John K and Dave,
I have a suggestion for how to proceed.
I can obtain four raw Fostex 127 drivers and send them to one of you for characterization. I will reimburse whomever receives them first, for the freight to send them to the other of you. When you have tested the four and have a fairly solid cross reference between you for your data, pick a pair, matched or not, and send them to me for EnABL treatment, again at my expense.
Meanwhile I will do what I can to obtain four Fonken boxes for the drivers, with whatever damping Dave from Planet 10 thinks is fitting. Perhaps as flat pack kits I can glue together. I will mount the two treated drivers and make certain they are performing as good as they can. I will send all of this to one of you, to install the untreated drivers in and also make certain they are working as well as they can. Retesting the treated pair in the original fixture might also be important.
Then, you must do an A/B comparison listening test. I don't think it will be necessary to double blind for this. Then a full run of tests for both sets of boxed drivers by one of you, since you will have results for a common pair of untreated drivers, for reference..
At that point you will have all of the information available to begin to discover what testable results meet up with listening results.
I am sure this looks like a lot of work for you to do. However, you must understand that I am now the skeptic in the situation, awaiting you to provide credible evidence that piston mode testing and current theory, has enough flexibility to account for what EnABL does. If it indeed does, you will have a very useful head start on your own programs, to find a replacement for EnABL, with only Soongsc as competition. Though I expect him to be formidable.
I also realize, that from your own extensive work with drivers, in a DIY setting, that it is very difficult for you to currently give much credence to the subjective claims made by anecdotal experimenters. I am sure it seems unlikely to you that you could have missed something that is said to be this pervasive a change in performance. I don't blame you, but, it really is that sort of difference.
Are the two of you interested in this? It will place a strain on my own finances to provide the materials and if you are only mildly interested, then I cannot afford this expense. If you are willing, then I will find a way to do so.
Bud
I have a suggestion for how to proceed.
I can obtain four raw Fostex 127 drivers and send them to one of you for characterization. I will reimburse whomever receives them first, for the freight to send them to the other of you. When you have tested the four and have a fairly solid cross reference between you for your data, pick a pair, matched or not, and send them to me for EnABL treatment, again at my expense.
Meanwhile I will do what I can to obtain four Fonken boxes for the drivers, with whatever damping Dave from Planet 10 thinks is fitting. Perhaps as flat pack kits I can glue together. I will mount the two treated drivers and make certain they are performing as good as they can. I will send all of this to one of you, to install the untreated drivers in and also make certain they are working as well as they can. Retesting the treated pair in the original fixture might also be important.
Then, you must do an A/B comparison listening test. I don't think it will be necessary to double blind for this. Then a full run of tests for both sets of boxed drivers by one of you, since you will have results for a common pair of untreated drivers, for reference..
At that point you will have all of the information available to begin to discover what testable results meet up with listening results.
I am sure this looks like a lot of work for you to do. However, you must understand that I am now the skeptic in the situation, awaiting you to provide credible evidence that piston mode testing and current theory, has enough flexibility to account for what EnABL does. If it indeed does, you will have a very useful head start on your own programs, to find a replacement for EnABL, with only Soongsc as competition. Though I expect him to be formidable.
I also realize, that from your own extensive work with drivers, in a DIY setting, that it is very difficult for you to currently give much credence to the subjective claims made by anecdotal experimenters. I am sure it seems unlikely to you that you could have missed something that is said to be this pervasive a change in performance. I don't blame you, but, it really is that sort of difference.
Are the two of you interested in this? It will place a strain on my own finances to provide the materials and if you are only mildly interested, then I cannot afford this expense. If you are willing, then I will find a way to do so.
Bud
This is the first time I've been able to enjoy Mr. Domingo sing.soongsc said:
This is what a new CSD looks like. Compared to the older one
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Just a note, whenever anyone tells you those higher frequencies don't count, You know they have not experenced anything great.
BudP said:
I can't speak for John, but I have no interest in this. The fact is that adding mass of any type material is going to alter the response of the driver. This is a given. Even were there some other additional mechanism, there would be no way whatsoever to differentiate the effects of each in this type of testing, so the effort would be wasted. I understand your desire to continue, but that is not mine and I believe not John's.
My anecdotal perception report would have the same validity in this type of testing as any others, unreliable and unscientific for many reasons, not the least of which would be that it is sighted. I would have my own expectations, the comparison drivers would have to be proven to be nearly identical unmodified (power response and distortion measured and documented), i.e. undetectable differencs, to the point that they could not be differentiated from one another provably, quite a difficult task, and last, but not least, the exceedingly well-known issue of poor short-term acoustic memory makes this methodology unreliable, unverifiable and unacceptable as a test methodology. There are other equally important considerations, I'm sure, these are just the first to come to mind. You would have to consult someone who is experienced in performing actual research to establish the minimum requirements.
That's one big problem here. Everyone seems to think that the facilities to prove this type of perceptive testing can be created simply. Well, it is simply not so.
"Begin to discover" being the operative words. Again, find some AES papers on the topic of audibility and correlation with perceived response and you'll see the difficulty. People who research for a living find it difficult, I'm sure. Any efforts here are a drop in the bucket if reliable results are to be obtained. Anything that we may do related to perception would still fall into the area of anecdotal evidence.
First, I don't and will not have a program, that is not my desire. Second, I am not promoting any new, unfounded hypothesis challenging long established science. That is still in your court. Nice try, though.
That is yet to be seen. I hope that you'll be able to provide some real evidence of that.
Speaking for myself, no. You're asking us to prove your hypothesis for you or "disprove" the unproven using unreliable, unscientific methods.
As for the clamor to test the plastic trim rings on the Celestion/KEF (John, aka MJK21193, had it right) or any other diffraction other than john k's description for a driver diaphragm, I will not be wasting my time. I know that there will not be any audible nor measurable acoustic impact. It would be infinitesimal in relation to diffraction and would not alter the baffle edge diffraction one whit. The placebo effect is at 100% here, of that I have absolutely no doubt.
Dave
I think they might avoid it for fear of being addicted.😀 Ya know, it's a manhood thing.BudP said:
BudP said:
Well I can see that as I was thing about how to respond dlr chimed in so I no longer have to assume what his response would be.
Personally, I would have no objection to listening to enabled and raw drivers. But what would it accomplish? I have never taken the position that enable applied to drivers doesn’t alter the response. Measurements have shown that. The reported subjective evaluations have been of the nature that those measurements don’t correlate with what is heard. As I have said many times, I don’t really care about what is heard. My concern is with the explanation offered of how it works which is contrary to any reasonable understanding on the physics involved. Listening and hearing a difference will not alter my position in that regard. My position with regards to drivers has always been that the treatment will introduce a change in the radiated response. It is in the area of how that change comes about that I strongly oppose the explanations offered. The problem is exacerbated by statements to the effect that enable will always provide an improvement, even when the sources of the problem is unknown. For example you stated that enable applied to the driver of the old Met III loudspeaker would correct the problems with the clouded midrange. Such a statement is ludicrous. How can you propose a solution to a problem which isn’t even diagnosed? The same applies to the arguments regarding baffle diffraction. Examination of the physics indicates that the only thing an enable treatment to a baffle could do is introduce more spurious reflections and rarefactions.
So if you want to send out drivers, ok. Just send out a pair of treated and untreated. I’ll build some boxes. I’ll listen. I’ll make a few measurements. I can tell you already how the results will be. I’ll either hear a difference or I won’t. If I do hear a difference it will either be an improvement, deterioration, or an indifference to the change. The measurements are expected to show a difference. So how would any of this alter the conflicting options of what physical process are at work here? How would that alter the opinion of those who have listened, reported a favorable result, yet dismissed the observed measured results as not correlation with what they hear?
To be honest, since my interest is in the applicable physical processes involved more than the result, I’m at a loss to see what this would accomplish. I’m certainly not interested in performing an in depth research project here. It’s little more than winter mind fodder as far as I’m concerned.
Really, I'm fine with the "Who cares how it works theory." I'd rather see that than some convoluted argument that doesn’t hold up. At least it’s an honest statement. Just don't ask me to do your research for you. That could take years and cost millions of dollars. Remember Bud, I spent my career doing contract research. I'm well versed in the "Results look promising. Send more money." school of success. 🙂
But I'd be more than happy to give a listen and take a few measurements. If you want to move forward just email me from the address at my web site.
Some strange statements to the effect of:
" If I heard a difference it would not be proof."
'If I heard an improvement it would not be proof."
"If I measured a difference it would not be proof."
Well then, so much for proof! Or as Godel had it: "Proof is not Truth."
Cilla
" If I heard a difference it would not be proof."
'If I heard an improvement it would not be proof."
"If I measured a difference it would not be proof."
Well then, so much for proof! Or as Godel had it: "Proof is not Truth."
Cilla
Well, DIR, I have to wonder why you waste your time with this topic. Methinks you ARE interested in something. What that is I can't fathom.
Because if you too heard something that didn't correlate with what the measurements predict, then maybe you'd put your considerable knowledge to work toward figuring out WHY the lack of correlation. And if you didn't we'd all know that you gave it an honest try and perhaps try to reevaluate our own perceptions. (Note that I don't have any perceptions at this point not having tried or heard EnABL. I'm using the editorial "we" though I hope to try them soon.)
Carl
Well, well, methinks things are getting curiouser and curiouser...
t
'life's short, listen now...
t
'life's short, listen now...
Carlp said:
I'm interested in the topic of driver mods and anything factual related to them, but not in performing Bud's research for him. I'm also not interested in the suggested baffle treatments because I know what the results will be.
In case you didn't read it or forgot, I already stated clearly why I'm in this back on page 89 and that is still my position, link below:
My interest
That is why when I make a claim of some sort, such as the impact of a driver mod, I back it up with factual data, not hyperbole, detailed such that others could duplicate it if they cared to with similar data results. I don't go beyond the factual. I'm careful to say that the results apply to that driver for specific reasons, not to drivers universally. The latter is a disservice to the DIY community. I also don't characterize the perceptions of these changes because that type of correlation is tenuous in the best of circumstances, especially given that no two person's perceptions are likely to agree closely, if at all.
Dave
dlr said:
Discarding the 4 instances of no reported sonic difference (2 of those with patterns only superficially resembling EnABL and 1 other unknown) doe sit not strike you that the 100+ other reports, under a wide variety of expectations & conditions & speakers all eerily describe a similar experience?
dave
planet10 said:
First, there seems to be no problem accepting a perception of improvement with a pattern that superficially resembles it, but that condition is then used to discount those reporting no sonic differences for the same issue.
What strikes me is the power of suggestion involved. Had they not been told a specifically described change to expect, I firmly believe that the reports would vary dramatically, some similar, some quite different. No two drivers respond to these mods the same way. This, of course, for drivers since they will have altered frequency response. That is to be expected.
Those reporting significant audible differences due to baffle applications are strictly due to power of suggestion or flawed testing given the requirements for testing that yields any sort of valid, statistical level of confidence. The placebo effect should never be discounted, but proponents have, so far, completely ignored this aspect.
Do you believe in that possibility or do you discount it entirely?
Dave
planet10 said:
Should Bud care not to provide me with a set of treated and untreated drivers, perhaps you would like to provide the test mules? Then it will either be 101+ to 4 or 5 to 100+.
Carlp said:
That is why I left it in Bud's corner. I'm more than willing to listen. I'm open minded to the possibilities. My cynicism lies with discriptions of the mechanisms offered.
time to cut bait and fish else where...
Dave we know that it floats waddles quacks and looks like a duck probably roasts and tastes like a duck. I don't think that you need to have a scientist prove that the duck is a duck. You would like a scientist to figure out what kind of a duck it is and how this duck actually works so things can be optomized. I do not see the interest here to continue. Time to find some other interested scientist and see if we can get into first gear. Sounds like Ron is your best bet so why not concentrate in that direction?
Dave we know that it floats waddles quacks and looks like a duck probably roasts and tastes like a duck. I don't think that you need to have a scientist prove that the duck is a duck. You would like a scientist to figure out what kind of a duck it is and how this duck actually works so things can be optomized. I do not see the interest here to continue. Time to find some other interested scientist and see if we can get into first gear. Sounds like Ron is your best bet so why not concentrate in that direction?
Censorship
It's a mystery to me why some people participate in a forum, when they clearly get irritated by others that don't agree with their views.
Questioning or free thinking or even curiosity is too much for some peoples to tolerate. Why not let everyone have their say.
PS: What's the purpose of a web site where the only content is revenue generating point and click ads?? Bit of a tricky trap, methinks.
moray james said:
It's a mystery to me why some people participate in a forum, when they clearly get irritated by others that don't agree with their views.
Questioning or free thinking or even curiosity is too much for some peoples to tolerate. Why not let everyone have their say.
PS: What's the purpose of a web site where the only content is revenue generating point and click ads?? Bit of a tricky trap, methinks.
dlr said:
Well that discounts the validity of instances where no suggestion was involved (i puposely choose some listeners because they have no idea about hifi (or care) and tell them nothing or of instances where i ship drivers across the contry to people who know nothing of EnABL and say "try these"
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1429 (starts on the 5th post)
dave
john k... said:
John,
I have contacted Bud and am ready to supply untreated drivers and will build boxes if that is deemed necessary.
You, Bud & i can work the details out in private if you choose to go forward.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.