dlr said:
I agree. If we had a forum for this kind of stuff, where everyone can post his unfinished ideas and not validated theories, it wouldnt come to this controversity. But beeing on a normal forum, it seems a little off, as it can mislead people into thinking that it is a proper method.
With this i dont want to make an assumption about the Enabl process. I never tried it and dont want to. Maybe it works, maybe not, i dont care. But as long as it is not validated with proper research, i think it has to be classified more obviously as an idea without verification, maybe by putting it in a dedicated "research" forum or whatever.
Re: The driver tweak web page is up
Thanks Bud.
"Absolutely critical in block length" means I have a problem to overcome in relation to correctly scaling the block sizes.
I re-read the patent document which I found here: http://homepage.mac.com/tlinespeakers/FAL/downloads/EnABLE-US5304746.pdf
This is what I understand
- The optimal number of 'block pairs' in each pattern is 18.
- A 'block pair' comprises 2 blocks of 2 units in length separated by a gap of 1 unit = 5 units.
- Each 'block pair' is separated by a gap of 5 units.
So, this gives us 180 units in any circumference. Right?
OK so block length for a circular pattern would be:
Circumference divided by 180 units multiplied by 2 units
or simply Circumference divided by 90?
So, to calculate the block size for a rectangular baffle you would use it's perimeter (ie 2 x width plus 2 x length) in place of the circumference.
So 'block length' for the baffle of my Voight pipes which are 25 cm x 185 cm would be:
(2 x 25cm plus 2 x 185cm)= 420cm divded by 90 = 4.6cm
(rounded down to nearest mm)
This gives a block size of 4.6cm x 2.3cm!!!
So to apply an optimal EnABL pattern I would need a minimum of 6.9cm around the perimeter of the baffle?
Assuming I got the math right, the two problems I have are:
1) there is only 4cm of baffle on either side of my drivers
2) there is only 2cm of baffle on either side of the retangular port at the base of the baffle.
How should I tackle this? 😕
BudP said:
Thanks Bud.
"Absolutely critical in block length" means I have a problem to overcome in relation to correctly scaling the block sizes.
I re-read the patent document which I found here: http://homepage.mac.com/tlinespeakers/FAL/downloads/EnABLE-US5304746.pdf
This is what I understand
- The optimal number of 'block pairs' in each pattern is 18.
- A 'block pair' comprises 2 blocks of 2 units in length separated by a gap of 1 unit = 5 units.
- Each 'block pair' is separated by a gap of 5 units.
So, this gives us 180 units in any circumference. Right?
OK so block length for a circular pattern would be:
Circumference divided by 180 units multiplied by 2 units
or simply Circumference divided by 90?
So, to calculate the block size for a rectangular baffle you would use it's perimeter (ie 2 x width plus 2 x length) in place of the circumference.
So 'block length' for the baffle of my Voight pipes which are 25 cm x 185 cm would be:
(2 x 25cm plus 2 x 185cm)= 420cm divded by 90 = 4.6cm
(rounded down to nearest mm)
This gives a block size of 4.6cm x 2.3cm!!!
So to apply an optimal EnABL pattern I would need a minimum of 6.9cm around the perimeter of the baffle?
Assuming I got the math right, the two problems I have are:
1) there is only 4cm of baffle on either side of my drivers
2) there is only 2cm of baffle on either side of the retangular port at the base of the baffle.
How should I tackle this? 😕
ronc said:
Sorry, ron. It's not up to skeptics to define, it's up to the person presenting the hypothesis who claims to have the knowledge to be able to present concise, clear and convincing evidence, especially given the esoteric nature of the claim. You know as well as I that he'd be laughed out of any serious scientific gathering if he went into it as he has done here. I said early on what I wanted to see in any case, nothing out of the ordinary. The ability to measure the results (acoustic output of the driver, e.g. FR, distortion profile), regardless of mechanism, exists. It takes a fair amount of rigorous work and quite a bit of time. That is not going to be undertaken by anyone here I believe, certainly not Bud, given his professed inability to make the necessary measurements. His claims of evidence rely on ears of believers, primarily his own with only hearsay for the rest. Hard evidence provided has proved the opposite of what was in the original claims. Yet the claims just keep expanding. When it gets into baffles and diffraction, the claims are nothing short of ridiculous. But he'd make a great magazine reviewer.
If you or anyone is really interested in what it takes to conduct proper double-blind tests for audibility, the basis and entire reason for the claims, I suggest reading some of the Dr. Floyd Toole's papers among others. Then you'll see the effort required to do it right. Thing is, the evidence here is barely even a start if one is to do it right.
