dlr said:
G'day dlr,
Excellent - challenge accepted.
I have tried many times to get sensible technical discussion on baffle and port EnABL.
Constructive technical debate will require a shared practical basis.
Post your listening impressions/experiences here and then we have something to discuss on the technical thread.
Cheers,
Alex
wlowes said:
I'm not trying to stop your experimenting nor sharing "listening" experiences. Maybe you're not familiar with the full history of why this thread is the "listening" thread. It was created explicitly so that no "technical" discussion would intrude. My challenge is to those here who were involved in that thread and insisted that the split occur so that there would be absolutely no technical discussion to bother them, but who then continue to postulate on the technical aspect here, rather than where they insisted it be conducted.
There's real change and then there's imagined change. Those same folks that were so bothered by the technical debate as to real vs. imagined seem intent on introducing it here, not in the intended technical thread, so that they may postulate without interference from any challenges to their speculation. If they are allowed to speculate on the purely technical aspect here, fine, I should be allowed to respond and debate here as well. It's only fair, isn't it?
Dave
Alex from Oz said:
Wrong. The technical requires no subjective input. What you call sensible is a non sequitur. The objective cannot include the subjective, it's a contradiction. Theory requires ideas based on science and on objective data. Microphones and other measuring equipment don't rely upon subjectivity, they cannot. Absolutely none of what has been postulated recently here has been supported objectively in the least. If so, then please post the data and/or theoretical background in the other thread. Or here if any of you care to, I doubt that you'd be taken to task for introducing something objective.
Challenge accepted? You're going to produce some technical data or rational theory to support your specific claims in the other thread? Please show us what you've got.
What one does is find the objective reasons for the subjective, if the subjective is reflecting something that is real. If it cannot be supported with anything objectively, then it is likely to be imagined. That occurs with surprising frequency in audio.
Answer this, have you ever heard of the Tice Clock or Totem Beaks?
Dave
You miss the point entirely Dave, we are not debating. There is no "objective" data or information available for you to debate about. My musings upon possible analogues to what we are finding, in the real world in which we all live, is neither scientific in nature nor technical in direction.
If you want to participate in our endeavors and then argue with us from a point of personal experience, we all would welcome both your intelligence and experience in the objective world of test. To attempt to trigger some sort of technical argument where you are the only arbiter of what is true and what is acceptable, is no more than scientific solipsism. When you are actually ready to participate in what we are exploring, rather than shred us for not meeting your standards of observation, you will find all of the argument you might wish for. Assuming that we should actually be interested in proving that we are adult and sane enough to experience reality, without your helping hand, is nothing more or better than an insult.
Bud
If you want to participate in our endeavors and then argue with us from a point of personal experience, we all would welcome both your intelligence and experience in the objective world of test. To attempt to trigger some sort of technical argument where you are the only arbiter of what is true and what is acceptable, is no more than scientific solipsism. When you are actually ready to participate in what we are exploring, rather than shred us for not meeting your standards of observation, you will find all of the argument you might wish for. Assuming that we should actually be interested in proving that we are adult and sane enough to experience reality, without your helping hand, is nothing more or better than an insult.
Bud
Hey I heard the difference in a blind test. That was good enough for me. And the difference was not what I expected.
And I don't see why the subjective can not be included in the objective. Where's the conflict?
And I don't see why the subjective can not be included in the objective. Where's the conflict?
I heard the difference....
and I'm not blind. But I don't "see" much in audio anyways, I actually use a novel approach--- I listen 🙂 ( er sorry Pano 😉 )
dlr: in a rigorous definition, objective is truly that. Based on data. Nothing subjective about it. On the other hand, should a survey be done on those who have personally experienced speakers that have been EnABLed, and whether they prefer the EnABLed drivers to those that are not, then there exists some meaningful, objective data.
Just because we may not know the mechanism(s) of effect does not preclude that the effect is real and observable.
