Re: Re: EnABL frequency response
Manipulate the test regime for favourable results.😉
soongsc said:
Manipulate the test regime for favourable results.😉
Re: Waterfall - with EnABL
Hi Jon, is it possible to show the first 0.4ms or so in that scale? I somehow recall under some specific settings this can be done, but it's been over a year since I last played around with the demo version.Jon Ver Halen said:
soongsc said:
I wasn't talking about mass market. Most consumers could care less.
The treated drivers have been mass loaded, this drives down Fs, drives up Mms. It sounds different.
Better? You all say yes.
tade said:
😀
I'm getting some high heat paint to EnaBL the tailpipe on my truck - make it sound more powerful! VROOOOM!!
John,
1.)How much added mass are you imagining?
2.)How much of a change in FS do you expect would cause a noticeable alteration a human could hear and what would that "sound like"?
3.)What sort of change in mms would cause an alteration a human would hear.
4.)Would either of these two changes you postulate as needed, result in any alteration in any of the objective test data?
5.) Can you provide us with even a gross alteration of these changes, as they manifest themselves in objective test data, so we can begin to look explicitly for them and observe their "footprint" in a data format and test regimen that is acceptable.
I ask, because a little later this year, I will be in a large anechoic chamber, with appropriately rigorous test gear and one of the wolds foremost acoustician's to research the EnABL process. If you can provide any information on the above questions, we might indeed be able to provide you with some answers to your questions.
Questions that to date you have only provided as buzz words and have scoffed at what data has been supplied as invalid due to "suspect" test regimen. Please be a little more scientific and rigorous in your questioning, so that we might use your questions to probe for some answers, even before the anechoic chamber activities begin.
Bud
1.)How much added mass are you imagining?
2.)How much of a change in FS do you expect would cause a noticeable alteration a human could hear and what would that "sound like"?
3.)What sort of change in mms would cause an alteration a human would hear.
4.)Would either of these two changes you postulate as needed, result in any alteration in any of the objective test data?
5.) Can you provide us with even a gross alteration of these changes, as they manifest themselves in objective test data, so we can begin to look explicitly for them and observe their "footprint" in a data format and test regimen that is acceptable.
I ask, because a little later this year, I will be in a large anechoic chamber, with appropriately rigorous test gear and one of the wolds foremost acoustician's to research the EnABL process. If you can provide any information on the above questions, we might indeed be able to provide you with some answers to your questions.
Questions that to date you have only provided as buzz words and have scoffed at what data has been supplied as invalid due to "suspect" test regimen. Please be a little more scientific and rigorous in your questioning, so that we might use your questions to probe for some answers, even before the anechoic chamber activities begin.
Bud
BudP said:
Wow, the way that you have listed these makes them seem almost ridiculous. 🙂
I expect that your little rectangles have very little mass, however it was mentioned that the entire cone has a coating applied. This would lower Fs (I have actually done this and measured the results). Is it audible? Not by me. But I don't have golden ears.
BudP said:
Good luck in the anaehcoic chamber with these tests.
My listening enviroment is not anaechoic. I have no desire to hear the cellist "let one go" during a recording of Air on G String.
I prefer to relax and enjoy the music without fretting over all of the low level detail that I'm missing out on because my system has not been tinkered to oblivion.
John,
I have results of the changes made by mass-loading the cones (as per my modifications). Change is less than the normal deviation of the drivers in a box and much less than the difference between measuring on a hot day or a cool day. Sample size of over 100 units.
These small changes in no one would explain the differences heard. Try it. Then comment.
What is happening is happening way down in level. Valid tests would need to be done in an extremely quiet place & be able to examine what is happening way down in level while in the presence of the main signal.
Jon's FR & phase don't tell us anything because they only measure gross response. What we want to see in the waterfalls is actually buried at the bottom back of the graph hidden by everything else. If we are lucky we can tease something useful out as the signal fades down in level. Same scale, periods, greater time window, vertical down to -60-70 dB would all give us a better chance of seeing something happen -- not something that is going to happen in a normal room.
Hopefully Bud's acoustician will have tools & techniques that can probe what is happening.
dave
I have results of the changes made by mass-loading the cones (as per my modifications). Change is less than the normal deviation of the drivers in a box and much less than the difference between measuring on a hot day or a cool day. Sample size of over 100 units.
These small changes in no one would explain the differences heard. Try it. Then comment.
What is happening is happening way down in level. Valid tests would need to be done in an extremely quiet place & be able to examine what is happening way down in level while in the presence of the main signal.