Dave
Re: Re: The driver tweak web page is up
Use felt. It's cheap and is known to work very effectively. It goes back to the BBC research at least as far back as the early 1970s.
Dave
Alex from Oz said:
Use felt. It's cheap and is known to work very effectively. It goes back to the BBC research at least as far back as the early 1970s.
Dave
Alex from Oz,
That is an unusual baffle.... many puns arise.
I would not treat the entire thing. What I recommend is a rectangular pattern, with ratio of 1 to 2, width to length, with block size appropriate to a perimeter with two short sides described by the baffle width. I would use paint here. Then at either end, across the short end dimension, a set of blocks of the same size. Paint or foil here, though paint will be easiest.
These, in combination with the short, across baffle patterns, for the driver centered pattern, should make the boxes even more sonically invisible than I am sure they already are. The intent is just to quench the resonances or standing waves that develop on the long dimension. Treating the baffle edges right at the driver should remove those standing wave and resonance induced diffractions and the rest of the baffle surface side edges can probably be ignored.
If you follow Dave's suggestion of using felt, make sure you apply the Mamaboni / stealth triangular shape to the stuff, or you will just end up with a diffused diffraction from the edges. Use of any felt on the front baffle, right at the driver will decrease fine detail that shows up as dynamic color, within instrumental structures. By now you know how much of that sort of information to expect from an EnABL'd driver and you can decide how much to retain. Using it at the ends of the baffle would be an interesting experiment. I think I would use fairly long fingers for the triangular shapes.
Bud
That is an unusual baffle.... many puns arise.
I would not treat the entire thing. What I recommend is a rectangular pattern, with ratio of 1 to 2, width to length, with block size appropriate to a perimeter with two short sides described by the baffle width. I would use paint here. Then at either end, across the short end dimension, a set of blocks of the same size. Paint or foil here, though paint will be easiest.
These, in combination with the short, across baffle patterns, for the driver centered pattern, should make the boxes even more sonically invisible than I am sure they already are. The intent is just to quench the resonances or standing waves that develop on the long dimension. Treating the baffle edges right at the driver should remove those standing wave and resonance induced diffractions and the rest of the baffle surface side edges can probably be ignored.
If you follow Dave's suggestion of using felt, make sure you apply the Mamaboni / stealth triangular shape to the stuff, or you will just end up with a diffused diffraction from the edges. Use of any felt on the front baffle, right at the driver will decrease fine detail that shows up as dynamic color, within instrumental structures. By now you know how much of that sort of information to expect from an EnABL'd driver and you can decide how much to retain. Using it at the ends of the baffle would be an interesting experiment. I think I would use fairly long fingers for the triangular shapes.
Bud
dlr said:
I'm a believer! I believe this whole EnaBL thing is joke on everyone reading the thread! Dots on a wall makes it disappear! LOL - either get out the shovel or straight jacket - take your pick. Paint a pattern on your car and get 30 percent better mileage! This is getting close to the '69 moon walk.
Magnetar,
No, the dots alone will not give you better mileage. You must also use the turboflater input vortex on your grill, to get the full benefit. Until you have the correct richness of tone you cannot expect to get better mileage and more speed as you shriek down the highway. Please, try to get the details straight, OK?
The spots on your wall are probably pretty useful too. Randomly applied fly speck, along with being a great fertilizer for the wifes air plants, will break up an amazing number of people, resonating with laughter.
Bud
No, the dots alone will not give you better mileage. You must also use the turboflater input vortex on your grill, to get the full benefit. Until you have the correct richness of tone you cannot expect to get better mileage and more speed as you shriek down the highway. Please, try to get the details straight, OK?
The spots on your wall are probably pretty useful too. Randomly applied fly speck, along with being a great fertilizer for the wifes air plants, will break up an amazing number of people, resonating with laughter.
Bud
Hey Bud that's good...
I found a job for you marketing used SUV,s to low income people in Kabul. Hey Mag have you stuffed that open cell foam into those Ktubes yet?
I found a job for you marketing used SUV,s to low income people in Kabul. Hey Mag have you stuffed that open cell foam into those Ktubes yet?
dynamic verisimilitude
But does it improve taste?
http://www.twinkiesproject.com/
Note the ubiquitous usage of "controls" throughout these experiments! I especiallylike the Turing Test
John L.
But does it improve taste?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
http://www.twinkiesproject.com/
Note the ubiquitous usage of "controls" throughout these experiments! I especiallylike the Turing Test
John L.
Sorry, ron. It's not up to skeptics to define,
Just to make it clear here, i am not a skeptic or a supporter. I am totally un biased.
