dlr:
I think you might have missed issue #3 - regardless of what our math/science/test gear tells us, why are the listeners smiling?
Hopefully any devoted skeptics or even curious followers of this thread who might ever get an opportunity to hear this "technology" will listen with open minds and ears.
I think you might have missed issue #3 - regardless of what our math/science/test gear tells us, why are the listeners smiling?
Hopefully any devoted skeptics or even curious followers of this thread who might ever get an opportunity to hear this "technology" will listen with open minds and ears.
Ron uses a custom version of some mainframe class fluid dynamics software that helps him keep the USA's petrochemicals flowing (or something like that...)
dave
Close enough. But its been so modified from the original programming and had propiertiary sub routines included that its totally lost its original intent. It all started out as a program that did analysis on surges/explosions in pressure vessels. Original intent was a study of the dynamic pressure effect on the stability of a contained vessel. Its pretty much all acoustic now.
ron
Quote from the FLY " all i am is a systems management man, i depend on people much more brilliant to find the answers"
dave
Close enough. But its been so modified from the original programming and had propiertiary sub routines included that its totally lost its original intent. It all started out as a program that did analysis on surges/explosions in pressure vessels. Original intent was a study of the dynamic pressure effect on the stability of a contained vessel. Its pretty much all acoustic now.
ron
Quote from the FLY " all i am is a systems management man, i depend on people much more brilliant to find the answers"
Well, I wish I had my hands on thing like that. Seems like cone dimensions and shapes are critical.
Dont know about shapes, i based the actions on a round radiator (used the 206, cuz it was handy). Now here was where i was wrong (dont tell my boss) the spectrum of affected frequencies is greater than i first thought, its not limited to cone diameter. Any wave(re.wavelength) travelling over a surface imparts a given energy to the surface. Any disruption in the transference of the imparted energy will produce less inflence on the newly produced waves or even the dying response of the original.
Well, I wish I had my hands on thing like that
A lot of the programming is borrowed from certin industries, that if i released it , i could be spending a long time with some guy named Big Bruce in a very small space.
No thanks.
ron
Dont know about shapes, i based the actions on a round radiator (used the 206, cuz it was handy). Now here was where i was wrong (dont tell my boss) the spectrum of affected frequencies is greater than i first thought, its not limited to cone diameter. Any wave(re.wavelength) travelling over a surface imparts a given energy to the surface. Any disruption in the transference of the imparted energy will produce less inflence on the newly produced waves or even the dying response of the original.
Well, I wish I had my hands on thing like that
A lot of the programming is borrowed from certin industries, that if i released it , i could be spending a long time with some guy named Big Bruce in a very small space.
No thanks.
ron
Um ... a brief interlude to the science ... an update on my fe206es
... as prev ... after a long listen with enabl only. Impressed. But they couldn't handle big choral works without distorting ... so ...
1st conformal coat 50% Microscale gloss (main cone, whizzer, back of whizzer ledge). Listened at 8 hours (published setting time 7-8hrs). Uuurgh.
Blurred sound, detail all but gone. Marked distortion on vol up. Thought - well I may have ruined these, may as well press on. So applied 2nd conformal coat to main cone and a little on front of whizzer edge..
And got "listenable" speakers. Distortion now gone. But very very polite. Soundstage way back. Not a hint of sibilance, nor shout. But hard to hear all my lovely whisper-fine details. Long long listening. No sparkle. No happy.
Web search ... Microscale gloss is soluble in isopropyl alcohol. So nabbed some 70% alcohol pads (for hospital skin prep). Used these to gently remove gloss from main cone and whizzer. Left bit under whizzer.
To my great surprise - wow! Soundstage is back where it should be. Superfine details back in spades. And enough gloss must remain to let the big choral works sing out without distortion. Many CDs later, from loud, to normal, to late night vol levels and I am very very happy.
So if you overdo the gloss you can undo things fairly easily. For me - two coats was too much. Not sure what happened after 1st coat, but they had been in a cold room overnight so maybe the stuff hadn't fully dried. Big scare though!
Phase plugs next ...
... as prev ... after a long listen with enabl only. Impressed. But they couldn't handle big choral works without distorting ... so ...
1st conformal coat 50% Microscale gloss (main cone, whizzer, back of whizzer ledge). Listened at 8 hours (published setting time 7-8hrs). Uuurgh.
Blurred sound, detail all but gone. Marked distortion on vol up. Thought - well I may have ruined these, may as well press on. So applied 2nd conformal coat to main cone and a little on front of whizzer edge..
