Ok! Soongsc
I assume that anything ,any treatment applied to the cone or other resonating material will produce changes in response . But I'm not listening to computer soundcart at home so If you could elaborate more on subjective sound changes (if any ??) of your treated drivers it would be more useful for layman like me than graphs. Did you listen to your treated drivers at all ?Regards
I assume that anything ,any treatment applied to the cone or other resonating material will produce changes in response . But I'm not listening to computer soundcart at home so If you could elaborate more on subjective sound changes (if any ??) of your treated drivers it would be more useful for layman like me than graphs. Did you listen to your treated drivers at all ?Regards
Unless someone has the exact drivers I usem and knows how it sounds, I don't even know how to describe changes that are useful. But once I do get the technical changes that make sense, the along with the listening differences it represents, then it will be more clear, but still will not be a universal solution.limono said:
I have known and met many people that claim the "ears" are the only thing that counts. I think the "ears" are just another instrument necessary in the development process. Not everyone knows what to listen for. For example, not everyone will agree there is a difference between absolute polarity of music. This is the reason for any special claims that I personnaly find possibly believable, I always try to understand what the real cause is, and not just guess around.
I personally have tried rings of different weight, location, shape, and width. But never patterned. Recently on a different driver that I worked with, I can tell you that there is a difference that can be heard using very small and light patterns, but it is not conclusive that this pattern makes the driver sound better. Purely from a structural modes point of view, my basic school knowledge tells me the pattern and it's weight, material properties, all have a major factor in getting to what works for each particular driver.
My participation in this thread right now is only to use what I have at hand to show whether this concept can be applied just by blind faith in the existing pattern and still show reasonalbe results. If I also see others that spend equal amount of effort and publish their results, then I will continue. If not, then I will just watch and see how things evolve. Who knows, it might turn into a popular "cable" type thread.
soongsc,
Actually I also think that any broken pattern will work to some degree or another. I have tried a large sampling of them, all on the same, 8 inch glued cones with corrugated paper surround and 10mm diameter voice coil, sound reinforcement speaker types.
I tried many different pattern shapes, many different spacings, all using the same paints, pens amps and signal sources. Not very scientific. I didn't care about scientific, I was just attempting to define some sort of boundaries to what worked in a way that pleased my sense of hearing and what caused an artifact that I did not like to hear, when the same music was played again and again.
I actually advised the guy who put the pattern on his turn table that I thought it was a waste of time. I have tried it, more than once, maybe there was an improvement maybe not, so I don't bother. I never tried the block pattern, with that close a spacing between rings though and for all I know that is the magic bullet, can't say.
I can say I would not use that pattern on a speaker however, the results would be congested and audibly confusing. I know this from having tried it, on one of the eight inch speakers.
I am actually just watching and waiting for what you come up with. It will not stop me from doing what I do, but it may enlighten me because you do care about scientific rigor and that sort of investigation always provides information, leading to new decision branches, for further exploration. As I said before I like what I see. That some alterations appear to be confirmed even with large amounts of toothpaste is quite educational and I am very interested to see the results of all of your investigations and am delighted you seem interested and willing.
What it sounds like? Well, I already know all I care to about that part. The system I listen to fills my needs most adequately. The recent Lowther treatment is surprising, not because of it's "better" sound, but because of what is no longer there and how vivid what is left is.
The Lowthers are not better or appreciably different from the system that is the result of thirty years of thought and experimentation. I am actually more startled by how similar their sonic signatures are, but the Lowther does it with just one voice coil and two pieces of paper and that is very appealing to me.
Bud
Actually I also think that any broken pattern will work to some degree or another. I have tried a large sampling of them, all on the same, 8 inch glued cones with corrugated paper surround and 10mm diameter voice coil, sound reinforcement speaker types.
I tried many different pattern shapes, many different spacings, all using the same paints, pens amps and signal sources. Not very scientific. I didn't care about scientific, I was just attempting to define some sort of boundaries to what worked in a way that pleased my sense of hearing and what caused an artifact that I did not like to hear, when the same music was played again and again.