Jon's FR & phase don't tell us anything because they only measure gross response. What we want to see in the waterfalls is actually buried at the bottom back of the graph hidden by everything else. If we are lucky we can tease something useful out as the signal fades down in level. Same scale, periods, greater time window, vertical down to -60-70 dB would all give us a better chance of seeing something happen -- not something that is going to happen in a normal room.
Hopefully Bud's acoustician will have tools & techniques that can probe what is happening.
dave
planet10 said:
I'm going to be a rebel here and not do it.
planet10 said:
If there is something happening that can only be measured in an "extremely quiet place", then maybe it's not audible, just imagined.
J
planet10 said:
Well, once again real world measurements don't mean anything. Where are we listening? I'm listening in a normal room.
John,
Would you please expand upon the application of a coating? Do you have an idea of how much material you applied? How much of the applied material evaporated? What was the the change in FS? Can you extrapolate backwards and provide an approximate mass added to cause the measurable but inaudible changes?
No one has golden ears. We all come from a few million years of natural selection that has left us with a threat assessment system, part of which is a monitoring of the sound field about us for "threats".
We have many known threats and these are acknowledged and action is caused or the threat is ignored, by the semi autonomous threat correlator that sits in what western psychology classifies as the "unconscious". When an unknown sound is heard, this correlator brings it to the immediate attention of the "conscious" decision making process and if the unknown noise is deemed to not be a threat, this correlator ignores it and listens even deeper for threats. That the correlator is semi autonomous is shown when a known or loud but unknown noise is heard. We are immediately put on a fight or flight physiological basis and ALL attention is bent towards understanding this threat, no matter what sort of activity we were engaged in, including procreation.
We all have this equipment available, our ancestors were the uneaten, because they had this equipment. So, we all, except those with random problems in hearing and other neurological manifestations, have the same general level of equipment. As an example. Turn on your sound system and put on a musical event that has some fairly continuous high frequency information. Not overloud but a fairly large portion of the material at hand. Sit in your normal position and listen, perhaps all the way through, just to make sure you are familiar with what you are expecting to hear. Then, tilt your head, so that your jaw is close to your chest and listen to the same passage.
If you do not experience a difference, do not go into an environment in which large, wild, felines, might mistake you for a meal. We would hate to loose your colorful common sense!
This is not a golden ear event. But, it should indicate whether or not you have the needed equipment. Beyond this you are making conscious choices, to ignore alterations in provided material, caused by the replication chain. You may want to question the safety of over riding your threat assessment system in this way, just out of self protection considerations. It does accept "learning" over time and can be defeated for all but known to be deadly sounds.
Bud
Would you please expand upon the application of a coating? Do you have an idea of how much material you applied? How much of the applied material evaporated? What was the the change in FS? Can you extrapolate backwards and provide an approximate mass added to cause the measurable but inaudible changes?
No one has golden ears. We all come from a few million years of natural selection that has left us with a threat assessment system, part of which is a monitoring of the sound field about us for "threats".
We have many known threats and these are acknowledged and action is caused or the threat is ignored, by the semi autonomous threat correlator that sits in what western psychology classifies as the "unconscious". When an unknown sound is heard, this correlator brings it to the immediate attention of the "conscious" decision making process and if the unknown noise is deemed to not be a threat, this correlator ignores it and listens even deeper for threats. That the correlator is semi autonomous is shown when a known or loud but unknown noise is heard. We are immediately put on a fight or flight physiological basis and ALL attention is bent towards understanding this threat, no matter what sort of activity we were engaged in, including procreation.
We all have this equipment available, our ancestors were the uneaten, because they had this equipment. So, we all, except those with random problems in hearing and other neurological manifestations, have the same general level of equipment. As an example. Turn on your sound system and put on a musical event that has some fairly continuous high frequency information. Not overloud but a fairly large portion of the material at hand. Sit in your normal position and listen, perhaps all the way through, just to make sure you are familiar with what you are expecting to hear. Then, tilt your head, so that your jaw is close to your chest and listen to the same passage.
If you do not experience a difference, do not go into an environment in which large, wild, felines, might mistake you for a meal. We would hate to loose your colorful common sense!
This is not a golden ear event. But, it should indicate whether or not you have the needed equipment. Beyond this you are making conscious choices, to ignore alterations in provided material, caused by the replication chain. You may want to question the safety of over riding your threat assessment system in this way, just out of self protection considerations. It does accept "learning" over time and can be defeated for all but known to be deadly sounds.
