t-head said:
Yes. See above.
I may inadvertently enabled a driver previously. Since the demand here is for subjective gushing, I'll dig it out of storage and report back.
cheers,
AJ
AJinFLA said:
I'll raise issues after I have tried and measured it, and not just to hear myself speak.
altar: a usually raised structure or place on which sacrifices are offered or incense is burned in worship —often used figuratively to describe a thing given great or undue precedence or value especially at the cost of something else <sacrificed his family life on the altar of career advancement>
No, I very much appreciate the need for measurements, I just don't appreciate people who wizz in the cornflakes just because they can...and that describes you to a tee. I don't know if I've ever come across a constructive post of your's...which, in and of itself, is a pretty bizarre observation and worthy of further investigation-- just not by me .
AJinFLA said:
Hopefully along with objective explanations for differences you might have heard?
WADR, whether you subscribe to technical explanations yet proffered, or can eventually disprove them to your own satisfaction, the physical application of the EnABL process is far more elaborate and precise than something that could happen "inadvertently".
Not to say that you might not have achieved some degree of improvement, but having heard the results of various other types of driver mods, I'd opine likely not of the same nature or degree, or for the same reasons as with EnABL.
Actually, I think there is no "demand here for subjective gushing" (sic), but rather, at the risk of repeating myself, the invitation for any intrepid individual to experiment with the process with whatever degree of scientific rigor and technical measurements their acumen allows. Oh yes, this includes some active listening to the music, not just hearing and measuring the sound.
Everyone:
A significant difficulty is many people notice some difference, but no-one knows exactly what to measure. If you survey enough people in a controlled manner it can be considered proof. Consider how Fletcher-Munson curves were developed. Lots of people saying "This is as loud as that." This scientific tool was built from nothing but carefully collected OPINIONS. Unfortunately in the audio world surveys and A/B testing carry a stigma, because they are usually poorly done my a shonky high end manufacturer to sell their jewelery. At this stage the only useful tools are the survey and laser interferometry. So far the collection if opinions has not been controlled enough.
As a preliminary test to attempt to disprove the added mass theory:
4 carefully selected basic (no whizzer) drivers, tested and measured to be as close to identical as reasonably practicable.
one bare
one EnABLed (in a stealthy way)
one with evenly distributed eqivalent added mass,
one with a quasi EnABL pattern that is thin painted rings which use the same amount of paint in the same areas as the blocks would.
Each one in an identical baffle or cabinet, tested one after the other in the same place in the room. Do them all twice in a random order (8 tests, not two batches of four). Everyone in the room must sit/stand in the same position. The units not under test will be stored in a different room, to prevent any acoustic changes in the room between tests. The source signal will be the same, there will be only one driver running (mono). A couple of days at an audio festival should provide about 50 participants which should give us some statistically significant numbers.
This should, depending on what you believe, have one of two statistically significant results. The plain driver or the EnABLed driver, it would be most interesitng of they came out even.
I support the idea of two threads, one for application information and another for theological discussions 😀
A significant difficulty is many people notice some difference, but no-one knows exactly what to measure. If you survey enough people in a controlled manner it can be considered proof. Consider how Fletcher-Munson curves were developed. Lots of people saying "This is as loud as that." This scientific tool was built from nothing but carefully collected OPINIONS. Unfortunately in the audio world surveys and A/B testing carry a stigma, because they are usually poorly done my a shonky high end manufacturer to sell their jewelery. At this stage the only useful tools are the survey and laser interferometry. So far the collection if opinions has not been controlled enough.
As a preliminary test to attempt to disprove the added mass theory:
4 carefully selected basic (no whizzer) drivers, tested and measured to be as close to identical as reasonably practicable.
one bare
one EnABLed (in a stealthy way)
one with evenly distributed eqivalent added mass,
one with a quasi EnABL pattern that is thin painted rings which use the same amount of paint in the same areas as the blocks would.
