That is all very interesting, but my last few posts were simply replying to a question and posts posed directly to me, not trying to carry any other arguments farther. I wasn't planning on saying much more.
As far as a microphone, dynamic range isn't the issue. You select the microphone for the application. It doesn't take hundreds of measurements to determine the impact of a change to a driver.
When discussing the response of the driver, you don't take the room into consideration, since every room is different and actually has no impact on what the driver is doing. Likewise, nothing that the driver does changes the room's influence, the room is the room.
John k demonstrated the lack of any significant effect of baffle edge treatments, re-read his posts in the original thread on that. I need not add anything to it. But then John was not trying to imply that added mass didn't change drivers, either, he was addressing the mechanism claimed, as was I. That debate should have ended long ago. I have not tried to re-ignite it, but those whose memories fail them continue to do so as I am not addressing whether or not drivers are changed!
And I really don't understand why comments keep arising about hearing changes to drivers as if I'm arguing against that. I said from the very beginning and have repeated that drivers change with added mass. I said that very early in the first thread. I repeated that in this thread. I made tests and measurements and posted a page that fully documented such changes during the first thread, certainly in more detail than any others who may have done any measurements to post, however few. Memories seem to fail periodically here, Bud, panomaniac and others. So those comments just add noise and don't add to the debate.
As far as dynamic range, (from Wikipedia) consider that "The 16-bit Compact Disc has a theoretical dynamic range of 96 dB", "Observed 16-bit digital audio dynamic range is about 90 dB.[4]" and "The dynamic range of music in a concert hall doesn't exceed 80 dB". So dynamic range for music isn't nearly the concern that some ascribe. It's not like you're trying to hear a whisper on the stage during a concert.
Dynamic range isn't a limitation to measurement that can't be ameliorated, you simply select the appropriate mic and use it in the appropriate manner, especially when one considers that the noise floor in non-anechoic test environments is the limiting factor, not the microphone nor the electronics. John k also demonstrated that quite clearly.
I've not tried to debate drivers at all for some time now. That's been over since the first thread as far as I was concerned, it was pretty conclusive that the mechanism is covered well by Occam's Razor, in this case it's added mass. My repeated comments that drivers do change from added mass seem to fall on deaf ears, so-to-speak. The fact that it continues to be resurrected unnecessarily still puzzles me.
To add a reference to another opinion on microphones:
Another opinion on measurement and mics
Dave
As far as a microphone, dynamic range isn't the issue. You select the microphone for the application. It doesn't take hundreds of measurements to determine the impact of a change to a driver.
When discussing the response of the driver, you don't take the room into consideration, since every room is different and actually has no impact on what the driver is doing. Likewise, nothing that the driver does changes the room's influence, the room is the room.
John k demonstrated the lack of any significant effect of baffle edge treatments, re-read his posts in the original thread on that. I need not add anything to it. But then John was not trying to imply that added mass didn't change drivers, either, he was addressing the mechanism claimed, as was I. That debate should have ended long ago. I have not tried to re-ignite it, but those whose memories fail them continue to do so as I am not addressing whether or not drivers are changed!
And I really don't understand why comments keep arising about hearing changes to drivers as if I'm arguing against that. I said from the very beginning and have repeated that drivers change with added mass. I said that very early in the first thread. I repeated that in this thread. I made tests and measurements and posted a page that fully documented such changes during the first thread, certainly in more detail than any others who may have done any measurements to post, however few. Memories seem to fail periodically here, Bud, panomaniac and others. So those comments just add noise and don't add to the debate.
As far as dynamic range, (from Wikipedia) consider that "The 16-bit Compact Disc has a theoretical dynamic range of 96 dB", "Observed 16-bit digital audio dynamic range is about 90 dB.[4]" and "The dynamic range of music in a concert hall doesn't exceed 80 dB". So dynamic range for music isn't nearly the concern that some ascribe. It's not like you're trying to hear a whisper on the stage during a concert.
