Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EnAble on Baffles
It is interesting to come to this discussion from the one about measuring Dr Geddes HOMs... no one has measured those either, you just "have to listen".
dave
john k... said:
It is interesting to come to this discussion from the one about measuring Dr Geddes HOMs... no one has measured those either, you just "have to listen".
dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: EnAble on Baffles
That pretty much sums up your approach to EnABL.
Cheers,
Alex
dlr said:
That pretty much sums up your approach to EnABL.
Cheers,
Alex
Some things never change
It wasn't so long ago that a few people were ridiculed for suggesting that the world was not flat and the sun does not orbit around earth.
It wasn't so long ago that a few people were ridiculed for suggesting that the world was not flat and the sun does not orbit around earth.
I feel kind of guilty standing here on the sidelines the past few weeks watching dlr take on all comers. I have met dlr, been to his house for an audio meet, and can tell you that he is a very sharp guy. He has a solid engineering background and significant experience in audio/acoustics, in particular baffle treatment and diffraction.
I think that several of you would be better off listening to what he says no matter how much it goes against your strong beliefs and opinions. In my opinion treating the driver with Enable has always been of questionable benefit. Treating the cabinet and now the walls is approaching some of the best snake oil I have seen in audio in a long time.
It would seem that some of the Enable believers have fooled themselves into thinking that they are the engineers/scientists in this discussion when in reality they are the ones blindly believing and proclaiming that the world is flat.
An interesting review of Enabled drivers versus untreated drivers by another true character in the audio community.
http://www.audiophiletalk.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1242510042/6#6
I guess some people who have tried it just don't get it either.
I think that several of you would be better off listening to what he says no matter how much it goes against your strong beliefs and opinions. In my opinion treating the driver with Enable has always been of questionable benefit. Treating the cabinet and now the walls is approaching some of the best snake oil I have seen in audio in a long time.
It would seem that some of the Enable believers have fooled themselves into thinking that they are the engineers/scientists in this discussion when in reality they are the ones blindly believing and proclaiming that the world is flat.
An interesting review of Enabled drivers versus untreated drivers by another true character in the audio community.
http://www.audiophiletalk.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1242510042/6#6
I guess some people who have tried it just don't get it either.
Martin,
Have you ever sat down and seriously evaluated the EnABled vrs notEnABLed FE126 youhave?
dave
Have you ever sat down and seriously evaluated the EnABled vrs notEnABLed FE126 youhave?
dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EnAble on Baffles
We did that, you peeked. Funny thing is the delayed choice quantum entanglement experiment has now been confirmed by astronomers for photon pairs created before our solar system existed delayed by two weeks by gravitational lens effects. That is you measure the spin on one and wait two weeks for the other and the result is always as predicted, quite stunning.
john k... said:
We did that, you peeked. Funny thing is the delayed choice quantum entanglement experiment has now been confirmed by astronomers for photon pairs created before our solar system existed delayed by two weeks by gravitational lens effects. That is you measure the spin on one and wait two weeks for the other and the result is always as predicted, quite stunning.
MJK said:
That would be 2 thumbs up for these two brief, to the point paragraphs. No one has said it better.
🙂
MJK said:
G'day MJK,
Well, how about some FREE snake oil samples?
I make the same offer to you that dlr refused:
"I’m prepared to make up EnABL strips to suit the ports or baffles of your choice and mail them to you at my expense.
If I did so, would you be prepared to comment on what you heard and make a couple of measurements?"
Cheers,
Alex
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EnAble on Baffles
First of all HOM are not something that is imagined. Simple solutions to the wave equation show how the develop. They are not some mystical misrepresentation or manipulation of thought.
So Dave, am I to interpret the above as you believe your ears are more sensitive than a microphone? Do you think that if you place mic caps in your ear canals they would not record variations in pressure that would be in audible? I'll say the same thing I said in the other thread. The idea that anyone can hear things that can not be measured is hangover form the early days of audio. It is an absurd idea that has simple lived on well past its time.
I showed last year than an impulse propagating across a baffle with and without enable patches was un effected. Yet there are many of you still hanging on claiming to hear what doesn't exist.
No argument that enabled drivers may sound different. They also clearly measure different too. But enabling ports, baffles, wall, heaven forbid that you should move a chair 1/2" in you listen room, or the relative humidity or temperature should change by a percent or two.
And what ever happened to those prototype drivers form a major manufacture? All the promised technical support and documentation never appeared.
As anyone tried different color enable patches yet? Surely the different pigments will color the sound differently (pun intended).
planet10 said:
First of all HOM are not something that is imagined. Simple solutions to the wave equation show how the develop. They are not some mystical misrepresentation or manipulation of thought.
