Dave, Bud,
This seems to be getting overly involved already. Bud, you seem to think that the box matters. I though this was about driver treatment. Also, I don't think it is appropriate to hand pick matched drivers. After all, the average DIYer is just going to take a pair of drivers and enable them. Take 4 off the shelf drivers, enable two and send them to me. I prefer sealed boxes because it is the most linear boxed system. I would also consider an OB set up. I though this was about whether I heard a difference and what some direct measurements are. I don't want to get into ported or TL boxes. And I will be emphatic that if you tell me what I'm supposed to hear I'm going to loose interest real quick. If enable does anything under 100 Hz for a driver that and Fs of 70 I'll bet the ranch on added mass being the cause.
And I haven't received any email for either of you???? Just go to www.Musicanddesign.com and click on the contact link below the NaO logo.
I’m not the Lynn Olson type. I don’t want to discuss this for a year like the Beyond the Ariel thread . If it isn’t done by the end of March, I’ll be out sailing.
Nude on a pedistal? What is the point? No one listens to drivers like that (except maybe Lynn Olson🙂). All you would hear is dipole cancelation.
Look, if you are serious about this just send the drivers. I'll design and build a small full range speaker based on the drivers, even to the extent of including appropriate passive baffle step compensation. Other than that I may consider 4'x4' baffles to eliminate as much as possible short time edge diffraction effect form the measurements.
I expect to hear form you one of you today via direct email. If I don't I'll assume that the offer was just grandstanding.
This seems to be getting overly involved already. Bud, you seem to think that the box matters. I though this was about driver treatment. Also, I don't think it is appropriate to hand pick matched drivers. After all, the average DIYer is just going to take a pair of drivers and enable them. Take 4 off the shelf drivers, enable two and send them to me. I prefer sealed boxes because it is the most linear boxed system. I would also consider an OB set up. I though this was about whether I heard a difference and what some direct measurements are. I don't want to get into ported or TL boxes. And I will be emphatic that if you tell me what I'm supposed to hear I'm going to loose interest real quick. If enable does anything under 100 Hz for a driver that and Fs of 70 I'll bet the ranch on added mass being the cause.
And I haven't received any email for either of you???? Just go to www.Musicanddesign.com and click on the contact link below the NaO logo.
I’m not the Lynn Olson type. I don’t want to discuss this for a year like the Beyond the Ariel thread . If it isn’t done by the end of March, I’ll be out sailing.
Nude on a pedistal? What is the point? No one listens to drivers like that (except maybe Lynn Olson🙂). All you would hear is dipole cancelation.
Look, if you are serious about this just send the drivers. I'll design and build a small full range speaker based on the drivers, even to the extent of including appropriate passive baffle step compensation. Other than that I may consider 4'x4' baffles to eliminate as much as possible short time edge diffraction effect form the measurements.
I expect to hear form you one of you today via direct email. If I don't I'll assume that the offer was just grandstanding.
Originally posted by dlr -
Post #2349
There will not be any measurable changes. I've spent enough time over years of measuring and testing for diffraction specifically to know that it will make no difference whatsoever.
Post #2383
As for the clamor to test the plastic trim rings on the Celestion/KEF ...I will not be wasting my time.
I know that there will not be any audible nor measurable acoustic impact...
The placebo effect is at 100% here, of that I have absolutely no doubt.
Post #2389
I'm also not interested in the suggested baffle treatments because I know what the results will be.
Post #2392
Those reporting significant audible differences due to baffle applications are strictly due to power of suggestion or flawed testing...
Post #2402
I still don't know if you discount all possibility of the placebo effect (baffles, not drivers), since that's where I really take issue.
Perceptions of real changes (driver frequency response) vs. baffles (no change, just predisposition through power of suggestion).
Post #2417
There won't be any significant damping effect on baffles ... In any case, it's an easily measured situation.
Post #2218
...I'm into the DIY aspect...but the information has to be factual to be truly helpful...
Originally posted by dlr - Post #2389
That is why when I make a claim of some sort... I back it up with factual data, not hyperbole....
So you'll try the baffle EnABL then?
Post #2349
There will not be any measurable changes. I've spent enough time over years of measuring and testing for diffraction specifically to know that it will make no difference whatsoever.
