Bloatware
Great Tip Alex. You are definitely NOT on my ignore list. Keep us posted with your progress on room treatment.
Alex from Oz said:
Great Tip Alex. You are definitely NOT on my ignore list. Keep us posted with your progress on room treatment.
Why is it that when I have done so, the technical claims continued here? My first post and some others were requests made in exactly that manner, e.g. Post 219. Note the "polite" first reply to mine. I even then tried to be polite in my reply. This is forgotten or overlooked. Though I've suggested it more than once Post 242, for some reason the technical posts still arise here, but have never been started by me.
Why is it that skeptics should not reject unsubstantiated and unsupported hypotheses (they really shouldn't be called theories)? And I really don't think that you intended to say that I should be equivocal according to most definitions of that word.
Dave
dlr
One of your confusions arises from not realising that you are not in charge here. Your self appointed position of "expert requiring proof" is not my problem. I am here to teach other folks how to apply EnABL. I also am here to provide them with mental tools, that make sense to me, so that they can begin to think beyond what direct teaching I provide. If those tools don't make sense to anyone else, that is also not my problem, I have done the best I know how. From the vast majority of responses, posted by people other than me, I am successful enough to warrant proceeding.
Your refusal to participate in the application and experiential side of this project just makes your self appointed position even less important. Were you arguing with me about what constitutes a better application of EnABL, I would pay a good bit more attention to you.
I think your comments and cautions are fine, but they are not based upon actual knowledge, gained in the pursuit of applying EnaBL patterns to drivers and that is what this thread is all about.I have read your site, I think you do good work and you are proceeding in an orderly fashion. I would point out that applying EnABL to any, or all of your activities, would only enhance the value of those changes you have made. What EnABL does to a driver is not related to how that driver is built, or modified, prior to application of the patterns.
None of the material in either post you point to is in any way technical. Had I brought graphs, test data etc, you would have some reason to complain. A description of my thoughts on how or why I have performed what I found to be necessary is not automatically "technical". In fact, considering the abuse that has been heaped upon my thought patterns with regard to EnABL, I find your position hilarious.
Take some time out from chasing this wisp, apply a pattern set on a pair of cheap drivers and gain some experience with the results, as they apply to the enhancement of the illusion we are working with. Then come and discuss what you have found, post a picture of what you did and describe the tools and processes you used. You will receive immediate feed back and help should that be needed.
Bud
One of your confusions arises from not realising that you are not in charge here. Your self appointed position of "expert requiring proof" is not my problem. I am here to teach other folks how to apply EnABL. I also am here to provide them with mental tools, that make sense to me, so that they can begin to think beyond what direct teaching I provide. If those tools don't make sense to anyone else, that is also not my problem, I have done the best I know how. From the vast majority of responses, posted by people other than me, I am successful enough to warrant proceeding.
Your refusal to participate in the application and experiential side of this project just makes your self appointed position even less important. Were you arguing with me about what constitutes a better application of EnABL, I would pay a good bit more attention to you.
I think your comments and cautions are fine, but they are not based upon actual knowledge, gained in the pursuit of applying EnaBL patterns to drivers and that is what this thread is all about.I have read your site, I think you do good work and you are proceeding in an orderly fashion. I would point out that applying EnABL to any, or all of your activities, would only enhance the value of those changes you have made. What EnABL does to a driver is not related to how that driver is built, or modified, prior to application of the patterns.
None of the material in either post you point to is in any way technical. Had I brought graphs, test data etc, you would have some reason to complain. A description of my thoughts on how or why I have performed what I found to be necessary is not automatically "technical". In fact, considering the abuse that has been heaped upon my thought patterns with regard to EnABL, I find your position hilarious.
Take some time out from chasing this wisp, apply a pattern set on a pair of cheap drivers and gain some experience with the results, as they apply to the enhancement of the illusion we are working with. Then come and discuss what you have found, post a picture of what you did and describe the tools and processes you used. You will receive immediate feed back and help should that be needed.
