EnABL - Technical discussion

Re: SPC

BudP said:

What in the world you would do with something that scarily realistic sounding, escapes me just now, but then, I am one of the feeble minded ones.

Bud

So this is how you intend to post on the technical side? "Scarily realistic". How did you measure that?


auplater said:


Try it! It works....:smash:


:D :D :D ;) ;)

John L.:devilr:

Yep. This thread is rapidly turning into nothing more than EnaBL cheerleading, with the exception of ron's and soong's posts. I had thought it would take more than a day to derail it.

Dave
 
commercialization

well... I could very easily envision a conical "sieve" metal funnel, shaped to fit the given driver with precision etched, stamped, electroformed, machined, or otherwise produced slots, rings, holes, or whatever might be determined through careful engineering evaluation to be an effective enhancement to a cone surface for either applying a pattern of added material or otherwise modifying the cone. There could even be a vacuum manifold setup for post processing existing cones to deform, in a controlled fashion, pulp or other material cones and add dimples or raised sections, rather than adding mass, to determine if it's the geometry alone that causes the perceived effect.

All sorts of methods could work, but until valid peer reviewed work is performed and accepted, I wouldn't want to base my p/l statement on any significant investment in the tweak.

John L.
 
auplater,

There is one set of restrike cones being made. They will allow the patterns, on front and back of the cone, to be raised as an embossed artifact with an 0.003 max height. No paint is to be applied intially so we can build and test a couple of cones, just to hear if they are providing the subjective differences that paint only blocks provide. At that point decisions will be made about further processing.

This is a back burner project for those who are doing the work so no firm time line. If it all occurs within ronc's test window then he will get a set to look at. If the paint needs to be applied I am told that simple tamp printing will suffice.

Sreten,

I put those babbles there just for your benefit. Now, if you had found this driver process out for yourself, just what words would you have used and how would you have conveyed the link between objective tests and subjective responses? dlr has pointed out just how complex an undertaking this is going to be. Since this is a group effort, on both sides of the results that the neutral and innocent patterns bring about, we might over time, actually accomplish this work. Since you have some pretty stiff standards for verbal presentation, perhaps you could begin to share your thoughts and see if we can mold my babble into the language format you prefer.

Bud
 
ronc,

Would you use another ten words please and describe what is variable over the cone? No question that the patterns vary in size and mass and the various coating materials also have a range of application rate, just as the paper will have a range of absorption. Would a set of metal cone drivers help you out?

Bud
 
musgofasa,

None of the actual paint application folks can do any better than sort of controlled. I will say that the thousand year old, or so, design that is our current calligraphy pen is pretty good at even flow rate. Fortunately, for the non test driven crowd EnABL is like horse shoes and close is actually good enough. How much better tight tolerances would make the audible effects is just guesswork at the moment.

Now, there were a couple of individuals that used thin acrylic tapes for the patterns, Cilla (PDAN) was one of these and she applied the patterns to a Lowther driver, as a mono source no less. Her subjective comments are on the original thread. Her method does provide at least a control over material density and maybe a closer control over size variations. She said she was entirely satisfied with the results.

Bud
 
From post 2970 of the "Processes" thread

If the wave propagation across the cone encounters an impedance mis-match, is distortion created which is above/beyond (some of) the signal emitted from the cone?...

Does this distortion mask or obscure content within the intended signal?...Is it possible that an EnABL band (set of blocks) presents a different impedance match for the wave propagation?

...and that the distortion created by the EnABL band is different from that created by the junction of the cone to surround?...

Further, could that distortion produced by the EnABL band be of a lesser magnitude than that produced by the cone to surround junction?

Bear with me here...Could the wave propagation across the EnABL band result in a lower energy density outside the band, the result of which would be a lower magnitude of distortion produced by the same wave when it encounters the junction of the cone and surround?
 
CSD's

Here's a typical CSD for RD-75 planars (from Audio-X-Press Magazine)
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

This seems to show ringing artifacts down >30 dB within ~1.2 msec or so, and alot less "hash" than any of the CSD's I've seen for EnABL's drivers.

One wonders what a direct comparison of sound from an EnABL'd (or not) driver with the presented CSD from Dave above would sound like vs. the RD-75.

One of the main problems in these data presentations is no detail regarding error bars and such so that one can evaluate both the qualitative and quantitative issues involved.

John L.
 
critofur said:
Could someone point me to a post about the results of a double blind test on this "EnABL" stuff?

Measured differences?