Bud
BudP said:
I gained possession of a cheap pair of speakers that had 10" woofers. The paper cones were soft, like an old paper back novels pages. I sprayed on two coats of waterbased polyurethane. The Fs dropped by about 3 Hz.
There was an improvement in the speakers overall sound quality, from horrible to dreadful, but I attribute that to the stiffer cone.
As for your hearing analogy, interesting. Critical listening is taken too far by some, and I have to wonder how much enjoyment can be had.
John,
I think there is a bifurcation (what a word to get to use) at this point.
On the one hand you have a group of basically uneducated folks who, for one reason or another, have been drawn to "audio". They participate in the forms, but without an internal reason for any particular participation. For these folks, any change from what was, is an indication of improvement, so long as it fits within the context created by those who lead "audio" in the path that provides "improvements" in and descriptions of, things like "slam", "air", edgy transient attack and "height".
None of these have anything to do with music. Neither the art of performance nor the human nobility of the original creation of the piece, regardless of it's genre. Even the more boring formats of musical art are not served by these concoctions.
A table radio is more than capable of presenting enough information, to a trained individual, for that person to understand and participate in the human event of musical art.
Which brings us to the other prong of the big word.
The only things that improve the reproduction of the musical event known as art, over that provided by a table radio to a musically trained individual, are changes that uncover the naturally occurring resonances, both incidental and intended, in the playing of a musical instrument, while creating art.
Those tiny forms of emphasis that a player uses to express their emotional and intellectual response to the piece of music at hand. The formats of improvement that are successful at this reproduction are those that do not raise the threat correlator's interest. Ones that instead put it to sleep, surrounded by known and non threatening sounds. This is a bliss that any adherent of live acoustic music, or naturally occurring ambient sounds from unincorporated nature, is aware of. I am speaking of the feeling of rejuvenation and refreshment felt, following a playing that touches your internal conversations and arouses emotional and intellectual responses.
Without an increase in this information that leads to bliss, the complete revealing of all of the known to exist sounds, the lack of which will arouse the correlator, a change in sound is not an "improvement".
The other format of "improvement", one driven by market needs and journalistic fervor, is a hollow desire for satisfaction. One never to be fulfilled, always to be "managed" so that there is a promise of bliss and fulfillment just over the hill. Always a hill defined by money spent.
Ask Clark Johnson, noted audio editor and musicologist, what equipment he listens to, on a daily basis. He can be found over on positive feedback online.
If your level of involvement is satisfied by what you have to reproduce music and the art inherent in it with, then you have all that you need. I might suggest that you bend your probes into "mass hysterical self supporting" activities in audio, into determining the motives behind the "improvement" process, with the mentioned two prongs of the audio spear. Watch and see which are aimed at what goal, and if you choose to support neither, at least be aware that not all endeavors are aimed solely at the hollow results.
Bud
I think there is a bifurcation (what a word to get to use) at this point.
On the one hand you have a group of basically uneducated folks who, for one reason or another, have been drawn to "audio". They participate in the forms, but without an internal reason for any particular participation. For these folks, any change from what was, is an indication of improvement, so long as it fits within the context created by those who lead "audio" in the path that provides "improvements" in and descriptions of, things like "slam", "air", edgy transient attack and "height".
None of these have anything to do with music. Neither the art of performance nor the human nobility of the original creation of the piece, regardless of it's genre. Even the more boring formats of musical art are not served by these concoctions.
A table radio is more than capable of presenting enough information, to a trained individual, for that person to understand and participate in the human event of musical art.
Which brings us to the other prong of the big word.
The only things that improve the reproduction of the musical event known as art, over that provided by a table radio to a musically trained individual, are changes that uncover the naturally occurring resonances, both incidental and intended, in the playing of a musical instrument, while creating art.
Those tiny forms of emphasis that a player uses to express their emotional and intellectual response to the piece of music at hand. The formats of improvement that are successful at this reproduction are those that do not raise the threat correlator's interest. Ones that instead put it to sleep, surrounded by known and non threatening sounds. This is a bliss that any adherent of live acoustic music, or naturally occurring ambient sounds from unincorporated nature, is aware of. I am speaking of the feeling of rejuvenation and refreshment felt, following a playing that touches your internal conversations and arouses emotional and intellectual responses.
Without an increase in this information that leads to bliss, the complete revealing of all of the known to exist sounds, the lack of which will arouse the correlator, a change in sound is not an "improvement".