So Dave, am I to interpret the above as you believe your ears are more sensitive than a microphone? Do you think that if you place mic caps in your ear canals they would not record variations in pressure that would be in audible? I'll say the same thing I said in the other thread. The idea that anyone can hear things that can not be measured is hangover form the early days of audio. It is an absurd idea that has simple lived on well past its time.
I showed last year than an impulse propagating across a baffle with and without enable patches was un effected. Yet there are many of you still hanging on claiming to hear what doesn't exist.
No argument that enabled drivers may sound different. They also clearly measure different too. But enabling ports, baffles, wall, heaven forbid that you should move a chair 1/2" in you listen room, or the relative humidity or temperature should change by a percent or two.
And what ever happened to those prototype drivers form a major manufacture? All the promised technical support and documentation never appeared.
As anyone tried different color enable patches yet? Surely the different pigments will color the sound differently (pun intended).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EnAble on Baffles
That is not the point. The point is that it seems no-one has figured out how to measure them, yet the lack of them can easily be heard (or so i understand)
One could say that it is the single counter example required to disprove your assertion that everything can be measured,
(i actually agree with that, but add that we haven't yet figured out how to do the measures in a lot of cases)
dave
john k... said:
That is not the point. The point is that it seems no-one has figured out how to measure them, yet the lack of them can easily be heard (or so i understand)
One could say that it is the single counter example required to disprove your assertion that everything can be measured,
(i actually agree with that, but add that we haven't yet figured out how to do the measures in a lot of cases)
dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EnAble on Baffles
This sort of mis-statement is becoming common. As Earl said in the thread, they are being measured now and are included in the response. The difficulty is in trying to separate the HOM from the rest of the measurement in a horn or waveguide. Their presence is known to exist, as John pointed out.
Any baffle treatment is an entirely different matter, since it is easy to measure with the treatment and without it to show definitively what changes occur or, in the case of enabl, do not occur, as John has already demonstrated.
Dave
planet10 said:
This sort of mis-statement is becoming common. As Earl said in the thread, they are being measured now and are included in the response. The difficulty is in trying to separate the HOM from the rest of the measurement in a horn or waveguide. Their presence is known to exist, as John pointed out.
Any baffle treatment is an entirely different matter, since it is easy to measure with the treatment and without it to show definitively what changes occur or, in the case of enabl, do not occur, as John has already demonstrated.
Dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EnAble on Baffles
At least mathematically
I have still not had a chance to set up a proper comparison of treatment on a baffle -- too busy making better drivers. It seems to me that it would be quite amazing if those little spots could make a difference, but then i was of the same opinion when 1st presented with EnABL on drivers (then i had the opportunity to hear a set, then a couple months of experimenting).
I keep an open mind.
That we can measure (and interpret) everything that a loudspeaker does is absurd to me. We haven't yet figured out how to fully quantify electronics and they are a whole lot easier to measure than loudpeakers which are confounded by the space they are in and by an additional transducer in the mix.
dave
dlr said:
At least mathematically
I have still not had a chance to set up a proper comparison of treatment on a baffle -- too busy making better drivers. It seems to me that it would be quite amazing if those little spots could make a difference, but then i was of the same opinion when 1st presented with EnABL on drivers (then i had the opportunity to hear a set, then a couple months of experimenting).
I keep an open mind.
That we can measure (and interpret) everything that a loudspeaker does is absurd to me. We haven't yet figured out how to fully quantify electronics and they are a whole lot easier to measure than loudpeakers which are confounded by the space they are in and by an additional transducer in the mix.
dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EnAble on Baffles
Your open mind appears to be closed (as are many believers) when it comes to valid measurements and as John indicated, also the fairly simple matter (to Earl and John at least) of solving the wave equation. Your statement "At least mathematically" is just another implied rejection and/or refusal to accept anything counter to the belief in enabl, wherever applied.
The measurement concerned is simple. John did it. I do it similarly and routinely for diffraction testing. It is unrelated to the source of the signal given where and how it is measured, actually, the mic simply measures the sound wave as it passes by. It also does not require us to measure "everything that a loudspeaker does". That's a straw-man argument and meant to diminish that which we can easily do.
Dave
planet10 said:
Your open mind appears to be closed (as are many believers) when it comes to valid measurements and as John indicated, also the fairly simple matter (to Earl and John at least) of solving the wave equation. Your statement "At least mathematically" is just another implied rejection and/or refusal to accept anything counter to the belief in enabl, wherever applied.
The measurement concerned is simple. John did it. I do it similarly and routinely for diffraction testing. It is unrelated to the source of the signal given where and how it is measured, actually, the mic simply measures the sound wave as it passes by. It also does not require us to measure "everything that a loudspeaker does". That's a straw-man argument and meant to diminish that which we can easily do.
Dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EnAble on Baffles
Well, I don't know if that is true. If you build a device that generates HOMs (like Earls wave guide) then HOMs are inherently in the SPL output. You can not build a similar WG without the HOMs as the generation of the HOMs is a function of the shape of the device. Change the shape and the HOMs are different. Add foam damping and the HOMs may be damped, but so are all the other waves. There is no 1 to 1 comparison, HOMs or no HOMs. The problem is that we can not separate the contributions of HOMs out of the resultant response. It's like I said to Earl. If I tell you I have $0.25 you know how much money I have but you don't have a glue as to whether I have 25 pennies, a quarter, 5 nickles, two dimes and a nickle or 3 nickles and a dime.
If you want to design an experiment to determine the audibility of HOMs then you have to start with a device that has no HOMs and figure out how to add them in without altering anything else.
When it came to drivers there was no argument that they could sound different if enabled. The sour grapes came when it was asserted that the differences were not a result of the obvious differences in measured frequency response. Rather, the differences were attributed to some pseudo science which has no foundation in mathematics at all. It was just words. Nothing more that a sales pitch. It is easy to design an experiment to show that a difference exists. It is not so easy to design an experiment which established a cause/effect relationship, particularly when the cause isn't even defined other than a continued ranting that it is this or that or who knows. As they say, all things considered the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. Thus, enabled drivers sound different because they have different frequency response is most likely correct. If you choose to believe otherwise, so be it.
Now with enable patches on a baffle, as I demonstrated last year, it is pretty easy to design a suitable experiment. Take a baffle w/o enable patches and look at the behavior of the impulse response propagating over the baffle surface. Then add enable patches and look for the difference. If there isn't a difference then there is no difference to hear. That is unequivocal. To argue about it makes one a fool. You can change the shape, pattern, size, height.... but if there is no difference in a relevant measurement then there is no effect.
We don't know how to measure a lot of specific things. But we do know how to measure the difference and diofferences in SPL that reaches our ears. We can certainly change things in the signal path (amps, preamps, CD players, caps, coils, resistors....enable patches on baffles or drivers) and repeat the same measurement and look for differences. If we hear a difference where none is measured we are fooling ourselves.
Science and engineering are full of standardized test used to evaluate difference in behavior without trying to establish a cause/effect relationship of why the difference exists. It seem that only in audio are such tests dismissed as insufficient. Of course there is a reason for it. Accepting such tests would driver a nail through the heart of much of highend audio.
planet10 said:
Well, I don't know if that is true. If you build a device that generates HOMs (like Earls wave guide) then HOMs are inherently in the SPL output. You can not build a similar WG without the HOMs as the generation of the HOMs is a function of the shape of the device. Change the shape and the HOMs are different. Add foam damping and the HOMs may be damped, but so are all the other waves. There is no 1 to 1 comparison, HOMs or no HOMs. The problem is that we can not separate the contributions of HOMs out of the resultant response. It's like I said to Earl. If I tell you I have $0.25 you know how much money I have but you don't have a glue as to whether I have 25 pennies, a quarter, 5 nickles, two dimes and a nickle or 3 nickles and a dime.
If you want to design an experiment to determine the audibility of HOMs then you have to start with a device that has no HOMs and figure out how to add them in without altering anything else.
When it came to drivers there was no argument that they could sound different if enabled. The sour grapes came when it was asserted that the differences were not a result of the obvious differences in measured frequency response. Rather, the differences were attributed to some pseudo science which has no foundation in mathematics at all. It was just words. Nothing more that a sales pitch. It is easy to design an experiment to show that a difference exists. It is not so easy to design an experiment which established a cause/effect relationship, particularly when the cause isn't even defined other than a continued ranting that it is this or that or who knows. As they say, all things considered the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. Thus, enabled drivers sound different because they have different frequency response is most likely correct. If you choose to believe otherwise, so be it.
Now with enable patches on a baffle, as I demonstrated last year, it is pretty easy to design a suitable experiment. Take a baffle w/o enable patches and look at the behavior of the impulse response propagating over the baffle surface. Then add enable patches and look for the difference. If there isn't a difference then there is no difference to hear. That is unequivocal. To argue about it makes one a fool. You can change the shape, pattern, size, height.... but if there is no difference in a relevant measurement then there is no effect.
We don't know how to measure a lot of specific things. But we do know how to measure the difference and diofferences in SPL that reaches our ears. We can certainly change things in the signal path (amps, preamps, CD players, caps, coils, resistors....enable patches on baffles or drivers) and repeat the same measurement and look for differences. If we hear a difference where none is measured we are fooling ourselves.
Science and engineering are full of standardized test used to evaluate difference in behavior without trying to establish a cause/effect relationship of why the difference exists. It seem that only in audio are such tests dismissed as insufficient. Of course there is a reason for it. Accepting such tests would driver a nail through the heart of much of highend audio.
This is a fascinating thread. I like the fact that the argument is staying mature and constructive. I find good points on both sides. I have no idea, however, what's fact and what's fiction. Welcome to DIY and HIFI.
I'll admit I have a tendency of wanting to try things that alot of people say are great. I bought a set of amps and a preamp made by Nuforce this way. I later sold them. I thought they were less than captivating sonically and easy to damage. I have my limits, though. You won't catch me buying stuff like 'cable isolators' and three thousand dollar nonresonating tables, lol. Gimme a break already!
I bought the AER MD2B drivers because I thought that for $2500 they must be alot better than anything I had tried before. Well guess what? I'm 100 times happier with the AN product and the AERs are in their boxes.
I ordered the En product for my AN drivers. Unfortunately, I can't evaluate the En product alone because the drivers have had some other treatments applied to ameliorate some response issues. But I thought the drivers, which had a couple hours on them, sounded like my other identical ANs, which have 300 hours on them. This is a very good start indeed. I also think the En drivers so far render complex music more accurately. By this I mean things don't seem quite so 'mashed together' as with the stock driver. It's easier for me to pick something out that's hiding behind larger sounds, if that makes any sense. It 'seems' like a more coherent presentation.
BUT...I also may be falling victim to my own mind. Everything I just said can't be proven. And I have found my musical enjoyment depends GREATLY on my mood and energy level at the time. Some days all I can hear are problems. Other days I think I have the best pair of loudspeakers on planet earth.
Why do people love the sound of Bose? I have no idea. I think they sound like cheap junk. But what do I know? I don't even know me, half the time.
I DO LIKE the En drivers. They please me. I *believe* they do a better job than the stock drivers. But ARE they better? I don't know. Is it snake oil? I don't know. But I just love that artwork. Fun for the eyes.
I'll go back to leaving this to people WAYYY smarter and more experienced in the field than me. Good luck!
I'll admit I have a tendency of wanting to try things that alot of people say are great. I bought a set of amps and a preamp made by Nuforce this way. I later sold them. I thought they were less than captivating sonically and easy to damage. I have my limits, though. You won't catch me buying stuff like 'cable isolators' and three thousand dollar nonresonating tables, lol. Gimme a break already!
I bought the AER MD2B drivers because I thought that for $2500 they must be alot better than anything I had tried before. Well guess what? I'm 100 times happier with the AN product and the AERs are in their boxes.
I ordered the En product for my AN drivers. Unfortunately, I can't evaluate the En product alone because the drivers have had some other treatments applied to ameliorate some response issues. But I thought the drivers, which had a couple hours on them, sounded like my other identical ANs, which have 300 hours on them. This is a very good start indeed. I also think the En drivers so far render complex music more accurately. By this I mean things don't seem quite so 'mashed together' as with the stock driver. It's easier for me to pick something out that's hiding behind larger sounds, if that makes any sense. It 'seems' like a more coherent presentation.
BUT...I also may be falling victim to my own mind. Everything I just said can't be proven. And I have found my musical enjoyment depends GREATLY on my mood and energy level at the time. Some days all I can hear are problems. Other days I think I have the best pair of loudspeakers on planet earth.
Why do people love the sound of Bose? I have no idea. I think they sound like cheap junk. But what do I know? I don't even know me, half the time.
I DO LIKE the En drivers. They please me. I *believe* they do a better job than the stock drivers. But ARE they better? I don't know. Is it snake oil? I don't know. But I just love that artwork. Fun for the eyes.
I'll go back to leaving this to people WAYYY smarter and more experienced in the field than me. Good luck!
I do not think John's setup would appropriately reveal effects of EnABL pattern on a baffle. On the contrary, measurements using EnABL patterns at different locations of a JX92s driver show a consistent trend of phase change, and the description is in one of the original EnABL threads as well as questionbs asked about the test setup.
new acronym... M.A.D.S
After reading the mindless suggestions of cause and effects in the listening thread (bored, what can I say)...I thought of another (better?) acronym
M irrored A ccentuated D istortion S ubversion..... 😀
After reading the mindless suggestions of cause and effects in the listening thread (bored, what can I say)...I thought of another (better?) acronym
M irrored A ccentuated D istortion S ubversion..... 😀
EN on AN
Do I understand correctly that you EnAbled the AN driver? I'd be interested in knowing more about your experience with AN and enable. Which driver, what kind of enclosure and your impressions of them. If there is another thread somewhere, I'd appreciate being directed to it. thanks
InclinedPlane said:
Do I understand correctly that you EnAbled the AN driver? I'd be interested in knowing more about your experience with AN and enable. Which driver, what kind of enclosure and your impressions of them. If there is another thread somewhere, I'd appreciate being directed to it. thanks
No, Mr. Purvine did the work. Email him for details as he is going to be alot more informed than me. And I can't really provide the best opinion on their performance until I have another 100 ,hours on them. Application: OB with 15" bass drivers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.