I actually advised the guy who put the pattern on his turn table that I thought it was a waste of time. I have tried it, more than once, maybe there was an improvement maybe not, so I don't bother. I never tried the block pattern, with that close a spacing between rings though and for all I know that is the magic bullet, can't say.
I can say I would not use that pattern on a speaker however, the results would be congested and audibly confusing. I know this from having tried it, on one of the eight inch speakers.
I am actually just watching and waiting for what you come up with. It will not stop me from doing what I do, but it may enlighten me because you do care about scientific rigor and that sort of investigation always provides information, leading to new decision branches, for further exploration. As I said before I like what I see. That some alterations appear to be confirmed even with large amounts of toothpaste is quite educational and I am very interested to see the results of all of your investigations and am delighted you seem interested and willing.
What it sounds like? Well, I already know all I care to about that part. The system I listen to fills my needs most adequately. The recent Lowther treatment is surprising, not because of it's "better" sound, but because of what is no longer there and how vivid what is left is.
The Lowthers are not better or appreciably different from the system that is the result of thirty years of thought and experimentation. I am actually more startled by how similar their sonic signatures are, but the Lowther does it with just one voice coil and two pieces of paper and that is very appealing to me.
Bud
Hi soongsc,
I'm also interested to do some experimentation, be patient, maybe need a couple week or so, since things are very busy here.
Also I don't have speaker measurement system (waterfall, etc)
maybe I'll find a simple solution for that, what measurement setup are you using? and how much it costs?
I'm also interested to do some experimentation, be patient, maybe need a couple week or so, since things are very busy here.
Also I don't have speaker measurement system (waterfall, etc)
maybe I'll find a simple solution for that, what measurement setup are you using? and how much it costs?
I've seen arguments from both camps, and I feel that they probably find the other too difficult to learn, and thus choose to ignor. Basically, the trained ear is good at detecting if there is something wrong, the measured data hopefully helps identify where the problem is so that one can handle it from an engineering point of view, and thus a cycle. I'm sure most of the good speakers are designed using this kind of process.limono said:
LOWTHER
This the final summation, with all waiting for curing included.
Wow!
The two cone coatings and pattern remain unchanged. A pattern has been added to the phase plugs, just before they exit the voice coil diameter and at the final height of the top pattern on the Whizzer cone. A gloss coat covering the entire phase plug was put on before the patterns were applied and a second coat was applied from the bottom edge to just beyond the upper phase plug pattern.
The speakers, without phase plugs, are very wide band and with very wide dispersion. A barely perceptible change in tonal vividness, from within the included angle of the Whizzer cone to just outside of that cone, is apparent Very high frequencies are slightly more apparent directly on axis, but are not excessive. A reduction in tonal vividness VS high frequency performance is noticeable as you move towards the outside angle of the main cone, with a swift drop off beyond that included angle.
With the treated phase plugs installed no perceptible loss in tonal vividness or frequency upper limits or clarity is audible. There is no longer a "shouty" quality to the sound and no beaming of high frequencies directly on axis. You will not need a helper tweeter any longer.
The storage mechanisms that produced a somewhat incoherent sound field are gone. The 8 kHz peak has either been eliminated or the surrounding frequencies are at it's level, because it is no longer audible as an edge to the sound.
These are the most accurate speakers I have ever heard. They do have an almost brittle character to them, without the phase plugs installed, but that disappears with installation. I cannot detect any IM from interaction of Whizzer and phase plug and there is no angle that provides an unmusical and less than clear response.
Done.
Bud
This the final summation, with all waiting for curing included.
Wow!
The two cone coatings and pattern remain unchanged. A pattern has been added to the phase plugs, just before they exit the voice coil diameter and at the final height of the top pattern on the Whizzer cone. A gloss coat covering the entire phase plug was put on before the patterns were applied and a second coat was applied from the bottom edge to just beyond the upper phase plug pattern.
The speakers, without phase plugs, are very wide band and with very wide dispersion. A barely perceptible change in tonal vividness, from within the included angle of the Whizzer cone to just outside of that cone, is apparent Very high frequencies are slightly more apparent directly on axis, but are not excessive. A reduction in tonal vividness VS high frequency performance is noticeable as you move towards the outside angle of the main cone, with a swift drop off beyond that included angle.