Someone, someplace suggested that all amplifiers sound the same (if they measure the same). Even casual listeners can lay waste to that comment. We may not know, or have the means to measure the difference, but there may be a difference none-the-less.
I'm willing to accept that I may be completely wrong, of course.
and I'm not blind. But I don't "see" much in audio anyways, I actually use a novel approach--- I listen 🙂 ( er sorry Pano 😉 )
dlr: in a rigorous definition, objective is truly that. Based on data. Nothing subjective about it. On the other hand, should a survey be done on those who have personally experienced speakers that have been EnABLed, and whether they prefer the EnABLed drivers to those that are not, then there exists some meaningful, objective data.
Just because we may not know the mechanism(s) of effect does not preclude that the effect is real and observable.
Someone, someplace suggested that all amplifiers sound the same (if they measure the same). Even casual listeners can lay waste to that comment. We may not know, or have the means to measure the difference, but there may be a difference none-the-less.
I'm willing to accept that I may be completely wrong, of course.
dlr said:
No. The thread was split because there were so many posts containing fruitless ‘technical arguments’.
They got in the way of people wanting to learn how to apply EnABL - so they could test it for themselves.
Your posts in this thread consist entirely of quibbling about where the line between ‘technical’ and ‘subjective’ exists.
You remain unqualified to contribute sensibly because you still lack any experience with EnABL.
Sadly, there is more applied science being done in this thread than the technical one.
Hypothesis
Application of EnABL using the techniques described will cause audible changes to your audio system.
Test
Apply EnABL using the materials and techniques described in this thread.
Listen for audible changes.
Observation
Are there any audible changes? (Yes/No)
Are the results repeatable? (Yes/No)
Perhaps you might consider being gracious enough to let us get on with perpetuating our delusional activities.
Please - stop bloating THIS thread with the same unhelpful posts that spoiled the original thread.
Cheers,
Alex
Applied science? You've got to be kidding.
Anybody who knows anything at all about testing for audibility (and I have no doubt that Bud does) would recognize this for the complete misunderstanding it is. For this to provide any meaningful information at all requires a carefully prepared and documented test done according to well-established principles. Bud knows those principles and I'm sure that many others do, too. Yours is as most of it is, unqualified anecdotal data. Any claims to the contrary are simply factually wrong.
Spoiled for whom? Those who want only cheerleading? The original thread included a number of measurements that everyone was very pleased to use for support of the anecdotal data. I pointed out the misinterpretation and error at that point with all that ensued. But it was an open discussion on a topic. That is the intent of this board, is it not?
I have suggested more than once that it would be in keeping with the desire of those here to take their objective discussions to the other thread. No need to "bloat" this thread. The problem is that this thread is just the original thread morphed into "discussion of subjective with our objective comments to the exclusion of others who would comment on the objective points".
As a discussion participant in the original thread, I believe that my desire to reply to the objective in this thread should not be banned by you nor anyone else. All I ask is that if this thread is to now be the "new" original thread and objective aspects are introduced, then replies be allow either directly to those comments or they be moved to the other thread.
Were I do be praising the "objective" comments in this thread, I would be encouraged, no doubt. Doing the contrary is the issue here, unfortunately.
And I haven't missed any points, Bud. You folks aren't debating, that's true and that's the issue. You're introducing technical topics that deserve debate. But none of you will do so at the intended thread, rather it keeps being introduced here. So again, this thread is morphing into a new version of the original with technical and objective commentary thrown in as desired. I am not the one who has done so. But when done, it seems perfectly valid for someone to respond to those comments.
Or are you saying that no one should be allowed to respond to an objective comment with an objective response? It does seem that the only objections are related only to those comments that are not "yes,yes,yes".
Dave
Re: I heard the difference....
Yes, to say that some purely subjective, anecdotal data taken without using any well-understood and required protocols is indeed completely wrong.
