Hi folks, I wanted to see if I could hear the eNaBLe phenomenon and here are my results of ~6 weeks of non-stop experimentation (my system is in my office so I listen all day, and can swap drivers, boxes, etc. as needed).
I got the FE127eN's second-hand from tubesguy (thanks again!) and picked up various FE127E and FE126E stock. I broke them in at night. Eventually, I got to hear the FE126eN and a non-enabled but planet10-modded FE126e which helped zero in (unscientifically) on what mods do what.
The goal of all this is to give me and anyone interested a simple, reproducible way to pinpoint any audible differences between stock and fully modded, without addressing any theory.
I have on hand lots and lots of Fostex drivers for a broader comparison in MLTL's and horns (FE208-Sigma, FE207E, FE166ES-R's, FE164, FE108-Sigma etc. etc.) But primarily I wanted to determine:
(a) whether I liked the 126 vs. the 127, and
(b) whether the modded versions are really different (and better)
First I compared the FE126E to the FE127E. Initially I was wowed at the imaging in a narrow-baffle BR on stands mated with a sub. There was a tad too much excitement up top but at the time, I liked it. Eventually I realized there was a baffle-step issue (i.e., close to the walls I got good mid-bass, but pulled into the room, there was a big dip). I solved this brute-force style by putting another set of FE126E's into similar-sized cabs, facing backwards toward the wall (and kept the forward-facing cabs on stands pulled out into the room).
Then the problem became one of integrating the sub properly -- I had basically traded one problem for another (but at least I pushed it down). I'm still not 100% satisfied with the sub integration.
I listened to the FE126E's for four days, then switched to the FE127E's and was initially disappointed at the lack of "excitement". But eventually my ears adjusted and as I switched back and forth, I realized that the FE127E is more balanced in a BR, less fatiguing for the long haul.
Over the next couple weeks, I decided I liked the FE127E's overall and then began switching between the FE127E and FE127eN (modded). Right off the bat, the FE127eN's sounded very, very different and I wasn't sure what it was.
Eventually, by listening to enough recordings, I narrowed it down to a couple things. First, the stock driver can sound a bit cheesy, honky, paper-y and a little bit harsh on certain instruments like sax and female vocal.
The modded driver sounds mellower, a tad "meatier" due to the calmed-down high end. There must be some peakiness in the HF that the mods tame. The modded driver can "disappear" more easily, whereas the stock driver sounds more like a speaker and (for me) doesn't disappear too well. The modded driver is less fatiguing and the sweet spot is wider.
I set up a stock and modded driver right and left, and then wheeled my chair back and forth to hear. I also listened to each in mono (courtesy of our friend loninappleton who does all sorts of non-traditional asymmetrical listening -- thank you lon!)
On Jane Monheit's "Cheek to Cheek" the sax sounds airy and fake, like a kazoo, and sounds very "cheap speaker-ish" However, on the modded driver, it sounds mellower, calmer, a tad meatier and isn't popping out as much -- it's in the mix at its proper level.
Also, on Diana Krall, big differences, easy to hear. Her singing style alternates between "breathy" and a "louder" style where she traps the notes in her throat (presumably for pitch control and to make her breath last). This is not a criticism, as she's sitting at the piano whereas Monheit is doing the "from the diaphram" singing which requires standing while holding your chin up at times (to get the air out).
But Krall's "louder" mode makes for some gutteral nastiness on the stock driver which makes me want to get off-axis ASAP. However, on the modded driver, this is mellowed out and on-axis is not as harsh. Case in point: "All or Nothing at All".
All this simply implies that the mods tame some kind of nasty peak. But there's more. The modded driver seems to have a much wider sweet spot, which I don't think would be the result of simply taming a speak.
To put it very subjectively, notes seem to jump out of the modded driver in a very lively fashion, whereas the stock driver has a certain dullness to it. It's not strictly HF (arguably the modded driver is calmer and thus less total HF). It seems like a difference in clarity to me -- the modded driver has "nicer" definition vs. the stock which is good but just not as "clear".
So I definitely liked the modded driver a lot (!) but I was left with no way to separate the eNaBLe from the other mods (and there are at least several, probably more).
But I got lucky and Mssr. Phil Townsend generously set up the Frugel-Horns with an older modded FE126E (mods without eNaBLe) next to his Harveys with the FE126eN (mods + eNaBLe). Stealing a page from serenechaos' playbook, I brought my wife.
Thus I was able to hear modded drivers with and without eNaBLe and the difference was huge. The soundstage was much wider on the eNaBLe'd and that "bell-like clarity" was evident, and sounded almost exactly like the FE127eN's. (My wife also thought it was night and day and preferred the eNaBLe'd drivers).
