PS.
I realize my ears are not perfect devices, but they are all I have. What sounds good to me may sound like crap to another, especially if you take personal taste into account. So of course, my conclusions on the results will only be truly valid to me. It does seem that several others are finding that the results are positive for them, although I am guessing that even if 10,000 people said they like the sound better, there will still be those that want a graph to show that it is better.
The Earth is flat and there is no way you can convince me otherwise! Look at what all the leading scientists and philosophers have said up until now....
Jon
I realize my ears are not perfect devices, but they are all I have. What sounds good to me may sound like crap to another, especially if you take personal taste into account. So of course, my conclusions on the results will only be truly valid to me. It does seem that several others are finding that the results are positive for them, although I am guessing that even if 10,000 people said they like the sound better, there will still be those that want a graph to show that it is better.
The Earth is flat and there is no way you can convince me otherwise! Look at what all the leading scientists and philosophers have said up until now....
Jon
This is definitely one of the most fascinating threads I have come across for a long time. Like Jon I can make no claim to great intelligence and I certainly have no scientific or audio tech background, but I am inquisitive and try to be open minded, my profession/business of digital imaging training and trouble shooting sort of demands it.
I have modded many speakers and currently am working on 4 which I will try the enabel process on, if it works great I have gained better sound for next to nothing, if it doesn't, well that is no problem I will have lost nothing but a bit of time.
The point I would like to make is that my experience has been that many seemingly insignificant things can and do make a difference to the sound of drivers, and some seem to defy logic and accepted wisdom. Having built pretty much every part of my hifi system (including a couple of phono carts and currently a carbon fibre tonearm) and spent masses of time experimenting it never ceases to amaze me how the devil is truly in the details. I have a very close friend who is a retired audio tech guy, he has helped me a lot, he does heaps of work in the radio field and from where I stand I am generally in awe of his knowledge and ability to solve problems, yet even he says that true hi end audio is closer to the black arts than simple electronics.
I may be wrong but one of the things that might get in the road (and my friend certainly feels this way) is that there are things that happen in audio that we just don't really know how to quantify as yet. Lets not sell good human hearing short it is a pretty amazing sense though quite variable and may just be a better real world tool than a bunch a lab gear, after all even if the gear says something is perfect but you don't like the sound then it is pretty much a moot point.
In the digital photography field we are constantly finding new techniques and capabilities which are producing images beyond what we could previously do, no image maker would dare say they know all there is to know or that some method cannot be done better or something is impossible, because we know that next week with the rate of progress we are experiencing we will probably be proved wrong. (I have indeed been caught this way by telling a group something is not possible only to find some off the wall solution appears one month later) Of course digital photography is a pretty recent thing so maybe we haven't become too entreched in methods and understandings yet.
In the end I feel we need an open mind, if lots of people are saying it sounds better, even allowing for some self delusion something must be happening, so if we can all work collaboratively perhaps we can extend the horizon and find out what is really going on and we all win.
For my part I will post listening results and pics and get a bunch of fiends to come and listen and see what they think/hear. In my case I will be using OBs which can have the drivers swapped out in a minute or two (the drivers mount to separate frames and have their own sub baffles). If it shows promise I will try and con my mate to run some tests with his gear (I doubt he will need much encouragement).
I have modded many speakers and currently am working on 4 which I will try the enabel process on, if it works great I have gained better sound for next to nothing, if it doesn't, well that is no problem I will have lost nothing but a bit of time.
The point I would like to make is that my experience has been that many seemingly insignificant things can and do make a difference to the sound of drivers, and some seem to defy logic and accepted wisdom. Having built pretty much every part of my hifi system (including a couple of phono carts and currently a carbon fibre tonearm) and spent masses of time experimenting it never ceases to amaze me how the devil is truly in the details. I have a very close friend who is a retired audio tech guy, he has helped me a lot, he does heaps of work in the radio field and from where I stand I am generally in awe of his knowledge and ability to solve problems, yet even he says that true hi end audio is closer to the black arts than simple electronics.
I may be wrong but one of the things that might get in the road (and my friend certainly feels this way) is that there are things that happen in audio that we just don't really know how to quantify as yet. Lets not sell good human hearing short it is a pretty amazing sense though quite variable and may just be a better real world tool than a bunch a lab gear, after all even if the gear says something is perfect but you don't like the sound then it is pretty much a moot point.
