Based on the measurement data I have already made available, it would be interesting to try these on Earl's OS wg. I personally do plan to try something like this as icing on the cake as the final means to reduce the honkiness of horns; but it's going to take a while to get there because there are more major issue with what I'm working on.
I know I've sais this before, but patterns like these are not majic-cure-all things; it's really necessary to have a good understanding on how and when to apply them. No single pattern is going to be optimum as well. But they will perform the function when used apprpiately.
I love to use solutions that very few people know how to get a handle on.
I know I've sais this before, but patterns like these are not majic-cure-all things; it's really necessary to have a good understanding on how and when to apply them. No single pattern is going to be optimum as well. But they will perform the function when used apprpiately.
I love to use solutions that very few people know how to get a handle on.
Please define the specific function explicitly and specify how one must use it to be appropriate. All I keep reading is that it performs a function and its application musts be specific, all nebulous claims without any supporting evidence other than pretty pictures. The only significant evidence has all been contradictory, all rejected by the believers, of course. The claims continue, but nothing else is provided.
Dave
sreten said:Hi,
FWIW you are flogging a dead horse.
No-one sensible is that dumb.
That is, no-one will set out to measure something that has
no physical explanation for, or prediction of the artifact of
the effect you are trying to measure. You want someone
to stumble around in the dark looking for something.
You insist there is something to be found, and therefore
will insist not finding anything is looking at it wrongly.
But you have no idea what should be looked for.
It is not logical. It is not the scientific method.
Are you really suggesting that no-one will measure cabinet EnABL if there is "no physical explanation for it or prediction of the artifact of the effect" being measured??
I insist only that there is an audible change - whether that is measurable or not remains to be seen.
dlr said:
dlr said:
After "literally years testing and measuring diffraction" you should have some idea as to "appropriate measurements" with regard to cabinet EnABL.
Cheers,
Alex
Alex from Oz said:
You missed the point. As has been said and is obvious to those with measurement experience, the measurements provided by john k are sufficient. You claim not and insist that "appropriate measurements" are required (whatever they may be and as yet undefined), directly stating that john's are insufficient. So again I say, define "appropriate" since you have dismissed those that have been provided as lacking somehow.
The ball is in your court to prove your point and refute the data in evidence. It must be more than simply dismissing it as insufficient. There's nothing credible in that position, quite the contrary, it indicates irrationality in the face of direct evidence.
Dave
I don't know what other significant evidence you are talking about. But it's easy to say that something is invisible and cannot be detected.dlr said:
So when I cannot measure a difference, but many people tell me very specifically what the difference is, I normally recheck my methods.I don't think you will get any answeres using provoking methods.
soongsc said:
I don't know what other significant evidence you are talking about. But it's easy to say that something is invisible and cannot be detected.
I didn't say other evidence, I'm referring to the measurements provided by john k. That is direct evidence, the only so far (for baffles at least), and it contradicts the claims. Not surprising since it's a ludicrous proposition to begin with.
We now also have another third party who has enabled and tested drivers, the single piece of equipment that can have an impact made on it, yet the report is that there is no significant audible change. Of course the believers immediately reject the result, since it's not in agreement with their belief.
This all has nothing to do with how you do things. You're implying that the data (measurements) provided are in error. They are not and are what a reasonable and experienced person would expect to see in measurements. The claims of audibility are fallacious. There's nothing remotely believable, not even close.
Dave
Sorry, but john k was never able to answer my questions directly. He would not show the data I thought was necessary to confirm that his tests had good enough resolution. So to me, that test is not valid. Rather than rely on tests that others did of which we do not know sufficient detail of, it's best to do your own testing.dlr said:
dlr said:
I had a look on your website and found this article - Diffraction Effects and Amelioration with Felt.
Based on that, I propose the following as "appropriate measurements" to determine whether the effects of EnABL on cabinets is measureable:
1) Frequency Response graphs @ 1 metre
- on-axis
- 15 degrees off-axis
- 30 degrees off-axis
- 60 degrees off-axis
2) Time Domain graph @ 1 metre on-axis
3) Step Response graph @ 1 metre on-axis
4) Cumulative Spectral Decay (CSD, or Waterfall) plots @ 1 metre on-axis.
Cheers,
Alex
Alex,Alex from Oz said:
Anyone not open to reasoning of any kind will only accept his own opinion. Anyone reading this thread whom has knowledge will know what they should do based on the data presented. There will be lots of people that will accept what some other person said or what some book published without full understanding, and we just have to accept this reality.
I once asked a graduate student why he can represent a sensor with only a contant gain in his thesis, the answer was "because that's what the books say".
Some people will also feel lose of face if they did tests according to what other people layout.
So, really. If people understand and wish to know more, they will ask; if they just can't grasp the idea and have no engineering intuition, then they just won't budge with any amount of explanation.
The problem with the test that john k did is that we do not know whether the resolution of the equipment was good enough for the way he wanted to acquire data. In most cases like this, the mic has to be very sensitive, low noise, and mic preamp gain scaled such that the maximum ADC range is used. One way to determine this is to look at the baffle edge diffraction impulse and taking into consideration the off-axis response of the driver. A more simpler way would be to measure change in baffle edge diffraction right where it occurs and see if the pattern changes the diffraction profile and frequency content or not. I do not know why this approach was not taken since it places less requirements on the mic. But as we know, people whom have established a status in the audio world cannot afford to be wrong, especially not in a DIY forum.
Hi Alex,
John K's tests and theoretical analysis predicts the suggested
tests will not find anything. That is within the normal resolution
of such tests it will be impossible to the ascertain the difference
between an EnABLed and un-EnABLed speaker cabinet.
If you do not like this conclusion - tough. Nothing changes.
You want him to be wrong, sorry, that is not going happen.
/sreten.
John K's tests and theoretical analysis predicts the suggested
tests will not find anything. That is within the normal resolution
of such tests it will be impossible to the ascertain the difference
between an EnABLed and un-EnABLed speaker cabinet.
If you do not like this conclusion - tough. Nothing changes.
You want him to be wrong, sorry, that is not going happen.
/sreten.
soongsc said:
Soo... all you folks not willing to accept John K's, Daves', Sretens', etc. interpretation of these results... what's stopping you? You seem quick with criticism of the null hypothesis, yet woefully short on data supporting that rejection.
Have at it!! Design an experiment with the appropriate evaluation criteria, sample size, number of trials, internal controls, etc. No one is stopping you! We're all waiting.....
After all, you seem to dispute all of the technical findings to date, so until you actually produce some valid experimnetal data to the contrary, your musings, in this thread at least are, well, pretty darn irrelevant.
John L.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.