planet10 said:
planet10 said:
I didn't say it was not more than JND (though you did ask about how much is left intact and audible that relate to JND), but neither you nor I can say what is or it is not for all cases since it changes, with the caveat that we are only discussing when it is applied to a driver. Outside of that there's no need to discuss it further. My point is that the question you ask cannot be answered without undertaking a significant research study, because you'd have to set up test conditions for a large number of variables, those of the driver alone would be quite an issue.
I don't know all details of what is actually required to do the studies that it would take, but I am a bit familiar through reading over the years. It appears that some posters to the thread are more familiar with the details than I and I hope will correct me if I make any errors or will add to what I point out. Some (far from all) of the issues would include:
Which driver(s) to use (multiple types and design usage to vary, can't test only "full range"), what box loading conditions, what treatments and in what amounts (remember, these are not machine applied coatings, they're done in tedious work by hand that are never, ever done identically from one driver to the next), there would have to be before/after measurements so that attempts could be made to correlate the changes in the drivers to the changes in perception, there would have to be various test signals (a wide variety of music, possibly some test signals such as white noise that often makes differences easier to hear), the tests would have to be conducted over a range of volume settings, since the ear is not like a mic and varies with the loudness in its ability to hear differences, even some gross differences if the volume setting affects the region of change significantly, the changes have to be known to be characterized (as in measurements before/after to know what is being tested),..........
You'd have to specify very clearly the application material type and pattern, maybe testing the same pattern, but with different materials and with the same material, but different (as in multiple) pattern applications. Tests should be conducted for both measured data and the perception, since a correlation is desired to learn what is still audible and what is not according to the question that you pose. You have to know precisely what is being tested, so you have to know precisely what the changes are that are being tested. In this area, one cannot dispense with objective measurements. This could not be the simple on-axis responses shown throughout most of the thread, they have to be a full set of on-axis and off-axis SPL response , since the conditions will be in-room response that naturally encompasses the system's power response, as well as a fairly thorough set of distortions tests, since tests would have to be conducted at various loudness levels that are guaranteed to alter the distortion generated by the driver regardless of the content of the signal (music or test).
You also have to set a baseline for the ability of the test audience participants to be able to perceive known differences, you have to include testing for the placebo effect,...........
Then you have to consider the test conditions, such as room placement, listener position, time-of-day (hearing and focus can change throughout the day), even mood can affect a person's perceptions. Remember, studies have to show two things. One, is there a change detected and two, how is that change characterized. Two people are not necessarily going to characterize the same change in the same manner. It ends up taking more than two or three people in a test to have any degree of confidence at all.
When you're through you have to do the detailed analysis of the test data to extract what you can and then you get into the degree of confidence of the data.......
No one involved in this thread is going to be able to answer your question with any amount of authority or credibility, none have the resources to do so as far as I know. Most of the reports based on perception are based on single individuals using sighted testing. There's little on which to base any degree of confidence in the magnitudes of whatever changes do occur. This is where objective testing can be a significant benefit. There may be different interpretations of what the impact is of a measured change, but there is usually little question as to the specifics of what changed if the measurements are made in an appropriate manner.
Dave
Alex from Oz said:
You have no experience with EnABL
You have provided no scientific input
You have provided no subjective evidence of any kind
You have not contributed anything except rhetoric and personal attacks
Based on your posts in this forum, it appears that you are very hard to take credibly.
Cheers,
Alex
Hi,
Well I like to think I'm honest at least.
a) Is true but irrelevant to my perspective which is the technical
veracity of any description of what is actually going on.
b) I'm not interested taking apart pseudotechnobabble, that is a
neverending, thankless and eventually pointless task as nothing
is gained. Simply repeating theory that should be known before
you can pontificate on a subject is also extremely tedious. It is
enough to point out the non-science, if you cannot work out
what that is then voluble quantities of technical sense will
not really help sort the wheat from the chaff.
c) Very true. Subjective evidence is absolutely the worst sort ....
d) sorry that I disagree with you ....
FWIW statements that say something causes a profound effect
when there is no sensible explanation for such an effect under
controlled conditions, scientifically can only be taken one way.
That is not my fault ...... and perhaps unfair of me to state it
bluntly with regards to your post when its really more a
general comment on subjective evidence.