In the digital photography field we are constantly finding new techniques and capabilities which are producing images beyond what we could previously do, no image maker would dare say they know all there is to know or that some method cannot be done better or something is impossible, because we know that next week with the rate of progress we are experiencing we will probably be proved wrong. (I have indeed been caught this way by telling a group something is not possible only to find some off the wall solution appears one month later) Of course digital photography is a pretty recent thing so maybe we haven't become too entreched in methods and understandings yet.
In the end I feel we need an open mind, if lots of people are saying it sounds better, even allowing for some self delusion something must be happening, so if we can all work collaboratively perhaps we can extend the horizon and find out what is really going on and we all win.
For my part I will post listening results and pics and get a bunch of fiends to come and listen and see what they think/hear. In my case I will be using OBs which can have the drivers swapped out in a minute or two (the drivers mount to separate frames and have their own sub baffles). If it shows promise I will try and con my mate to run some tests with his gear (I doubt he will need much encouragement).
BudP said:
I have to continue to disagree. If you look at soongsc's files, you'll see more than 10db variation. If this much variation can occur, or even if its 1-2db in a somewhat broad spectrum in the pass-band or early stop-band, then the crossover should be re-evaluated.
More importantly, you have again stated quite explicitly that "The EnABL process does not change the frequency response", yet the measurements that soongsc has presented is undeniably contradictory and used as argument to support the hypothesis. You can't have it both ways. If your statement in this post above is to be accepted, it is specifically impying error on soongsc's part. So which is it?
This is again referencing measurements of SPL change, yet the claim that it is not changed is in this very post. How is anyone with any objectivity to accept points of debate with unquestionable contradictions such as this? These contradictions are not my words, they are yours. My entire involvement in this thread has been to seek valid data and to point out errors and contradictions that come from conjecture as is the case here. The underlying mechanism proposed is in question. Contradictions in support of it actually detract from it.
Bud, how can you say this? It MUST be different, somehow. I'm really astonished that you continue to make this claim. There will be a change when a diaphragm is altered. That's what you intend to do. If you're changing the sound, you're changing the acoustic wave front.
For everyone:
Some in this thread make the erroneous assumption that those of us who question, legitimately, the claims made in the hypothesis, should understand that none of us are trying to knock it down for the sake of so doing as has been charged. Any and all hypotheses must undergo scrutiny and their validity must be proved if it is to ever be accepted by anyone but the faithful. It cannot be conjecture alone, as is the case here. When I see unambiguous data and logical arguments, I accept them. If they are contradictory or erroneous, I challenge them. If you do not do so, then you are simply following on faith.
10 people listen to different systems and choose different ones to be "the best". Which one is the most accurate? People choose what they like, not necessarily what is the most accurate. At least that's what I do. I strive for the best, but in the end it's what I like that counts (I usually like a bit more bass). That does not alter the fact that I may be selecting the one actually more colored, but I have to be honest with myself in knowing that this is the case.
Dave
When using patterns of any kind to tweak a driver. One must really do some tests to find out whether the FR is changed or not because it can be done both ways. If one just wishes to blindly apply the pattern, the degree of improvement will vary among different driver models. I would post some variations, but it seems like not many people are interested doing measurements. I hate to be the only one doing it. But significantly reducing a 20+KHz strong mode really makes a difference. I tried one channel first, the difference was so much that we could hear the other channel seemed to have more sound and the more steady tones seemed to shift to that channel. Once I gave the other channel the same treatement, the whole soundstage was in balance. But the real fun is getting your feet wet in just trying to find the right tweak. In the process of gradually solving the cone breakup modes, metal cone drivers don't sound like metal cones any more. You will also learn what those strong modes sound like and detect them in music. For a long time I have been wondering why the 3 Tenors had a common voice signature. Now I know what was causing it. Ain't it fun?😀
On thing for those Design in yourselvers. It's important to get someone that is at least as critical in listening as you are. They will help point out things that you may have missed when listening yourself, which sends you on that continouse cycle of improvement again.