Post #2383
As for the clamor to test the plastic trim rings on the Celestion/KEF ...I will not be wasting my time.
I know that there will not be any audible nor measurable acoustic impact...
The placebo effect is at 100% here, of that I have absolutely no doubt.
Post #2389
I'm also not interested in the suggested baffle treatments because I know what the results will be.
Post #2392
Those reporting significant audible differences due to baffle applications are strictly due to power of suggestion or flawed testing...
Post #2402
I still don't know if you discount all possibility of the placebo effect (baffles, not drivers), since that's where I really take issue.
Perceptions of real changes (driver frequency response) vs. baffles (no change, just predisposition through power of suggestion).
Post #2417
There won't be any significant damping effect on baffles ... In any case, it's an easily measured situation.
Post #2218
...I'm into the DIY aspect...but the information has to be factual to be truly helpful...
Originally posted by dlr - Post #2389
That is why when I make a claim of some sort... I back it up with factual data, not hyperbole....
So you'll try the baffle EnABL then?
Alex from Oz said:
How many times do I have to say no? First, this is an attempt to prove a negative, not possible. Second, the ball is in the court of proponents to prove the positive, nothing provided to date.
I have way more to do than time to do it all. Wasting time on useless baffle treatments is not on the list anywhere and never will be.
Dave
john k... said:
Aw, come on John, don't you want to wax eloquently on the perception of air and demonstrate your superior understanding of the obvious? You sound like a let's do it kinda guy...
I think the lack of understanding of what constitutes blind testing here is hilarious. All the anecdotes and observations used in support of the perceived effect being represented as some sort of "proof" are pathetic. None of the "events" has any mention of control of confounding, rigour of the setup, etc.; all are simply anecdotal speculation. Proponents should do themselves a favor and read a basic experimental design book b4 trying to present coherent arguments to support their conclusions.
I've heard D. Neubec's extensively EnABL'd speakers under similar
conditions as all these other "witness events", and, while they sounded very good, nothing extraordinary about coherence or clarity stood out due to the baffle and speaker EnABL'ing. They didn't sound anywhere near as good as my non-EnAB**'D BG/ATC dipoles, though they did have some of the same open room filing sound due to their semi omni radiation.
John L.
It’s good to see that this testing may move forward but I have to agree that it probably won’t determine anything. If it does that would be great. Does it matter, I don’t think so either.
The debate going on here can be had with almost any item on the market or in the DIY community. Does it affect the way we purchase things in our everyday needs? Sometimes it does but sometime it doesn’t. Take for an example that you are in the market for a HDTV. I would imagine that one would read reviews where software has been used to find dead pixels, whether or not the colors look right etc. to determine their decision. Most people would purchase based on what they see and hear. Would any proof to why what they see and hear be needed? What would you do if you needed to purchase a washing machine, would you go online looking for curves on the pump, motor etc? What if you are looking into building a DIY amp kit? Does the placebo effect have an influence on your final satisfaction? So what if it does as long as that person is happy with the results.
The whole reason from what I can tell why Bud is pursuing this is the knowledge that will be gained by him and everyone else that is contributing. This debate is not a bad thing but it helps to be open minded. As an Engineer or Scientist that has experience, I would think that not everything that looks right theoretically would work in the real world.
Just my input from what I see going on here, not that it means anything.
Here is an idea, send the drivers to Jamie and Adam at Myth Busters.
The debate going on here can be had with almost any item on the market or in the DIY community. Does it affect the way we purchase things in our everyday needs? Sometimes it does but sometime it doesn’t. Take for an example that you are in the market for a HDTV. I would imagine that one would read reviews where software has been used to find dead pixels, whether or not the colors look right etc. to determine their decision. Most people would purchase based on what they see and hear. Would any proof to why what they see and hear be needed? What would you do if you needed to purchase a washing machine, would you go online looking for curves on the pump, motor etc? What if you are looking into building a DIY amp kit? Does the placebo effect have an influence on your final satisfaction? So what if it does as long as that person is happy with the results.
The whole reason from what I can tell why Bud is pursuing this is the knowledge that will be gained by him and everyone else that is contributing. This debate is not a bad thing but it helps to be open minded. As an Engineer or Scientist that has experience, I would think that not everything that looks right theoretically would work in the real world.
Just my input from what I see going on here, not that it means anything.
