Re Bud's '5' in Post#1312, and (Planet 10) Dave's comments.
Could try -
Two LS, nude, one EnABLed, with parallel low Z music drive and tiny mic on rim at edge of cone on each.
Reverse phase of one mic to observe the difference signal between mics/drivers,
or,
feed both mics in phase via an amp to a pair of stereo headphones to observe a live 'in-head' image of the differences in dynamically induced reproduction,
or,
use amp outputs to generate live Lissajou figures (the greater the deviation from a diagonal line - the greater the difference)
Or,
CSD from the driver edges,
or, observe the outputs from a simultaneous impulse test where different boundary layer effects are likely to generate individual edge outcomes.
Cheers ........ Graham.
Could try -
Two LS, nude, one EnABLed, with parallel low Z music drive and tiny mic on rim at edge of cone on each.
Reverse phase of one mic to observe the difference signal between mics/drivers,
or,
feed both mics in phase via an amp to a pair of stereo headphones to observe a live 'in-head' image of the differences in dynamically induced reproduction,
or,
use amp outputs to generate live Lissajou figures (the greater the deviation from a diagonal line - the greater the difference)
Or,
CSD from the driver edges,
or, observe the outputs from a simultaneous impulse test where different boundary layer effects are likely to generate individual edge outcomes.
Cheers ........ Graham.
dlr said:
Dlr, i also thought this after reading what this thread is about. But there is no harm in people having fun with their speakers, so why should one criticise it?
We need 2 separate threads, "enabl - theory and testing", "enabl - practical application"
Got my mod podge. Microscale gloss is in the post. Got a set of round-hand nibs that look like they'll do OK, nearly ready ...
Got my mod podge. Microscale gloss is in the post. Got a set of round-hand nibs that look like they'll do OK, nearly ready ...
Alan,
You seem to have missed the most important item: the laser interferometer...😉 please don't post back your impressions without full spectral decay analysis...
t
You seem to have missed the most important item: the laser interferometer...😉 please don't post back your impressions without full spectral decay analysis...
t
t-head said:Alan,
You seem to have missed the most important item: the laser interferometer...😉 please don't post back your impressions without full spectral decay analysis...
t
🙂 Well, my interconnect has a carbon skin metallurgically bonded to the OFC which bounces electrons back into the signal path to prevent them escaping. Then my entirely solid state Charlize went through a long "good-bad-good-bad" cycle of break-in that is a complete mystery to modern science and presumably caused by demons (THAT certainly wasn't just my ears getting accustomed to a different sound!). Then the electrons hitch a ride on my "alumilloy" speaker wires which I am assured conduct electricity better than silver - but only at audio frequencies which is very clever of them.
So between my CD player and speakers is enough audio "science" to last me for a long time. I'll just take my enabl science-free, thanks very much!
(Don't start me on the scientific virtues of round to square holes in metal phase plugs).
😉
ps In my past I was a Cable Asylum inmate - but I'm cured now.
planet10 said:
No, it's meaningless until proved empirically.
Listening (hearing) has nothing to do with proving a hypothesis. There is no reliability nor proof in that in any way. That is a belief based on individual perceptions. The placebo effect is not an imaginary concept and has to be taken into consideration when people's perceptions are involved.
However, I do not believe in an "emitting" that simply "ejects" energy, in essence intercepting it before it reaches the surround and somehow throwing it away somewhere. It would have to increase output (sensitivity) at some frequencies if it's "ejecting" it. Conservation of energy certainly applies here. This is where measurements made with precisely the same settings is necessary to learn what is going on.
"Ejecting" energy at the terminus is saying that something that is not located at the cone/ surround junction is affecting the cone/surround junction. That simply cannot happen. It may be that it is damping the energy, that I will grant. That is what any coating applied to diaphragms is usually used for. It's usually applied over the entire surface so its damping action is much higher at the expense of lower sensitivity due to the added mass.