Keep in mind I am not and have not been addressing the speaker itself. Adding mass will indeed cause changes in response. It's the rest of it that has nothing to support the conclusions being stated.
Dave
Yes, to say that some purely subjective, anecdotal data taken without using any well-understood and required protocols is indeed completely wrong.
Keep in mind I am not and have not been addressing the speaker itself. Adding mass will indeed cause changes in response. It's the rest of it that has nothing to support the conclusions being stated.
Dave
dlr said:
Anyone who listens to EnABL generates their own "unqualified anecdotal data".
Some of us post our listening impressions & techniques here for "unqualified anecdotal" peer review.
You have no listening impressions, no techniques and no data.
Cheers,
Alex
Alex from Oz said:
Anyone who listens to EnABL generates their own "unqualified anecdotal data".
Cheers,
Alex
I should correct myself. Anecdotes are not data, they are simply anecdotal.
From the dictionary definition of anecdotal:
"3. based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence. "
There is nothing reliable in it in any way whatsoever. That is well known by anyone who does any research at all in audio perception. That was the point. No one of any standing in research would dispute that, it's universally understood.
Dave
simple as that, eh?
dlr posted:
Dave,
Would you suggest a dollop of equivalent mass at the center of the dust cap, or distributed just inside the surround would have the same audible effect?
Would this provide a basis for evaluation?
dlr posted:
Dave,
Would you suggest a dollop of equivalent mass at the center of the dust cap, or distributed just inside the surround would have the same audible effect?
Would this provide a basis for evaluation?
Re: simple as that, eh?
Each driver reacts too differently to make any generalizations. I doubt that audible differences, if they occur, will be the same. A small drop may make no audible difference, though it will without doubt make a measurable difference. It is a fact that microphones are far more sensitive than our ears.
I have, however, tested a mod on dust caps just like this on a number of drivers. None have ever been positive. This is, I think, due to the fact that they are the most sensitive to added mass, being so close to the former attachment point. Sensitivity will definitely drop if the mass is appreciable relative to the diaphragm. Even tiny weight makes a surprising difference.
Distributed mass just inside the surround can be good or it can be bad. The only way to know is to measure the changes. I've done that a number of times as well. The reaction depends on the mode of any breakup that may exist. It may improve it or it may actually create it. That's the difficulty with anything such as this. Every single driver is different. Every one will react differently. I have seen some improve and some deteriorate. There is no universally positive treatment because each driver is unique.
Were I to hazard a guess, an educated guess from my own experimentation over the years, the area most likely to produce the best results is not on the diaphragm (there are exceptions). Rather it's at on the surround where the flat portion and half roll meet. This is where many manufacturers add their own treatment, from cheap ones to very expensive ones. That does not apply to hard cones in my experience. The impedance mismatch is too great for that to have much of an effect. At times it's a combination, such as the Celestion F15 example I have at my site.
Dave
Ed LaFontaine said:
Each driver reacts too differently to make any generalizations. I doubt that audible differences, if they occur, will be the same. A small drop may make no audible difference, though it will without doubt make a measurable difference. It is a fact that microphones are far more sensitive than our ears.
I have, however, tested a mod on dust caps just like this on a number of drivers. None have ever been positive. This is, I think, due to the fact that they are the most sensitive to added mass, being so close to the former attachment point. Sensitivity will definitely drop if the mass is appreciable relative to the diaphragm. Even tiny weight makes a surprising difference.
Distributed mass just inside the surround can be good or it can be bad. The only way to know is to measure the changes. I've done that a number of times as well. The reaction depends on the mode of any breakup that may exist. It may improve it or it may actually create it. That's the difficulty with anything such as this. Every single driver is different. Every one will react differently. I have seen some improve and some deteriorate. There is no universally positive treatment because each driver is unique.
