He made a claim. Claims require proof! Or are you saying only certain claims require proof.
Edit: Anyway, all I was doing was just reflecting back to him how frustrating his attitude & approach can be!
He made claims early in 2008, that this was a mass loading effect as expected. Is this still his position?
Edit: Anyway, all I was doing was just reflecting back to him how frustrating his attitude & approach can be!
He made claims early in 2008, that this was a mass loading effect as expected. Is this still his position?
Last edited:
I have pretty much stopped posting on forums for a number of reasons. I still read a few but do not like to reply to most threads. But in this case, I thought I would share my experience with the Enable treatment.
I have four pairs of Fostex FE-126E drivers. One is stock, a second has a painted on cone treatment that was applied pre Enable days, a third has the full blown Enable treatment, and the fourth is the newer model from Fostex, the FE-126En. I have measured the T/S parameters of each driver, I have mounted each driver in the same OB and made some near field SPL measurements, and I have sat and listened (I have two pairs of identical OBs that can be swapped in and out of my two way system very quickly) to compare the performance of each pair.
Bottom line.
1) The treated drivers seem to measure consistent with mass being added to the cone. Not much mass, but enough to change the T/S parameters a little and lower the pass band SPL. I did not see any significant influence on the cone break up modes at high frequencies, the same magnitude peaks and dips appeared in all four drivers. The changes in the peaks and dips were so slight that they were hard to distinguish from driver to driver variation. Those are the measurement results.
2) There was an obvious difference in the sound of the drivers. The Enabled drivers sounded dull and not as crisp as the untreated drivers. Maybe the loss in pass band SPL caused the sound to be a little less upward tilted leading to a "sucking the life out of the music" performance description similar to what some claim for BSC filters when they use to high of a parallel resistor value. No question in my mind that in my limited listening experience (my room, my OB, one model of driver, my electronics) that the Enable process took something away from the performance of my FE-126E drivers.
I would not consider treating any of my other drivers with the Enable process and I would not buy a used pair of drivers with the treatment. I have seen the glowing reports of positive performance increases posted in the different Enable threads, but I did not have the same positive experience.
My two cents,
Martin
I have four pairs of Fostex FE-126E drivers. One is stock, a second has a painted on cone treatment that was applied pre Enable days, a third has the full blown Enable treatment, and the fourth is the newer model from Fostex, the FE-126En. I have measured the T/S parameters of each driver, I have mounted each driver in the same OB and made some near field SPL measurements, and I have sat and listened (I have two pairs of identical OBs that can be swapped in and out of my two way system very quickly) to compare the performance of each pair.
Bottom line.
1) The treated drivers seem to measure consistent with mass being added to the cone. Not much mass, but enough to change the T/S parameters a little and lower the pass band SPL. I did not see any significant influence on the cone break up modes at high frequencies, the same magnitude peaks and dips appeared in all four drivers. The changes in the peaks and dips were so slight that they were hard to distinguish from driver to driver variation. Those are the measurement results.
2) There was an obvious difference in the sound of the drivers. The Enabled drivers sounded dull and not as crisp as the untreated drivers. Maybe the loss in pass band SPL caused the sound to be a little less upward tilted leading to a "sucking the life out of the music" performance description similar to what some claim for BSC filters when they use to high of a parallel resistor value. No question in my mind that in my limited listening experience (my room, my OB, one model of driver, my electronics) that the Enable process took something away from the performance of my FE-126E drivers.
I would not consider treating any of my other drivers with the Enable process and I would not buy a used pair of drivers with the treatment. I have seen the glowing reports of positive performance increases posted in the different Enable threads, but I did not have the same positive experience.
My two cents,
Martin
jkeny, you made the claim. He is denying it. You have to prove he changed his tact.
Sorry to beat a dead horse.
Thanks for the post, Martin, it's very welcome. It is necessary to hear any negative reports of the treatment as it allows some form of consensus to emerge.
Your measurements & subjective results are also interesting!
A question for those who are regulars on this thread - is this the kernel of the dispute - one side claims mass-loading as the explanation for EnABL's sonic effect & the other side has discounted this as the ONLY mechanism?
Your measurements & subjective results are also interesting!
A question for those who are regulars on this thread - is this the kernel of the dispute - one side claims mass-loading as the explanation for EnABL's sonic effect & the other side has discounted this as the ONLY mechanism?
Last edited:
OK, Tux, I already edited my post to say that I was just reflecting back to dlr the type of incessant calls for proof of any statement.
mechanism???
no... the essence (kernal) of the dispute is that there is (as yet) no verifiable technical mechanism (other than expectation bias and/or personal preference, which is hotly discredited) demonstrated by any of the purveyors, and there is an ongoing intensive effort to co-opt work that disproves the psuedoscience and technobabble proffered as a "mechanism" (boundary layers, propagation velocity, modal modifications, etc.).
many question whether enabl even has a technically defensible "sonic' effect, other than that offered by Martin, Joihn K. , and others way back when...
