I've had some doctors go speechless on my questions.SY said:
I lost a tooth because I beleived in my Dentist.
One thing for sure is that bad eye sight is not a matter of results from bad reading habits as most dotors claim. Very rarely do doctors treat humans as a system. So if you start asking questions from a human body system point of view. Most go blank.I am already aware of what the patterns do. It's only a matter whether it's the best for all drivers. I hope you're not using the CLIO system for cumulative spectral decays.
No, you'll notice that I'm on the same SoundEasy Yahoo group as you are. 😉
Bose's lawyers can get in line behind everyone else who's chasing me.
Bose's lawyers can get in line behind everyone else who's chasing me.
soongsc said:
I've had some doctors go speechless on my questions.
Then find a doctor who isn't speechless or ask better questions. "Bad reading habits from most doctors"? My wife is a doctor, I know hundreds of doctors, run a thriving pediatric practice, and have never heard that expression from anyone except from my long gone grandmother!!
And I believe john k. is speaking about EnABL from a systems point of view, leaving most of the believers speechless wrt plausible explanations for the perceived effect.
AJinFLA said:
But Bud will benefit from this thread as he owns the patent ;-) If this flies, he will fly so to say.....
Maybe Seas didn't want to pony up what Bud required ...
TNT said:
But Bud will benefit from this thread as he owns the patent ;-) If this flies, he will fly so to say.....
Maybe Seas didn't want to pony up what Bud required ...
for which the few patent licensees of Bud's process have remitted the princely sum of ??
soongsc said:
You tryin' to start another fight - soongsc. (Bristles slightly!)
As a member of said profession I am well aware that "using" your eyes does not cause bad eyesight. I have never heard any of my colleagues claim this either - most are frustrated by the mass of urban myths that seem to have grown up around the lay perception of us medics. Or perhaps doctors from where you come from are badly trained idiots.
Re the "system" - what on earth do you mean? If there is a systemic problem - eg rheumatoid arthritis - then every patient gets treated as a system. Not sure what to say - should I refer a patient with a urinary tract infection to a psychiatrist as well to help them cope???
Lets get back on topic, eh?
(I see auplater beat me to this. Nuff said)
AJinFLA said:
Eh? I should ask Jon at Lowther, whether John K, hearing a newly damped $5 PA paging speaker, is going to have a revelatory experience, since he's use to to listening to NaO's & such levels of loudspeakers?
No, my suggestion was to ask Jon about his revelatory impressions of what Bud's treatment did for his (Jon's) Lowther drivers. I think it's fair to assume that a well implemented Lowther based system (which I think Jon is capable of achieving) would be considered by readers of this thread and even untrained listeners as residing at the same level as John K's NaO's - which I think that the crux of your specific question?
As for the $5 PA paging speaker - who knows what that would sound like, until it's heard?
Oh, I don't think I have any more difficultly misunderstanding your contributions than the reverse, but to make things clear, I'll describe the "comparison" demo again.
Please remember that it was stated at the outset as "crude, unscientific, and yet yielding consistent results". All of the subjects had years of listening experience, but were not prepared in advance for what the demo was about - just "listen to this and tell us what you think"
The speakers involved were two pairs of a compact single driver design, specifically the Planet10 "milliFonken", built by myself. Chosen for this test due to their convenient portable dimenisons. The drivers used were Fostex FE127E drivers from the same 20 unit case lot batch.
After initial driver break-in period, the drivers are measured with FuzzMeasure for basic T/S parameter matching, then proceed to treatment, after which they are again measured and pair-matched.
One pair of cabinets received drivers treated with the EnABL process, the other pair bone stock.
As for the "method", well - play some music, switch, play some music, switch - repeat etc. As I'll repeat, certainly not a rigorous scientific method; but definitely repeatable, and so far with consistent results. Sit on the couch with the listener(s)- there's physical reaction that's hard to miss.
dlr said:
Given the existing data that is the best conclusion. 2 sets of measurements have been taken, neither of which is very conclusive since in 1 case, we had different test suites and a 6 month or so gap between tests (TTBOMK). The other was only a bit better, and within the error margins for the less than rigorous testing conditions no change... see attached. (Lowther measures, faded curves are phase, taken on different days (and maybe even different drivers of the same type) -- a change in the weather can cause greater differences)
I don't see where you can look at the data and say they show a change.