Were I to hazard a guess, an educated guess from my own experimentation over the years, the area most likely to produce the best results is not on the diaphragm (there are exceptions). Rather it's at on the surround where the flat portion and half roll meet. This is where many manufacturers add their own treatment, from cheap ones to very expensive ones. That does not apply to hard cones in my experience. The impedance mismatch is too great for that to have much of an effect. At times it's a combination, such as the Celestion F15 example I have at my site.
Dave
Re: Re: simple as that, eh?
I keep hearing that, but ir is almost surely a fallacy. No microphone made has the dynamic range of the human ear/brain in good condition. A well calibrated microphone might be able to do some things better, but sensitive isn't one of them.
dave
dlr said:
I keep hearing that, but ir is almost surely a fallacy. No microphone made has the dynamic range of the human ear/brain in good condition. A well calibrated microphone might be able to do some things better, but sensitive isn't one of them.
dave
Re: Re: Re: simple as that, eh?
You keep hearing that because it's true. It's just that some do not want to accept it.
Anything that we hear can be measured.
Dave
planet10 said:
You keep hearing that because it's true. It's just that some do not want to accept it.
Anything that we hear can be measured.
Dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: simple as that, eh?
Yeah, but it will consist of hundreds of measurement, that will need impossible interpretation
To break it down to a few better understandable measurements hardly gives the full picture of what you actually hear
dlr said:
Yeah, but it will consist of hundreds of measurement, that will need impossible interpretation
To break it down to a few better understandable measurements hardly gives the full picture of what you actually hear
DLR, your arguments seem fruitless to me. Continuing to argue against something you haven't even tested or heard is tedious. Tedious to whom? To a lot of folks reading this thread. Sure, it gets you a lot of attention, but that's about all.
There are a number a people on this forum that I know personally who are very rigorous in their approach to audio. They have tried and/or listened to the EnABL drivers and found the changes to be mostly positive.
I've heard them myself - both on drivers I've done and on others. Now I might certainly doubt myself, if I were the only one hearing it - but I'm not. A number of other no-nonsense guys have as well. Guys who build some very, very nice rigs. To me, that means a lot.
Are we all delusional? Maybe. But I doubt it.
If my crack smoking redneck neighbor tells me that the UFOs fly over my house every night, I might not believe him - with good reason! But if my doctor, lawyer and engineering professor neighbors tell me the same thing, I might want to go out and have a look. 😉
There are a number a people on this forum that I know personally who are very rigorous in their approach to audio. They have tried and/or listened to the EnABL drivers and found the changes to be mostly positive.
I've heard them myself - both on drivers I've done and on others. Now I might certainly doubt myself, if I were the only one hearing it - but I'm not. A number of other no-nonsense guys have as well. Guys who build some very, very nice rigs. To me, that means a lot.
Are we all delusional? Maybe. But I doubt it.
If my crack smoking redneck neighbor tells me that the UFOs fly over my house every night, I might not believe him - with good reason! But if my doctor, lawyer and engineering professor neighbors tell me the same thing, I might want to go out and have a look. 😉
Re: Re: Re: Re: simple as that, eh?
The ear has a dynamic range of 140 dB. A microphone is limited to that of the electronics -- i's guess 80-90 dB at best for what most of us are using.
dave
dlr said:
The ear has a dynamic range of 140 dB. A microphone is limited to that of the electronics -- i's guess 80-90 dB at best for what most of us are using.
dave
dlr
Let me drive you a little crazier than I have to date Dave and provide a description of the differences to anyones perception, of EnABL and not EnaBL.
Imagine standing in a circular performance space, about 100 feet across, with a stringed instrument orchestra in the center. Between you and the orchestra is a dome constructed from panels of light wood with rice paper stretched between the ribs.
The orchestra begins to play a Vivaldi piece. The sound is clear, musical and highly detailed. You cannot tell how many members are in the orchestra due to the slight diffusion provided by the paper. You cannot point to a specific place for any individual member either, again due to this slight interruption. Some blending of like instruments does occur, but in all it is a very satisfying presentation.