On thing for those Design in yourselvers. It's important to get someone that is at least as critical in listening as you are. They will help point out things that you may have missed when listening yourself, which sends you on that continouse cycle of improvement again.
dlr said:
Hi Dave,
I appreciate your reasoned, yet respectful questioning of the process. Perhaps it will help lead to an acceptable scientific explanation and hopefully improved understanding of what folks are hearing. I agree with your statement in regards to your posts.
However, not all of those who question have taken your approach or seem to have the motives you ascribe to them (see below). Clearly these types of posts will tend to induce a pretty predictable reaction and as a result, legitimate questioning gets squashed and motives are questioned as the troops rally. Cooperation and group effort is what benefits the DIY community, not contemptuous or arrogant commentary, IMO. Other questioners could learn from your approach.
"This heavily laden train is steaming downhill. I would not throw science in it's way at this point. The view from off the track is more fascinating that way. Alice or any episode of the Twilight Zone has nothing on this one .
Please let it continue unabated without further distractions."
"I would change that to science or scientist rather than engineer, as anyone familiar with the scientific method would rely on data rather than babbling conjecture. Martin, you must admit that the techno-babble at least causes you to smile sometimes? The recent post by Bud where he (of course vaguely) seemed to imply that the (added mass) process made the speaker play louder ....well, luckily I was not consuming any liquids, because when it comes out your nose... "
"You guys are so gullible. LOL - and blind too!"
dlr said:
Well said.
Without creating an entire new direction of argument, how many of us really understand the direction that our individual audio "tastes" wander from the mythical standard of "accuracy".
Seriously Dave, you should try to listen to a pair of EnABLed drivers.
BudP said:
Surely, the enABL thingy is only applicable to a driver operating in the none piston (i.e. the bending wave) mode of operation frequency range - no?
Re: why must this discussion continue?
I forgot about that site, thanks for bringing it up.
Nanook said:
I forgot about that site, thanks for bringing it up.
I'd like to throw out some food for thought. I considered posting this some time ago but though better about getting in the discussion. Oh well, things change.
Forget about boundary layers (BL) transverse waves, (TW) longitudinal waves (LW), etc. Look at this as from a systems approach. The system input is the cone vibration (CV). The output is the acoustic wave front (AWF). We can think in terms of a transfer function (TF) between the cone surface and the air and write,
AWF = TF x CV.
So we have three scenarios to consider:
1) Enable changed the CV;
2) Enable changes the TF;
3) Enable changed both CV and TF.
In cases 1 and 2 any change should be observable in the AWF, this measurable. In case 3 the results are indeterminate w/o further information, and it is even possible that no change in AWF occurs. When I say no change, I don't mean that you should interpret this as a case with there is no observable change but there may be an audible change. No change means NO CHANGE.
Anyway, let's look at what would be most likely. Since we are talking about the frequency range where standing waves exist on the cone (or whizzer), we are in a frequency range where the driver is behaving as a bending wave transducer as opposed to a pistonic source. Enable is supposed to eliminate standing waves. Thus, if Enable works even remotely as advertised the CV is the source of the change. It is unlikely that there would be any significant change in the TF for a number of reasons. One that should be fairly obvious is that the Enable treatment is applied only to a relatively small fraction of the total radiating area of the driver and, therefore can not alter the TF between cone and air. It can be argued that the TF between the air and the treated portion of the cone doesn't change either.
So then it becomes a question of, can a standing wave be eliminated form the cone without changing the frequency response? That's pretty much a NO. Standing waves exist only because energy is input to a system at a rate which is greater than the rate at which energy can leave or be dissipated by that system. This is a resonant behavior. Since the energy leaving or dissipated by the system is largely dependent on the amplitude of the standing wave, then the amplitude of the wave will continue to grow until the system either destroys itself (you’ve all see the bridge film) or until energy is removed from/dissipated by the system at a rate equal to the input rate. If the Enable (or any other) treatment is to eliminate standing waves then the treated portion of the cone must absorb ALL the energy which is incident upon it either as the wave initially passes across the treated area or after the wave is reflected from the terminus. This absorbed energy must then either be reradiated to the surroundings (including the cone) as acoustic energy or heat. In either case, the characteristics of the CV would change as a result of the elimination of the standing wave and the result would be evident in the radiated AWF.
