I just became aware of this thread, so forgive me if this post is redundant. Having said that, I think you are missing the point. The underlying presumption is that in order for Enabl to be valid/accepted it needs some type of objective/scientific validation. The problem is that frequency response is not always determinative of the sound of a speaker. That is, given the limitations of what we can measure (frequency response, distortion, etc.), we cannot definitively say that there is a difference; there may be other aspects to the sound that we cannot measure. So to say that Enabl has no effect because we cannot meaure a difference in frequency response or distortion is like saying oranges only have vitamin C, fructose, and orange flavor. There is much much more to an orange than what we can measure. So is sound. The bottom line is that empirical assessment is all that matters. Can you hear a difference and is that difference beneficial to your enjoyment of the music.
There are no aspects of the direct radiated sound that we cannot measure, it's only a matter of how many measurements we wish to make. The only questions are how well we measure and how we perceive the sound radiated, a separate issue too often confused with measuring, in relation to the sound we hear with the influence of the room, again, a separate issue from measuring a driver. The influence of effective measurements and how we perceive the sound is one of the most investigated in audio, but there is no debate in the scientific community as to whether or not we can make the proper measurements, it's only how well we make those measurements and how do we interpret them insofar as our perceptions are concerned.
The issue isn't even whether or not drivers exhibit a change in response when mass/damping of some sort is added. That's fundamental physics and was originally (and it seems maybe continually) denied even when direct evidence was staring them in the face. Certain ones still do because to accept it dismisses the "ethereal" qualities the treatments supposedly impart. The bigger debate moved to modifying immobile objects and essentially anything in the room with tiny lines (in relation to the frequency wavelength). The fact is that we can measure a delta with relative ease. If that delta is essentially zero, there is no change. Tiny paint lines on baffle edges do not create any significant delta, that is about as simple a measurement as can be made. And it was made in a manner intended to maximize the potential for observing a change. The denial of such then became the issue. Belief is paramount to the proponents because they have nothing else outside of driver changes that are fully reflected in the frequency response measurements to include distortion if one wished to undertake that.
There is also the confusion of proponents continually arguing about drivers when the claims that remain are not about drivers.
Dave
I cannot argue with your position that there are "no aspects of the direct radiated sound that we cannot measure", because of my limited knowledge of acoustics. Though, I feel that much more exists outside of what we can measure. Especially, when I can hear a difference with the Enabl treatments to my turntable and baffle edges.
Perhaps, the difference lies on the other side, the side of how we percieve sound. This we cannot measure. The "belief" is equally if not more important, than any acoustic measurement. Consider that most things start out as beliefs and most things are based on beliefs before there are measurements to objectify them.
And then there are non-things (space and silence) that are not based on beliefs or surpass our belief based existence. Obviously, these non-things are not debatable, but influence perception of all things.
Perhaps, Enabl is more of a metaphor of how we view/live life, even though Bud would probably disagree.
Perhaps, the difference lies on the other side, the side of how we percieve sound. This we cannot measure. The "belief" is equally if not more important, than any acoustic measurement. Consider that most things start out as beliefs and most things are based on beliefs before there are measurements to objectify them.
And then there are non-things (space and silence) that are not based on beliefs or surpass our belief based existence. Obviously, these non-things are not debatable, but influence perception of all things.
Perhaps, Enabl is more of a metaphor of how we view/live life, even though Bud would probably disagree.
Measurements in this area are not, as the saying goes, "rocket science". The only ones who argue that there must be something we can't measure are primarily those who do not make measurements. You will not find a single person in the industry who does any research into perception that would support in any way the idea that we cannot measure a change, not one. They spend their careers using various measurements to try to correlate that with perception, but the limitations are not in our ability to measure. The measurements under question are the most common, basic and well understood in acoustics.
Hearing changes is the same as hearing changes due to Totem Beaks and Tice Clocks. If you have not heard of them, Google them. It's hearing what one wants to hear. It's all in the expectation.
That's not exactly correct, either. There is significant research into the mechanisms of how our ears work and how we perceive sound. It's not complete, but it requires there to be a difference in the first place.
No, they can start as observations that are more than beliefs or are posited as existing in theory and then proven (or disproven) later. I'm sure that Einstein did not "sense" changes related to relativity. You can't argue about gravity when everything falls and everyone with sight can both confirm it. The latter was neither a belief nor conjecture. Had drivers not been altered by the added mass I don't doubt for an instant that there would be no claims due to tiny lines on a baffle, it was nothing more than an extension of "if it works on a driver, it must work on other things". Of course the expectation drives it. Acoustic memory is one of the most faulty of our senses. I've experimented with relatively significant changes that I CAN measure, yet I have at times no confidence that I could identify them in a a valid test with any reasonable degree of certainty.