/sreten.BudP said:
Maybe you need to get over that discomfort? There are lots of things that don't fit within a persons understanding of physics. That doesn’t mean that classical physics doesn’t apply or fit.
Not really. I haven't brought anything new to the table that hasn't been around for many decades. What I think we have here is the typical disconnect between theory and application because, well, loudspeaker design isn't rocket science. However, as technology has advanced, particularly in the area of computers, the cost of applying such technology to these "trivial" problems is such that it becomes more common place. As has been seen in the links to the KEF site. And perhaps in a couple of years such technology will filter down to individuals. In fact, since the mid 80's I haven't seen much advancement in the development of simulation tools. Rather they have just grown in complexity and applied to more difficult problems because the growth in computing power has allowed this to happen. But the underlying physics and numerical algorithms haven't changed. I haven't stated anything that can be found in a reference text written in the 60's or earlier.
Without commenting on Enable I think there are three things to consider. One is to establish a cause/effect relationship. If the subjective evaluation is accepted, that has been established. In fact, this is what you always resort to, "Just do it. It works". You make that statement because you feel strongly that you have established a cause/effect relationship.
The second part is to quantify the effect. And we have done that in several cases. I am not going to repeat it, but you know..."Stick a mic..... " The problem here is that some just don't want to accept this quantization. Not accepting it only leads to being unable to move forwards. Einstein didn't accept many of the principles of quantum mechanics and where did that get him? It doesn't matter if you don't like it. It doesn't matter if you can't mentally make the connection with what you perceive as the audible difference. It is the difference.
The third part is developing an understanding of why or how these affect arise. And this is like an abstract toy. We have a box of parts from many toys. So we start by choosing pieces we think will fit the toy. Just as important, we must discard pieces which don't fit the toy. If successful, in the end the toy will be a model of what can happen. And if we understand that model then we can understand what can and what can't happen.
What findings of yours doesn't it square with? How does the description you have provided square with your finding? What are your findings, other than the subjective observations? "The findings", in the sense of the measurements presented, don't square with you what you have suggested either, so should you now reject them as well?
It is not that my suggestions don’t square. We don’t know at this point whether they do or don’t. Whit it is is that you are unable to consider than they might. Maybe the problem is your bias is standing in the way? Maybe you are so used to wearing one type of hat that you don't want to accept that you might look better in a different hat. This is not any kind of personal attack. I'm just trying to point a few things out. Maybe you need to open you mind and say, "Just because I can't make the rational connection I need to believe it doesn't make it wrong."
At what level to we have to stop? If we are dealing with acoustic waves in air over relatively short distances if the linear wave equation sufficient? Do we need to include losses? Should we discard the wave equation and jump to the Navire-Stokes equations? Are they insufficient and we should resort to moments of the Boltzmann transport equation? If I trying to calculate the current through a wire at low frequency can I use Ohm’s Law or do I need to use Maxwell’s equations?
I think that if I put it in the simplest terms possible the problem I have here is that you have attempted to “invent a result” rather examine the relevant physics and let it lead to the result.
Hi,
Well I'm out of here as this is getting nowhere fast, despite jk's efforts.
The original gist of the thread is the claimed elimination of something,
which is always interesting, but it turns out not to be true, which is
immediately far less interesting.
FWIW the claims of the original patent are most closely matched
to my knowledge by the Mangar planar driver, which theoretically
does terminate the transverse wave and does produce a coherent
wavefront (conical for constant diaphragm propogation speed).
To my way of thinking there is no reason why such a driver has
to be exactly planar, and accepting the given that such a driver
(edge terminated) cannot do bass (the edge cannot move much)
such a device is still intriguing (to me at least).
For EnABL it seems we have a completely different kettle of fish.
No major technical breakthrough whatsoever and a shedload of
apocryphal subjective improvements without objective evidence.
FWIW there is no difference between "transient" and "steady state"
standing waves, this is simply looking at the same thing from two
different perspectives, the time domain and the frequency domain.
Any rational analysis / modelling would follow current methodology.
The correct use of FEM (which is not just added mass modelling, e.g.
for absorptive cones the local cone element properties would also
be modified) seems to be the way to proceed to quantify its effects.
