I was wondering, was it near field measurement? How close? In normal rooms, it's almost impossible to get first reflections out of the 4ms window.
As has been mentioned, there is a thread specifically separated from the original (as was this one) that is for this purpose. What one hears has nothing to do with the purpose of this technical thread, the objective. The other thread (linked to by Bud) is intended for this, the subjective.Debate what you hear to your hearts content in that thread, that's what it is for.
It doesn't. It's been stated countless times now that modifying a driver may (or may not) make an audible difference. We know it can make a measurable difference. That should be obvious. That aspect is not disputed. The problem comes when all sorts of unsubstantiated claims are made as to the mechanism and changes in physical properties that have no basis whatsoever in the objective, yet is implied (or worse, presented) as such. This is again the case recently.
Since you asked, in addition it's also difficult because of the repeated and new claims that continue to be made that are presented as established fact or in such a way as to imply some sort of scientific basis and that should not be in an objective thread, such as the claims below. Note how it is couched as "surmise", nothing factually nor objectively based. It is all based as "we hear such-and-such, therefore it is (whatever is claimed)".
Who is the "we" who "surmised"?
What's the objective basis? This excludes "what we (think) we hear".
What objective evidence is there, for example, that "...these fences (edit: whatever that is) are created by transverse waves and that the ringing of these internal reflected waves creates some geometrical control over the steering mechanism..."? There is none. It's all nothing but conjecture based on what someone says they hear, before and after, based one what they think occurs. All based on ears, none of it based on any objective data, even though this is the 'technical thread".
And with all due respect, no one's ears are "technical". That belongs in the subjective thread, not this one. There is nothing objective in ears on which any technical claims can be made.
Dave
You're not getting it.......I sit ON the fence.......not on one side or the other. I've read both threads and feel I can post in either being my stance is as it is. You want see things first on paper and I want to hear them first is all.....ultimately we both want to know WHY it works.......assuming it does as claimed. Simmer down fellas
If I remember correctly, you used to make this claim or a very similar one, in the original thread. I don't care to waste time finding the posts and exact phrasing.
Not a claim that I recall anyone making, except maybe by you in this manner. Altered or shifted, yes, typical effects. The only comments by any on the objective side have been that it may make it sound different. Period. Better or worse is a subjective comment, not promulgated by any on the objective side.
Once again, completely without basis. The comment "intuitive and logical deduction" is your phrase, not once uttered by any on the objective side that I can recall. It's also another case of implied fact that you make, not that anyone on the objective side has made.
More conjecture and speculation, nothing based on facts nor evidence whatsoever. How many more mechanisms can you invent?
You have a propensity to make new, unsubstantiated supposedly objective claims that are, in fact, based on the subjective with each new long post, most of which has no place in this thread. You base almost all of it on what you claim to hear and in misinterpretation (some of which seems to be intentional) of most empirical evidence.
Dave
Last edited:
Sincere question: Does this suggest this thread is done excepting some new measurements that show enabl DOESN'T create measurable or detectable changes? I mean, if it's agreed that there ARE measurable changes that "may make it sound different," then isn't that the point of this thread? I can't think if any tweak, mod or change that wouldn't sound better to some, worst to others. The qualitative nature of a change like enabl is subjective and doesn't belong in this thread as I understand it.
I suppose there is the discussion about the mechanism. But if that's what's left, the I'd love to hear discussion about theories of mechanisms and HOW TO TEST those theories. Sadly, as I've said, I'm way beyond my abilities to get involved in that aspect, so I'll probably mostly be a quiet reader.
It should be, but it's not. It really started as a debate on the mechanism, then it ballooned.
I agree. Any quality change is for the other thread. Others and I have made the same points (a long time ago) that you do here.
There have been all kinds of thoughts on how to test. John K is the only one to properly address it. Part of the problem has been both refusal to accept what that showed and even use what appears to be willful misinterpretation of those results to support multiple unsubstantiated claims. These are then woven into new subjective discussion that they are an implied support of the new mechanism, the latter arrived at only due to conjecture, of course. There is no objective evidence to support any of the claimed mechanisms. The only truly objective data is John's and it is in support of the known mechanism of distributed added mass and damping, things that manufacturers have known and used for years. I've done similarly with my testing and found certain patterns that make a significant difference measurably, that I would call an improvement. None of it is new and none is due to any unknown mechanisms. If someone can prove otherwise, I'm all for it.
The newer claim by Bud, though, is that somehow an improvement in quality (subjective) is made despite some claimed worsening of the measurements as if this is objective support for some speculation on mechanism. Now it's moved to "the measurements don't change (much), but miraculously some (unknown) mechanism must be responsible because we hear an improvement".
It just never ends with "it makes a change that some will like and some will not". It always reverts to "there's some unknown mechanism making miraculous changes that no one yet knows how to measure".
Dave
By all means sir, enjoy life!
But let me point out that science has two sides - the rigorous deductive experimental address of hypotheses PLUS the creative, speculative, sometimes-half-baked-pie-in-the-sky process of generating testable hypotheses. What's the difference between a falling apple hitting your head and a dotted speaker playing in your ear? None, I would argue - both involve physical perceptions. What is the difference between an unproven hypothesis and one that is false? Infinite, I would argue. Have a good day.Frank
But I've seen none of the former and only the half baked pie in the sky. Bring on the evidence.By all means sir, enjoy life!
...wish I could help but I don't have any way to contribute (except to the other thread).
Watching the cones at work seems like a productive avenue to me...
F.
Last edited:
By all means sir, enjoy life!
Frank
I think that it's instructive to note that many here have cited science as the final arbiter of truth, yet have failed to study the History of Science, which is filled with examples of not only "sometimes-half-baked-pie-in-the-sky" ideas, but often even more far-fetched ideas, that were eventually vindicated.
Often, the only difference between a "Crazy Old Coot" and an "Eccentric Elderly Gentleman" is their bank account.
I've always thought of science as a process, whereby a hypothesis was put forward, no matter how half baked, and tested to see whether the theory was borne out in practice. However, I'm seeing lots of hypothesising, but no quantitative testing, just a lot of hand wringing in it's place. I've been watching this from the start, and have so far seen nothing that gives me any confidence that this process of enabl actually does do what it purports. And I bet in another few years the situation will not have changed.
There are many hypotheses that can't be tested directly but are still useful. Would Newton's gravitational run-in with the apple ever have been expected to be a foundation for the phenomenon of black holes? Many hypotheses have to wait for additional tools or theoretical modeling to be supported or debunked. It is conceivable that the best reason to understand the ENABL process may be yet to emerge - and could be outside of the general field of musical transduction. In the near-term, I imagine that the process could be further refined/controlled with the right kinds of data.
Not to be argumentative, but if you "have" heard a difference, but an exact mechanism is unknown, or what to test for is unclear, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
There have been theories that have been generally accepted for many years (even centuries), yet nobody had ever actually done rigorous testing until recently, only to find out that while the general theory is "OK", there were physical reasons that would have prevented the results from being what was supposed to have resulted.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Doesn't mean it did either, or anything heard was actually due to the supposed mechanism, or could have been something else. That's the point of testing, but that's like hard work rather than just hand waving mysticism about some possible as yet unknown affect from some materials science work. I'm not even seeing something offered that's really a credible possibility, which would still be reasonable in a Technical Discussion thread.
You're not looking for the Higgs Boson here.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.