Here is an idea, send the drivers to Jamie and Adam at Myth Busters.
reality vs. perception
Ahh.. but Bud goes way beyond pursuing the knowledge, etc.. etc., by making claims as fact, as recently as post 2406 wherein comb filtering is eliminated by EnA**, with no supporting data or even anecdotal evidence... to wit:
"baffle location specificity and removal of frequency dependent lobes that provide uneven sound fields and comb filtering, between two baffles as the listening position is changed, on all of the systems treated by me, to date."
So miniscule dots on baffles modify the gross geometry of the driver/room/listener interaction? How's that work? baffles (sic) me...
It's as if, hearing a technical sounding term thought to be supportive of what EnA** is supposed to do, an effort is made to include said terminology w/o any effort to investigate what the term means, much less prove that it applies to the discussion. So I disagree that there is an effort to truly pursue knowledge altruistically, rather that ad hoc attempts are made to validate the "tweak" as technically sound and meritorious through pronouncements.
not a bad idea... maybe they can EnA** some aircraft wings and jet engines to see if the noise over airports can be mitigated..
John L.
ecir38 said:
Ahh.. but Bud goes way beyond pursuing the knowledge, etc.. etc., by making claims as fact, as recently as post 2406 wherein comb filtering is eliminated by EnA**, with no supporting data or even anecdotal evidence... to wit:
"baffle location specificity and removal of frequency dependent lobes that provide uneven sound fields and comb filtering, between two baffles as the listening position is changed, on all of the systems treated by me, to date."
So miniscule dots on baffles modify the gross geometry of the driver/room/listener interaction? How's that work? baffles (sic) me...
It's as if, hearing a technical sounding term thought to be supportive of what EnA** is supposed to do, an effort is made to include said terminology w/o any effort to investigate what the term means, much less prove that it applies to the discussion. So I disagree that there is an effort to truly pursue knowledge altruistically, rather that ad hoc attempts are made to validate the "tweak" as technically sound and meritorious through pronouncements.
ecir38 said:
not a bad idea... maybe they can EnA** some aircraft wings and jet engines to see if the noise over airports can be mitigated..
John L.
G’day All,
Last week I applied EnABL (kitchen foil and double sided tape) to a pair of Yamaha MS400 PA speakers.
Unfortunately, these are not mine and they are still under warranty (5 years!).
So I was only able to apply EnABL to the baffle sides, horn and bass port - NOT the drivers.
The pic below shows where I applied EnABL pattern - I don't have a usable camera, so I have 'drawn' the location of the patterns onto this photo using MS Paint. NOT TO SCALE!!
In my lounge room:
I had some friends come around for some A-B listening comparisons between the EnABL’d speaker and the non-EnABL’d.
All clearly heard the difference EnABL made.
They sounded more like hifi than PA from a listening position of only 3 metres away!
What I heard when I did a live mix:
- the sharp edge in the high frequencies disappeared (female vocal and speech)
- more texture - microdynamics? (flute)
- intelligibility of speech improved
- wider dispersion without loss of output (quote from an sound engineer friend who came - to my place for some A- B listening tests EnABL’d vs. Non-EnABL’d).
- lower frequencies are more open with increased transient detail (bass guitar)
- more natural and open sound (speech)
Just to clarify – these effects came about with no modification to the drivers.
Interestingly, when I applied EnABL to the bass port, on one speaker I had applied the foil blocks to the bass port about 10mm further out.
The result was that this speaker was noticeably louder than the other?
When I removed the foil blocks and re-applied them in the same position as the other speaker, both were at the same level again?
If you have a speaker with a bass port, try EnABLing the bass port using my foil and double sided tape method - see what happens...
Last week I applied EnABL (kitchen foil and double sided tape) to a pair of Yamaha MS400 PA speakers.
Unfortunately, these are not mine and they are still under warranty (5 years!).
So I was only able to apply EnABL to the baffle sides, horn and bass port - NOT the drivers.
The pic below shows where I applied EnABL pattern - I don't have a usable camera, so I have 'drawn' the location of the patterns onto this photo using MS Paint. NOT TO SCALE!!
In my lounge room:
I had some friends come around for some A-B listening comparisons between the EnABL’d speaker and the non-EnABL’d.
All clearly heard the difference EnABL made.
