Re: Re: Can u say Loschmidt
that's easy... just count 'em again... going in... coming out...double precision...doesn't work for DC tho... 😀 😀
scott wurcer said:
that's easy... just count 'em again... going in... coming out...double precision...doesn't work for DC tho... 😀 😀
auplater said:
John, are these the ones that you claim sound as good as mine without all the hastle of painting dots?? They look very good. I suspect they sound better but a fair bit more money though.
I am actually going to audition a few high end systems to get a real sense of how much cash it takes to beat my diy EnAble stuff. Certainly the Denon system I in the living room driving Totem speakers is no where in the same league. I auditioned some pretty fancy looking Canton speakers, also no contest. Next up is Wilson.
Attachments
With speakers like this and the large room(s) to listen to them, I can understand your reluctance to start "dotting" the surfaces on those tall units either.
Just asking this, why are you spending time here on this thread, anyway, as you're seem to be quite convinced that's it's all a delusion?
Actually, it would be simple enough to add some removable "EnABL tape strips" (w/out paint), to the baffle edges, for example, just to see if it makes any difference in your system.
I'm pretty sure that some "tracks" down beside the edges of the panels will do SOMETHING, even if it's only edge diffraction!
Just asking this, why are you spending time here on this thread, anyway, as you're seem to be quite convinced that's it's all a delusion?
Actually, it would be simple enough to add some removable "EnABL tape strips" (w/out paint), to the baffle edges, for example, just to see if it makes any difference in your system.
I'm pretty sure that some "tracks" down beside the edges of the panels will do SOMETHING, even if it's only edge diffraction!
dlr said:
It happens sometimes.
I was going for the funny bone this time, not the jugular! 😀
Although, if you ever do get around to trying EnABL on some baffles and ports, you might get stung there as well. 😉
Cheers,
Alex
That won't happen because one must believe in it outside of a driver diaphragm. It's the belief that tricks the mind. Serious question, ever hear of the placebo effect? I've yet to see a response when I asked that question previously.
I've also asked a couple of times and again you've never responded. Maybe you're not willing to risk answering, bud also picks and chooses which questions receive a response. Have you ever heard of the Tice Clock or Totem Beaks? I'll take no response as an affirmative this time.
Dave
Can we put your opinions in context
Dir,
It would be helpful for people coming into this thread without experience to put your skepticism regarding EnAble into some context. Can you help us understand your frame of reference by going down a quick check list? Do you believe the following have an impact on sound quality?
EnAble – No we’ve got that one
Totem Beaks – Another No, how about:
Room treatment ?
Speaker placement?
Interconnects?
Speaker Cables?
Power Cables?
Power line quality/conditioning?
Capacitor quality?
Resistor Quality?
Transformers?
Wire Guage and Architecture (solid vs stranded) in the signal path?
Ground Plane?
Bud’s electron pools?
That should be enough to paint a picture. Thanks
Dir,
It would be helpful for people coming into this thread without experience to put your skepticism regarding EnAble into some context. Can you help us understand your frame of reference by going down a quick check list? Do you believe the following have an impact on sound quality?
EnAble – No we’ve got that one
Totem Beaks – Another No, how about:
Room treatment ?
Speaker placement?
Interconnects?
Speaker Cables?
Power Cables?
Power line quality/conditioning?
Capacitor quality?
Resistor Quality?
Transformers?
Wire Guage and Architecture (solid vs stranded) in the signal path?
Ground Plane?
Bud’s electron pools?
That should be enough to paint a picture. Thanks
Re: Can we put your opinions in context
EnAble ¡V No experience
Totem Beaks ¡V Don't know what this is
Room treatment ? Yes!
Speaker placement? Yes!
Interconnects? Yes!
Speaker Cables? Yes!
Power Cables? Yes!
Power line quality/conditioning? Yes!
Capacitor quality? Yes!
Resistor Quality? Yes! (a little bit)
Transformers? Yes!
Wire Guage and Architecture (solid vs stranded) in the signal path? Yes!
Ground Plane? No Experience
Bud¡¦s electron pools? No experience
I'm not sure whether you'd ever get a direct answer from dlr, but here is my pitch:wlowes said:
EnAble ¡V No experience
Totem Beaks ¡V Don't know what this is
Room treatment ? Yes!
Speaker placement? Yes!
Interconnects? Yes!
Speaker Cables? Yes!
Power Cables? Yes!
Power line quality/conditioning? Yes!
Capacitor quality? Yes!
Resistor Quality? Yes! (a little bit)
Transformers? Yes!
Wire Guage and Architecture (solid vs stranded) in the signal path? Yes!
Ground Plane? No Experience
Bud¡¦s electron pools? No experience
wlowes,
I will gladly answer your questionnaire.
EnAble – No we’ve got that one
Totem Beaks – Another No, how about:
Room treatment - Absolutely (arguably the most important component of the audio system is a proper room setup)
Speaker placement - Absolutely (nearly as important as the speaker design itself)
Interconnects - Aside from amplifier stability and measureable characteristics such as shielding and RLC- NO
Speaker Cables? - Yes, I have heard the difference that super thin (high resistance) wire makes on the damping of the speaker, but it would be a measurable effect. Given similar RLC characteristics and that the amplifier is stable, NO.
Power Cables? - not unless there's a problem with the equipment
Power line quality/conditioning? - Same as above, a decently designed power supply will produce adequately filtered DC.
Capacitor quality? - There is a certain amount of distortion that is measurable, particularly in electrolytics, but largely I think the impact is exaggerated (yes I've listened to high end ones).
Resistor Quality? - Aside from noise characteristics that are inherent to each type of resistor and measurably large inductance in large value wirewounds, no. I use standard metal film resistors in my amps. Differences are exaggerated.
Transformers? - Yes, there is not a perfect core out there, they will all have some hysteresis and distortion, some are better than others. Easily measurable.
Wire Guage [sic] and Architecture (solid vs stranded) in the signal path? - It all comes down to RLC, and shielding. Some of the fancy wires probably introduce instability in questionable pre-amp and amp circuits.
Ground Plane? - In a distributed capacitance sense for Digital circuits sure. In analog circuits they just introduce problems such as ground loops (no not like Bud's) and noisy grounds.
Bud’s electron pools? NO.
It would help to put your beliefs in context as well.
Do you believe in the following fields of study:
Optical Illusions
Auditory Illusions
Psychoacoustics
Placebo Effect
Cognitive Bias
Furthermore, do you believe that it is possible that you can perceive through your senses an effect that is not due to the acoustical signal. (I do believe this).
Regards,
David
I will gladly answer your questionnaire.
EnAble – No we’ve got that one
Totem Beaks – Another No, how about:
Room treatment - Absolutely (arguably the most important component of the audio system is a proper room setup)
Speaker placement - Absolutely (nearly as important as the speaker design itself)
Interconnects - Aside from amplifier stability and measureable characteristics such as shielding and RLC- NO
Speaker Cables? - Yes, I have heard the difference that super thin (high resistance) wire makes on the damping of the speaker, but it would be a measurable effect. Given similar RLC characteristics and that the amplifier is stable, NO.
Power Cables? - not unless there's a problem with the equipment
Power line quality/conditioning? - Same as above, a decently designed power supply will produce adequately filtered DC.
Capacitor quality? - There is a certain amount of distortion that is measurable, particularly in electrolytics, but largely I think the impact is exaggerated (yes I've listened to high end ones).
Resistor Quality? - Aside from noise characteristics that are inherent to each type of resistor and measurably large inductance in large value wirewounds, no. I use standard metal film resistors in my amps. Differences are exaggerated.
Transformers? - Yes, there is not a perfect core out there, they will all have some hysteresis and distortion, some are better than others. Easily measurable.
Wire Guage [sic] and Architecture (solid vs stranded) in the signal path? - It all comes down to RLC, and shielding. Some of the fancy wires probably introduce instability in questionable pre-amp and amp circuits.
Ground Plane? - In a distributed capacitance sense for Digital circuits sure. In analog circuits they just introduce problems such as ground loops (no not like Bud's) and noisy grounds.
Bud’s electron pools? NO.
It would help to put your beliefs in context as well.
Do you believe in the following fields of study:
Optical Illusions
Auditory Illusions
Psychoacoustics
Placebo Effect
Cognitive Bias
Furthermore, do you believe that it is possible that you can perceive through your senses an effect that is not due to the acoustical signal. (I do believe this).
Regards,
David
questionaire
to avoid repetition, I pretty much agree with David's answers.
I'd also add to his list of questions for the believers
>>Optical Illusions
>>Auditory Illusions
>>Psychoacoustics
>>Placebo Effect
>>Cognitive Bias
Scientific method to separate factual events from perception
Standard statistics and mathematics
Blinded studies
John L.
to avoid repetition, I pretty much agree with David's answers.
I'd also add to his list of questions for the believers
>>Optical Illusions
>>Auditory Illusions
>>Psychoacoustics
>>Placebo Effect
>>Cognitive Bias
Scientific method to separate factual events from perception
Standard statistics and mathematics
Blinded studies
John L.
Re: questionaire
Might be hard for you to reconcile, but for what it’s worth I am have a Bsc degree and have spent a life time in high tech working for companies like Siemens and Kodak who have more than a little bit of scientific discipline. I have actually taken a fairly organized approach to researching and testing the results of each step i this hobby.
But if I were making a fine wine, I would not exclusively measure the chemical composition of the finished product. At some point I'd taste it. I'd ask my friends to taste it and compare tasting impression. When the chemists come along and refuse to taste it and tell me that because I haven't run a spectral analysis that I must be delusional and imagining that I like the taste, I would call into question their value to the discussion.
For what its worth, I still hear the difference that EnAble makes. And by the way, the electron pool thing will blow you away.
gtforme00 said:
Might be hard for you to reconcile, but for what it’s worth I am have a Bsc degree and have spent a life time in high tech working for companies like Siemens and Kodak who have more than a little bit of scientific discipline. I have actually taken a fairly organized approach to researching and testing the results of each step i this hobby.
But if I were making a fine wine, I would not exclusively measure the chemical composition of the finished product. At some point I'd taste it. I'd ask my friends to taste it and compare tasting impression. When the chemists come along and refuse to taste it and tell me that because I haven't run a spectral analysis that I must be delusional and imagining that I like the taste, I would call into question their value to the discussion.
For what its worth, I still hear the difference that EnAble makes. And by the way, the electron pool thing will blow you away.
"But if I were making a fine wine, I would not exclusively measure the chemical composition of the finished product. At some point I'd taste it. I'd ask my friends to taste it and compare tasting impression. When the chemists come along and refuse to taste it and tell me that because I haven't run a spectral analysis that I must be delusional and imagining that I like the taste, I would call into question their value to the discussion."
eloquently put 😉
Brent
eloquently put 😉
Brent
Re: Re: Re: questionaire
But a bad analogy. It's not applicable.
Again I see that a question on other products that are based solely on perception won't even get an acknowledgment that they are aware or not. Those two rely specifically on the same "listening impressions" technique as this one. Seems like that should be supportive of this one. Most here are putting absolute faith in listening impressions, why no interest? Those who believe in those other products often say almost exactly what is said here. Are you guys actually afraid to even acknowledge their existence?
Dave
SimontY said:
But a bad analogy. It's not applicable.
Again I see that a question on other products that are based solely on perception won't even get an acknowledgment that they are aware or not. Those two rely specifically on the same "listening impressions" technique as this one. Seems like that should be supportive of this one. Most here are putting absolute faith in listening impressions, why no interest? Those who believe in those other products often say almost exactly what is said here. Are you guys actually afraid to even acknowledge their existence?
Dave
Dave,
Not all of us are scientists, some of us are just simple hobbyists who enjoy listening to music. Scientific proof is entirely irrelevant to my hobby. I have lots of fun, why change that? And why do you wish to change that?
Simon
Not all of us are scientists, some of us are just simple hobbyists who enjoy listening to music. Scientific proof is entirely irrelevant to my hobby. I have lots of fun, why change that? And why do you wish to change that?
Simon
Scientific pursuits
For me, it's the surreptitious attempts to validate this "technique" using psuedoscientific explanations, rather than simply leaving it as a subjective observation. It's that simple...
If you told me enabling wine glasses made wine taste better to you no matter what it was made from, but you didn't have a clue why and don't care, I'd say Great for you but that doesn't work for me. The attempts to somehow prove enabl works and has a sound scientific basis using JohnK's measurements with added mass are laughable at best, and a perfect example of spinning psuedoscientific analysis inappropriately.
SimontY said:
For me, it's the surreptitious attempts to validate this "technique" using psuedoscientific explanations, rather than simply leaving it as a subjective observation. It's that simple...
If you told me enabling wine glasses made wine taste better to you no matter what it was made from, but you didn't have a clue why and don't care, I'd say Great for you but that doesn't work for me. The attempts to somehow prove enabl works and has a sound scientific basis using JohnK's measurements with added mass are laughable at best, and a perfect example of spinning psuedoscientific analysis inappropriately.
SimontY said:
It's a hobby for me as well and I enjoy helping others. What bothers me is seeing other hobbyists being told to spend time, effort and expense on things that are said to be dramatic and even to make irreversible changes to drivers (no matter the cost) that may be detrimental as well as spend time on things that have no basis in physics. Check my site, my interest is not fleeting. Everything I make available for either reference or actual measurements for download is all free. All of it is documented and repeatable if one cares.
This is a discussion board, isn't it? Is one required to believe only a certain way to be allowed to participate? That is the impression some seem to have.
There seems to be absolutely no healthy skepticism of anything here. If you want to discuss some technical reasons why baffle and walls (!) are totally ineffective in reality, please post a message on the technical thread. But if technical aspects are introduced here, rather than there, it should be acceptable to respond to them here, unless the proponents start to be chastised by the moderators rather than just we skeptics. I've yet to see the former, Bud gets free hand to make technical claims unquestioned.
Dave
Listeners will decide what they like, and it's up to the designers to figure out how to acheive optimum results within the physical limits of a design. I have had many people pick out problems in my designs, and it was up to me to figure out what the hell was going on, and what the person was really trying to describe. This is always a diffcult part whenever personal perception and preferences come into play. I think engineers that get frustrated with all the ambiguous descriptions really do not spend enough time listening, and thus cannot communicate their feeling, not understand the feelings of others when it comes to listening impressions. I once visited another local designer here, and was asked repeatedly to comment on one of his speakers. I had to pull out a specific music CD to play a very specific section of music and explain before he would let me go.
Ambiguity of descriptions has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of it. It's beyond me as to why you made any of those comments.
Dave
dlr and auplater,
Bud's and others' "psuedo" technical theories are just that, theories. I don't read them as technical ANALYSES of EnABL. They are Bronowski-like attempts to theorize about the reasons for the supposed listening results. Rather than using a lot of technical refutations here on this thread, why not POLITELY post your responses in equivocal terms (rather than simply dismissing them as a matter of course). Then try to nudge the conversation to the other thread for anyone interested in battling over the measurements and technical issues. I for one don't mind your challenges in this thread in concept, but I TIRE quickly of your pedantic approach.
Carl
Bud's and others' "psuedo" technical theories are just that, theories. I don't read them as technical ANALYSES of EnABL. They are Bronowski-like attempts to theorize about the reasons for the supposed listening results. Rather than using a lot of technical refutations here on this thread, why not POLITELY post your responses in equivocal terms (rather than simply dismissing them as a matter of course). Then try to nudge the conversation to the other thread for anyone interested in battling over the measurements and technical issues. I for one don't mind your challenges in this thread in concept, but I TIRE quickly of your pedantic approach.
Carl
HOW TO SAVE TIME READING THIS THREAD
Unfortunately this thread continues to be filled with 'bloat' posts.
These ‘bloat’ posters contribute nothing useful in regards to EnABL listening impressions and application techniques.
The problem is that you have to scroll through pages and pages of the ‘bloat’ to pick out the useful posts that give you the information you want.
There IS an easy way to shrink the ‘bloat’ posts:
STEP 1: You will need to sign up as member at diyaudio if you haven’t done so already.
Members are not obliged to post in the forum and it will make reading the threads much easier.
Eg. you can view to 50 posts per page, subscribe to threads so they list in your 'user control panel' for easy access.
STEP 2: Locate a ‘bloat’ post and click on the members name at the left of the screen
A window will open with the member details.
At the bottom, click ‘Add Bloatmaster to Your Ignore List’
You will see the following message: Bloatmaster has now been successfully added to you ignore list.
ALL posts from that member will then look like this:
Things to note:
- Adding someone to your Ignore list is not being rude, just practical.
- Members cannot see who has them on their Ignore list either.
- You can still read the post if you want
- You can remove a member from your Ignore list anytime.
See if it makes life easier for you.
Cheers,
Alex
PS - if you don't like reading my posts, you know what to do! 😀
Unfortunately this thread continues to be filled with 'bloat' posts.
These ‘bloat’ posters contribute nothing useful in regards to EnABL listening impressions and application techniques.
The problem is that you have to scroll through pages and pages of the ‘bloat’ to pick out the useful posts that give you the information you want.
There IS an easy way to shrink the ‘bloat’ posts:
STEP 1: You will need to sign up as member at diyaudio if you haven’t done so already.
Members are not obliged to post in the forum and it will make reading the threads much easier.
Eg. you can view to 50 posts per page, subscribe to threads so they list in your 'user control panel' for easy access.
STEP 2: Locate a ‘bloat’ post and click on the members name at the left of the screen
Bloatmaster []
diyAudio Member
A window will open with the member details.
At the bottom, click ‘Add Bloatmaster to Your Ignore List’
You will see the following message: Bloatmaster has now been successfully added to you ignore list.
ALL posts from that member will then look like this:
Things to note:
- Adding someone to your Ignore list is not being rude, just practical.
- Members cannot see who has them on their Ignore list either.
- You can still read the post if you want
- You can remove a member from your Ignore list anytime.
See if it makes life easier for you.
Cheers,
Alex
PS - if you don't like reading my posts, you know what to do! 😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.