I'm sure all of you have seen this figure before. Which line is longer?
If we base our reality on our perceprions alone we are easily fooled. If your preception is that two things are different and measurement shows them to be the same which to you trust, believe, accept as the truth? Can you imagine the state of science if it were based on preception?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
If we base our reality on our perceprions alone we are easily fooled. If your preception is that two things are different and measurement shows them to be the same which to you trust, believe, accept as the truth? Can you imagine the state of science if it were based on preception?
The 2 lines look the same length to me... that one has never fooled me. Althou that one has a further mislead -- the top line is shifted to the left.
What Linkwitz keeps pounding on in his book is that -- if blind -- one has to accept what 2 ears + a brain perceive over what we measure. And he found that there was broad consistancy across what people perceive (taking into account hearing impairment)
To be useful, measures have to match what we perceive.
dave
What Linkwitz keeps pounding on in his book is that -- if blind -- one has to accept what 2 ears + a brain perceive over what we measure. And he found that there was broad consistancy across what people perceive (taking into account hearing impairment)
To be useful, measures have to match what we perceive.
dave
Good morning dlr,
I must say, having heard you reference Totem Beaks and Tice Clocks a few times, I looked into them having never heard of either. Wow. The related ridiculousness is shocking. The Totem Beaks in particular - my goodness! 😱 'Brilliant in a way, though - it's like a less-useful Pet Rock.
How do we call it a match? I don't think it's ever been done since most time tolerances cannot be defined.
I've tried this when choosing pants. Does't work.
This is the one that I love:
Popular Science Feature - Chessboard Optical Illusion
While MDF is certainly not the best enclosure material, it can make "effective" speaker enclosures. And I'm sure that using MDF as one of the layers in a multi-layer enclosure with CLD (or other viscoelastic decoupling layer in between two more rigid layers) is capable of producing an excellent enclosure better than most of those found in commercial speakers costing thousands of $$$
What do you mean by "sticks" - rectangular or cylindrical (dowels) beams of wood with the grain oriented lengthwise?
ALL of the tests that I've seen, and done, have demonstrated bracing to be effective - I'm confused by your post, would you please show me a link, or explain what sort of ineffectiveness you're talking about?
------
Another thing that confused me was seeing that DLR was even posting in an ENABL thread 😛 Hehe. I think somebody should send a pair of ENABLd _ non-ENABLd drivers to see if he can hear a difference...
Last edited:
Science had always been discovery of somthing unnoticed first, then the means to reliably detect, measure, recreate, followed.
The problem with EnABL is mainly it uses a fixed pattern, which from experience we know can be effective if the conditions are right, but may not work for all conditions. We know that Bud does the patterns while listening in the process, and we know that this is not the most reliable way of obtaining optimum performance.
How'd the patent ever get issued?
I've been following this and other EnABLE threads for while now and read thru Mr. Purvine's 1994 patent. There's lots of dwgs of how the method can be implemented in different ways on different acoustical items and, lots of claims but a total lack of data proving the idea works.
Shame on the examiner for allowing it. I don't believe patents that don't provide proof of their utility other than claims should be allowed. Just because there's no challengeable references and the claims are indeed unique, doesn't make the idea useful.
Perhaps Planet10's data will help in proving the idea works. At least that's a start.
I've been following this and other EnABLE threads for while now and read thru Mr. Purvine's 1994 patent. There's lots of dwgs of how the method can be implemented in different ways on different acoustical items and, lots of claims but a total lack of data proving the idea works.
Shame on the examiner for allowing it. I don't believe patents that don't provide proof of their utility other than claims should be allowed. Just because there's no challengeable references and the claims are indeed unique, doesn't make the idea useful.
Perhaps Planet10's data will help in proving the idea works. At least that's a start.
skeptic43
I fear you have a common misconception on the use and provision of the patent process.
The examiner provided 94 examples of previous art and was satisfied with my answers to those examples. Patents do not require proof of process, just exclusivity or an obvious improvement to an existing art, that is not obvious to practitioners of that art.
It is then up to the provider of this unique art to prove to those who would use this art for commercial gain that it is worth their while to pay a royalty for use of the art. Patents only provide commercial exclusivity for a patented art not a guarantee of usage. The patent provided to me was issued into a completely new category. Other patents have since been issued to this category and mine has become a hurdle that new applicants must cross. A good few have done so and many more will follow.
Perhaps you should also read the white paper?
standingwaves
Many of the postulated means for accomplishing what EnABL accomplishes have been shown to be unlikely. We have yet to arrive at any more sensible means for the process unfolding as predicted.
