Yessir, Super 8s without the cast frame. I still can't believe CSA charges so little for them.😎
Take this over to the technical thread. Unless you want to start the technical again here. I'll oblige.Alex from Oz said:
Nothing is affirmed except in your mind. Your claims are totally without merit and based solely on lack of understanding. There is nothing difficult to measure at all. The change people are hearing on baffles/rooms is placebo, nothing else. Placebo is exceeding strong with the enabl crowd.
Dave
dlr said:
So you also do not hear differences between cables? Why is that people that refuse to acknowledge what they can not understand or quantify is "snake oil" or someones mind playing tricks on them? Does your stance make you feel better than the rest of us that do hear differences in components, cables, etc? Are you upset that you can not or will not allow yourself to experience these things? I am curious what motivates a person such as yourself to waste your time trying to tell others that they must be crazy or "delusional".
I understand completely. I know what can occur as a result of tiny bumps on a baffle, there's nothing "unknown" happening. The problem is not with me and I'm not upset about anything. I'm actually amused at the periodic attempts to declare "proof" when no such thing exists. It's all conjecture and words, nothing more.Curly Woods said:
This has been hashed out on another thread separated at the request of those in this thread, yet these same people keep re-introducing so-called "proof" of the technical aspect with which they have little to no understanding. They do have a lot of conjecture and conclusions based on that conjecture. But as I said, I'm perfectly willing to discuss it here if you so choose. This board is for debate, is it not? Or are only those who agree with one side allowed? That would imply that debate is not acceptable and only those who "believe" are allowed here. That is preferred by most in this thread, I understand that, but it's not a board policy. Or is it?
There is a thread on cables. If I cared to discuss that, I would go there. I hope that you're not trying to expand this thread to include cables.
Dave
hmmmnn
This says it all in your bio...
"Sold high end audio since 1980"
no agenda there... btw... "placebo" is not "someone's mind playing tricks on them"....
It's a shame many "true believers" in the audio field continue to impune others in the community trying to impose some sort of discipline on unfounded opinions paraded as "factual", with not a shred of hard evidence to support psuedo-hypotheses and make ad hominem attacks and unfounded accusations
Curly Woods said:
This says it all in your bio...
"Sold high end audio since 1980"
no agenda there... btw... "placebo" is not "someone's mind playing tricks on them"....
It's a shame many "true believers" in the audio field continue to impune others in the community trying to impose some sort of discipline on unfounded opinions paraded as "factual", with not a shred of hard evidence to support psuedo-hypotheses and make ad hominem attacks and unfounded accusations
I do need to update that one 🙂 I have not sold audio since the early 00's. You live in your perfect world and I will live in mine. I trust what I hear, as long as I can repeat it over time. Anything else is an anomaly. I am not saying that scientific evidence does not exist to explain many things heard. I am just saying that my criteria is if the sound created is closer to where I want to be in terms of how I perceive music and its soul. The world is filled with artists and scientist. We need them both 🙂
Your latest thinking? You had some previous conjecture that you have now discarded? I'd be interested in learning how much of brain physiology you know, since you're seeming rather confident of the processing within the brain. Again, looks like another technical post that has nothing to do with listening impressions and techniques. There has been a rather serious claim that diffraction is somehow obviated (disrupted as described above). I'm rather familiar with diffraction on the technical aspects. I'll take this technical detail up here if you wish. Otherwise I ask that the moderators move the above post to the technical thread so that it can be debated there. Keep in mind that the references are to those of diffraction from immobile materials, not related to any added mass/damping on a driver diaphragm.
Seriously, if I stepped in and put forth my own conjecture directly, we all know what would happen. Let conjecture be in support and there are no complaints. Never are any when it's supportive. Everyone's happy then.
There is this specifically qualified statement:
I've got a number of technical questions for which I'd like Alex to provide details since he must have recently acquired some expertise in both the subjective and now the technical and clinical aspects of diffraction and perception due to processing within the brain. I'm sure that he has some background information to provide those of us with less expertise in this area. I'll admit to falling in the latter camp. Any details would be greatly appreciated. The mechanism by which we hear something that is said cannot be measured would be most enlightening.
