OzMikeH said:
Hi Mike,
The science. Have you read Bud's paper explaining this process? I did. I jumped in here with an opening statement questioning the science, expecting someone to pipe up and intelligently defend the process. I'm still waiting.
At no point did I say:"it's all rubbish!"I didn't even say it doesn't work.
The article tries to sound more technical than it really is.
The gist of what he's saying in the article is that while the cone is active, as in producing sound, it is also vibrating along it's surface. The idea is that this vibration starts at the centre of the cone near the voice coil and radiates out toward the surround. His process of painting rectangles on the cone surface is meant to disrupt this wave, preventing it from doubling back on itself (standing wave).
The clever part is that the rectangles are offset, therefore all wave energy will be disbursed in phase.
Is this a valid theory? Yes. Are painted rectangles effective for wave disruption? Maybe. Can this make an audible difference? Possibly.
If there is an audible difference, it can be measured, especially if there is less of something from the treated cone (namely noise from standing waves within the cone material).
Show me the valid, unbiased test results clearly showing an audible improvement, and I'm on board.
BudP said:
Seem like I pretty much hit the nail right on the head. 😉
There's a lot of pseudo marketing going on here, some even by the mods themselves (or at least one). Do I care? Not really.
Innocent denial, and self effacing double talk ring a bell for me.
Come clean.
Marketing is everywhere! Flip out a card to introduce yourself, people presenting patents, people just talking about ideas, someone got a new something. These are all marketing to gain recognition. If we want to eliminate marketing, we just won't have anything to talk about. Certainly dull.MJL21193 said:
Jon Ver Halen,
Thank you for stirring the pot Jon. No, really, it's just possible we will get some useful directions and a hint of what sort of tools we need to find or develop, to answer your query.
I can tell that a lack of appropriate test tools and procedures is causing some folks, who include John, quite a bit of discomfort. Perhaps only FEA analysis will be useful. Certainly nothing has yet drug the offending data out of what ever grass it is hiding in.
At least sonngsc has also provided some useful data, although, he is being accused of not knowing or applying proper test procedures and data acquisition techniques. I am glad to have your and his data and questions here. Please forge ahead.
Bud
Thank you for stirring the pot Jon. No, really, it's just possible we will get some useful directions and a hint of what sort of tools we need to find or develop, to answer your query.
I can tell that a lack of appropriate test tools and procedures is causing some folks, who include John, quite a bit of discomfort. Perhaps only FEA analysis will be useful. Certainly nothing has yet drug the offending data out of what ever grass it is hiding in.
At least sonngsc has also provided some useful data, although, he is being accused of not knowing or applying proper test procedures and data acquisition techniques. I am glad to have your and his data and questions here. Please forge ahead.
Bud
MJL21193 said:
I think there is more technology involved than meets the eye. There are actually two issues involved, the vibration of the diaphram that you mentioned, and also the boundary layer disruption. My first measurements in the JX92S convinces me the boundary layer effects.
Later measurements on the JX92S reducing cone resonances shows the results, but the reason may not be exactly due to the specific pattern. Note that for the pattern to work, each block in the pattern must create enough impedance change to disrupt the wave. This can be done using mass or stiffness of the applied material. For paper cones, both aspects take effect due to the nature of the cone material. For metal cones, it's a bit diffucult due to stiffness of the material, and you are left with expensive stiff material, or mass only.
Nobody is trying to get you one board. But you are certainly welcome find any technical flaws if you can. Right now I see only one other member posting test results. Why should we work for those that just sit on their butt?
I do think that John K questioned some aspects, but since I applied and altered the patterns without moving the mic or the driver, he did not seem to have any other concerns. If you could point me to the other aspects people have questioned, it is much appreciated. Just the words "not knowing or applying proper test procedures and data acquisition techniques" is quite meaningless and ignorant unless one can address the specific issues what is not proper.BudP said:
Lots of people just express doubt without any technical bassis, I think this kind of talk is meaningless.
Re: A few more thoughts
I was wondering that many MLS based tests allow multiple runs to reduce the noise effects, is this not a valid application?Jon Ver Halen said:
c'mon fellas. lighten up...
who cares if someone doesn't believe the effect could be real? Personally I don't.
