John,
I'm not sure you're quite understanding the proponents (I'm neither pro nor anti so far, just trying to be a ref). I think what the proponents are saying is "I hear a BIG difference, and the ideas and data that have been brought forth so far don't do justice to what I'm hearing." Could be they are hearing what they want to hear. Could be they are actually hearing that big a difference and the explanations thus far don't explain that difference. I think most "proponents" don't want to be told they're making it up, and any approach that suggests that is going to fall on (ehemmmm...) deaf ears. As for the other side, I hear people looking at data and theory and stating (without hearing) that the theories that seem to apply wouldn't make such a big difference (both sides saying the same thing). Then there's Bud's attempts to explain what's happening and the reactions that generates.
Carl
Is it real, or is it memorex?
Carl...
I guess you don't accept screening experimental designs ( such as ANOVA) as valid methods to determine whether responses to changes made are artifacts of perception or meet the requirements of whatever criteria the experimenter chooses to evaluate such changes, eh?
John L.
Carl...
I guess you don't accept screening experimental designs ( such as ANOVA) as valid methods to determine whether responses to changes made are artifacts of perception or meet the requirements of whatever criteria the experimenter chooses to evaluate such changes, eh?
John L.
John,
I guess you haven't read my posts. I DO accept such tests if well designed, but if you know anything about ANOVA and related statistical approaches, then you know how easy it is to violate the myriad of model assumptions they are built upon and generate invalid data.
So are you saying such testing has been done on EnABL? I don't recall seeing any. Until I do, what I said stands. Without those tests, you don't know any better than I if what people are reporting is placebo or not, and if you think you do based on acoustical theory alone, then you are fooling yourself and not very objective.
Carl
I guess you haven't read my posts. I DO accept such tests if well designed, but if you know anything about ANOVA and related statistical approaches, then you know how easy it is to violate the myriad of model assumptions they are built upon and generate invalid data.
So are you saying such testing has been done on EnABL? I don't recall seeing any. Until I do, what I said stands. Without those tests, you don't know any better than I if what people are reporting is placebo or not, and if you think you do based on acoustical theory alone, then you are fooling yourself and not very objective.
Carl
CarlP,
John L has a very flashy set of ribbon / planar drivers as his personal reference. His one audition of an EnABL'd set of drivers was for 10 minutes, at a DIY show, at the end of the day. No before or after, no ANOVA. He may or may not be basing his claims of placebo effects upon that experience. As for the rest of his comments, they are correct, except for the assumption that arguments, arising from other folks more extensive experiences with EnABL, are solely for obfuscation.
sreten,
You got it wrong again. That was a verbal description of the events that occurred as I applied the EnABL patterns to a pair of Jordan JX92S drivers. One ring set at a time. I do apologize for the inadequacy of my descriptions, but I would also be apologizing for the inadequacy of my tests, were that what I used to provide the where and what that EnABL always provides, except in the extremely rare cases where it hasn't.
Bud
John L has a very flashy set of ribbon / planar drivers as his personal reference. His one audition of an EnABL'd set of drivers was for 10 minutes, at a DIY show, at the end of the day. No before or after, no ANOVA. He may or may not be basing his claims of placebo effects upon that experience. As for the rest of his comments, they are correct, except for the assumption that arguments, arising from other folks more extensive experiences with EnABL, are solely for obfuscation.
sreten,
You got it wrong again. That was a verbal description of the events that occurred as I applied the EnABL patterns to a pair of Jordan JX92S drivers. One ring set at a time. I do apologize for the inadequacy of my descriptions, but I would also be apologizing for the inadequacy of my tests, were that what I used to provide the where and what that EnABL always provides, except in the extremely rare cases where it hasn't.
Bud
Claims
Who's at who? What are you talking about "they"? You sound paranoid....
Never said ANOVA (or any other properly {or improperly designed, for that matter} statistical tests have been done. I believe Stuart (SY) is perhaps doing just that, but we haven't heard from him in awhile. In fact, if you read MY posts, that is precisely my point. And I never said I know what causes the effects people claim to be hearing, I've always said that what they hear applies to their experience only and not anyone else's until such testing proves otherwise.
Yet, believers make concrete statements about what causes what is occurring with NO DEFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the possibility of placebo, expectation, anticipation, etc. as a possible cause (and fight tooth and nail against ANY suggestion that such effects should be included in evaluation criteria), when, as you should know if you've ever done an honest well designed multivariant experimental analysis on most anything should at least be ruled out.
I believe you completely mis-represent my position. Not appreciated.... I'd actually like to believe something like EnABL might work, I've heard as much of an audition as anyone else has rigourously (or not) described here.
Bud, I don't believe statements are solely made for obfuscation. If my words implied that, I apologize. I do believe there is a lack of adherence to generally accepted jargon for communicating such concepts as boundary layers, resonance, wave propagation, added mass, and all the other buzzwords being bandied about... this only seems to obscure any honest exploration of the cause and effect.
John L.
Graham Maynard said:
Who's at who? What are you talking about "they"? You sound paranoid....
