EnABL Processes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#1,482
auplater said:


Then find a doctor who isn't speechless or ask better questions. "Bad reading habits from most doctors"? My wife is a doctor, I know hundreds of doctors, run a thriving pediatric practice, and have never heard that expression from anyone except from my long gone grandmother!!

And I believe john k. is speaking about EnABL from a systems point of view, leaving most of the believers speechless wrt plausible explanations for the perceived effect.
Click to expand...


Alan Hope said:


You tryin' to start another fight - soongsc. (Bristles slightly!)

As a member of said profession I am well aware that "using" your eyes does not cause bad eyesight. I have never heard any of my colleagues claim this either - most are frustrated by the mass of urban myths that seem to have grown up around the lay perception of us medics. Or perhaps doctors from where you come from are badly trained idiots.

Re the "system" - what on earth do you mean? If there is a systemic problem - eg rheumatoid arthritis - then every patient gets treated as a system. Not sure what to say - should I refer a patient with a urinary tract infection to a psychiatrist as well to help them cope???

Lets get back on topic, eh?

(I see auplater beat me to this. Nuff said)
Click to expand...
Wish you guys were close by.🙂 My mother was a doctor, was close to finishing her PhD before she had a stoke. Medical books are still around with lots of knowledge.
 
#1,484
dlr said:


You are making my point in one way and that is the reports are often of dramatic change in perceived response for systems easily within the realm of established measurement systems if used correctly. However, the claim Bud made explicitly was that there is no FR change, repeat, no FR change, yet at the same time he specifically in his post to me linked to the tests made by soongsc as support for his position. This is but one of the contradictions, probably the most egregious. On this point I have simply been asking for clarification about the obvious contradiction, to no avail. Diversion or cynicism has been the standard response.

If debate is welcomed, as claimed by some (not all, evidently, in reading some posts), and there are significant inconsistencies in statements, then to be a real debate those inconsistencies must be addressed directly. If not, the board and its discussions will have little relevance except to the faithful.

Dave
Click to expand...


dlr said:


Where in the rules does it say that to debate the merits of an idea or topic requires this? If I should, but if I choose not to, then what? Must all who do not agree and have valid points do so? There would be no need for repetition if major questions that are raised received response. It doesn't make for much of a debate otherwise.

Dave
Click to expand...
I was going to joke about a proffession that takes in a similar manner, but finally held back deciding it was not appropiate.
😀

It's geting close to voting day...

From the statistics, from people whom have used the process, I don't recall any negative feedbacks.
 
#1,485
SY said:
John, et al: Let's just do an actual test, OK? If the people whom I criticize as charlatans were willing to have their brain-children undergo objective and controlled subjective testing, I would be a lot more open-minded about fashion parts, magic goops, and the like. In this case, there will be fully controlled documented testing by a skeptic trained in physics and with a few decades of experience in sensory analysis.

If that's not good enough for you or if my skeptic bona fides are not clear enough, well...
Click to expand...
Sounds like what I did.

:angel:
 
#1,486
dlr said:

Where in the rules does it say that to debate the merits of an idea or topic requires this? If I should, but if I choose not to, then what? Must all who do not agree and have valid points do so? There would be no need for repetition if major questions that are raised received response. It doesn't make for much of a debate otherwise.
Click to expand...

It's not a rule, it's common courtesy, You're being that loud guy at the party who causes people to move to the kitchen to continue the same conversation.
I respect your opinion, I believe in science and agree hard numbers would be very good. Please try to make your posts a bit less "that's rubbish, you must be crazy to think that will ever work" and a bit more "what do you think is happening here" and you'll find communication easier.
You may have missed the basic premise of the process, It's all about revealing quiet background detail by adding a diffusion device just before reflection points to reduce the coherence of reflections in this perfectly round pond we keep throwing stones into the centre of. Laser interferometry with simple artificial tones applied instead of music is about the only way I can think of to measure this to provide sufficiently obvious results to satisy you. Have a look at Fostex's FE208 Sigma, it looks like the wrong end of a cat and they've used a different approach to acheive a diffusion of these reflections. We're not talking about standing waves here, these events will be only a couple of cycles long, but are swamping the quiet stuff. Have you ever been at sea in the open ocean and watched the fractal nature of the waves, wavelets and ripples? That's the kind of waveform we're looking at, and we want to ensure those ripples are not messed up by echoes of the big waves.

