I would like to ask what would we do different if the phase responses overlap or not? How will this information help in the process of improving sound? If it's just for the sake of research, probably someone would want to do a thesis on it to get some extra points.john k... said:
To me, I would expect the radiation pattern to change with such phase shifts, but it serves no purpose to find out at this time. What it means to others, I've offered to provide the SoundEasy data, they can draw there own conclusions and post it.
I'm not sure what programs do conversions like that which are freely available. Would printing to an EPS file work?planet10 said:
lousy test scenario
The mistake you made was not your preconceived notions... it was that you have drawn ANY conclusions at all from an obviously flawed demonstration (other than, perhaps, the demo sucked). Thus your point, which seems to be based on this demonstration, is not a valid point, certainly from any logical perspective. As a matter of preference or faith, all bets are off.
Some of us don't have preconceptions about this; we're trying to separate the wheat from the voluminous chaff...
John L.
jlsem said:
The mistake you made was not your preconceived notions... it was that you have drawn ANY conclusions at all from an obviously flawed demonstration (other than, perhaps, the demo sucked). Thus your point, which seems to be based on this demonstration, is not a valid point, certainly from any logical perspective. As a matter of preference or faith, all bets are off.
Some of us don't have preconceptions about this; we're trying to separate the wheat from the voluminous chaff...
John L.
So you think that I should believe what I'm told I should hear rather than what I hear? I don't know about you, but trust my own hearing a great deal and it would be foolish to think that what I should hear needs to correspond to a scientific consensus. The absurdity of some measurements I've seen taken lies in the assumption that a person is capable of hearing what is detected by that measurement. I seriously doubt that any of this debate is going to be resolved by scientific measurement, and I wouldn't depend on anyone in this forum to come up with the funds to conduct a proper and scientific listening test.
In the business of audio reproduction, preference is everything.
John
Getting my acrylic paint today then fully equipped.
Going ahead despite current scientific evidence base issues.
There wasn't much solid evidence either for my cable trials, freezing CDs, star earth in my power supplies, oak cones, metal cones, cable supports, antistatic CD sprays, green pen around CD edges etc etc.
I'm by nature a cynic - many of these made no audible difference, others made a difference that was either better/worse depending on which CD was playing, a few made a "that's staying" level of difference.
Can you confirm for me, Bud / Dave, the order of treatments for an fe206e:
1. Thinned mod podge (1 coat main cone, whizzer, back of ledge)
2. Enabl pattern thinned flat acrylic (as per published photos)
3. Thinned Microscale gloss (main cone, whizzer, back of ledge)
4. Further coats microscale gloss on main cone dependent on sound breakup as volume is increased (critical listening) - aiming to stop at point where sound remains intact to reasonable volumes, but mass loading does not start dulling the driver down.
Cheers.
(ps those in UK, www.wonderlandmodels.com has Microscale gloss (search on it). £2.50 bottle £3 delivery, prompt service, don't charge credit card until actually sent).
Going ahead despite current scientific evidence base issues.
There wasn't much solid evidence either for my cable trials, freezing CDs, star earth in my power supplies, oak cones, metal cones, cable supports, antistatic CD sprays, green pen around CD edges etc etc.
I'm by nature a cynic - many of these made no audible difference, others made a difference that was either better/worse depending on which CD was playing, a few made a "that's staying" level of difference.
Can you confirm for me, Bud / Dave, the order of treatments for an fe206e:
1. Thinned mod podge (1 coat main cone, whizzer, back of ledge)
2. Enabl pattern thinned flat acrylic (as per published photos)
3. Thinned Microscale gloss (main cone, whizzer, back of ledge)
4. Further coats microscale gloss on main cone dependent on sound breakup as volume is increased (critical listening) - aiming to stop at point where sound remains intact to reasonable volumes, but mass loading does not start dulling the driver down.
Cheers.
(ps those in UK, www.wonderlandmodels.com has Microscale gloss (search on it). £2.50 bottle £3 delivery, prompt service, don't charge credit card until actually sent).
jlsem said:
So if you claimed to "trust your hearing" and heard santa claus on your roof, a ghost in the basement or a monster under your bed and the scientific consensus through rigorous measurements found no evidence of this, the scientific consensus would be wrong. Because they failed to measure the right thing or lacked the knowledge to do so, etc, etc, etc.
Cool. Then I guess whatever anyone claims they hear, see, sense, whatever, must be held in the same regard as what science claims.
cheers,
AJ
OK, so an actual scientist is going to look for Santa on the roof; if the process is actually audible and audibly different than any random pattern of cone paint, I'll find it. Why not suspend judgment until then?
Star earth is absolutely standard engineering knowledge with a century of evidence. Why would you include that in a list of things which range from absolute nonsense to highly questionable?
AJinFLA said:
Um. I also trust my hearing. OK perhaps as you are suggesting the consistent, sustained improvement I am currently listening to is a psycho-acoustic effect. If so - it is far more dramatic than other tweaks I have tried - most of which failed to excite the psycho-acoustic-delusion part of my brain in any way. It is also persistent - my memory of putting the pattern on is fading - the effects just keep on going.
If science can't measure the difference - what should I do?
Just heard a scratching noise on the roof - must be Santa dropping in again ...
😀
SY said:
Of course it is. But does any of that evidence specifically apply as part of mains conditioning to improve hifi sound? All that talk of removing veils from the sound, deeper bass, inky silences, soundstage improvements, etc. I noticed absolutely no difference.
Curious - which do you rate as nonsense? (OK I draw a line at the photos in the freezer stuff, but will happily play around with most other ideas price/hassle permitting).
AJinFLA said:
It is alot of fun to bash the belive systems of others because "we know it better", but morally maybe not so nice. If someone is a beliver, that is fine, since he only believes for himself. Actually, the inability to accept other peoples believe is quite immature.
AJinFLA, i think your problem lies in the phrase "must be held in the same regard as what science claims". Personal perception is a different category as scientific perception. My perception has nothing to do with science. Science is a tool to gain intersubjective knowledge. If only one subject is in question, science is unnessecary, since he doesnt have to validate his perceptions for general acceptance.
That follows: If someone paints nice dots on his speaker cone and hears an improvement, then he hears an improvement, and no science can change that, since science allways comes after perception. that doesnt mean that science is wrong or he is wrong, but that science can be irrelevant if no intersubjective knowledge is wanted.
The problem of this discussion lies in the fact, that the enabl process looks scientific but cant verify his claims according to scientific standarts. As long as it cant do that, you science guys can continue to point out this fact. But it wont make a difference for someone who really hears a difference, even if the hearing comes from believing.
Lot's of people bash ideas of others because they do not have the knowledge or creativity to do better themslves what others have not been able to accomplish; nor do they have the capability to use science to prove invalidity of the creation of others. This is common throughout history of science. All we have to do is sit back and check how people react throughout different forums. Sadly, it is a reality we must accept, and hope for the better.
MaVo said:
There is a strong visual difference, so the improvement does not necessarily have to come by the ear... 😀😀😀
SamL said:
You could but the problem with looking at differences is that what you see are differences. This doesn't tell you if it's an improvment of otherwise. At this point I'm just proposing things that migh lead to identifying a measurable difference between treated and untreated cones.
By the way, I think people have dlr wrong here too. I know dlr very well. I believe he is interested in the same thing I am, not tryng to discredit anything or anyone, but rather identifying what the treatment does to the FR of a drivers.
soongsc said:
It's just another piece of the puzzle. The question it answers is, "What is the nature of the phase change?". If it is just delay then it should have no impact on the direct sound if the FR amplitude remains the same. If you think it may have an affect on the radiation pattern then shouldn't you have takes some off axis measurements at various stages of treatment to determine if that is true?
Alan Hope said:
With that much treatment how can there not be a change in the FR.?
Enable is starting to remind me of my old college days. Having very little money I bought a pair of 12" Utah drivers with whizzer cones and put then in big ported boxes. One night when somewhat impaired and bored we decided to paint the dust caps with peace symboles and whizzers and cones with psychedelic patterns in dayglow paint. This truely Enabled the listening experience. We could definely see changes in the frequency response, or was that the freaky response?
Alan,
The 'modge-podge' is not part of Buds application protocol. Dave is the proponent of that and uses it on his modded drivers.
Bud uses the pattern and varying amounts of the Microscale gloss as the 'conformal coating'. Hopefully he will answer when left coast folks finally wake up. 😉 😀
It might be helpful if we acknowledge that the bashers have made their point (ad nauseum) and simply wait for more data before resuming personal attacks, that are certainly no more credible than the gushing...?
t
The 'modge-podge' is not part of Buds application protocol. Dave is the proponent of that and uses it on his modded drivers.
Bud uses the pattern and varying amounts of the Microscale gloss as the 'conformal coating'. Hopefully he will answer when left coast folks finally wake up. 😉 😀
It might be helpful if we acknowledge that the bashers have made their point (ad nauseum) and simply wait for more data before resuming personal attacks, that are certainly no more credible than the gushing...?
t
john k... said:
Updated versions of same...😉
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/i+lit-speakers-are-like-wow-229704.php
http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9718751-1.html
Like... far out man...😀 😀
John L.
I would only spend time on radiation pattern measurements when I get to the stage where specific controlled radiation pattern is a design goal. Even then, I doubt I would post results unless others show more hard data of their own rather than just asking others to do work for free.john k... said:
Never thought I'd see you show up here.😉Eva said:
"I use to feel like the small child in The Emperor's New Clothes tale " I'm sure there is a visual difference.
weighty issue
For those wondering about the EnABL added mass questions, I've been unable to find the any sort of "typical" weight for a pulp cone, but since paper has a specific gravity of 1.2, we'll assume same. Anybody got any data on typical cone mass?
Figuring most clearcoat materials run ~ 1.0, doing the math on an 8" driver yields an added weight of ~ 13 grams for each millimeter (.040") thickness of the coating (covering the entire surface, that is) The small dots applied prior to the overcoat are probably inconsequential, unless the Microscale overcoat is thinned way down.
I'll try to find some old scrapped pulp cones and coat them with different stuff to measure the added mass... maybe this weekend.
John L
For those wondering about the EnABL added mass questions, I've been unable to find the any sort of "typical" weight for a pulp cone, but since paper has a specific gravity of 1.2, we'll assume same. Anybody got any data on typical cone mass?
Figuring most clearcoat materials run ~ 1.0, doing the math on an 8" driver yields an added weight of ~ 13 grams for each millimeter (.040") thickness of the coating (covering the entire surface, that is) The small dots applied prior to the overcoat are probably inconsequential, unless the Microscale overcoat is thinned way down.
I'll try to find some old scrapped pulp cones and coat them with different stuff to measure the added mass... maybe this weekend.
John L
- Status
- Not open for further replies.