And got "listenable" speakers. Distortion now gone. But very very polite. Soundstage way back. Not a hint of sibilance, nor shout. But hard to hear all my lovely whisper-fine details. Long long listening. No sparkle. No happy.
Web search ... Microscale gloss is soluble in isopropyl alcohol. So nabbed some 70% alcohol pads (for hospital skin prep). Used these to gently remove gloss from main cone and whizzer. Left bit under whizzer.
To my great surprise - wow! Soundstage is back where it should be. Superfine details back in spades. And enough gloss must remain to let the big choral works sing out without distortion. Many CDs later, from loud, to normal, to late night vol levels and I am very very happy.
So if you overdo the gloss you can undo things fairly easily. For me - two coats was too much. Not sure what happened after 1st coat, but they had been in a cold room overnight so maybe the stuff hadn't fully dried. Big scare though!
Phase plugs next ...
I had a mother-in-law once. Ditched her. Got another. Her daughter is a lot of fun to play with.
Alan Hope,
Good recovery! The Gloss is a problem and everyone should treat it carefully. Also, I do allow 24 hours for cure before even listening to a new coat of gloss. As Alan points out, you can get it back off though in my experience, too much usually sounds hard, brittle even and is not easy to listen to.
Your method of application and removal does pique my curiosity, so I will add it to the list of things to try on the ovals with whizzers.
Thanks for passing this info along. I am quite happy to hear of your joy. Makes me feel like I have helped brighten this somewhat Grey world a bit.
And yes John and AJ, that is actually how I feel.
Bud
Good recovery! The Gloss is a problem and everyone should treat it carefully. Also, I do allow 24 hours for cure before even listening to a new coat of gloss. As Alan points out, you can get it back off though in my experience, too much usually sounds hard, brittle even and is not easy to listen to.
Your method of application and removal does pique my curiosity, so I will add it to the list of things to try on the ovals with whizzers.
Thanks for passing this info along. I am quite happy to hear of your joy. Makes me feel like I have helped brighten this somewhat Grey world a bit.
And yes John and AJ, that is actually how I feel.
Bud
cure time...
Bud I have told a lot of people about cure times and very few have the self control to wait. If you are applying a coating that cures (does not matter much what kind) the average full cure time for total hardness is 21 - 28 days. Application of a second coat after a day or two is a foolish thing to do if you want to know what one coat does you will just have to wait. You should have a pretty good idea of where a coat is going after about 7 to 10 days and you could likely make a good guess by then but if you want to make sure and the speakers are expensive waiting 21 days does not seem to be an unreasonable time to wait.
Bud I have told a lot of people about cure times and very few have the self control to wait. If you are applying a coating that cures (does not matter much what kind) the average full cure time for total hardness is 21 - 28 days. Application of a second coat after a day or two is a foolish thing to do if you want to know what one coat does you will just have to wait. You should have a pretty good idea of where a coat is going after about 7 to 10 days and you could likely make a good guess by then but if you want to make sure and the speakers are expensive waiting 21 days does not seem to be an unreasonable time to wait.
ronc said:
🙂 I did use the word custom with the intent that it had the widest possible meaning.
dave
Hi Ron,
Without wanting anyone to be sent on holiday for breaching confidentiality laws it might be best to just pose questions.
Given that there are always equal but opposite reactions related to force, and you have simulated energy transferrance to a surface at approx 1/4 wavelength (maybe a non-linear effect which arises at a particular threshold and suddenly increases at a rate greater than the increase in fluid flow over the surface), did the simulation show wave motion developing a flow related sloping/interfering wavefront at this part of the surface ?
If any interfering slope, then it must change polarity throughout a drive cycle - during drive time - and also shift in position above that surface with frequency.
Could the simulation show what happens near the centre dome of a cone where pistonic and surface generated waves interefere after the motion event which caused them ?
Does any resulting wave interference give rise to any re-radiation from a point 1/4 wavelength above the dome at higher frequencies ? (Which is where a phase plug, EnABL patterns, solid body or damping material might modify interference.)
Cheers .......... Graham.
Without wanting anyone to be sent on holiday for breaching confidentiality laws it might be best to just pose questions.
Given that there are always equal but opposite reactions related to force, and you have simulated energy transferrance to a surface at approx 1/4 wavelength (maybe a non-linear effect which arises at a particular threshold and suddenly increases at a rate greater than the increase in fluid flow over the surface), did the simulation show wave motion developing a flow related sloping/interfering wavefront at this part of the surface ?
If any interfering slope, then it must change polarity throughout a drive cycle - during drive time - and also shift in position above that surface with frequency.