Carlp said:
Never said ANOVA (or any other properly {or improperly designed, for that matter} statistical tests have been done. I believe Stuart (SY) is perhaps doing just that, but we haven't heard from him in awhile. In fact, if you read MY posts, that is precisely my point. And I never said I know what causes the effects people claim to be hearing, I've always said that what they hear applies to their experience only and not anyone else's until such testing proves otherwise.
Yet, believers make concrete statements about what causes what is occurring with NO DEFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the possibility of placebo, expectation, anticipation, etc. as a possible cause (and fight tooth and nail against ANY suggestion that such effects should be included in evaluation criteria), when, as you should know if you've ever done an honest well designed multivariant experimental analysis on most anything should at least be ruled out.
I believe you completely mis-represent my position. Not appreciated.... I'd actually like to believe something like EnABL might work, I've heard as much of an audition as anyone else has rigourously (or not) described here.
Bud, I don't believe statements are solely made for obfuscation. If my words implied that, I apologize. I do believe there is a lack of adherence to generally accepted jargon for communicating such concepts as boundary layers, resonance, wave propagation, added mass, and all the other buzzwords being bandied about... this only seems to obscure any honest exploration of the cause and effect.
John L.
Carlp said:
Oh, I think I understand them very well. I'm just the stubborn type. I actually believe that it I place a mic out in space which has greater sensitivity than the human ear and make a couple of measurements, all things being equal but a single parameter, and the measurements are different, then that is the difference between the two "signals" that enter the ear canal as well. I'm not particularly interested in the adjectives and adverbs used to describe the effect. The differenced heard are a result of the differences measured. It's not the first time that beliefs have been given credence over reality.
auplater
John,
I do think that most of the misunderstandings that occur, over the use of descriptions of boundary layers, mass loadings, etc., lie at my door, not anyone else's. My use of these terms, in my typically elliptical descriptions, are not based upon any rigorous understanding of the accepted definitions, or their correct usage and sreten, dlr, John K, yourself and others, are absolutely right to correct me, from an accepted jargon usage point of view.
I have not complained about these corrections, though some have been out at the extreme edge of the civil / rude discourse boundaries.
My entire intent, as soon as the challenges began to arrive, has been to point out, that what I find in EnABL'd drivers does not fit comfortably, in my mind, within the boundaries of the physics known and applied. I actually have a reasonably good understanding of all that John K has provided. His understanding is far more advanced than was the generally accepted theory, until fairly recently. The problems arise because I still do not see how to fit a description of a treatment event, as I posted recently and the audibly obvious changes in character brought on by the individual steps, with even John's advanced model of the actual physics involved.
This is, I am sure, just a pointer towards my ignorance. I accept that most of the dispute can be laid at this door, but still, what John points to as the likeliest outcome of EnABL blocks, does not square with my findings. No doubt I am guilty of harboring significant amounts of placebo effect, since I know exactly what to expect from a treated driver. But, if others had not reported effects that were reflected in my own experience, without my having told them what to expect, in a number of cases, in a number of threads, I wouldn't be so tenacious in holding out for explanations that do cover these placebo strained events, from my personal experiments.
Thank you for your comments. I do value your input and I do realize that many of your comments are tongue in cheek portrayals. I also realize they come from an honest concern that this awkward procedure for treating speakers, receives an honest and fair evaluation. After all, if what I report about the treatment of specific speakers is actually correct, in a qualitative sense, it does point to some possibilities for much more rigorous exploration. Soongsc has already slipped down that path, almost completely unnoticed, in the fracas. I think everyone would be smart to look at his recent postings of test results and think about what they point to.
Bud
OT, have you read Elizabeth Moon's book "The Speed of Dark"?
John,
I do think that most of the misunderstandings that occur, over the use of descriptions of boundary layers, mass loadings, etc., lie at my door, not anyone else's. My use of these terms, in my typically elliptical descriptions, are not based upon any rigorous understanding of the accepted definitions, or their correct usage and sreten, dlr, John K, yourself and others, are absolutely right to correct me, from an accepted jargon usage point of view.
I have not complained about these corrections, though some have been out at the extreme edge of the civil / rude discourse boundaries.
My entire intent, as soon as the challenges began to arrive, has been to point out, that what I find in EnABL'd drivers does not fit comfortably, in my mind, within the boundaries of the physics known and applied. I actually have a reasonably good understanding of all that John K has provided. His understanding is far more advanced than was the generally accepted theory, until fairly recently. The problems arise because I still do not see how to fit a description of a treatment event, as I posted recently and the audibly obvious changes in character brought on by the individual steps, with even John's advanced model of the actual physics involved.
This is, I am sure, just a pointer towards my ignorance. I accept that most of the dispute can be laid at this door, but still, what John points to as the likeliest outcome of EnABL blocks, does not square with my findings. No doubt I am guilty of harboring significant amounts of placebo effect, since I know exactly what to expect from a treated driver. But, if others had not reported effects that were reflected in my own experience, without my having told them what to expect, in a number of cases, in a number of threads, I wouldn't be so tenacious in holding out for explanations that do cover these placebo strained events, from my personal experiments.