I just read through a bunch of pages of posts but hadn't found such information yet :xeye:

Hi,

Statistically significant double blind listening tests would be useful
to decide if a phenomena is detectable, but AFAIA no-one is arguing
EnABLing a driver is not audibly detectable. The claimed effects on
solid surfaces not so ....

:)sreten.
 
BudP said:


Sreten, I put those babbles there just for your benefit.

Now, if you had found this driver process out for yourself, just what words would you have used and how would you have conveyed the link between objective tests and subjective responses? dlr has pointed out just how complex an undertaking this is going to be. Since this is a group effort, on both sides of the results that the neutral and innocent patterns bring about, we might over time, actually accomplish this work. Since you have some pretty stiff standards for verbal presentation, perhaps you could begin to share your thoughts and see if we can mold my babble into the languageformat you prefer.

Bud

Bud,

You addressed the mail to All, I didn't.

The link between objective tests and subjective responses ?

Lets get this right as in "ballpark" subjective claims.

If I take MJK's excellent open baffle study, and use planet10's favourite
Fostex mid /treble driver and tweak it a bit* I'll end up with a fairly decent l
loudspeaker of that ilk, one would expect some of the "commonly accepted"
subjective advantages of the arrangement to be apparent and for balance
some of the "commonly accepted" limitations of widerange drivers.

(* Basically improve the classical parameters, tonal balance etc ...)

If I then "correctly" EnABL both drivers something will fundamentally
change and it would appear in a subjective sense something has
been removed / eliminated.
(If this is not the case, just an improvement is claimed then all
I can say is you are an absolute expert in pointless argument.)

If I interprete your technical allusions as to what appears to be
happening in a reasonably correct manner as to the magnitude
of this removal / elimination and thus quote "scarily realistic", I
would have it seems some similarities to pair of Quad ESL57's.

I have not done this. However if I did and it was true then
I would assume whatever the consequences of the process
are, they would be objectively measurable in some manner.

If the case is that it cannot be objectively measured then from my
position a "fundamental improvement " of the magnitude described
is not possible, something has to give, if the effect is real then the
method is inadequate, or vice versa and I'm hearing things.

FWIW "molding my babble into the language format you prefer" is
not the issue. Its what your saying, which makes the assumption
the process does something "fundamental", and therefore such a
thing must have a major explanation. It does not not follow.

Without a sensible explanation (with sensible evidence) of the
effect I cannot take the excessive subjective claims seriously.

:)/sreten.
 
sreten,

Thanks. I like this presentation of your views much better than previous ones, and I agree with you. Hopefully we will either find no evidence of non standard behavior, in a classical sense, and just the organization of local mass will be the effector, or we will find some evidence of modification to the classical pressure gradient mechanism. Either suits me, so long as the results can begin to be predicted, before the driver is designed. As has already been demonstrated with CSD plots, the EnABL patterns just scratch the surface of some fairly large improvements, in diaphragm performance

auplater,

In soongsc's later plots, he has gone beyond the EnABL surface treatment, though one of the pattern elements still bears some resemblance to an EnABL pattern. His provided CSD plots, closely resemble your provided plot. Other EnABL only drivers are not going to have that sort of energy propagation, in decay, at all.

This is not really the point though. EnABL, as it is currently utilized, is just an optimization tool for existing drivers. Planar and ribbon devices are an entirely different issue, with their own set of drawbacks, except for what RAAL has discovered, and implemented, in their drivers.

No question that ribbon drivers measurements are superior and the sound, when they are properly implemented, is superior to conventional drivers, even when EnABL'd. However, from soongsc's plots, it looks like he has the keys to dynamic driver performance that would fit very well with ribbons

Now, would you like to EnABL a ribbon?. I will tell you how to do it on the other thread. The differences will be subtle, but that is all that is left.

critofur,

A semi blind audition was performed by Jon Ver Halen at the most recent RMAF. He used two sets of Lowther PM6A drivers and changed them on a set of pre positioned, open baffle speakers.

The semi blind portion came from his having put the EnABL'd speakers up first, as the "driver to compare to" rather than in the second set of the demo, as was apparently expected by all of the attendees.

The ENABL'd Lowthers were done by me with a "stealth" aet of patterns. You cannot see these patterns from more than 6 inches away, with light at just the right angle of incidence. Otherwise they are invisible.

Jon waited for a few days to announce which driver was presnted in which order. He is a sly devil.

