I am planning on using the ff85wk and was considering getting Dave's ff85wkeN enabld version. I've seen the reviews and heard people rave, but has anyone measured the drivers before and after? And what improvements can I expect to see?
I don't doubt there are improvements, I just wanted to know what to expect before spending extra of my already tight budget haha
I don't doubt there are improvements, I just wanted to know what to expect before spending extra of my already tight budget haha
No measures from me… except for suppression of some of the peakiness (little of that to suppress), the most obvious gains are in the DDR -- the ability to reproduce the tiny bits of information that give voice & instrument more reality and allows for a more 3D reproduction of image/soundstage. It is like the treatment reduces the drivers self-noise, the noise that obscures these details (if present on the recording).
dave
dave
Hi,
As ever the justification for Enabled is purely subjective.
As ever my complaint is not that it is is not a minor
improvement, it is simply the whole process is utter
pure conjecture, with no objective optimisation possible.
Basically pretty dots that do something supposedly,
but more likely the general cone treatment has far
more effect than the dots, but who can really tell.
Sadly its all backed up with no objective* evidence,
and no method to move driver modification forward.
I'd suggest only if you are a real big fan of a driver
try the modified version, otherwise use the standard,
if you don't know the driver and want to evaluate it.
rgds, sreten.
* Statistically meaningful subjective tests are objective.
As ever the justification for Enabled is purely subjective.
As ever my complaint is not that it is is not a minor
improvement, it is simply the whole process is utter
pure conjecture, with no objective optimisation possible.
Basically pretty dots that do something supposedly,
but more likely the general cone treatment has far
more effect than the dots, but who can really tell.
Sadly its all backed up with no objective* evidence,
and no method to move driver modification forward.
I'd suggest only if you are a real big fan of a driver
try the modified version, otherwise use the standard,
if you don't know the driver and want to evaluate it.
rgds, sreten.
* Statistically meaningful subjective tests are objective.
Last edited:
This has long been an issue - how to reconcile whatever differences (if any) can be parsed from comparative measurements yet made on treated vs stock drivers with what is perceived on listening, and therefore how to objectively explain the mechanism(s) involved.
It's probably safe to say this is exactly the type of "grey" area over which some folks on either side get fairly exercised. After a brief weekend listening session, the most recent analogy I can propose is the difference between Red-book digital files "Air-played" over wi-fi, and the same material played on a middle of the road CD player, using either built-in or outboard DAC. Almost all the notes are there in the former, but the latter has a finer degree of resolution throughout, and certainly more apparent low level detail/micro-dynamics.
It's probably safe to say this is exactly the type of "grey" area over which some folks on either side get fairly exercised. After a brief weekend listening session, the most recent analogy I can propose is the difference between Red-book digital files "Air-played" over wi-fi, and the same material played on a middle of the road CD player, using either built-in or outboard DAC. Almost all the notes are there in the former, but the latter has a finer degree of resolution throughout, and certainly more apparent low level detail/micro-dynamics.
Last edited:
It is hard with these sort of things to get an objective view of whether there is a real improvement.
I think for now I will stick with the standard drivers to save budget, but in the future I hope to build a baffle where one of the modded and non-modded drivers can be placed as close to each other as possible then switch back and forth to have a more direct comparison
I think for now I will stick with the standard drivers to save budget, but in the future I hope to build a baffle where one of the modded and non-modded drivers can be placed as close to each other as possible then switch back and forth to have a more direct comparison
Well if all of these tests are undocumented I would love to see a documented one, and if one really doesn't exist or no one can set one up, I plan to do so hopefully in the coming months
Hi,
Make no mistake, I'm sure P10's modded drivers are better
in some respects. After all its not that difficult to make a
difference with mod podge and the like, it either works
better or it doesn't overall for a particular driver.
The thing I hate about Enable is the absolute utter nonsense.
Ridiculous claimed subjective gains, just as ridiculous technical
claims as to how it works, and just as ridiculous detailed
"instructions" for particular drivers. It is a utter con.
It has totally derailed sensible driver modification debate.
If you look on this forum you will find no such discussions.
rgds, sreten.
I have been doing just that since the late 70s. EnABL adds performance on top of that, and althou the majority of the changes it brings are the small things, the magnitude of the improvements it engenders are larger in magnitude (subjective) what i was doing before.
dave
This was my favorite driver modification discussion. Subjective listening done by a handful of diyaudio members (including me) and measurements too. I love my modified Eminence 12lta! Carefully cut out the dustcap and added a phase plug.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/179161-beta-12lta-3cf-box-port-size-10.html#post2429767
I believe there is an 'enable' type measurement test with charts somewhere but the actual enable pattern was not applied, only dots randomly on a cone. Maybe it was Zaph? The results (both positive and negative) were measurable and worked better (or worse) on metal cones than paper - if I recall - which I don't really. Can anyone find the link?
Godzilla
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/179161-beta-12lta-3cf-box-port-size-10.html#post2429767
I believe there is an 'enable' type measurement test with charts somewhere but the actual enable pattern was not applied, only dots randomly on a cone. Maybe it was Zaph? The results (both positive and negative) were measurable and worked better (or worse) on metal cones than paper - if I recall - which I don't really. Can anyone find the link?
Godzilla
Attachments
Hi,
Well that IMO means you weren't being creative enough in your mods.
I wish I was really interested in the subject, but sadly I'm not.
EnABL simply doesn't work as advertised, and my point
is there are likely much better modification schemes.
But I'm not going to investigate them, eventually someone will.
rgds, sreten.
Why not interested ? EnABL as a method is useless for all high
quality typical hifi drivers, it only has traction for drivers that
have limitations due to the intended widebandwidth usage.
And it has no idea why it may be making things better.
Jeff,
I can tell you that EnABLing my 12LTA turned them into something much more listenable.
Here where they were stock (the big speakers in behind) but for phase plugs:
They were like that for a year.
Then i puzzlekoated them (modPodge), damped and shaped the magnet/basket interface, and put thick felt on the inside of the basket legs (2 years).
Then i EnABLed them.
dave
I can tell you that EnABLing my 12LTA turned them into something much more listenable.
Here where they were stock (the big speakers in behind) but for phase plugs:
They were like that for a year.
Then i puzzlekoated them (modPodge), damped and shaped the magnet/basket interface, and put thick felt on the inside of the basket legs (2 years).
Then i EnABLed them.
dave
Before i sent Bud a set of FE127e, EnABL had not been done on a FR (except the original Ohm F), having been used on multiways of all sizes for decades by Bud before i even heard about EnABL.
That is true.
dave
Supposition on your part. You have no idea what i have tried in the last ~45 years.
As are your comments on EnABL. I (we) have experienced it, you are only guessing.
dave
I think it's an easy step to take to say something that is subjectively an improvement cannot be objective when things like $10k speaker wires exist. I don't know if you've ever heard enabled speakers, but I'm reserving judgement until I've at least heard them and compared them. Especially when many respected members of the diyaudio community swear by them, I at least want to see it for myself
That is the wise choice. Some people cannot hear it (but that could depend on what they are listening to), just like some 10% (estimated (not by me)) can cannot integrate stereo.
dave
As in they can't hear the Phantom image in the center? Sorry that's just very intruiging to me, I've always been interested in how different people process audio and how it sounds to different people
Yes. There brains never developed the capability to process the 2 signals from the ears into that illusion.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.