Afterwards, I went through many of my Fostex drivers and cabs one more time, to make sure I wasn't imagining things. It is my conclusion that the fully modded planet10 FE127eN (and FE126eN) sound very different from stock, and furthermore, I believe the difference is a big improvement. Although my testing was far from scientific, I believe the eNaBLe is the key to the "clarity" they exhibit because a modded FE126e (without eNaBLe) did not exhibit it.
My final conclusion is this: our ears adjust. I can listen to the stock drivers, a bit off-axis as necessary, and I'm still happy. However, the modded drivers do sound better, non-fatiguing and give me the impression that I'm hearing more of the recording. It's roughly equivalent to hearing a recording with, and without, tape hiss -- without the tape hiss, you have the impression of hearing more of what's there, with less distraction.
Lastly, I don't blame folks for being skeptical. I was also skeptical but happily, this is a matter that can be resolved with a simple A/B. I hope other folks have the chance. Thanks for reading this far!
I got the FE127eN's second-hand from tubesguy (thanks again!) and picked up various FE127E and FE126E stock. I broke them in at night. Eventually, I got to hear the FE126eN and a non-enabled but planet10-modded FE126e which helped zero in (unscientifically) on what mods do what.
The goal of all this is to give me and anyone interested a simple, reproducible way to pinpoint any audible differences between stock and fully modded, without addressing any theory.
I have on hand lots and lots of Fostex drivers for a broader comparison in MLTL's and horns (FE208-Sigma, FE207E, FE166ES-R's, FE164, FE108-Sigma etc. etc.) But primarily I wanted to determine:
(a) whether I liked the 126 vs. the 127, and
(b) whether the modded versions are really different (and better)
First I compared the FE126E to the FE127E. Initially I was wowed at the imaging in a narrow-baffle BR on stands mated with a sub. There was a tad too much excitement up top but at the time, I liked it. Eventually I realized there was a baffle-step issue (i.e., close to the walls I got good mid-bass, but pulled into the room, there was a big dip). I solved this brute-force style by putting another set of FE126E's into similar-sized cabs, facing backwards toward the wall (and kept the forward-facing cabs on stands pulled out into the room).
Then the problem became one of integrating the sub properly -- I had basically traded one problem for another (but at least I pushed it down). I'm still not 100% satisfied with the sub integration.
I listened to the FE126E's for four days, then switched to the FE127E's and was initially disappointed at the lack of "excitement". But eventually my ears adjusted and as I switched back and forth, I realized that the FE127E is more balanced in a BR, less fatiguing for the long haul.
Over the next couple weeks, I decided I liked the FE127E's overall and then began switching between the FE127E and FE127eN (modded). Right off the bat, the FE127eN's sounded very, very different and I wasn't sure what it was.
Eventually, by listening to enough recordings, I narrowed it down to a couple things. First, the stock driver can sound a bit cheesy, honky, paper-y and a little bit harsh on certain instruments like sax and female vocal.
The modded driver sounds mellower, a tad "meatier" due to the calmed-down high end. There must be some peakiness in the HF that the mods tame. The modded driver can "disappear" more easily, whereas the stock driver sounds more like a speaker and (for me) doesn't disappear too well. The modded driver is less fatiguing and the sweet spot is wider.
I set up a stock and modded driver right and left, and then wheeled my chair back and forth to hear. I also listened to each in mono (courtesy of our friend loninappleton who does all sorts of non-traditional asymmetrical listening -- thank you lon!)
On Jane Monheit's "Cheek to Cheek" the sax sounds airy and fake, like a kazoo, and sounds very "cheap speaker-ish" However, on the modded driver, it sounds mellower, calmer, a tad meatier and isn't popping out as much -- it's in the mix at its proper level.
Also, on Diana Krall, big differences, easy to hear. Her singing style alternates between "breathy" and a "louder" style where she traps the notes in her throat (presumably for pitch control and to make her breath last). This is not a criticism, as she's sitting at the piano whereas Monheit is doing the "from the diaphram" singing which requires standing while holding your chin up at times (to get the air out).
But Krall's "louder" mode makes for some gutteral nastiness on the stock driver which makes me want to get off-axis ASAP. However, on the modded driver, this is mellowed out and on-axis is not as harsh. Case in point: "All or Nothing at All".
All this simply implies that the mods tame some kind of nasty peak. But there's more. The modded driver seems to have a much wider sweet spot, which I don't think would be the result of simply taming a speak.
To put it very subjectively, notes seem to jump out of the modded driver in a very lively fashion, whereas the stock driver has a certain dullness to it. It's not strictly HF (arguably the modded driver is calmer and thus less total HF). It seems like a difference in clarity to me -- the modded driver has "nicer" definition vs. the stock which is good but just not as "clear".
