Well, if your purpose is to just prove Bud's statement is not universally applied, you may have succeeded to some extent.MJL21193 said:
I like to think that people here are trying to find ways to improve drivers. If the drivers are used mainly in the range of piston action, and listening is conducted with XO in the way, then the design of the XO becomes critical as well.
BudP said:
I would appreciate it if you'd at least attempt to be accurate in your implications. From my first post I said explicitly that there could be a change, but that there were two primary considerations. First, relating to the implication above, I said that if there was an audible difference, there would be a measurable difference. Measurable was the operative word. I don't worry about any of this. It's quite possible that there is a measurable difference, but that some individual may hear it, others not. This is part and parcel of proper experimental data. Audibility is highly variable between individuals.
Second, and evidently of primary concern to most here (qualified measurements apparently are anathema to them), the mechanism is being attributed with absolutely zero in the way of valid evidence and proof. In fact, I could go back to several posts and show specific, direct contradictions with regard to claims by several individuals. I have already done so, but there is more in the thread that could be highlighted. So far, not a single individual has shown by any proof whatsoever, the mechanism is still based upon pure conjecture. Anecdotal evidence is in no way proof, but it's quite evident that many here believe it to be so.
Totally bogus comment. We "skeptics" are looking for evidence of the claims of scientific explanations that are contrary to the basics of sound reproduction in drivers. Nothing in the thread presents evidence of any "special" properties of the treatment. That a driver may sound different is possible, it is adding mass (and possibly damping) to a moving region of the diaphragm, I've also said that from day one. That it is from some mystical science, the basis of the claim, has no proof of any sort yet.
Graham Maynard said:
Partially correct. Air motion isn't being damped. Diaphragm vibrational modes are being damped or altered such that the resonance modes of the driver are altered. This has been pursued for decades. Driver materials, thicknesses, damping compounds, graduated thicknesses (KEF does this today) and surface treatments (yep, them too) have all been experimented with to produce diaphragms as they exist today.
The size of tweeters has as much, if not more, to do with driver directionality issues directly related to the intended frequency response desired. Why do you think full-range drivers tend to have whizzer cones?
Just what ARE these "parasitic" frequencies? How do you think that they arise? What do you hypothesize generates them? Please be specific, speaking of them as though it's some accepted fact that they exist is quite an assumption.
The FR and CSD you're referring to are in no way related to "parasitic" frequencies, they are in plain fact, frequencies generated directly by the impulse signal applied to the driver, with the exception of motor non-linear distortion that is generally 20db or more down in level, thus not necessarily evident in a CSD. The CSD is nothing more than the decay response of the driver when the signal (broadband due to the impulse) is suddenly removed from the driver input terminals. It's akin to the sound you hear from a bell when it's struck. The bell rings at its natural resonance frequencies, the rest decay rapidly. A driver "rings" at its natural resonance frequencies in like manner, low-level distortion aside. "Stike" it with an impulse, you get the FR and the CSD.
You are again making the erroneous assumption that testing such as with an MLS system is somehow limited in frequency complexity. There is nothing in any music, bar none, that is more complex in harmonics than is an impulse. This is a basic fact that some here continue to avoid accepting. No response is made, statements just keep getting repeated regardless of the facts.
Observed? How? Is someone going to use laser interferometry to provide a visual representation of the surface vibrational aspects? That would be most welcome. Or are you suggesting that someone's ears are going to discern (observe?) this and that the listener will have the ability to "observe" the driver vibrational characteristics and the air wave motion? These are not rhetorical questions, I'm looking for a direct response to each one.
Dave
soongsc said:
My purpose was to prove to myself whether the process works or not. This has been suggested by many, especially Dave (P10).
For the most part, I try to find ways of improving my enclosure construction, or the interior treatment of the enclosure, or attempt to make my listening environment better acoustically. I think that these efforts are far more rewarding than tinkering with micro detail on the cones surface.
I generally leave drivers as is, giving credit to the original designer for his expertise in the field.
I use drivers in speakers to listen to music and not worry whether it's performing like a piston. If it sounds good, it is good.
Relax and enjoy the music. 🙂
How? Is someone going to use laser interferometry to provide a visual representation of the surface vibrational aspects? That would be most welcome.
