EnABL Processes

soongsc · 2008-02-15 3:05 am

t-head said:
Carlp,

There is a standing offer to provide stock and EnABLed drivers to anyone who will seriously pursue testing. Months ago MLKxzxxx and others were to do this but it frazzled out. The people using 'science' to discredit Bud and the rest of us, refuse to listen to EnABLed drivers for some reason known only to them. JohnK purportedly ran extensive tests but has declined to reveal all the results...You are beating a very tired horse. I suggest you try it yourself. Any questions concerning materials and methodology will be cheerfully answered. There are many more people happy with their EnABLed drivers than post here. Many prefer to remain out of the scathing condemnation heaped on by people too lazy to simply experiment themselves. Good Luck and enjoy the music, revealed more clearly with EnABL. Extensive testing will not change the outcome...

t (Richard)

Additionally, there are more issues involved just to fight for the pride of those that have been into Audio a long time. This is very common throughout the development of anything useful. If it's not useful, then well known people won't even care. I think those whom know enough such as Mark really don't care to get involved. I'm involved because I am just facinated that the results can be so obvious, and this is in line with what I had been doing for quite some time.

dlr · 2008-02-15 3:06 am

soongsc said:
2. Regarding FR and Phase, I was referring to my initial series of tests. I do not see any relation between the shifting of phase and the FR change. John K thought there might be a change in distance which I already explained my procedure.

And again, something was in error somewhere. Of that I've no doubt.

3. Drivers are "assumed" to be linear devices for the purpose of simplifying the design process with acceptable results. This is common practice throughout engineering. For information about non-linearity, please read Mr. Klippel's papers explaining driver non-linearity.

Click to expand...

Well, then, I suppose that you might as well throw away your SoundEasy system, since your position on the linearity of drivers would invalidate your testing of the enabl process as well. I was using your own measurements to point out the altered FR (and that Bud has now accepted as occuring, by the way), but now it seems that you think that there's enough non-linearity in drivers that your measurements can't be used.

You can't have it both ways.

Dave

soongsc · 2008-02-15 3:12 am

dlr said:
And again, something was in error somewhere. Of that I've no doubt.

Well, then, I suppose that you might as well throw away your SoundEasy system, since your position on the linearity of drivers would invalidate your testing of the enabl process as well. I was using your own measurements to point out the altered FR (and that Bud has now accepted as occuring, by the way), but now it seems that you think that there's enough non-linearity in drivers that your measurements can't be used.

You can't have it both ways.

Dave

If there is something in error, please feel free to point it out specifically. If you want the SE files, send me mail and I will send them to you. I have offered them before.

If I ever find anything that SoundEasy, I would certainly change. But why would I thow away something for nothing? Maybe we need another thread to discuss vaious tools?

Alex from Oz · 2008-02-15 3:37 am

dlr,

Have you listened to an EnABL'd driver?

In the tweaks page you mention here http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1426013#post1426013

The round mounting plate of you bass driver would be an interesting place to apply EnABL.
This would require no change to your driver. I'm confident that it will make an audible change to how the speaker sounds.

Are you prepared to try this? Maybe some measurements also?

auplater · 2008-02-15 3:53 am

Re: Re: Re: Re: EnAB**

Alex from Oz said:
How can this 'psychoacoustic effect' apply under 'blind test' conditions?

I make no implication about adequate blind studies.

Yes you do, you brought it up in support of your statements, as if it had been done. it hasn't. This is a classic example of denial of fact

Alex from Oz said:
It seems to me that people who argue most vigorously against EnABL in this thread have not actually listened to an EnABL’d driver.

Have you actually listened to a properly EnABL’d driver? [/B]

yes I have listened to EnA**'Ddrivers/cabinets. Didn't hear anything to set them apart from other competently designed non-EnABL'd systems.

John L.

rjb · 2008-02-15 4:27 am

John L., with respect I think you are missing the point here. The claim for Enable is not to produce the BEST speaker, just a BETTER one from standard unmodified.

I'm a fence-sitter, not having heard a modified speaker. But it seems to me that there is general agreement (apart from a couple of posts) that enabling does cause a change, the argument is mainly about why and how.

It seems to me that this is the wrong question, and a proper blind large group listening test needs to be done with a treated pair and untreated pair of full-range speakers, (otherwise identical) to establish the following:-

a) is there a difference between one pair and the other.

b) which do you prefer

c) why

I suggest full range as these seem to show most change according to posts. Various types of music are required, but otherwise the driving setup should be common.Swapping speaker positions is also necessary. I'm sure the achademics amoungst us can determing what is required in the way of the number of tests, repeats, swaps, audience number, etc to get a meaniful result.

Such a simple test is similar to those carried out several times in the 'seventies, comparing various brands of speakers, in the UK. The validity of the results obtained ( ie preferences) have since been confirmed by the fact that speakers that showed up well in the results have mostly become classics and sought after now.

