There are too many cases where I hear the statement "You are a perfectly healthy person from a medical point of view." when anyone can tell the person is really sick.ucla88 said:
So let's not get into that proffession.
I'm sure John can decide what he want's to do. We just need to keep view of the relationship of the way real wave is generated rather than just think how it works mathematically.
soongsc said:
There are too many cases where I hear the statement "You are a perfectly healthy person from a medical point of view." when anyone can tell the person is really sick.
Awesome verbal return! A trifecta! Irrelevant, derogatory, and anectdotal.
Again, true but irrelevant. Your point was that an MLS has less LF content than "most music" and my broader point was that MLS is flexible enough to be weighted towards the low frequency but that it doesn't matter except to improve LF resolution (edit-to be more clear it can improve S/N at low frequencies, not technically the resolution in the technical sense). Hence, it really doesn't matter much. Unless we're arguing that EnABL magically improves the low end where the driver acts like a piston. Maybe someone's made that claim and I missed it. And MLS is quite real, so let's keep it real...
Hi John K,
Longitudinal waves might not be polarised, but what about transverse waves shorter than cone diameter between the cone and the effective radiating aperture beyond the cone edge?
Re your reply; there is no significant focussing of pressure on the surface of a flat baffle, and I cannot imagine the speed with which coincidentally wave induced pressure arises at say a cone centre then propagates sound in the same manner as will any atmospheric variation over a flat baffle.
For if separately but coincidentally (music) energised transverse wave pressures locally induce a fractional alternating group distortion of cone radiation there must be a generation of mixing tones which were not part of the original signal, these being air-side wrt the cone but also acting against the cone.
As per the demonstration of changing cone/cap resonances with different air loading.
This was my reason for seeking testing of the EnABL pattern at regions of coincidentally energised pressure/velocity alternation whilst monitoring the effect upon a test signal, as say with a suddenly starting/stopping sine.
I repeat. I cannot do this myself, and as my communications have been deemed 'not objective'.........
well, what's the point............
Longitudinal waves might not be polarised, but what about transverse waves shorter than cone diameter between the cone and the effective radiating aperture beyond the cone edge?
Re your reply; there is no significant focussing of pressure on the surface of a flat baffle, and I cannot imagine the speed with which coincidentally wave induced pressure arises at say a cone centre then propagates sound in the same manner as will any atmospheric variation over a flat baffle.
For if separately but coincidentally (music) energised transverse wave pressures locally induce a fractional alternating group distortion of cone radiation there must be a generation of mixing tones which were not part of the original signal, these being air-side wrt the cone but also acting against the cone.
As per the demonstration of changing cone/cap resonances with different air loading.
This was my reason for seeking testing of the EnABL pattern at regions of coincidentally energised pressure/velocity alternation whilst monitoring the effect upon a test signal, as say with a suddenly starting/stopping sine.
I repeat. I cannot do this myself, and as my communications have been deemed 'not objective'.........
well, what's the point............
Alive or dead?
Seems some don't see the relevance of my bringing up these cats (ahem), and I'm glad that's brought them some grins. Well...maybe the disconnect between what some/many claim to hear and what the testing thus far shows suggests that we haven't been looking in the right places. These cats are among few people who've dared to look into really new places with an open mind. And that was my only point. I'm no psychologist, psychiatrist or sociologist but the degree to which people seem to believe in an effect makes me curious to find out what might be going on, and I'd think any objective person would be willing to suspend disbelief and investigate with an open mind or just ignore the entire thread. FWIW, I tend to be a very skeptical person for whom things like homeopathic remedies don't work, much as I'd like them to, so although I'm interested in trying EnABL and would love to hear a dramatic effect, I don't expect to hear much (which of course, biases me against hearing anything that DOES happen).
Now, I'm glad there has been some useful (and at times even comprehensible to me!) testing and data with more to come, and even the discussion seems to have settled a bit, for which I may start reading on a regular basis again. But since I have nothing real to contribute, I'll try to stay quiet.
Carl
I also like to look into different things with and open mind. Some things work under certain conditions, and I like to find out what the extent of possibilities are even though there will be some conditions under which they may not work.Carlp said:
Alive or dead?
Seems some don't see the relevance of my bringing up these cats (ahem), and I'm glad that's brought them some grins. Well...maybe the disconnect between what some/many claim to hear and what the testing thus far shows suggests that we haven't been looking in the right places. These cats are among few people who've dared to look into really new places with an open mind. And that was my only point. I'm no psychologist, psychiatrist or sociologist but the degree to which people seem to believe in an effect makes me curious to find out what might be going on, and I'd think any objective person would be willing to suspend disbelief and investigate with an open mind or just ignore the entire thread. FWIW, I tend to be a very skeptical person for whom things like homeopathic remedies don't work, much as I'd like them to, so although I'm interested in trying EnABL and would love to hear a dramatic effect, I don't expect to hear much (which of course, biases me against hearing anything that DOES happen).
Now, I'm glad there has been some useful (and at times even comprehensible to me!) testing and data with more to come, and even the discussion seems to have settled a bit, for which I may start reading on a regular basis again. But since I have nothing real to contribute, I'll try to stay quiet.
Carl
We've raised cats since I was a kid, over 10 at some periods in time, and know how they are. They will do many things just to get through a barrier. Our cats sometimes open latches and open sliding doors; they just watch how you do it, and try it themselves for a few times till they get the hang of it.
I think John K has proven that for the specific driver, pattern height needs to get to a certain thickness till one might start seeing obviously measureable differences. Something for those using EnABL on baffles to consider.
soongsc said:
Wrong... what John K. demonstrated is that an audio frequency wave passing over EnABL sized projections on a surface doesn't produce any signicant changes above ~ -60dB or so, regardless of the source of that wave. Has nothing to do with the driver.