With the treated phase plugs installed no perceptible loss in tonal vividness or frequency upper limits or clarity is audible. There is no longer a "shouty" quality to the sound and no beaming of high frequencies directly on axis. You will not need a helper tweeter any longer.
The storage mechanisms that produced a somewhat incoherent sound field are gone. The 8 kHz peak has either been eliminated or the surrounding frequencies are at it's level, because it is no longer audible as an edge to the sound.
These are the most accurate speakers I have ever heard. They do have an almost brittle character to them, without the phase plugs installed, but that disappears with installation. I cannot detect any IM from interaction of Whizzer and phase plug and there is no angle that provides an unmusical and less than clear response.
Done.
Bud
Hi BudP,
Well 21 pages is a long read but it make me want to try it on my Ciare CH250. Ciare CH250 is a 10' speaker with whizzer cone.
I am thinking of one pattern on the outskirt of the cone and 2 patterns on the whizzer cone. Is this enough? Can I adapt the pattern that you did on the lowther or do I have to create new pattern.
Well 21 pages is a long read but it make me want to try it on my Ciare CH250. Ciare CH250 is a 10' speaker with whizzer cone.
I am thinking of one pattern on the outskirt of the cone and 2 patterns on the whizzer cone. Is this enough? Can I adapt the pattern that you did on the lowther or do I have to create new pattern.
WT,
You would be better off creating a new pattern. These patterns are cone angle specific and are actually created in Auto Cad, imported to Corel, printed, cut out, cursed for not fitting and another slightly different set of numbers is then entered. If you have access to A Cad I can send you the lisp routine and ACad will plot it direct to a printer with some sucess. Corel is better though.
If none of these programs are available we can get you exactly what you need with Polar Coordinate graph paper and either a ruler that reads in 10ths or a divider from an ancient mechanical drawing set. If you don't have either of these you should get one or the other and the mechanical drawing set is pretty useful and can be obtained from antique stores.
You do need two patterns on the Main cone too. Yup, way down there under the whizzer. And depending upon how the voice coil cap is handled, as in with a dust cap, you should have two ring sets there also. Tedious work, but the results will provide you with a huge amount of information, on a reliable basis, that has just been lost to diffraction and ringing before treatment.
More than happy to help you.
Bud
You would be better off creating a new pattern. These patterns are cone angle specific and are actually created in Auto Cad, imported to Corel, printed, cut out, cursed for not fitting and another slightly different set of numbers is then entered. If you have access to A Cad I can send you the lisp routine and ACad will plot it direct to a printer with some sucess. Corel is better though.
If none of these programs are available we can get you exactly what you need with Polar Coordinate graph paper and either a ruler that reads in 10ths or a divider from an ancient mechanical drawing set. If you don't have either of these you should get one or the other and the mechanical drawing set is pretty useful and can be obtained from antique stores.
You do need two patterns on the Main cone too. Yup, way down there under the whizzer. And depending upon how the voice coil cap is handled, as in with a dust cap, you should have two ring sets there also. Tedious work, but the results will provide you with a huge amount of information, on a reliable basis, that has just been lost to diffraction and ringing before treatment.
More than happy to help you.
Bud
Dear BudP,
Thanks so much for your kindness. I don't have AutoCad but when you say Coral, do you mean Coral Draw program? If this is the case, it means you transform the file in to some kind of graphic file. If it is a graphic file, I guess my mc can open it and print it out accurately.
How can I do that! This might be a challenge for me.
For dust cap, that is OK. 2 ring sets with dot should be easy to apply.
Thanks so much for your kindness. I don't have AutoCad but when you say Coral, do you mean Coral Draw program? If this is the case, it means you transform the file in to some kind of graphic file. If it is a graphic file, I guess my mc can open it and print it out accurately.
How can I do that! This might be a challenge for me.For dust cap, that is OK. 2 ring sets with dot should be easy to apply.
WT,
I use Corel Draw. The Auto Cad drawing is imported as a vector file and so is scalable.
May I suggest that you do not treat your Clare speakers first? I really would feel much more comfortable if you were to treat, perhaps some boom box speakers for teens or something else convenient and CHEAP. Not that I doubt your success, just that a bit of experience can make a critical project much less worrisome.