Could the simulation show what happens near the centre dome of a cone where pistonic and surface generated waves interefere after the motion event which caused them ?
Does any resulting wave interference give rise to any re-radiation from a point 1/4 wavelength above the dome at higher frequencies ? (Which is where a phase plug, EnABL patterns, solid body or damping material might modify interference.)
Cheers .......... Graham.
BudP said:
My bad not to have said "thanks Bud and others". Appreciated. 🙂
And yes guys - I did expose my impatience. I was aware of cure times: (I spent ages listening to assorted T-Amps settling in, cables burning in, speakers breaking in. In all cases pretty dramatic.) Just the stuff was dry to touch - and I expected if anything the beginnings of some improvement. Live & learn!
BudP said:
I got myself a copy on your suggestion and it's excellent indeed. Thanks.
Arend-Jan
Alan Hope said:
Hi Alan. Did you have some sort of house fire? Hopefully no one was injured.
cheers,
AJ
AJinFLA said:
🙂 ... spent many hours with home woven teflon cat5, enameled copper, silver coated copper, Nordost, Kimber, JPS Labs. OK, so they all ultimately degrade the signal in different ways and by different amounts, but the differences are as dramatic as enabl versus non-enabl. YMMV. My wife thinks I'm mad!
House could have burned down around me during some of these sessions. I probably wouldn't have noticed.
Hi ronc,
Could you please take a moment to describe you simulation? Just what are you simulating? What is the physical model? Governing equations? Boundary conditions? I spent 1/2 my career developing FCD codes and the latter half developing similar codes for electron transport.
Could you please take a moment to describe you simulation? Just what are you simulating? What is the physical model? Governing equations? Boundary conditions? I spent 1/2 my career developing FCD codes and the latter half developing similar codes for electron transport.
Could you please take a moment to describe you simulation? Just what are you simulating?
Energy points. Any occuring wave is a series of expanding points that attenuate. By defining the expansion and the encountered different mediums you can simulate the energies at any point. Its not that difficult.
All what Bud did was looked at as a wave launch platform and timing the wave expansion and propagation in varing steps of many usec so the effective wave was near the surface of the cone. I have used this same method for evaluation of small odd shaped reflectors in ultrasonics to evaluate the shape of the flaw to determine how the flaw originated. This is critical in 3D evaluation. As i have stated, its all about a given energy at a given point at a given time.
What is the physical model?
Simply energy at a given point. If you know the reflective index between two different mediums and the incident energy its a simple calculation.
ron
(things need to be as simple as possible, but not to simple-Albert E.)
Energy points. Any occuring wave is a series of expanding points that attenuate. By defining the expansion and the encountered different mediums you can simulate the energies at any point. Its not that difficult.
All what Bud did was looked at as a wave launch platform and timing the wave expansion and propagation in varing steps of many usec so the effective wave was near the surface of the cone. I have used this same method for evaluation of small odd shaped reflectors in ultrasonics to evaluate the shape of the flaw to determine how the flaw originated. This is critical in 3D evaluation. As i have stated, its all about a given energy at a given point at a given time.
What is the physical model?
Simply energy at a given point. If you know the reflective index between two different mediums and the incident energy its a simple calculation.
ron
(things need to be as simple as possible, but not to simple-Albert E.)
Quote from FR driver
Baffle shape.
There are two basic actions to a baffle shape (area not being considered). The first is diffraction which is a surface effect of the baffle as the wave travels over the surface it will find an edge and produce another later timed wave
Same thing in the EnABL process. As i look at now its fairly simple.
ron
(The hardest thing you can do is to make something simple)
Baffle shape.
There are two basic actions to a baffle shape (area not being considered). The first is diffraction which is a surface effect of the baffle as the wave travels over the surface it will find an edge and produce another later timed wave
Same thing in the EnABL process. As i look at now its fairly simple.
ron
(The hardest thing you can do is to make something simple)
ronc,
Yeh, getting to simple often requires grunt work...
Can the method be turned to the refinement of the EnABL treatment?
Yeh, getting to simple often requires grunt work...
Can the method be turned to the refinement of the EnABL treatment?
ronc said:
Well, I don’t think this really answers my questions. However, this is my problem. The approach seems to be consideration of energy transfer form an incident wave. So you must assume something about what the incident wave is. You would also need to know the differences in acoustic impedance between the different mediums, cone, air, enable patches... since the reflection and transmission coefficients will be dependent upon them. Ultimately relatively little energy is transferred to the air and while the enabled patches may change that amount of energy transferred locally they won't affect energy transfer over the majority of the cone surface.
