thread length
I dunno, this thread's only half as long as the tortuous "beyond the ariel" missive..
😱
perhaps the entire EnABL hypothesis is simply a "phenomenological anomaly"?? or is that an "anomalous phenomenon"..
soongsc said:
I dunno, this thread's only half as long as the tortuous "beyond the ariel" missive..
😱perhaps the entire EnABL hypothesis is simply a "phenomenological anomaly"?? or is that an "anomalous phenomenon"..
30-40dB down.....
Let's excite the trouble spots.
When aligning radio receivers I apply a weak 1kHz tone signal and listen for it in the static, I tune for maximum intelligibility (by ear, the $30000 dollar test equipment doesn't do it as well as I do! Ear-Brain survival stuff being put to use) then reduce the signal until I can barely hear it and tune it again. If I plot this noise I'm listening to on a storage cro (ext sync to the 1kHz source) and average 100 sweeps you still can't see the 1kHz sine wave!
Ok, now turn this on it's head we have tones (high volume music notes) and we want to hear that background noise. Let's simplify the music by using a constant tone.
Play a 2kHz sine wave at your normal listening volume.
Play a simple, piano piece in the background, peaks at -40dB. Can you pick the tune?
Soongsc: perhaps you should try this test with playing a tone at frequency peaks you have remainining in those waterfall plots, then change the frequency of the tone slightly and see if intelligibility of the music increases.
It might take a combination of 2 or more tones to excite the trouble spots on the cone.
As a little test for myself: I'm going to take 2 identical test speakers and EnABL one (once I get my pens and paint), mark then A and B and leave them on the test bench, see which one the techs prefer after a few months.
Let's excite the trouble spots.
When aligning radio receivers I apply a weak 1kHz tone signal and listen for it in the static, I tune for maximum intelligibility (by ear, the $30000 dollar test equipment doesn't do it as well as I do! Ear-Brain survival stuff being put to use) then reduce the signal until I can barely hear it and tune it again. If I plot this noise I'm listening to on a storage cro (ext sync to the 1kHz source) and average 100 sweeps you still can't see the 1kHz sine wave!
Ok, now turn this on it's head we have tones (high volume music notes) and we want to hear that background noise. Let's simplify the music by using a constant tone.
Play a 2kHz sine wave at your normal listening volume.
Play a simple, piano piece in the background, peaks at -40dB. Can you pick the tune?
Soongsc: perhaps you should try this test with playing a tone at frequency peaks you have remainining in those waterfall plots, then change the frequency of the tone slightly and see if intelligibility of the music increases.
It might take a combination of 2 or more tones to excite the trouble spots on the cone.
As a little test for myself: I'm going to take 2 identical test speakers and EnABL one (once I get my pens and paint), mark then A and B and leave them on the test bench, see which one the techs prefer after a few months.
If I were a for profit driver manufacturer and this miraculous, relatively low cost process could audibly improve any or all of my transducers by leaps and bounds, as described so here? Hmmm, let me think about why Seas or Tymphany or Aura or...might care about that...
cheers,
AJ
cheers,
AJ
AJinFLA said:
I wasn't aware of Seas, Tymphany or Aura engineers hang out here on diyAudio. That's pretty cool!
I see no reason why they would be different, in their response, than any of the other manufacturers. Without defendable (read, in court, before "expert" witnesses), acceptable, test data, they are not interested. Nor are they interested in developing said data.
Were it not for Dan Wiggins having decided he had pushed his motor, surround and spider technology as far as he could, he would not have done the patent search that caused him to show up at my door.
Dan is the first audio engineer to have looked slightly beyond pistons in the 35 years I have dealt with that varied group. Interestingly, his interest has been halted. Either through development of his own patentable patterns, or a corporate desire to own an intellectual property, completely.
Hemp Acoustics interest was caused by Dan's peek into what I could show him. Hemp will get it's first and second EnABL'ed driver in two weeks. The cone manufacturer, that is slowly making restrike cones, to emboss a raised EnABL pattern on Hemp cones, has already inquired about licenses, based upon objective test results, they can show their customers. So, yet another dead end.
Precisely the reason, AJ, that I am giving away the knowledge I have accumulated, in 35 years of empirical investigations.
Those who want to hear more than they have ever heard, of the recorded music they have, will adopt this, those who don't will not. In neither case will it cost them more than a modest dinner in a good restaurant, to experiment for themselves. Until you do so, you will have absolutely no idea of what those experimenters have found.
Words just do not convey EnABL, and it is sad, that words have been so devalued, in a world ruled by marketing wars and the lies they put forth.
Bud
Re: 30-40dB down.....
This certainly sounds like a good method to relate a problem area with what is heard.OzMikeH said:
BudP said:
You do recognize, don't you, how many times over the years that claims have been made of a similar nature that were never substantiated? The same exists here to date. There is nothing special in the acoustic wave output of the driver that obviates current measurement technology, despite the claims. Lack of ability to use the technology is no proof. Measurements showing little or no change that are dismissed is also not proof that it can't be measured.
I will ask for a direct reply, for the third time, to my previous posts' point on it, being essentially ignored, how you can claim no frequency response change, then in the same post very explicitly use reference to frequency response measurement changes in support of your claim. If you can't reconcile that other than by belief, I will have to conclude that there is no credibility in the claims. Most here will no doubt get defensive about that, but claims have to ultimately be supportable by objective results in some way. Otherwise, it's no more than a belief.
Others here for whatever reason are unwilling to question or even address the transparent contradiction. I am not. If you can explain your contradiction, I am all ears, so-to-speak.
Dave
Is this the same paint that you suggest? It is called Polly Scale:
http://www.hobbylinc.com/prods/swc_flo.htm
http://www.hobbylinc.com/prods/swc_flo.htm
Whether or not there will be a FR change really depends on the driver being treated. Also, the definition of FR change really needs to be defined. From a manufacturing point of view, many companies might say 2db tolorance means the same response by QA acceptance standards. What are your standards? By what standards does Bud assume, and what particular drivers were in mind when talking about FR changes really need to be understood.dlr said:
Basically, when other don't respond, it might just mean "Yeh, I hear you, but I'd rather just understand the concept and draw my own conclusions rather than spend time for the sake of argument." Now, if I were reviewing a persons thesis, then I would challenge the way you do. In a forum, I tend to ease up on this. Of course, sometimes such challenges can also be construed as a way of saying "Please help me!" depending on cultural background.
happy.gringo - that's the right stuff - BudP likes to use one of the "flat" finish colors because they contain more pigment. 
soongsc said:
That is not in the claim.
Let's also not do the equivalent of "that depends on what the definition of "is" is".
Not according to the specific claims of no frequency change and that the change claimed to be made can't be measured. That part of the claim was unequivocal when made. Let's not start equivocating now.
The problem is that "understanding the concept" is not the issue. The basic premise of the concept is one part of the issue while the ability to detect the change empirically is another. Debate is supposedly welcome. However, valid debate points are left without response altogether. Credibility becomes an issue in this case.
Why are your standards lower here?
Dave
dlr said:
You might think about petitioning the Royal Society of DIY to have BudP's honorary membership revoked. Let's face it, he's suckered these folks into this whole ruse for a nominal fee of nothing. What a dangerous and deceitful ploy.
I haven't tried this, and I'm not real familiar with the full range thing ( the only Lowthers I've heard drove me from the room in a matter of seconds), so I can only conclude that this must not work, and that a darker motive is looming somewhere in BudP's fiendish noggin'.
And, while I'm busy jumping to conclusions, I am going to conclude that Lynn Olson, Gary Pimm, and all of those others paying good money and waiting in line for Bud to wind them his secret fairy dust transformers must also be blind followers of Bud's traveling medicine show.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to measuring why "The Lark Ascending" raises the hair on the back of my neck. I'm pretty sure that it has to do with the interaction of specific basil membrane excitation, serotonin, cheap wine, and a girl I once knew.
...as a control, I think that I'll start drinking early and put on Andrew Lloyd Webber.
While I understand your questioning, it is quite apparent you are beating a dead horse. I for one, rather than monotonously droning on about why I deserve proof of the effects of his claims, am going to test it out for my self. No one is requiring you to purchase a product, or try it, or even like the idea. If people want to experiment with the process, why is that a problem for you? Is it costing anyone large sums of money? If it doesn't work I have a driver that is discolored. Oh, the horror!
Time will tell. Almost all the BS claims end up being known as BS after people have tried them. While many of those claims cost folks a small fortune to find out they are bunk, this is a pittance. I agree, there are questions arising from the lack of accurate measurements.
It seems that we would have to conclude from the need to show proof with the current measuring techniques, that there is never going to be any advance in what we know about sound or it's measurement. So, at this point in time, we know everything that we will ever know about sound measurement. Everyone, please quit experimenting, there is no room for improvement. You are wasting your time.
BudP Just might be a snake oil salesman, but rather than claiming he is bunk, with no evidence other than previous experience with other snake oil salesmen, and relying on measuring something that we may not yet have the capability to measure, I will give it a chance. Then if he is full of it, I will cry bunk right along side you.
Anyone who has read the thread has been made aware of the potential for failure of technique. You have more than made your point. I am glad you questioned him, now you might allow people to try it, then decide for them selves.
Jon
I wonder if you ask the same of your doctor? Or are your standards higher here?dlr said:
I wonder if anyone has the feeling to answer to your cry for help.
soongsc, I'd certainly question my doctor closely.😉
I'm having two drivers, which are drawn out of a well-characterized and consistent lot of 50, undergo the treatment (courtesy of Planet 10). If there are differences in the frequency responses, on axis and at 15 and 30 degrees, I'll post them. If there aren't, I'll post that, too.
And, of course, I'll do a controlled listening test against untreated drivers (which I've matched to the ones sent off for treatment) to see if there's any significant difference beyond the normal driver-to-driver variation. If there is one, I'll repeat the test with the control samples treated with a random pattern of the same mass and see if there's anything special about the pattern.
I hope that, if there is a measurable or perceptible difference, this will satisfy the skeptics. If I don't find a difference or find that the difference is purely due to the presence of extra paint on the cone surface rather than the numerological cosmic blitzblatz of the pattern, I'll report that. I know that won't satisfy the True Believers, but I'm keeping my mind and my ears open, since there is at least vague plausibility and the test costs me almost nothing.
I'm having two drivers, which are drawn out of a well-characterized and consistent lot of 50, undergo the treatment (courtesy of Planet 10). If there are differences in the frequency responses, on axis and at 15 and 30 degrees, I'll post them. If there aren't, I'll post that, too.
And, of course, I'll do a controlled listening test against untreated drivers (which I've matched to the ones sent off for treatment) to see if there's any significant difference beyond the normal driver-to-driver variation. If there is one, I'll repeat the test with the control samples treated with a random pattern of the same mass and see if there's anything special about the pattern.
I hope that, if there is a measurable or perceptible difference, this will satisfy the skeptics. If I don't find a difference or find that the difference is purely due to the presence of extra paint on the cone surface rather than the numerological cosmic blitzblatz of the pattern, I'll report that. I know that won't satisfy the True Believers, but I'm keeping my mind and my ears open, since there is at least vague plausibility and the test costs me almost nothing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.