I have already published my tests. Time for others to publish theirs.auplater 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.
Feel free to ask questions after you have read them and the discussion. The phase change in my tests indicate the patterns do effect wave traveling along the surface. To what extent would it be audible? I really can't tell. But I know that in order for this method to have significant impact, more studies are necessary. I focus on other ways of solving similar problems, but do respect the efforts the EnABL supporters put in.
soongsc said:
I have already published my tests. Time for others to publish theirs.
I've read them... and the discussion. While your "tests" are valid for you, they are not generalizable to anyone else on a scientific basis. You fail to indicate any sort of design criteria, experimental setup details, confidence interval, all that jazz that makes scince and engineering science and engineering.
Seeing as this is the technical discussion thread, the data needs to be technically competent.
And by the way... it's NOT disrespectful to point out that subjective opinions stated as fact are not valid proof of anything.
Such ad hominem suggestions are inappropriate.
I think if my tests are questionable, no body has asked any questions that I did not answer very specifically. So please be more specific in questions about the tests I have presented if you are serious and technically competent.auplater said:
Regarding design criteria? This is not my pattern, if you really want consulting in this area, please contact me in private to finalize a consulting contract.
John's tests were an effort to maximize the impact in the measurement and I believe them to be correct. Enable does essentially nothing on a port or a baffle. It will be inaudible, of that I have no doubt, not from your implication of not being able to grasp an idea or having no engineering intuition. I am a degreed EE. You tend to take cheap shots through implication at anyone who will not accept your approach or suggestions. I accept facts that can be supported and duplicated. I do not believe that your tests showing phase change can be duplicated except with respect to a change in FR for a driver. That's outside of this discussion on baffles. Without doubt John's test could be easily duplicated, but in this case there's no need.soongsc said:
I have already published my tests. Time for others to publish theirs.
Even if there were some phase change, after many studies it's not even accepted that anyone can hear the phase change introduced by a 4th order crossover, so whatever change you may think occurs, it would without doubt also be inaudible. This is really nothing more than people searching for a reason to continue believing an idea that is ludicrous on its face and that shows through proper testing to be nearly infinitesimal in impact (edit) when applied on a port or baffle.
Dave
If you can point to the data specifically and elaborate on it, it would be much appreciated.sreten said:
Hi,
Your talking nonsense.
Your JX92S tests do not suggest anything not explainable by normal
physics and are categorically inapplicable to speaker cabinet EnABL.
I find your attitude tedious, the above has all been said before.
soongsc said:
What's to prove? That added mass will alter the FR? We know that, it's never been in dispute. Well, except that for some time many believed that there was a change in the sound without there being a change in the FR of a driver, even in the face of measurements demonstrating a change.
Dave
/sreten.
Gentlemen,
You've missed the point.
I have never disputed the results of john k's tests.
However, I have stated clearly in Post #130 that john k's application of the EnABL pattern to his test baffle is not consistent with the application that I have described.
john k's test in Post #123 employed both an incorrect block size AND incorrect positioning of the pattern relative to the edge of the test baffle.
On that basis, the test setup is fundamentally flawed as far as it applies to the application of EnABL to baffles.
Now carefully read john k's Post #237. In his own words "My tests were never really aimed at diffraction or ports."
Therefore my issue is with those who would claim john k's results as definitive for a purpose other than what he intended to demonstrate.
Now go back and read again what I said in Post #675 and follow the links.
The tests I proposed as "appropriate" are in fact IDENTICAL to the ones that dlr provides on his website.
It is obvious to dlr that those measurements are "appropriate" for analysing changes to baffle diffraction.
Therefore, they are also "appropriate" for determining whether the effects of the EnABL pattern applied to a baffle are able to be measured.
I would just like to see whether the audible effects of EnABL on cabinets are measurable - that's all.
Cheers,
Alex
You've missed the point.
I have never disputed the results of john k's tests.
However, I have stated clearly in Post #130 that john k's application of the EnABL pattern to his test baffle is not consistent with the application that I have described.
john k's test in Post #123 employed both an incorrect block size AND incorrect positioning of the pattern relative to the edge of the test baffle.