Please, collect some pen points, perhaps a couple of technical pens and the two types of acrylic paints needed, especially the Micro Scale Micro Gloss. Then go back a few pages until you find the link to the forms generator program. Download it and print out a full circular polar coordinate graph paper page.
Each set of blocks in a row covers 10 degrees, two degrees for each block and one degree for the space between them. Each ring is also a one degree space apart. If you pencil in a circle of block sets on one of the rings on the coordinate paper you will have the pattern correctly laid out. Use a polar coordinate graph paper ring one degree width smaller than an exact match for a potential ring set on a cone
If that ring happened to be a little bit smaller than the perfect place to put a ring on a CHEAP cone you would have a ready made template to guide your placement of blocks with. If you then drew two sets of blocks, in paint on the cone, as a lower ring, you could use them as a guide to help you put a bridging block set in the next ring up. Thereby using one pattern ring to guide the creation of two rings on the cone. I assure you this is how I do it. All of the fancy printouts were really just to show folks where the block rings might be needed.
In general you should have the top ring applied so that it is covering an area that is three degrees down from the edge of the surround or cone top edge. Means the top ring is on that third degree position, not under it. This means that a polar coordinate paper ring that is six degree smaller than the cone edge should work perfectly.
I any event when you get ready to tackle the Clare we can discuss how to get a guide made to help you put a pattern ring on the lower edge of the main cone, down under the whizzer, near the joint between cone and voice coil. It is not impossible, just tedious.
A little secret here, which now no longer is one, treating cheap paper cones with a full treatment makes them sound amazingly musical and clear. Your table radio or TV speakers are a very useful set of speakers to experiment on. Short of spilling the paint bottle on the cone, it is very hard not to make them sound just great.
Teenagers love knowing how to do this pattern treatment and their young eyes and steady hands are very well suited to applying these patterns. Pay them well and you can set up a small business treating other peoples speakers for them. Since you do not live in the USA, I am not obligated to care about you doing this and so I encourage you and everyone else outside of the USA to look at doing this. It will improve your human habitat quite a bit.
Bud
I use Corel Draw. The Auto Cad drawing is imported as a vector file and so is scalable.
May I suggest that you do not treat your Clare speakers first? I really would feel much more comfortable if you were to treat, perhaps some boom box speakers for teens or something else convenient and CHEAP. Not that I doubt your success, just that a bit of experience can make a critical project much less worrisome.
Please, collect some pen points, perhaps a couple of technical pens and the two types of acrylic paints needed, especially the Micro Scale Micro Gloss. Then go back a few pages until you find the link to the forms generator program. Download it and print out a full circular polar coordinate graph paper page.
Each set of blocks in a row covers 10 degrees, two degrees for each block and one degree for the space between them. Each ring is also a one degree space apart. If you pencil in a circle of block sets on one of the rings on the coordinate paper you will have the pattern correctly laid out. Use a polar coordinate graph paper ring one degree width smaller than an exact match for a potential ring set on a cone
If that ring happened to be a little bit smaller than the perfect place to put a ring on a CHEAP cone you would have a ready made template to guide your placement of blocks with. If you then drew two sets of blocks, in paint on the cone, as a lower ring, you could use them as a guide to help you put a bridging block set in the next ring up. Thereby using one pattern ring to guide the creation of two rings on the cone. I assure you this is how I do it. All of the fancy printouts were really just to show folks where the block rings might be needed.
In general you should have the top ring applied so that it is covering an area that is three degrees down from the edge of the surround or cone top edge. Means the top ring is on that third degree position, not under it. This means that a polar coordinate paper ring that is six degree smaller than the cone edge should work perfectly.
I any event when you get ready to tackle the Clare we can discuss how to get a guide made to help you put a pattern ring on the lower edge of the main cone, down under the whizzer, near the joint between cone and voice coil. It is not impossible, just tedious.
A little secret here, which now no longer is one, treating cheap paper cones with a full treatment makes them sound amazingly musical and clear. Your table radio or TV speakers are a very useful set of speakers to experiment on. Short of spilling the paint bottle on the cone, it is very hard not to make them sound just great.
