Cupped sound.
I think it is definitely caused by a large whizzer, reminding me of the pioneer b20's sound also.
The large fane I have does it a little too.
Maybe a CSD (waterfall plot) would show what is going on.
I'm sure the enabled process lowers micro resonances, allowing a more detailed sound.
I think it is definitely caused by a large whizzer, reminding me of the pioneer b20's sound also.
The large fane I have does it a little too.
Maybe a CSD (waterfall plot) would show what is going on.
I'm sure the enabled process lowers micro resonances, allowing a more detailed sound.
Unlikely. The detail is lost as soon as you capture a small portion of the output (of your system in your room) of the speaker is captured by the microphone. A huge loss of information there. As well one of the prime identifying factors of an EnABLed speaker is the ability to throw a 3D image/soundstage (if on the recording). This will be immediately lost.
The 1st time i compared stock to treated i listened for hours to be able to pick out the differences. Now, listening for the change in image/soundstage it is easy & quick to choose the treated speaker in a blind or double blind test.
dave
Hi,
I knew you were going to trot out that drivel. Your claiming
whatever advantages you can hear cannot be sampled.
Self justifying (non)arguments are just so tedious.
The measurements will be extremely boring as you well know.
However I trust xrk971 to be honest about any subjective differences.
And if there are, honest about whether his files reflect them.
Of course you could claim no non EnABLed speaker could ever
reproduce the quality of an EnABLed speaker, that is the sort
of circular nonsense BudP really excels at.
rgds, sreten.
The shortcomings of xrk's online comparisons are not drivel.
I can't say that, but i can say that i have not yet had a speaker i haven't been able to improve.
dave
xrk; as to the minidsp affecting sound quality, IINM the consensus is it's the onboard DACs that are the bottleneck - the nano with outboard DACs get much better press hereabouts, including I think from Bob Brines
sreten; I think there's a lot of folks who find any measurements not boring - whether they reveal or not what you think you're looking for until you see it, is another story.
sreten; I think there's a lot of folks who find any measurements not boring - whether they reveal or not what you think you're looking for until you see it, is another story.
Hi,
The measurements will be near enough identical - not interesting.
Unless I'm wrong, and they reveal EnABL's so far hidden glories.
rgds, sreten.
If rubber tube rings are not used in the blind tests I am not interested in participating. They reduce the microfakery resulting in a more 3D soundstage. OFC rubber rings work best but they are difficult to find. The results will surely be skewered!
I think the 12LTA on OB with a nice CD + waveguide should be included in the tests too... On top of H-frames - just so we can be sure to compare apples to apples.
I think the 12LTA on OB with a nice CD + waveguide should be included in the tests too... On top of H-frames - just so we can be sure to compare apples to apples.
Attachments
I think microphones are used to record a performance and we listen to recorded music. A driver in a speaker driven by an amp does it job by playing the music that was recorded by the mic. I think a good mic is probably better than our ears can hear. That is, the mic and recording process are not the limiting factor. It's generally the speaker or driver. The amp if good will be transparent and have very little frequency response fluctuations or harmonic distortion that is as high as the speaker. The speaker/driver is the rate limiting component so I think a mic will capture any audible changes.
While I've never actually listened to any of xrk's or anyone else's sound files, my concern would be that no matter how "accurate" or resolving they might be, how do I go about factoring out the sound of the speakers through which they'd be playing? In my case most likely a pair of small nearfied monitors - which happen to be FF85WKs. .
Don't say "use a good pair of headphones" - a format of listening which I loathe for all but most inclement conditions (airplanes), and what exactly is the minimum benchmark for those anyway?
Don't say "use a good pair of headphones" - a format of listening which I loathe for all but most inclement conditions (airplanes), and what exactly is the minimum benchmark for those anyway?
You have to use a good pair of headphones to factor out the sound of your cheap loudspeakers. Good pair of headphones are identical to a very good pair of loudspeakers.
There is no minimum benchmark for headphones, much the same as there is no minimum benchmark for loudspeakers - your FF85WK is the proof of that.
Please do not down-rate the effort and splendid contributions of xrk971. At least borrow a good pair of headphones and listen to his files, you will be pleasantly surprised.
There is no minimum benchmark for headphones, much the same as there is no minimum benchmark for loudspeakers - your FF85WK is the proof of that.
Please do not down-rate the effort and splendid contributions of xrk971. At least borrow a good pair of headphones and listen to his files, you will be pleasantly surprised.
I got some good entertainment from Bud's rambling nonsense psychobabble. It got increasingly more entertaining as time went on. Here's some of my very favorite Bud quotes.
He advocated treating not only the driver but also the cabinets inside and out, the ports and even the room walls. And he claimed the room modes would just go away.
I found Bud's craziness pretty entertaining and benign because he wasn't selling anything. i even tried to politely bait him into claiming this nonsense would actually measurably eliminate room modes but he wouldn't go that far. He said they would improve coherency and intelligibility but maybe not provide any measurable effect especially if the room was not already treated.
On occasion I've wondered why Dave hasn't enabl'ed his cabs and room walls and furniture and windows in any of the pictures he posts. (The answer should be pretty clear.)
The whole enabl argument is pretty interesting. With one set of drivers sent by P10 to the most notorious and extremely trustworthy detractors he could have crushed the "enabl is junk science" offensive movement in a couple of months. Instead the argument has been raging for years now.
The set of enabl'ed drivers could be sent to one person (like John Kreskovsky), that person could send it along to the next (like MJK) and others who have claimed enabl does nothing other than a couple grams worth of mass loading. Within a short time all the most notable and trustworthy detractors could have been convinced that enabl was actually something more than nonsense.
On occasion I've wondered why Dave hasn't done this. (The answer should be pretty clear.)
The set of enabl'ed drivers could be sent to one person (like John Kreskovsky), that person could send it along to the next (like MJK) and others who have claimed enabl does nothing other than a couple grams worth of mass loading. Within a short time all the most notable and trustworthy detractors could have been convinced that enabl was actually something more than nonsense.
On occasion I've wondered why Dave hasn't done this. (The answer should be pretty clear.)
A recording listened to on headphones will tell you some things about speakers (bandwidth, neutrality wrt tonal balance) but they won't tell you about others (directivity). I don't say this to downplay XRK's efforts, but I also don't think they should be taken as the final word as far as driver comparisons (in their many facets) go.
Listening to a transducer's pickup of a transducer's sound through another transducer isn't really a substitute for having a pair of speakers to play with and optimize in (your imperfect) room.
Listening to a transducer's pickup of a transducer's sound through another transducer isn't really a substitute for having a pair of speakers to play with and optimize in (your imperfect) room.
Anytime you convert air/mechanical motions into electrical signals (or vis-a-versa) there is a significant loss of information. You are adding 2 more of these to the playback. And what gets lost 1st are the little things.
dave
Right and you told that more than once and we agree : ) get it whatever flawed or too cheap device's that exist in xrk971's setup then all drivers had same environment so competitors can be compared inside that round, its not a pro standard but in its same for all so we can dig into a research between them no matter recorded sound quality is lover than CD or whatever.
Also why worry anything that is lost in process many of your claimed favor drivers aren't worlds most smooth ones and in that add small new details : )
Actually like the look and decoration you make to drivers look forward see a pair in test.
What you lose with headphones (imaging, ambience) you gain by eliminating the sound of the room. They're a good reference for speaker development and there are a number of models which are a good base line (as in base, not bass!). There is a reason why pros use them for monitoring their recordings.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.