You simply reflect either a laser or a monocromatic light off the surface to a sensor then thru an amplifier then to an o scope. This method is used when direct mounting of sensors will affect the study. There is a direct relationship between the amplitude/time/phase of the signals and the cone movement.
ron
You simply reflect either a laser or a monocromatic light off the surface to a sensor then thru an amplifier then to an o scope. This method is used when direct mounting of sensors will affect the study. There is a direct relationship between the amplitude/time/phase of the signals and the cone movement.
ron
ronc said:
Two comments. First, the evidence that the nail went into the wood can be verified by anyone, even a blind person. No special testing methods are needed. No one could reasonably dispute the results.
Second, would that professor have made the statement that the because the nail went into the would, it validated any or all hypotheses made as to the mechanisms involved in the action and that no valid testing was needed to prove such? I would hope not.
soongsc said:
The proof required is not incumbant on any skeptics, proof is required of those who make a claim. Making a claim without adequate evidence is no proof at all. Some of the claimed evidence has in fact been contrary to the claims made. What's needed is valid, positive evidence. Anecdotal evidence to date supports nothing more than that a change to frequency response has been made, but it is all anecdotal and none of it is able to support the details in the claim, none of it. Any changes are consistent with the known issues in drivers and what the results are of modifying the physical nature of a diaphragm. That is the issue. Had Bud postulated some other mechanism, I dare say that every single person who claims to hear a difference would have supported that claim. That's the problem, no direct evidence has been presented to support the specifics of the claim.
Dave
ronc said:
Excellent! Then let's see that evidence. No one involved has stepped forth with anything of the sort. A before/after of that sort would be most welcome.
Dave
A before/after of that sort would be most welcome.
Yes. Then there would be objective data and results. We can apply theory/sims/whatever till the cows come home but without objective proof and controlled test results all we know is Yes, the nail did go into the wood.
Otherwise its a subjective opinion.
I am not finding falt with EnABL, but any simulation will never be as accurate as actual test data. Besides, with actual performance data many times you can improve upon an application,
ron
Yes. Then there would be objective data and results. We can apply theory/sims/whatever till the cows come home but without objective proof and controlled test results all we know is Yes, the nail did go into the wood.
Otherwise its a subjective opinion.
I am not finding falt with EnABL, but any simulation will never be as accurate as actual test data. Besides, with actual performance data many times you can improve upon an application,
ron
Hi guys,
Add me on the skeptics list until Zaph tests a pair of EnABL drivers versus a pair of stock drivers.
After that test, I guess I will be on the "It doesn't work" list ! 😀
Add me on the skeptics list until Zaph tests a pair of EnABL drivers versus a pair of stock drivers.
After that test, I guess I will be on the "It doesn't work" list ! 😀
After that test, I guess I will be on the "It doesn't work" list
That is a pre concevied opinion without either objective or subjective evidence.
At work i am frequently asked to perform a study as to why there is a failed product. First action is to accumulate all the applicable data i can thru various tests. Second is to look for a trend in the data and compare it to established results. Third is to re-create the results using a control group vrs the test group.
ron
That is a pre concevied opinion without either objective or subjective evidence.
At work i am frequently asked to perform a study as to why there is a failed product. First action is to accumulate all the applicable data i can thru various tests. Second is to look for a trend in the data and compare it to established results. Third is to re-create the results using a control group vrs the test group.
ron
ronc said:
Ronc, you're leaving yourself open here. After all, since light is a wave and since the enable process alters the amount of wave energy absorbed by the cone the amount of energy reflected back will be different for the treated and untreated cones, no? 🙂
On a more serious note, I said this before and I want to repeat it. Many of us here are not so skeptical of whether applying the treatment produces an audible result of not. Rather we are skeptical that the cause of any change is due to the esoteric descriptions put fourth.
That the enable patches raise the surface out of a boundary layer is more than speculative. Rather, IF a significant boundary layer exists, a new boundary layer would form over the patch deformed surface as well. That turbulence is generated is also speculative, and contrary. If you want to purify an acoustic signal the last thing you want to do is generate turbulence in a boundary layer or anywhere else. Turbulence generates fluctuations both in the particle velocity and pressure, and fluctuations in pressure are radiated form the boundary layer as NOISE!
Additionally, IF the enable treatment were to function as described, reducing the transfer of acoustic energy which impinges upon the cone, then it would also inhibit the transfer of acoustic energy from the cone to the air. It's a two way street. The idea that acoustic waves “stack up” at the points of treatment is just plane wrong. They are either reflected form or absorbed by the treated areas and then re-emited. For the wave lengths involved ther patches are pretty much acoustically transparent.
And perhaps one of the most significant consideration overlooked is that for a boxed speaker there is a very real and significant wave impingement problem related to waves reflected form the inside of the box and then incident upon the back side of the driver, and reradiated from the front side. or for a whizzer cone, radiation form the back side of the whizzer which is reflected/absorbed from the main cone back into the air and back side of the whizzer....
Anyway, I didn't want to get back into this thread so I think I'll resume that position.
Hi Dave. (planet 10)
The attachment in your Post#1774.
2.5kHz relates to a 1/4 wavelength of approx. 1.4".
I do not know which LS your illustration relates to, but is 1.4" close to the driver -
centre of cone to edge dimension, or-
phase plug to edge dimension ?
Cheers ......... Graham.
The attachment in your Post#1774.
2.5kHz relates to a 1/4 wavelength of approx. 1.4".
I do not know which LS your illustration relates to, but is 1.4" close to the driver -
centre of cone to edge dimension, or-
phase plug to edge dimension ?
Cheers ......... Graham.
Graham Maynard said:
Graham,
Those curves are from a pair i sold on eBay long before i knew anything of EnABL
dave
ronc said:
I agree with you. I have a certain bias, but I stand with MJL21193 on this. I don't like many statements I've seen here, like the use of fallacious arguments to sideline him.
The famous "Argumentum ad populum", 502 vs 2, means they are right and he's wrong.
Make that 502 vs 3 now. 😉
OTOH, I'm always in for a surprise, if you see what I wrote, I said "I guess" I will be on that list. I'm not 100% sure. I may be wrong and if I'm wrong I will admit it.
simon5 said:
You can only add to the count if you have auditioned drivers & not heard a difference.
I had another visitor today.
503 vs 2 (503 vs 3 if Simon actually auditioned some treated drivers)
dave
Graham Maynard said:
The 8" coral that John (MJL21193) partially treated and auditioned.
dave
When evidence is not sufficient, then the verdict is just as valid. Isn't that the way the legal system works?😀dlr said:
I don't see the point of any DIYer spending the time and money trying to convince anyone. Feel free to devalidate the patent if you think it not enough convincing.
Fluid dynamics theory indicate turbulent boundary layer to be thinner than laminar boundary layer. However, I don't think change in boundary layer makes such significant audible difference.john k... said:
Hi Dave,
One of the first ripples which shows upon a B200's driver's electrical impedance and phase characteristic, also upon transduced SPL and phase (Klang and Ton) arises at about 2.4kHz too.
Here the cone edge to dustcap ridge is approx 2.75 inches = ~1/2 wavelength for 2k4Hz.
So is there a half wavelength transverse pressure/velocity transform between egde to centre of cone, acting upon transduction at the centre of the cone/dome/voice coil impedance ?
( Something which is partially mitigated with better sounding eliptical drivers, and maybe suggesting that any centre/edge patterns might work better if not entirely the same throughout their circumferential placements ? )
Cheers ............. Graham.
One of the first ripples which shows upon a B200's driver's electrical impedance and phase characteristic, also upon transduced SPL and phase (Klang and Ton) arises at about 2.4kHz too.
Here the cone edge to dustcap ridge is approx 2.75 inches = ~1/2 wavelength for 2k4Hz.
So is there a half wavelength transverse pressure/velocity transform between egde to centre of cone, acting upon transduction at the centre of the cone/dome/voice coil impedance ?
( Something which is partially mitigated with better sounding eliptical drivers, and maybe suggesting that any centre/edge patterns might work better if not entirely the same throughout their circumferential placements ? )
Cheers ............. Graham.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.