Dynamic range isn't a limitation to measurement that can't be ameliorated, you simply select the appropriate mic and use it in the appropriate manner, especially when one considers that the noise floor in non-anechoic test environments is the limiting factor, not the microphone nor the electronics. John k also demonstrated that quite clearly.
I've not tried to debate drivers at all for some time now. That's been over since the first thread as far as I was concerned, it was pretty conclusive that the mechanism is covered well by Occam's Razor, in this case it's added mass. My repeated comments that drivers do change from added mass seem to fall on deaf ears, so-to-speak. The fact that it continues to be resurrected unnecessarily still puzzles me.
To add a reference to another opinion on microphones:
Another opinion on measurement and mics
Dave
Does not puzzle me at all. We've all read the added mass arguement.
Add the same mass to a driver as is added with the EnABL process. Add it any way you like, as long as it's not similar to the EnABL dot pattern.
Do it sound different, better, worse, the same?
Or to be fair, put the same amount of mass in solid rings, so that it is in the same place on the cone as the EnABL treatment.
That, IMO, would be a very good test.
Add the same mass to a driver as is added with the EnABL process. Add it any way you like, as long as it's not similar to the EnABL dot pattern.
Do it sound different, better, worse, the same?
Or to be fair, put the same amount of mass in solid rings, so that it is in the same place on the cone as the EnABL treatment.
That, IMO, would be a very good test.
panomaniac said:
What's your point? My puzzlement is recurring posts that imply that I am debating whether or not a change occurs. That debate is now moot.
You make a change in a driver, call it better, fine, maybe it is, I don't care. I'm not debating that, haven't been been since the first thread.
Dave
dlr said:
Try it. And then try to reconcile the nature, magnitude, and consistency of the change with just added mass.
What you are saying is like saying "pump the tires of the Caddy up to 50 pounds and it will handle like a lotus"
dave
dlr said:
But you said the mic was more sensitive than the ear... now you are saying you need a whole collection of them?
I still haven't seen the measure that shows or even attemps to quantify the nature of what i'm hearing.
dave
planet10 said:
Dynamic range has nothing to do with sensitivity.
Let me refer you to someone who does an excellent job of covering some basic microphone issues that relates to my comments. If you think that me is fooling himself and others in the process, please say so.
Microphone selection issues by Siegfried Linkwitz
And since you've chosen to make no comment on the linked discussion (did you read it or ignore it?), here's the pertinent comment by john k in the other thread:
And to add a bit more support, here's part of the first reply to that post by Dr. Geddes:
Note that this is a contemporaneous discussion. You may easily directly challenge their position today, I'm sure that they'll reply to anything that you might care to discuss right now if you believe that they are wrong.
So I'm not alone in my position. If you don't accept this position in which they concur, fine, just say so directly. Ignoring it does not further the discussion.
Dave
Dr Geddes gets far too much bottom-kissing on this forum. He's often wheeled out as some kind of all-knowing god that cannot possibly be wrong. I'm tiring of this.
I think anything that can be heard can be recorded, but the resolution of the recording and whether the data can be interpreted depends on the setup and the person reading the data. However, this is probably not the thread to discuss all this. Lynn addressed some interesting experiences in the "Ariel" thread about sample rate and bits. I beleive something could be learned there.
dlr said:
Because John K says it is so, it must be true 🙂
Someone who is brilliant in some areas and blind in others... still using MDF to build boxes and sticks to brace them (despite peer reviewed research showing how ineffective it is.
I can only figure out what to believe form him by verifying with personal experience.
dave
er...completely out of character for me ...
that is...the voice of reason
dlr: Thanks for the personal email. Your site looks quite good and is presented in a scientific, fairly rigorous manner. I know some may not appreciate it, or understand a little of it. But a good page, none-the-less. Still haven't read it all though.
