marce said:
Interesting. I have given thought to this, but as in a vinyl template. My biggest worry is the wicking of the paint uder the template (some of which i had even with my cardboard guide)
dave
Here is a pic of the treated FR125's with stealth block patterns for what it is worth (not much).If you squint really hard you can just make out some of the pattern at the top right of the picture.
I would never use black paint on dark cones again it was very difficult to apply as the light had to be just right to see the blocks already applied. Next time I would use a contrasting colour and then maybe use a black marker pen to colour over the blocks.
I haven't done anything about the phase plug as you can see.
Rob.
I would never use black paint on dark cones again it was very difficult to apply as the light had to be just right to see the blocks already applied. Next time I would use a contrasting colour and then maybe use a black marker pen to colour over the blocks.
I haven't done anything about the phase plug as you can see.
Rob.
Attachments
Dave,
I was thinking along the lines of my old lettering stencils when we use to draw by hand, the stencil could be either raised slightely, using thin sticky paper dots in strategic positions (also provides some protection for the cone) or a stepped hole to avoid wicking.
I was thinking along the lines of my old lettering stencils when we use to draw by hand, the stencil could be either raised slightely, using thin sticky paper dots in strategic positions (also provides some protection for the cone) or a stepped hole to avoid wicking.
marce said:
OK. Lets try it. Bud has posted FE127 patterns, they are the same as for Scott's FE126
dave
Hi Gentlemen,
I know some people reading this thread are questioning how somthing so small and insignificant as
painted squares round a drivers edge could have any significant effect, and as the only real proof
of this effect is our hearing, as a reliable measuring system is yet to be devised or method formulated.
It was while reading this months "the Engineer" that a story caught my attention (having just finished last
night digesting this thread), while not directly related to the EnABLE effect, I think it is analagous
in showing how micro engineering can effect macro events.
In brief it outlines studies into controlling friction on the Airbus's wing, by controlling "streaks"
of air in certain boudary layers, probably by the use of MEMS based hermholts resonators. The interesting thing
for our analogy is that these streaks are approx 0.040" long and about 0.004" apart. Thus the MEMs etc being created
to control them will be of similar or smaller geomatries. When scaled down to average speaker sizes these
control mechanisms would be in the sub thousandth of an inch region, much smaller than Bud's patterns.
There are many other instances in micro-engineering where the relationship between the micro and the macro
are being investigated.
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/301810/Work+of+friction.htm
PS For the record I am going to be the owner of some EnABLEd drivers soon, so will be able to report
back my views on the sound, though I havn't heard any yet, it fun being part of the experiment though.
I know some people reading this thread are questioning how somthing so small and insignificant as
painted squares round a drivers edge could have any significant effect, and as the only real proof
of this effect is our hearing, as a reliable measuring system is yet to be devised or method formulated.
It was while reading this months "the Engineer" that a story caught my attention (having just finished last
night digesting this thread), while not directly related to the EnABLE effect, I think it is analagous
in showing how micro engineering can effect macro events.
In brief it outlines studies into controlling friction on the Airbus's wing, by controlling "streaks"
of air in certain boudary layers, probably by the use of MEMS based hermholts resonators. The interesting thing
for our analogy is that these streaks are approx 0.040" long and about 0.004" apart. Thus the MEMs etc being created
to control them will be of similar or smaller geomatries. When scaled down to average speaker sizes these
control mechanisms would be in the sub thousandth of an inch region, much smaller than Bud's patterns.
There are many other instances in micro-engineering where the relationship between the micro and the macro
are being investigated.
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/301810/Work+of+friction.htm
PS For the record I am going to be the owner of some EnABLEd drivers soon, so will be able to report
back my views on the sound, though I havn't heard any yet, it fun being part of the experiment though.
marce said:
I already wrote that before (somewhere) :
first time when I heard for EnABL , I recolected from ancient memory ( 😉 ) that I also hear for similar structures, made of concrete blocks - used as diffusors for dangerous tide waves ....... somewhere on some coast .
exactly from that reason I have no slight problem with understanding how and that EnABL must be efficient method .
including - that for years I have xperience with painting cones with few sorts of coatings and impregnating thingies... mainly with diluted PVA wood glue and few sorts of nail lacquers 😉
I just had an odd idea.