One such test rated the Quad ESL poorly. But analysis of results according to seating position (in a modest sized hall) showed the Quad ESL was rated highly by those in the centre, but very poorly by those at the side- something we would know to expect today, but the extent of which came as a surprise to those involved.

Once this is done, you can argue to your hearts content about why and how, but at least it would confirm whether Bud is BS or not.

Ross

rjb · 2008-02-15 4:29 am

Further to the above, it should be then a simple matter to change the modification away from dots as Bud suggests, to see whether it is not just a simple matter of change in mass, or change in stiffness of the cone.

dlr · 2008-02-15 4:30 am

Alex from Oz said:
dlr,

Have you listened to an EnABL'd driver?

In the tweaks page you mention here http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1426013#post1426013

The round mounting plate of you bass driver would be an interesting place to apply EnABL.
This would require no change to your driver. I'm confident that it will make an audible change to how the speaker sounds.

Are you prepared to try this? Maybe some measurements also?

I have said from the beginning that there may be a change in FR (though it was argued at one point that there was not) and that there may indeed be audible differences. This will occur any time any significant change is made such as distributed added mass. If there is more than one variable altered and the changes cannot be reduced to a single variable or all but one accounted for, then no valid conclusions can be made. All of the tests suggested encompass more than one variable and they're not in just the driver. Valid, reliable audibility tests are not simple undertakings.

Dave

t-head · 2008-02-15 5:12 am

dlr said:
This would prove absolutely nothing. To point out (again), adding distributed mass, as is the case for enabl and regardless of any other possible effects, the FR will change. At least that's now accepted as a given. Since there is a demonstrated change in the FR, no amount of auditioning will be able to differentiate the change in perception due to the proven change in the FR and any other mechanisms hypothesized. It's a test that cannot prove what is desired.

Add to that the contradiction of supposedly easily detectable differences that are 20db down or more, but no audible differences for FR changes 2-3db in level. Each time this is pointed out, there's silence. All I can do is make the observation that as has repeatedly been the case, glaring contradictions are ignored.

Dave

Dave,

Your post was in response to my specific reply to a specific person who asked a question. Why do you feel compelled to hijack every post and discussion? This was none of your affair and I would ask you to cease this obsessive, not to mention impolite behavior. You are not the arbiter of all truth, despite what you seem to think.

t (Richard)

Alex from Oz · 2008-02-15 5:42 am

auplater said:
yes I have listened to EnA**'Ddrivers/cabinets. Didn't hear anything to set them apart from other competently designed non-EnABL'd systems.

I probably wouldn't be able to either without a direct basis of comparison.
The question is whether applying the EnABL process to an existing system makes an audible difference.
A-B listening tests between identical systems - one EnABL'd and the other untreated - will produce an audible difference.

I was also sceptical of EnABL - I couldn't see how 'painted blocks' could make any difference.
The fact that Bud went to the effort of gaining a patent made me regard it as a 'tweak' that might be worth further investigation.

I came up with the idea of using kitchen foil and double sided tape to test 'proof of concept' without destroying my drivers.
Further, I initially applied EnABL only to the baffle of one speaker (which completely eliminates the question of 'added mass').

Listening tests compel me to accept that EnABL does produce a clearly audible difference.
This has been confirmed by my application of EnABL to other speakers (baffle only, not drivers).

BudP · 2008-02-15 5:49 am

yes I have listened to EnA**'Ddrivers/cabinets. Didn't hear anything to set them apart from other competently designed non-EnABL'd systems.

May I know where these devices are? I would like to see a picture of what was done. If you heard no difference, I have to question what processes were used.

Bud

FrankWW · 2008-02-15 5:51 am

dlr said:
I would not call any of his descriptions exacting. They are at times meandering, verbose, contradictory and purely conjecture based on ears and hearsay. There's nothing scientific in evidence, yet the descriptions are attempts to be scientific. It is all counter to the science.

Dave

No. You are talking about the stuff attached to Buds theorizing. When he actually describes the sound quality from his own experience he is very clear. (Which I think is a very good place to start investigating).

When Bud describes how to do the enabl treatment he is very clear.

Other users also have been very clear and specific in their description - very little metaphor - see, for instance, Alan Hopes description a couple of posts back. (Yes, he is using similes - even scientists have to use them). They are talking about much greater than just noticeable differences.

If I could clear out some of the 20 dB down stuff in my unfortunately updated, outdated and no further updates possible system, I would be a happy fellow. (Design and drivers out of date).

No point pounding at Bud, and the rest of us by now are mostly clear what the difference is between you.

Alex from Oz · 2008-02-15 6:03 am

dlr said:
I have said from the beginning that there may be a change in FR (though it was argued at one point that there was not) and that there may indeed be audible differences. This will occur any time any significant change is made such as distributed added mass. If there is more than one variable altered and the changes cannot be reduced to a single variable or all but one accounted for, then no valid conclusions can be made. All of the tests suggested encompass more than one variable and they're not in just the driver. Valid, reliable audibility tests are not simple undertakings.

