I'd say it's a bit more than added mass, it's that it's distributed. That in and of itself can be a positive factor. But it's still added mass/damping. Consider how some driver manufacturers make diaphragms with non-constant thickness. It's just one way to alter the mass/damping in a way to reduce resonances. Been done like that for a long, long time.
I had been testing added mass/damping, coincidentally, at the same time that this erupted. I documented the myriad ways that the response will change. But I have no doubt that the changes I documented have nothing to do with boundary layer changes.
Another thing I've seen frequently and documented is that adding the mass/damping at the outer area, nearer to the surround, has a significant change vs. the same mass located closer. Resonances are often not reduced and can even be magnified. Overall driver sensitivity is reduced the closer the mass is to the former. This is, I have no doubt, related to the fact that most diaphragms already have significant internal damping, so adding mass/damping at the extremes has a smaller impact. I've measured, repeatedly. It's not rocket science. Almost none of it is. And it's not about the boundary layer.
For those new to the thread, I documented one method of mass/damping at this page.
There's simply nothing out of the ordinary occurring.
Dave
OK, dlr, I was correct then, you do claim that the mass loading is the mechanism to fully explain the sonic effects of EnABL. Apologies, I was wrong & you seem to have maintained this position consistently from the beginning. So your dispute with BudP is that he maintains that this is not the mechanism, right?
On the other hand Auplater doesn't even seem to agree that there is any effect other than a placebo?
On the other hand Auplater doesn't even seem to agree that there is any effect other than a placebo?
I can't speak for him. I'm not sure if he mis-spoke about that. It happens.
It's more than one issue. This thing goes back a long time and I am not going to re-hash what went on for so long. But to try to be brief, there were two things that got it started (again, all in the threads).
One was (and still is evidently) that Bud believes that significant audible changes are made (in any of several esoteric fashions successively used) that make no measurable change in SPL response. This to the point that phase change occurs, yet anyone with reasonable understanding of dynamic drivers knows that, as minimum-phase devices, there is an unyielding relationship between magnitude and phase. You cannot change one without changing the other. Period.
The second is that the mechanism of the extraordinary changes in perceived response is due to changing the boundary layer response. This is all hypothesis and conjecture. Nothing more. It was shown that the change to the boundary is insignificant. Denial is part and parcel the problem.
And all of this was determined using ears alone. Even the more recent claim that the application changes plain dynamic drivers, with all of their issues and drawbacks, into something that launches a plane wave. This may be the most ludicrous claim made to date. Dynamic drivers are simply not capable of such.
Then look at evidence, rather, the complete lack of supporting evidence. Except for ears, of course, Then consider what you will believe and why. You really should read through the original thread, then this one, to follow it all.
Dave
dlr,
You've had your say, you attribute whatever change may (or may not) be occurring to mass loading.
I understand what you've said, but I'm getting tired of your attitude and rather abrasive approach. I don't remember Bud ever being anything but a gentleman, so evidently he does have something you can learn from.
Best Regards,
TerryO
You've had your say, you attribute whatever change may (or may not) be occurring to mass loading.
I understand what you've said, but I'm getting tired of your attitude and rather abrasive approach. I don't remember Bud ever being anything but a gentleman, so evidently he does have something you can learn from.
Best Regards,
TerryO
I'm being direct, I'm not going to dance around the issues. Bud avoids directly addressing them and even insists on making claims counter to even some of the most basic of the physics of dynamic drivers. I call it as I see it.
Dave
get lost
Never said any such thing. You should read more carefully,rather than engage in libelous misstatements ... note I said that the Purveyors have failed to demonstrate support for their revelry.... never should have gotten back into this thread... what with pettifoggery like this...
John L
Never said any such thing. You should read more carefully,rather than engage in libelous misstatements ... note I said that the Purveyors have failed to demonstrate support for their revelry.... never should have gotten back into this thread... what with pettifoggery like this...
John L
Last edited:
Yes, but consider that mass loading of a driver in this manner is a distributed phenomenon. It's not a lumped sum situation, the way that mass affects T/S parameters. The change in breakup patterns is due to the distribution of the mass/damping. I've always fully supported that as possible benefit. But that still goes to the point of it being nothing out of the ordinary.
Distributed mass/damping:
Note that the overall sensitivity does not change, at least down the limit set by the window used. Put that same mass on the cone near or on the former attachment point and there's a reduction in driver sensitivity.
