Hi Tinitus,
Please accept my apologies. I hadn't intended to mention you out of context.
I was trying to make the point to Tade that he has to accept this thread available to all members to contribute.
Thx
Mark
Hi,
I'm not asserting the randomised dots approach, but if you did it you would
obviously use the same pattern (mirror imaged left to right 😉 ) on each driver.
Then of course work out which channel each one suits better 😉 .
Or if your really keen rotate through all axial degrees both ways and swap
left and right, as you have no axial symmetry, one particular rotated
angle and left / right arrangement must be the best aurally .... 😉 .
No way do I want inexperienced members pointlessly modding cones.
Also there is no way to predict the effectiveness of EnABL treatments.
rgds, sreten.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
How would you set about EnABLing the above, totally guess I'd say.
Or make up some drivel and pretend you know what you are doing.
If you make it pretty, it will look like it is doing something useful.
Last edited:
Am I one of the mods seen to challenge sreten's comments? If so good but not as a mod. I do this as a member. Personally I am not concerned about sreten's impression. He has taken the scientific approach. I deliberately avoid that. I am interested in what I hear, nothing more. Theory and/or conjecture mean little to me when comes to enjoying the music. If someone wishes to debunk the hows and whys, I'm not going to lose sleep, I am going to enjoy what I recognize as an improvement and go back to listening to the music that, as I undertand, is the reason we are debating this in the first place.
Cheers to all who are listening to music whether it is eNABLed or not.
Cheers to all who are listening to music whether it is eNABLed or not.
Hi,
The point is so much nonsense is talked about EnABL by deliberately
avoiding any commonsense, integrity of claims, sensible advice or in
fact anything to do with this what has always been a half-baked idea.
Without science HiFi would not exist, in any shape or form.
There is nothing wrong by definition with the fully scientific method
with no shortcuts ; and any method that actually repeatedly works
in reality is by definition scientific, empirically or theoretically.
I initially read the patent for EnABL- utter nonsense. From there it
goes on to one insubstantiated claim after another, even requiring
a thread split due to the mindlessly over the top claims for it.
I am fed up repeating no-one is saying it might not improve a driver.
That is not and never was the debate. The debate is about BS.
The EnABL threads have that in spades, in all its corrosive forms.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
I've described it several times over the years. My comments are buried in some thread somewhere.
Basically it was at RMAF, the Nelson Pass and Lowther room. A pair of treated and untreated drivers, but with clear varnish so as not to see which was which. The differences mostly were not huge, but from time to time the untreated drivers would shout or break up on certain passages. The treated drivers did not. When it happened (or didn't) it was clear. But it was only at those moments that I heard it. Maybe others there heard an overall change, I did not.
The joke was on me tho. I thought I had guessed which were the eNabl'd drivers and did NOT like them. More break up and distortion. Was thinking about how to tell Bud I didn't like them, when I found out I was wrong about which pair was which.
Fooled me!So I guess what I heard was what others here have described, a certain softening of the sound - tho I hadn't thought of it in those terms. A certain softening and edge removal is a good thing on a Lowther.
FWIW, I had eNabl'd two pair of drivers with a very basic pattern by that time, but couldn't be sure I'd heard a difference. It didn't really seem like it was worth the effort.
There are a lot of posts between what I am saying now and what I need to comment on.
Am I moderating this thread? Well, I am trying to keep this thread on the topic of skepticism regarding the enabl process. THAT is the POINT of this thread. All of those attempting to hijack the thread into a "pro enable, sans evidence" direction are defeating the point of this haven for skeptics. I would prefer this to be an open and frank discourse. Not to be swamped by defenders of the process.
Kevinkr, this being my thread, I do feel a duty to keep in on topic. I disagree that "only moderators can moderate this thread". Is that what you meant to say?
Am I moderating this thread? Well, I am trying to keep this thread on the topic of skepticism regarding the enabl process. THAT is the POINT of this thread. All of those attempting to hijack the thread into a "pro enable, sans evidence" direction are defeating the point of this haven for skeptics. I would prefer this to be an open and frank discourse. Not to be swamped by defenders of the process.
