In response to John's post on the expensive Fostex F200A when there was no cautionary notice at all, not even on the "how to" thread:
On the other thread, posted due to John's query, you stated quite explicitly:
Over here someone has to deliberately not follow instructions to screw it up, yet over there "most...should not be confident, not even with the patterns and instructions". Quite a different perspective given for very expensive drivers. The cautionary note seems to depend on which thread one is in.
Dave
BudP said:
On the other thread, posted due to John's query, you stated quite explicitly:
Over here someone has to deliberately not follow instructions to screw it up, yet over there "most...should not be confident, not even with the patterns and instructions". Quite a different perspective given for very expensive drivers. The cautionary note seems to depend on which thread one is in.
Dave
The majority of the change from my listening/experimenting experiences comes from the actually Enabl pattern itself, not the conformal coating. The conformal coating to me has acted much like other cone doping.
So the question is what sort of change can be effected on a driver using the same amount of added mass that is imparted by solely the Enabl pattern, but not same pattern.
So the question is what sort of change can be effected on a driver using the same amount of added mass that is imparted by solely the Enabl pattern, but not same pattern.
but not same pattern.
To me and IMHO (for what its worth) the pattern would be random for the greatest effect, if there is an effect.
ron
To me and IMHO (for what its worth) the pattern would be random for the greatest effect, if there is an effect.
ron
That is the question in my mind. So far, there is no objective data to support the subjectivist claims, so I fail to see how discussions of patterns makes much difference until enabl is shown to have some measurable effect.ronc said:
This was what I thought as well. When I tried some random patterns, the second frequency line in the CSD ended up higher than a uniform pattern. From a mechanical impedance matching point of view, it seems this is what can be expected.ronc said:
I used to fall asleep in class too, mainly because I could not understand what I wanted to, and the proffessor could not answer my questions.😀sreten said:Hi,
I'm bored and out of here .......
EnABL is a sham. This should be obvious to anyone with a brain.
This thread is going nowhere because the inevitable technical
conclusion is being obfuscated by some very sad people.
/sreten.
The major problem i am having is the additional coating as supplied. This obviously changes the Qms which throws the test results of an A/B out the window.
I still state that if there is an effect across a broad BW be it mass localized or BL then a random action of effect would have to be present for a broad BW result.
ron
obfuscated (love dem big words)
I still state that if there is an effect across a broad BW be it mass localized or BL then a random action of effect would have to be present for a broad BW result.
ron
obfuscated (love dem big words)
ronc said:
I just finished another set.
Measured Qms of stock driver: 4.432878, 4.562222
Measured Qms of driver with same treatment as yours: 4.295399, 4.443774
difference (stock as denominator): -3.1%, -2.6%
dave
planet10 said:
Interesting - the difference between the 2 stock driver measurements is 2.8% (of the higher value). Or is that two measurements on the same driver?
Alan Hope said:
Before and after on a pair of drivers. I've not noted Qms before but the deviation is within the error bars from possible differences in the weather if i was comparing Fs or Qts (ie i have seen the same drivers measured under the same conditions but under different temp/pressure/humidity differ by more than this.
dave
John K,
The idea that I just "sat down and did it" doesn't sit well with me either So, that is not what I did. Treating a new driver to me, is about a two week process. I progress through my music checks, with the drivers nude on stands before I lay pen to any part of them. Each set of rings applied, again gets that musical revue. Back side rings are not applied until the front is ready for gloss coat. The backside gloss coat is not applied until the front side has completely cured. Nothing is hurried, ever.
This is the work pattern I have used for 30 plus years and treating both sides is my personal, normal, process. All of my own systems have both sides of the drivers treated, even the really difficult ones.
The Hemp FR8c is actually the first driver I provided a back side cone pattern, and instructions for that patterns application, for this forum. All of the full range drivers I have posted on have been new to me. None of my personal systems have been less than a three way system for years, the Ohm F being the first, last and only full range driver before starting here.
As for models, I have not altered my mental model at all. All of the collection of what is characterized as techno babble was adopted just so I could communicate verbally with other humans. When the distributed mass language has been applied to all that EnABL provides, I will use that language, and have already begun to do so.
But these abstract mathematically underpinned models that you and most others use, are basically closed to me. I do not have access to abstract thought in any useful sense. I do know what it is, I studied math and other abstract methods of thinking, quite successfully, before tegretol was used to shut down the damaged portion of my fore brain, that apparently accessed that portion of my mind. My personal model is a concrete expression of force, as it applies to matter. It's accuracy is always open to revision by reality.