It is also possible, maybe even likely, that the mechanism is that of added mass, distributed in such a manner that the resonances are altered. That could also be proved empirically. I hope that someone can show results of interferometer tests. These would easily demonstrate the changes to the resonant nature of the driver.
The whole concept of the hypothesis is at this point purely conjecture because there has been no empirical testing to provide evidence to support the hypothesis. Alteration of driver output that changes a persons perception of the quality is not evidence of the mechanism involved. It is possible, likely in my opinion, that it is not much more than distributed damping. If it's effective, fine. The surround is meant to be a perfect damper, though obviously not perfect. But the attribution of the effect to some mechanism based on conjecture, and that's all it is, is the issue.
Dave
planet10 said:
One minor nit-pick. I have take the definition of theory from thedefinition based on the on-line Random House Unabridged Dictionary:
"A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis."
By this, hypothesis is more accurate in context here, not theory. Nothing has been verified nor established as to the mechanism involved. It is conjecture put forth as a possible explanation.
Dave
pedroskova said:
No he is not the only one, I tend to agree with dlr's position more then yours. I have met dlr and seen his testing capabilities and have no doubt that he is an extremely technically competent audio enthusiast. I would trust his results and opinions. I also realize that offering a differing opinion on this thread and being drawn into an arguement with the believers which cannot be resolved is a waste of time so I pretty much remain silent.
I am not convinced by the explanations and claims made by some people in the thread. I believe it does make a change, an improvement has yet to be proved. But I also have some of Planet10's modified drivers and will measure (using Praxis) and listen to treated and untreated drivers then draw my own conclusions. I have heard one set of speakers treated with the process and to be honest could not hear a difference. The listening test was very short and kind of spur of the moment so I would not consider it conclusive.
I think there are two separate issues being debated. First, does the treatment work and improve performance. Second, what is the explanation of what it is doing to the behavior of the driver.
Unfortunately, in audio there are many tweaks that do change the performance of a driver but they are often described as dramatic improvements in the sound (they are never described as degrading the sound). Subtle changes are often claimed to produce large improvements in performance. The over statement of benefits generates great expectations which in the end lead to disappointment and loss of credibility, even if the result is a small improvement. Whenever I hear great claims of dramtic improvements I immediately hang on to my wallet.
Then there are the explanations of what a tweak is actually doing, these can be simple or very elaborate. But if the explanation is pure techno-babble with laws of physics being violated right and left credibility is lost instantly in the engineering community. Since audiophiles come from a wide population of backgrounds (with engineers probably in the minority) you end up with believers becoming frustrated with the engineers not readliy buying into the tweak. A techno-babble explanation instantly produces a red flag discrediting the tweak and alerting the engineer that something is not clearly understood. A good example of techno-babble pure marketing hype or some of the articles found in the high end sudio magazines The product is tainted in the eyes of the engineer. Sometimes this is not justified and the tweak is good but the back-up explanation is flawed. It would be better to say it works and we have no idea why.
In my opinion, dlr raises many valid technical points and it is not his job to prove anything. It should be a two sided conversation and he has his opinions and doubts. If the proponents of the Enable process want to gain acceptance and credibility in the engineering community, it is up to them to prove the concept.
Hi Bud,
Without taking sides, this is quite a departure from the write up in the Positive Feedback article which goes into excruciating detail on how Enable works.
{edit} Like MJK and dlr I have my own suspicions based consideration of the physical processes involved. And like MJK, I have no problem what so ever is buying that the treatment may procduce a change. Whether that results in a universal improvement or not is another question. Hell, I had a pair of Ohm F's in the late 70's which changed with the weather (absorption of moisture from variations in humidity?). We used to say, "The cat must have pissed (urinated 🙂 ) on the speakers again".