Dave
Agreed on many of us not having the tools, e.g. the ability to quickly switch between speakers in a listening test. However, Toole built his career on measuring things and doing blind listening tests to determine which measurements correlate with what we hear.
At Harman, if they were interested in enabl, they would simply get a bunch of listeners to listen to identical speakers behind an acoustically transparent curtain, with and without enabl on the baffles, and vote on which they liked better (if they could tell a difference.) Then they'd do a statistical analysis on the results.
Last edited:
I'm not sure with what part you think he might disagree. As Geddes points out, he works more on preferences though his efforts are to correlate measurements with perception and preference, but I have no doubt, zero, zilch, none, that he would agree that there would not be a measurable difference in enabl on a baffle, that we could measure it if it did and most certainly that it would not make a perceptible change.
Dave
I actually use Totem beaks and know that they make a difference. At least in my system. I am familiar with the Tice clock from the mid-eighties and the newer Machina Dynamica clock/watch. The clocks were not in my system so I cannot evaluate the efficacy, but the owners said they did and their systems sound great. I am also familiar with the PWB treatments from Britain. I have tried the rainbow tape and have had mixed results. My understanding of these treatments is that they are oriented in affecting the listener and not the equiptment.
Maybe some things are not understandable by the mind. It is hard to imagine that we could ever measure how we perceive sound, given cultural, racial, era/time, educational, age, distinctions. etc, regardless of how much significant research is done.
To continue to debate is useless. You will continue to believe what you want to. But, you will not find yourself in any mental position. If you are able to transcend thinking you will realize that all of this is discussion about Enabl is just interesting. No more. So, I'm not trying to change your thinking. That would be impossible and is really not the point. Rather, point to a direction beyond thinking.
Maybe some things are not understandable by the mind. It is hard to imagine that we could ever measure how we perceive sound, given cultural, racial, era/time, educational, age, distinctions. etc, regardless of how much significant research is done.
To continue to debate is useless. You will continue to believe what you want to. But, you will not find yourself in any mental position. If you are able to transcend thinking you will realize that all of this is discussion about Enabl is just interesting. No more. So, I'm not trying to change your thinking. That would be impossible and is really not the point. Rather, point to a direction beyond thinking.
The perception of a difference is not proof, necessarily. Our perception of reality is greatly influenced by psychology. The expectation of a performance difference may cause one to hear a difference. For example, this expectation may lead you to listen to a driver more intently - you expect greater detail, and you hear it, as you listen with greater care.
JF.
That is true... and over & over & over again he says that no mic + analyzer is as capable as 2 ears + a brain.
He did lots of serious blind testing (it seems no ABX)over 30 years in an effort to discover correlation of measures to what we hear... always with what we hear trumping what we measure.
dave
I tend to think it might be not so well understanding of the data and measurement techniques, but could you point us to some reports indicating what could be heard but unmeasureable?
But usually it was more along the lines of two measurements being different but people not being able to reliably hear the difference -- which measurements to ignore. I don't recall him ever running blind tests where people reliably heard a difference but it couldn't be measured. Take the phase/square-wave thing in another thread -- it's very easy to measure but harder to hear. I'm not saying you can't hear it, just that the measurement is very obvious and the listening tests are much more subtle than you'd think looking at the measured waveform.
It's important to make the distinction between sensing (hearing or measuring) and analyzing. The ears don't analyze, they are not much more than a biological microphone and physical microphones can be far more sensitive than our ears. We just aren't very good at analyzing those measurements. That's what Toole is attempting. The brain analyzes real-time and is far better at analysis than we are at analyzing measurements, but that's not the issue. It's an apples vs. oranges comparison. When the change in response is not distinguishable in a measurement, our ears won't sense a difference. Our brains may say there is based on expectation, however.
Dave
He found that preferences across a set of people was quite consistent. And in the book he covered off lots of situations where people heard things and he had not found a way to measure something that correlated.
dave
It's a failure to correlate with preferences when there is a known difference and not a comparison of two systems to decide IF there's a difference. It's still not the same thing.
Dave
A more elaborate way of comparing is to have people listen to a live performance, record it at the same time, then playback the recording in the same room, and have the listeners identify the qualities that lead them to believe one system is closer to the original performance than the other.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.