Then, you are invited into the dome and suddenly you are aware of the heat, moisture, location and individual sound of each player. Their tiniest individual, idiosyncratic emphasis to tones, are easily attached to the player and you are engulfed in their music.
What was, before you entered, a lovely sounding orchestra, portrayed upon a screen, is now a deep and comprehensible reality.
This is, of course, an exaggeration in degree. It is however, the characteristic change brought about by every single application of EnABL I have experienced. Regardless of the original quality of the driver.
John K's blink comparison was the first trustworthy indication of the patterns influence I have seen and even there it is only a narrow band where the differences are clearly depicted. I cannot use so slender a test regimen to make subtle decisions about how to proceed with treating a driver. I can use a goal driven, subjective test regimen to base decisions upon, and the goal is to remove that screen and enter into the musical environment.
It has been a strong desire of mine to find a way to test a process that so strongly affects the intelligibility of drivers while leaving so little evidence in the test data for mechanical activities and I have been disappointed to date.
Your work with driver surrounds, Dan Wiggins work with magnetic structures and thousands of others efforts to improve the mechanical response of drivers to complex signals, has been invaluable to everyone who loves music reproduction.
this process has more effect upon the wave front propagation from the speaker surface than it does upon the internal activities of the rest of the driver. In every case, thought the scale will be mitigated by starting level of performance, the driver responds with dramatic increases in intelligibility, without much change to any of the mechanical aspects of it's operation.
Do you want to get involved in helping us find out how and why? Your orderly approach and refined technical understanding of the mechanics of the drivers and time of flight would be invaluable.
Bud
Let me drive you a little crazier than I have to date Dave and provide a description of the differences to anyones perception, of EnABL and not EnaBL.
Imagine standing in a circular performance space, about 100 feet across, with a stringed instrument orchestra in the center. Between you and the orchestra is a dome constructed from panels of light wood with rice paper stretched between the ribs.
The orchestra begins to play a Vivaldi piece. The sound is clear, musical and highly detailed. You cannot tell how many members are in the orchestra due to the slight diffusion provided by the paper. You cannot point to a specific place for any individual member either, again due to this slight interruption. Some blending of like instruments does occur, but in all it is a very satisfying presentation.
Then, you are invited into the dome and suddenly you are aware of the heat, moisture, location and individual sound of each player. Their tiniest individual, idiosyncratic emphasis to tones, are easily attached to the player and you are engulfed in their music.
What was, before you entered, a lovely sounding orchestra, portrayed upon a screen, is now a deep and comprehensible reality.
This is, of course, an exaggeration in degree. It is however, the characteristic change brought about by every single application of EnABL I have experienced. Regardless of the original quality of the driver.
John K's blink comparison was the first trustworthy indication of the patterns influence I have seen and even there it is only a narrow band where the differences are clearly depicted. I cannot use so slender a test regimen to make subtle decisions about how to proceed with treating a driver. I can use a goal driven, subjective test regimen to base decisions upon, and the goal is to remove that screen and enter into the musical environment.
It has been a strong desire of mine to find a way to test a process that so strongly affects the intelligibility of drivers while leaving so little evidence in the test data for mechanical activities and I have been disappointed to date.
Your work with driver surrounds, Dan Wiggins work with magnetic structures and thousands of others efforts to improve the mechanical response of drivers to complex signals, has been invaluable to everyone who loves music reproduction.
this process has more effect upon the wave front propagation from the speaker surface than it does upon the internal activities of the rest of the driver. In every case, thought the scale will be mitigated by starting level of performance, the driver responds with dramatic increases in intelligibility, without much change to any of the mechanical aspects of it's operation.
Do you want to get involved in helping us find out how and why? Your orderly approach and refined technical understanding of the mechanics of the drivers and time of flight would be invaluable.
Bud
- Status
- Not open for further replies.