Soongsc: any thoughts on my tone test suggestion from post #1422? I think it might have been missed in the noise. (Love that EnABL the thread joke)
 
#1,487
dlr,

Would you please bring Soonsgc's CSD plots forward and give me an education in which frequency response changes qualify as a valid change in FR and which qualify for no change in FR.

My understanding of what you are questioning is quite confused. If you are dwelling on my statement that I find no FR changes, please accept my apology, but I do not know what nor where that statement was in error. I truly do not see a change. Certainly not one that would be commensurate with the changes in phase, which seem quite large in nature to my uneducated eye. I am certainly willing to be educated.

Bud
 
#1,488
Lets get down to what it does.

A wave travelling over a surface is dispersed at a given frequency which is dependant on the height/acoustical properties of the dispersion medium. This prevents (or lessens) standing waves.
This gives a much more articulate response in a given frequency range.

As the height of the dispersion medium increases the effect is a greater frequency range, to a point. As the height increases the greater affected range is increased.

Simply stated as the distance from the centerline of the emitting transducer is increased the height of the diffuser mediums would increase to affect a greater low frequency wavelength. If the diffusers did not change in height there would still be an effect of dispersion ,but to a degree that was dependant on the height/medium of the diffusers to a given wavelength. To have any true affect on a wavelength you have to have a reflector >1/2 lambda. It still affects lower than that but the degree is a rapid curve for small reflectors.

ron
 
#1,489
Lets get down to what it dosent.

Any reflector or impedance on a wavelength of > 1 meter would have to be => 1/2 meter. True it would have an influence on lesser wavelengths but is a rapid fall off of influence. A reflector of 1 mm would still have an influence , but it would be so minute that it would be hard to measure.

Within the confines of the cone diameter (not including the added mass) there is a definable loss or reduction in standing waves as long as the height of the deflectors (diffusors) can affect the wavlelength.

All i am stating is that putting 1-5 mm T of just about any material on the cabs will have very little (if any) affect on the low frequency response.

(this is simple logic/physics)

ron
 
#1,490
regarding the applet I linked to earlier.

one must experiment with this, changing frequency, etc. It can be set up so the mouse can edit walls (like drawing them, and small barriers near the edge of the cone and the baffle), once the basic shape is drawn, increase the frequency and the speed of the applet. ...


I had a great example done, but couldn't save it.

stew
 
#1,491
ronc said:

Any reflector or impedance on a wavelength of > 1 meter would have to be => 1/2 meter. True it would have an influence on lesser wavelengths but is a rapid fall off of influence. A reflector of 1 mm would still have an influence , but it would be so minute that it would be hard to measure.
Click to expand...


Hi Ron,
So, in other words, these little rectangles could not have the effect that's been ascribed to them?
 
#1,492
Conclusion.

To properly use this concept an ever increasing height of diffusers woulde be utilized and the heigh/dia of the diffusers would be increased as the distance from the C/L of the driver increased to affect the greater wavelengths.

Kind of like a B&W thing with ever increasing height/dia "warts" as it increased rearward.

ron
 
#1,493
MJL21193 said:



Hi Ron,
So, in other words, these little rectangles could not have the effect that's been ascribed to them?
Click to expand...

