Oh, please. It was no more obvious than if I'd said **** me (I inserted the asterixes, not the nanny software). Notice the hypocrisy of the complainer later who did exactly the same thing, but even more overtly. Thanks for singling me out.ShinOBIWAN said:
Cleaned up thread. Brett you know better than to stoop to profanity to get your point across. Please don't bring that to the forums.
Thanks.
OK, hows this? Alex from Oz, you have made a lot of claims re audibility of the treatments you have made. How about some measurements? Without something substantive, it's merely handwaving. This is the techincal thread after all.
I've already asked before.
soongsc said:
Hi,
are you saying the results in post #278 show "quite significant
improvement" and #288 show "probably no improvement" ?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1231568#post1231568
I'm lost as to the actual information shown #278. The discussion
on that page regarding phase and amplitude implies the driver
is not a minimum phase device, not a very sensible proposition.
/sreten.sreten said:
Hi,
are you saying the results in post #278 show "quite significant
improvement" and #288 show "probably no improvement" ?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1231568#post1231568
I'm lost as to the actual information shown #278. The discussion
on that page regarding phase and amplitude implies the driver
is not a minimum phase device, not a very sensible proposition.
Hi Sreten,
Yes, the minimum phase issue has been discussed. Not something I believe as I have never measured a conventional cone driver which showed non-minimum phase behavior. However, as I showed with my tests of a metal cone driver, breakup can be damped, shifted, etc, by the application of "mass point" or something that adds damping to the cone. But my tests also showed that the typical enable pattern was not effective in accomplishing this for the driver tested. I found that random patterns of Mortite applied to the cone were the most effective. Totally consistent with modified cone physical properties.
Also, FWIW I have also tested my ported speaker with duct tape enable patterns sized according to A from Oz. I heard no differences nor found any difference in either the port impulse or the impulse measured near field for the driver. Maybe it' the inverse placebo effect. If you don't hear a difference then measurements won't show a difference.
Brett said:
Looked like garbage to me, I'm just one of the bin men around here.
Brett you know exactly what you intended with that post. It wasn't some light hearted banter, it was a directed and crude post towards another member. At least a couple of people took ofense and reported it or posted a reply to that effect. Once I'd looked at it, I agreed with them and pulled it and the associated replies.
As far as I'm concern its forgot about.
Post #278 shows results after location tuning of the toothpaste pattern, this shows two CSD ranges one 0.375ms, and another the 3.75ms range. If you compare the 0.375ms graph against the ones posted on the previous page, you can notice the most significant difference is a ridge in the CSD is reduced to a lower level.sreten said:
Hi,
are you saying the results in post #278 show "quite significant
improvement" and #288 show "probably no improvement" ?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1231568#post1231568
I'm lost as to the actual information shown #278. The discussion
on that page regarding phase and amplitude implies the driver
is not a minimum phase device, not a very sensible proposition.
Post #288 shows a comparison of the 3.75ms range CSD which is about the range most people are in the habit looking at. The "Before Tuning" graph is the clean cone, the "After Tuning" graph is after tuning the location of the pattern.
The talk about minimum phase relates to the series of application shown on the previous page where the patterns were modified in the sequence shown.
I was asking if anyone had access to COMSOL with the acoustic module (really might need some other modules as well). I'm also looking around the schools around here to see if anyone can to some modeling regarding this aspect. It probably will take some time. But it's on the list.sreten said:
Hi,
Whilst the "debate" over EnABLing solid surfaces can rumble on
pointlessly ad infinitum, unless some some objective measurements
turn up, I'm not holding my breath, what about something useful ?
Specifically FEA modelling of drivers according to the above.
If FEA can usefully model driver cones before they are built it
should (if it supports the local granularity required) be able to
predict in some fashion - at least order of magnitude - effects
of adding the EnABL patterns, and one would expect a useful
ability to predict the effects of coatings.
No-one is denying treatment of cones changes them - but how much ?
If an effect can be modelled then you are at least on your way to
some objective optimisation (or rejection) of the patterns, and
presumably some alternative treatments could be compared.
Biggest problem I have with the EnABL patterns is they show no
design. The original description of "how they worked" suggested
the patterns, but this description has been shown to be wrong.
Given no evidence or any sensible reasoning that the patterns
are optimum there is no sensible reason to presume they are.
The attached file illustrates the FEA principle. I note that it could
be used in reverse, i.e. if you have a driver response and some
of the data required, some parameters could be inferred by
matching the output to your known response.
Or TBH simply model a theoretical driver with a reasonably
real looking frequency response and then play around with it.
(Much higher granularity than shown would be needed)
http://www.interdomain.net.au/~bodzio/Cone_Break_Up.zip
'
maybe someone ought to make something like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkox6niJ1Wc
and then see what happens with EnABL applied to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkox6niJ1Wc
and then see what happens with EnABL applied to it.
BudP said:
Saw this posted in the other thread. Though it might stir some comment here. Actually, I kind of agree. It's been pretty much shown that enable on a baffle does NOTHING at all, thus nothing to improve the sound. From the above statement it would appear that it would follow that enable on a cone also does nothing to imporve the sound. I bet that even not enabling anything will control the entire system just fine too.
john k... said:
Saw this posted in the other thread. Though it might stir some comment here. Actually, I kind of agree. It's been pretty much shown that enable on a baffle does NOTHING at all, thus nothing to improve the sound. From the above statement it would appear that it would follow that enable on a cone also does nothing to imporve the sound. I bet that even not enabling anything will control the entire system just fine too.
