creating great works of babble art. I thought it seemed a reasonable assumption, given the posts.
HAHAHA! good one. In engineering( not science) if it works then dont dink with it,unless you can make it work better/cheaper/faster.
The problem is , the fields overlap. I never design anything that dosent have at least a 200% reliability factor ( i am old fashioned).
Objective: Make a better sounding(human subjective opinion) electromechanical transducer by application of spots of a different Z value medium on the transmitting surface.
Does it work or does it not.
ron
HAHAHA! good one. In engineering( not science) if it works then dont dink with it,unless you can make it work better/cheaper/faster.
The problem is , the fields overlap. I never design anything that dosent have at least a 200% reliability factor ( i am old fashioned).
Objective: Make a better sounding(human subjective opinion) electromechanical transducer by application of spots of a different Z value medium on the transmitting surface.
Does it work or does it not.
ron
BudP said:
There is nothing to believe in this, not one thing. Repeating it does not validate it in any way.
When it comes down to the baffle, that's all nonsense. There will be no control of any kind. Whatever occurs without enabl will continue to occur with it. But I'm sure that those who want to believe otherwise, will. It is a belief, nothing more.
And after being called on it, there's back-tracking, then on to creating another explanation. It is absolutely without basis in fact.
Emissions is not a verb. There is absolutely no change in the 2pi to 4pi energy emissions with enabl that will be measurable nor audible other than as a tiny bump that is insignificant, especially when one considers that surface area untreated. I'm sorry Bud, claim what you will, but this is all pure nonsense. I think that you know it, but refuse to acknowledge. You keep making up new descriptions to keep it going.
It's quite evident that you have no grasp of the what diffraction really is and it's effects. Enabl won't make one iota of change in the diffraction signature. There's not a single point in all of your comments about it that is factual. This needs to be recognized.
Dave
A while back there were a few that were going to take a bold step to make measurements and show them. Haven't seen any yet, or have I missed them?
while back there were a few that were going to take a bold step to make measurements and show them. Haven't seen any yet, or have I missed them?
I was told they were ineffective by the "scientific " types in here. I am not going to spend my companies money on results that will be deemed ineffective by the few in this debate that cannot realize the simple actions.
In the end, its like trying to teach a monkey to play the piano. Either the monkey sees that hitting a key makes something , or he dosent.
I have more important studies to accomplish. Like the migration of carbon and magnesium towards the center of molten slabs and the change of acoustical properties in the rolled out end result. This pretty much keeps everybody (even the detractors) safe when driving by a pipeline or crossing a bridge or many other applications.
ron
I was told they were ineffective by the "scientific " types in here. I am not going to spend my companies money on results that will be deemed ineffective by the few in this debate that cannot realize the simple actions.
In the end, its like trying to teach a monkey to play the piano. Either the monkey sees that hitting a key makes something , or he dosent.
I have more important studies to accomplish. Like the migration of carbon and magnesium towards the center of molten slabs and the change of acoustical properties in the rolled out end result. This pretty much keeps everybody (even the detractors) safe when driving by a pipeline or crossing a bridge or many other applications.
ron
Thanks, Ron!🙂 If this thread is still going in a few weeks(?)I''ll report my totally subjective impressions on a a pair of fe126's!
Don
Don
You must be young and daring. Just a few years ago we were using 250%.
No i am 60 yrs old. 200% is more than adequate.It all comes down to a calculated risk factor. How much can you live with. What are the cost reductions, longetivity (today means little).
All companies today are concerened with is immediate profit,expansion and market dominance. Its sad, but there it is.
ron
No i am 60 yrs old. 200% is more than adequate.It all comes down to a calculated risk factor. How much can you live with. What are the cost reductions, longetivity (today means little).
All companies today are concerened with is immediate profit,expansion and market dominance. Its sad, but there it is.
ron
dlr
I agree. I don't actually believe in it either. I just notice what works and remember what I did to cause it to work and report it here. Belief really doesn't enter in to it. What I have said here is what I have done, not dreamed of doing, not wished upon a star for.
I am sorry it upsets you. I appreciate your help and your viewpoint, just as much as that of anyone else who posts here.
