I think the problem with revealing or seeing something in the results of testing has already been touched upon. Low level detail is buried in measurements which reflect maximum response.
I suggest the plots that look worse are a clue: some level change has occurred...where did that energy go? Was the energy ever intended to be there?
Yea, I know...a bunch of open ended questions
Maybe there are measurement techniques that are up to the challenge.
I'm no expert, but my search leads me to believe there is a lot remaining to be discovered about difraction and sound wave propogation.
I suggest the plots that look worse are a clue: some level change has occurred...where did that energy go? Was the energy ever intended to be there?
Yea, I know...a bunch of open ended questions
Maybe there are measurement techniques that are up to the challenge.
I'm no expert, but my search leads me to believe there is a lot remaining to be discovered about difraction and sound wave propogation.
to "everyone" ( a little long)
It seems that this tread has been reduced to what some might consider offensive or petty. At some level, I agree with pretty much everyone here, including MJL.
ok, here's a little criticism for all ( I descriminate equally
) :
I'll start with MJL and other pragmatists:
I think you've missed the whole point to this discussion. The fact remains that just because we do not have the tools to quanitfy what we hear, it does not mean that what we hear is not different or improved. It just means that based on existing technology/equipment/techniques/or facilities, we cannot measure "it". Bud and others are stating their experiences, and looking for a complete explaination to the changes that people have heard. Try the EnABL process yourself or the $1.20" trick (for box speakers). Or listen to a Shun Mook or Mpingo tweaked system, with and without "tweaks". Or try the $1.20 trick on electronic enclosures yourself. then judge it for yourself. Until you try some of the ideas presented here, you will not have a basis for discussion, only for criticism. I agree with MJL, potentially damaging expensive drivers is a waste, so go get yerself some salvaged POS speaker and and try it.
to all the rest::
there has been a history of subjective vs. objective "testing" in audio for years. None of this should be new to any here. Trying to explain the EnABL process or the effects of it may seem a little far-fetched to some , even some with a scientific background. So if MJL is as his profile reads, a "tradesman",please cut him a little slack. At least he's attempting to wrap his head around something that may seem to be counter intuitive. And that's worthy in and of itself. It beats the dogma that many subscribe to, just taking word or experiences of someone else on face value. If a principle cannot be defended at this level, how could one expect to defend it at a professional level ? (eg: PhD defense, etc)
to all:
As long as rhetoric and personal attacks are minimized or non existent, and egos are removed from the situation there will always be the opportunity to learn. We should make good use of all opportunities.
What comes to mind is the story of those wacky Australians, Dr. Barry J. Marshall and Dr.J. Robin Warren who won the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery of "the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease". It wasn't so long ago (a couple of decades or so), when they suggested that bacteria was a significant cause of ulcers. They were ridiculed professionally, initially. I recall a 60 Minutes report about it , probably about 15 years ago. Poor old Mike wallace seemed like he couldn't believe his own ears.
Regardless of the ridicule and the lack of hard data (at that time), it is now accepted that they were right. Even by those who initially doubted them.
Morale of the story: All need to understand that there is the possibility that Bud et al are wrong. I happen to disagree with this as I have performed a few non-scientific" studies of my own and come to a similar result in much larger physical systems (loudspeaker enclosures eg: upon reading Sam Tellig's "$1.20 trick", where he suggested to try it, but never claimed anything, one way or the other).
So MJL and others , at some level, provide the opportunity to teach and explain. At some point it has to be done anyway.
to panomaniac:
I'd enjoy the oppportunity to do a study (perhaps to independently verify your outcomes). What do I need for hardware?(I'm poor so please, I hope not expensive). I think the idea of a laser or LED inferometer could be interesting. What about an accelerometer at loudspeaker enclosure boundaries as well?