Dave

dlr,

What I am proposing is EnABL'ing the front mounting plate of the driver not the cone. See attached pic.
It follows then that there would be no added mass as the cone itself will not be altered.

So if there are any audible and/or measureable changes to FR or anything else it will be resultant from only one variable - the EnABL pattern.

planet10 · 2008-02-15 6:16 am

Carlp said:
Anyone know of a digest version of this thread with the key DIY posts ID'ed? Or a website with the key points? I suspect there might be a lot of folks willing to try this but for this long and often not very useful thread.

http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=20995#p20995

Bud makes 3 posts that describe the procedure.

dave

jlsem · 2008-02-15 6:19 am

yes I have listened to EnA**'Ddrivers/cabinets. Didn't hear anything to set them apart from other competently designed non-EnABL'd systems.

you clearly don't understand "blind" and "double blind" testing methodology" and controls. You seem to imply that adequate "blind" studies have been performed. They haven't, despite opponents claims to the contrary. Do some reading , apply rigourous standards, and report back.

BudP · 2008-02-15 6:42 am

maxro · 2008-02-15 6:51 am

BudP said:
The original reason for this thread has been sidelined for a while.

Indeed. It seems that some folks can't help but put the "anal" in "analytical".

terry j · 2008-02-15 8:48 am

Hi Alex in oz

I'm only a couple of hours away from Canberra, and would be very interested in hearing what you have done with enable.

would be fun to meet another diyer anyway.

I think the last two pages have suddenly taken a turn for the better, the question (to me) that needs to be addressed is Buds assertion (along with others) that there is indeed some sort of low level detail extraction that seems to be inexplicable.

We have gone back and forth tawking theory..which seems a bit pointless unless there is in fact an effect to talk about.

Bud and others maintain that there in fact is, (whatever the actual mechanism), all others who are arguing theoretical mechanisms seem to have not yet had a listen.

Would not the next step be that the offer of enabled vs un-enabled drivers be taken up and evaluated? Pity we couldn't get them in Australia, so I urge you guys over in Nth America and environs to take advantage of your close proximity and do something along those lines.

Alex and I will do something here ha ha ha (says me taking advantage of his initiative!)

FrankWW · 2008-02-15 9:10 am

Alan Hope said:
The first sonic change I noticed in my freshly EnABL'd speakers was the impression that the sound (listened to at about 30° off axis) no longer came from the middle of the driver, but from about 2 feet behind it. I can't see how FR / damping effects can explain that. (nb This effect was evident blinded, and in my keyboard combo driver as well as my Fostexes).

Can any of you scientific types explain how this effect might be caused? At least 3 people have reported it in similar terms

Alan, I am not a "scientific type" but I expect the enabl patches and pattern do damp sound waves traveling through the diaphragm material near the surface. The more these kind of waves are damped, the less energy the diaphragm material stores and the less sound radiated by it.

Diaphragm vibrational modes radiate non-uniformly; that is, first from one area of the diaphragm and then from another. (I suspect this radiation possibly has directional characteristics as well). I think this messes up our imaging. So the less these modes are excited, the more aural spacial and stereo illusion we can manufacture.

Any sound the diaphragm material radiates, (distinguishing it from the intended audio signal created by the cone movement), is noise. Lower the SPL of that noise and you will hear more music. A side benefit is that the speaker will have less "characteristic sound".

...........................................................................

I expect the enabl pattern, which was arrived at empirically by Bud, does, in some cases, actually act like a filter for some range of wavelengths travelling through the diaphragm. And, in some unlucky cases it probably acts as a waveguide for for some range of wavelengths - Bud has mentioned that sometimes when first trying enabl pattern on some speakers they have sounded worse.

One more thing, damping is is often mentioned on this thread as the result of added mass so often that it may be missed that just adding mass is not the only damping mechanism. Putting a stiff layer on a less stiff vibrating stratum will damp it, gluing a stiffer layer on with elastic glue will damp it, embedding a dense object surrounded by an elastic medium will damp it, even adding holes may damp it.

Doing these things with well thought out patterns is not unexceptional - its often done with architectural, automotive and home appliance structural members and panels, and even, once in a while, audio speaker panels.

Alex from Oz · 2008-02-15 9:31 am

terry j said:
Hi Alex in oz

I'm only a couple of hours away from Canberra, and would be very interested in hearing what you have done with enable.

would be fun to meet another diyer anyway.

Alex and I will do something here ha ha ha (says me taking advantage of his initiative!)

Sounds like a great idea! I'll send you an email.

Cheers,

Alex

Search

Amplifiers

Source & Line

Loudspeakers

Design & Build

General Interest

Live Sound

Member Areas

Site

Featured Vendors

Members Market

Vendors Market

Vendors

Search

EnABL Processes

soongsc

dlr

soongsc

Alex from Oz

auplater

rjb

rjb

dlr

t-head

Alex from Oz

BudP

FrankWW

Alex from Oz

Attachments

planet10

jlsem

BudP

maxro

terry j

FrankWW

Alex from Oz

EnABL Processes

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Attachments

Frugal-phile™/Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member