Re: Re: Fonken Eh's....
You'll see Amarillo and Gallup, New Mexico
Flagstaff, Arizona don't forget Winona
Kingman, Barstow, San Bernadino
oops, easy to get carried away with the idea of a road trip
planet10 said:
You'll see Amarillo and Gallup, New Mexico
Flagstaff, Arizona don't forget Winona
Kingman, Barstow, San Bernadino
oops, easy to get carried away with the idea of a road trip
planet10 said:
You think that hearing a newly damped $5 PA paging speaker is going to be a revelatory experience to someone used to listening to NaO's & such levels of loudspeakers?
cheers,
AJ
john k... said:
Let me put it this way... as a vendor of a speaker product don't you owe it to your customers (and to your own market edge) that if what we are saying has even a small chance of any merit, that you explore it....
If you are not willing to do the EnABL yourslef, i am sure that Bud or i would be willing to accomodate you. I have a standing off with one manufacturer to ship hom a set of drivers at my expense (and his customers are starting to clamour for him to take up that offer) and another who has sent me drivers to do for his evaluation. This kind of arrangement got me my 1st set of drivers and overcame my skeptism, as it has done with a few others.
dave
planet10 said:
I may be getting completely the wrong end of the stick here, but it sounds like you are talking about some kind of IM distortion?
AJinFLA said:
Since this question doesn't directly address the objective measurement issue, I'd suggest you ask Jon at Lowther America whether the experience with EnABL treatment on his drivers was revelatory or desultory.
AJinFLA said:
Well, assuming you're content with approx 3% variation among drivers in a particular batch, you'd measure a control sample against the driver(s) to be treated, after initial break-in period, then measure and match for remaining variations among the final treated products.
Since this process is still in its production infancy, the treatment is by hand. Currently that's usually 20 drivers per type at any give time.
On custom single pair orders, batch variations of course aren't available, but the rest of the procedure remains the same.
If seems like we are reaching the better part of foreplay.😀
What we really need to look at is trying to reduce the stored energy so that it will cause decrease in acoustic output. If someone can get that 30~50db below the FR level within 0.03ms, I think that would itself be a major breakthrough. Only then will the significance be among the other distortion levels.
What we really need to look at is trying to reduce the stored energy so that it will cause decrease in acoustic output. If someone can get that 30~50db below the FR level within 0.03ms, I think that would itself be a major breakthrough. Only then will the significance be among the other distortion levels.
Measurement or listening. Normally I use both. The process has already been posted a few days ago.AJinFLA said:
planet10 said:
AJinFLA said:
chrisb said:
Eh? I should ask Jon at Lowther, whether John K, hearing a newly damped $5 PA paging speaker, is going to have a revelatory experience, since he's use to to listening to NaO's & such levels of loudspeakers?
planet10 said:
AJinFLA said:
chrisb said:
You are apparently having some difficulty understanding my responses to previous posts. The question had to do with listening comparison, treated vs untreated. You know, the type that make up the majority of this thread. What methods?
cheers,
AJ
John K.
What would be the result if the standing wave was not damped? Instead, all of the energy that constituted the standing wave were to exit the cone surface into longitudinal wave that was being created, as the transverse wave crossed the emitter surface? Can you give me an idea of how this would look in tests that look for pistonic perfection?
I have trouble seeing how phase would be affected. Certainly one or more aberrations should cease, but which ones? If the standing wave is only a few us long, how will it be portrayed? Would this be an extended "time of emission" in a CSD plot, some form of alteration in some form of distortion plot? Which sort of distortion plot? What would we see or not see? How will we sort out what is a short term standing wave and what is original signal?
I am actually interested in finding this out. I completely accept that we should be able to find what EnABL is doing with current test suites. However we do not seem to know what we are looking for. So, just a guess about what a recombined standing wave should show and where and how to look would be helpful.
Bud
What would be the result if the standing wave was not damped? Instead, all of the energy that constituted the standing wave were to exit the cone surface into longitudinal wave that was being created, as the transverse wave crossed the emitter surface? Can you give me an idea of how this would look in tests that look for pistonic perfection?
I have trouble seeing how phase would be affected. Certainly one or more aberrations should cease, but which ones? If the standing wave is only a few us long, how will it be portrayed? Would this be an extended "time of emission" in a CSD plot, some form of alteration in some form of distortion plot? Which sort of distortion plot? What would we see or not see? How will we sort out what is a short term standing wave and what is original signal?