Your question is loaded in that it implies that there "IS" a dispute about the mechanism... the real dispute is only that those with glowing subjective reports and psudeobabbling technical descriptions making extraordinary claims (dispersion enhancement seems to be the latest) refuse to provide any sort of verifiable thesis in support of their position.
John L.
no... the essence (kernal) of the dispute is that there is (as yet) no verifiable technical mechanism (other than expectation bias and/or personal preference, which is hotly discredited) demonstrated by any of the purveyors, and there is an ongoing intensive effort to co-opt work that disproves the psuedoscience and technobabble proffered as a "mechanism" (boundary layers, propagation velocity, modal modifications, etc.).
many question whether enabl even has a technically defensible "sonic' effect, other than that offered by Martin, Joihn K. , and others way back when...
Your question is loaded in that it implies that there "IS" a dispute about the mechanism... the real dispute is only that those with glowing subjective reports and psudeobabbling technical descriptions making extraordinary claims (dispersion enhancement seems to be the latest) refuse to provide any sort of verifiable thesis in support of their position.
John L.
Ok, so you are not denying that there is a change in measurable characteristics (as per MJK's post) just that you have yet to hear an explanation for the mechanism of action?
Do you question this also?
Lol, me loaded? - "glowing subjective" "pseudobabbling" "extraordinary claims"
So I'm just trying to get a handle on what the dispute is all about? dlr says that he has not changed his position since the beginning where it seems he says that mass-loading explains any EnABL effects completely.
You don't seem to hold this position or am I wrong?
Ah, OK, I get it now - it's the bash BudP thread then, I should have realised sooner but thought that there was actually something of substance in the objections but I see now that they are just that, objections!
So you don't even hold with dlr's position of mass-loading, you just like to wait around for BudP's next best guess at the mechanism of action & have a go at that.
Must be why you are not interested in summarising your position - it's not that you have any particular position other than a contrarian one!
I don't particularly care what the acronyms stand for - is this your main problem? Should BudP rename it & you would be happy?
Edit: Cool, I got the last word
So you don't even hold with dlr's position of mass-loading, you just like to wait around for BudP's next best guess at the mechanism of action & have a go at that.
Must be why you are not interested in summarising your position - it's not that you have any particular position other than a contrarian one!
I don't particularly care what the acronyms stand for - is this your main problem? Should BudP rename it & you would be happy?
Edit: Cool, I got the last word
Last edited:
I find it incredibly interesting that this particular little movie shows a very clear boundary layer.
YouTube - resonance
Are we to assume that just because some folks do not want to recognize that a logical connection exists, between what happens on a vibrating surface with lightweight molecules and what happens on that surface when air molecules are available, a boundary layer does not happen when air is involved? Do make sure you listen along with watching.
Bud
YouTube - resonance
Are we to assume that just because some folks do not want to recognize that a logical connection exists, between what happens on a vibrating surface with lightweight molecules and what happens on that surface when air molecules are available, a boundary layer does not happen when air is involved? Do make sure you listen along with watching.
Bud
Of course there's a boundary layer. What John K was very good at pointing out, through his research of it, is that the boundary layer change will not be in any way significant. You can keep trying to re-start the stale debate, but it's a waste of time. The change that you believe that occurs is in no way responsible for any of the change in the response in any significant way. John showed that, but you are still evidently in a state of denial. You ask questions to divert and obfuscate, but none of it has any factual support. It's simply fanciful dreaming.
The change made by your tiny bumps simply are not changing it the way you postulate. They will, however, add mass and damping in a distributed manner, just as the doping that manufacturers have used for years on surrounds, and that I documented at my web site, will do.
The boundary layer conjecture, and that all it is, is simply ludicrous. You have presented absolutely zero evidence. Period. There is your conjecture, nothing more, nada, zilch. It's fantasy.
Really, the acronym EnABL is both inaccurate and should be changed. To what, I don't know, since there's nothing more than mass/damping alteration involved.
I find it curious, scratch that, consistent that you did not make any comment about MJK's post. You have a consistent habit of avoiding response to direct challenges to your claims or you try to "reinterpret" them as you've done with John's measurements in the past. My reading of his post is that he made the mods precisely how you suggest and that measurements were counter to your claims and that it was actually detrimental on a perceived basis, on the sort of driver that you claim will show dramatic improvement, every time.
Dave
Last edited:
Just to set the record straight, I forgot to mention that I did not do the mods myself but acquired the drivers from planet10.
The test results show small changes in behavior of the treated drivers. But the sound was clearly different between treated and stock drivers, very easy to hear and tell which driver was treated. To my ears the treated driver did not sound as good as the stock driver and the result seemed consistent with adding mass to the cone. I don't understand how people can claim the dramatic improvements reported.
Martin