Bud
I would suggest that I'm not the one confused. Considering all those who are posting extensively about applying it to baffle edges and room walls, they belie most of your post. It is far more than that.
Once again Bud, you've made the same mistake. My entry into this thread had nothing, repeat nothing, to do with applying anything to a driver. That long post was similar to other long posts you've made that did not relate to my posts. I have pointed out repeatedly that I am debating baffles, and now, room walls, not drivers.
Curious that you would imply that I think I'm in charge, knowing better. Neither you nor I am, of course. My understanding is that this is an open discussion board under control of moderators, not you, I nor most other participants.
Dave
dlr said:
What a surprise..
dlr said:
Wow! Even easier... Try EnAble on a baffle. I used little golden rectangles of adhesive backed felt. See picture posted earlier.
To my ear a significant enhancement. If you don't like it, take it off. It won't even make a mark. $2 in materials and about an hour's work. Totally reversable and then you can have a valid arguement for or against this process.
I won't go into why it cannot do anything of significance here, I can only say go back to the original thread and focus on john k's input. I also have extensive experience treating baffles with truly effective diffraction control and know what can and cannot do what.
Dave
wlowes said:
You totally missed it. I said "here" before the moderators decided that it was too difficult to read the thread when there was significant skepticism to the sycophantic posts. I was not allowed to respond as I wished in that thread. So your "guess" was a bad one. At least I may now say what I want without censure.
I guarantee you, there will not be a debate on the technical "digressions" of baffles/walls by any proponents in any way that is other than by belief, if they enter this thread. What gets repeated is just as Bud did multiple times, mis-stating my position by constantly focusing on my supposed reference to driver application when anyone reading who paid attention and was intent on being accurate would have recognized and acknowledged my position on the nonsense of baffles and walls. He consiously chose to mis-state, because I've addressed that directly in the past.
Do you really think that tiny strips of anything on a wall (even in an empty room devoid of furniture, TVs, tables, etc.), that are without question (by anyone of any understanding) somewhat or largely "translucent" (some say transparent) at low frequencies, are going to make any changes (at any frequency for that matter) other than in the mind?
If you believe so, what do you say about those massively larger objects around the room? Are you going to enabl the TV panel, put swatches on chairs, coffee or end tables and everything else in the room? If not, why not? Are you going to remove any other room treatment?
enabl on baffle and walls is the placebo effect only, nothing else. Those who believe would not discuss that as a possibility, because they believe and cannot accept consideration of it, though anyone who's honest knows that this is a valid concern in any belief system such as enabl. I was prevented from commenting in that way there because this wouldn't toe the line of belief that is a requirement there. At least I can say that here. It's still interesting that given the number of people involved in that thread who must have measurement abilities have provided absolute nothing to support their "beliefs". If it's so dramatic, it would be easily measured and proved. They cannot do it. They simply say "I know because I hear it". Classic placebo effect.
I'm still looking for someone who can and has the courage to try to explain how wall stripes have the impact they do in any way other than belief (i.e. "I hear it, so I know it works").
Dave
EnAble on Baffles
Dir
The post I was commenting on was discussing EnAble on baffles. I have no experience with EnAble on walls, so, I don't know anything about that. I was completely skeptical about EnAble on baffles, so I devised a simple and reversable approach that I encouraged you to try. In my circumstance, there is no question that the enable on baffles works as advertised.
Now if what Alex is describing about the effect of enable in a small portion of the room, to me it opens up a world of questions about what would be the ideal room treatment if I was in the position to decorate it soley for audio reproduction. I am not suggesting that I will put EnAble around the room and every object. There is a very nice mahogany billiard table in my listening room, and its not going to receive anything but wax.
I am quite a novice about speaker placement and room treatment. I followed the basic cook book that Wilson Audio uses for speaker placement. I have measured distances from my ears to tweeters and drivers to get everything in phase. It all made a difference. I read that putting sound dampening material on the wall behind the speakers was useful. As a test, I hung my big down coat on the fireplace directly behind and between the speakers and holy smokes it is an improvement to the degree that any time I am in for wome serious listening, out comes the coat. (fortunately my wife is agreed that this room is my world and I can pretty much do what ever I want. yes lucky me!).
So I know that EnAble works on baffles, and I suspect it works on other box edges as well... then in a perfect world where does one stop? More fundamental what other changes could there be in the room that would be helpful and non invasive. If Alex's observations are correct, and I have no reason to doubt him, then EnAble could be the simplest room treatment out there. Put a peal and stick pattern around all the room edges and then a coat of latex paint over the whole thing. Might not look bad (beats hanging your winter coat on the fireplace) and make a big change. Could be one of the simplest low cost tweaks out there.
Dir
The post I was commenting on was discussing EnAble on baffles. I have no experience with EnAble on walls, so, I don't know anything about that. I was completely skeptical about EnAble on baffles, so I devised a simple and reversable approach that I encouraged you to try. In my circumstance, there is no question that the enable on baffles works as advertised.
Now if what Alex is describing about the effect of enable in a small portion of the room, to me it opens up a world of questions about what would be the ideal room treatment if I was in the position to decorate it soley for audio reproduction. I am not suggesting that I will put EnAble around the room and every object. There is a very nice mahogany billiard table in my listening room, and its not going to receive anything but wax.
I am quite a novice about speaker placement and room treatment. I followed the basic cook book that Wilson Audio uses for speaker placement. I have measured distances from my ears to tweeters and drivers to get everything in phase. It all made a difference. I read that putting sound dampening material on the wall behind the speakers was useful. As a test, I hung my big down coat on the fireplace directly behind and between the speakers and holy smokes it is an improvement to the degree that any time I am in for wome serious listening, out comes the coat. (fortunately my wife is agreed that this room is my world and I can pretty much do what ever I want. yes lucky me!).
So I know that EnAble works on baffles, and I suspect it works on other box edges as well... then in a perfect world where does one stop? More fundamental what other changes could there be in the room that would be helpful and non invasive. If Alex's observations are correct, and I have no reason to doubt him, then EnAble could be the simplest room treatment out there. Put a peal and stick pattern around all the room edges and then a coat of latex paint over the whole thing. Might not look bad (beats hanging your winter coat on the fireplace) and make a big change. Could be one of the simplest low cost tweaks out there.
Re: EnAble on Baffles
Outside of the speaker system itself, room treatment is probably the most important aspect of the in-room response, that which we ultimately care about. There are varying opinions on what is best, but effective treatment is always useful.
Here's where the problem arises. You know because you think that you hear it. I've made many a change in a crossover when designing, thinking that a change definitely improved the sound, only to remove the change and realize that the change, even though measurable, was me fooling myself. It was a change, but change isn't always improvement, even when it's measurable. It's an easy thing to do. If we can hear it, we can measure it. That's a fact that enabl believers are loath to consider, much less accept.
Note the emphatic and unequivocal claims of ears being more sensitive than a mic. They "knew". Yet I was able to spend a few minutes and provide a link that belied that, unequivocally. We hear at best down to about 0db, the threshold of sensitivity by definition (not an absolute signal condition, BTW). The mic at the link has a -28db sensitivity. Even the inexpensive Panasonic capsules I and others commonly use can measure better than -40db. This is far below any ear, save maybe dogs and bats, can hear. Note that not one person acknowledged the facts when presented. Repeating it makes it true for some. They counter their beliefs, so they cannot openly admit their factual errors such as that.
They also continue to want to accept Bud's explicit misinterpretation of john k's measurements discussed in the original thread. Baffle treatments are so miniscule that they are essentially worthless. John proved it in a systematic, scientific and standard approach (test in a way that maximizes the impact), but Bud simply twisted the results and "blessed" them as supportive.