What about using a solder paste dispenser to place the blocks?
Either 2 round dots touching or use a rectangular nozzle for the syringe.
What about using solder paste itself instead of paint? It might be way too heavy
you'd need to seal it with some kind of glue, the paste goes powdery when the flux dries out.
What about using a solder paste dispenser to place the blocks?
Either 2 round dots touching or use a rectangular nozzle for the syringe.
What about using solder paste itself instead of paint? It might be way too heavy
you'd need to seal it with some kind of glue, the paste goes powdery when the flux dries out.
Zen Mod, funny you should mention sea defences, Its just struck me that we spent about 3 years watching the put those same blocks round the north bay here at sunny Scarborough (the UK one).
My appologies for pincing your opening line, after 3 days + of reading this post I'm a tiny bit mentaly fatigued.
OzMike,
there are hand dispensers etc, that if they can handle solder paste should be able to handle the paint, les viscous, I'll have a nosey round our production dept and see what they have.
My appologies for pincing your opening line, after 3 days + of reading this post I'm a tiny bit mentaly fatigued.
OzMike,
there are hand dispensers etc, that if they can handle solder paste should be able to handle the paint, les viscous, I'll have a nosey round our production dept and see what they have.
Marce & OzmikeH.
Soongsc has been using a flat tipped syringe to place toothpaste on his Jordons for testing purposes.
I will point out that a calligraphy pen has at least 500 years of flow control development behind it. I do realize that most folks are daunted by use of an artistic/anachronistic device of this sort and it is always more satisfying to find your own path, but you should give those pens a chance too.
Regardless of the tool you find most comfortable to use, treat some drivers. The more individuals who have experience with this process and it's results, the more likely it is that someone will figure out how to test for what is being affected here and allow us to take the next step.
Sonngsc has shown that, if we can find the physical location on the driver of the various intrinsic energy storage/delayed release locations, we should be able to break up all resonant nodes. We are looking at the possibility of making our beloved drivers perform exactly as our somewhat blunt theoretical tools indicate that they should.
Bud
Soongsc has been using a flat tipped syringe to place toothpaste on his Jordons for testing purposes.
I will point out that a calligraphy pen has at least 500 years of flow control development behind it. I do realize that most folks are daunted by use of an artistic/anachronistic device of this sort and it is always more satisfying to find your own path, but you should give those pens a chance too.
Regardless of the tool you find most comfortable to use, treat some drivers. The more individuals who have experience with this process and it's results, the more likely it is that someone will figure out how to test for what is being affected here and allow us to take the next step.
Sonngsc has shown that, if we can find the physical location on the driver of the various intrinsic energy storage/delayed release locations, we should be able to break up all resonant nodes. We are looking at the possibility of making our beloved drivers perform exactly as our somewhat blunt theoretical tools indicate that they should.
Bud
BudP said:
My experience with calligraphy pens has been good. And they are cheap. You do need to clean them fairly often (but then i have been doing 10 drivers at a time) as the paint is thicker than ink and tends to clog things up. In actual fact the hardest part of EnABLEing is getting a handle on how the tool changes as you load it up with ink and as the ink loads up the pen.
The tips are dirt cheap (a buck or 2 for the ones at the art store, less at the craft store), and you only need one holder ($5-6)
dave
The syringe is large enough to apply paint as well. This technique has been used for a long time to apply glue in production lines. So once you have the right quantitiy determined, the process can be computer controlled in a production line.BudP said:
I wonder if this solution to standing wave- edge diffraction
is similar then the EnABL approach. By creating uneven
edge, the result would be braking the standing wave; having
the waves arrive at different time at the edge of the whizzer cone.
Also it is said ( section 7- line 60 ) that ribs could be added instead
of having an uneven edge, this would have similar effect.
As anyone applied this method and use measurements
to see the effect of this on a whizzer cone?
http://www.google.com/patents?id=lxl9AAAAEBAJ&dq=7146021
is similar then the EnABL approach. By creating uneven
edge, the result would be braking the standing wave; having
the waves arrive at different time at the edge of the whizzer cone.
Also it is said ( section 7- line 60 ) that ribs could be added instead
of having an uneven edge, this would have similar effect.
As anyone applied this method and use measurements
to see the effect of this on a whizzer cone?
http://www.google.com/patents?id=lxl9AAAAEBAJ&dq=7146021
lrntglls,
I doubt that anyone here has followed up on that particular patent. The Mamboni process, with use of felt triangles to help raise the energy out of the planar boundary layer, so that the energy all exits before cone termination is the closest.
The EnABL patterns loft the joint between transverse wave, that is really the energy pouring out of the cone, and compression wave, out of the planar boundary wave and then, with the second pattern, enforces a one way gate at the outer edge, in the boundary layer Between the two patten sets, EnABL eliminates reflected energy and at the same time provides significant headroom for energy emission beyond the level that ordinarily conjests the cone in question. Typical is 9 dB for this added head room. Not at all unusual to have turned the drivers up so loud that you toast the voice coils, without hearing any corruption at all.
So, both of these methods would be used in addition to the wavy cone edge and stiffening bars. It is good to see that more folks are beginning to realize that the pistonic model, for speaker modeling, is not actually correct and that Lincoln Walsh and even Beranek were quite correct. Discarding the piston model entirely in Walsh's case and warning that first approximation models as pistons did not fit real world situations, in a very short chapter of "Acoustics" written by Baranek.
The EnABL process and to a great extent the Mamboni process force a non pistonic operation and perfect that transmission line model of speaker activity proposed by Walsh and hinted at by Beranek.
I can assure you, from experience with a number of Lowthers with whizzer cones, that the EnABL patterns will completely tame those cones and cause them to work without any of the usual draw backs.
Bud
I doubt that anyone here has followed up on that particular patent. The Mamboni process, with use of felt triangles to help raise the energy out of the planar boundary layer, so that the energy all exits before cone termination is the closest.
The EnABL patterns loft the joint between transverse wave, that is really the energy pouring out of the cone, and compression wave, out of the planar boundary wave and then, with the second pattern, enforces a one way gate at the outer edge, in the boundary layer Between the two patten sets, EnABL eliminates reflected energy and at the same time provides significant headroom for energy emission beyond the level that ordinarily conjests the cone in question. Typical is 9 dB for this added head room. Not at all unusual to have turned the drivers up so loud that you toast the voice coils, without hearing any corruption at all.
So, both of these methods would be used in addition to the wavy cone edge and stiffening bars. It is good to see that more folks are beginning to realize that the pistonic model, for speaker modeling, is not actually correct and that Lincoln Walsh and even Beranek were quite correct. Discarding the piston model entirely in Walsh's case and warning that first approximation models as pistons did not fit real world situations, in a very short chapter of "Acoustics" written by Baranek.
The EnABL process and to a great extent the Mamboni process force a non pistonic operation and perfect that transmission line model of speaker activity proposed by Walsh and hinted at by Beranek.
I can assure you, from experience with a number of Lowthers with whizzer cones, that the EnABL patterns will completely tame those cones and cause them to work without any of the usual draw backs.
Bud
I can assure you, from experience with a number of Lowthers with whizzer cones, that the EnABL patterns will completely tame those cones and cause them to work without any of the usual draw backs.
In the Pioneer patent, they say that using the uneven edge
approach would reduce peaks, fill holes and increase spl (section4-35)
You also mention with EnABL you can tame those whizzer cone.
My question was : has anyone done any measurement
that would show the result of any of these techniques on
a frequency plot ( ex. with a Lowther driver or any other driver)?
In the Pioneer patent, they say that using the uneven edge
approach would reduce peaks, fill holes and increase spl (section4-35)
You also mention with EnABL you can tame those whizzer cone.
My question was : has anyone done any measurement
that would show the result of any of these techniques on
a frequency plot ( ex. with a Lowther driver or any other driver)?
bigwill,
The EnABL process will reduce or remove the major peaks that are related to standing waves. The typical comment is that the audible effects of treatment, is to make peaks far less irritating. In addition you gain a significant amount of low level coherence.
These two mean that you can hear much deeper into the recording with far less fatigue. As an added bonus low frequencies will be dramatically cleaned up. An amazing amount of rumble and ringing will disappear and bass viols, large kettle drums, etc. will be clear and the inner detail of their sound will be audible. Just a big step towards clarity in a general sense.
lrntglls,
I have never seen any test data for the drivers shown in the patent.
