EnABL Processes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#2,182
peterbrorsson said:
Here you got more to fight about. Rename this thread to "Speaker kindergarten" Or put your CV's on the net, boys!

http://gboers.xs4all.nl/daisy/home/g3/139/g1/loudspeakers/refiningreplikon.html
Click to expand...

The CSD plots as presented can't be directly compared. The reason is that it's evident that Clio adjusts the vertical db scale such that the 0db level coincides with whatever peak exists in the FR of each response. That is, raise the level of any resonant peak, that peak or its new value (if displayed in absolute db) then becomes the relative zero. This will adjust the whole graph up or down across the spectrum, so comparing the decay with those Clio graphs is an invalid comparison.

What's needed is to have the vertical db scale fixed in absolute form so that the db scales in absolute db levels are equal. They are not equal in those graphs. They are all relative to the peak in each one, therefore none of them are equal.

However, they are further evidence of the fact that there is change in frequency response with added mass. The FR is altered by the process (that of added mass, not the EnABL hypothesis), but for valid comparisons, everything must be equal from one test to another, including the scales of all graphs used for comparison.

Dave
 
#2,185
To tweak...or not

Bud...

I have no problem with this procedure as a tweak, whether a patent exists or not is really irrelevant; there are millions of worthless patents on the books (not implying that yours is worthless, btw), I hope you realize some gain for all your efforts.

And, no, I don't base any of my audio experiences on graphs and measurements; I base it on my hearing, augmented when appropriate with valid data, a method which has served me well for over 4 decades or so.., none of which has been presented here to date.

yet, many attempts have been made to validate this beyond tweakdom, which is where the problem lies. There are many tweaks that work; why not leave it at that?

John L.
 
#2,186
Dave,

And I agree with your edit.

The distributed mass is shown in the tests and I thank you for providing this. And it certainly does not seem to provide much if any information into what EnABL is doing to alter the understandable, coherence of the information coming off of a treated speaker.

I am somewhat hopeful that ronc will expose some of this, I am also hopeful that your and John K's experimentation into mass loading of cones, will begin to define some portion of this information coherency improvement.

This is, after all, what every one of our subjective reports has boiled down to. Much more information, more coherently portrayed. Very few have even mentioned a frequency response change of had issues with the seeming worsening of peaks and valleys, as shown in the CSD plots. And yes I do understand that all of the CSD plots to date, with the probable exception of those provided by John K, are not absolutely bullet proof documents.

And, I am also aware of the mass hysteria sweeping the land.

Bud
 
#2,187
BudP said:
Dave,

And I agree with your edit.

The distributed mass is shown in the tests and I thank you for providing this. And it certainly does not seem to provide much if any information into what EnABL is doing to alter the understandable, coherence of the information coming off of a treated speaker.

I am somewhat hopeful that ronc will expose some of this, I am also hopeful that your and John K's experimentation into mass loading of cones, will begin to define some portion of this information coherency improvement.

This is, after all, what every one of our subjective reports has boiled down to. Much more information, more coherently portrayed. Very few have even mentioned a frequency response change of had issues with the seeming worsening of peaks and valleys, as shown in the CSD plots. And yes I do understand that all of the CSD plots to date, with the probable exception of those provided by John K, are not absolutely bullet proof documents.

And, I am also aware of the mass hysteria sweeping the land.

Bud
Click to expand...

There's nothing to expose. There's nothing happening other than that of added mass. Period.

The mass hysteria is the belief in the unproven, ignoring the fact that since there is proven frequency response alteration, no one can say that there is anything other than FR change causing the change in perception.

Until some proof can be shown unequivocally, it's a belief, nothing more. Everything shown to date can be explained by the simple (added mass), rather than the complex (EnABL). Those who want to believe will continue to do so. Those who want to know the facts will examine and question why the complex hypothesis is proposed at all. If it can be answered by the simpler explanation, it's most likely the simpler explanation that is the reason. Added mass fully explains it. There's no reason for any other mechanism except by those who want there to be a more complex reason.

Dave
 
#2,188
yet, many attempts have been made to validate this beyond tweakdom, which is where the problem lies. There are many tweaks that work; why not leave it at that?
Click to expand...

Suits me. I just started this thread to show others how to do something that has brought me great musical delight for 35 years. I never intended to start a wrangle over the process and how it might change the thoughts about and implementations of speaker theory. That the discussion has taken off into these areas is certainly interesting. I certainly have a fair amount of thought involved into the why's and how's, but none of it amounts to much, unless you are listening to treated drivers and experiencing the results.

As for the tests to date "proving" the lack of an audible improvement after treatment, this is not supportable either. That the tests have shown that the changes recorded "should" not be enough to provide the level of change noted subjectively is very supportable. I am pretty sure that is what is interesting those who have begun to experiment with mass and cone behavior in a much more rigorous and inclusive manner than I have ever been interested in.

I applaud this work and hope it brings about a much clearer understanding of the forces at work on diaphragms.

Bud
 
#2,189
I have some time tonight to respond.

IMHO it sounds like it all comes down to either subjective vrs. objective performance.

You can establish a numerical value on objective.
You cant on subjective. Its more an "opinion" at that point.
I truly try to stay away from subjective opinion.

I am neither pro or con on this subject. To me its actual results.As soon as i get finished with my present work assingments i will resume tests on this question.

Still , in my sims i see a greather height of the deflectors being required to truly have an impact on the energys involved.

ron
 
#2,190
I've got to get back to my humble non important work, helping to save kids lives, build microwave plumbing for surveillance and communications, atmospheric greenhouse gas evaluation, non-useful stuff like that, dumb engineering pursuits, eh?



atmospheric greenhouse gas evaluation

That sounds interesting to me.

ron
 
#2,191
Until some proof can be shown unequivocally,

Please define what your parameter requirements are?