Or quantify the myriad other possible ways of modifying cones, and
possibly the optimisation of such treatments if you are going there.
(This is not going to happen anytime soon.)
You are now faced with the quandary (I'm not, I'm out of here) of
optimisation. Without a model you are stumbling around in the dark.
You can assume for some unknown reason the EnABL pattern is
somehow optimum. At best its a best guess presumably based
on empirical experimentation. If it is derived from the original
"theory" it would be at best serendipity a good pattern was
arrived at.
As for objective evidence for the EnABLing of solid surfaces .....
/sreten.
where did I put those cryogenic cables ? ....
my hi-fi needs some profound improvement ....
Well I'm out of here as this is getting nowhere fast, despite jk's efforts.
The original gist of the thread is the claimed elimination of something,
which is always interesting, but it turns out not to be true, which is
immediately far less interesting.
FWIW the claims of the original patent are most closely matched
to my knowledge by the Mangar planar driver, which theoretically
does terminate the transverse wave and does produce a coherent
wavefront (conical for constant diaphragm propogation speed).
To my way of thinking there is no reason why such a driver has
to be exactly planar, and accepting the given that such a driver
(edge terminated) cannot do bass (the edge cannot move much)
such a device is still intriguing (to me at least).
For EnABL it seems we have a completely different kettle of fish.
No major technical breakthrough whatsoever and a shedload of
apocryphal subjective improvements without objective evidence.
FWIW there is no difference between "transient" and "steady state"
standing waves, this is simply looking at the same thing from two
different perspectives, the time domain and the frequency domain.
Any rational analysis / modelling would follow current methodology.
The correct use of FEM (which is not just added mass modelling, e.g.
for absorptive cones the local cone element properties would also
be modified) seems to be the way to proceed to quantify its effects.
Or quantify the myriad other possible ways of modifying cones, and
possibly the optimisation of such treatments if you are going there.
(This is not going to happen anytime soon.)
You are now faced with the quandary (I'm not, I'm out of here) of
optimisation. Without a model you are stumbling around in the dark.
You can assume for some unknown reason the EnABL pattern is
somehow optimum. At best its a best guess presumably based
on empirical experimentation. If it is derived from the original
"theory" it would be at best serendipity a good pattern was
arrived at.
As for objective evidence for the EnABLing of solid surfaces .....
/sreten.where did I put those cryogenic cables ? ....
my hi-fi needs some profound improvement ....
sreten said:
Hardly a fair comparison as any amateur metallurgist knows that as soon as you unroll the cable from the spool or change the shape in any way, you have disturbed and lost any perceived value there was in cryo treating them in the first place.
To all:
Whatever way you wish to argue this point, and I have equal respect for both parties, if you haven't had the opportunity to listen to the EnABL effect, your opinion is of less value than those who have. This is independent of the scientific analysis being brought forth. Personally, I'm not looking to understand the cause(s) as others are striving to do. I am interested in the effect. My interest is in listening to the music. Music without perceived colouration. The only thing I know, subjective as it is, is there is less of it (colouration) in the one and only set of EnABLed drivers I have listened to as compared with the identical drivers in identical boxes in a side by side comparison.
For the nay sayers, I suggest you pocket your preconceived notions and simply conduct the experiment yourself. Until you do, this thread will continue along it's same path. Frankly I don't see the point in that.
Cheers.
Cal Weldon said:
To what expressed opinion do you refer? None of us who have been skeptical and have not heard a treated driver have voiced an opinion with regard to the sound of a treated driver. Not one if memory serves. I believe that John K treated a driver, measured it and commented on it, so I hope that you'll accept his stated opinion.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion of a treated driver. I certainly have no reason to question it, never have, never will.
What experiment, listening to a treated driver? What's the point? I believe that I would hear a difference, be it positive, negative or neutral, I don't know and I don't care. It doesn't matter on that issue, that's really never been in question. Skeptics have never said that a change does not occur in a driver's response, quite the contrary, we were adamant in pointing out the fallacy that a change in perception occurred without a consequent change in driver response. Your suggestion serves no purpose insofar as the thread goes, it went well beyond "Is there a change or is there not?".