I have made many an attempt at baffle diffraction control and can say unequivocally that even much larger objects can be ineffective to useless. I can back that up with measurements if I care to, but you'll never find them doing so. Speaking effusively (one of Buds' traits) of the unknown is so much easier. I mean, hey, it makes a driver nearly perfect (supposedly), certainly doing that to anything will help is the argument by extension. But there are no physics behind it. None. Nada. Zilch. They won't even try, of course.
I really should put up a web version of my audioXpress article on diffraction control. It shows what it is and what changes are made with truly effective means, as I said in the other post before folks got tired of having to address posts that contradicted their beliefs.
Enable on baffles and especially walls is worthless. No ifs, ands or buts. But if someone believes, they feel the need to continue that belief. Hard data to the contrary takes an attempt to understand the reasoning. It's just so much easier to believe. Just like the way placebos can "heal" the sick at times. Certainly you're aware of that, aren't you? It's also known in the audio field. It's rather rampant in audio, actually.
Dave
Outside of the speaker system itself, room treatment is probably the most important aspect of the in-room response, that which we ultimately care about. There are varying opinions on what is best, but effective treatment is always useful.
Here's where the problem arises. You know because you think that you hear it. I've made many a change in a crossover when designing, thinking that a change definitely improved the sound, only to remove the change and realize that the change, even though measurable, was me fooling myself. It was a change, but change isn't always improvement, even when it's measurable. It's an easy thing to do. If we can hear it, we can measure it. That's a fact that enabl believers are loath to consider, much less accept.
Note the emphatic and unequivocal claims of ears being more sensitive than a mic. They "knew". Yet I was able to spend a few minutes and provide a link that belied that, unequivocally. We hear at best down to about 0db, the threshold of sensitivity by definition (not an absolute signal condition, BTW). The mic at the link has a -28db sensitivity. Even the inexpensive Panasonic capsules I and others commonly use can measure better than -40db. This is far below any ear, save maybe dogs and bats, can hear. Note that not one person acknowledged the facts when presented. Repeating it makes it true for some. They counter their beliefs, so they cannot openly admit their factual errors such as that.
They also continue to want to accept Bud's explicit misinterpretation of john k's measurements discussed in the original thread. Baffle treatments are so miniscule that they are essentially worthless. John proved it in a systematic, scientific and standard approach (test in a way that maximizes the impact), but Bud simply twisted the results and "blessed" them as supportive.
I have made many an attempt at baffle diffraction control and can say unequivocally that even much larger objects can be ineffective to useless. I can back that up with measurements if I care to, but you'll never find them doing so. Speaking effusively (one of Buds' traits) of the unknown is so much easier. I mean, hey, it makes a driver nearly perfect (supposedly), certainly doing that to anything will help is the argument by extension. But there are no physics behind it. None. Nada. Zilch. They won't even try, of course.
I really should put up a web version of my audioXpress article on diffraction control. It shows what it is and what changes are made with truly effective means, as I said in the other post before folks got tired of having to address posts that contradicted their beliefs.
Enable on baffles and especially walls is worthless. No ifs, ands or buts. But if someone believes, they feel the need to continue that belief. Hard data to the contrary takes an attempt to understand the reasoning. It's just so much easier to believe. Just like the way placebos can "heal" the sick at times. Certainly you're aware of that, aren't you? It's also known in the audio field. It's rather rampant in audio, actually.
Dave
TrueSound said:
The problem is, as I indicated, I have not yet put up a web version. It's in the June 2005 audioXpress. I'm a bit busy for a bit longer, but may take the time after my current project is finished.
An older page has some examples of early tests I made and is documented here.
Dave
Re: Re: EnAble on Baffles
Those who actually try EnABL on their baffles will probably have a different opinion on how worthwhile it is.
If you are genuine in your desire to help diy’ers, here’s a challenge for you.
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
dlr said:
Those who actually try EnABL on their baffles will probably have a different opinion on how worthwhile it is.
If you are genuine in your desire to help diy’ers, here’s a challenge for you.
