It seems like there are some issues regarding FR, phase, CSD. Here are some of my experieces:
1. FR: There are a few things that may alter this. One is if the pattern breaks up a specific trong mode, then a change most likely is noticed. Another is if the siffness distribution or mass distribution is altered, then a change might most likely will be noticed. I sometimes try all these and see what the final solution might be. Note that the EnABL pattern sometimes require some coating? That part is most likely to change frequency response to some degree, and most likely due to stiffness distribution.
2. Phase: I generally notice more phase lead as the patterns get closer to the voice coil. However, I cannot justify whether this makes improvements to sound or not through data. I think if some sort of Finite Element Anaysis is possible, maybe it's effects can be explained.
3. CSD: This is the most important data I currently use to make judgements. Generally, the faster I can get more frequency range to drop as low as possible in the second sample curve of the CSD using a resolution of one sample in SoundEasy, then the cleaner the sound will be and the more significant the improvement can be audible. This assumes the FR is already close to satisfactory.
1. FR: There are a few things that may alter this. One is if the pattern breaks up a specific trong mode, then a change most likely is noticed. Another is if the siffness distribution or mass distribution is altered, then a change might most likely will be noticed. I sometimes try all these and see what the final solution might be. Note that the EnABL pattern sometimes require some coating? That part is most likely to change frequency response to some degree, and most likely due to stiffness distribution.
2. Phase: I generally notice more phase lead as the patterns get closer to the voice coil. However, I cannot justify whether this makes improvements to sound or not through data. I think if some sort of Finite Element Anaysis is possible, maybe it's effects can be explained.
3. CSD: This is the most important data I currently use to make judgements. Generally, the faster I can get more frequency range to drop as low as possible in the second sample curve of the CSD using a resolution of one sample in SoundEasy, then the cleaner the sound will be and the more significant the improvement can be audible. This assumes the FR is already close to satisfactory.
Everyone is in a learning process. No need to look back on mistakes others may have made or said. It's important to realize that there are many people coming up with different ideas and methods to improve sound. I don't think anyone is trying to convince others that his idea is the best, but rather share the excitement of new discoveries.dlr said:
I was skeptic at first, which is one reason why I started the JX92S test. But once I understood the difference between cone stiffness and effects, I know it should work fine on soft cones/domes.
I have learned gradually through participation in different forums, those whom really know will share what they feel adequate regardless what others may say or question. They inspire research, but to not always give results. If you really want to know, it's best to just start more research.
It would be interesting to see some before after detailed and high resolution impedance measurements. Everything (and then some) shows up in imp. traces ;-)
For the record - I think you ar on to something interesting here!
/
For the record - I think you ar on to something interesting here!
/
The mods don't change the impedance significantly, but you just have to add the appropriate zobels etc. to flatten out the impedance so that amp/driver interaction coloration does not audibly influence your listening judgement and lead you on the wrong track.TNT said:
😀
dlr said:
This is a major area that EnABL tackles. (in theory and certainly backed up by what is heard). The signal that reflects from the impedance mismatch. The EnABL disperses/ejects most of the signal before it can get to the impedance change in effect making it moot.
dave
I have in front of me the proper paints, pen and nibs, patters, and speakers.
However, a wave of FEAR has overcome me, and I am unable for now to begin the conversion process.
Am I afraid of ruining a $29 driver? No, its an insignifigant value.
Am I afraid it won't work? No, many who's opinions I respect have done this and all have been impressed.
No. I'm afraid that it WILL work.
What will I do then?
John C.
"Make your choice, adventurous stranger,
Ring the bell, and bide the danger.
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have happened if you had!"
C.S. Lewis
However, a wave of FEAR has overcome me, and I am unable for now to begin the conversion process.
Am I afraid of ruining a $29 driver? No, its an insignifigant value.
Am I afraid it won't work? No, many who's opinions I respect have done this and all have been impressed.
No. I'm afraid that it WILL work.
What will I do then?
John C.
"Make your choice, adventurous stranger,
Ring the bell, and bide the danger.
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have happened if you had!"
C.S. Lewis
t-head said:
I was certainly among those... i had a print-out of both the patent & the PF article sitting in the library. Upon reading it, my response was "how the h is that going to do anything" and put it aside.