I am actually interested in finding this out. I completely accept that we should be able to find what EnABL is doing with current test suites. However we do not seem to know what we are looking for. So, just a guess about what a recombined standing wave should show and where and how to look would be helpful.
Bud
This thread has become an even bigger monster since I last looked at it. Even using Google its [WHY THE HELL DO I GET SHIFTED OUT OF THIS TEXT BOX WHEN I USE A SINGLE QUOTATION MARK!!??? I CANT WRITE APOSTROPHE S.] become difficult to search.
Has anyone examined, as in zooming in or drilling down, in before and after examination of enABLd drivers, the change in frequency response in range between about 1 and 6 kHz?
The reason I ask is that extremely small energy distribution differences in this range might well have a large subjective effect. See Fletcher-Munson curves.
Bud says the enABL effect gets rid of "fricative hash" which I find very suggestive because s and t are not tones but are white noise and have a lot of energy in the area in which our hearing is most sensitive.
To keep in mind: such sounds, when produced by speaker acoustic artifacts caused by frame, cone, dustcap, surround, will be correlated to the musical signal and thus follow instrument and voice harmonic structure.
I speculate that such noise (a time delay phenomena and therefore type of diffraction distortion) mask some of the the harmonic structure and low level room information.
Speculating further, it is likely that unenABLd speakers have musically correlated signals hiding in a obscuring or even peekaboo, (so-to-speak), Fletcher-Munsen type noise floor. I say peekaboo, because (pace Earl), Earl Geddes work suggests our sensitivity to diffraction increases with increasing SPL - (he has posted about this here at DIY Audio and its worth searching out his comments).
I think John K is right: its what we can measure that counts. If we can see changes in measurements after enABLing, then it has an effect, and what we need after that is a reasonable interpretation. (I suspect adequate measurements already exist posted in this monster thread). But I don't think the interpretation will be reasonable unless we include psychoacoustic phenomena.
There is a tiny demonstration of our greater sensitivity to higher frequencies at this URL:
http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Sound/Equal_Loudness.aiff
Has anyone examined, as in zooming in or drilling down, in before and after examination of enABLd drivers, the change in frequency response in range between about 1 and 6 kHz?
The reason I ask is that extremely small energy distribution differences in this range might well have a large subjective effect. See Fletcher-Munson curves.
Bud says the enABL effect gets rid of "fricative hash" which I find very suggestive because s and t are not tones but are white noise and have a lot of energy in the area in which our hearing is most sensitive.
To keep in mind: such sounds, when produced by speaker acoustic artifacts caused by frame, cone, dustcap, surround, will be correlated to the musical signal and thus follow instrument and voice harmonic structure.
I speculate that such noise (a time delay phenomena and therefore type of diffraction distortion) mask some of the the harmonic structure and low level room information.
Speculating further, it is likely that unenABLd speakers have musically correlated signals hiding in a obscuring or even peekaboo, (so-to-speak), Fletcher-Munsen type noise floor. I say peekaboo, because (pace Earl), Earl Geddes work suggests our sensitivity to diffraction increases with increasing SPL - (he has posted about this here at DIY Audio and its worth searching out his comments).
I think John K is right: its what we can measure that counts. If we can see changes in measurements after enABLing, then it has an effect, and what we need after that is a reasonable interpretation. (I suspect adequate measurements already exist posted in this monster thread). But I don't think the interpretation will be reasonable unless we include psychoacoustic phenomena.
There is a tiny demonstration of our greater sensitivity to higher frequencies at this URL:
http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Sound/Equal_Loudness.aiff
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
It may become a shock to to if you ever try it, but if we take way the breakup mode with treatment, the results will be much more sifnificant that just trying to keep it out of the way using XO points or notches. Furthermore. If appropriate drivers are selected for treatment, it would be possible to do away with crossovers.john k... said:
soongsc said:
Listening. Sorry, I missed it, I'll do a search. Very long thread. So this was the method used by 90% - 95% of listeners issuing their impressions here??
Or is that good mainly for you?
cheers,
AJ
FrankWW said:
That made me think more along the lines of eggs. Maybe whole wheat toast.
cheers,
AJ
CSD plot would be good to look at how energy is redistributed so that it is reduced to lowere levels. This closely coorelates with audible improvements.BudP said:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.