Bud
I agree. I don't actually believe in it either. I just notice what works and remember what I did to cause it to work and report it here. Belief really doesn't enter in to it. What I have said here is what I have done, not dreamed of doing, not wished upon a star for.
I am sorry it upsets you. I appreciate your help and your viewpoint, just as much as that of anyone else who posts here.
Bud
pedroskova said:
Recording engineers don't look at frequency response charts before they use a mic. They are chosen for how they subjectively sound and headroom before clipping. Vintage mics often are chosen because of their euphonic properties, just like a guitar amp or particular violin. Flat response is not a great issue. 😉
Did a quick round today, and could not find difference with and without patterns on the phase plug. This could mean anything from wrong location, shape of phase plug, or patterns do not work. I'm not going to draw any conclusions because I had to move the mic to change batteries. Perhaps next time.soongsc said:
Some comments on the FE126eN installed in the Hornshoppe Horn
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/driver-reviews.html
dave
http://www.planet10-hifi.com/driver-reviews.html
dave
ronc said:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I thought you folded in post #2006? You continue to bluff? We don't get to analyse this "energy"? Wow, what a surprise.
planet10 said:
The advertisment continues...
cheers,
AJ
Ron,
Why pay attention to their opinions?
If I paid attention to their opinions rather than looking into this topic and trying to get up to speed on it, I wouldn't be be having quite a lot of fun.
Not being a scientific type, I don't know what's not possible.
For instance, is it possible to learn quite a bit about what's going on with enABL by surveying say, a section of the diaphragm from centre to edge, that would take in 2 or 3 enabl patterns? I mean the thing is circular, right? The absolute most to survey would be half. Symmetry counts for something, doesn't it?
I think it's possible, but then I'm not an expert in anything related to this.
If it's possible to get 100,000 exposures per second if you can turn a digital camera CCD thingy on/off fast enough (up to date consumer ones got means to connect to a computer and I understand the standards for the software are industry wide) can't one artificially sync stuff afterwards? If one close the aperture real tight, could he get real close? Is it possible to pervert a cheap one?
I don't know what's not possible so I'm thinking it might be.
Might there be some folk already researching problems which show quite a bit of similarity to the those Bud has raised? These, for example:
1 Are there similar filter type mechanisms being studied by others?
2 Is it possible to not hear sound that's there? Is it possible, using an acoustical means, to recover that sound?
Not being a scientific person, I looked. It appears so in both cases. This is nice, I think. It's always good not to reinvent the wheel.
What pisses me off, is I'm going to have to spend 6 months or a year, or longer, learning how to manipulate the maths. I'm older than you and I get less patient with age.
I post stuff here because I think It might be helpful.
And maybe I'll get some rigorous feedback, but I'm not holding my breath for that!
You might gather, Ron, the Arts degree I got was not in a touchy feely subject.
Why am i so interested? Because, right now, it's a tweak.
If it's analyzed properly then it becomes an acoustic tool to correct an acoustic problem. Efforts to correct acoustic problems with EQ usually give non-optimal result.
Why pay attention to their opinions?
If I paid attention to their opinions rather than looking into this topic and trying to get up to speed on it, I wouldn't be be having quite a lot of fun.
Not being a scientific type, I don't know what's not possible.
For instance, is it possible to learn quite a bit about what's going on with enABL by surveying say, a section of the diaphragm from centre to edge, that would take in 2 or 3 enabl patterns? I mean the thing is circular, right? The absolute most to survey would be half. Symmetry counts for something, doesn't it?
I think it's possible, but then I'm not an expert in anything related to this.
If it's possible to get 100,000 exposures per second if you can turn a digital camera CCD thingy on/off fast enough (up to date consumer ones got means to connect to a computer and I understand the standards for the software are industry wide) can't one artificially sync stuff afterwards? If one close the aperture real tight, could he get real close? Is it possible to pervert a cheap one?
I don't know what's not possible so I'm thinking it might be.
Might there be some folk already researching problems which show quite a bit of similarity to the those Bud has raised? These, for example:
1 Are there similar filter type mechanisms being studied by others?
2 Is it possible to not hear sound that's there? Is it possible, using an acoustical means, to recover that sound?
Not being a scientific person, I looked. It appears so in both cases. This is nice, I think. It's always good not to reinvent the wheel.