There are reports on the original thread of the expectations and what people heard. Some were quite insulted to have been confounded in this way. All of the subjective responses reported far less distortion and some went on to discuss other differences.

Not really a double blind test. I believe SY is planning one of those, when his test program gets underway.

Bud
 
Looking at the CSD plots taken by John K and the CSD for RD-75 planars that auplater posted, neither of these show anything below 500Hz.

I'm curious to see the effect of EnABL on a CSD plot between say 100Hz and 1000Hz

Is there a resason why the CSD plots don't into the lower frequenices?

Cheers,

Alex
 
Alex from Oz said:
Looking at the CSD plots taken by John K and the CSD for RD-75 planars that auplater posted, neither of these show anything below 500Hz.

I'm curious to see the effect of EnABL on a CSD plot between say 100Hz and 1000Hz

Is there a resason why the CSD plots don't into the lower frequenices?

Cheers,

Alex

It's my understanding that data in CSD's at lower frequencies is frought with difficulties, as the sampling conditions and results are liable to be unreliable without alot of extra work.

Bud

Feel free not to use the "chinese takeout menu approach" for support / non-support of EnABL using CSD plots. My point to presenting this data isn't how great RD75's are; it's that CSD data as presented by planet10 to somehow support EnABL doesn't cut it, technically speaking. The drivers ring for 4 times as long, and the lack of testing regimen details negates any conclusions other than they look like crappy drivers, which I believe is what John K. said when he tested them. The differences shown are miniscule compared to that between that dynamic driver and RD-75's (and many other good speakers).

John L.
 
Ten words is all i have left today.

(this does not include the 10 words)

SPC = Statistical Process Control

If we (in the US) had only listened to Deming when we had the first chance.

Mr. Deming was the father of SPC. He went to the Big 3 American auto Mfgs and they would not even listen. This was in the late 1950s. Japan welcomed him with open arms. They applied his math principals and that is how , today, they dominate the market.
Prediction: If India can overcome its social status problems then they will become a world power. If China can bring their educational system up to standards , then they will become a world power. America has lost.

Ten words (well maybe a bit more).
1: Any wave launch from a round radiator is spherical in nature.
2: Any wave launch imparts energy to the surface it launches from.
3: This energy is retained in the launch surface until it converts to heat.
4: A secondary energy at a later time interval can react with the initial energy by either re-enforcing or attenuation , depending on the phase.
5: A medium that is to disrupt the energies has to be a consistant mass/volume to affect or to equally disrupt the energies imparted at any position of the launch surface. If it is not then you have unequal energies at different launch positions. (wave deformation)

ron

(OK, so its more than ten words)
 
John L;-

As I keep saying, Bud has never claimed anything but an improvement to a driver.

The only reasonable comparison is between a treated and untreated but otherwise identical drivers.

I have listened to enough drivers, and seen enough CSDs to be able to tell good from bad from these, but as yet cannot infalliably tell, (looking at "good" CSDs only) which I will prefer when listening to music. Unfortunately no speaker I have heard has every convinced me that the performance is "live". This lack of perfection means there is always differing opinions, and hence subjective testing is still valid.

That is not to decry technical testing, far from it. If we can better relate test results to what we hear, we would all be much happier. Once we do this, better drivers can be manufactured.

That is why this thread, rather than the "listening impressions" one, is to me more important.
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
auplater said:
It's my understanding that data in CSD's at lower frequencies is frought with difficulties, as the sampling conditions and results are liable to be unreliable without alot of extra work.

In the case of the CSDs shownm the limits to the data on the bottom has to do with the arrival of the 1st reflection. The further the driver being measure is from the closest surface the lower the plots can go.

dave
 
data interpretation

rjb said:


John L;-

<snip>

That is not to decry technical testing, far from it. If we can better relate test results to what we hear, we would all be much happier. Once we do this, better drivers can be manufactured.


Bud said:


As has already been demonstrated with CSD plots, the EnABL patterns just scratch the surface of some fairly large improvements, in diaphragm performance



part of why it's important to describe what can and cannot be determined from "technical" presentations of data, such as CSD plots, for instance. Much was made of the "overlay" shift in the substantial ringing between 6 and 10 Khz as somehow proving that EnABL improves the sound. This can't be determined from the data as it has been presented. Yet such an attempt is repeatedly made. Pure and simple. You've all but said that yourself in your post, and that was my only point. You can't use some of what looks like maybe supportive results, and then dismiss other equally valid (or not) data that contradicts.

John L.