, with EnABL.
What do you think we would find if we implemented Graham's suggestions, from his post # 1665?
Again thank you for your input. It appears we are getting around to a set of tests, however difficult to do, that may offer us some actual data. Perhaps, if I can approach Dan Wiggins with a test plan and expected steps, with branching choices, he will take pity on me and help with an appropriate anechoic chamber, as he had originally offered to do.
I am not sure which changes in FR in Soonsgsc's data, you were referring to. Is this the data you brought forward, or the phase/frequency plots I referred to as having shown evidence of non pistonic influences, since they directly challenge the Hilbert transform and are not possible in a wholly pistonic model. I will point out that they are occurring well out of the pistonic band of the Jordon driver and that the Hilbert transform may not apply in this special case.
Ed,
Could you revisit Mongo's shack and ask him to elaborate? I like the idea so far, but do not see to the end of it that Mongo has in mind. Perhaps you can even ask to see the tunnel he habitually seeks to avoid...
Bud
Thank you. Your reasoned comments are extremely helpful and links to investigations are amazing. How do you find these things? Boolean search engines and I are mortal enemies apparently... they just cannot seem to understand what I want....
dlr,
I agree that EnABL does not affect gross cone deformations. It was never intended to. Frank actually makes far more sense than I do, in his description of what I have always been after, with EnABL.
What do you think we would find if we implemented Graham's suggestions, from his post # 1665?
Again thank you for your input. It appears we are getting around to a set of tests, however difficult to do, that may offer us some actual data. Perhaps, if I can approach Dan Wiggins with a test plan and expected steps, with branching choices, he will take pity on me and help with an appropriate anechoic chamber, as he had originally offered to do.
I am not sure which changes in FR in Soonsgsc's data, you were referring to. Is this the data you brought forward, or the phase/frequency plots I referred to as having shown evidence of non pistonic influences, since they directly challenge the Hilbert transform and are not possible in a wholly pistonic model. I will point out that they are occurring well out of the pistonic band of the Jordon driver and that the Hilbert transform may not apply in this special case.
Ed,
Could you revisit Mongo's shack and ask him to elaborate? I like the idea so far, but do not see to the end of it that Mongo has in mind. Perhaps you can even ask to see the tunnel he habitually seeks to avoid...
Bud
t-head said:
Holy Sonic Euphoria, Batman! Progress!
Hold on there Robin, I see the Evil Wet Blanket coming...
t
Richard - step away from the felt markers ...........
I had no idea where to hang this one , so here ya go.
\
OK! i was capable of constructing the 3D actions of the enable effect.
Here it basically is: The considered wave is not in the cone or either travelling over the surface. Its what is termed a "skin effect" or a low boundary energy transferrence. The affected molecular structure of the cone is < 1/4 lambda. its more like blowing a compressed air over a surface. The surface is affected by absorbing a quantity of the energy. By scattering the energy close to the surface less is absorbed by the cone due to the reflections of a different medium (surround) and returned in an out of phase condition to the time lapse in the wave train or multiples of the dying wave (ringing). Any induced signal to an electromagnetic transducer in a single pulse will cause the cone to move in and out in a depreciatiing movement due to mechanical inertia and the "life" of the signal response.The signal is pulsed one time and the cone moves in an ever attenuating manner till the inital energy is lost in heat.
Enable works by dispersing the energy of the skin effect and allowing more of the natural depreciation of the mechanical actions to occur without affecting the energy points of the depreciation cone movement.
ron
\
OK! i was capable of constructing the 3D actions of the enable effect.
Here it basically is: The considered wave is not in the cone or either travelling over the surface. Its what is termed a "skin effect" or a low boundary energy transferrence. The affected molecular structure of the cone is < 1/4 lambda. its more like blowing a compressed air over a surface. The surface is affected by absorbing a quantity of the energy. By scattering the energy close to the surface less is absorbed by the cone due to the reflections of a different medium (surround) and returned in an out of phase condition to the time lapse in the wave train or multiples of the dying wave (ringing). Any induced signal to an electromagnetic transducer in a single pulse will cause the cone to move in and out in a depreciatiing movement due to mechanical inertia and the "life" of the signal response.The signal is pulsed one time and the cone moves in an ever attenuating manner till the inital energy is lost in heat.
Enable works by dispersing the energy of the skin effect and allowing more of the natural depreciation of the mechanical actions to occur without affecting the energy points of the depreciation cone movement.
ron
leo van doorn,
Back on January 2nd, in post #1213 you asked for a virtual pattern for a Beyma 8 driver. So, here on January 15 and post #1679 is your requested pattern.
Sorry it took so long, many Rubicons and faltering computer systems have been encountered, in the 14 days it took to rush this to you.
Bud
Back on January 2nd, in post #1213 you asked for a virtual pattern for a Beyma 8 driver. So, here on January 15 and post #1679 is your requested pattern.
Sorry it took so long, many Rubicons and faltering computer systems have been encountered, in the 14 days it took to rush this to you.
Bud
- Status
- Not open for further replies.