Also dlr: please consider taking an old set of loudspeakers (can be effectively "junk") and try the EnABL process for yourself and see if you make or experience any audible observations (or use a volunteer subject who could be blind folded). Then at least you could have some personal experience with the process and some observations.
And for the rest/all to read: This is not a dig at any, including dlr. So if any are offended ---too bad. This thread is supposed to be about the EnABL process, listening impressions and techniques. I propose that we cut off the more technical (side) discussion. It should really be in another thread, perhaps a "technical" thread regarding the EnABL process. Meaningful experiments could be devised and perhaps carried out by any who have the means. That could be the basis for a theory that could correlate the obvious observations of those that have experienced EnABLed drivers to some sort of causal mechanism.
So moderators, please do me a favour and perhaps lets start a "technical"EnABL discussion, and limit posts specifically at understanding the relationship of EnABL, and the observations that have been posted in this thread. And let's limit the discussion in this thread to the observations and techniques as the title states. As long as all can co-operate regarding the purpose of these two possible threads, then some very good anecdotal evidence, and a very good scientific explanation could be derived.
Peace to all...
Thanks all.
that is...the voice of reason
dlr: Thanks for the personal email. Your site looks quite good and is presented in a scientific, fairly rigorous manner. I know some may not appreciate it, or understand a little of it. But a good page, none-the-less. Still haven't read it all though.
Also dlr: please consider taking an old set of loudspeakers (can be effectively "junk") and try the EnABL process for yourself and see if you make or experience any audible observations (or use a volunteer subject who could be blind folded). Then at least you could have some personal experience with the process and some observations.
And for the rest/all to read: This is not a dig at any, including dlr. So if any are offended ---too bad. This thread is supposed to be about the EnABL process, listening impressions and techniques. I propose that we cut off the more technical (side) discussion. It should really be in another thread, perhaps a "technical" thread regarding the EnABL process. Meaningful experiments could be devised and perhaps carried out by any who have the means. That could be the basis for a theory that could correlate the obvious observations of those that have experienced EnABLed drivers to some sort of causal mechanism.
So moderators, please do me a favour and perhaps lets start a "technical"EnABL discussion, and limit posts specifically at understanding the relationship of EnABL, and the observations that have been posted in this thread. And let's limit the discussion in this thread to the observations and techniques as the title states. As long as all can co-operate regarding the purpose of these two possible threads, then some very good anecdotal evidence, and a very good scientific explanation could be derived.
Peace to all...
Thanks all.
Stew,
That was the idea but without the cooperation of the members you get what you see today.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119677&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=1
That was the idea but without the cooperation of the members you get what you see today.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119677&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=1
I agree.
There is a technical thread already.
However, there is simply no interest is reconciling the profound audible change EnABL provides with sensible theory.
In fact, there are glaring inconsistencies.
dlr's position is that any audible effects from drivers is purely the result of added mass.
He does not dispute the possibility of audible change on drivers - because in theory, any added mass must modify the cones movement.
Yet, dlr's position on audible effects from fixed surfaces (baffles, ports, cabinets etc.) is that they don't exist.
Despite the fact that in theory, any disturbance to the propagation of a sound wave along a surface (such as a raised EnABL pattern) must modify the sound wave.
Any claim of audible difference is summarily dismissed as imagined or placebo.
The glaring inconsistency is that dlr relies exclusively on his limited application of the laws of physics to justify his position, yet when those same laws don’t suits his agenda, he ignores them completely.
Cheers,
Alex
There is a technical thread already.
However, there is simply no interest is reconciling the profound audible change EnABL provides with sensible theory.
In fact, there are glaring inconsistencies.
dlr's position is that any audible effects from drivers is purely the result of added mass.
He does not dispute the possibility of audible change on drivers - because in theory, any added mass must modify the cones movement.
Yet, dlr's position on audible effects from fixed surfaces (baffles, ports, cabinets etc.) is that they don't exist.