Just some thoughts, and ideas. No offense intended towards any.
stew
It seems that this tread has been reduced to what some might consider offensive or petty. At some level, I agree with pretty much everyone here, including MJL.
ok, here's a little criticism for all ( I descriminate equally
) :I'll start with MJL and other pragmatists:
I think you've missed the whole point to this discussion. The fact remains that just because we do not have the tools to quanitfy what we hear, it does not mean that what we hear is not different or improved. It just means that based on existing technology/equipment/techniques/or facilities, we cannot measure "it". Bud and others are stating their experiences, and looking for a complete explaination to the changes that people have heard. Try the EnABL process yourself or the $1.20" trick (for box speakers). Or listen to a Shun Mook or Mpingo tweaked system, with and without "tweaks". Or try the $1.20 trick on electronic enclosures yourself. then judge it for yourself. Until you try some of the ideas presented here, you will not have a basis for discussion, only for criticism. I agree with MJL, potentially damaging expensive drivers is a waste, so go get yerself some salvaged POS speaker and and try it.
to all the rest::
there has been a history of subjective vs. objective "testing" in audio for years. None of this should be new to any here. Trying to explain the EnABL process or the effects of it may seem a little far-fetched to some , even some with a scientific background. So if MJL is as his profile reads, a "tradesman",please cut him a little slack. At least he's attempting to wrap his head around something that may seem to be counter intuitive. And that's worthy in and of itself. It beats the dogma that many subscribe to, just taking word or experiences of someone else on face value. If a principle cannot be defended at this level, how could one expect to defend it at a professional level ? (eg: PhD defense, etc)
to all:
As long as rhetoric and personal attacks are minimized or non existent, and egos are removed from the situation there will always be the opportunity to learn. We should make good use of all opportunities.
What comes to mind is the story of those wacky Australians, Dr. Barry J. Marshall and Dr.J. Robin Warren who won the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery of "the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease". It wasn't so long ago (a couple of decades or so), when they suggested that bacteria was a significant cause of ulcers. They were ridiculed professionally, initially. I recall a 60 Minutes report about it , probably about 15 years ago. Poor old Mike wallace seemed like he couldn't believe his own ears.
Regardless of the ridicule and the lack of hard data (at that time), it is now accepted that they were right. Even by those who initially doubted them.
Morale of the story: All need to understand that there is the possibility that Bud et al are wrong. I happen to disagree with this as I have performed a few non-scientific" studies of my own and come to a similar result in much larger physical systems (loudspeaker enclosures eg: upon reading Sam Tellig's "$1.20 trick", where he suggested to try it, but never claimed anything, one way or the other).
So MJL and others , at some level, provide the opportunity to teach and explain. At some point it has to be done anyway.
to panomaniac:
I'd enjoy the oppportunity to do a study (perhaps to independently verify your outcomes). What do I need for hardware?(I'm poor so please, I hope not expensive). I think the idea of a laser or LED inferometer could be interesting. What about an accelerometer at loudspeaker enclosure boundaries as well?
Just some thoughts, and ideas. No offense intended towards any.
stew
MJL21193 said:
I specifically asked people to take note of such differences with that first stab so the results should be taken with a grain of salt. However, if you look at the measurements from post #255 and on, two sessions each were it's own same condition. It was the #173 results that prompted further tests. So if one tries to interpret the data in the right sequence, one will find that each test session has it's own purpose. Anyone that has problems understanding, please feel free to ask.
I think you should work with the demo CLIO and see how much control you have over it.
It has some nice features, but some really needs upgrade. Just don't start accusing someone of something that they may not have had the intention of doing. Might end up in court.
Nanook,
Some people use the technique of using provoking words and sit back and have fun with the responses. We just have to learn if MJL is that kind or not.
I have tried to make people aware that the same pattern may not have the same effect on different drivers. For optimum application, each driver really needs to be tried. Not any easy task. We would not have to worry about this if the driver designers matched impedance between surround and cone, a luxury most manufactuers cannot afford.
Some people use the technique of using provoking words and sit back and have fun with the responses. We just have to learn if MJL is that kind or not.
I have tried to make people aware that the same pattern may not have the same effect on different drivers. For optimum application, each driver really needs to be tried. Not any easy task. We would not have to worry about this if the driver designers matched impedance between surround and cone, a luxury most manufactuers cannot afford.
Ed LaFontaine said:
Hi Ed,
I barged in here to accomplish one thing: to stir things up. Up till my arrival there hasn't been one opposing point of view. An opposing point of view or the posing of provocative questions are needed for the health of any civilized discussion. My effect here is wholly positive - it made everyone involved think, not just follow along.
I'm not one bit concerned with being right about anything. I merely point out some things that are are obvious to me that everyone else seems to ignore.
Careful re-reading of my posts will reveal my intention. At no point did I condemn the process, or even hint that the basis for it was flawed.
My tone here has been argumentative for a reason. To get a reaction here, you need to arouse an emotional response. Indeed, traffic on this thread has tripled since my incursion, it's to the good, is it not?
BTW, thanks for your sympathy, but it's not necessary.
Actually, I agree with John's questioning, and appreciate it, though perhaps not his manners. And, he has asked one very good question, though somewhat obliquely.
Why, if what we are doing with EnABL is removing "noise", are we not seeing a loss in signal strength of any appreciable amount?
The problem with objective tests are that they have no means for discrimination. By this I mean, we can see a change and we can equate the change to a frequency band and it's relationship to another frequency band, but that does not at all mean we can pin that change onto whether we can hear something better, within the information being presented. And the test is using s format that specifically limits the information content being transfered.
it seems to me that what we need is some sort of test for information coherence. If we are seeing little or no alteration in the objective tests we have to apply, and the alterations we are hearing are ones of information transfer coherence, then, without that "sort" of scope in our test regime we cannot expect the current test types to show anymore than they do.
What they are showing is that we are not damping the energy coming off of the driver. We are not changing frequency response, distortion levels, distribution of distortion make up, or amounts of emitted energy, so no sort of damping is occurring.
So if damping is not occurring then we must be reconstructing the original signal with a more coherent information transform than an unEnABL'd speaker can process.
Sonngsc's phase change results are then the only clue we have and these phase change results did not come with the appreciable frequency response alteration that the Hilbert transform requires.
I am beginning to think that the folks that claim that information transfer drives all energy transform have actually got the correct view of reality.
The lift in phase to a coherent and then back out of coherence point, without any notable frequency alteration, in the sequential steps that soonngsc shows, has to be related to information coherence, not the sorts of nondiscriminatory testing results provided by the rest of our currently available test suites. Not to say that the information they provide is worthless, at all. It is pointing out to us, quite clearly, that we are not using the correct tools.
I wish I knew what the rest of the correct tools were!
Bud
Why, if what we are doing with EnABL is removing "noise", are we not seeing a loss in signal strength of any appreciable amount?
The problem with objective tests are that they have no means for discrimination. By this I mean, we can see a change and we can equate the change to a frequency band and it's relationship to another frequency band, but that does not at all mean we can pin that change onto whether we can hear something better, within the information being presented. And the test is using s format that specifically limits the information content being transfered.
it seems to me that what we need is some sort of test for information coherence. If we are seeing little or no alteration in the objective tests we have to apply, and the alterations we are hearing are ones of information transfer coherence, then, without that "sort" of scope in our test regime we cannot expect the current test types to show anymore than they do.
What they are showing is that we are not damping the energy coming off of the driver. We are not changing frequency response, distortion levels, distribution of distortion make up, or amounts of emitted energy, so no sort of damping is occurring.
So if damping is not occurring then we must be reconstructing the original signal with a more coherent information transform than an unEnABL'd speaker can process.
Sonngsc's phase change results are then the only clue we have and these phase change results did not come with the appreciable frequency response alteration that the Hilbert transform requires.
I am beginning to think that the folks that claim that information transfer drives all energy transform have actually got the correct view of reality.
The lift in phase to a coherent and then back out of coherence point, without any notable frequency alteration, in the sequential steps that soonngsc shows, has to be related to information coherence, not the sorts of nondiscriminatory testing results provided by the rest of our currently available test suites. Not to say that the information they provide is worthless, at all. It is pointing out to us, quite clearly, that we are not using the correct tools.
I wish I knew what the rest of the correct tools were!
Bud
Panomaniac,
I am certainly willing. What do I have to buy?
A number of years ago Greg Mackie made their new laser interferometer and the services of Dave Bee available to me, on a time available format. I got one good look, with what ever signal they used, at a titanium dome with and without the EnABL process. I had no idea what I was seeing and Dave was pretty pressed for an explanation too. That opportunity disappeared because the machine suddenly left for Italy, to help a speaker company that Mackie Designs had acquired, along with Dave. The machine did not return, I think Dave did, but I have never been able to find him.
There are some very compelling, rather ancient video clips of distortion made apparent. Possibly we could do the same, but with some sort of mapping using coherent information as the test signal and the laser instead of dust, or seeds on a vibrating panel?
Bud
I am certainly willing. What do I have to buy?
A number of years ago Greg Mackie made their new laser interferometer and the services of Dave Bee available to me, on a time available format. I got one good look, with what ever signal they used, at a titanium dome with and without the EnABL process. I had no idea what I was seeing and Dave was pretty pressed for an explanation too. That opportunity disappeared because the machine suddenly left for Italy, to help a speaker company that Mackie Designs had acquired, along with Dave. The machine did not return, I think Dave did, but I have never been able to find him.
There are some very compelling, rather ancient video clips of distortion made apparent. Possibly we could do the same, but with some sort of mapping using coherent information as the test signal and the laser instead of dust, or seeds on a vibrating panel?
Bud
JX92S
soongsc,
I am unable to contact you via e-mail or pm due to probationary period still in effect. I have a pair of the Jordans in a TL and would like to discuss your work and experience with these drivers. PM or e-mail me. Bud has my e-mail if you have difficulty. Thanking you in advance.
richard
soongsc,
I am unable to contact you via e-mail or pm due to probationary period still in effect. I have a pair of the Jordans in a TL and would like to discuss your work and experience with these drivers. PM or e-mail me. Bud has my e-mail if you have difficulty. Thanking you in advance.
richard
John,
Why did you think this comment had anything to do with you? The preceding post's you also show, was my attempt to apologize to soongsc for your rather limited and preemptively rude manners, as the host, of sorts, to this thread. This is an Asian cultural tradition and my apology was the form used to establish that I felt he had been dishonored and was personally feeling disgraced by some of your behavior.
The quote I note above was not a snide remark about you. Rather a reinforcement of Nanook's commentary upon what we, as human animals, consider intelligence, because we have complex senses and are prone to rely upon them to our detriment. If anything that particular comment should show agreement with your entire thrust in this thread, not a snide dismissal of your importance or intelligence. I am sorry that you felt misused by it. It was not written with you in mind and I do value your input.
I will, however, continue to take exception to some of your attitudes and will continue to respond to those people I think you attack without either provocation or merit. I guarantee you, that when I find you are not acting in a sensible and civilized fashion, I will directly challenge your statements and ask for some form of change in your presentation.
Bud
Why did you think this comment had anything to do with you? The preceding post's you also show, was my attempt to apologize to soongsc for your rather limited and preemptively rude manners, as the host, of sorts, to this thread. This is an Asian cultural tradition and my apology was the form used to establish that I felt he had been dishonored and was personally feeling disgraced by some of your behavior.
The quote I note above was not a snide remark about you. Rather a reinforcement of Nanook's commentary upon what we, as human animals, consider intelligence, because we have complex senses and are prone to rely upon them to our detriment. If anything that particular comment should show agreement with your entire thrust in this thread, not a snide dismissal of your importance or intelligence. I am sorry that you felt misused by it. It was not written with you in mind and I do value your input.
I will, however, continue to take exception to some of your attitudes and will continue to respond to those people I think you attack without either provocation or merit. I guarantee you, that when I find you are not acting in a sensible and civilized fashion, I will directly challenge your statements and ask for some form of change in your presentation.
Bud
Ok let's leave all of the off topic stuff about my bad attitude and manners behind and press on.
I have heard it said that there is an improvement after the drivers were treated. Was any real time AB testing done? If testing is limited to human hearing (for now), then there should be proper listening tests. A well executed blind listening test is just as good (or better) than a measurement.
I did some testing of my own on a different topic, but one no less contentious. The details are in this thread. Read post #116:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98834&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=5
The actual tests took place here. Starts at post #332:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98834&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=14
I would be interested in a blind test where there are 4 well matched drivers, installed in exactly the same size, same material enclosure. Two of the speakers would be treated, two left untreated. From the same position (perhaps one on top of the other - this could be then reversed in subsequent tests), with the listener in a fixed position. The driver cones would have to be obscured with grill cloth, so that the listener would not know which was treated.
Under controlled circumstances, this would be a more conclusive test than a measurement.
I have heard it said that there is an improvement after the drivers were treated. Was any real time AB testing done? If testing is limited to human hearing (for now), then there should be proper listening tests. A well executed blind listening test is just as good (or better) than a measurement.
I did some testing of my own on a different topic, but one no less contentious. The details are in this thread. Read post #116:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98834&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=5
The actual tests took place here. Starts at post #332:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98834&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=14
I would be interested in a blind test where there are 4 well matched drivers, installed in exactly the same size, same material enclosure. Two of the speakers would be treated, two left untreated. From the same position (perhaps one on top of the other - this could be then reversed in subsequent tests), with the listener in a fixed position. The driver cones would have to be obscured with grill cloth, so that the listener would not know which was treated.
Under controlled circumstances, this would be a more conclusive test than a measurement.
John,
Approximately 25 years ago, a man that Bob Feldstein recommended, undertook to run this sort of blind test. The drivers I supplied him with were 6 inch Audax mid bass units, mounted in 6 inch diameter by 6 inch long cans, two untreated and two treated, both pairs mounted behind a grill foam material then available at Radio Shack.
I was not in attendance, no longer remember this mans name, do not have any of the supplied pieces, though they were kindly returned and only have a spotty memory of his results.
Two tests were conducted. The first comprised of "professionals" active in the audio field. I only remember that two dealers were in attendance, though he did list them all. The second were "people off the street" sorts. Housewife, mailman etc. There were two noted here that did stand out. They were both blind.
The comment I remember from the first group was that they could perceive an improvement. The two dealers were apparently quite negative about this perceived improvement. They felt that their ability to make money in audio would be curtailed by this EnABL process because the spread in quality between cheap and expensive systems would be narrowed dramatically.
The comments from the second group were more negative in that except for the two blind individuals, they could not detect much difference or improvement.
The blind individuals had a different view point from everyone else. Both of them said that one set of speakers provided enough information that they felt they could navigate within the space being portrayed. The other pair did not provide this level of information. The pair they trusted the information content from were the EnABL'd drivers.
I do not know the source material provided and cannot comment on the scientific rigor used, this is not my professional field. I only provide these comments to show that your suggestion has merit, and we would find out some sort of information from the test. And, to suggest the people who might best be asked to participate in the test you propose.
Bud
Approximately 25 years ago, a man that Bob Feldstein recommended, undertook to run this sort of blind test. The drivers I supplied him with were 6 inch Audax mid bass units, mounted in 6 inch diameter by 6 inch long cans, two untreated and two treated, both pairs mounted behind a grill foam material then available at Radio Shack.
I was not in attendance, no longer remember this mans name, do not have any of the supplied pieces, though they were kindly returned and only have a spotty memory of his results.
Two tests were conducted. The first comprised of "professionals" active in the audio field. I only remember that two dealers were in attendance, though he did list them all. The second were "people off the street" sorts. Housewife, mailman etc. There were two noted here that did stand out. They were both blind.
The comment I remember from the first group was that they could perceive an improvement. The two dealers were apparently quite negative about this perceived improvement. They felt that their ability to make money in audio would be curtailed by this EnABL process because the spread in quality between cheap and expensive systems would be narrowed dramatically.
The comments from the second group were more negative in that except for the two blind individuals, they could not detect much difference or improvement.
The blind individuals had a different view point from everyone else. Both of them said that one set of speakers provided enough information that they felt they could navigate within the space being portrayed. The other pair did not provide this level of information. The pair they trusted the information content from were the EnABL'd drivers.
I do not know the source material provided and cannot comment on the scientific rigor used, this is not my professional field. I only provide these comments to show that your suggestion has merit, and we would find out some sort of information from the test. And, to suggest the people who might best be asked to participate in the test you propose.
Bud
Two drivers as monopoles, each reproducing same signal.
One driver modified.
