dlr said:
G'day dlr,
"No one on the other thread questions anything at all"
They 'question' by doing it for themselves, the result is the answer.
"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?"
john k didn't do it - that's the point.
By his owns words his examination was focussed on driver applications not baffle diffraction.
While there might be someone using 8 inch circular OB's which they listen to at 9 inches from their nose, it's not typical of the EnABL applications that have been described.
Hopefully when Daygloworange has the time, we can ALL contribute and agree on an realistic application of EnABL and the appropriate tests and measurements.
Cheers,
Alex
A port on a small mid-bass will pass mid frequencies, whereas one on a woofer won't.
Is EnABL reducing the low frequency induced garbling of mids with mid-bass arrangements due to pressure peaks in the region where pressure changes between port and free air, this being where I suggested we need to check on a cone driver (cone edge/baffle to free air), especially widerange ?
Cheers .......... Graham.
Is EnABL reducing the low frequency induced garbling of mids with mid-bass arrangements due to pressure peaks in the region where pressure changes between port and free air, this being where I suggested we need to check on a cone driver (cone edge/baffle to free air), especially widerange ?
Cheers .......... Graham.
Hi Brett,
I could not e-mail you to ask you privately what is 'technical' about your last post - you do not allow posters to contact you.
Cheers ........ Graham.
I could not e-mail you to ask you privately what is 'technical' about your last post - you do not allow posters to contact you.
Cheers ........ Graham.
BudP said:
It is possible but highly improbable because most of what you say is meaningless.
Alex from Oz said:
What you expect DGO to be able to achieve is quite beyond me.
No doubt if he finds nothing you will insist that is because he
does not know how to look, he will find nothing ........
🙂/sreten.
Hi sreten.
Seems you block e-mails to yourself as well, so I cannot ask what technical contribution you personally thought you had just made?
Cheers ....... Graham.
Seems you block e-mails to yourself as well, so I cannot ask what technical contribution you personally thought you had just made?
Cheers ....... Graham.
BudP said:
Same old song. Show me, don't tell me! I haven't seen this for a port or driver. No data supports any of this. But you knew I'd say that. 
It keeps growing and grwoing and....Alex from Oz said:
yes, what I have focused on is the driver but remember this:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
It is representative of energy scattered form an obstacle, like an enable patch on a baffle, relative to the incident energy. This curve is for an obstacle 0.0035" high. Make it higher and the curve shifts to the left some. But recognize that the incident energy is only the energy of that portion of the wave that actually would collide with the patch, in other words, a very, very small portion of the total energy associated with a spherically expanding wave over a baffle.
P.S. Actually my continued posting here is more about how I can work all the different smiles into the thread more than anything. I'm really disappointed that my Manson, Jones, Koresh post was deleted. 🤐 I guess the monitors failed to see the humor in it. I though it was hysterical,
and accurate, form a technical point of view.Alex from Oz said:
This type of response is indicative of the widespread lack of understanding of what the tests are capable, what they show and what can be deduced from them. There will be no positive results. It's quite obvious that for proponents, the only thing that would be accepted would be some positive test result. That has been and will remain zero, but there will continue to be denial in the face of hard data and the subsequent mathematical analysis in support that contradicts. Of that there is no doubt.
Graham Maynard said:
Simple answer - no.
Dave
Graham Maynard said:
Hi,
I suggest you exercise your brain cells a bit and try and work that out for yourself.
🙂/sreten.
Dave,
Seems that even the smilies don't work to show when I'm just trying to have a light hearted moment...
John K,
Keep 'em coming. It helps keep my interest. 😀
Carl
dlr said:
Hi,
Please no. If you do please do not bring it here. The other thread
technically is full of nonsense and that is where it should remain.
Do not argue about it there either, give them enough rope.
Anyone perusing said thread can make their own mind up.
😉/sreten.
sreten said:
Part of the purpose is to expose the hypocrisy in addition to the total denial. At least new readers of that thread will have a link and some context as to what's on this thread.
Dave
dlr said:
Hi,
If they read the thread from the start the split is self-evident,
as is the non-critical agreed scope of that thread, and IMO
the consequences of that scope and the "need" for it are
also self-evident to anyone with half a brain.
The horse is being flogged to death here already,
.... I'm ringing the RSPCA .........
🙂/sreten.
Alex from Oz said:
Alex,
I'd like to ask for your help here. I'm trying to determine which speakers we can actually arrange for testing of baffle and port EnABL treatments.
1- Can we perform the EnABL treatments on a speaker which has a radiused baffle edge, or does it need to be a square edged baffle?
2- Does the baffle test work on any configuration of speaker drivers ( stand mount MT, stand mount MTM, floor stand MT, floor stand MTM)?