One of the interesting things that loosing access to abstract higher math lead to, is the understanding that we are hardwired for all volumetric activities, that require movement in space, with mass and velocity inherent in that understanding.
This is where my personal models arise, not in my words or your conceptual understandings. As you work your way through however much of the distributed mass on a vibrating surface investigation you end up pursuing, I will adopt your definitions. And, we will be able to speak about the very same phenomena, but my model will not be the one you use.
Incidentally, the Ohm F is once again being made, in Cleveland Ohio. It is not called that any more and all of the loose ends Ohm left uncorrected, have been dealt with. I have yet to hear them, but I am interested, to say the least.
Bud
The idea that I just "sat down and did it" doesn't sit well with me either So, that is not what I did. Treating a new driver to me, is about a two week process. I progress through my music checks, with the drivers nude on stands before I lay pen to any part of them. Each set of rings applied, again gets that musical revue. Back side rings are not applied until the front is ready for gloss coat. The backside gloss coat is not applied until the front side has completely cured. Nothing is hurried, ever.
This is the work pattern I have used for 30 plus years and treating both sides is my personal, normal, process. All of my own systems have both sides of the drivers treated, even the really difficult ones.
The Hemp FR8c is actually the first driver I provided a back side cone pattern, and instructions for that patterns application, for this forum. All of the full range drivers I have posted on have been new to me. None of my personal systems have been less than a three way system for years, the Ohm F being the first, last and only full range driver before starting here.
As for models, I have not altered my mental model at all. All of the collection of what is characterized as techno babble was adopted just so I could communicate verbally with other humans. When the distributed mass language has been applied to all that EnABL provides, I will use that language, and have already begun to do so.
But these abstract mathematically underpinned models that you and most others use, are basically closed to me. I do not have access to abstract thought in any useful sense. I do know what it is, I studied math and other abstract methods of thinking, quite successfully, before tegretol was used to shut down the damaged portion of my fore brain, that apparently accessed that portion of my mind. My personal model is a concrete expression of force, as it applies to matter. It's accuracy is always open to revision by reality.
One of the interesting things that loosing access to abstract higher math lead to, is the understanding that we are hardwired for all volumetric activities, that require movement in space, with mass and velocity inherent in that understanding.
This is where my personal models arise, not in my words or your conceptual understandings. As you work your way through however much of the distributed mass on a vibrating surface investigation you end up pursuing, I will adopt your definitions. And, we will be able to speak about the very same phenomena, but my model will not be the one you use.
Incidentally, the Ohm F is once again being made, in Cleveland Ohio. It is not called that any more and all of the loose ends Ohm left uncorrected, have been dealt with. I have yet to hear them, but I am interested, to say the least.
Bud
Hi Bud,
Well written. Some of that relates to communication thoughts I expressed in diyAudio some years ago.
The use of words within a language confers responsibility upon a listener/reader to interpret any attempt to share concepts stated therein, as well as to a speaker/writer.
Just because a reader does not understand everything the writer attempts to communicate (ideas, explanations and even ordinary chat) within the limitations of the common written language, this does not mean that the writer is inadequate or wrong. No writer can be deemed directly responsible for all reader's interpretations, for these can only be based upon the reader's own prior experience and understanding, not the writer's, which the reader might well be unaware of.
I have never had difficulty reading Bud's words, even though others pounce upon them with vigour. Why ? Because I personally look for the message, rather than criticise the limited choice of language which is currently available for an explanation. Also personally, I don't think that all technical explanations so far presented are adequate either !
So if I think the message might be wrong then maybe I will say so in a reasonable manner, or maybe not at all. Why not ? There is no point in destroying ART which could be a treasure just because it does not fit in with any current or majority thinking, which itself might not yet be sufficiently developed.
I doubt a technical forum could exist if the spoken language were Latin.
Cheers ........ Graham.
PS. Still looking forwards to reading about more tests.
Well written. Some of that relates to communication thoughts I expressed in diyAudio some years ago.
The use of words within a language confers responsibility upon a listener/reader to interpret any attempt to share concepts stated therein, as well as to a speaker/writer.
Just because a reader does not understand everything the writer attempts to communicate (ideas, explanations and even ordinary chat) within the limitations of the common written language, this does not mean that the writer is inadequate or wrong. No writer can be deemed directly responsible for all reader's interpretations, for these can only be based upon the reader's own prior experience and understanding, not the writer's, which the reader might well be unaware of.
I have never had difficulty reading Bud's words, even though others pounce upon them with vigour. Why ? Because I personally look for the message, rather than criticise the limited choice of language which is currently available for an explanation. Also personally, I don't think that all technical explanations so far presented are adequate either !
So if I think the message might be wrong then maybe I will say so in a reasonable manner, or maybe not at all. Why not ? There is no point in destroying ART which could be a treasure just because it does not fit in with any current or majority thinking, which itself might not yet be sufficiently developed.
I doubt a technical forum could exist if the spoken language were Latin.
Cheers ........ Graham.
PS. Still looking forwards to reading about more tests.
Dorothy, where's Toto???
that about sums it up...
I guess we really aren't in Kansas anymore....
John L.
that about sums it up...
I guess we really aren't in Kansas anymore....
John L.
BudP said:
What this confirms to me is that your treatment really is just a tweak. You may choose the specific pattern of dashed rings because you like it and lay claim to it as Enable, but as you state, you apply it to some part of the cone, listen, add some more, listen, add some more, listen....until you are apparently convinced that more would be less, although there is noting suggesting that the optimum has been obtained, just some point in the treatment where you feel it is appropriate to stop striving for more.
There is nothing here but ad hoc modification guided by what you believe will provide positive results. That may be the case (or may not) but there is absolutely no evidence that it is anything close to an optimized procedure.
Sorry, but I would suggest that similar or potentially better results could be achieved with some other application pattern, or use of other materials. Of course, that would require conducting at least a study of how the same driver responded to a family of different treatments, not unlike the way Edison supposedly tested different materials for filaments for his light bulb. Without such expanded tests on every driver to be treated, even subjectively evaluated, it can never be certain if one more application will result in an improvement or degradation. And since the treatment is for the most part irreversible it necessarily requires that any treatment be taken at least one step too far; that is, the testing is destructive. Of course, without predictive capability it might just happen that going one step to far is only the first step in finding perfection. Two steps too far might reverse the negative result of the previous step and lead to even superior results.
Given that there really is a positive out come here (benefit of the doubt to you), this is more art than science and being art who is to say that one should prefer Monet to Picasso or van Gogh?
John K,
I really could not agree with you more. Certainly the limits that I work up to are there from having pushed the gloss coating too far. The pattern placement is generic for most drivers, meaning that they respond as I am expecting them to and there is no reason to do more, with the EnABL patterns.
I have been saying right from the beginning of the original thread, that I was certain that someone with more tools to work with and an inquisitive bent, should be able to out do the EnABL process.
Soongsc appears to have taken me at my word and from his posts on the original thread, quite late in that thread, it appears he has done so. I was quite delighted with your random applications of mortite and the smoothing and dispersal of the major resonance nodes on those aluminum cones. You seemed rather taken aback by the improvements yourself.
I am still hopeful that you and soongsc and dlr and whomever else gets involved, will take what those tests and what EnABL shows is possible even without perfect symmetry in power and move this investigation on. It seems silly to me to continue arguing about whether or not EnABL is a "tweak" or a "serious" improvement. Who cares?
Looks like a lot of unexplored surfaces, just waiting, to me.
Bud
I really could not agree with you more. Certainly the limits that I work up to are there from having pushed the gloss coating too far. The pattern placement is generic for most drivers, meaning that they respond as I am expecting them to and there is no reason to do more, with the EnABL patterns.
I have been saying right from the beginning of the original thread, that I was certain that someone with more tools to work with and an inquisitive bent, should be able to out do the EnABL process.
Soongsc appears to have taken me at my word and from his posts on the original thread, quite late in that thread, it appears he has done so. I was quite delighted with your random applications of mortite and the smoothing and dispersal of the major resonance nodes on those aluminum cones. You seemed rather taken aback by the improvements yourself.
I am still hopeful that you and soongsc and dlr and whomever else gets involved, will take what those tests and what EnABL shows is possible even without perfect symmetry in power and move this investigation on. It seems silly to me to continue arguing about whether or not EnABL is a "tweak" or a "serious" improvement. Who cares?
Looks like a lot of unexplored surfaces, just waiting, to me.
Bud
BudP said:
Actually, my tests indicate to me at least that the complex enabl pattern (I tested distributed mass in many patterns if you'll recall, some similar to enable) is very likely less effective than simple patterns of added mass. The latter are far less time consuming, less critical in precise placement and for almost all cases, reversible. In addition, the surround tweak,used by manufacturers literally maybe two decades if not more, for drivers exhibiting the ~1K impedance mismatch, works well in many cases, whereas I suspect that frequency range to be little impacted by the enable pattern. Others may want to spend the time experimenting, but personally I see little benefit in comparison to other more effective methods.
Dave
dlr,
We have been over this. EnABL is not intended to smooth the frequency response. As important as this characteristic is, it is not more important than the correct rise time of notes, the full and coherent decay of notes and the removal of masking of low level signals, that depict complex orchestral events. Neither is it less important.
If you, and whomever else, can provide FR smoothing, dispersal of resonant nodes and what EnABL provides, as described above, then EnABL is superfluous at that point.
The reason folks have expressed positive opinions about EnABL'd drivers, is because those characteristics, as described above, are actually missing from almost all drivers and the uncovering of those characteristics in almost all drivers is a beneficial change.
The information is already there, this is obvious from Johns blink CSD, but for whatever reason and by whatever means, it is not audibly available before an EnABL process, and is available afterwards.
If we can all accept that EnABL performs as it is portrayed and I do think we have, then it should be possible to do all of the above mentioned changes, those EnABL patterns bring about and those random mass brings about, as a rather huge lump of improvement in audible driver performance.
If you or someone else can eliminate EnABL's patterned mass, with random bumps and dips, more power to you. But you will need a pair of EnABL'd drivers to compare to, unless we can actually find and specifically isolate what it is doing.
Bud
We have been over this. EnABL is not intended to smooth the frequency response. As important as this characteristic is, it is not more important than the correct rise time of notes, the full and coherent decay of notes and the removal of masking of low level signals, that depict complex orchestral events. Neither is it less important.
If you, and whomever else, can provide FR smoothing, dispersal of resonant nodes and what EnABL provides, as described above, then EnABL is superfluous at that point.
The reason folks have expressed positive opinions about EnABL'd drivers, is because those characteristics, as described above, are actually missing from almost all drivers and the uncovering of those characteristics in almost all drivers is a beneficial change.
The information is already there, this is obvious from Johns blink CSD, but for whatever reason and by whatever means, it is not audibly available before an EnABL process, and is available afterwards.
If we can all accept that EnABL performs as it is portrayed and I do think we have, then it should be possible to do all of the above mentioned changes, those EnABL patterns bring about and those random mass brings about, as a rather huge lump of improvement in audible driver performance.
If you or someone else can eliminate EnABL's patterned mass, with random bumps and dips, more power to you. But you will need a pair of EnABL'd drivers to compare to, unless we can actually find and specifically isolate what it is doing.
Bud
BudP said:
Hi,
No we have not.
We have agreed your portrayal of EnABL is subjective and meaningless.
If what is does is so wonderful provide some easy to find objective evidence.
/sreten.
I think you should speaker for yourself.sreten said:
Hi,
No we have not.
We have agreed your portrayal of EnABL is subjective and meaningless.
If what is does is so wonderful provide some easy to find objective evidence.
I don't have any interest in taking any technical investigation further for a tweak that, if I believe what is claimed, can not be correlated with objective data. I don't accept that Enable does anything other than alter the cone surface vibration and, in a minor way, surface topology. The fact is that I have looked at the theoretical side including nonlinear acoustic effects, and viscous and heat conduction effects. Even with special emphasis on viscous and heat conduction losses at the radiating surface and how they would or could alter wave launch. As I said some time ago, the details are too complex to bring up in this discussion but the results of looking at these features show noting in that any consideration of the these affects results in the same conclusion whether the driver is treated or not. It's been a long circular discussion and it ends where it started; Enable does nothing to alter the generation of acoustic waves in air. It only alters the cone vibrational characteristics and surface topology, and such alterations are clearly evident in measurements. How anyone cares to subjectively label the audible affects of those changes is irrelevant. Physically they are what they are.
I get much more satisfaction by designing real speaker systems and seen others bring my efforts to fruition in their homes, no tweaks required, as is depicted in the picture I just received of a recently completed NAO speaker system in Australia.
I get much more satisfaction by designing real speaker systems and seen others bring my efforts to fruition in their homes, no tweaks required, as is depicted in the picture I just received of a recently completed NAO speaker system in Australia.