Alan Hope said:
This would have been my advice to all from the beginning, but Bud and other believers have invited science to intrude upon this reality. Unfortunately, for a few of us, life isn't science free, whether we step on the brakes of our car, turn on our computer, fly in an airplane or listen to an electro-acoustic reproduction system.
pedroskova said:
Wrong. Evident to anyone remotely familiar to scientific method. Exclude yourself.
I would change that to science or scientist rather than engineer, as anyone familiar with the scientific method would rely on data rather than babbling conjecture. Martin, you must admit that the techno-babble at least causes you to smile sometimes? The recent post by Bud where he (of course vaguely) seemed to imply that the (added mass) process made the speaker play louder ....well, luckily I was not consuming any liquids, because when it comes out your nose...😉
Looking forward to your measurements. Will distortion sweeps be included?
cheers,
AJ
MJK and dlr,
With great trepidation and foreboding, I will say that I believe you both make valid points, previous posts of mine aside. I would very much like to have a scientifically valid explanation for what my ears have heard. I guess that where I differ is that I don't feel Bud is in anyway compelled to proffer one. He worked out his process over long years and simply posted his findings in a DIY forum for all to freely use or not at their discretion. He freely admits to his inability to acqire the necessary equipment to do so. Every time a qualified person comes to this thread demanding proof, it is suggested, that treated and untreated drivers will be offered to anyone wishing to test them with scientific rigor. Each time that has happened, the people seem to vanish, never to be heard from again. Since I and many others have respect for you, and you have respect for dlr, I simply ask dlr to do the tests...he can then report to all his findings. It would be asked to do a A/B listening test as well, as many here are less than enthusiastic about dry, scientific reports. It would be very interesting to see results of testing as suggested by Graham. Will you do this, Dave (dlr)?
Unless you buy pre-treated drivers from P-10, no wallet check is necessary. The only ones making any money from this are Microscale Corp, who have likely seen an increase in sales due to this thread. I have heard 'doped' drivers and to my ears audible changes are there and not to my liking. What surprised me, was the change in sound to a pair of drivers treated by Bud. He is very careful in his treatment and does this process while listening to the drivers connected to signal, using audible clues to guide him. The amount if material is negligible. I would suggest using Buds treatment regimen rather than P-10s, since Dave (p10) uses other treatments in addition to EnABL and the results of testing will reflect the additional treatments, muddying up the result...
A healthy dose of scepticism is good for all endeavor...
Thank you both for your contribution to this thread.
t (Richard)
With great trepidation and foreboding, I will say that I believe you both make valid points, previous posts of mine aside. I would very much like to have a scientifically valid explanation for what my ears have heard. I guess that where I differ is that I don't feel Bud is in anyway compelled to proffer one. He worked out his process over long years and simply posted his findings in a DIY forum for all to freely use or not at their discretion. He freely admits to his inability to acqire the necessary equipment to do so. Every time a qualified person comes to this thread demanding proof, it is suggested, that treated and untreated drivers will be offered to anyone wishing to test them with scientific rigor. Each time that has happened, the people seem to vanish, never to be heard from again. Since I and many others have respect for you, and you have respect for dlr, I simply ask dlr to do the tests...he can then report to all his findings. It would be asked to do a A/B listening test as well, as many here are less than enthusiastic about dry, scientific reports. It would be very interesting to see results of testing as suggested by Graham. Will you do this, Dave (dlr)?
Unless you buy pre-treated drivers from P-10, no wallet check is necessary. The only ones making any money from this are Microscale Corp, who have likely seen an increase in sales due to this thread. I have heard 'doped' drivers and to my ears audible changes are there and not to my liking. What surprised me, was the change in sound to a pair of drivers treated by Bud. He is very careful in his treatment and does this process while listening to the drivers connected to signal, using audible clues to guide him. The amount if material is negligible. I would suggest using Buds treatment regimen rather than P-10s, since Dave (p10) uses other treatments in addition to EnABL and the results of testing will reflect the additional treatments, muddying up the result...
A healthy dose of scepticism is good for all endeavor...