Each one in an identical baffle or cabinet, tested one after the other in the same place in the room. Do them all twice in a random order (8 tests, not two batches of four). Everyone in the room must sit/stand in the same position. The units not under test will be stored in a different room, to prevent any acoustic changes in the room between tests. The source signal will be the same, there will be only one driver running (mono). A couple of days at an audio festival should provide about 50 participants which should give us some statistically significant numbers.
This should, depending on what you believe, have one of two statistically significant results. The plain driver or the EnABLed driver, it would be most interesitng of they came out even.
I support the idea of two threads, one for application information and another for theological discussions 😀
OzMikeH said:
Same test with stereo pair would also be useful, as the increase in downward dynamic range reveals some of the subtle imformation that makes imaging better.
dave
Anyone whom has read some of Ted Jordan's articles in Wireless World will understand that mass distribution may or may not play an important role. When mass is added, depending on the nature of the added mass, you may see a change in FR, CSD, or a combination of both. The same thing happens when you try to change the stiffness distribution.
The EnABL pattern seems to make the minimum change in mass and stiffness (if the coating is not added)
The Mambony (did I get that right) does provided more damping, and it adds mass.
All these methods have their own effect. Just take time to experiement and read, and anyone can grasp the feeling as to when to apply which. For the proffesionals, prepare to invest time and money for serious work.😀
Ducks are paddling now. I see the water traces.😀
The EnABL pattern seems to make the minimum change in mass and stiffness (if the coating is not added)
The Mambony (did I get that right) does provided more damping, and it adds mass.
All these methods have their own effect. Just take time to experiement and read, and anyone can grasp the feeling as to when to apply which. For the proffesionals, prepare to invest time and money for serious work.😀
Ducks are paddling now. I see the water traces.😀
AJinFLA said:
If you aren't prepared to use your hearing when evaluating audio equipment then...
Well, no need to finish that sentence
OzMikeH said:
OzMike- speaking as a "member of the choir", I'd first like to say that any opportunity for a larger audience to experience EnABL, or any other "tweak"/"update", etc. would certainly be educational, in part as to the probable variety and degree of responses, even entertaining in terms of the lively discussion it would engender. Having attended a few DIY fests and local shows like VSAC, etc. myself, I've always found that the conversations with other enthusiasts at the BBQ or bar are equally enjoyable as any presentations, demonstrations or workshop lectures.
However, if I may offer a couple of personal comments:
It's my understanding that the EnABL pattern consists of concentric arrays of small discontiguous blocks as opposed to rings for very specific reasons.
A quasi -EnABL pattern that uses the same amount of paint (i.e. mass) in the same (radial) areas would likely create a different mechanical/acoustic effect, the efficacy of which might be more dependent on the behavior of the specific driver under test than EnABL.
In my listening experience with EnABLed drivers, one of the most significant improvements is in the area perceived depth and spaciousness of soundstage. Of course that's very recording dependent. I suspect that while aspects such as micro dynamics, harmonic coherency, etc would not suffer with a mono source, the sense of dimension certainly would.
Believe it or not, the only source in 3 different audio systems in which I've listened to EnABLed drivers that has mono capability is the FM tuner, which takes the selection and repetition of program material impossible - so I have no experience on which to base this.
As mentioned previously, DaveD & I have on numerous occasions conducted a very crude and unscientific demo that nevertheless has yielded consistent results. We don't tell the subject what to listen for - "just tell us what you think"
Two pair of identical boxes (the enclosure or driver type will no surprise to those familiar with our work
) are set side by side for connection to the same amp. As the boxes in question are quite tiny - less than 5" wide - the minor shift in lateral image placement at a listening distance of 8-10ft is immaterial, and any acoustic artifact resulting from the proximity of an inactive enclosure/driver is shared by both during the comparison. Whether we're using the host's own gear which includes a speaker selector( which allows instant switching) or if the change is by manually swapping the dual banana jacks (which with practice takes about a second per side), there is very little noticeable interruption.
Ask the listener to choose a favorite selection with which (they think) they're intimately familiar, and watch their body language when you make the (paradigm) switch.
Which one to choose?
I'm prompted by something dlr shared with me...that EnABL'd drivers should be eq'd after treatment. So my question is how to determine which set of speakers to optimize a x-over for? This is for two sets intended as identical save for the treatment. The set which is treated or not? I would think the crossover should be the same for both sets.