Dave
Cal,
Don't worry. The thread will continue as it has because, as I said, it not really about what enable does or doesn't do. Its about discussing what it migh or might not do. If we come to some conclusion what would we next? I guess we could go over to AA and invade. AJin FLA posted an interseting like over there. I wonder how it relates to EnABle? http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=expensive-sugar-pills-wor&print=true
Dave (planet10) Maybe you should raise the price of those enabled Fostex you're selling.
Don't worry. The thread will continue as it has because, as I said, it not really about what enable does or doesn't do. Its about discussing what it migh or might not do. If we come to some conclusion what would we next? I guess we could go over to AA and invade. AJin FLA posted an interseting like over there. I wonder how it relates to EnABle? http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=expensive-sugar-pills-wor&print=true
Dave (planet10) Maybe you should raise the price of those enabled Fostex you're selling.
Cal Weldon said:
Cal, with all due respect, I find this a puzzling position to hold. I would guestimate that 90-95% of members here have not had the opportunity to listen to other members designs, be it amplifiers, loudspeakers, etc.
Would that then not make 90+ % of thread replies on the site opinions of less value?
cheers,
AJ
(p.s. Please forgive if this reply is slotted in the thread sequence hours after the post being replied to. Mod screening takes a while)
john k... said:
I won't. Something like this will not affect my sleep. Thank you for your concern.
AJinFLA said:
I understand what your saying. Perhaps my wording should have read "If you want your opinions to carry more weight in the eyes of those with personal experience, then do a subjective test." All the meters and graphs in the world aren't going to tell you what it sounds like, they only give you a starting point.
My thought is that all the technical discussion has yet to prove or disprove anything. I feel sorry for Bud who thought he was on the right track with the explanation only to be ambushed by the science aficionados. Perhaps he should have taken a different approach but that's not for me to say. You guys have taken him to task on that one, Some with near pit bull ferocity. I think the point has been made.
I believe it was SY who said he would not judge a wine by it's chemical analysis. I see a similarity in those who will not allow themselves to experience what is brought forth and are doing themselves and the rest of us a disservice.
At this point, what more can be said from either side without repeating?
John,
I can't be sure but are you augmenting my point? I am not swayed by the label on a bottle of wine or an in depth analysis anymore or less than I am about an FR or other plot. I feel there is no scope or WHY that will influence my opinion more than the most subjective test of all, be it a taste test or a good listening session. My ears are very sensitive to the middle frequencies and if there is something good or bad that I experience, the graph can only really point out where the deficiencies are. They can't tell me why I enjoy one speaker over the other when the graphs read virtually the same.
I am also surprised that subjectivity does not play a bigger role in this thread. In the end, if there is a difference in the interpretation of the transducer's ability to deliver what pleases your aural senses, then mission accomplished IMHO. After beating Bud's interpretation to death, why have we not accepted that a good many experienced listeners have enjoyed the alteration regardless of it's origin(s)?
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.
Cheers.
I can't be sure but are you augmenting my point? I am not swayed by the label on a bottle of wine or an in depth analysis anymore or less than I am about an FR or other plot. I feel there is no scope or WHY that will influence my opinion more than the most subjective test of all, be it a taste test or a good listening session. My ears are very sensitive to the middle frequencies and if there is something good or bad that I experience, the graph can only really point out where the deficiencies are. They can't tell me why I enjoy one speaker over the other when the graphs read virtually the same.
I am also surprised that subjectivity does not play a bigger role in this thread. In the end, if there is a difference in the interpretation of the transducer's ability to deliver what pleases your aural senses, then mission accomplished IMHO. After beating Bud's interpretation to death, why have we not accepted that a good many experienced listeners have enjoyed the alteration regardless of it's origin(s)?
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.
Cheers.
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.
I support the idea, since the original point of the thread was to show those who want to experiment and experience what EnaBL brings about, how to do it. Somewhere other than private emails to me, to find out how to accomplish this.
All who have contacted me for this sort of information, have said they did so because they were not interested in wading through the arguments and risking a thrashing by folks who did not share their enthusiasm.
What are the chances that everyone here can abide by this sort of split? It would provide a look into just how many hands full are involved in whatever landslide is being negated in this quote.
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
- Status
- Not open for further replies.