Teenagers love knowing how to do this pattern treatment and their young eyes and steady hands are very well suited to applying these patterns. Pay them well and you can set up a small business treating other peoples speakers for them. Since you do not live in the USA, I am not obligated to care about you doing this and so I encourage you and everyone else outside of the USA to look at doing this. It will improve your human habitat quite a bit.
Bud
Bwana Bud.......tnx for sharing again 
btw- look at this :
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1204930#post1204930
and few posts further .
I'm just curious - can you have any observations and/or comments just looking at pics.............
btw - scanning is in progress.......I'll send you that after weekend (short trip ) .
btw- look at this :
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1204930#post1204930
and few posts further .
I'm just curious - can you have any observations and/or comments just looking at pics.............
btw - scanning is in progress.......I'll send you that after weekend (short trip ) .
I searched the WIKI, and couldn't find anything about EnABL + Mamboni Processes.
There certainly is quite a bit of information in the 216 posts in this thread (so far) not to mention the innumerable links to other threads and information.
Would it make sense to create a WIKI article with "just the facts, ma'am". This would allow someone that is interested in how to implement these techniques a place to go and see a synopsis of the design principles, and then how to do it.
This thread would continue to evolve and generate new ideas, but as they get solidified into "facts" they can be added to the WIKI.
Just a thought.
Paul
There certainly is quite a bit of information in the 216 posts in this thread (so far) not to mention the innumerable links to other threads and information.
Would it make sense to create a WIKI article with "just the facts, ma'am". This would allow someone that is interested in how to implement these techniques a place to go and see a synopsis of the design principles, and then how to do it.
This thread would continue to evolve and generate new ideas, but as they get solidified into "facts" they can be added to the WIKI.
Just a thought.
Paul
Zen Mod.
Looks like a good candidate to me. Should be easy to treat the lower cone section under the Whizzer... or easier to treat than the Lowther with whizzer flange was anyway. If this is a relatively thin, calendered paper, then front side treatment of both cones and the center phase plug will do what is needed. You could treat the back sides of both and you could shoot yourself in the foot, for about the same amount of pain. The results of just the front treatment will be worth the pain. Only about another 30% gain in loss of grain and increase of clarity will be realized from treating both sides, and with a material this thin you will need to match patterns, front to back, very closely to get the full benefit.
That full benefit will be a completely polite speaker. Nothing ever getting misplaced, or covered over, or granulated, or ever, in any way, going non linear, with respect to other sounds in the sound field. All of my drivers are done to this level, but I don't own any that are hard to treat, or require exact pattern matching front to back sides either.
So, treat the front side and listen for a few months, while plotting the overthrow of refractions and reflections on the back side. Also, plan on learning all about how to make the obstructions on the back side sonically invisible, by removing their ability to refract and reflect.
We can get into this as we go along, I have much to divulge about how to recover from just having made your drivers completely transparent to sound, in both directions.
Paul,
That is a worthy idea and I have had thoughts along that vein off and on. But..... I have just about enough time to answer the sorts of practical questions that arise in the ad hoc pattern that they arise.
Plus, while the theory is relatively simple, it is quite hard to get your head around, when you first come upon it. To date there is no mathematical treatment of the relevant relationships, to say nothing about there being no deconstruction and parceling out of those relationships and their individual constituents. So, it is still all by analogy and branching logic that a specific solution to a specific treatment problem is arrived at.
Now, if we put our heads together, get our math whiz and antenna theory and wave tank friends to join up and lend a hand, the math and rigorous derivations from a main theoretical treatise could evolve.
Then I think a Wiki article would be useful, to everyone. The folks who must have an abstract model to refer to and those who only deal with concrete, practical, results driven activities, would have both to help them paw through this rather mind reorienting scheme for removing things that ought not to be there in the first place, according to theory, based upon simple, readily available, deconstruction modeling formula's.
I'm willing, but, I do not have all of those skill sets, nor money to pay others for their use of their skills on behalf of EnABL.