On that basis, the test setup is fundamentally flawed as far as it applies to the application of EnABL to baffles.
Now carefully read john k's Post #237. In his own words "My tests were never really aimed at diffraction or ports."
Therefore my issue is with those who would claim john k's results as definitive for a purpose other than what he intended to demonstrate.
Now go back and read again what I said in Post #675 and follow the links.
The tests I proposed as "appropriate" are in fact IDENTICAL to the ones that dlr provides on his website.
It is obvious to dlr that those measurements are "appropriate" for analysing changes to baffle diffraction.
Therefore, they are also "appropriate" for determining whether the effects of the EnABL pattern applied to a baffle are able to be measured.
I would just like to see whether the audible effects of EnABL on cabinets are measurable - that's all.
Cheers,
Alex
Alex from Oz said:
What the purpose of the test was isn't so important, it's the fact that they showed nearly insignificant changes in an impulse response. Keep in mind that all the talk about FR, CSD and any other measurement presentation is immaterial since they are all mathematically related to and, more importantly, derived from the impulse response. An MLS measurement system does not directly measure FR, it uses the MLS to derive the impulse response. From this derived impulse response all others are then possible.
John measured an impulse not to focus on diffraction, but to focus on the most essential aspect, the impulse response. If the impulse response does not show any significant alteration, then FR, CSD, they matter not. They are definitive with regard to the impact on a measurement, any measurement. FR and CSD are simply the same measurements transformed into another domain. It's hard for us to assess the transfer function of a driver in the frequency domain by looking at the impulse response, so we transform it into a form that allows us to view it in a more recognizable form.
But don't be mistaken, john's impulse response measurements are definitive.
Dave
Ah, the great debate starts again.
Fine. For you the case is closed. We get that by now. But the thread isn't, and there seem to be some who want to pursue this. Why get in their way, unless your purpose is merely to prevent any further explorations?
Carl
(skeptic who's willing to try it if he can only carve out some time...)
Carlp said:
I'm not getting in anyone's way. Anyone may make any measurements or technical analysis that they care to and then present it.
Part of the problem is essentially denying the hard data and analysis done previously, questioning it's applicability in order to dismiss it, denials of that notwithstanding. There's a lack of understanding (and certainly a lack of acceptance) of the data john presented. So far no one has provided any analysis counter to john's that has any validity. I simply rehashed it in a sense to attempt to clarify the concepts to those who misunderstand that data. Are you questioning any of it? If so, please explain what is incomplete or not correct and why.
This is not the subjective thread, however. Note that those "exploring" it are doing so in a purely subjective fashion, believing that they hear things, making no effort to "pursue" it objectively, yet pressing for others to do the work for them and misinterpreting the previous data and analysis. Were I to post objectively on the other thread (as I have however briefly) to disagree with assumptions made there (nothing but "I hear..."), my posts would be deleted (heresy; they have been deleted there, they have no tolerance for the objective in that thread).
Let's see those who wish to pursue it make and present evidence. So far all I see is postulating and dismissing the evidence as lacking with nothing on which to base the claim other than what they think they hear.
Bit please, pursue it to your hearts content. Take however much time of yours you care to, make a whole series of measurements, then show us your results with an analysis. I'd be pleased to see some new hard data with proper analysis to support whatever the position is. Then there's room to debate it further, objectively. I, however, am not going to take my time in that pursuit. Just leave the subjective out of it. There's another thread for that.
Dave
dlr,
I get that there have been data that have shown that there is no effect, at least under conditions that John set up. And I get that those data are pretty compelling. I and others don't reject John's work, just the conclusion that the case is absolutely closed. What I don't get is why anyone feels threatened that some people haven't given up seeking an explanation for something they feel very strongly they hear. There are a lot of people describing the effect as "not subtle," so even if it's placebo, it's understandable that they want to find an explanation.
And regarding speculation on a technical thread, what real scientific acheivement didn't start with speculation and observation? This thread wouldn't exist if speculation had to be left out absolutely, b/c without it we wouldn't have the physics the skeptics have used to "disprove" EnABL. Have you ever read Bronowski's Science and Human Values?