Dave
Of course, it's in support, just as I said. There is no difference between these reports and those for items such as Totem Beaks and Tice Clocks. Curious that I've asked several times if anyone here has heard of these. No one will even deny it, much less acknowledge them. It's proponents are equally vociferous. Do you have no skepticism of them or do you accept their claims, too? Why wouldn't you if you accept these here?
No, no it doesn't, not when it's not based on wild guesses and pulled out of thin air using arguments that are in direct contradiction to well-established and well-known systems that are essentially ubiquitous tools such as any of a number of various measurement systems. It is so easy, in fact, that the PC on anyone's desk can be used. Funny that these exist by the millions around the world and there must in fact be a system in Alex's home (he couldn't post without it), yet there is nothing to show for it other than beliefs and the "latest thinking". But then every "new thinking" garnishes rave accolades. Why not? It's always some new scheme that is some soft of enhancement no matter what the change. Don't you find that alone curious?
There will not be anything to show, there never will be. I still can't believe that the idea has been resurrected that there is some mystical change in physics that allows there to be no change in frequency response (that is what we hear, by the way), yet we will "hear" some extreme transformational change.
Oh, and the claim "In other words, the orderly diffraction signature becomes disorderly and incoherent" is utter nonsense. Diffraction is without question a relatively easy phenomenon to predict and certainly easily measured today. It also cannot be made to be "disorderly and incoherent" by some miniscule physical patterns. The conditions that create it and it's well-understood theoretical underpinning is not just some sort of off-the-cuff situation. There are books written on the topic.
John also showed quite clearly through his posted measurements that it is not, in fact, significant. It;s impact is actually rather insignificant. Were it not, it would readily show up in measurements. Anyone with any serious experience in measurement systems will recgnize this. It's not any esoteric physics alteration whatsoever as appied on any immobile surface.
Dave
An interesting read thus far.
I am skeptical of the performance claims associated with the EnABL modification. There appears to be a scientific basis for the concept, however this may be adding to the confusion. That is to say, there may be actual effects resulting from the application of this concept, but that they are detectable and beneficial remain to be determined, as I understand it.
If I might ask: with regard to the application of this pattern on the cone of a given driver, would anyone be able to provide measurements of both before and after the application of EnABL? It would be interesting to see what effects the process has on frequency response, and harmonic distortion.
Jim
I am skeptical of the performance claims associated with the EnABL modification. There appears to be a scientific basis for the concept, however this may be adding to the confusion. That is to say, there may be actual effects resulting from the application of this concept, but that they are detectable and beneficial remain to be determined, as I understand it.
If I might ask: with regard to the application of this pattern on the cone of a given driver, would anyone be able to provide measurements of both before and after the application of EnABL? It would be interesting to see what effects the process has on frequency response, and harmonic distortion.
Jim
Yours is a good question, the same, in fact, that I had at the start. There is a much older thread that was later split into the two current ones. You can find a link to it at the beginning of the "listening" thread, I think.
Measurements before/after were made by john k in that thread that definitively proved that there is no measurable change insofar as a baffle or fixed object is concerned. His approach was to maximize the possibility of detecting a change. There are none.
As for a driver, changes do occur. John made before/after of those as well. You'll find (maybe page 53?) the point at which I joined the debate with John coming in later. There was uniform belief and acceptance that a treated driver exhibited dramatic changes in perception, yet with no change to frequency response, measured or otherwise. The ironic thing is that supplied measurements showed unequivocally that there were significant changes to the measured response. If you want to see just how ridiculous some of the claims were, read that thread, especially from that point on.
There is no doubt that adding mass/damping to a driver causes changes, the original debate was about the effect with various claims being put forth. You may find it all a bit amusing.