Bud
Looks like a good candidate to me. Should be easy to treat the lower cone section under the Whizzer... or easier to treat than the Lowther with whizzer flange was anyway. If this is a relatively thin, calendered paper, then front side treatment of both cones and the center phase plug will do what is needed. You could treat the back sides of both and you could shoot yourself in the foot, for about the same amount of pain. The results of just the front treatment will be worth the pain. Only about another 30% gain in loss of grain and increase of clarity will be realized from treating both sides, and with a material this thin you will need to match patterns, front to back, very closely to get the full benefit.
That full benefit will be a completely polite speaker. Nothing ever getting misplaced, or covered over, or granulated, or ever, in any way, going non linear, with respect to other sounds in the sound field. All of my drivers are done to this level, but I don't own any that are hard to treat, or require exact pattern matching front to back sides either.
So, treat the front side and listen for a few months, while plotting the overthrow of refractions and reflections on the back side. Also, plan on learning all about how to make the obstructions on the back side sonically invisible, by removing their ability to refract and reflect.
We can get into this as we go along, I have much to divulge about how to recover from just having made your drivers completely transparent to sound, in both directions.
Paul,
That is a worthy idea and I have had thoughts along that vein off and on. But..... I have just about enough time to answer the sorts of practical questions that arise in the ad hoc pattern that they arise.
Plus, while the theory is relatively simple, it is quite hard to get your head around, when you first come upon it. To date there is no mathematical treatment of the relevant relationships, to say nothing about there being no deconstruction and parceling out of those relationships and their individual constituents. So, it is still all by analogy and branching logic that a specific solution to a specific treatment problem is arrived at.
Now, if we put our heads together, get our math whiz and antenna theory and wave tank friends to join up and lend a hand, the math and rigorous derivations from a main theoretical treatise could evolve.
Then I think a Wiki article would be useful, to everyone. The folks who must have an abstract model to refer to and those who only deal with concrete, practical, results driven activities, would have both to help them paw through this rather mind reorienting scheme for removing things that ought not to be there in the first place, according to theory, based upon simple, readily available, deconstruction modeling formula's.
I'm willing, but, I do not have all of those skill sets, nor money to pay others for their use of their skills on behalf of EnABL.
Bud
first time when I saw EnABLE related post on DiyA , I imagined what I already knew about barriers for tide waves......I can't remember where I read that and also where exactly these barriers are located ,but I know that they exist.
for me-that analogy is more than good enough reason for embracing EnABL treatment......
for me-that analogy is more than good enough reason for embracing EnABL treatment......
I am part of the latter group that you describe, "those who only deal with concrete, practical, results driven activities."
What I hope to get out of this thread, and/or any WIKI article is;
1) How can it help me buld a better speaker,
2) How can I empirically test the results of the process.
3) What do I need to do to be successful at implementing these concepts in the easiest way possible in my project(s).
Paul
What I hope to get out of this thread, and/or any WIKI article is;
1) How can it help me buld a better speaker,
2) How can I empirically test the results of the process.
3) What do I need to do to be successful at implementing these concepts in the easiest way possible in my project(s).
Paul
EnABL WIKI, STEP ONE
Well, lets see how this plays.
Q.) Why would we need a process like EnABL, that controls events that only occur for a short period of time in the first place?
A.) The test equipment that we utilize to provide us with an objective look at speaker related phenomena is utterly without discretion This is good and bad and really, bad only because the function of "hearing" is misunderstood. Not the activity of hearing and all of the measurable activities related to hearing. The function.
The function of hearing is to be part of a "Correlated" THREAT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM. This means that the incoming information from all senses is dealt with on the basis of what has changed since the last moment that particular field of sensing was accessed? Does this change, if any, fall into the realm of time vs position that indicates a dangerous change? If so, can this change be observed by another sensory system that, correlated with the initial sensory system, will allow a categorization as threat / non threat?
Our threat correlator is semi autonomous, self aware, and able to interrupt and redirect conscious decision making, that it uses as another sensory system for threat analysis. It is even able to provide a psychobabble internal conversation for the consciousness sensory system to busy itself with, until needed again for "useful" decision making.