Form my point of view, the bottom line would be that if the standing waves are eliminated then the this should be readily apparent is any number of response measurements, FR, CSD, impulse, burst, etc. If there is no apparent change in the FR or other measurements then there is no effective damping of standing waves. This would imply that only minimal changes in the CV would occur and while this might make a small audible difference, the gross characteristics of the standing waves, and resulting coloration, what ever they are, would not be eliminated form the underlying character of the sound. in a nutshell, if you hit you thumb with a hammer it makes very little difference if you hit it hard or very hard. It still hurts like an S O B. You may perceive differences in the level of the pain, but the pain is still there.
Forget about boundary layers (BL) transverse waves, (TW) longitudinal waves (LW), etc. Look at this as from a systems approach. The system input is the cone vibration (CV). The output is the acoustic wave front (AWF). We can think in terms of a transfer function (TF) between the cone surface and the air and write,
AWF = TF x CV.
So we have three scenarios to consider:
1) Enable changed the CV;
2) Enable changes the TF;
3) Enable changed both CV and TF.
In cases 1 and 2 any change should be observable in the AWF, this measurable. In case 3 the results are indeterminate w/o further information, and it is even possible that no change in AWF occurs. When I say no change, I don't mean that you should interpret this as a case with there is no observable change but there may be an audible change. No change means NO CHANGE.
Anyway, let's look at what would be most likely. Since we are talking about the frequency range where standing waves exist on the cone (or whizzer), we are in a frequency range where the driver is behaving as a bending wave transducer as opposed to a pistonic source. Enable is supposed to eliminate standing waves. Thus, if Enable works even remotely as advertised the CV is the source of the change. It is unlikely that there would be any significant change in the TF for a number of reasons. One that should be fairly obvious is that the Enable treatment is applied only to a relatively small fraction of the total radiating area of the driver and, therefore can not alter the TF between cone and air. It can be argued that the TF between the air and the treated portion of the cone doesn't change either.
So then it becomes a question of, can a standing wave be eliminated form the cone without changing the frequency response? That's pretty much a NO. Standing waves exist only because energy is input to a system at a rate which is greater than the rate at which energy can leave or be dissipated by that system. This is a resonant behavior. Since the energy leaving or dissipated by the system is largely dependent on the amplitude of the standing wave, then the amplitude of the wave will continue to grow until the system either destroys itself (you’ve all see the bridge film) or until energy is removed from/dissipated by the system at a rate equal to the input rate. If the Enable (or any other) treatment is to eliminate standing waves then the treated portion of the cone must absorb ALL the energy which is incident upon it either as the wave initially passes across the treated area or after the wave is reflected from the terminus. This absorbed energy must then either be reradiated to the surroundings (including the cone) as acoustic energy or heat. In either case, the characteristics of the CV would change as a result of the elimination of the standing wave and the result would be evident in the radiated AWF.
Form my point of view, the bottom line would be that if the standing waves are eliminated then the this should be readily apparent is any number of response measurements, FR, CSD, impulse, burst, etc. If there is no apparent change in the FR or other measurements then there is no effective damping of standing waves. This would imply that only minimal changes in the CV would occur and while this might make a small audible difference, the gross characteristics of the standing waves, and resulting coloration, what ever they are, would not be eliminated form the underlying character of the sound. in a nutshell, if you hit you thumb with a hammer it makes very little difference if you hit it hard or very hard. It still hurts like an S O B. You may perceive differences in the level of the pain, but the pain is still there.
Hello BudP
"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."
I find this a very interesting description. I have been experimenting with adding a dampening coating to titanium compression driver diaphrams/tweeter diaphrams. Then looking for differences using CLIO.
From a subjective point of view the sonic benefits are very similar. You seem to loose the "hash".
I found a couple of things in the before and after plots. There was a small drop in output about 1 db from the added mass. An impedence run showed a slight shift in FS. The THD was reduced clearly more than 1dB. That said I doubt the change could be consider significant 3-4db or audible.
Looking at an FFT measurement with a 1K tone the harmonic content changed. There was a reduction in the higher order levels relative to the 1k level. Since I didn't characterize the entire measurement loop it is interesting but certainly not definitve. I would have to go back and look at that a lot more closely a second time around. Looking at the CSD plots there seemed to be a slightly quicker decay rate with the levels at the same amplitude.
I am a hobbiest so this is all fun and games for me. This was a one sample test I just found it interesting and a fun thing to do.