We are in the process of trying to figure out what is actually going, in terms of the physical processes involved in actually accomplishing the clearly audible changes in a vast majority of the incidents of treatment. We are far beyond the stage of mere psycho acoustic phenomena. We do have proof of the effects, utilizing state of the art test equipment and data from neutral and strongly adversarial sources.
I do have some private conversations with reputable scientists and engineers in the field of vibratory phenomena that are quite supportive and do provide some interesting insights into what can and cannot be happening. As these thoughts mature in the minds of those commentators I expect they will make more secure statements and hopefully be able to show methods for testing them.
This is an agonizingly slow process by the way and primarily because the thoughts these individuals have proposed are quite new to them. Experts though they are in the field.
Bud
I fear you have a common misconception on the use and provision of the patent process.
The examiner provided 94 examples of previous art and was satisfied with my answers to those examples. Patents do not require proof of process, just exclusivity or an obvious improvement to an existing art, that is not obvious to practitioners of that art.
It is then up to the provider of this unique art to prove to those who would use this art for commercial gain that it is worth their while to pay a royalty for use of the art. Patents only provide commercial exclusivity for a patented art not a guarantee of usage. The patent provided to me was issued into a completely new category. Other patents have since been issued to this category and mine has become a hurdle that new applicants must cross. A good few have done so and many more will follow.
Perhaps you should also read the white paper?
standingwaves
Many of the postulated means for accomplishing what EnABL accomplishes have been shown to be unlikely. We have yet to arrive at any more sensible means for the process unfolding as predicted.
We are in the process of trying to figure out what is actually going, in terms of the physical processes involved in actually accomplishing the clearly audible changes in a vast majority of the incidents of treatment. We are far beyond the stage of mere psycho acoustic phenomena. We do have proof of the effects, utilizing state of the art test equipment and data from neutral and strongly adversarial sources.
I do have some private conversations with reputable scientists and engineers in the field of vibratory phenomena that are quite supportive and do provide some interesting insights into what can and cannot be happening. As these thoughts mature in the minds of those commentators I expect they will make more secure statements and hopefully be able to show methods for testing them.
This is an agonizingly slow process by the way and primarily because the thoughts these individuals have proposed are quite new to them. Experts though they are in the field.
Bud
Last edited:
That's not necessarily correct. The Q alone is not the only factor. The magnitude and where in the spectrum it occurs is very important. The fact that some resonance was moved and its Q altered cannot be taken to claim lessened audibility.
Dave
Note to the moderators:
Why are posts that are so clearly based primarily on the technical aspects not moved to the other thread? I will most emphatically be responding to many points here. If you leave these here, this is where I will also post. Please inform all of us whether or not we will be allowed to respond in this thread. For the moment, given the number and length of the technical posts such as those by Bud, I will be replying here. There are clearly factual inaccuracies being made on the technical aspect.
Rest assured Dave, when I actually have technical information, beyond suppositions and normal conversational comments, I will bring them to the technical thread. Considering your requirements for me bringing that information, to what is actually my thread, I think you can ease up a bit and join in the general discussion here, without needing to defend any position or require rigor for comments that are not made from that pont of view.
Bud
Bud
Your thread? You own this thread? Silly me, I thought that this was a public board for open debate.
Since you say that these are not "technical", I'll respond to them here then. Much of what you stated was not written as "supposition".
Nonsense. There is little if any alteration of the directionality. There is no demonstrated dispersion and "loss of beaming". This is pure speculation. There is no data to support this, only conjecture. Audible changes cannot be directly correlated to this unless you have proof of the alteration in dispersion, not conjecture.
It is both adding mass and damping. To claim otherwise has no basis and is again conjecture and counter to what any competent driver designer would describe it and our well known understanding of drivers. More misinformation.
More bad information. Damping is the same as mass in diaphragm, it is a distributed phenomenon.
Hmmm, when did you measure this? It sounds definitive to me, certainly not supposition. How do you know this? I've seen nothing provided by you nor anyone else to support this claim other than this conjecture. What constitutes the "variety of reasons"? Not to include those debunked in the original thread, of course.
Too much misinformation in 7), so in synopsis, your words:
The former is patently false. The ONLY thing you are doing is altering ("controlling" if you wish) the diaphragm. To claim otherwise is rather astounding and a complete lack of understanding of the what occurs in a direct radiator.
That's just the first post. On to the next one, since it is also NOT technical information according to Bud himself.