MJL and others of the subjective ilk are welcome to their opinions. As I and many others here have stated, it's pretty obvious that the EnABL process is a boundary issue, or more appropriately a boundary perturbation occurance.
Us homo sapiens sapiens are pretty complex animals and our senses are more so. As suggested by me a few posts back, we may not be able to "hear" something (or measure it), but that doesn't deny the existance of impressions (in a scientific manner of speaking), as demonstrated by Mati Otala.
We can't see dark matter, black holes (hence the name), etc, etc. Is that reason enough to deny their existance or the outcome if matter and anti-matter collide? or God?(never seen him/her/it)
So lighten up, MJL and others. Please understand that unless you experience certain "effects" that may fly in the face of convention for yourselves, don't worry about it. Think of it as audio mysticism, or religion. Just because I can't proove the existence of God doesn't mean I'm right in saying "God doesn't exist". I just don't have the tools to proove "God exists".
now go listen to some tunes...back ta Lucile and company🙂
who cares if someone doesn't believe the effect could be real? Personally I don't.
MJL and others of the subjective ilk are welcome to their opinions. As I and many others here have stated, it's pretty obvious that the EnABL process is a boundary issue, or more appropriately a boundary perturbation occurance.
Us homo sapiens sapiens are pretty complex animals and our senses are more so. As suggested by me a few posts back, we may not be able to "hear" something (or measure it), but that doesn't deny the existance of impressions (in a scientific manner of speaking), as demonstrated by Mati Otala.
We can't see dark matter, black holes (hence the name), etc, etc. Is that reason enough to deny their existance or the outcome if matter and anti-matter collide? or God?(never seen him/her/it)
So lighten up, MJL and others. Please understand that unless you experience certain "effects" that may fly in the face of convention for yourselves, don't worry about it. Think of it as audio mysticism, or religion. Just because I can't proove the existence of God doesn't mean I'm right in saying "God doesn't exist". I just don't have the tools to proove "God exists".
now go listen to some tunes...back ta Lucile and company🙂
soongsc,
You are aware of my thoughts about your test results and methods. They have passed the scrutiny of the individual that has run the FEA simulations.
Here is the a quote from post # 436
As you have noted, there are only two test results contributors, so I have to assume your results are included in this seeming blanket statement.
I apologize for the offensive attitude that this poster perceives as scientifically based questioning. I also thank you again for your time and effort. It has made a considerable difference in the tone and information content of this thread.
Bud
You are aware of my thoughts about your test results and methods. They have passed the scrutiny of the individual that has run the FEA simulations.
Here is the a quote from post # 436
As you have noted, there are only two test results contributors, so I have to assume your results are included in this seeming blanket statement.
I apologize for the offensive attitude that this poster perceives as scientifically based questioning. I also thank you again for your time and effort. It has made a considerable difference in the tone and information content of this thread.
Bud
Bud,
I think that quote in post #436 does not mean anything. I know that Jon's data looks different, but even from that, I cannot determine whether the mod should sound better or worse. I normally like to look into the shorter time frame within 0.4ms because that's closer to the time frame of reflection in the diaphram. I now recall that with CLIOs sample rate limit is 44.1KHz, and the resolution migh be limited.
No appologies necessary Bud, if we get upset with some meaningless remarks from children, it hurts our health.😀 Why do that to ourselves?
I think that quote in post #436 does not mean anything. I know that Jon's data looks different, but even from that, I cannot determine whether the mod should sound better or worse. I normally like to look into the shorter time frame within 0.4ms because that's closer to the time frame of reflection in the diaphram. I now recall that with CLIOs sample rate limit is 44.1KHz, and the resolution migh be limited.
No appologies necessary Bud, if we get upset with some meaningless remarks from children, it hurts our health.😀 Why do that to ourselves?
oops, subjective...
I meant objective of course.
and I still contest that these efffecs are "real" even if the capability to measure them may not exist.
I meant objective of course.
and I still contest that these efffecs are "real" even if the capability to measure them may not exist.
soongsc,
Thank you for our equanimity and wisdom, your presence here is deeply appreciated.
Bud
Thank you for our equanimity and wisdom, your presence here is deeply appreciated.
Bud
Nanook,
Thanks for your comments. We are indeed complex creatures, though I question that our complexity causes us to act in an intelligent fashion, in very many situations. Still, we do persist.