Then when Bud started posting, something in one of his posts resonanted with some discussions i had had with an expert in the field (ie a speaker designer) and to satisfy my curiousity i sent Bud a pair of drivers i am intimately familiar with to treat. The rest is history.
dlr, at this point your sceptism is understandable. Listen to a pair of EnABLed drivers and your attitude will change from "it can't possibly work, and if it does it will be very subtle" to (paraphrased from the words of a "blind" recipient of some drivers)... "i have no idea how those little brown spots can make such a difference". And this from a customer that had earlier sent mail that said (about the boxes with drivers from before-EnABL) "I hate you Chris, i can't listen to any other speakers now"
dave
I'm waiting to see what happens when we get back around to the electron pools! 😀 😀 😀
(Chrisb - grab your bat and start warming up!) 😉
(Chrisb - grab your bat and start warming up!) 😉
'What will I do then?'
Spend a bunch to get your equipment up to snuff...grin a lot...listen to more music...
if my experience is any indication...
Spend a bunch to get your equipment up to snuff...grin a lot...listen to more music...
if my experience is any indication...
dlr,
Glad to see you didn't take your hair shirt seriously.
I will have to digest your comments a bit, but I need to inject some qualifiers.
1. If the Hilbert transform is ironclad, then does that mean that Sonngsc did not actually measure a change in what is considered "phase"? Is it possible that MJK hit upon the truth when he claimed Soongsc had to have altered the physical difference between mic and metal driver? Soonsgc replied that this movement was not a possibility in his test set up. Could what he measured be actual evidence of a change in position of the creation of the longitudinal wave front? And could the attendant change in "phase" as more rings are added just be a continued lofting of this position, with respect to 1 K, of the higher frequencies? Dan Wiggins also agrees that this phase to frequency response event must be ironclad. At one time he had promised his time and an anechoic chamber packed with test gear to find out what is going on. Sadly his corporate masters have squashed this plan and he won't answer emails, none of which have been the least bit unfriendly.
2. Sonngsc's tests were all performed upon an aluminum cone, with the pattern made from toothpaste globs, with no conformal coating.
3, The audible effect of the conformal coating being added is to disallow what I will call "shrieks" that arise from the area between pattern rings, above a very clear point in spl or/and a not so clear point in information density. I hope these words are meaningful to you and they are strictly qualitative. The clarity that listeners comment on is provided by the pattern only, applied as shown in various pics here. http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
The conformal coat appears to supply a guaranteed transverse wave speed and a "better?" boundary layer. The suppression of non linear behavior could be from more equitable use of the patterns, due to the 3X wave speed multiplier of the acrylic material and the surface condition of the gloss. Certainly the surface condition is quite important, from empirical use.
4. With respect to cones with whizzers, I will claim that I can suppress all of the audible resonant , non linear behavior that I am equipped to hear. I cannot claim perfect behavior and am not actually looking for it. I am only interested in revealing what an artist/s can provide with respect to emphasizing the merits of a composers exploration into art, as provided by a reproducer in my living room.
I am interested in the scientific implications because I think this is, in a general sense, an overlooked and potentially important area to study. I am also interested in first approximations and how they limit investigations. I am interested in finally listening to a set of speakers that completely satisfy my interests, without my having treated them.
5. We have to keep in mind at all times that this boundary layer is being fed energy from within the cone structure and that is is at all times emitting into the attendant longitudinal wave front that is being created, adjacent to the boundary layer, or in it, as the case may be. So, this is a three vector problem and as such is certainly going to have a different energy transform characteristic than if we were just agitating waves in a tank. I realize that this is an obvious statement to make. But I think it is very pertinent to why this particular pattern is effective and why there may be even more effective ones available, once we have figured out what is actually going on.
6. This "treatment regimen" is more than 300 "systems" deep, spread over 35 years of activity, so, from my view point, it is a mature technology. I am quite aware of how unconventional it looks to you, but please rest assured that I am absolutely confident of being able to tame the same frequency resonant behavior / transient standing wave activity of all driver types, all surface materials and all multiple or single driver systems.
I really do appreciate your and every one else's interest and the time you have all taken from your lives to think about this.
Bud
Glad to see you didn't take your hair shirt seriously.
I will have to digest your comments a bit, but I need to inject some qualifiers.