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
IMO baffle diffraction importance is overrated. one must make very significant changes to driver or baffle to hear a difference in sound.
I'm sure that even if Enabl pattern on a baffle was one inch thick, there still wouldn't be much of audible difference.
I'm sure that even if Enabl pattern on a baffle was one inch thick, there still wouldn't be much of audible difference.
Mister Twister,
Given your comments in the listening thread, have you dismissed EnABL completely?
My offer to assist 'offline' still stands.
Cheers,
Alex
Given your comments in the listening thread, have you dismissed EnABL completely?
My offer to assist 'offline' still stands.
Cheers,
Alex
Re: Re: Re: EnAble on Baffles
Opinion, sure. Many a placebo created opinions of actual effects. In audio the Tice Clock and Totem Beaks are prime examples. Certainly I don't need to do my own experiments to know that these are frauds based on the placebo effect.
John k already made definitive measurements, results I fully expected from my experience. You and others simply refuse to accept that, preferring to continue as if that had not occurred. It's called avoidance. You're searching for validation that does not exist.
There are better things to do than waste time on ineffective and fruitless pursuits, my point unchanged. A DIYers time and effort spent on baffles and walls is purely wasted and is better put to use towards other, more fruitful aspects.
Dave
Alex from Oz said:
Opinion, sure. Many a placebo created opinions of actual effects. In audio the Tice Clock and Totem Beaks are prime examples. Certainly I don't need to do my own experiments to know that these are frauds based on the placebo effect.
John k already made definitive measurements, results I fully expected from my experience. You and others simply refuse to accept that, preferring to continue as if that had not occurred. It's called avoidance. You're searching for validation that does not exist.
There are better things to do than waste time on ineffective and fruitless pursuits, my point unchanged. A DIYers time and effort spent on baffles and walls is purely wasted and is better put to use towards other, more fruitful aspects.
Dave
Alex,
If EnaBLing any and every surface (ports, baffles, walls) that soundwaves come in contact with, provides this remarkable improvement in SQ, why have you not EnaBLed your head/ears?
cheers,
AJ
If EnaBLing any and every surface (ports, baffles, walls) that soundwaves come in contact with, provides this remarkable improvement in SQ, why have you not EnaBLed your head/ears?
cheers,
AJ
Re: Re: Re: Re: EnAble on Baffles
Well said Dave. But I have to wonder why you are continuing to waste your time here. I did my thing and won't contribute any more because I won't want to dirty my hands of even suggest the slightest possibility of legitimacy to this nonsense.
It is obvious that you or anyone else will nor convince others that any differences in what is heard from an enabled driver is not some esoteric physical process. Of that enabled baffles, walls windows, etc have no effect.
I'd surprised that the discussion hasn't yet introduced quantum entanglement as the root cause.
And for all those who simply don't believe we can measure better that we can hear and feel any measurement will surely miss all those subtle nuances, remember all those subtle nuances you hear are nothing more than a real time measurement of a live performance preserved in some limited format.
Oh well, that's about all the additional time I will waste on this.
dlr said:
Well said Dave. But I have to wonder why you are continuing to waste your time here. I did my thing and won't contribute any more because I won't want to dirty my hands of even suggest the slightest possibility of legitimacy to this nonsense.
It is obvious that you or anyone else will nor convince others that any differences in what is heard from an enabled driver is not some esoteric physical process. Of that enabled baffles, walls windows, etc have no effect.
I'd surprised that the discussion hasn't yet introduced quantum entanglement as the root cause.
And for all those who simply don't believe we can measure better that we can hear and feel any measurement will surely miss all those subtle nuances, remember all those subtle nuances you hear are nothing more than a real time measurement of a live performance preserved in some limited format.
Oh well, that's about all the additional time I will waste on this.
Alex from Oz, thanks for offer. I'd try Enabl treatment again, if one of reputable speaker engineers acknowledged that it has effect on sound.
None of them have done it so far...
None of them have done it so far...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.