What pisses me off, is I'm going to have to spend 6 months or a year, or longer, learning how to manipulate the maths. I'm older than you and I get less patient with age.
I post stuff here because I think It might be helpful.
And maybe I'll get some rigorous feedback, but I'm not holding my breath for that!
You might gather, Ron, the Arts degree I got was not in a touchy feely subject.
Why am i so interested? Because, right now, it's a tweak.
If it's analyzed properly then it becomes an acoustic tool to correct an acoustic problem. Efforts to correct acoustic problems with EQ usually give non-optimal result.
BudP said:
It's more than that. You don't just say "I noticed something". You make sweeping conclusions unequivocally that are not supported by anything other than what you think you hear. Those conclusions are not based on any factual data and would be considered by any and all knowledgeable researchers as having no validity. It is counter to what is known about acoustics and baffles (in this case). I have no doubt that any serious study with proper measurements would show the conclusion to be without merit. This is based not only on my years of working on diffraction in various ways, but also on the body of knowledge of experts in the field. It's a simple matter to document the reality. That has been done by no one in this case, yet the claims of absoluteness continue.
Your treatment of drivers can and does make a change. The reason is in full agreement with the typical known effects of added mass distributed on a diaphragm. I take no issue with that, mechanism aside, and have said so repeatedly on that basis. Note that I and others have never made a single statement with regard to perceived improvement of drivers. From what I've seen they needed some help, the changes in frequency response could be an improvement.
However, extending the "mechanism" to baffles is ludicrous. I really don't like feeling that something such as this must be said, but that is the case here. Anyone making claims in such a manner should expect to be challenged and scrutinized on an open board. Those who don't like that scrutiny, and they exist here, don't care to learn the truth, whatever it may be. If it can't stand up to close scrutiny, and it does not at all with regard to baffles, then there is something wrong in the assumptions.
Dave
maxro said:
This statement makes the presumption that BL effects have any effect at all here.
What I'm wondering is what the "boundary layer" effects you seem to think are occuring are, what they would have to do with the sound, and how you think they represent an appropriate analysis of what is or isn't occurring.
EnABL proponents keep spewing gobblydygook about BL "tidal waves", "mountain peaks", "tsunamis" etc. without a clue as to the reality about what they speak, rather than actually following references given, doing diligence, and learning the well established theories and engineering. WRT BL, think {mass transfer} and how to model it's effects from one phase to another.
Other posters keep speaking of how simple this all is and that
"its still nothing more than an energy front travelling over a surface which imparts energy to the surface which collides with later produced energy travelling over the surface. This provides cancellation/re-enforcement of the energy which is again imparted into the cone surface according to the phase/time/distance/energy and frequency."
without making any statement as to the magnitude of this interference / masking / whatever and how EnABL "fixes" it. Nothing, nada, not a hint at empircal evidence. Just blind allegience to faith. How much effect/ distortion is removed? .005%, 10%? 200% of the desired signal?
makes it kinda hard to move the concept from "tweakdom" to "factdom"
John L.
Regardless of debates about theory ...
Has anybody heard an actual difference with EnABL'd baffles? - ie One that could be confirmed blinded?
Similarly with EnABL'd phase-plugs?
I could distinguish my fe206e's blinded easily when one was enabl'd and the other wasn't. They both are now.
I will be making phase plugs on 19th Feb. And cabinets before too long.
Should I enabl these?
Has anybody heard an actual difference with EnABL'd baffles? - ie One that could be confirmed blinded?
Similarly with EnABL'd phase-plugs?
I could distinguish my fe206e's blinded easily when one was enabl'd and the other wasn't. They both are now.
I will be making phase plugs on 19th Feb. And cabinets before too long.
Should I enabl these?
felt and diffraction
Good advice... well known method to improve imaging and focus, and minimize early reflections. I wonder if anyone has ever made a felt phase plug?
John L.
soongsc said:
Good advice... well known method to improve imaging and focus, and minimize early reflections. I wonder if anyone has ever made a felt phase plug?
John L.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.