Essentially all have been shown so, save the one that is the actual process, mass/damping, a phenomenon well understood by driver manufacturers for a long, long, long time.
Proof of effects? None needed, we know that adding the mass/damping alters the response, it's easily measured and not surprising that this change is perceived. It doesn't prove anything else, however.
Based on all of the above statements (a subset to be sure), you're primarily making technical claims here, now.
Dave
You know Dave, I really think you need to review all of the previous statement, by both you and I. You are not a moderator. You are not an editor. Yo do not arbitrate my thoughts or my statements, in any fashion. You brought no more than speculative opinion to your comments, except for the last one about mass loading causing audible differences.
Your self appointed hall monitor status is superfluous in this thread and frankly a waste of your time. If you are so desperately concerned to argue my comments, copy them into the technical thread and provide some technical backup to your comments.
Bud
Your self appointed hall monitor status is superfluous in this thread and frankly a waste of your time. If you are so desperately concerned to argue my comments, copy them into the technical thread and provide some technical backup to your comments.
Bud
I have closely read your posts and don't claim to be a moderator. I am puzzled by the contradiction of separating the threads, only to have blatantly technical claims left standing when they arise on the side of proponents in this "non-technical" one. Otherwise, why separate the thread in the first place? It is you who introduce the technical claims, not I.
It was all hashed out in the first thread. There's nothing new here other than the new speculation, aside from the patently false claims debated and debunked in the first thread and implicitly challenged now. The problem is the evident reluctance to accept it.
Dave
Obtain some inexpensive speakers, purchase a cheap kit from Ed LaFontaine apply the most basic pattern set and listen to them. If you provide me with some simple measurements of the physical dimensions of the driver I will happily provide you with a set of pattern guides, for free, as always, to everyone. At that point, I will actually pay some attention to your comments Dave. I will also ask you some very specific questions about your listening procedures.
If you have been clever and tested along the way, you should be able to duplicate John K's test results. At that point you will know as much about this process as the rest of us do.
And Dave, it is rather obvious that the moderator for this thread does not agree with your definitions of what is technical and is willing for exploratory thought and commentary to be included. He has already shown you what his limits are, on his definition of what is acceptable and he is not a self appointed hall monitor, he is in charge. Just accept the situation.
Bud
If you have been clever and tested along the way, you should be able to duplicate John K's test results. At that point you will know as much about this process as the rest of us do.
And Dave, it is rather obvious that the moderator for this thread does not agree with your definitions of what is technical and is willing for exploratory thought and commentary to be included. He has already shown you what his limits are, on his definition of what is acceptable and he is not a self appointed hall monitor, he is in charge. Just accept the situation.
Bud
There is no need to duplicate John's tests. His were definitive and conclusive in the area tested, the basics of the change made (or not made as in the case of baffles). Your test methodology, on the other hand, is fraught with questionable procedures that rely solely on perception that are used to extend to objective claims such as energy release and dispersion without any evidence whatsoever. It is not up to me to disprove, it is up to proponents to prove the positive, however distasteful that seems to be.
As I have said from day one, it's no surprise that a measurable and audible change occurs. This is to be expected, I have done that countless times in my own testing and made much of that available at my web site. I provide support for claims I make, though they are in agreement with established understanding and do not suffer from being pure conjecture. Conventional physics (mass/damping) fully explains changes that occur.
The esoteric claims as to mechanism is the real issue. The new conjecture related to dispersion could easily be demonstrated by proponents if a standard set of on- and off-axis measurements were provided, say 0-5-10-15-30-60 degrees, before/after in the manner as John's. Easily done by anyone with any reasonable competence. So far, not one single proponent has attempted anything of the sort.
Dave
As I have said from day one, it's no surprise that a measurable and audible change occurs. This is to be expected, I have done that countless times in my own testing and made much of that available at my web site. I provide support for claims I make, though they are in agreement with established understanding and do not suffer from being pure conjecture. Conventional physics (mass/damping) fully explains changes that occur.
The esoteric claims as to mechanism is the real issue. The new conjecture related to dispersion could easily be demonstrated by proponents if a standard set of on- and off-axis measurements were provided, say 0-5-10-15-30-60 degrees, before/after in the manner as John's. Easily done by anyone with any reasonable competence. So far, not one single proponent has attempted anything of the sort.
Dave
OK guys, we're not going to change anyones opinions here and we're all entitled to our own so please, let's discuss this in a civil way. Keep it on topic and factual.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.