Microphone in front of each.
Reverse one mic phase and null mix to reveal the difference.
Or microphone between the drivers being driven in phase opposition and the level of one adjusted to generate the null.
Or for those with two still equal ears, sit between two drivers (one modified) reproducing the same mono program. Any difference will create a phantom sprite in the mono sound stage.
Of course the differences revealed cannot be said to be either desirable or undesirable, but at least they should be isolated.
Cheers ........ Graham.
One driver modified.
Microphone in front of each.
Reverse one mic phase and null mix to reveal the difference.
Or microphone between the drivers being driven in phase opposition and the level of one adjusted to generate the null.
Or for those with two still equal ears, sit between two drivers (one modified) reproducing the same mono program. Any difference will create a phantom sprite in the mono sound stage.
Of course the differences revealed cannot be said to be either desirable or undesirable, but at least they should be isolated.
Cheers ........ Graham.
BudP said:
Within this is one clue as to why we have trouble seeing what we are hearing... we are observing results in the frequency domain -- in both these cases a discrete Fast Fourier Transform removed from what we are hearing in the (continuous/analog) domain.
FFTs are very useful, but they are not the integral over infinity that is the Fourier Transform -- ie information is lost in the quantization process.
dave
BudP said:
I think that enough information can be collected from such a test to either validate the treatment or de-bunk it. It is, after all, not about how it measures, but how it sounds.
The listener can be anyone with a good sense of sound quality, soundstage presentation. It could even be you.
The important part is the control. The listener will have no clue as to which set he is listening to.
The typical layman, not in anyway versed on higher quality sound, could be a good judge. Interest, in this case, is the deciding factor.
MJL21193 said:
Before their untimely demise we indeed had 2 sets of Fonkens with such an arrangement. I am now busy at work creating a suite of drivers, which will be used with 3 sets of Fonkens for further tests. I will even break out Fuzzmeasure to get some (limited) test results. I also plan on taking advantage of some achitectural feaures of my measuring space to get some measures with extended LF response & hopefully some that extend lower in level.
dave
Bud,
Re: Re-ENaBLed EX3 .....work in progress.
First off I made an OB out of ply I had in the studio: This turned out to be 140cms x90cms x5mm. For the block pattern I used low tack masking tape; the type used in painting and decorating.Its semi-translucent.The two outer rings were applied as per-classic pattern apart from the outer blocks, which straddled the surround and cone - inspired by the way Dr Mamboni applied his felt triangles.
I did a lot of listening with just the two rings applied. Immediate impression is, less noise; I think the equation is simple: less noise = more music, it comes and goes of its own accord.Makes me very happy.
The above rings have been in place for about a week now. Today I applied four block pairs around the whizzer roll at approx 12, 12/15,12.30 and 12.45 o'clock. The sound! Its so beautiful! glorious, such emotions! .........Bud, Thank you.
Over the coming days and weeks I intend to complete the whizzer pattern slowly and also experiment with pattern placements - as suggested by Soongsc.
Eventually, when I've settled on a suitable pattern for the driver I intend to fix it with gold leaf.
Cilla
Re: Re-ENaBLed EX3 .....work in progress.
First off I made an OB out of ply I had in the studio: This turned out to be 140cms x90cms x5mm. For the block pattern I used low tack masking tape; the type used in painting and decorating.Its semi-translucent.The two outer rings were applied as per-classic pattern apart from the outer blocks, which straddled the surround and cone - inspired by the way Dr Mamboni applied his felt triangles.
I did a lot of listening with just the two rings applied. Immediate impression is, less noise; I think the equation is simple: less noise = more music, it comes and goes of its own accord.Makes me very happy.
The above rings have been in place for about a week now. Today I applied four block pairs around the whizzer roll at approx 12, 12/15,12.30 and 12.45 o'clock. The sound! Its so beautiful! glorious, such emotions! .........Bud, Thank you.
Over the coming days and weeks I intend to complete the whizzer pattern slowly and also experiment with pattern placements - as suggested by Soongsc.
Eventually, when I've settled on a suitable pattern for the driver I intend to fix it with gold leaf.
Cilla
- Status
- Not open for further replies.