But I guess my underlying question is how does it (or does it at all) account the motion of the cone? Since little energy is transferred to the air, and since the energy transferred from the cone to the enabled patches can only represent a small fraction of the total cone energy because the enabled patches are only a small fraction of the total surface area (ignoring subsequent transfer form the patch to the air), the cone motion is still controlled primarily by the driver motor exciting the cone. Additionally, we really don’t have a situation where an internal acoustic wave is propagating in the cone and is incident on the cone surface, thereby being reflected back into the cone with some portion of the energy transmitted to the air. This would require that the cone thickness be large relative to the wave length. Rather we have a bending wave initiated at the cone/VC junction which propagates radially outward and which results in a deformation of the cone nominally in the direction normal to the cone surface, across the full cone thickness. That this is a bending wave rather than some type of surface wave is evidenced by the observation that radiation for the rear side of the cone is 180 degrees out of phase with the front side. This wave can be reflected from and transmitted to the surround, however, when the cone radius is lager compared to the wave length.
When the wave length is long relative to some cone characteristic dimension (cone diameter) the cone moves in and out with relatively constant displacement over its entire surface, i.e. pistonic motion, and the cone mass can be considered as a lumped mass moving with uniform motion. When the wave length is much shorter than that characteristic dimension the propagation of the wave radically outward must be considered along with modal excitement, both radially and circumferentially. As simple approximation to this could be a distributed parameter model of the cone where it is broken up in to lots of “little cones” with assigned masses, and interconnected by springs and dampers. If the spacing between each of these little cones is much smaller than the wave lengths in question then each of them would behave pistonicly, but each could have different amplitude and phase. All these different pistonic elements would also be loaded by the air mass they see and the resulting motion thus determined. The radiated energy follows directly since the cone velocity must equal the air velocity at the surface. Since the enable treatment is also very thin the enabled areas would also have to move with the same velocity as the cone. Also, since the wave lengths considered appear to be long relative the size of the enabled patches it would seem unlikely that any significant amount of acoustic energy in the cone could be dissipated by the enabled patches. Rather, I believe the most like effect goes back to what MJK said many, many posts ago. The primary effect is that of the added mass. The enable treatment added mass has two effects: 1) the added mass would change the resonant frequency of those elements (little pistons) to which it was added and 2) it would introduce non-homogeneous characteristics to the cone as a whole. Both of these would have an effect on the vibrational characteristic of the cone and alter the radiated SPL and energy transfer.
As an aside, if I have done the math correctly the energy transferred to air from a second medium in which an acoustic wave impinges on the air interface would be relatively unchanged by a thin layer of a third material (the enable layer) providing that the thickness of the layer is much less than a wave length. A common example is sound transmission through a wall: transfer of energy form air to wall to air. At low frequency, where the wave length is long compared to the wall thickness, the sound goes right through the wall.
John K,
What if the entire cone is not a piston, instead only acts as a piston because of it's constraint as a finite transmission line? The entire cone would move, to trace the path of the bending wave that is exiting through it, but it would not be a piston, nor would it's mechanism of energy transform be that of a constrained piston charging into a constrained volume, creating a pistonic compression wave.
From my point of view we have a bending wave propagating through a constrained transmission line. At the boundary layer of the transmission line, at any point on it's surface, the bending wave is incidentally transforming it's energy, carried in a longitudinal energy structure, into a compression/rarification wave in the adjacent medium, air, water or what have you. The pattern does not alter this event, though there is clear evidence that it alters the location within the boundary layer where this energy transform occurs. This adjacent wave has a wave front that is created at right angles to the direction of the bending wave, currently confined to a constrained transmission line.
Were the transmission line an infinite body, the transverse wave, that is the descriptor of the bending wave, would move at the most energy efficient fashion with respect to transmission speed through the transmission line medium. Or, if you must, the natural "friction imparted by a model of plates all interconnected with 360 degrees of springs. This is not an infinite body, it is constrained and so it's constraints determine what the speed of transverse is and also determine the amount of energy transform through the boundary layer. The boundary layer itself has an energy transform friction and this friction is being applied to the compression/rarification wave that is being transformed within it. This point of transformation determines the speed of prorogation of the transverse wave, within this constrained transmission line.
The cone/transmission line will be deforming to carry the bending wave. Doesn't matter if the whole cone moves or just a few molecules are displaced. The laminar portion of the boundary layer tracks this movement, while transformation is occurring into the compression wave front, that is moving across this boundary layer.