Dave
spots vers fractals
Hi there SY: The first page of google on fractal patterns contains: patterns in nature, rivers seen from space, superconducting, scotch tape, L systems, syntax, julia pattern, jackson pollock in choatic paintaings, mandelbrot set, feedback loop. These seem to be variable in time, such that the patterns would be projected on to the driver cone over the listening period, rather than applied as a static choice (in time) of a single pattern. What criteria could be used to chose a single pattern and what math basis would be used?
...regarde, Michael
Hi there SY: The first page of google on fractal patterns contains: patterns in nature, rivers seen from space, superconducting, scotch tape, L systems, syntax, julia pattern, jackson pollock in choatic paintaings, mandelbrot set, feedback loop. These seem to be variable in time, such that the patterns would be projected on to the driver cone over the listening period, rather than applied as a static choice (in time) of a single pattern. What criteria could be used to chose a single pattern and what math basis would be used?
...regarde, Michael
Given the application dimensions and the wavelengths involved, I suspect that there would little change related to this, but granted this could be a factor. Even then, it's still not anything out of the ordinary.
Now the Scan-Speak slit cone technology, it may be significant in that instance.
After considering your point a bit more, it made me consider the doping application often made to surrounds. On hard diaphragms, I doubt that the flex modulus sees significant change. However, the common doping compound added to the surround at the base of the curved section probably does significantly change the flex modulus at that point. I think of it more as mechanical impedance termination change. But I think it effectively "extends" the impedance change from flat to curved sections from being an abrupt change to being a more gradual change with additional damping. This is due to the relative softness of the surround to begin with. The section of the surround that actually flexes is increased. Rather than flexing primarily at the junction, it's spread out, so-to-speak, more of it being in the curved section of the surround. But that part now also has added mass.
Dave
Last edited:
And so we come full circle. Not however to our original starting point. dlr you would make pit bull's proud, and no I have not left our agreement about direct action or distributed mass damping. These ideas and SY's perturbations are indeed what I have been working with.
What does seem to occurring is a dispersion of the transverse wave at specific points on the radial of the surface of the cone. I can now pin point those radiations and it does seem that they are what cause the loop back of energy in the boundary layer. As each is dispersed with a pattern, from inner to outer, the frequency of the trapped energy rises. In other words, just as Soongsc had it, the inner rings control the low frequencies and the outer rings control the high frequencies. These outer rings also control the dispersion of those higher frequencies
With a curvilinear cone, the need for rings begins at the point that the curve flattens and runs to the surround. With flat cones, as was the case with migeO's cones, every ring set uncovers the need for two more. This should make SY smile, as it shows clearly the need for a smaller ordered mechanism than just the ring patterns. So, we are at EnABL 2.0, with sights set upon 3.0. We are dealing with boundary layer events. Utilizing an ordered method, applied to disperse activities at specific radial distances from the voice coil as the answer needed to overcome the effects of "cone breakup" as an audible event.
Looks to me like we have all won here. I thank everyone for their help and am even very happy with John L, who really isn't a basher, nor is dlr or John K. This is just the very best sort of peer review anyone could hope for.
Bud
What does seem to occurring is a dispersion of the transverse wave at specific points on the radial of the surface of the cone. I can now pin point those radiations and it does seem that they are what cause the loop back of energy in the boundary layer. As each is dispersed with a pattern, from inner to outer, the frequency of the trapped energy rises. In other words, just as Soongsc had it, the inner rings control the low frequencies and the outer rings control the high frequencies. These outer rings also control the dispersion of those higher frequencies
With a curvilinear cone, the need for rings begins at the point that the curve flattens and runs to the surround. With flat cones, as was the case with migeO's cones, every ring set uncovers the need for two more. This should make SY smile, as it shows clearly the need for a smaller ordered mechanism than just the ring patterns. So, we are at EnABL 2.0, with sights set upon 3.0. We are dealing with boundary layer events. Utilizing an ordered method, applied to disperse activities at specific radial distances from the voice coil as the answer needed to overcome the effects of "cone breakup" as an audible event.
Looks to me like we have all won here. I thank everyone for their help and am even very happy with John L, who really isn't a basher, nor is dlr or John K. This is just the very best sort of peer review anyone could hope for.
Bud
Please present objective proof for your claim that "the only reason behind anyone "hearing a change"" (wrt non-moving surfaces) is all placebo.