Despite the fact that in theory, any disturbance to the propagation of a sound wave along a surface (such as a raised EnABL pattern) must modify the sound wave.
Any claim of audible difference is summarily dismissed as imagined or placebo.
The glaring inconsistency is that dlr relies exclusively on his limited application of the laws of physics to justify his position, yet when those same laws don’t suits his agenda, he ignores them completely.
Cheers,
Alex
ok... sorry for the suggestion
well not sorry, but I did not realize the previous split. This thread needs to adhere to its intended purpose then.
well not sorry, but I did not realize the previous split. This thread needs to adhere to its intended purpose then.
No, I don't make unsupportable claims based on ignorance of the physics and on their location and the wavelengths in question. Based on the physics, thin bumps on a wall cannot make any change other than in the mind. But once again, it is incumbent on those making a claim to provide proof of the positive. No one, not one of the many in this thread, have ever provided anything other than speculation, though I suspect that some have measurement ability. The other forgotten principle is that it is impossible to prove a negative, thus it is up to someone to prove a positive.
Bud understands this, I'm sure. But I expect that he'll remain silent on that since it undermines the false arguments and personal attacks made by those such as this one.
Dave
Re: ok... sorry for the suggestion
I made this point more than once in the thread and did so very early on. I specifically asked those inserting objective claims to discuss it there rather than here so that replies might be made without inflaming those here. I don't mean to be harsh, I don't see how you could have missed that. Many here read it and know it. Yet no one in this thread would risk speaking there where adherence to a belief with no proof is not acceptable. The preference is to be allowed to make unsupportable objective claims here in the subjective thread. And there is one certainty, there is not a single piece of evidence yet produced to support the various claims.
Dave
Nanook said:
I made this point more than once in the thread and did so very early on. I specifically asked those inserting objective claims to discuss it there rather than here so that replies might be made without inflaming those here. I don't mean to be harsh, I don't see how you could have missed that. Many here read it and know it. Yet no one in this thread would risk speaking there where adherence to a belief with no proof is not acceptable. The preference is to be allowed to make unsupportable objective claims here in the subjective thread. And there is one certainty, there is not a single piece of evidence yet produced to support the various claims.
Dave
dlr said:
Absurd beyond belief!
dlr contradicts his findings posted on his own website!
His own direct measurements provide unqualified objective evidence that the propagation of the sound waves across the tweeter faceplate are impacted upon by the screw holes.
Therefore, “Based on the physics", consider the following:
Q1: What happens if the screw heads protruded above the surface of the faceplate?
Q2: Perhaps only holes impact on sound wave propagation, and protrusions have no effect?
Q3: Or maybe sound propagation across the surface of tweeter faceplates obeys a different set of Laws to the ones that apply to, say, woofer faceplates, baffles, cabinet panels or walls?
These are rhetorical questions to illustrate the point.
The propagation of sound waves along the surface of a plane absolutely must be impacted upon by any disruptions on the surface of the plane – based on the laws of physics.
Alex from Oz said:
Cheers,
Alex
Alex from Oz said:
This demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of wavelengths involved for one and effect of proximity and dimension relative to those wavelengths for another.
I would suggest not making conclusions based on ignorance of the physics. The point that you illustrate is the complete lack of understanding of diffraction for one and the negligible impact of bumps on a wall for another to any frequency.
If would like to get some clarification on diffraction, I suggest starting a new thread for that purpose. But if you insist on debating that topic here, go for it, the choice is yours.
Dave
size matters
So by your implied rationale, there is no difference in the effect of a "bunker buster" thermobaric device and a bb gun, when fired at a heavily reinforced target
hmmn... maybe you're onto something... contact DARPA immediately
John L.
Alex from Oz said:
So by your implied rationale, there is no difference in the effect of a "bunker buster" thermobaric device and a bb gun, when fired at a heavily reinforced target
hmmn... maybe you're onto something... contact DARPA immediately
John L.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.