It is contingent upon those making the claim to provide some actual evidence, not upon those who question it to disprove it. After five years there is a dearth of reliable technical evidence, even though it would be easily enough done with commonly available and cheap equipment. As this has not happened, I can only conclude that it is the audio equivalent of a power balance bracelet, with the holograms replaced with idiotic little dots. The same sense of belief in the produce in the face of any reliable, verifiable and repeatable evidence seems to pervade both products, with the exception that power balance actually came clean about their product's lack of ability to provide performance improvement.
Do any of the enable proponents have a guess as to what could measurably explain the sound difference heard by people? If so, what is it? I've thought it may be CSD. It's my best guess based on what I've heard between enabled and non-enabled.
If it's not something that can be measured, well then that would be good to know also. I've heard a couple of the proponents say, it's just not measurable, I have no explanation. I can respect that.
BTW, would still be interested in trying to find a measurement that shows something. I need a reason to buy sound easy
If it's not something that can be measured, well then that would be good to know also. I've heard a couple of the proponents say, it's just not measurable, I have no explanation. I can respect that.
BTW, would still be interested in trying to find a measurement that shows something. I need a reason to buy sound easy
Hi,
A lot more reasoned arguments that people like you who can't
work out why the threads were split in the first place. Whilst
technical types have desisted from criticising some of the
utter garbage in the subjective thread, it seems that the
subjective types can't help posting the same tired old guff
is this thread without an ounce of comphrehension of the
difference between an objective and subjective argument.
rgds, sreten.
Do any of the enable proponents have a guess as to what could measurably explain the sound difference heard by people? If so, what is it? I've thought it may be CSD. It's my best guess based on what I've heard between enabled and non-enabled.
If it's not something that can be measured, well then that would be good to know also. I've heard a couple of the proponents say, it's just not measurable, I have no explanation. I can respect that.
BTW, would still be interested in trying to find a measurement that shows something. I need a reason to buy sound easy
I certainly wish you luck, as it would be nice to have an answer to this.
That's been the difficulty that I've had with the ENABL treatment from the very beginning. Being very much a measurement guy (as most people here know), I've had a real problem with this. The problem is that I actually hear a difference (as does almost everyone that actually hears an enabl'd driver) and yet haven't seen any measured differences. I finally concluded that we're not measuring the right thing, or perhaps the right way. To the complete surprise of some people (even here!), there are things that are still not known or understood.
Best Regards,
Terry
Hi,
God the same old tired guff. Technically no-one is claiming it does not
make a "difference" audibly. They are claiming any other pattern of
dots or whatever would likely make a similar difference as there is
nothing about EnABL that indicates it is remotely optimally effective,
or even effective compared to other more sensible options, which
are measurable and hence repeatable, hence confirmable.
Will you stop repeating the same tired garbage about EnABL.
Don't pull the "I'm a measurement guy" stunt and then
immediately disprove it, you are nothing of the sort,
its just a cheap weak argument fooling no-one.
rgds, sreten.
God the same old tired guff. Technically no-one is claiming it does not
make a "difference" audibly. They are claiming any other pattern of
dots or whatever would likely make a similar difference as there is
nothing about EnABL that indicates it is remotely optimally effective,
or even effective compared to other more sensible options, which
are measurable and hence repeatable, hence confirmable.
Will you stop repeating the same tired garbage about EnABL.
Don't pull the "I'm a measurement guy" stunt and then
immediately disprove it, you are nothing of the sort,
its just a cheap weak argument fooling no-one.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
I really have no desire to stay in this, but I will say that there _have_ been measurements made, just not to the liking of proponents. If someone mods a driver and measures no change, either it's insignificant or their measurement skills need improvement or their measurement system is not working. Perfectly adequate and free software (HOLM Acoustics) is available to name just one example.
There is nothing not known or understood. What's frustrating is claims made that no change in measurements have been shown. Many here may not have gone far enough back to the posts of measurements with comments to this effect when in fact it was strikingly obvious that there were changes in the posted measurements. The results looked no better than the pre-mod measurements, just a different set of resonances were apparent.
It's as John has pointed out numerous times. How about a link going back to 2008 in response to the same type of statement WRT measurements?
March 2008
This thread keeps coming full circle. It's simply becoming nothing but a re-hash. But if anyone cares to debate the perceived response, go ahead, just do it on the subjective thread.
I was doing my own mods on drivers at that time and fully documented them here. It's pretty clear that just about anything one can do to a driver will change the measured response. As John said, how one characterizes that change is irrelevant to this discussion.
Dave
Bravo sreten, I knew you had it in you! Seriously!
Ok anti fan boys, here's the deal. sreten has it exactly correct. There have to be better ways to accomplish what these idiot spots are accomplishing. Soongsc has already found one and it is patented.
Here is his work.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100399-enabl-processes-26.html#post1227789 multiple rings pahse vs frequency response
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100399-enabl-processes-28.html#post1231568 dispersal of "break up modes" and resonance nods
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100399-enabl-processes-226.html#post1427403 large blocks and dots applied
We have progressed to being able to find the exact locations to apply the spots to. Empirical as it still is, since we do not have the pleasure of scientific exactitude, it is still extremely effective. As alluded to, it is called the "tap test".
So, instead of continually sniping I suspect that you smart lads can actually do a better job than I ever will and actually make this a rigorous tool rather than the useful but somewhat nebulous argument starter that it is currently. Mige0 has shown that we can look at what EnABL does. I suspect it can be useful in your investigations to surpass my application. Certainly Soongsc didn't need wavelet analysis, just a very rigorous test regimen, to come up with his improvements. The field is open. You too can be a hero with your own anti fan base...
Bud
I believe that to measure what is happening, you willhave to look 30-50 dB down from the primary signal, which will require a good anechoic chamber and something like this (the same kit Geddes said was needed to see the HOMs he talks about). Microflown
dave
A double blind test that is sufficiently stringent to be published is both costly & time connsumming. Single or (close to) double blind* informal tests have been done, and have produced results in favour of EnABL.
*Self admisistered blind tests (the people who set it up, not around). Also tests with blind people.
dave
If every person has posted donated $100 or so, and there were some equipment & space donations, and the time could be concentrated in one place over a period of a month or so, then it could be done.
dave
I'm continually amazed by your ability to make statements within which are complete contradictions that make it a non sequitur.
Either you can do it or you can't.
What one hears as a difference is a measurable difference and has been demonstrated. There is no need to dig 30-50 db down. It's just another example of ignoring what's been demonstrated in the (distant) past. The problem arises with making unproven hypotheses as to the change that occurs, as demonstrated in those old links.
Dave
Last edited:
Btw, in the link from Bud (below), the scale between the two CSD plots is vastly different:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100399-enabl-processes-28.html#post1231568
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100399-enabl-processes-28.html#post1231568
I could loan speakers given sufficient lead time, i do not have the space, time, or any funds.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.