In my field you need absolute proof and validated controlled test results, even then i have been struck ,from out of the blue, with some condition/influence that was never considered.
I have a poster in my office of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge doing its dance, the caption reads " Sometimes we make mistakes".
ron
You must also use the turboflater input vortex on your grill, to get the full benefit
Is that a factory option or an aftermarket item?
Just to make it clear here, i am not a skeptic or a supporter. I am totally un biased.
In my field you need absolute proof and validated controlled test results, even then i have been struck ,from out of the blue, with some condition/influence that was never considered.
I have a poster in my office of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge doing its dance, the caption reads " Sometimes we make mistakes".
ron
You must also use the turboflater input vortex on your grill, to get the full benefit
Is that a factory option or an aftermarket item?
elliptical drivers
Bud,
At least you haven't started a controversial thread. 😉
What would be the procedure for doing elliptical drivers? I have a couple of 6X9's and 4X10's that I may try EnABLing after practicing on a couple of cheap drivers. I was following this thread for some time, but it's grown so long that I don't know whether this has been covered. Thanks.
Bud,
At least you haven't started a controversial thread. 😉
What would be the procedure for doing elliptical drivers? I have a couple of 6X9's and 4X10's that I may try EnABLing after practicing on a couple of cheap drivers. I was following this thread for some time, but it's grown so long that I don't know whether this has been covered. Thanks.
G'day Bud,
Is is unusual, but many DIY folk would be familiar with the BIB (Bigger is Better) design which will have similar baffle dimensions.
I'll refer to the pic attached:
Baffle width - 25cm
Baffle height - 185cm
Driver is Fostex FE167E
Fig. 1 - My first EnABL experiment a square pattern around the driver (based on baffle width) and a rectangular pattern around the port.
Fig. 2 - Added EnABL pattern down the sides.
Fig. 3 - Is this the pattern you are suggesting? With regard to block size for the rectangle around the driver, do I calculate the perimeter based on 4 x baffle width?
Cheers,
Alex
BudP said:
Is is unusual, but many DIY folk would be familiar with the BIB (Bigger is Better) design which will have similar baffle dimensions.
I'll refer to the pic attached:
Baffle width - 25cm
Baffle height - 185cm
Driver is Fostex FE167E
Fig. 1 - My first EnABL experiment a square pattern around the driver (based on baffle width) and a rectangular pattern around the port.
Fig. 2 - Added EnABL pattern down the sides.
Fig. 3 - Is this the pattern you are suggesting? With regard to block size for the rectangle around the driver, do I calculate the perimeter based on 4 x baffle width?
Cheers,
Alex
Attachments
Some posts here are very reminiscent of certain test protocols by the late, great, Julian Hirsch, who "reviewed" certain components by measurements alone, not actually bothering to listen!
Don
Don
MaVo said:
And were do you stop? There isn't one single speaker design on this forum that could pass a strict version of that criteria.... we might as well just quit talking about speakers... electronics for that matter too, there is no way to scientifically validate their performance either,
dave
planet10 said:
It has nothing to do with absolute performance in a subjective sense. It has everything to do with the specifics of the change in the easily measured raw response of a driver and the claims related to diffraction, the latter being pure nonsense. People are hearing what they expect and want to hear on the latter. EnABL can do nothing for that. The placebo effect is in full force here.
Dave
dlr said:
What about the blind tests where the subject had no expectations or even knew something was going on?
My worries aren't whether it is real or whether it is an imporvement but how some will react when they find out that the world is not flat 🙂
Despite no real handle on how it works or any validation with machines it will still keep on working...
dave
Re: Ear EnaBulled
John,
That is not logical at all... EnABL works by removing something that the ear/brain and a million years of evolution say shouldn't be there (so it reacts as if it were a threat)
EnABLing the ear would mean that it's ability to detect what shouldn't be there would be severly compromised. Besides, you still didn't get the pattern right 🙂
dave
MJL21193 said:
John,
That is not logical at all... EnABL works by removing something that the ear/brain and a million years of evolution say shouldn't be there (so it reacts as if it were a threat)
EnABLing the ear would mean that it's ability to detect what shouldn't be there would be severly compromised. Besides, you still didn't get the pattern right 🙂
dave
Cal Weldon said:
I've spent years measuring diffraction effects. Bud can't even make a valid measurement of basic frequency response by his own admission and the evidence. Why should anyone believe that nonsense? It's a waste of time. I didn't need to test the Tice Clock nor the Totem Beak to know that they were also nonsense. They are all in the same category.
Dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.