1. If the Hilbert transform is ironclad, then does that mean that Sonngsc did not actually measure a change in what is considered "phase"? Is it possible that MJK hit upon the truth when he claimed Soongsc had to have altered the physical difference between mic and metal driver? Soonsgc replied that this movement was not a possibility in his test set up. Could what he measured be actual evidence of a change in position of the creation of the longitudinal wave front? And could the attendant change in "phase" as more rings are added just be a continued lofting of this position, with respect to 1 K, of the higher frequencies? Dan Wiggins also agrees that this phase to frequency response event must be ironclad. At one time he had promised his time and an anechoic chamber packed with test gear to find out what is going on. Sadly his corporate masters have squashed this plan and he won't answer emails, none of which have been the least bit unfriendly.
2. Sonngsc's tests were all performed upon an aluminum cone, with the pattern made from toothpaste globs, with no conformal coating.
3, The audible effect of the conformal coating being added is to disallow what I will call "shrieks" that arise from the area between pattern rings, above a very clear point in spl or/and a not so clear point in information density. I hope these words are meaningful to you and they are strictly qualitative. The clarity that listeners comment on is provided by the pattern only, applied as shown in various pics here. http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
The conformal coat appears to supply a guaranteed transverse wave speed and a "better?" boundary layer. The suppression of non linear behavior could be from more equitable use of the patterns, due to the 3X wave speed multiplier of the acrylic material and the surface condition of the gloss. Certainly the surface condition is quite important, from empirical use.
4. With respect to cones with whizzers, I will claim that I can suppress all of the audible resonant , non linear behavior that I am equipped to hear. I cannot claim perfect behavior and am not actually looking for it. I am only interested in revealing what an artist/s can provide with respect to emphasizing the merits of a composers exploration into art, as provided by a reproducer in my living room.
I am interested in the scientific implications because I think this is, in a general sense, an overlooked and potentially important area to study. I am also interested in first approximations and how they limit investigations. I am interested in finally listening to a set of speakers that completely satisfy my interests, without my having treated them.
5. We have to keep in mind at all times that this boundary layer is being fed energy from within the cone structure and that is is at all times emitting into the attendant longitudinal wave front that is being created, adjacent to the boundary layer, or in it, as the case may be. So, this is a three vector problem and as such is certainly going to have a different energy transform characteristic than if we were just agitating waves in a tank. I realize that this is an obvious statement to make. But I think it is very pertinent to why this particular pattern is effective and why there may be even more effective ones available, once we have figured out what is actually going on.
6. This "treatment regimen" is more than 300 "systems" deep, spread over 35 years of activity, so, from my view point, it is a mature technology. I am quite aware of how unconventional it looks to you, but please rest assured that I am absolutely confident of being able to tame the same frequency resonant behavior / transient standing wave activity of all driver types, all surface materials and all multiple or single driver systems.
I really do appreciate your and every one else's interest and the time you have all taken from your lives to think about this.
Bud
Goodevening - having a few pints here and reading this post made me remember a nice application I have on my iMac called Technobabble...
This came out of it ...
"To shatter the molecular rotation would not be logical, because the compressed probe would then create the extra-dimensional generator."
and a 2:nd run derive ...
"To decelerate the dampening micro-replication would not be logical, because the anti chamber would then reverse the servo-mechanical replicator."
and finally ending with
"To scan the biomolecular filament would not be logical, because the containment micro-replication would then shut down the metaphasic mine."
No offence - sheers
onlineversion: http://maycontainnuts.me.uk/treknobabble/default.htm
This came out of it ...
"To shatter the molecular rotation would not be logical, because the compressed probe would then create the extra-dimensional generator."
and a 2:nd run derive ...
"To decelerate the dampening micro-replication would not be logical, because the anti chamber would then reverse the servo-mechanical replicator."
and finally ending with
"To scan the biomolecular filament would not be logical, because the containment micro-replication would then shut down the metaphasic mine."
No offence - sheers
onlineversion: http://maycontainnuts.me.uk/treknobabble/default.htm
BudP said:
Magnetar,
I have teated some compression drivers. Some have responded very dramatically. One, so far, showed no alteration in those characteristics I listen for.
The CD and horn flares that showed the most dramatic change were from a Radio Shack three way system. The change amounted to a moderate increase in information coherency and a dramatic increase in dynamic pressure change. They didn't get "louder" but the leading edge of things like rim shots, trumpet notes and all other transient impact events, became painful to my ears. They were not particularly distorted, but their intensity had gotten well past what I found comfortable. Interestingly, the 15" woofer in these systems was transformed from a very muddy drag to the system sound, to an equal player, in support of musical events, in a qualitative sense.