I had noticed the other thread posting as well. Since the request to split the thread was to keep the objective technical stuff out of the "how to" stuff, the "how to" thread was supposed to only link to the technical thread for any discussion on that aspect. Seems that the thread lines are blurring.
I wondered why there wasn't a bit of consternation to that post in the other thread. '
' My thought was to add a link on the other thread back to this one to be sure that everyone is aware of the progress being made and was up-to-date.Dave
There is a possibility I have an insight into this reflex port investigation.
John, I am assuming that your port has sufficient diameter to keep port air speed down and the transition boundary into the room is a flare with a proper radius. I am also assuming that your port is actually related to the measured T/S parameters of the drivers you received, rather than what the spec sheet proposed. I am also assuming that those T/S parameters were taken after a period of use, so that you were within the stable range of the driver materials working lifetime.
Since EnABL on driver surfaces works to normalize full range output to that of the piston bandwidth, it looks possible to me the same function is occurring in the ports Alex has treated. I have not asked Alex about the actual bass modules he was treating, but it does seem likely to me that those ports were not as carefully matched as you might have done. Could be that his treatment is really just easing some of the performance inhibitors that would likely show up in the sorts of bass reflex modules he has been working with, but would not show up in a carefully designed and optimized bass system.
After all, EnABL does not make a speaker better than it could possibly be, it just opens up the actual performance envelope and gets them closer to their theoretical ideal. So, I would not expect to see an improvement in a properly functioning bass system, other than what treating a bass driver cone would provide in clarity and lack of incoherent noise.
Does seem to me that he is applying the patterns at the point where the systems he has worked with, would be most susceptible to something that helped correct an improperly realized port loading.
I am sure we are all aware of what can come about once a purchasing department is directed to take the cost out of a consumer product. Alex has been working with consumer products and it does seem likely that what might once have been a correct ported bass system no longer is so, when he begins to treat them.
Bud
John, I am assuming that your port has sufficient diameter to keep port air speed down and the transition boundary into the room is a flare with a proper radius. I am also assuming that your port is actually related to the measured T/S parameters of the drivers you received, rather than what the spec sheet proposed. I am also assuming that those T/S parameters were taken after a period of use, so that you were within the stable range of the driver materials working lifetime.
Since EnABL on driver surfaces works to normalize full range output to that of the piston bandwidth, it looks possible to me the same function is occurring in the ports Alex has treated. I have not asked Alex about the actual bass modules he was treating, but it does seem likely to me that those ports were not as carefully matched as you might have done. Could be that his treatment is really just easing some of the performance inhibitors that would likely show up in the sorts of bass reflex modules he has been working with, but would not show up in a carefully designed and optimized bass system.
After all, EnABL does not make a speaker better than it could possibly be, it just opens up the actual performance envelope and gets them closer to their theoretical ideal. So, I would not expect to see an improvement in a properly functioning bass system, other than what treating a bass driver cone would provide in clarity and lack of incoherent noise.
Does seem to me that he is applying the patterns at the point where the systems he has worked with, would be most susceptible to something that helped correct an improperly realized port loading.
I am sure we are all aware of what can come about once a purchasing department is directed to take the cost out of a consumer product. Alex has been working with consumer products and it does seem likely that what might once have been a correct ported bass system no longer is so, when he begins to treat them.
Bud
Carlp said:
Dave,
But since Bud is just spouting psuedotechnobabble, it doesn't count as technical contributions on the other thread. So I don't see any lines blurring...
Carl
Go check the latest posts by Bud and Alex. There's sure to be more blurring, at least on the other thread, it seems. This is especially true, I think, given the quality and the results shown here. No one on the other thread questions anything at all. Everything is accepted, especially since anything EnABL is considered factual simply by having some new conjecture made as to "what it is doing". It's much more appealing when it's a mystery. The ways in which it mystifies just increases over there.
Bud won't directly address the hard data here. That absence is telling. Bud and others kept harping on the need to actually enabl baffles and ports. Well, John did it. It showed nothing. Where is the acknowledgement? The great desire for this was repeated, especially by Alex. But the real desire was not for the truth, it was for support of their claims only. When it was counter to the claims, denial set in. Now the emphasis is on the other thread. To read what they say at this moment you'd think that this thread never existed. Total denial. It's clear that this will never change. They have no need for objective data, it doesn't fit in with their desires.
Dave
Re: 2, bollocks, sounds like excuse making. Post something that can be discussed and there are those with some real knowledge (I have a bit, but nowhere near say John K) would gladly suggest ways to continue and refine the experimentation to improve your results and bring out the benefits of this technique.Alex from Oz said:
In the face of John K's measurements and explanations, I personally see no reason for it to work. Anecdotal assertions are nowhere near reliable enough to make worthwhile judgements at a distance. If they were, and Enabl could be proven to work, I would likely try it myself. Till then, it has a Brilliant Pebbles aura to me.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.