So I definitely liked the modded driver a lot (!) but I was left with no way to separate the eNaBLe from the other mods (and there are at least several, probably more).
But I got lucky and Mssr. Phil Townsend generously set up the Frugel-Horns with an older modded FE126E (mods without eNaBLe) next to his Harveys with the FE126eN (mods + eNaBLe). Stealing a page from serenechaos' playbook, I brought my wife.
Thus I was able to hear modded drivers with and without eNaBLe and the difference was huge. The soundstage was much wider on the eNaBLe'd and that "bell-like clarity" was evident, and sounded almost exactly like the FE127eN's. (My wife also thought it was night and day and preferred the eNaBLe'd drivers).
Afterwards, I went through many of my Fostex drivers and cabs one more time, to make sure I wasn't imagining things. It is my conclusion that the fully modded planet10 FE127eN (and FE126eN) sound very different from stock, and furthermore, I believe the difference is a big improvement. Although my testing was far from scientific, I believe the eNaBLe is the key to the "clarity" they exhibit because a modded FE126e (without eNaBLe) did not exhibit it.
My final conclusion is this: our ears adjust. I can listen to the stock drivers, a bit off-axis as necessary, and I'm still happy. However, the modded drivers do sound better, non-fatiguing and give me the impression that I'm hearing more of the recording. It's roughly equivalent to hearing a recording with, and without, tape hiss -- without the tape hiss, you have the impression of hearing more of what's there, with less distraction.
Lastly, I don't blame folks for being skeptical. I was also skeptical but happily, this is a matter that can be resolved with a simple A/B. I hope other folks have the chance. Thanks for reading this far!
Also from a non-scientific perspective, my findings are very similar to yours. I did not have the same number of listening options but I summed it by saying the EnABL treatment seems to make the speaker sound less like a speaker. Thanks for sharing.
I also changed the capital letters in the title.
I also changed the capital letters in the title.
G'day rjbond3rd,
Nice report - you should post a link to this on the EnABL Listening impressions thread.
Would you be able to make a stereo recording of each configuration and post online?
e.g.
Same pair of speaker cabinets
Same base driver
Microphones set-up at the listening position (i.e not 1 metre)
Track 1 - Stock drivers
Track 2 - planet10 modded drivers
Track 3 - planet10 moddded plus EnABL drivers
Absolute accuracy is not an issue here - the aim is relative comparison between treated and untreated drivers.
Anyone could then A/B the tracks and decide for themselves what they prefer.
dave, how come you haven't done this to showcase your EN drivers??
Cheers,
Alex
Nice report - you should post a link to this on the EnABL Listening impressions thread.
Would you be able to make a stereo recording of each configuration and post online?
e.g.
Same pair of speaker cabinets
Same base driver
Microphones set-up at the listening position (i.e not 1 metre)
Track 1 - Stock drivers
Track 2 - planet10 modded drivers
Track 3 - planet10 moddded plus EnABL drivers
Absolute accuracy is not an issue here - the aim is relative comparison between treated and untreated drivers.
Anyone could then A/B the tracks and decide for themselves what they prefer.
dave, how come you haven't done this to showcase your EN drivers??
Cheers,
Alex
Upon my first experiencing the EnABL phenomenon at Bud's secret laboratory, the first 2 things that come to mind were "coherency" (of time & space) and "inner detail" (that downward dynamic range stuff).
Much experimentation ensued casa Dlugos during the months of that first summer to determine that the previous driver mods were not only compatible but synergistic with Bud's polka dots.
Much experimentation ensued casa Dlugos during the months of that first summer to determine that the previous driver mods were not only compatible but synergistic with Bud's polka dots.
Alex from Oz said:
uh, assuming the recording and data transfer chain had adequate resolution, if the playback system had the ability to fully demonstrate the incremental differences (I'll call them improvements) of various levels of treatment, I think you'd already have a system equal or surpassing the EnABled drivers.
The best way we've found to showcase the EN drivers is a simple and very unscientific A/B demo. Lots of casual conversation over a coffee or adult beverage or two, with the "test subject's" favorite music playing in the background (something they've heard a bazillion times and think they know thoroughly) , then an "OK, do you mind if we listen to this for a minute?" .
With two identical pairs of any enclosure design (smaller the better, I think) and either an amp with speaker selector switch, or a quick wire swap by hand (gotta love those Pomona dual banana plugs) this makes for a pretty effective demonstration.
Hi guys, thanks for reading.