Dave
G'day Jim,
Here's a couple:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100399-enabl-processes-6.html#post1227789
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100399-enabl-processes-6.html#post1231568
There are more in the same thread.
Cheers,
Alex
Here is the infamous john k blink comparison of a driver before and after EnABL treatment:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/119677-enabl-technical-discussion.html#post1461231
There is a reason why this thread is called "Digression from EnABL techniques".
It is a collection of posts deleted by the moderators and dumped into this thread.
If you are really interested in investigating EnABL, then read these:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100399-enabl-processes.html#post1188831
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ening-impressions-techniques.html#post1460031
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/119677-enabl-technical-discussion.html#post1460032
If you have genuine questions, please post in the listening or technical threads rather than here.
Cheers,
Alex
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/119677-enabl-technical-discussion.html#post1461231
There is a reason why this thread is called "Digression from EnABL techniques".
It is a collection of posts deleted by the moderators and dumped into this thread.
If you are really interested in investigating EnABL, then read these:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100399-enabl-processes.html#post1188831
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ening-impressions-techniques.html#post1460031
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/119677-enabl-technical-discussion.html#post1460032
If you have genuine questions, please post in the listening or technical threads rather than here.
Cheers,
Alex
For others who may read the above and its implication (Alex loves to use bold to try to hammer a point), the reason that they moved the first couple of pages to this new one is because believers and proponents do not like being challenged with factual data, established theory (as opposed to the ubiquitous conjecture) and logical arguments and do not want contradictory data in the listening thread except when they introduce it as some new conjecture without factual basis. Many new posts have appeared here as a direct debate thread, ignore the effort to minimize it.
This is simply a furthering of the technical thread discussions and arose due to technical points being raised by the proponents themselves who then got irritated that technical responses were posted to their own technically faulty information. This thread is as appropriate for anyone caring to post any technical questions as is the other thread, better I would suggest, as it is totally separated from so much of the original nonsense is the original thread.
You'll see some irate posts, yet almost no responses to direct and detailed questions with nothing but conjecture offered. That should be somewhat enlightening related to the ongoing effort to propose ever expanding reasons for effects on immobile objects such as baffles and walls that reside only in concepts of the mind. Simple measurements can and have proven this to be without basis. On a driver, changes occur, that's never been claimed otherwise, despite implications to the contrary as well, but the issue arose due to the wild and esoteric claims of what the mechanism is that is based on simply physics, added mass and damping.
Dave
Dave, I haven't really been following these EnABL threads, but if you think there's technical stuff in the listening results thread that ought to be moved over to this thread, I'll be happy to do it. Just give me a list by pm or email. Or I can fold all of this into the Technical thread.
No, there no longer is. I periodically peruse the thread and occasionally respond to technical claims that keep being interjected there. That's when the irritations arise and the posts get moved here and sometimes moderator editing of posts that remain to "cleanse" them I guess. Those claims die from that point forward, there seems to be little interest in pursuing their veracity by those making the claim other than to maintain the conjecture. It's just a periodic "my current thinking" sort of thing.
Dave
Hi Alex,
Thank you for taking the time to provide me with those links. This certainly is an interesting subject, and a controversial one it would seem. It will take me some time to get up to speed! Having examined the data briefly, my first impression is that these reports are somewhat inconclusive as physically altering a cone in any way would likely alter its CSD performance as shown. The presence of a change in performance (in my opinion) does not prove that the pattern is performing a function.
However, that being said, an impressive number of people more qualified than I am to make such statements have shown interest in this topic, and it certainly warrants further reading on my part. Though I am not currently a believer, I admire those who would pursue such a hypothesis. I may have some questions to post down the road in the technical thread.
Jim
Good evening Dave,
It does seems as though we've stumbled upon the next big audio thing! I agree with you that the measured performance delta is expected and described via conventional physics. However I respect that some in the EnABL camp appear to be investigating their hypothesis, via the scientific method or otherwise. I admire your tenacity for truth!
Jim
- Status
- Not open for further replies.