This immediately adjacent laminar area is also compromised by all of the elasticity problems inherent to the plates with sprigs activities. The boundary layer above the laminar zone is not.
What ronc is showing is that if you can move the transformation up out of the laminar zone, then the compression wave that is being created will more closely track the energy structure of the bending wave/transverse energy wave.
The pistonic movement of the cone is only incidental to this event. Until the the cone begins to move enough to actually enter the region where it is charging the constrained volume of air around it, this is the mechanism that an EnABL pattern forces, unless the energy transform once again crashes into the laminar zone. This is what the conformal coating is for. Just as an aid to keep the transform lofted out of the laminar zone.
Even when the cone is moving and creating a pressure and rarification event, as it traces the bending wave, the location of the compression wave transform and it's mechanism of transformation are the same The EnABL pattern is still causing this transformation zone to be lofted up out of the laminar zone of the boundary layer. In so doing it is keeping this transformation zone from being corrupted by the plates with spring events that otherwise would be causing numerous disruptions with their attendant local friction to the eventual compression wave..
Both ronc's analysis and the CSD tests performed by Soonsgc show this to be true. I am not implying that it is untestable with current methods, but at the moment, we have on our hands something that, for our intelligent, semi autonomous "hearing", recreates the information contained within the original bending wave, traversing the cone, with a vastly more "intelligible" presentation. What we don't have is much of a clue about how to find this increased intelligibility, in what tests we have to hand.
Bud
What if the entire cone is not a piston, instead only acts as a piston because of it's constraint as a finite transmission line? The entire cone would move, to trace the path of the bending wave that is exiting through it, but it would not be a piston, nor would it's mechanism of energy transform be that of a constrained piston charging into a constrained volume, creating a pistonic compression wave.
From my point of view we have a bending wave propagating through a constrained transmission line. At the boundary layer of the transmission line, at any point on it's surface, the bending wave is incidentally transforming it's energy, carried in a longitudinal energy structure, into a compression/rarification wave in the adjacent medium, air, water or what have you. The pattern does not alter this event, though there is clear evidence that it alters the location within the boundary layer where this energy transform occurs. This adjacent wave has a wave front that is created at right angles to the direction of the bending wave, currently confined to a constrained transmission line.
Were the transmission line an infinite body, the transverse wave, that is the descriptor of the bending wave, would move at the most energy efficient fashion with respect to transmission speed through the transmission line medium. Or, if you must, the natural "friction imparted by a model of plates all interconnected with 360 degrees of springs. This is not an infinite body, it is constrained and so it's constraints determine what the speed of transverse is and also determine the amount of energy transform through the boundary layer. The boundary layer itself has an energy transform friction and this friction is being applied to the compression/rarification wave that is being transformed within it. This point of transformation determines the speed of prorogation of the transverse wave, within this constrained transmission line.
The cone/transmission line will be deforming to carry the bending wave. Doesn't matter if the whole cone moves or just a few molecules are displaced. The laminar portion of the boundary layer tracks this movement, while transformation is occurring into the compression wave front, that is moving across this boundary layer.
This immediately adjacent laminar area is also compromised by all of the elasticity problems inherent to the plates with sprigs activities. The boundary layer above the laminar zone is not.
What ronc is showing is that if you can move the transformation up out of the laminar zone, then the compression wave that is being created will more closely track the energy structure of the bending wave/transverse energy wave.
The pistonic movement of the cone is only incidental to this event. Until the the cone begins to move enough to actually enter the region where it is charging the constrained volume of air around it, this is the mechanism that an EnABL pattern forces, unless the energy transform once again crashes into the laminar zone. This is what the conformal coating is for. Just as an aid to keep the transform lofted out of the laminar zone.
Even when the cone is moving and creating a pressure and rarification event, as it traces the bending wave, the location of the compression wave transform and it's mechanism of transformation are the same The EnABL pattern is still causing this transformation zone to be lofted up out of the laminar zone of the boundary layer. In so doing it is keeping this transformation zone from being corrupted by the plates with spring events that otherwise would be causing numerous disruptions with their attendant local friction to the eventual compression wave..
Both ronc's analysis and the CSD tests performed by Soonsgc show this to be true. I am not implying that it is untestable with current methods, but at the moment, we have on our hands something that, for our intelligent, semi autonomous "hearing", recreates the information contained within the original bending wave, traversing the cone, with a vastly more "intelligible" presentation. What we don't have is much of a clue about how to find this increased intelligibility, in what tests we have to hand.
Bud
- Status
- Not open for further replies.