OzMikeH, good food for thought...
chris and all, bring your comments on this
See Ya!
I'm prompted by something dlr shared with me...that EnABL'd drivers should be eq'd after treatment. So my question is how to determine which set of speakers to optimize a x-over for? This is for two sets intended as identical save for the treatment. The set which is treated or not? I would think the crossover should be the same for both sets.
OzMikeH, good food for thought...
chris and all, bring your comments on this
See Ya!
Hi Mongo - I don't know of any x-over design calculators or software that deals with treated drivers so I believe you will need to design for the untreated speaker - and of course use the same x-over for both sets. I'd do what most x-over designers do - use the engineering stuff to get you close - and then tune it by ear until it sounds good. 😉
I see there have been a few more dissenting opinions since my first time here.
There is a possibility of actual scientific testing? What happened to the listening test I proposed? No need for that I guess, since you all are convinced already.
Still, nice to see others (with more impressive credentials than I have) contribute.
Not that I think it will make a difference. 🙂
There is a possibility of actual scientific testing? What happened to the listening test I proposed? No need for that I guess, since you all are convinced already.
Still, nice to see others (with more impressive credentials than I have) contribute.
Not that I think it will make a difference. 🙂
why must this discussion continue?
hmmm, I was finished with high school physics 25 years ago (or so).
hm... seems like some sort of visualization might help the sceptics.
ripple tank applet
Really. Try the experiment and visualize it for yourself. Pick baffled piston in the set-up, use the cursor to edit walls. try it once.
Carefully add a single pixel "dot" near the opening on each side of the opening. see what happens.
Anecdotal/Empirical data has been the basis and starting block to pretty much all science. We make observations, hypothesize a theory to explain the observation, construct experiments to support the hypothesis, if the outcome is different than expected then we either modify our hypothesis and retry or we accept the converse could be true, redefine the parameters and retest.
I think that's what is called the Scientific Method 🙂
later stew
hmmm, I was finished with high school physics 25 years ago (or so).
- Consider a ripple tank as a means of visualization. develop a single point "ripple", allow it to pass through an appropriate sized slot. What happens? Write your answer here.
- look carefully at the very "edges" of the slot. What is happeing there?
- look at the interference patterns created by the input wave output and the diffracted wave from the edge of the slot. What do you see?
- Imagine placing some sort of dot , attached to the slot. What do you think will happen? Why?
hm... seems like some sort of visualization might help the sceptics.
ripple tank applet
Really. Try the experiment and visualize it for yourself. Pick baffled piston in the set-up, use the cursor to edit walls. try it once.
Carefully add a single pixel "dot" near the opening on each side of the opening. see what happens.
Anecdotal/Empirical data has been the basis and starting block to pretty much all science. We make observations, hypothesize a theory to explain the observation, construct experiments to support the hypothesis, if the outcome is different than expected then we either modify our hypothesis and retry or we accept the converse could be true, redefine the parameters and retest.
I think that's what is called the Scientific Method 🙂
later stew
Re: why must this discussion continue?
Hi Stew,
That's certainly a neat applet!
What are we supposed to be seeing here?
Nanook said:
Hi Stew,
That's certainly a neat applet!
What are we supposed to be seeing here?
Ed,
Actually you can use the exact same crossover design software and the assumption of a perfect piston driver that they rely upon. The EnABL process does not change the frequency response, nor the overall phase characteristics to a degree I have been able to measure. I would recommend picking a crossover point, in detail, that matches the raw phase of the two drivers. As for EQ ing the crossover differently, don't bother. If the sound quality and balance are correct for a plain driver, they will be just as correct after treating, assuming a matched phase at crossover point.
Everyone else
As for all of the argument and worry, take a step back please, all participants. No one's job or reputation is riding on this discussion or the merit of the arguments being brought forth.
I completely agree, we must find a method for either measuring what is going on or interpreting the current measurements.
Let me quote Gary Pimm from an earlier post
If we return to those measurements of Soonsgc's and look at the data through Gary's eyes, we do see exactly what he has brought up. What I was understanding as "worse" results might not be so.