By the way, you may have discovered and named the trilogy, if we could ask the Morningstar, I am sure he would tell us.
Bud
Thanks for your comments. We are indeed complex creatures, though I question that our complexity causes us to act in an intelligent fashion, in very many situations. Still, we do persist.
By the way, you may have discovered and named the trilogy, if we could ask the Morningstar, I am sure he would tell us.
Bud
Well I haven't had time to try the EnABL blocks myself, but I hope to soon. I would love to be able to show some sort of objective measurements of the change - if any.
So here's a thought. What about laser inferometry or something similar? I have some software that will run an LED strobe from an audio signal for cone testing. Might that be a "poor man's method" of seeing differences in cone action?
Anyone have any thoughts on strobe/laser/photo methods of testing? I'd be willing to have a stab at it, or help anyone else who wishes to try.
So here's a thought. What about laser inferometry or something similar? I have some software that will run an LED strobe from an audio signal for cone testing. Might that be a "poor man's method" of seeing differences in cone action?
Anyone have any thoughts on strobe/laser/photo methods of testing? I'd be willing to have a stab at it, or help anyone else who wishes to try.
inferometry...
panomaniac I had thought of this, but don't have the capabilities. If you do, it surely would be interesting to "see" the results (no pardon for the pun, it was intended🙂 ).
Bud: I never stated that I thought we act in an intellegent manner, just that our senses are complex.
And persistance is something we all need to attemp (one of the worst horrors of my life came at my eldest daughter's graduation from high school: instead of applauding the diversity of man, the principal of the school spent over an hour patting himself on the back-he was retiring and received a $10k speaking fee for helping to create good citizens, instead of good people).
In Albert Einstein's words: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly."
And yes, THE Morningstar will perhaps provide us with the answers to the trilogy, if one subscribes to the whole notion (talk about a little "heaviness"---I need to lighten up).
good night all.
panomaniac I had thought of this, but don't have the capabilities. If you do, it surely would be interesting to "see" the results (no pardon for the pun, it was intended🙂 ).
Bud: I never stated that I thought we act in an intellegent manner, just that our senses are complex.
And persistance is something we all need to attemp (one of the worst horrors of my life came at my eldest daughter's graduation from high school: instead of applauding the diversity of man, the principal of the school spent over an hour patting himself on the back-he was retiring and received a $10k speaking fee for helping to create good citizens, instead of good people).
In Albert Einstein's words: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly."
And yes, THE Morningstar will perhaps provide us with the answers to the trilogy, if one subscribes to the whole notion (talk about a little "heaviness"---I need to lighten up).
good night all.
BudP said:
Any change in the test procedure or hardware from unit to unit invalidates the data.
Soongsc made a hardware change.
Quote from post #173:
"Please note that the measurement sound card is different, and so is the driving amplifier. Black is original, blue is enabled.
I am going to assume that EnABLE process is responsible for the difference and work the other end of the cone."
Jon presented data on a different time base. Why? It looks to me that it was done to make the results from the untreated cone look approximately equal to the treated one.
soongsc said:
The boundary layer disruption is the fix for the diaphram vibration! One issue.
You should work toward your own satisfaction. But, by all means, make yourself comfortable and sit on your butt while doing it.🙂
Re: inferometry...
When intelligent rebuttal abandons you, you turn to snide remarks and name calling. I won't stoop to this level.
Thanks for digging out that quote Nanook, I do feel oppressed (see above) whenever I courageously and honestly express my opinions among so many mediocre minds.
Nanook said:
BudP said:
soongsc said:
BudP said:
When intelligent rebuttal abandons you, you turn to snide remarks and name calling. I won't stoop to this level.
Nanook said:
Thanks for digging out that quote Nanook, I do feel oppressed (see above) whenever I courageously and honestly express my opinions among so many mediocre minds.
John, I think you are more concerned with being right about something, anything than finding any truth....and are simply relying upon questions to get you there. Your playing field includes perceptions & beliefs, measurements & techniques, results and interpretations, irony and sarcasm. The possibilities are endless.
I truly wish the best for you....I don't think you will find it here....& I have a suspicion you already know that.
I truly wish the best for you....I don't think you will find it here....& I have a suspicion you already know that.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.