Did you look at the distortion levels at all?? I saw the most change there but I still can't say it corrlelates to what I heard. As a matter of fact I was hoping to see more than I did. As far as I am concerned the testing was a bust but fun to do.
Rob🙂
"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."
I find this a very interesting description. I have been experimenting with adding a dampening coating to titanium compression driver diaphrams/tweeter diaphrams. Then looking for differences using CLIO.
From a subjective point of view the sonic benefits are very similar. You seem to loose the "hash".
I found a couple of things in the before and after plots. There was a small drop in output about 1 db from the added mass. An impedence run showed a slight shift in FS. The THD was reduced clearly more than 1dB. That said I doubt the change could be consider significant 3-4db or audible.
Looking at an FFT measurement with a 1K tone the harmonic content changed. There was a reduction in the higher order levels relative to the 1k level. Since I didn't characterize the entire measurement loop it is interesting but certainly not definitve. I would have to go back and look at that a lot more closely a second time around. Looking at the CSD plots there seemed to be a slightly quicker decay rate with the levels at the same amplitude.
I am a hobbiest so this is all fun and games for me. This was a one sample test I just found it interesting and a fun thing to do.
Did you look at the distortion levels at all?? I saw the most change there but I still can't say it corrlelates to what I heard. As a matter of fact I was hoping to see more than I did. As far as I am concerned the testing was a bust but fun to do.
Rob🙂
EnABL.. or not
I think John K's food for thought is well thought out and reasoned...
I also think the response from the believers will be that the transfer function (TF) may have components that are non-linear and perhaps not well understood. Hence they may contribute an inordinate influence above and beyond what would seem readily apparent given a 1:1 correlation. I doubt this is the case, though.
Or, perhaps, the argument will be that the process is not dealing with standing waves at all, but some other aspect (yet to be empirically demonstrated) that somehow "cleans up the signal. Anything is possible if objective discourse and evaluation are discouraged.
It's a shame the "engineers" and "scientists" at diyaudio were, either directly or indirectly, invited to review this methodolgy and comment, and yet are being heavily "cross-examined" and discredited when questions as to the substance of the claims arise.
As far as trying it b4 comment, I don't need to experience the conditions at the core of a nuclear reactor to be able to evaluate the response of an individual exposed to high levels of radiation there
And yes, I've heard an EnABL'd system, that sounded quite good, but not for any reasons I'd attribute to the EnABLing process. It almost sounded as good as my non EnABL'd planar dipoles...
This tweak should be left as a preference or subjective improvement until those promoting it are willing to present solid empirical evidence that claims made meet the requirements of independent peer review.
It's that simple.
John L.
I think John K's food for thought is well thought out and reasoned...
I also think the response from the believers will be that the transfer function (TF) may have components that are non-linear and perhaps not well understood. Hence they may contribute an inordinate influence above and beyond what would seem readily apparent given a 1:1 correlation. I doubt this is the case, though.
Or, perhaps, the argument will be that the process is not dealing with standing waves at all, but some other aspect (yet to be empirically demonstrated) that somehow "cleans up the signal. Anything is possible if objective discourse and evaluation are discouraged.
It's a shame the "engineers" and "scientists" at diyaudio were, either directly or indirectly, invited to review this methodolgy and comment, and yet are being heavily "cross-examined" and discredited when questions as to the substance of the claims arise.
As far as trying it b4 comment, I don't need to experience the conditions at the core of a nuclear reactor to be able to evaluate the response of an individual exposed to high levels of radiation there
And yes, I've heard an EnABL'd system, that sounded quite good, but not for any reasons I'd attribute to the EnABLing process. It almost sounded as good as my non EnABL'd planar dipoles...
This tweak should be left as a preference or subjective improvement until those promoting it are willing to present solid empirical evidence that claims made meet the requirements of independent peer review.
It's that simple.
John L.
Apart from the discussion IF EnABL may work, i want to ask WHY would someone want to use it?
My point is, why would you want to operate a driver cone in the breakup region? Even if enabling would make it sound a little better there, its still a partial cure for something which could be avoided completely in the first place, simply by choosing the appropiate drivers for the task.
Its like doing an avoidable design error and then invent a complex device to help with parts of the problem.