Another and quite opposite event, occurred with the treatment of the complex pathways found in an EV TH350 tweeter. No audible difference between two, one treated and one untreated, with them sounding identical before treatment, also. I was somewhat amazed that no degradations or improvements occurred.
I am assuming that well designed compression drivers do not have transient ringing, to any appreciable degree. Certainly a good horn system and a full range EnABL'd system, whether single or multiple driver, have significant amounts of common characteristics, with respect to clarity and precision of start and stop conditions for musical notes.
Bud
I have teated some compression drivers. Some have responded very dramatically. One, so far, showed no alteration in those characteristics I listen for.
The CD and horn flares that showed the most dramatic change were from a Radio Shack three way system. The change amounted to a moderate increase in information coherency and a dramatic increase in dynamic pressure change. They didn't get "louder" but the leading edge of things like rim shots, trumpet notes and all other transient impact events, became painful to my ears. They were not particularly distorted, but their intensity had gotten well past what I found comfortable. Interestingly, the 15" woofer in these systems was transformed from a very muddy drag to the system sound, to an equal player, in support of musical events, in a qualitative sense.
Another and quite opposite event, occurred with the treatment of the complex pathways found in an EV TH350 tweeter. No audible difference between two, one treated and one untreated, with them sounding identical before treatment, also. I was somewhat amazed that no degradations or improvements occurred.
I am assuming that well designed compression drivers do not have transient ringing, to any appreciable degree. Certainly a good horn system and a full range EnABL'd system, whether single or multiple driver, have significant amounts of common characteristics, with respect to clarity and precision of start and stop conditions for musical notes.
Bud
TNT,
Yep, I agree. But then, that is what is inside of my head, without any pints to rely on. It should be fairly obvious that I am prohibited the use of mind altering substances... I might suddenly make sense.... or just collapse completely, thus leaving our transformer company without it's wizard.
Bud
Yep, I agree. But then, that is what is inside of my head, without any pints to rely on. It should be fairly obvious that I am prohibited the use of mind altering substances... I might suddenly make sense.... or just collapse completely, thus leaving our transformer company without it's wizard.
Bud
Mongo's been flexing his analytical muscle
He's torn up because there's no "Post Question" button.
to wit: Bud, Does your experience with EnAbl allow any precedent influence over the "physical plant" of a speaker? If the casework of a speaker, particularly the baffle, could be considered the terrain (or the land within the environment) of a system, does your intuition lead you to favor a particular composition for them?
I come from a bias toward "speakers in a box". This is being disolved by what I'm learning about open baffle, reading about infinite baffle...so the options increase.
Do you have a bias, or thoughts to share on this?
He's torn up because there's no "Post Question" button.
to wit: Bud, Does your experience with EnAbl allow any precedent influence over the "physical plant" of a speaker? If the casework of a speaker, particularly the baffle, could be considered the terrain (or the land within the environment) of a system, does your intuition lead you to favor a particular composition for them?
I come from a bias toward "speakers in a box". This is being disolved by what I'm learning about open baffle, reading about infinite baffle...so the options increase.
Do you have a bias, or thoughts to share on this?
planet10 said:
That's the hypothesis. I haven't seen what can be shown to be proof.
BudP said:
The only phase change that can occur is the change that follows from change in SPL. Also, measurements taken at different times, with different settings, such as window types, start and stop markers, will alter the phase but that is due to the FR change as a result of the change in these settings.
If so, it would be a simple task to adjust for the change. This is excess-phase and is easily corrected or made to match between measurements. This is simply a fixed distance that is exhibited by an increasing phase change from low to high frequency since the wavelength is decreasing while this excess-phase is a fixed value. There may also be a change in the phase response outside of this, but that will be directly correlated to any change in frequency response.
I don't have the background in wave mechanics, but I would say no, unless there is damping (a reduction) in the output at some point. Remember that the output is an integration of the output of all points on the surface of the diaphragm. Reduce the output in one area, then the rest of the surface takes on more relative importance. It's simply diminishing the contribution of the damped areas. This is essentially what damped, soft dome tweeters do inherently. They damp better at higher frequencies, ultimately preventing the tip area from emitting at all, making it perform more and more like a ring radiator as frequency increases.