Hi Alex, that is a fascinating idea. I will ponder that. What might be useful is to take the stock vs. modded recordings and then "subtract" one from the other to see what the difference is (the delta, what is present in one but not the other). Does that make sense? I might be able to find a way to program that.
I understand Chrisb's point as well. I will ponder this, as it would be an utterly fascinating and very logical step to take -- if there is a difference, it would not necessarily show in a FR curve but it would /have/ to show up if we found the delta between the two files.
I will submit to the "listening impressions" thread, shame on me that I have not checked that thread out, it could have saved me weeks of time!
doorman [/i] [B] The "wider sweetspot" with the En driver(s) is intriguing. Does this apply to vertical imaging as well? [/B][/QUOTE] Hi Don said:
Hi Alex, that is a fascinating idea. I will ponder that. What might be useful is to take the stock vs. modded recordings and then "subtract" one from the other to see what the difference is (the delta, what is present in one but not the other). Does that make sense? I might be able to find a way to program that.
I understand Chrisb's point as well. I will ponder this, as it would be an utterly fascinating and very logical step to take -- if there is a difference, it would not necessarily show in a FR curve but it would /have/ to show up if we found the delta between the two files.
I will submit to the "listening impressions" thread, shame on me that I have not checked that thread out, it could have saved me weeks of time!
chrisb said:
Alas, not all of us can drop by for a cuppa (or a brew)
From my experience the difference between EnABL'd drivers and non-ENABL's drivers is both clearly audible and profound.
A recommendation could be that people use headphones when comparing. While ultimately still not as good as hearing them in person there still should be enough audible improvement to show how much better EnABL'd drivers really are - even on an average playback system.
Maybe just do the stock driver vs. fully modded and EnABL'd - this will have the biggest difference in sound.
The only decision for a customer is whether they prefer 'A' or 'B'.
rjbond3rd said:
There was a freeware package mentioned in the main EnABL thread - Audio Diff Maker?
I think that you need to do a stereo recording to have the best chance of finding a 'measureable' change of any significance.
There is something wonderful about the sound propagation from an EnABL'd driver. It doesn't show up as anything really significant when measured and analysed, but when you hear with your ears - WOW - what a difference!
Cheers,
Alex
Let's just say that it's not conclusively understood, and certainly not agreed upon as to exactly "what's goin on" with the EnABL treatment.
At the risk of inciting the wrath of objectivists yet again, I'd posit that it's a bit more complex and micro scalar than can easily be parsed from the toolbox generally available to the average DIYer. It's certainly a damned lot easier to hear the improvements than it might ever be to quantify the wheres and hows, or for that matter to agree upon the lexicon of audio tweak-speak to describe the event.
so for me, it becomes a matter of SD,STFU and listen
If that sounds a bit harsh and dismissive, I'll defend myself by reminding y'all that I've been listening to the results of the EnABL process for almost 2 years, and have borne witness to a lot of bandwidth and pixels wasted in the acrimonious pi$$ing contest between rigid objectivity and whatever you'd like to call its antithesis. I place myself in the "I don't give a fig how/why it works - for me it just does" camp
At the risk of inciting the wrath of objectivists yet again, I'd posit that it's a bit more complex and micro scalar than can easily be parsed from the toolbox generally available to the average DIYer. It's certainly a damned lot easier to hear the improvements than it might ever be to quantify the wheres and hows, or for that matter to agree upon the lexicon of audio tweak-speak to describe the event.
so for me, it becomes a matter of SD,STFU and listen
If that sounds a bit harsh and dismissive, I'll defend myself by reminding y'all that I've been listening to the results of the EnABL process for almost 2 years, and have borne witness to a lot of bandwidth and pixels wasted in the acrimonious pi$$ing contest between rigid objectivity and whatever you'd like to call its antithesis. I place myself in the "I don't give a fig how/why it works - for me it just does" camp
Any measurements between EnABLED vs stock ?
I've been into full range for several years now and would be very interested if there were measurements between a modified driver and a stock one. It migh help show in what area's the technique benifits the driver's performance. For example it might reveal diminished cone resonances, flatter frequency response, ect. Does such data exist yet ?
PJN
I've been into full range for several years now and would be very interested if there were measurements between a modified driver and a stock one. It migh help show in what area's the technique benifits the driver's performance. For example it might reveal diminished cone resonances, flatter frequency response, ect. Does such data exist yet ?
PJN
kristleifur said:
Pardon my cynicism, but having been around the block on this one a couple of times, I'd opine that many practitioners of regimented "bulletproof blind A/B testing" might be inclined to recant after discovering what they were listening to.
"Well, there must be something wrong with the test ( or) what else did you change? - 'cause I know that it (a few painted polka dots ) can't possibly make this kind of difference"
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.