Thank you both for your contribution to this thread.
t (Richard)
Martin -
Thank You for your input as well as your impending testing using Praxis. I thought that you might have some new program for testing speakers I had not discovered so I went searching the net to find out about Praxis and all that I came up with was a testing methodology for teacher exams and certifications, so I expect that I'm missing something here. I'm looking forward to any test that are performed by people with engineering or scientific backgrounds and seeing just what they come up with in respects to BudP's EnABL pattern (or other patterns mentioned). I applaud you for taking your time and effort to discover - or disprove - what is (or might be) going on concerning this discussion. One of the greatest frustrations for me is that due to my retirement I no longer have access to a well equipped QC or R&D lab in which to run any meaningful test (to scientific standards) and have been hoping (as have others) if anyone with the proper equipment and knowledge would step up and undertake some engineering analysis of Buds "tweak".
Vibration analysis using a scanning laser vibrometer would show some mechanical effects of Buds EnABL pattern but I'm unsure as to exactly how that information would be translated into what is happening to the resulting audio being emitted by the transducer. Perhaps it will show that there are fewer areas of resonance due to wave reflection and/or interferences - perhaps less distortion due to cone break-up modes - who knows? I very much like Grahams suggestions - but using a laser as well as his suggested microphones to compare treated vs. untreated speakers. I would also suggest that early testing be performed on a simple cone structure (one without a "whizzer" etc.) before examining more complex assemblies. Soongsc has some data that shows changes in signal phase being emitted by the speaker cone that are of interest and may prove to be a key factor for looking into.
One of the key problems I see with this type of testing is - we might well need to invent a new methodology to discover what a trained ear is detecting and the measurement equipment (or method) hasn't been developed to measure it. One of the instruments that the proponents of EnABL do have is well trained ears - and the knowledge of how to use them. Fortunately for the fans of the thread you are equipped with both the "ears" and the "gear" with which to perform some valid testing.
I want to thank you for your willingness to participate and to also thank dlr for his playing the role of "devils advocate" and challenge to "prove it" - and of course for Bud for coming up with EnABL.
Thank You for your input as well as your impending testing using Praxis. I thought that you might have some new program for testing speakers I had not discovered so I went searching the net to find out about Praxis and all that I came up with was a testing methodology for teacher exams and certifications, so I expect that I'm missing something here. I'm looking forward to any test that are performed by people with engineering or scientific backgrounds and seeing just what they come up with in respects to BudP's EnABL pattern (or other patterns mentioned). I applaud you for taking your time and effort to discover - or disprove - what is (or might be) going on concerning this discussion. One of the greatest frustrations for me is that due to my retirement I no longer have access to a well equipped QC or R&D lab in which to run any meaningful test (to scientific standards) and have been hoping (as have others) if anyone with the proper equipment and knowledge would step up and undertake some engineering analysis of Buds "tweak".
Vibration analysis using a scanning laser vibrometer would show some mechanical effects of Buds EnABL pattern but I'm unsure as to exactly how that information would be translated into what is happening to the resulting audio being emitted by the transducer. Perhaps it will show that there are fewer areas of resonance due to wave reflection and/or interferences - perhaps less distortion due to cone break-up modes - who knows? I very much like Grahams suggestions - but using a laser as well as his suggested microphones to compare treated vs. untreated speakers. I would also suggest that early testing be performed on a simple cone structure (one without a "whizzer" etc.) before examining more complex assemblies. Soongsc has some data that shows changes in signal phase being emitted by the speaker cone that are of interest and may prove to be a key factor for looking into.
One of the key problems I see with this type of testing is - we might well need to invent a new methodology to discover what a trained ear is detecting and the measurement equipment (or method) hasn't been developed to measure it. One of the instruments that the proponents of EnABL do have is well trained ears - and the knowledge of how to use them. Fortunately for the fans of the thread you are equipped with both the "ears" and the "gear" with which to perform some valid testing.