The other format of "improvement", one driven by market needs and journalistic fervor, is a hollow desire for satisfaction. One never to be fulfilled, always to be "managed" so that there is a promise of bliss and fulfillment just over the hill. Always a hill defined by money spent.
Ask Clark Johnson, noted audio editor and musicologist, what equipment he listens to, on a daily basis. He can be found over on positive feedback online.
If your level of involvement is satisfied by what you have to reproduce music and the art inherent in it with, then you have all that you need. I might suggest that you bend your probes into "mass hysterical self supporting" activities in audio, into determining the motives behind the "improvement" process, with the mentioned two prongs of the audio spear. Watch and see which are aimed at what goal, and if you choose to support neither, at least be aware that not all endeavors are aimed solely at the hollow results.
Bud
There have been a few 'silly' posts since yesterday !
Established fundamental theory is beyond challenge, thus it is the way we apply it and monitor outcomes we need to be careful about, especially as single steady or swept sine testing reveals little about the way we 'hear' dynamic music reproduction.
There are two of, what I would think are 'Q' modifying mechanisms revealed by the phase measurement plots; just above 3kHz and 17kHz, both being capable of altering percieved composite waveform coherence.
Sudden phase change reveals a resonance we are likely to hear when these become energised by composite music waveforms. Cone resonances can become energised by input at frequencies other than those at which they arise, and yet not appear significant via (or even be masked by) conventional testing.
Cheers ........ Graham.
Established fundamental theory is beyond challenge, thus it is the way we apply it and monitor outcomes we need to be careful about, especially as single steady or swept sine testing reveals little about the way we 'hear' dynamic music reproduction.
There are two of, what I would think are 'Q' modifying mechanisms revealed by the phase measurement plots; just above 3kHz and 17kHz, both being capable of altering percieved composite waveform coherence.
Sudden phase change reveals a resonance we are likely to hear when these become energised by composite music waveforms. Cone resonances can become energised by input at frequencies other than those at which they arise, and yet not appear significant via (or even be masked by) conventional testing.
Cheers ........ Graham.
MJL21193 said:
I don't think anyone talked about coating the whole cone, were you trying to prepare them for the windter?
Bud mainly talked about coating the parts where the pattern is applied only.
OOOPS typo alert
Thats a 30 watt amplifier! Not a 300 watt amplifier. Though a 110 watt amplifier shows directly comparable characteristics, as does a solid state 20 watt push pull amp, with the same OPT as the 30 watt push pull DHT amp.
Bud
Thats a 30 watt amplifier! Not a 300 watt amplifier. Though a 110 watt amplifier shows directly comparable characteristics, as does a solid state 20 watt push pull amp, with the same OPT as the 30 watt push pull DHT amp.
Bud
not measureable then just imangined?
MJL21193:
Tell that to Matti Otala and Harmon International and the psych-acoustic effects that reproducing unhearable frequencies (to humans anyways--"ultra wide bandwidth") can leave with us. Impressions are greater than a frequency sweep.
Somewhere I saw an analysis of a Stradavarius violin vs a new violin that was made to sound "like a Strad". Guess what? Casual listeners could tell the difference even though both violins measured the same (starting to sound like Bob Carver...)
We are pretty complex animals (ask my wife🙂 ). Different versions of us pick up on different things. Despite suggesting that you are going to be a "rebel", check out some "micro" tuning devices. The effects are not subtle, yet many claim there is no difference, while others suggest they are earh shattering . My take is somewhere in between.
However, had I not tried a couple of "experiments" myself a few years ago, I too would (probably) continue to think that micro-tuning is all B.S.
MJL21193:
Tell that to Matti Otala and Harmon International and the psych-acoustic effects that reproducing unhearable frequencies (to humans anyways--"ultra wide bandwidth") can leave with us. Impressions are greater than a frequency sweep.
Somewhere I saw an analysis of a Stradavarius violin vs a new violin that was made to sound "like a Strad". Guess what? Casual listeners could tell the difference even though both violins measured the same (starting to sound like Bob Carver...)
We are pretty complex animals (ask my wife🙂 ). Different versions of us pick up on different things. Despite suggesting that you are going to be a "rebel", check out some "micro" tuning devices. The effects are not subtle, yet many claim there is no difference, while others suggest they are earh shattering . My take is somewhere in between.
However, had I not tried a couple of "experiments" myself a few years ago, I too would (probably) continue to think that micro-tuning is all B.S.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.