One of the recent posts, from someone who will apparently be doing testing, mentioned that in a quick listen no differences were noted. The entire EnABL event can be summed up as increased data delivery. Not different data delivery. I do not hear a different sounding speaker, when I treat one, I hear what I heard before treatment, same timbre, same frequency emphasis, but, I hear more of that information and I hear more of the information that was "hidden" by what I have previously called fricative hash, a blurring and blending of same frequencies from differing instruments, that is not found in the real world of real instruments and is no longer found in the reproduced world of an EnABL'd driver.
They don't sound "better', they don't sound "different", the information they provide just makes more sense.
Larry Arnst, the man who performed the tests in the often reviled white paper over on techno babble central, once made the comment, upon hearing treated and untreated drivers in close proximity with the same source, switched as he pleased, that the untreated drivers sounded confused. Upon closer questioning, he did not think either was better, but he preferred to listen to music on the less confused one.
I do appreciate all of the comments, positive, negative, questioning and rude. But the input I most appreciate is that from Soongsc, Graham Maynard, OZMikeH, Jon Ver Halen, Gary Pimm and others who just drop the issue of having the scientific tests in, correlated and understood, before a theory can be put forth, and provide suggestions for how to test and what to be looking for.
I do not personally care what theory is finally arrived at. You will still be able to EnABL a set of drivers and hear more of the information coming from the source than you could without EnABLing the same drivers. My real hope, from all of this typing and testing, is that a method for testing and interpreting those test results arises, that will allow us to judge not the efficacy of the process, but how to wring even more information from speakers than EnABL currently allows.
And then there is how to turn it into a manufacturing process that many can make money from.
Notice please, when the patent protection term is up. I will not be one of those making serious money from this investigation we are involved in.
Bud
Actually you can use the exact same crossover design software and the assumption of a perfect piston driver that they rely upon. The EnABL process does not change the frequency response, nor the overall phase characteristics to a degree I have been able to measure. I would recommend picking a crossover point, in detail, that matches the raw phase of the two drivers. As for EQ ing the crossover differently, don't bother. If the sound quality and balance are correct for a plain driver, they will be just as correct after treating, assuming a matched phase at crossover point.
Everyone else
As for all of the argument and worry, take a step back please, all participants. No one's job or reputation is riding on this discussion or the merit of the arguments being brought forth.
I completely agree, we must find a method for either measuring what is going on or interpreting the current measurements.
Let me quote Gary Pimm from an earlier post
If we return to those measurements of Soonsgc's and look at the data through Gary's eyes, we do see exactly what he has brought up. What I was understanding as "worse" results might not be so.
One of the recent posts, from someone who will apparently be doing testing, mentioned that in a quick listen no differences were noted. The entire EnABL event can be summed up as increased data delivery. Not different data delivery. I do not hear a different sounding speaker, when I treat one, I hear what I heard before treatment, same timbre, same frequency emphasis, but, I hear more of that information and I hear more of the information that was "hidden" by what I have previously called fricative hash, a blurring and blending of same frequencies from differing instruments, that is not found in the real world of real instruments and is no longer found in the reproduced world of an EnABL'd driver.
They don't sound "better', they don't sound "different", the information they provide just makes more sense.
Larry Arnst, the man who performed the tests in the often reviled white paper over on techno babble central, once made the comment, upon hearing treated and untreated drivers in close proximity with the same source, switched as he pleased, that the untreated drivers sounded confused. Upon closer questioning, he did not think either was better, but he preferred to listen to music on the less confused one.
I do appreciate all of the comments, positive, negative, questioning and rude. But the input I most appreciate is that from Soongsc, Graham Maynard, OZMikeH, Jon Ver Halen, Gary Pimm and others who just drop the issue of having the scientific tests in, correlated and understood, before a theory can be put forth, and provide suggestions for how to test and what to be looking for.