Kevinkr, this being my thread, I do feel a duty to keep in on topic. I disagree that "only moderators can moderate this thread". Is that what you meant to say?
^ he's trying to help the community make decisions for themselves. I gained from his generosity, then came on here in public and openly stated I think it does nothing. He's very fine with me doing that.
I can't help but agree with Strenten. The issue is the outrageous claims. I think the P10 treatments do something. But the enable does NOT do the thing bud claims. 🙁
But you were told when each set of speakers was active?
'Now playing set A.....' sort of thing?
Alternating treated and untreated?
They were in plain view?
And was this 'just the dots' treatment or the 'full' treatment with cone painted before the dots go on?
The softening of sound is more due to the HF roll off and that comes from coating of the cone, not the enable treatment, IMO.
And I agree with d to the g, all adverts, as subtle as they are, need to be in the vendor section.
And I agree with d to the g, all adverts, as subtle as they are, need to be in the vendor section.
dent,
I can't think of an example where science has lied. Can you give me one please?
Markaudio,
Yes you are right. I apologize. I equated skepticism to a beliefe that enabling either does not change the sound of the driver, or degrades it's sound. I cannot claim this. What I should have said was that i would appreciate a reasonable hypothesis as to how enabling effects the sound, and that in leu of a theory, the claims made loose almost all of their credibility.
It needs to be made clear that at present, the work supporting the enabl process is not scientific and is absolutely subjective.
There is a large amount of interest surrounding the process. Lot's of claims. Business. I would like for these claims to either be rigorously substantiated, or retracted.
In regards to post #78 Please don't take markaudio's comments as a "red light" to try putting the dots in random places. With a little planning it would be easy to put an identical pattern of "random" dots on two different drivers. And as far as I can tell, there is no more ability to predict the outcome of that arrangement than the current enabling process. Neither is predictable AT ALL without a theory!
buzzforb,
No inventor pulls a technical innovation out of thin air. That is what i think you mean when you speak of courage, and reality, and reaching out into the unknown. We must also make the distinction between the scientific method and science (the current body of understanding). The scientific method is simply a useful framework for rigorous study.
Cal Weldon,
You ARE already doing science.
Here's your hypothesis; (such and such treatment) will improve the sound of a driver.
Then you test; You perform a listening test.
Your data is; It does or does not sound better.
You are indeed an experimentalist, just not a very effective one... Take your data for instance. It is a true false value. It is good data, but it leaves you with quite little in the way of a clear path to improvement.
whenever you pose a question, and seek an answer, you are doing science. Don't you want to do the best science you can?
I can't believe there isn't a way to measure the effects of the enabling process no matter how subtle. I'm thinking some sort of laser interferometric, or capacitive displacement measurement. it sounds like the mechanism that enabling is designed to affect is some sort of bending wave phenomenon. I still don't understand how that produces net sound, but perhaps this could be an area worth investigating?
Sincerely,
Tade
I can't think of an example where science has lied. Can you give me one please?
Markaudio,
Yes you are right. I apologize. I equated skepticism to a beliefe that enabling either does not change the sound of the driver, or degrades it's sound. I cannot claim this. What I should have said was that i would appreciate a reasonable hypothesis as to how enabling effects the sound, and that in leu of a theory, the claims made loose almost all of their credibility.
It needs to be made clear that at present, the work supporting the enabl process is not scientific and is absolutely subjective.
There is a large amount of interest surrounding the process. Lot's of claims. Business. I would like for these claims to either be rigorously substantiated, or retracted.
In regards to post #78 Please don't take markaudio's comments as a "red light" to try putting the dots in random places. With a little planning it would be easy to put an identical pattern of "random" dots on two different drivers. And as far as I can tell, there is no more ability to predict the outcome of that arrangement than the current enabling process. Neither is predictable AT ALL without a theory!
buzzforb,
No inventor pulls a technical innovation out of thin air. That is what i think you mean when you speak of courage, and reality, and reaching out into the unknown. We must also make the distinction between the scientific method and science (the current body of understanding). The scientific method is simply a useful framework for rigorous study.