There are two main sections of test data in this thread. One, by soongsc, is a series of ever more elaborate applications of the EnABL patterns that shows a reduction in time of ringing, a faster emission of initial energy, and a normalized to leading phase for high frequencies. All without affecting frequency response at all. Clearly illegal with respect to the Hilbert transform.
Soongsc later shows how a specifically located set of pattern rings eliminates the nodal systemic ringing of the driver, due to it's physical construction.
Later on in the thread Jon Ver Halen of Lowther America tests a treated and untreated Lowther PM6A. Almost all of his piston referenced tests show the EnABL'd driver is actually performing a bit worse than the untreated driver, thus showing that it is no longer a good piston driver example.
Again only the CSD plot shows any real difference or improvement. However, Jon then goes on to make a pretty strong comment about the relative audible performances and asks how the tests he has performed can be so far astray of what he hears.
In my own testing only the CSD plots have shown any change at all, though I have never looked at the phase relationship Sonngsc looked at. If you look at the final pages of this document you will see what I mean.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue21/standingwaves.htm
So, no simple answers. Best thing is to learn how to do this treatment yourself and try it out, on cheap speakers, like those for your computer or car audio system. The tools and instructions are located in this thread, as are many comments from people who have just gone off and done it, so they could make their own mind up.
Bud
The EnABL process will reduce or remove the major peaks that are related to standing waves. The typical comment is that the audible effects of treatment, is to make peaks far less irritating. In addition you gain a significant amount of low level coherence.
These two mean that you can hear much deeper into the recording with far less fatigue. As an added bonus low frequencies will be dramatically cleaned up. An amazing amount of rumble and ringing will disappear and bass viols, large kettle drums, etc. will be clear and the inner detail of their sound will be audible. Just a big step towards clarity in a general sense.
lrntglls,
I have never seen any test data for the drivers shown in the patent.
There are two main sections of test data in this thread. One, by soongsc, is a series of ever more elaborate applications of the EnABL patterns that shows a reduction in time of ringing, a faster emission of initial energy, and a normalized to leading phase for high frequencies. All without affecting frequency response at all. Clearly illegal with respect to the Hilbert transform.
Soongsc later shows how a specifically located set of pattern rings eliminates the nodal systemic ringing of the driver, due to it's physical construction.
Later on in the thread Jon Ver Halen of Lowther America tests a treated and untreated Lowther PM6A. Almost all of his piston referenced tests show the EnABL'd driver is actually performing a bit worse than the untreated driver, thus showing that it is no longer a good piston driver example.
Again only the CSD plot shows any real difference or improvement. However, Jon then goes on to make a pretty strong comment about the relative audible performances and asks how the tests he has performed can be so far astray of what he hears.
In my own testing only the CSD plots have shown any change at all, though I have never looked at the phase relationship Sonngsc looked at. If you look at the final pages of this document you will see what I mean.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue21/standingwaves.htm
So, no simple answers. Best thing is to learn how to do this treatment yourself and try it out, on cheap speakers, like those for your computer or car audio system. The tools and instructions are located in this thread, as are many comments from people who have just gone off and done it, so they could make their own mind up.
Bud
I've listened a lot...let me test my understanding
A frequency response graph shows the relative output summation vs. frequency. At one particular frequency there may be a portion of the signal attributable to several components of the sound...whether they be different instruments in the orchestra, reflections off of objects in the venue where it was recorded or background noises from the artists, audience or the freight train outside. The frequency response graph doesn't discriminate between these seperate parts of the signal...OUR EARS DO...
Speaker drivers have differing abilities in reproducing the lower-level background signals. These treatments improve the driver's ability to send the intended signal towards our ears without changing them.
A frequency response graph shows the relative output summation vs. frequency. At one particular frequency there may be a portion of the signal attributable to several components of the sound...whether they be different instruments in the orchestra, reflections off of objects in the venue where it was recorded or background noises from the artists, audience or the freight train outside. The frequency response graph doesn't discriminate between these seperate parts of the signal...OUR EARS DO...
Speaker drivers have differing abilities in reproducing the lower-level background signals. These treatments improve the driver's ability to send the intended signal towards our ears without changing them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.