I do not personally care what theory is finally arrived at. You will still be able to EnABL a set of drivers and hear more of the information coming from the source than you could without EnABLing the same drivers. My real hope, from all of this typing and testing, is that a method for testing and interpreting those test results arises, that will allow us to judge not the efficacy of the process, but how to wring even more information from speakers than EnABL currently allows.
And then there is how to turn it into a manufacturing process that many can make money from.
Notice please, when the patent protection term is up. I will not be one of those making serious money from this investigation we are involved in.
Bud
put a phase plug in there. two pixels wide, 4 long. too bad it doesnt do rounded phase plugs.
change the frequency around while you're at it.
-Jared
change the frequency around while you're at it.
-Jared
I make no claims of even minor intelligence.
That being said, why do people feel the need to trash a theory in the making? I have no issue with a person having doubts to any theory. And by all means questions should be asked. But why all the nastiness? I can't tell you how much time I have wasted reading nasty comments and subsequent replies, about this from people who haven't even heard it, and are unwilling to try. More than half of this thread seems to be about arguing about whether this works or not. Most of it by people who haven't heard a single note played through an EnAbled speaker. If you doubt that the process works, fine. I am not so sure it will work either, but I will not dismiss it outright, without hearing the results.
Why is it automatically snake oil if you doubt it? Why are any that are willing to try it gullible dimwits? Bud doesn't seem to be profiting from his thread in any grand way. He seems to offer anyone an unlimited amount of patience in questioning of his process. In fact, he even invites skeptics to continue questioning his theories. I am not a member of the choir, but I will not exclude myself until I have heard the process results.
To this point, I have not listened to any EnAbled drivers. I am in the process of trying it out on some cheap pc speakers. I will return with my impressions after I hear them. If they sound better, then I would try it on some better drivers. If they suck I will be the first to say so.
I am not an audiophile by any means. I have no "high end" equipment, unless you consider an Onkyo Ds777 high end. Go ahead and scoff. My listening tests will include my equipment and my ears. I use them to listen to things. I believe that my ears and brain are just slightly more complex than any piece of test equipment.
If they sound better to me , I could care less what a plot tells me. Science is important. And it would be nice if there really IS some change for the better, that there would be some way of showing how and why it happens. That way it can be repeated and improved possibly.
So, I will give it a try, no skin off my back. If it works, great, if not, oh well. At least I will know for myself. Please feel free to bash me on anything I have said, I know it will be tempting to some. I will not waste my time with a reply.
Jon
That being said, why do people feel the need to trash a theory in the making? I have no issue with a person having doubts to any theory. And by all means questions should be asked. But why all the nastiness? I can't tell you how much time I have wasted reading nasty comments and subsequent replies, about this from people who haven't even heard it, and are unwilling to try. More than half of this thread seems to be about arguing about whether this works or not. Most of it by people who haven't heard a single note played through an EnAbled speaker. If you doubt that the process works, fine. I am not so sure it will work either, but I will not dismiss it outright, without hearing the results.
Why is it automatically snake oil if you doubt it? Why are any that are willing to try it gullible dimwits? Bud doesn't seem to be profiting from his thread in any grand way. He seems to offer anyone an unlimited amount of patience in questioning of his process. In fact, he even invites skeptics to continue questioning his theories. I am not a member of the choir, but I will not exclude myself until I have heard the process results.
To this point, I have not listened to any EnAbled drivers. I am in the process of trying it out on some cheap pc speakers. I will return with my impressions after I hear them. If they sound better, then I would try it on some better drivers. If they suck I will be the first to say so.
I am not an audiophile by any means. I have no "high end" equipment, unless you consider an Onkyo Ds777 high end. Go ahead and scoff. My listening tests will include my equipment and my ears. I use them to listen to things. I believe that my ears and brain are just slightly more complex than any piece of test equipment.
If they sound better to me , I could care less what a plot tells me. Science is important. And it would be nice if there really IS some change for the better, that there would be some way of showing how and why it happens. That way it can be repeated and improved possibly.
So, I will give it a try, no skin off my back. If it works, great, if not, oh well. At least I will know for myself. Please feel free to bash me on anything I have said, I know it will be tempting to some. I will not waste my time with a reply.
Jon
- Status
- Not open for further replies.