This correlator, after having brought the subject of an unidentified threat up to a conscious decision level and having received either a threat or non threat decision, is able to cease to respond to this anomalous sound, or touch or taste or sight or smell or thought. It does this so it can uncover further, hidden threats. If the anomalous item is assigned a potential threat tag by the conscious analysis, or by it falling into a category of hardwired threats, this correlator is quite able to track the potential threat, through time and space, without further conscious attention. In fact it does the best job it can of distracting the conscious attention while following the threat. If the threat is hard wired and the pattern discerned is known to be life threatening the correlator assumes control and known physical protection processes are engaged. Practical examples abound in our daily lives.
How is this important to Audio? This is the mechanism that we use to "adjust" to aberrant pieces of equipment. This is how those who are involved in the "hobby" of audio adjust to and embrace equipment combinations that have obvious faults. This is how we can be so unable to understand why we need to alter an event which only happens for a short period of time and then stops. This is how we can use objective, scientifically rigorous testing to confirm that nothing needs to be corrected. This is why EnABL processing at first seems so superfluous and can be discarded as unneeded.
Now, let's pick this apart, all of us getting involved to question portions, hidden assumptions, make further explorations, reductions and critical additions, like the time frames involved in these threat assessments, until we have a shorter more pointed and clearly understandable description of need, step one.
Certainly Lynn has information on important time frames here and I am sure others do too.
This will be the preface to a Wiki on EnABL so we have to make sure it makes sense and it's application is obvious. If you have a thought, please respond and be sure to put a big Wiki step one note, to keep this sub thread separate from the rest of the evolving sub threads
Bud
Well, lets see how this plays.
Q.) Why would we need a process like EnABL, that controls events that only occur for a short period of time in the first place?
A.) The test equipment that we utilize to provide us with an objective look at speaker related phenomena is utterly without discretion This is good and bad and really, bad only because the function of "hearing" is misunderstood. Not the activity of hearing and all of the measurable activities related to hearing. The function.
The function of hearing is to be part of a "Correlated" THREAT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM. This means that the incoming information from all senses is dealt with on the basis of what has changed since the last moment that particular field of sensing was accessed? Does this change, if any, fall into the realm of time vs position that indicates a dangerous change? If so, can this change be observed by another sensory system that, correlated with the initial sensory system, will allow a categorization as threat / non threat?
Our threat correlator is semi autonomous, self aware, and able to interrupt and redirect conscious decision making, that it uses as another sensory system for threat analysis. It is even able to provide a psychobabble internal conversation for the consciousness sensory system to busy itself with, until needed again for "useful" decision making.
This correlator, after having brought the subject of an unidentified threat up to a conscious decision level and having received either a threat or non threat decision, is able to cease to respond to this anomalous sound, or touch or taste or sight or smell or thought. It does this so it can uncover further, hidden threats. If the anomalous item is assigned a potential threat tag by the conscious analysis, or by it falling into a category of hardwired threats, this correlator is quite able to track the potential threat, through time and space, without further conscious attention. In fact it does the best job it can of distracting the conscious attention while following the threat. If the threat is hard wired and the pattern discerned is known to be life threatening the correlator assumes control and known physical protection processes are engaged. Practical examples abound in our daily lives.
How is this important to Audio? This is the mechanism that we use to "adjust" to aberrant pieces of equipment. This is how those who are involved in the "hobby" of audio adjust to and embrace equipment combinations that have obvious faults. This is how we can be so unable to understand why we need to alter an event which only happens for a short period of time and then stops. This is how we can use objective, scientifically rigorous testing to confirm that nothing needs to be corrected. This is why EnABL processing at first seems so superfluous and can be discarded as unneeded.
Now, let's pick this apart, all of us getting involved to question portions, hidden assumptions, make further explorations, reductions and critical additions, like the time frames involved in these threat assessments, until we have a shorter more pointed and clearly understandable description of need, step one.
Certainly Lynn has information on important time frames here and I am sure others do too.
This will be the preface to a Wiki on EnABL so we have to make sure it makes sense and it's application is obvious. If you have a thought, please respond and be sure to put a big Wiki step one note, to keep this sub thread separate from the rest of the evolving sub threads
Bud
- Status
- Not open for further replies.