More or less... if the effect being bandied about is reduction or modificatiion of some aspect of the information being transmitted via normally understood transform functions. The 1/2 wavelength rule is pretty much a given for all manner of interactions... we used to run into it trying to make arrays of photolithographic pegs on metal surfaces with standard dimensions within +/- 1/2 micron diameters wrt each other... using even UV light it was hard to maintain image accuracy, much less measure them due to "fuzzy" edge definition.

I would suspect ron's statements above are indeed representative of what effect (or more precisely, what not) these small surface patterns can have on 'reflections" and dissipation of such at reasonable wavelengths. So, for instance @ 2 Khz, the wavelength of a standing wave might be ~ 6 inches, 1/2 lambda 3"... pretty big compared to the height of these patterns, so they are unlikely to have much of an effect on a 2 Khz "main wave"... but may actually have a larger effect on the subtle ripples that supposedly are being enhanced. Go figure???

John L.
:whazzat:
 
#1,494
Re: regarding the applet I linked to earlier.

Nanook said:
one must experiment with this, changing frequency, etc. It can be set up so the mouse can edit walls (like drawing them, and small barriers near the edge of the cone and the baffle), once the basic shape is drawn, increase the frequency and the speed of the applet. ...


I had a great example done, but couldn't save it.

stew
Click to expand...
I tried that applet as well. It certainly does gove some insight on what might be happening, even though it is not exactly the same. An interesting experiment is adjusting the lengths and gaps of and between the walls and adjusting frequency to see a general trend.
 
#1,496
auplater,
If you have access to appropriate scales, how about depositing an identical quantity of "treatment" on a piece of paper and measure just what the effective mass increase would be?

....a sidenote, treatment of metal cones does not provide as significant a change as for paper, though with a better understanding of the treatment, this may fall to the side.

Regards
 
#1,498
Ed LaFontaine said:
auplater,
If you have access to appropriate scales, how about depositing an identical quantity of "treatment" on a piece of paper and measure just what the effective mass increase would be?

....a sidenote, treatment of metal cones does not provide as significant a change as for paper, though with a better understanding of the treatment, this may fall to the side.

Regards
Click to expand...
All patterns are more effective if the speed of sound in the applied material is faster than the cone material. This applies to all application of patterns of this nature, which is different from splitting up a cone.

For metal strips I use, each 5mmx1mm strip is about 0.002 grams. Comparing density of material applied to paper cone, I wonder how much this can be measured.
 
#1,499
MJL21193 said:


Thanks John, though I did address the question to Ron.
I guess it wasn't worthy of a response from him.


No problem.
Click to expand...
sorry.. wasn't trying to horn in... just trying to remain open minded while I sort thru the possible scenarios... sometimes seeing your own description of an understanding in print can be enlightening...😉

Originally posted by Ed LaFontaine

If you have access to appropriate scales, how about depositing an identical quantity of "treatment" on a piece of paper and measure just what the effective mass increase would be?
Click to expand...

Ed...

I'll see what I can accomplish... you're speaking of the dot pattern in total as well as the overcoats and undercoats, right?

BTW: how are the speakers coming along?

John L.
 
#1,500
auplater,

If you are interested in what EnABL weighs, then weigh just the pattern paint used for the dots. If you are interested in the conformal coat that is used to distribute the effects over the driver surface, then just the overcoat.

The pattern works fine without the conformal coating, until a level of either spl or information density is passed. A temporary shreik will be heard, until one or the other difficulty subsides. Otherwise there is very little audible difference between no conformal coat and the recommended amount.

The amounts of either will vary, depending upon the size and materials used for the cone, or dome, or flat ribbon, or horn bell etc..

These materials should be dry, as they would be on a driver.

I do have some Hemp 4.5" cone/surround samples here, we might use, they are quite porous and soak up the conformal coating quickly. We would have to ship them back and forth for weighing and treatment and reweighing, but I can probably afford that expense.

Dave Dlugos's materials are his concern, not that of EnABL. Not that I have any problem with anything he does, but they are not necessary for EnABL to function.

Bud
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom