EnABL Processes

[dlr]

Originally posted by moray james
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 '', 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

[BudP]

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

[Cal Weldon]

Ok I'll open two new threads and will report back when done.

[Cal Weldon]

New threads are open:

Listening impressions
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...31#post1460031

and Technical discussions
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...32#post1460032

Any posts not related to topic in the new threads will simply be deleted at the moderators discretion and not moved to the other thread.

This thread is now closed. Enjoy the new digs.