They sounded more like hifi than PA from a listening position of only 3 metres away!
What I heard when I did a live mix:
- the sharp edge in the high frequencies disappeared (female vocal and speech)
- more texture - microdynamics? (flute)
- intelligibility of speech improved
- wider dispersion without loss of output (quote from an sound engineer friend who came - to my place for some A- B listening tests EnABL’d vs. Non-EnABL’d).
- lower frequencies are more open with increased transient detail (bass guitar)
- more natural and open sound (speech)
Just to clarify – these effects came about with no modification to the drivers.
Interestingly, when I applied EnABL to the bass port, on one speaker I had applied the foil blocks to the bass port about 10mm further out.
The result was that this speaker was noticeably louder than the other?
When I removed the foil blocks and re-applied them in the same position as the other speaker, both were at the same level again?
If you have a speaker with a bass port, try EnABLing the bass port using my foil and double sided tape method - see what happens...
Attachments
Originally posted by dlr - Post #2389
That is why when I make a claim of some sort... I back it up with factual data, not hyperbole....
Apparantly not.
That is why when I make a claim of some sort... I back it up with factual data, not hyperbole....
Apparantly not.
planet10 said:
Dave,
Whatever happened to the pair of Silver Iris coaxials that Darrel Hawthorne was going to send to you for EnABLing?
Bill
Alex from Oz said:
Disingenuous of you to take it out of context and leave out the rest of the quote, "such as the impact of a driver mod" referencing those mods that I make. I back up every claim of change when I make and report them. I invite everyone to re-read the post referenced to get the context, I stand by every word.
Proving a negative cannot be done, you evidently don't understand that. Accept that fact or not, I don't care and won't waste my time on nonsense.
Dave
Ok,
I've heard from Bud. Things are in his hands for now. I expect a mysterious package to arrive some time in early March. Since dlr opted out on this, and since I know dlr well, if, when the time comes, I find something of interest, I may contact him and invite him to listen in.
I've heard from Bud. Things are in his hands for now. I expect a mysterious package to arrive some time in early March. Since dlr opted out on this, and since I know dlr well, if, when the time comes, I find something of interest, I may contact him and invite him to listen in.
lousymusician said:
A busy holiday season, and unexpected work volumes have kept me from them pretty much. Darrel didn't actually send me an entire SI, he is waiting until i finish a client's driver before he sends those.
I need to get the big boxes out of the hallway, and with a new helper to give me a boost i'm starting to work thru the backlog
dave
Absurd.
Not really. If you questioned 1000 ppl about the favorite taste in toothpaste you would not get a 1000 different toothpastes that were favored. However you would see a lump in the Bell curve towards several different brands.
It all depends on what is desirable in sound reproduction of the majority.
Example: i once played my system to a 20 yr old and was playing his favorite RAP music. His response vertibatum " i dont like it i can hear the words". So much for pleasing the masses.
John, i truly hope you post your findings.
ron
Not really. If you questioned 1000 ppl about the favorite taste in toothpaste you would not get a 1000 different toothpastes that were favored. However you would see a lump in the Bell curve towards several different brands.
It all depends on what is desirable in sound reproduction of the majority.
Example: i once played my system to a 20 yr old and was playing his favorite RAP music. His response vertibatum " i dont like it i can hear the words". So much for pleasing the masses.
John, i truly hope you post your findings.
ron
But wasting time on this topic IS on the list? Dlr, I don't mean to get on your case, and I do respect your objectivity, but I am confused as to why you continue to read these posts. If you're hear to debunk myths, I suggest you spend your time elsewhere. People will buy anything on the basis of perception, even if it's meaningless. I, for one, have tried some semi-high end interconnects, and I gotta say to my ear it's a bunch of snake oil. BUT, I'd never tell anyone else they don't hear something that's valuable to them. I'm interested in what that could be, but I don't have time to look into that now. Nonetheless I'm always willing to listen given the time (maybe because I love music so much...).
BTW, I apologize for singling you out dlr, as I've tried not to focus on the who but rather the what. It's just that you sound so angry...
Carl
Carlp said:
Angry, no. Frustrated, yes. I don't appreciate disingenuous posts that try to misrepresent what I say as Alex did. It was unfortunately necessary to repeat myself to him, so I added some emphasis.