Cal Weldon,
You ARE already doing science.
Here's your hypothesis; (such and such treatment) will improve the sound of a driver.
Then you test; You perform a listening test.
Your data is; It does or does not sound better.
You are indeed an experimentalist, just not a very effective one... Take your data for instance. It is a true false value. It is good data, but it leaves you with quite little in the way of a clear path to improvement.
whenever you pose a question, and seek an answer, you are doing science. Don't you want to do the best science you can?
I can't believe there isn't a way to measure the effects of the enabling process no matter how subtle. I'm thinking some sort of laser interferometric, or capacitive displacement measurement. it sounds like the mechanism that enabling is designed to affect is some sort of bending wave phenomenon. I still don't understand how that produces net sound, but perhaps this could be an area worth investigating?
Sincerely,
Tade
Most people don't hear a difference after Enabl, not even subtle. Measuring something that someone thinks he have heard is not easy of course.
That's not an advert it's an invitation 🙂
Tade, don't you think it would be a bit boring (and potentially limiting) to have a thread where the only opinion that could be expressed agreed with the Opinion of the OP?
I guess if the motive is to make ones self feel better about their views by getting pats on the back by like minded people, and to isolate oneself from any other possibilities then fine, however this is not the place to do it 😉
A tweakers sanctuary forum was set up to allow people to discuss subjective stuff who didn't want to be challenged by people questioning their views, it didn't work. I once suggested a hard core engineering forum (similar to what you are suggesting for this thread) It didn't fly.
We all have opinions, as long as everyone remembers that is what they are and respects that people are entitled to their opinions even if we don't agree with them, then people remain happy. It is when people start to pass off their opinions as fact and state that other peoples opinions are invalid that problems arise.
Tony.
Last edited:
It should be noted that other than the ohm F Bud started on, he had been doing multiway speakers, until skeptic (but open minded) i sent a pair of matched FE127 to Bud to see what it was all about. From that the tech caught on with the FR crowd.
dave
Wintemute,
I can't tell whether your post is criticizing me, or mocking the fanaticism surrounding enabling. Either way I feel that it is inappropriate.
Plante10,
I HOPE that "the FR crowd" is not synonymous with people who like enabling.
I already know that there are many, many people who swear by this process. That is why I started this thread after all.
I can't tell whether your post is criticizing me, or mocking the fanaticism surrounding enabling. Either way I feel that it is inappropriate.
Plante10,
I HOPE that "the FR crowd" is not synonymous with people who like enabling.
I already know that there are many, many people who swear by this process. That is why I started this thread after all.
Victoria Guy, I never take anything I read on an Internet forum as fact 😉 I'd even go so far as to say that proper scientific results with peer review can be considered "fact" but it doesn't mean it is actually correct (or completely correct) it is just the best understanding of a particular thing at this point in time.
Tade, I am not mocking you, simply saying things how I see it. I'm making a general comment about exclusion, and how I think it does not lead to anything good 🙂 I've seen people get themselves into trouble in stock forums where they are surrounded by people who agree with their analysis of a stock and anyone who posts a contrary opinion is shouted down and excluded. They feel better because everyone else agrees with them, however they lose their money because the person who was drummed out was in fact right. Totally different scenario to here but I think you will get the analogy.
Tade, I am not mocking you, simply saying things how I see it. I'm making a general comment about exclusion, and how I think it does not lead to anything good 🙂 I've seen people get themselves into trouble in stock forums where they are surrounded by people who agree with their analysis of a stock and anyone who posts a contrary opinion is shouted down and excluded. They feel better because everyone else agrees with them, however they lose their money because the person who was drummed out was in fact right. Totally different scenario to here but I think you will get the analogy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.