Let's at least try to be honest in stating what is or isn't happening, rather than try to bend the results to limit their applicability to not showing what EnABL does or doesn't do, which is really what's going on with this statement.
John L.
Carlp said:
Alive or dead?
Seems some don't see the relevance of my bringing up these cats (ahem), and I'm glad that's brought them some grins. Well...maybe the disconnect between what some/many claim to hear and what the testing thus far shows suggests that we haven't been looking in the right places. These cats are among few people who've dared to look into really new places with an open mind. And that was my only point. I'm no psychologist, psychiatrist or sociologist but the degree to which people seem to believe in an effect makes me curious to find out what might be going on, and I'd think any objective person would be willing to suspend disbelief and investigate with an open mind or just ignore the entire thread. FWIW, I tend to be a very skeptical person for whom things like homeopathic remedies don't work, much as I'd like them to, so although I'm interested in trying EnABL and would love to hear a dramatic effect, I don't expect to hear much (which of course, biases me against hearing anything that DOES happen).
Now, I'm glad there has been some useful (and at times even comprehensible to me!) testing and data with more to come, and even the discussion seems to have settled a bit, for which I may start reading on a regular basis again. But since I have nothing real to contribute, I'll try to stay quiet.
Carl
There is no disconnect. There IS a dismissal that a correlation between what is observed and what is measured exists, even before an attempt has been made to develop such a correlation. It's the old "I don't believe it so it can not be" syndrome.
Going back to Richard Feynman's lecture notes,
John K,
I hope you've read your Feynman quote. If you don't like the disconnect that "believers" feel over what they hear vs what you and others have said (and in some cases demonstrated), then you won't be able to accept or understand it...
Note that I've never said believers are right, just that they suggest further thinking may be relevant. Anyway, I'm ordering one of those kits so I can try for myself. Maybe I'll feel differently about all this after I do so.
Now, I understand enough to agree with at least most of what you've said and shown, but I can't help thinking there may be something else going on - even though I'm a fish out of water with the physics. There are plenty of cases where, in physics, what is observed seems in direct conflict with the nature of things. Neither side is wrong, they just aren't understanding all the finer points. MAYBE something else is going on (maybe not...)
Carl
I hope you've read your Feynman quote. If you don't like the disconnect that "believers" feel over what they hear vs what you and others have said (and in some cases demonstrated), then you won't be able to accept or understand it...
Note that I've never said believers are right, just that they suggest further thinking may be relevant. Anyway, I'm ordering one of those kits so I can try for myself. Maybe I'll feel differently about all this after I do so.Now, I understand enough to agree with at least most of what you've said and shown, but I can't help thinking there may be something else going on - even though I'm a fish out of water with the physics.
There are plenty of cases where, in physics, what is observed seems in direct conflict with the nature of things. Neither side is wrong, they just aren't understanding all the finer points. MAYBE something else is going on (maybe not...)Carl
Hi Carl,
The other point I raised months ago in the first thread was that the tuned air-side pressures act wrt the cone.
Also there must be equal but opposite impact upon the cone - via voice coil impedance, amplifier etc.
Phase shifts between an amplifier with quadrature NFB damping, voice coil impedance and dimension related air side tuning could promote cone resonance, so again anything capable of modifying tuned pressures acting upon a cone surface will affect cone resonance without any individual amplifier, voice coil/magnet/etc, cone or size aspect being 'the problem' in isolation.
Cheers ........ Graham.
The other point I raised months ago in the first thread was that the tuned air-side pressures act wrt the cone.
Also there must be equal but opposite impact upon the cone - via voice coil impedance, amplifier etc.
Phase shifts between an amplifier with quadrature NFB damping, voice coil impedance and dimension related air side tuning could promote cone resonance, so again anything capable of modifying tuned pressures acting upon a cone surface will affect cone resonance without any individual amplifier, voice coil/magnet/etc, cone or size aspect being 'the problem' in isolation.
Cheers ........ Graham.
Carlp said:John K,
I hope you've read your Feynman quote. If you don't like the disconnect that "believers" feel over what they hear vs what you and others have said (and in some cases demonstrated), then you won't be able to accept or understand it...
Now, I understand enough to agree with at least most of what you've said and shown, but I can't help thinking there may be something else going on - even though I'm a fish out of water with the physics.
Carl
Well, I would say look at the quote with regard to what has been offered as a theory of what happens. The measurements clearly do not agree with damping of standing waves and changes in some BL effect. On the other hand, the measurements do agree (qualitatively) with what happens if the physical parameters of the cone are changed. Thus there is some evidence that the altered physical parameter theory is worth further investigation (not to mention, IMO, the obviously correct).
With regard to the disconnect, I stand by what I said. The disconnect falls largely in the "I don't like it so it must not be true" category. What I am saying is that listeners should not be so quick to dismiss that what has been measured as the cause of the differences they hear just because they don't like it or can not understand why those measured differences result in what they hear. They should not let the idea that they don't like it or understand it color their judgment. Better to take a wait and see attitude.
You're saying I shouldn't reject a disconnect just because I don't like the idea of a disconnect. I'm not rejecting the possibility of a disconnect. I am rejecting the idea of accepting a disconnect before any attempt is made to show that one does or doesn't exists. I'm am rejecting an opinion. What we have now are some measurements and some listening impressions. That doesn't establish or deny a disconnect.
I'm cooking up my own driver mod that looks incredibly promising. John, would you care to comment on the effects you think this might have:
PS. You have to use genuine Crayola and the Apricot variety works best.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
PS. You have to use genuine Crayola and the Apricot variety works best.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.