As stated , i am un biased, i purposed a simple A vrs B test and the result was cone energy in total waveform production was required, (this is at a much later time interval than my sims indicated).

Please be specific in the results that are required to end this debate.

Thanks
ron
 
#2,192
#2,195
BudP said:
John K,

Sit tight John. That "decision" is just now happening. Interesting how giving something away, generates enough frothed water to attract.

Bud
Click to expand...


Sittin' thinkin' sinkin' drinkin'
Wond'ring what I'd do when I'm thru tonight
Smoking, moping, maybe just hopin'
Some little girl will pass on by
Don't wanna be alone but I love my girl at home
I remember what she said
She said "My, my, my don't tell lies. Keep fidelity in your head
My, my, my, don't tell lies. When you're done you should go to bed
Don't say Hi, like a spider to a fly
Jump right ahead and you're dead"


Bud, if you ever make anything out of this I'll be the first to congratulate you. But I ain't sitting around waiting.
 
#2,196
BudP said:
John K,

Interesting how giving something away, generates enough frothed water to attract.

Bud
Click to expand...

Wasn't that the intent? I mean, sure you are now giving it away, but 14 years ago when you applied for and were granted a patent I’m thinking that is not what you had in mind. Clearly this thread and the discussion from both sides only help stir the pot. It's only human nature to stop and look to see what the fuss is all about. But ultimately the lights go out on the midway and the freak shows become common place. We loose interest and move on, none the worse for ware, but having gained little of substance.
 
#2,197
I've got a pair of cheap poly cone 6.5" mid/bass drivers taken from some old Paradigm speakers. They very ordinary drivers but they cost me nothing and I don't mind if they got thrown in the bin if things go wrong.

I was thinking about applying the enable pattern to them but that seems a little tricky to lay down in an accurate manner. So I read with interest as others used different materials and patterns to explore what these do.

For the material used to build up the pattern; I've got some loudspeaker sealing gasket - 5mm wide, self adhesive backed with about a 3mm thick layer of closed cell foam. Its lightweight but could also be made lighter by removing the foam after apply to the cone, thus leaving only the adhesive.

Not sure about the pattern to be applied but the one used on the manger makes technical sense to me:

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


What do you think about the suitability of both the pattern and the gasket used?
 
#2,198
ShinOBIWAN said:
I've got a pair of cheap poly cone 6.5" mid/bass drivers taken from some old Paradigm speakers. They very ordinary drivers but they cost me nothing and I don't mind if they got thrown in the bin if things go wrong.

I was thinking about applying the enable pattern to them but that seems a little tricky to lay down in an accurate manner. So I read with interest as others used different materials and patterns to explore what these do.

For the material used to build up the pattern; I've got some loudspeaker sealing gasket - 5mm wide, self adhesive backed with about a 3mm thick layer of closed cell foam. Its lightweight but could also be made lighter by removing the foam after apply to the cone, thus leaving only the adhesive.

Not sure about the pattern to be applied but the one used on the manger makes technical sense to me:

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


What do you think about the suitability of both the pattern and the gasket used?
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, since the MANGER uses vibrating modes of the diaphragm to generate sound, the outer damping material not only serves as damping, but also serve as accoustic equalization by covering up some of the area.

For PP cones, my gut feeling is that the pattern count would be reduced, but the destance between each block increased. To what extent is hard to tell since probably there is not enough experiece in this area. My first guess would be reducing the pattern count to half, and the spacing distance between the most outer ring to the next ring be increased to about 1cm. Probably might change my mind after looking at frequency response and spectral decay plots.
 
#2,199
soongsc said:
If I recall correctly, since the MANGER uses vibrating modes of the diaphragm to generate sound, the outer damping material not only serves as damping, but also serve as accoustic equalization by covering up some of the area.
Click to expand...

Its used as an interference and cancellation layer to break up and cancel the wave propagating through the material at the edges so that reflections are reduced. It terminates the ends of the radiating area.
 
#2,200
ShinOBIWAN

I have EnABL'd a few polypropylene cones. So far they all responded to the patten as used on the Fostex i26/127. The differences came in needing to provide tooth for the paint with 4000 grit ruby paper and the use of a lot more Gloss than I had expected. In all of the cases the final quality of the sound was quite good. A pair of 9.3 inch Dyna Vox are the drivers to 800 Hz in my current closed box system. The ones that don't exhibit baffle edge diffractions.

I did not use any other sort of mass damping, beyond what little the pattern provided, but building the surface up with Gloss not only added mass but also provided far more articulation than stock. For all but one set, some very light cones out of a small AR two way, the sound quality of the untreated driver surface was murky and dull, but very smooth.

If you can post a slightly off center picture I will be happy to provide a virtual pattern. You should be able to use the pattern rings from the Lowther page and just adjust your % of size in printing preferences, specific to your printer, to enlarge or shrink them appropriately.

As for using the tape, I do not have any experience, though PDAN did use a clear tape of some sort on her Lowthers and was very happy with the results. She never did use the Gloss as it offended her sensibilities to coat such a lovely device in "plastic". Cant say as I blame her. I do think you will end up needing to use the gloss.

Do you know what materials are used in the flat radiator of the Manger?

Certainly Mamaboni had success with those diamond patterns used on his 10" woofer front surface, that was then inverted and used as a Walsh like back wave driver, in Omni mode, with a dome tweeter on top. C2C Thomas also applied them to a pair of 10" drivers and uses them with Heil tweeters in the same mode.

Bud
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom