Hi Raphael,
Thank you for your thoughts and energy. Hats off to you for slogging through the original thread. May I suggest that you also post your spread sheet here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1460031#post1460031
You will find a thriving community of people interested in hearing music at levels of resolution, breadth of dispersion and tonal accuracy simply not available from other direct radiators. Plus we are having fun.
Bud
Thank you for your thoughts and energy. Hats off to you for slogging through the original thread. May I suggest that you also post your spread sheet here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1460031#post1460031
You will find a thriving community of people interested in hearing music at levels of resolution, breadth of dispersion and tonal accuracy simply not available from other direct radiators. Plus we are having fun.
Bud
G'day All,
I'm posting here because this is not an 'application technique' nor a 'digression from EnABL'.
Found this really neat java applet and wondered what would happen if an EnABL pattern was used.
Ripple Tank (2-D Waves) Applet
Below is a text file that you can use to import the pattern into the applet.
The applet will 'reset' if you try and change the source (first drop down) or the resolution.
In 3D mode, 'brightness' will adjust the magnitude of the waves.
Have a look at what happens when the waves hit the EnABL pattern...
What do you see?
Cheers,
Alex
I'm posting here because this is not an 'application technique' nor a 'digression from EnABL'.
Found this really neat java applet and wondered what would happen if an EnABL pattern was used.
Ripple Tank (2-D Waves) Applet
Below is a text file that you can use to import the pattern into the applet.
The applet will 'reset' if you try and change the source (first drop down) or the resolution.
In 3D mode, 'brightness' will adjust the magnitude of the waves.
Have a look at what happens when the waves hit the EnABL pattern...
What do you see?
Cheers,
Alex
Thank you Alex.
I was not aware of how to enter an EnABL plan in this simulation, and in fact did not think it was possible. I had emailed the author a few times asking about this very thing, but never received a reply.
I notice two things. The pattern does not alter the frequency of the reflected waves and it does not alter their position / phase, with reference to adding the reflections back into the on coming waves.
The wave beyond the pattern coral is reduced in amplitude.
My assumption from this is that more energy emits from the enclosed, or corralled by EnABL fencing, on surfaces. Certainly what we see here is shown in all of the frequency plots I have seen, the pattern just does not affect the FR to an important degree.
This also seems to show that an EnABL'd surface, of any kind, is going to provide a closer approximation to a point source radiator, and that subsequent EnABL coral's are just going to improve this situation.
I think I can even understand why the EnABL'd surfaces seem to disappear. It isn't that EnABL disallows diffraction, but that the energy level of the wave front has been dropped significantly, so the diffraction is less intense beyond the final coral and also far less intense than the first arrival, from the signal that is coming from the first EnABL coral.
Yay, science triumphs again!
Bud
I was not aware of how to enter an EnABL plan in this simulation, and in fact did not think it was possible. I had emailed the author a few times asking about this very thing, but never received a reply.
I notice two things. The pattern does not alter the frequency of the reflected waves and it does not alter their position / phase, with reference to adding the reflections back into the on coming waves.
The wave beyond the pattern coral is reduced in amplitude.
My assumption from this is that more energy emits from the enclosed, or corralled by EnABL fencing, on surfaces. Certainly what we see here is shown in all of the frequency plots I have seen, the pattern just does not affect the FR to an important degree.
This also seems to show that an EnABL'd surface, of any kind, is going to provide a closer approximation to a point source radiator, and that subsequent EnABL coral's are just going to improve this situation.
I think I can even understand why the EnABL'd surfaces seem to disappear. It isn't that EnABL disallows diffraction, but that the energy level of the wave front has been dropped significantly, so the diffraction is less intense beyond the final coral and also far less intense than the first arrival, from the signal that is coming from the first EnABL coral.
Yay, science triumphs again!
Bud
BudP said:
Please, Bud, stop with the nonsense. There is nothing in it that is any proof of any kind. It is nowhere close to the mechanical properties of a diaphragm and how it radiates. And as far as "any surface", rubbish.
Dave
Alex,
Here is another wavefront simulation http://www.isvr.soton.ac.uk/FDAG/VAP/html/single_freq.html
You seem to be conveniently ignoring a major way to improve the sound, since application of EnaBL to surfaces traversed by soundwaves does exactly that - according to you.
cheers,
AJ
Here is another wavefront simulation http://www.isvr.soton.ac.uk/FDAG/VAP/html/single_freq.html
You seem to be conveniently ignoring a major way to improve the sound, since application of EnaBL to surfaces traversed by soundwaves does exactly that - according to you.
cheers,
AJ
I fail to understand what Alex is ignoring, taking this applet into account. Can you please explain yourself a little more, please?
Gaston
Gaston
Good to see your rude finger back in the air AJ
Gaston,
AJ is referring to applying blocks, made of tape, to the surface of the head shown. AJ, along with many folks on this thread, take great exception to the claims of driver performance enhancements from application of EnABL. The specific item he is pointing to can be found here
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1842873#post1842873
and is the baffle block pattern spreadsheet for EnABL.
Bud
Gaston,
AJ is referring to applying blocks, made of tape, to the surface of the head shown. AJ, along with many folks on this thread, take great exception to the claims of driver performance enhancements from application of EnABL. The specific item he is pointing to can be found here
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1842873#post1842873
and is the baffle block pattern spreadsheet for EnABL.
Bud
BudP said:
G’day Bud,
Actually, it is a huge PITA.
I had to draw the patterns manually using the mouse.
But it is fascinating to watch when you start playing with the speed, frequencies and colours.
Ticking the 3D box lets you rotate the model in all dimensions by left click and dragging.
If you rotate it so that the wave travels left to right and your viewing angle is just above the horizon, you can see the wave energy jump straight upwards when it hits the pattern.
Use the ‘brightness’ slider to adjust the magnitude and you’ll see this quite clearly.
Cheers,
Alex
Rubbish, no, just useful tools
dlr
Are you saying that there is no wave action in the cones Dave? Did I misunderstand John K's description of a cone surface as a mesh of sprung masses, that transfer energy through the cone as waves? Are you saying that Leo L. Beranek, in his seminal text "Acoustics", has no idea what he is talking about when, in the middle of deconstructing cone activity, into the now commonly accepted models, he wrote about the non pistonic activities that cones were subject to? On page 199, he presented Corrington.s analysis of nodal structures and they look suspiciously like the presentation from the wave applet. Are you postulating a new model for loudspeaker behavior?
As for the rubbish portion, the test you have based your logical inference upon is not relevant, based upon the effects that the wave applet clearly shows. A measurement of summed energy from a surface, with an EnaBL pattern in it's middle, does not account for what is shown clearly in the applet, the reduction of energy in the waves, without changing their structure. John K's test does not show any information about energy arising from either side of the pattern, just a sum of all of the emitted energy. The applet clearly shows what is happening to the energy, so that John K's test, though valid for what it tested for, is not a valid test to determine if the applet provides an accurate model.
How to test the validity of what the applet clearly shows is not in my court. If you want to further contest the usefulness of EnABL patterns on a bounded surface, as a valid way to reduce or eliminate diffraction, you are going to have to provide better data than you have.
Bud
dlr
Are you saying that there is no wave action in the cones Dave? Did I misunderstand John K's description of a cone surface as a mesh of sprung masses, that transfer energy through the cone as waves? Are you saying that Leo L. Beranek, in his seminal text "Acoustics", has no idea what he is talking about when, in the middle of deconstructing cone activity, into the now commonly accepted models, he wrote about the non pistonic activities that cones were subject to? On page 199, he presented Corrington.s analysis of nodal structures and they look suspiciously like the presentation from the wave applet. Are you postulating a new model for loudspeaker behavior?
As for the rubbish portion, the test you have based your logical inference upon is not relevant, based upon the effects that the wave applet clearly shows. A measurement of summed energy from a surface, with an EnaBL pattern in it's middle, does not account for what is shown clearly in the applet, the reduction of energy in the waves, without changing their structure. John K's test does not show any information about energy arising from either side of the pattern, just a sum of all of the emitted energy. The applet clearly shows what is happening to the energy, so that John K's test, though valid for what it tested for, is not a valid test to determine if the applet provides an accurate model.
How to test the validity of what the applet clearly shows is not in my court. If you want to further contest the usefulness of EnABL patterns on a bounded surface, as a valid way to reduce or eliminate diffraction, you are going to have to provide better data than you have.
Bud
Re: Rubbish, no, just useful tools
yes it is, you just don't accept the responsibility... nor do any of the other "proponents of mysticism"... you might just as easily claim enabling will stop global warming, but it's not up to you to prove it...
Since there's no proof that enabling does anything to improve diffraction effects on a bounded surface, there's nothing to contest.
Kinda putting the cart before the horse here... eh??
John L.
BudP said:
yes it is, you just don't accept the responsibility... nor do any of the other "proponents of mysticism"... you might just as easily claim enabling will stop global warming, but it's not up to you to prove it...
Since there's no proof that enabling does anything to improve diffraction effects on a bounded surface, there's nothing to contest.
Kinda putting the cart before the horse here... eh??
John L.
Re: Rubbish, no, just useful tools
I don't need to further contest anything. None of what you postulate on baffles or walls has any validity. Showing what some simplistic applet does that is not a model of a driver is entirely in your court, as you are the one making all of the claims. It is nonsense. It is not up to me nor anyone else to prove wrong, it is to you to prove yourself correct. Neither you nor anyone else has nor can can show any data of substance whatsoever.
As for any bounded surface such as a baffle, I'll just refer you to this link. You are simply unwilling to accept hard data that contradicts what you claim. I need not provide anything more than this as it is definitive.
John k post
Just in the likely case that you or other readers here prefer to ignore this, here's the most salient part:
John provided hard data, reproducable by anyone who might care to do so. You have words. Nothing else.
Dave
I don't need to further contest anything. None of what you postulate on baffles or walls has any validity. Showing what some simplistic applet does that is not a model of a driver is entirely in your court, as you are the one making all of the claims. It is nonsense. It is not up to me nor anyone else to prove wrong, it is to you to prove yourself correct. Neither you nor anyone else has nor can can show any data of substance whatsoever.
As for any bounded surface such as a baffle, I'll just refer you to this link. You are simply unwilling to accept hard data that contradicts what you claim. I need not provide anything more than this as it is definitive.
John k post
Just in the likely case that you or other readers here prefer to ignore this, here's the most salient part:
John provided hard data, reproducable by anyone who might care to do so. You have words. Nothing else.
Dave
Johns hard data looked at the surface of a baffle from one point of view. His microphone was not picking up differential signal volumes from either side of the "patches", it was summing them. To have been a valid test of what this wave model, based upon physics, shows, the microphone would have to have sampled the two sides of each "patch", without there being a chance of summing.
For even greater validity, the "patches" would have to control an entire bounded surface and be constructed with materials found to be adequate, in the subjective testing to date. John used the materials I have used for a subtle change. What is now being used provides an unsubtle change, more in line with what we see in this model.
Johns test were valid. However, they came before we had a model that indicated that the real vehicle at work here is not a control of diffraction. I now entirely accept this. Instead, the model shows other events at work.
Interesting to me is that the model shows no phase change in reflected energy, even though the reflected waves do not mimic the original pattern. What this model causes me to think is that the mechanism at work, for all of EnABL, is that it enforces a first arrival signal that mimics a half sphere, by forcing the energy to emit from smaller areas, in a coherent fashion. This stepping down of energy, as it expands to a diffraction edge would provide the subjective equivalent of no diffraction.
This makes even more sense when you factor in that frequency response does not alter in any significant degree, from treated to untreated devices. What I now think is occurring, at the point where diffraction would be a dominant emitter, is that the available energy is so low beyond the baffle EnABL patterns, that the first arrival signal from within the EnABL bounded baffle, is the dominant subjective contributor to the perceived sound. I am sure diffraction is still there, I am sure it can still be measured, but the EnABL pattern works to aid the mechanics of perception here, rather than the objective recording of data.
Bud
For even greater validity, the "patches" would have to control an entire bounded surface and be constructed with materials found to be adequate, in the subjective testing to date. John used the materials I have used for a subtle change. What is now being used provides an unsubtle change, more in line with what we see in this model.
Johns test were valid. However, they came before we had a model that indicated that the real vehicle at work here is not a control of diffraction. I now entirely accept this. Instead, the model shows other events at work.
Interesting to me is that the model shows no phase change in reflected energy, even though the reflected waves do not mimic the original pattern. What this model causes me to think is that the mechanism at work, for all of EnABL, is that it enforces a first arrival signal that mimics a half sphere, by forcing the energy to emit from smaller areas, in a coherent fashion. This stepping down of energy, as it expands to a diffraction edge would provide the subjective equivalent of no diffraction.
This makes even more sense when you factor in that frequency response does not alter in any significant degree, from treated to untreated devices. What I now think is occurring, at the point where diffraction would be a dominant emitter, is that the available energy is so low beyond the baffle EnABL patterns, that the first arrival signal from within the EnABL bounded baffle, is the dominant subjective contributor to the perceived sound. I am sure diffraction is still there, I am sure it can still be measured, but the EnABL pattern works to aid the mechanics of perception here, rather than the objective recording of data.
Bud
Re: Re: Rubbish, no, just useful tools
😀
I can'r remember any data that showed anything that is explainable. To show data with nothing happening is just TOO easy. HOMs, Diffraction effects in line with ear, etc, are not easily separated. This is exactly the same case with what EnABL does. The difference is that there is not mathematical explanation, which probably 90% don't fully understand anyway" for the EnABL pattern, is what bugs the 10%.dlr said:
😀
All this talk has got me thinking, and that usually makes me confused... 😕
So tonight I was wondering: maybe EnABL doesn't do much to the transverse wave in the cone that can't be explained by added mass. But if a wave travels along a surface, my ocean experience (closest analog for me) tells me that landsurface anomalies, even relatively small ones, can have a significant impact on the whole surface of the water. I'm a sea kayaker, and have gotten into some fun but challenging conditions when this kinda thing happens.
So, as the wave travels down the cone surface, doesn't it push it's own wave in the air ahead of it and thus have some impact on the sound waves emanating from the speaker? And if that effect were presented with an enabl pattern on the surface, couldn't it possibly affect the sound?
I'm not suggesting the effect would necessarily be significant or measurable, nor that this would explain baffle, port or wall EnABL, though my ocean experience tells me it's in the realm of possibility. Just surfing 🙄 for explanations.
Carl
So tonight I was wondering: maybe EnABL doesn't do much to the transverse wave in the cone that can't be explained by added mass. But if a wave travels along a surface, my ocean experience (closest analog for me) tells me that landsurface anomalies, even relatively small ones, can have a significant impact on the whole surface of the water. I'm a sea kayaker, and have gotten into some fun but challenging conditions when this kinda thing happens.
So, as the wave travels down the cone surface, doesn't it push it's own wave in the air ahead of it and thus have some impact on the sound waves emanating from the speaker? And if that effect were presented with an enabl pattern on the surface, couldn't it possibly affect the sound?
I'm not suggesting the effect would necessarily be significant or measurable, nor that this would explain baffle, port or wall EnABL, though my ocean experience tells me it's in the realm of possibility. Just surfing 🙄 for explanations.
Carl
Bud, you truly have no idea what you're talking about, plain and simple. None of what you said is valid in any way. The one thing you do have is a wild imagination.
Dave
Dave
Carl, I suggest going back to the original thread and re-reading John's posts on the topic.
Dave
Dave
dlr,
I'm pretty sure I heard John K to be talking strictly about the effect of EnABL on the movement of the cone surface and what that does to sound. I'm talking about what that cone surface movement does to the air above it and what effect EnABL might have on that air movement - and hence on the sound.
So did I miss what he was saying? If so, can someone please explain in more lay terms? I've read that thread several times and it obviously hasn't sunk in. Too much thinking on my part no doubt... 😕
Carl
I'm pretty sure I heard John K to be talking strictly about the effect of EnABL on the movement of the cone surface and what that does to sound. I'm talking about what that cone surface movement does to the air above it and what effect EnABL might have on that air movement - and hence on the sound.
So did I miss what he was saying? If so, can someone please explain in more lay terms? I've read that thread several times and it obviously hasn't sunk in. Too much thinking on my part no doubt... 😕
Carl