Wasting time in making useless tests on baffles was the point, that seems to have been missed, though I thought I had made that clear. That's my choice to make.
This will be the second time I've made a post with a link to the reason I'm in this:
Why I stay involved
I'm in it now and I'm staying in it. If I don't toe the line and don't accept unsupported claims without question as many here do, that's how it goes, this is a board for discussion and debate whether in agreement or not, correct? Or is there some rule that everyone must agree or leave? If so, it does a disservice to those who want to learn the facts.
Dave
dlr,
Dave,
I for one do not want you to leave, or toe the line.
Both of us are frustrated because I don't have the equipment to test for a baffle edge diffraction. At least I don't think I do. Can the LAUD, early port to windows, distributed noise used for the CSD, be used to hunt for diffraction lobes?
Bud
Dave,
I for one do not want you to leave, or toe the line.
Both of us are frustrated because I don't have the equipment to test for a baffle edge diffraction. At least I don't think I do. Can the LAUD, early port to windows, distributed noise used for the CSD, be used to hunt for diffraction lobes?
Bud
dlr,
Please understand I'm not asking you (or anyone else) to toe any line, and I'm certainly not suggesting you leave this discussion. What I'd like (but I'd never suggest should be required) is that everyone be as constructive as possible in their comments. I was just trying to be helpful.
Carl
Please understand I'm not asking you (or anyone else) to toe any line, and I'm certainly not suggesting you leave this discussion. What I'd like (but I'd never suggest should be required) is that everyone be as constructive as possible in their comments. I was just trying to be helpful.
Carl
BudP said:
The CSD isn't any more useful for diffraction than the FR. The problem is that diffraction, usually from a baffle edge or nearby significant obstacle such as an adjacent driver, is in the impulse and would be more easily found there, except for problem that the distance in time is so short that it's buried in the decay of the driver's primary impulse response, so separating it in the time domain or the frequency domain is not simple.
A second problem is that the diffraction signature that is exhibited in the impulse response is not fixed in time. That is, it's an integrated response of all points along the baffle edge. On a round baffle with the driver centered, it would be fairly distinct if it could be separated from the driver's decay. But in addition, the distance in that case is not a single fixed one, since it is also an integrated distance from all points of the diaphragm that are not occluded from any specific point along the edge, so it becomes even less distinct. Only a true point source would have a fixed, fully distinct effect and that does not exist.
The other important aspect is to remember that diffraction is associated with the sudden change in the acoustic impedance at the baffle edge, since the baffle suddenly "disappears" to a wave and becomes 4-pi. This cannot be negated fully, because to do so would require that the acoustic wave stop moving precisely at the baffle edge. This cannot occur. It can be "distorted", if you will, by felt or it can be re-directed in a more controlled fashion by a large roundover (longer wavelengths requiring larger roundover radius), but it cannot be eliminated. The one and only way to eliminate it is to have either a true infinite baffle or a wall at the edge. The latter then makes it a full reflection, not diffraction, minus any absorption and/or pass-through. So essentially there is no physical means to stop the wave motion for a typical baffle.
I have not tried to extract the diffraction from the measured impulse, but there is a means to approximate it. Software such as SoundEasy, the Baffle Diffraction Simulator, Jeff Bagby's Response Modeler and others can create a fairly good simulation based on known methods to create a representative response for the diffraction signature. This can then be used to subtract the signature from the real impulse to isolate the driver as it would be on an infinite baffle. This is all still not going to yield what you want for isolation.
In the end, the only practical solution is to take a good measurement of a driver from an infinite or quasi-anechoic measurement, install the driver on a baffle, measure it there, then normalize the two responses (in the frequency domain). This will essentially extract the diffraction in the frequency domain, showing fairly accurately the actual diffraction signature in the normalized response. You can then convert the normalized frequency response to the time domain via inverse FFT.
For testing otherwise, measure the driver on the baffle, assuring appropriate resolution and precision, apply a treatment, re-measure, then normalize. You'll have the alteration made by the treatment. This is how I present the data. You'll have to remember that there will be variations in any two measurements due to limitations of the measurement system, especially below about 1KHz, and the fact that a driver will not always response in exactly the same way to two successive measurements, given their mechanical resonant nature and fairly quick heating of the voice coil that will influence the results.
It's not a simple task at times.
Dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.