I expect your proof to meet the same objective standard you demand from others.
After all, this is the 'technical' thread.
Dave uses cone pre-treatment before application of the EnABL process Bud prescribes. The pre-treatment adds significantly more mass (relative to) the EnABL process alone.
For many, the p10 cone pre-treatment plus EnABL turns what some consider 'unlistenable' drivers into something to rave about.
IMO people who enjoy the sonic qualities of untreated Fostex drivers (myself included) may not always like the trade-off.
I have EnABL V2.0 treated FE167's - no cone pre-treatment. IME the desirable characteristics of the Fostex are preserved and the objectionable qualities are mitigated or removed entirely.
I believe there are multiple mechanisms at work with EnABL - all of which conform to the laws of physics as we understand them.
The synergy of these mechanisms results in changes that are perceived as improvements by many people.
Cheers,
Alex
Sorry Bud, not plausible at all. It's nothing but speculation and conjecture. As I've said before, Occam's Razor applies here.
Direct evidence, per Martin's actual measurements that no one else seems brave enough to try, shows this to be false. How can you totally ignore the very few pieces of hard evidence? It really looks like there's just too much invested in it, not from just you, but others as well. It would be a simple matter to measure and post. You could silence critics. You won't because you can't.
How classic. Declare victory and leave. Peer review that supports it? You've got to be kidding.
Dave
Last edited:
This is the technical discussion. It was moved here after you introduced, once again, new speculative statements into the applications thread. For some reason that continues to be allowed, until someone challenges it. Had I not done so, that new technical nonsense would have stayed. Actually, some of it did. When you inject it periodically, it's allowed.
Dave
Last edited:
No Dave, it is you who is ignoring the hard evidence.
John K's pattern on the middle of a piece of wood showed exactly nothing. And it told us nothing about the manner in which EnABL works, so it was twice as useless as it could have been. John's examples of mass damping using large masses in comparison to a generic EnABL set of patterns showed nothing about EnABL except that it does work and performs the exact job claimed.
If we move to migeO's tests we see again that the typical test displays show nothing about EnABL and it's activities, except that something is different. Only the wavelet analysis shows the effect of controlled pattern placement, guided by the resonance nodes on the driver. Not some random application of the patterns on a piece of wood or a generic application of the patterns to an unknown driver.
Then we come to Soongsc's data. George shows the elimination of a resonance node. The complete dispersal of the thing, with one set of blocks. And he goes on to show that the alleged minimum phase behavior of cone drivers is a fiction. Of course Baranek himself also pointed to this in his book Acoustics, in a chapter I doubt you are familiar with. These various tests provide hard evidence, and they are pertinent to the latest activities in the EnaBL process. John K's work is not pertinent, period.
I am waiting for you to provide some actual relevant test data that shows that the EnABL support data is incorrect. Rather than just shooting your mouth off let's see some evidence that is meaningful.
Bud
John K's pattern on the middle of a piece of wood showed exactly nothing. And it told us nothing about the manner in which EnABL works, so it was twice as useless as it could have been. John's examples of mass damping using large masses in comparison to a generic EnABL set of patterns showed nothing about EnABL except that it does work and performs the exact job claimed.
If we move to migeO's tests we see again that the typical test displays show nothing about EnABL and it's activities, except that something is different. Only the wavelet analysis shows the effect of controlled pattern placement, guided by the resonance nodes on the driver. Not some random application of the patterns on a piece of wood or a generic application of the patterns to an unknown driver.
Then we come to Soongsc's data. George shows the elimination of a resonance node. The complete dispersal of the thing, with one set of blocks. And he goes on to show that the alleged minimum phase behavior of cone drivers is a fiction. Of course Baranek himself also pointed to this in his book Acoustics, in a chapter I doubt you are familiar with. These various tests provide hard evidence, and they are pertinent to the latest activities in the EnaBL process. John K's work is not pertinent, period.
I am waiting for you to provide some actual relevant test data that shows that the EnABL support data is incorrect. Rather than just shooting your mouth off let's see some evidence that is meaningful.
Bud
It should be noted that the P10 drivers Martin has are FE126eN-B, only a few pair of which were ever made. And some of the very earliest ever done.
Here are comments on another pair of the same FE126eN-B: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/111830-jeemus-fe126e-p10-puts-hair-chest.html
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.