EnABL Processes

Status
Not open for further replies.
six of one and a half dozen of the other...

Bud while I really do like the sound of this suggestion of yours I think that technically it is the wrong thing to do. The equation that proves this is to long and complex for me to post here so you will have to trust me. Oh no, that does not work either. What shall we do? Someone save us. It seems impossible to divide the two camps. Who knows? Try it and see, no that just gets us back to where we started! Oh my I think that I need another beer.
 
john k... said:
Hardly a landslide.

Good thing it's not a competition.

pedroskova said:
...probably on the order of how many people have heard your loudspeakers.

Does not help no matter how good you felt typing it.

All:
We are discussing the logistics of two threads in the back room. How 'bout we all take a rest until the mods decide.

Unless of course you have something so valuable that it can't wait. :whazzat:
 
BudP said:


I have had it suggested to me that we split this thread at this point. This thread to remain the Quantitative based test and science oriented thread it has become. The new thread to be devoted to applications, subjective reports, DIY enthusiasms, unscientific and non rigorous questions and answers. Basically a Qualitative version of a nut's and bolt's of EnABL.

...

This split would require that only subjective posts and informational posts are allowed on the new thread, though certainly posts with links to the Quantitative thread would be allowed. Comments?

Bud

G'day Bud,

Great idea!

I think the tone of the new thread has to be one of open minded collaboration, sharing and respect - which should be very clearly stated in the first post.
I'm all for this because I feel that a lot of my practical contributions have been swamped by page after page of squabble and detailed scientific argument.

There is definitely a need for the 'science of EnABL' to be vigorously tested, argued and debated.
However, I think the majority of people are interested in discovering practical ways to maximise their listening enjoyment.

Perhaps it could be called something like 'Practical EnABL Processes' ?

Cheers,

Alex
 
In the most optimistic scenario enable is going to make some change to a speaker in your living room. If you find yourself distracted at work thinking about important points you need to make about enable/this thread/the splitting of this thread, do yourself a favor and call your kids or buy your wife flowers because you are losing perspective.

I know that sounds like I'm a total jerk, and it seems all I do is grump lately but after following this and the ariel thread for a year I hardly recognize this place. On the other hand I have to congratulate anyone who has every other part of their life so worked out they can think this argument is a big deal.
 
"We're from the government... we're here to help"

Cal Weldon said:
Alex,

As mentioned, we are discussing it. Let's give this a few hours.

Sounds like it's time to form a committee to discuss the advantageous and adverse aspects of online forum moderation evaluation and discussion criteria... "so tell us, how do you REALLY feel about this topic of discussion " ... ;) ;)

Cal Weldon said:
I think I have expressed my opinions as best I can so perhaps I will step back and just watch from this point unless there is concern in what I wrote.
I see you're also ^^^ unable to follow your own words :D :D

John L.
 
Re: Captian Kirk....

moray james said:
remember when Kirk was split in two, half pure good and half pure evil? Well can you really split something like this in two? Don't you need both sides to make a whole?

That is an interesting way to think of it, very apt, especially since some of the thread was directed towards reconciling (or not) perception with measured change.

I'm going to go out on a limb now ':rolleyes:', but I predict that this will effectively quash the objective discussion. This will make the majority here happy, anyway, since there is so much denial, even in the face of hard evidence not based on anecdote. Claims of many kinds can and will be made/re-made without discussion as to veracity and/or validity.

Most proponents of driver mods (that may include some objectivists and some subjectivists) and all proponents of solid surface mods (purely subjectivists) have mostly disdain for the objective, so they'll not have much to say in an objective thread. Having only anecdotal input, it won't belong in an objective thread.

In the end, if it's split, then the subjective thread will grow much longer and the objective thread will end after a short time. I suspect that this is desired by most in the current thread, anyway.

Dave
 
dlr,

I'm going to go out on a limb now '', but I predict that this will effectively quash the objective discussion. This will make the majority here happy, anyway, since there is so much denial, even in the face of hard evidence not based on anecdote. Claims of many kinds can and will be made/re-made without discussion as to veracity and/or validity.

Not if I can help it. I see no reason why those who work with applying the process to drivers would be any less interested in the objective investigation, than they are now. From my viewpoint a split just makes the application easier to keep within known limits with useful results. Those limits have already been pushed to new performance levels by Quantitative investigation. And, pushed further by Qualitative investigation.

There are a lot more drivers, with a much narrower range of intended usage to cover, in addition to a number of FR types I have finished with my investigation of, but am currently unwilling to post amidst the many argumentative posts that will quickly bury them.

Really Dave, the only way a Quantitative EnABL thread will fail, is if you and others who are demanding real, solid, engineering oriented results, go away. Having spent this much effort on a position I certainly approve of, the start of getting this interesting field of knowledge worked up into a useful tool for engineers, I would expect you to be involved as strongly as you already have been.

I just am of the opinion that folks who are not interested in posting with the level of rigorous, objective thought currently required, should have a place to ask their questions and post on their subjective responses too.

Bud
 
Status
Not open for further replies.