Thanks Dave, but I'm a big enough nerd that I already subscribe to a number of science journals and blogs so I've seen the reports. I even have the CERN app on my droid.
Wasn't meant for you Brett... for all that didn't make your reference ...
tantilizingly close
dave
tantilizingly close
dave
Bud
these K3808 are mine
I'll make boobs on them , same as my RCA LC1 have , will try sort of phase plug for pepperpot , and why not EnABL ....
I don't care for their resale value , just because I bought them for my musical pleasure
whatever I choose to do with them , they'll sing better .........
😉
Well Frank, it wasn't that you were ignored. I did look as carefully as my deteriorated brain allowed, but I couldn't draw a connection. Perhaps you could provide either a primer that shows what looks similar to you, or perhaps a later, simpler, explanation from other sources that might show how those applications apply?
Bud
At the time you rejected the idea because it seemed yet another "added mass" explanation.
Try this:
An introduction to phononic crystals
Well I still want to thank an evaporated Frank for the link to a much easier to understand discourse on phononics.
http://www.femto-st.fr/en/Popularization/An-introduction-to-phononic-crystals.php
Now I just have to interest some Frenchmen in poking their long noses into EnABL.
By the way, the drivers sent to migeO might fit the definition of a two dimensional phononic structure. I am not sure how the discrete patterns found on other drivers might fit, though for some cones, looking at them from a point centered on axis, do look like a form of phononic structure. Interesting.
Bud
http://www.femto-st.fr/en/Popularization/An-introduction-to-phononic-crystals.php
Now I just have to interest some Frenchmen in poking their long noses into EnABL.
By the way, the drivers sent to migeO might fit the definition of a two dimensional phononic structure. I am not sure how the discrete patterns found on other drivers might fit, though for some cones, looking at them from a point centered on axis, do look like a form of phononic structure. Interesting.
Bud
so where's the precise repeatable periodicity in eNabl??? not to mention the precision and accuracy,or the physical scale vis a vis phononic xtals? Lets see an analytical comparison, rather than more hand waiving
Cal, I can't seem to find my recent post in regards to enabling being recommended as a treatment for phase plugs, and the corners of cabinets. These being recognized locations for the treatment, I believe their discussion should be included in this thread.
So for the record, people have had excellent results placing patterns on the corner's of their loudspeaker boxes, and on the tips of their phase plugs. Some of the phase plugs were aluminum, and some were turned wood, but both kinds were rigidly affixed to the pole piece of the magnet.
The merits of these two placements escape me in detail; would someone who has tried the pattern there please refresh my memory (and go on record) of their effect?
Thanks.
So for the record, people have had excellent results placing patterns on the corner's of their loudspeaker boxes, and on the tips of their phase plugs. Some of the phase plugs were aluminum, and some were turned wood, but both kinds were rigidly affixed to the pole piece of the magnet.
The merits of these two placements escape me in detail; would someone who has tried the pattern there please refresh my memory (and go on record) of their effect?
Thanks.
Member
Joined 2002
Here's a technical question (hopefully won't get deleted).
I've seen a few measurements of the difference from Migeo I think. Perhaps Bud can post the link again.
So if it can be measured once, why not again? I think something like this can be measured. Perhaps not easily. And not with a frequency response.
Also, some of the claims should be easily measured, like elimination of room modes and perfect off axis response. That's measurable. Is this hyperbole then?
I've seen a few measurements of the difference from Migeo I think. Perhaps Bud can post the link again.
So if it can be measured once, why not again? I think something like this can be measured. Perhaps not easily. And not with a frequency response.
Also, some of the claims should be easily measured, like elimination of room modes and perfect off axis response. That's measurable. Is this hyperbole then?
tade, PM sent
jleaman, I have removed more of your offending posts. There are other threads to voice your displeasure, not here.
Member
Joined 2002
i know what size cal is, cal is a awesome person, seen him many times.
I have no beef with anyone, just trying to see some actual proof on this site about the "claims" of dot's on cones.
YET no video proof has been show, only verbal ones..
ZM, PM sent.
Guys, I would like your cooperation here. This isn't the thread to badger the believers. There have been requests for technical info. so let's move on, no need to belabour the point.
Does anyone have anything to add to the technical side?
Guys, I would like your cooperation here. This isn't the thread to badger the believers. There have been requests for technical info. so let's move on, no need to belabour the point.
Does anyone have anything to add to the technical side?
Yes. Based on what I heard from enable (I wrote a review indicating I barely heard a difference if any), and what I previously measured (back in this thread somewhere) using basic measurement techniques, and the measurements I've seen posted (very few), I think if there is a difference it's related to CSD. CSD testing should be carried out in some controlled method.
It would be new territory for me, but I'll do testing for anyone who can provide 4 untreated drivers and then treat them.