My point is, why would you want to operate a driver cone in the breakup region? Even if enabling would make it sound a little better there, its still a partial cure for something which could be avoided completely in the first place, simply by choosing the appropiate drivers for the task.
Its like doing an avoidable design error and then invent a complex device to help with parts of the problem.
Re: EnABL.. or not
Well, certainly some of us are simply positing that absence of proof (of mechanism of effect) is not proof of absence. Yes, it's unfortunate when egos get in the way (on both sides)
Does not the continuing evolution of science during the current historical era remind us that we're never finished learning, and things are not always what we think.
how does that relate to this discussion
While there's no way or point to dispute the claim in the second sentence above, how can you be certain of the first? i.e. in the absence of an opportunity to directly compare the system with and without the EnABL treatment, is that not a subjective evaluation?
Fair enough, what some are appealing for is both the rigorous testing for empirical evidence AND the rationalization of those results to subjective listening evaluation. Come to think of it, that's a talking point that predates this particular discussion by decades.
Regardless of the time frame required to conclusively "prove" this matter one way or the other,(i.e. not "if" but "what exactly is happening") it's altogether possible that those folks currently enjoying their EnABLed systems will continue to do so.
auplater said:
Well, certainly some of us are simply positing that absence of proof (of mechanism of effect) is not proof of absence. Yes, it's unfortunate when egos get in the way (on both sides)
Does not the continuing evolution of science during the current historical era remind us that we're never finished learning, and things are not always what we think.
how does that relate to this discussion
While there's no way or point to dispute the claim in the second sentence above, how can you be certain of the first? i.e. in the absence of an opportunity to directly compare the system with and without the EnABL treatment, is that not a subjective evaluation?
Fair enough, what some are appealing for is both the rigorous testing for empirical evidence AND the rationalization of those results to subjective listening evaluation. Come to think of it, that's a talking point that predates this particular discussion by decades.
Regardless of the time frame required to conclusively "prove" this matter one way or the other,(i.e. not "if" but "what exactly is happening") it's altogether possible that those folks currently enjoying their EnABLed systems will continue to do so.
john k... said:
The problem lies in detecting these FR variations when they are 30-50 dB (my estimate) down from the main signal. How do you measure what is happening that far down in the precense of the main signal?
dave
MaVo said:
Well, that's assuming the existence of "appropriate drivers" for all tasks that are designed without errors or compromise of any type.
I don't think such a selection currently exists.
In an ideal world, such a discussion as this would prompt equipment manufacturers with far more extensive R&D resources and training than any of us to identify and solve the "problem", and of course offer the solution at no extra cost.
MaVo said:
I'm not a believer in full range single driver systems. For those that are, there are probably different reasons.
For me there's a simple answer. If the breakup region of a cone can be made less objectionable to the ear, whether through decreasing standing waves, resonance effects, or distortion, etc. then I will potentially have much more flexibility in crossover points and slopes, a wider range of drivers that will work for a given design, etc. (in terms of attenuating that breakup).
Also, if the treatment, for whatever reasons, improves the quality of my listening experience, then that's reason enough on its own.
planet10 said:
What?? Are you referring to FR as something other than Frequency Response?
cheers,
AJ
BudP said:
This is, i feel, a very accurate description.
I will respectfully disagree about whether this makes it better or not... in my apprentiseship in audio one of the seminal events was an after show get together at CES in Chicago. We were having a beer with Julian Vereker & Ivor Tifenbrun. Julian said to me (i paraphrase).
Good sound reproduction is all about information transfer. We want to lose as little of the information as possible in the chain that represents the recording to the transmission to our ears in the home. the increased data delivery that is gotten because a speaker is EnABLed is because less information is lost. That makes the system better.
dave
MaVo said:
Bingo. This added mass method, which affects stiffness, resonance, efficiency, etc. may well be somewhat effective on the horrible cone/driver designs they are being applied to. It will only make a competently designed cone worse, not better. Start with a better driver....
Cone design isn't magic. Look at what MarkMck has done previously or DLR did with the Insignia. Heck, I did something similar myself with this cheapo driver. It most certainly changed the FR - as expected - along with the sound of the driver. Nothing mystical. magical or romantic. Just plain 'ol vanilla physics/soundwaves. Measurable and audible.
cheers,
AJ
- Status
- Not open for further replies.