The relationship between FR and phase can't be changed with a minimum-phase device such as a driver. Keep in mind that cones and their materials and construction are extremely varied. The geometry and materials are altered for some desired output that inherently has large variation from one design to the next that inescapably presents a transverse wave to longitudinal transition over a broad range of variability, yet they all remain minimum-phase. Any extraneous material applied is not going to alter the resultant minimum-phase nature of the driver.
I don't see that as being the mechanism.
The evidence and significant prior research of others shows this to be the case.
Maybe toothpaste has some good damping characteristics. ('😉')
wink
3, The audible effect of the conformal coating being added is to disallow what I will call "shrieks" that arise from the area between pattern rings, above a very clear point in spl or/and a not so clear point in information density. I hope these words are meaningful to you and they are strictly qualitative. The clarity that listeners comment on is provided by the pattern only, applied as shown in various pics here. http://picasaweb.google.com/home?tab=mq
I've followed some earlier threads to some degree and have seen some of the patterns. I'm still skeptical as to the necessity for such detail and the mechanism involved. The descriptions seem to be largely conjecture.
Ed,
No.
Until Lowther #1 & 2, I was a devoted, drivers in a closed box fellow. Suddenly, here were a couple of drivers that, once treated, sounded better than anything I had ever put into a closed box. They were playing no baffle, "nude". I would go so far as to say they sounded better than the treated Ohm F's that started this whole thing, but the WAF says, not so, but close to her memory of the F's, all the same.
I have never heard a "properly set up" horn system so no comment there. I have never heard any open baffle system, so even fewer comments there.
These Hemp FR8's, playing nude in my living room, sound so good that if I could figure out a way to siphon off the bottom half of the back wave and turn it into bass down to 40 Hz and still leave the top half of the back side nude, that would be my favorite for quite a long time to come.
Would get those Canadian guys off the hook too, as there is still that Victorian Factory design, according to PDan, lurking in their promised bin.
I will say that my fully treated 4 way box speakers, with Linnaeum tweeters and Pioneer half can super tweeters are now a major disappointment. They have incredibly detailed, warm, clear sound, but the overall character is DARK and slow. Wonderfully coherent sound stage, with everything available, as it is with the Hemps, but just barely any signs of life about them, in a direct comparison. Once my correlator adjusts to the "different" information, they sound just fine again.
So, no, I don't have any suggestions. Perhaps after the Vicky factories have been built and dialed in, since one of their drivers will be open baffle, actually mounted on the baffle, I will have a better idea.
Bud
No.
Until Lowther #1 & 2, I was a devoted, drivers in a closed box fellow. Suddenly, here were a couple of drivers that, once treated, sounded better than anything I had ever put into a closed box. They were playing no baffle, "nude". I would go so far as to say they sounded better than the treated Ohm F's that started this whole thing, but the WAF says, not so, but close to her memory of the F's, all the same.
I have never heard a "properly set up" horn system so no comment there. I have never heard any open baffle system, so even fewer comments there.
These Hemp FR8's, playing nude in my living room, sound so good that if I could figure out a way to siphon off the bottom half of the back wave and turn it into bass down to 40 Hz and still leave the top half of the back side nude, that would be my favorite for quite a long time to come.
Would get those Canadian guys off the hook too, as there is still that Victorian Factory design, according to PDan, lurking in their promised bin.
I will say that my fully treated 4 way box speakers, with Linnaeum tweeters and Pioneer half can super tweeters are now a major disappointment. They have incredibly detailed, warm, clear sound, but the overall character is DARK and slow. Wonderfully coherent sound stage, with everything available, as it is with the Hemps, but just barely any signs of life about them, in a direct comparison. Once my correlator adjusts to the "different" information, they sound just fine again.
So, no, I don't have any suggestions. Perhaps after the Vicky factories have been built and dialed in, since one of their drivers will be open baffle, actually mounted on the baffle, I will have a better idea.
Bud
dlr said:
If it was proven it wouldn't be a theory. It certainly is consistent with what is heard -- but that is meaningless until you hear it
This requirement is consistent with the theory. If we are ejecting energy at the outer terminus of the cone, instead of having it emitted (after its reflections) over the entire cone, then the distribution of energy emitted from the cone would be altered.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.