I want to thank you for your willingness to participate and to also thank dlr for his playing the role of "devils advocate" and challenge to "prove it" - and of course for Bud for coming up with EnABL.
dlr said:
ummmmmm - what he said! 🙂 Thanks for joining this discussion I was about to write it off as flooby dust. The first thing that made me skeptical of Enable was the article in Positive FeedbacK - one of the Premier Flooby dust magazines. Just the fact it was at that website threw up my defensive.
Most people having doubts have not shown any testing. Whereas some people that agree with the improvement have provided test data. So shouldn't we look at more test data rather than just debate without contribution in finding answers?
t-head said:
lets not go there just yet, eh Thomas?
😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱
I'll respectfully demur from this part of the game - I'd rather be building boxes or listening to music
now, if you guys really wanna see the rhetorical fur fly - invite cuzzin Ed to the bbQ
Dave(LR), and all other technically competent "EnABL-curious" skeptics: by all means please perform whatever rigorous testing your available facilities will allow, and share the results for analyis, etc.
However, as adopters have frequently invited, you'd be doing be doing the entire audience to this caucus (more so yourselves, I'd wager)a great service by including in this regime the most pertinent test of all (IMHO) : extended listening to treated vs untreated drivers on a wide variety of real music. Use 2 identical pairs of the most modest enclosure suitable for the drivers of your choice.
While it's been stated several times that (what we perceive as ) improvements should be immediately apparent, I'd suggest the most revealing test after the initial A/B, would be to play the treated drivers for a period of several days, then switch back. How "scientific" is that? - frankly I care far less about the degree / lack of rigorous scientific method at stage of the process, than in the final results of your listening.
I'd guess there would be 3 possible outcomes :
1) you hear the predicted improvement - great.
2) you don't - fine.
3) things sound worse - anything is possible
If you're still intrigued enough to continue, the mission, regardless of your listening impressions, is to rationalize what the ever increasing database of measurements to which you've just contributed do or don't "reveal".
AJinFLA said:
I think having a Ph.D. in protein chemistry qualifies me for understanding the "scientific method". What scientific wannabe's think about something is neither here nor there, and is probably best fantasized about at prop heads or at the alter of S. Linkwitz.
dlr said:
I would call the positive listening results and the observation of blind listening tests to be sufficient empirical evidence. (but of course until you sit down and listen you will have no idea)
I listen with my ears, am well trained, and do not need test measuring gear to tell me whether what i am hearing is real or not. People who dismiss the most sensitive test tool that we as humans have are missing a big part of the picture. Progress is made by hearing something, then trying to measure it.
That something is heard, and is an improvement is not a question to me. It is a fact. At least Martin has 2 sets of drivers that differ only in the EnABL... i have been eagerly looking forward to his measured results, his listening experience and then the further measuring to see what else he can discover. A set of drivers is also being prepared for Ron Clarke in the hopes that it will encourage him to examine the phenomenom in his fluid dynamics software simulator.
dave
pedroskova said:
Quite obviously not, or you would have raised the very same issues that DLR, MJK, Geddes, etc. previously have.
pedroskova said:
You've answered that clearly.
pedroskova said:
A PhD doesn't know the difference between alter and altar? Hmmm 😉
You're no fan of Linkwitz yourself?
pedroskova said:
pedroskova said:
Really? Don't like DLR or MJK or Earl Geddes need for measurements because they are useless?
pedroskova said:
pedroskova said:
Measurements telling you something will sound harsh? Hmmm 🙂
planet10 said:
Yes, that is the exact argument people who "hear" improvements to stereos from frozen photos and jars of jellybeans or people who "hear" ghosts claim. Using their most sensitive tool. When measurements fail to supports these claims, its because the measurements are inadequate or science has not advanced enough yet, doesn't know everything, etc, etc, etc.
Humans are never wrong about what they hear. Never. Psychology or vanity? Never heard of 'em 😉
cheers,
AJ
- Status
- Not open for further replies.