Thank you for your comments. I do value your input and I do realize that many of your comments are tongue in cheek portrayals. I also realize they come from an honest concern that this awkward procedure for treating speakers, receives an honest and fair evaluation. After all, if what I report about the treatment of specific speakers is actually correct, in a qualitative sense, it does point to some possibilities for much more rigorous exploration. Soongsc has already slipped down that path, almost completely unnoticed, in the fracas. I think everyone would be smart to look at his recent postings of test results and think about what they point to.
Bud
OT, have you read Elizabeth Moon's book "The Speed of Dark"?
john k... said:
Is not the collapsing of all the non-linear components into "distortion + noise" not aking to the single number THD numbers that are thrown around with electronics... a totally useless metric unless accompanied by the spectrum?
The tests that dlr pointed too look to be much more useful than typical tests, but they don't directly tell you much about the little signal -- how much of a signal way down is left intact -- and audible -- in the presense of the primary stimulus.
dave
John K,
OK, I think you misunderstood my post. I'm simply saying that there's a disconnect between the theory as you and others have stated it and what "proponents" hear. To that end, I see two possibilities right now. One, what the proponents are hearing is in their heads (of course, at the biological level - which is my language - isn't it ALWAYS in our heads
) or two, that the theory doesn't actually capture what's going on. I don't claim to have a clue about which is right. But I do suspect the reason there is such intractable differences is that proponents don't accept that the theory explains what they hear, and the other side doesn't accept that there could be something else going on - and the result is like the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object.
It was my vain hope that understanding this might help cut through the back and forth a little...
Carl
OK, I think you misunderstood my post. I'm simply saying that there's a disconnect between the theory as you and others have stated it and what "proponents" hear. To that end, I see two possibilities right now. One, what the proponents are hearing is in their heads (of course, at the biological level - which is my language - isn't it ALWAYS in our heads
) or two, that the theory doesn't actually capture what's going on. I don't claim to have a clue about which is right. But I do suspect the reason there is such intractable differences is that proponents don't accept that the theory explains what they hear, and the other side doesn't accept that there could be something else going on - and the result is like the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object.It was my vain hope that understanding this might help cut through the back and forth a little...
Carl
Hi Alex,
Physical capabilities have not been with me recently to make driver investigations I would like to do for myself regarding centre caps, let alone anything related to EnABL.
It might well be the case that anyone looking for EnABL induced difference will observe more noticeable results during music energisation than when using formal test-bench type methods.
This because of coincidential air motion with delayed (jittering) energies plus on going drive, instead of single action impulse analysis or single frequency energisation in (non-music) time isolation or after response stabilisation.
One mono source, two mics and one pre/stereo amp will provide that difference signal, and you know what -
it could even be recorded as a music file (say 'L' original drive; 'R' difference) and posted so that *everyone* can be in no doubt as to any action due to the EnABL pattern alone or not !
No assumptions.
No seriously derogatory personally aimed comments. (Shoot the messenger instead of patiently trying to interpret/understand his words.)
And - LOL - no 'wagers' !
Cheers .............. Graham.
Physical capabilities have not been with me recently to make driver investigations I would like to do for myself regarding centre caps, let alone anything related to EnABL.
It might well be the case that anyone looking for EnABL induced difference will observe more noticeable results during music energisation than when using formal test-bench type methods.
This because of coincidential air motion with delayed (jittering) energies plus on going drive, instead of single action impulse analysis or single frequency energisation in (non-music) time isolation or after response stabilisation.
One mono source, two mics and one pre/stereo amp will provide that difference signal, and you know what -
it could even be recorded as a music file (say 'L' original drive; 'R' difference) and posted so that *everyone* can be in no doubt as to any action due to the EnABL pattern alone or not !
No assumptions.
No seriously derogatory personally aimed comments. (Shoot the messenger instead of patiently trying to interpret/understand his words.)
And - LOL - no 'wagers' !
Cheers .............. Graham.
sreten said:
Join the club - they've got jackets.
If the best you can come
up with to improve a pair of white van speakers it sticking magic bits
of tape into the ports you are very hard to take credibly.
Search this thread.
You have no experience with EnABL
You have provided no scientific input
You have provided no subjective evidence of any kind
You have not contributed anything except rhetoric and personal attacks
Based on your posts in this forum, it appears that you are very hard to take credibly.
Cheers,
Alex
Graham Maynard said:
G'day Graham,
You have just reminded me of an idea that I had a few days ago.
The application of EnABL pattern using the magic tape and duct tape blocks is easy to remove, but effective when in place.
Here's my idea:
- Use magic tape and duct tape to EnABL a baffle and/or ports
- Set up a hi-fi stereo video camera at the listening position
Now, with the video camera recording continuously throughout:
1. Play some music through the speakers
2. Remove the EnABL magic tape strips
3. Play the same music again
Then post the video online so everyone can view and listen.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Alex
- Status
- Not open for further replies.