In the paucity of measurements, we latch on to the few we have...
dave
Attachments
SY,
Thank you for your participation in this thread. Your degree of rigor is not in question...well, at least not by myself...
From my graduate studies I do seem to remember something about statistical analysis and the need for multiple replicates to produce sufficient data sets...something about statistical significance...hence, a call for more data...all who have the necessary equipment, time and interest are invited and thanked in advance...
t
Thank you for your participation in this thread. Your degree of rigor is not in question...well, at least not by myself...
From my graduate studies I do seem to remember something about statistical analysis and the need for multiple replicates to produce sufficient data sets...something about statistical significance...hence, a call for more data...all who have the necessary equipment, time and interest are invited and thanked in advance...
t
planet10 said:
You are making my point in one way and that is the reports are often of dramatic change in perceived response for systems easily within the realm of established measurement systems if used correctly. However, the claim Bud made explicitly was that there is no FR change, repeat, no FR change, yet at the same time he specifically in his post to me linked to the tests made by soongsc as support for his position. This is but one of the contradictions, probably the most egregious. On this point I have simply been asking for clarification about the obvious contradiction, to no avail. Diversion or cynicism has been the standard response.
If debate is welcomed, as claimed by some (not all, evidently, in reading some posts), and there are significant inconsistencies in statements, then to be a real debate those inconsistencies must be addressed directly. If not, the board and its discussions will have little relevance except to the faithful.
Dave
dlr said:
You are nit-picking and sounding like a broken record. In the time you have taken to repeat the same "arguments" over and over again, you could have pulled a driver out of your junk drawer, measure it to your standards, EnABL it, measure it. (and listen to it too). Then we would all have something to move forward with. As it is you have made your point.
I suspect that SY is just as skeptical as you, but he is doing something concrete to move the questions forward. You should follow his example.
dave
planet10 said:
Where in the rules does it say that to debate the merits of an idea or topic requires this? If I should, but if I choose not to, then what? Must all who do not agree and have valid points do so? There would be no need for repetition if major questions that are raised received response. It doesn't make for much of a debate otherwise.
Dave
nit-pickung
Likewise, in the same time (and multiple posts) you've spent evading the contradictions, with all sorts of "fuzzy" generalizations about -30dB -50dB, frequency response variations (or not) and such, you could have retracted your quasi-empirical half-truths and simply agreed that there is, as yet, no formal empirical data that supports the opinions of improved sound from this technique. You haven't done this. Let's be honest here.
John L.
planet10 said:
Likewise, in the same time (and multiple posts) you've spent evading the contradictions, with all sorts of "fuzzy" generalizations about -30dB -50dB, frequency response variations (or not) and such, you could have retracted your quasi-empirical half-truths and simply agreed that there is, as yet, no formal empirical data that supports the opinions of improved sound from this technique. You haven't done this. Let's be honest here.
John L.
There's more than enough merit in both sides of this discussion, but forgive me, it appears to have devolved to the level of a school-yard pi$$ing contest
Even if a test regimen or analysis method measuring up to the rigorous standards of all skeptics is ever devised that clearly shows evidence of a physical cause of the effect, there will likely be some that will refuse to accept it.
In the meantime, what will it hurt to obtain ( or treat your own) drivers and simply listen to them?
As are almost all human endeavors, the hobby/science/art that we call "audio" is already replete with intractable dogma, to which adherents of each side of any particular debate are absolutely convinced of the correctness of their position.
shame, really
Even if a test regimen or analysis method measuring up to the rigorous standards of all skeptics is ever devised that clearly shows evidence of a physical cause of the effect, there will likely be some that will refuse to accept it.
In the meantime, what will it hurt to obtain ( or treat your own) drivers and simply listen to them?
As are almost all human endeavors, the hobby/science/art that we call "audio" is already replete with intractable dogma, to which adherents of each side of any particular debate are absolutely convinced of the correctness of their position.
shame, really
dlr said:
Has it occurred to you that the reactions to your initial post had less to with your skepticism, and more to do with the way you have presented yourself to the "great unwashed" of this thread? I'm still trying to figure out why you just didn't shake your head and move on instead of intimating intellectual dishonesty by someone whom you have never met.
If you still haven't got it, it's called "perceived arrogance", and you're pretty good at it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.