I'm reminded of that physicist who, upon watching salt grains leave bubble trails in his super-CO2-saturated beer, came up with the idea of the bubble chamber. Or the tale of Newton and the apple. Making connections between or among seemingly unrelated things to come up with truly creative science.
So why does anyone care if some people seem deluded? Many important scientists have been thought deluded (check this out for a sample: http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html).
Carl
(edited for better quote)
I get that there have been data that have shown that there is no effect, at least under conditions that John set up. And I get that those data are pretty compelling. I and others don't reject John's work, just the conclusion that the case is absolutely closed. What I don't get is why anyone feels threatened that some people haven't given up seeking an explanation for something they feel very strongly they hear. There are a lot of people describing the effect as "not subtle," so even if it's placebo, it's understandable that they want to find an explanation.
And regarding speculation on a technical thread, what real scientific acheivement didn't start with speculation and observation? This thread wouldn't exist if speculation had to be left out absolutely, b/c without it we wouldn't have the physics the skeptics have used to "disprove" EnABL. Have you ever read Bronowski's Science and Human Values?
I'm reminded of that physicist who, upon watching salt grains leave bubble trails in his super-CO2-saturated beer, came up with the idea of the bubble chamber. Or the tale of Newton and the apple. Making connections between or among seemingly unrelated things to come up with truly creative science.
So why does anyone care if some people seem deluded? Many important scientists have been thought deluded (check this out for a sample: http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html).
Carl
(edited for better quote)
One thing I would like to say. We keep on saying we can measure things we hear. That entire idea is pure nonsense. Today we have test equipment with frequency response, dynamic range and sensitivity far greater than the human ear. We look for measurements that categorize what we hear such as various distortion measurement and so fourth. People continually argue that such measurement don't reveal the truth. However, if, for example, you think a cap or coil or resistor or op amp in a circuit or crossover changes what you hear then take a continuous time measurement of the output of the system with and without the change. Then look at the difference signal. Ask, is there a difference? If so how many dB below the reference? The reference can be anything you wish to use as a test signal, for example real recorded music. If we are talking about changes in the electrical system which applies the signal to the speaker we can remain on the electrical side, measuring the time continuous voltage and current applied to the driver. God forbid, but for sure some one would argue that, even if the signals were identical after a component was changed, that there was a difference because the spin of the electrons was different.
Audio, and in particular high end audio, was founded on the belief that we can not measure the differences we hear. That might have been the case in the 60's or 70's but today it is nothing more than a historic bias which is totally unfounded. It is simple ridiculous today to hold onto that belief. We may not know what types of distortion measurement (THD, IM TIM, ...) and such would reveal differences that are audible, but we can, for sure, measure differences in the time continuous output of a system, if they exist.
Audio, and in particular high end audio, was founded on the belief that we can not measure the differences we hear. That might have been the case in the 60's or 70's but today it is nothing more than a historic bias which is totally unfounded. It is simple ridiculous today to hold onto that belief. We may not know what types of distortion measurement (THD, IM TIM, ...) and such would reveal differences that are audible, but we can, for sure, measure differences in the time continuous output of a system, if they exist.
Carlp said:
Carl, we aren't exactly dealing with unknown physical processes here. We are talking about dabs of paint of a speaker cone, baffle, port..... The physics involved is pretty well understood. There aren't any Noble prizes up for grabs here. I don't mean to sound condescending but this is more about those who are educated and those who speculate in the absence of knowledge.
When I was testing some caps made here, I actually did measure them and showed the trend the the supplier. We actually narrowed down to a specific lot of material from a specific source. So I have no doubt that caps make a difference. Because the manufacturer was surprised that we were the first to send them data explaining why certain caps were graded better, they actually sent us more variety than we expected, one of which was rated a 7.5 at Tony's site (that was not our choice)john k... said:
As a matter of fact, whenever I here difference in anything, I always try to find consistent measurement data. Most of the time there is a consistent trend.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.