3- For testing of EnABL of ports, does it need to be tested on a ported subwoofer, or can we test the EnABL'd ports of a ported speaker (ie: is the port effect most prominant in low frequencies)?
4- Does the port need to be a flared port and/or does it need to be a minimum ID before the effect is noticeable?
Cheers
Daygloworange said:
G'day Daygloworange,
1- My Voigt pipes have a ½ inch radius on the baffle edges – top and sides.
Block material used is double-sided tape and aluminium foil.
I have not yet tried duct tape or other material on baffles.
2- On Voigt pipes with single FR driver yes.
As for other configurations, their owners wouldn’t let me stick blocks all over them so I can’t answer that question.
Presumably, the effect on the baffle edges would be similar but I can’t say because I have not tried it.
If you can provide details on what you want to test, I can confirm details of the approach I would take.
3- I have achieved audible changes in sub-woofers, a ported multi-way and ported surround speakers.
Does affect low frequencies but seems to impact into mid range also.
4- Round straight ports in BR cabinets are the easiest and provide the most consistent results.
Rectangular ports
- Voigt pipes – 90 degree corners, no radius or flare (possibly better described as a vent?) block material used is foil.
- PA speakers (two way) - flared rectangular port, block material used is foil.
Round ports
Straight (no flare) 30 – 75mm diameter (inside diameter) block material used is duct tape.
Flared 50 – 75mm diameter (inside diameter as measured in straight section) block material used is duct tape.
NOTE: Change to duct tape happened because the foil & double-sided tape blocks are a pain to make up.
Smallest port I have done with audible change is about 25mm x 6mm – no flare - on the centre speaker and surrounds for a Philips HT system listed below.
The pattern was placed around the outside of the port, not inside the port. I haven’t posted details on this yet.
Here are some of my posts for your reference:
### WARNING – Subjective content! ###
Voigt pipes - port and baffle
Floor standing multi-way
DIY Subwoofer
Philips DVD Home Theater System HTS3455
Yamaha MS400 PA speakers
Teac MCDX10 Mini Hifi
Cheers
Alex:
I've asked questions - I don't know the answers - nobody here has responded technically.
John K, you re-posted the straight line En/Eo graph.
Would that line move left/right (up/down wrt frequency) with driver compression/rarefraction due to driver energisation other than that due to atmoshperic pressure variation ?
This link goes to Steve Deckert's last Decware article;-
http://www.decware.com/newsite/mainmenu.htm?/paper94.htm&intro
Note especially his words;-
What I realized is that the pressure created during lower frequency cone excursions not only compresses the air inside the cabinet but also seems to be compressing the distance between wavefronts and changing the pitch. These altered waveforms work against the cone causing smearing across the original phase angles of the driver.
Resonant pressures at the cone front between cone and radiating aperture, or between port and free air ?
Cheers ......... Graham.
John K, you re-posted the straight line En/Eo graph.
Would that line move left/right (up/down wrt frequency) with driver compression/rarefraction due to driver energisation other than that due to atmoshperic pressure variation ?
This link goes to Steve Deckert's last Decware article;-
http://www.decware.com/newsite/mainmenu.htm?/paper94.htm&intro
Note especially his words;-
What I realized is that the pressure created during lower frequency cone excursions not only compresses the air inside the cabinet but also seems to be compressing the distance between wavefronts and changing the pitch. These altered waveforms work against the cone causing smearing across the original phase angles of the driver.
Resonant pressures at the cone front between cone and radiating aperture, or between port and free air ?
Cheers ......... Graham.
Graham Maynard said:
Hi,
That is perhaps because a question that defines in own terms is
not simply a question, if you do not agree with the terms then
the question becomes to you essentially meaningless.
Quoting SD, who IMO is consummate BS artist when it suits him,
(but it is his site, read it and take it or leave it), is not going to
help much either.
A technical discussion does not involve considering mechanisms
that are pure conjecture with no evidence to suggest validity.
🙂/sreten.
Alex from Oz said:
Hi,
Whilst your posts have suggested we "ALL" need to agree
on DGO tests I will point out this is not the case at all.
From an objective perspective only when a measured phenomena
is found that it claimed is undeniably related to port or baffle
treatments would the test conditions be examined.
Feel free to define any restrictions / whatever to DGO's tests.
Only if a genuine phenomena is found for a particular case,
much to the objectivists bemusement, would the more
general cases then be worth investigating.
The "agreement" on the tests is essentially subjective.
I'd suggest you consider defining the most likely scenarios
for detecting the two phenomena, from my perspective
there would be no point initially testing more scenario's.
There is no definitive objective test until a phenomena is found.
🙂/sreten.