/sreten.
soongsc said:
So are you referring to a manufacturing defect? Were they within tolerance or not? You didn't have them in an audio system, hear a difference, then investigate that difference, did you? This sounds like using a well established measurement to verify quality control, ensuring that you got what was specified. You simply verified with a well-known measurement method. Not quite the same thing as taking two components of a specified value, manufactured within the specified tolerances, then hearing a difference. There's nothing unknown nor unmeasurable in your example. The analogy isn't apt.
But if you want to use an apt analogy, tell me that you can take two similarly specified caps, hear a difference in an audio circuit, then say that the difference is not due to the known and measurable parameters of the cap and that there is a parameter that has not yet been identified, but you know that this must be the case, it's just that science has not discovered this new, nebulous parameter.
Dave
I don't think (though I've been known to be wrong) that anyone here would argue with that; but I do think you are saying somewhat more than this. You are also saying:
1) that currently used measuring systems are competent in this sense; and
2) that the competent measuring systems we possess are being applied correctly and have shown that the effect does not exist.
It follows from those points that those of us who believe that ENaBL makes an audible difference (me among them) can only believe this because of a placebo effect. Which to me doesn't explain the single-blind test I took; therefore, I at least am unconvinced that those two points are in fact true, though I have no technical argument against the competence of existing measuring systems.
Regards.
Aengus
[edit] fixed a typo
Ah - so that's what you meant by "any statistically meaningful differences between sample A and sample B ascertained by double blind listening tests will be quantifiably measurable by a competent measuring system". Thank you for clarifying.
And I hadn't realized that you only made the claim about speaker cabinets. The experience I referred to was with drivers.
Regards.
Aengus
True enough, and I apologize if I gave the impression I think we are dealing with some new phenomenon. Of course, speculation in the absence of knowledge is USUALLY fruitless. All I'm saying is why not help those who have lingering questions instead of flogging old dead horses (which both sides are doing)? Why not help them devise tests that will prove to everyone once and for all what's really up? There have been discussions around the edges of double blind testing. How about everyone agree on a design for a test everyone can accept, then try a test. Remember that "modest proposal" from the old thread? I'd happily provide the beer...
The real issue, as I've said, is that some posit that there are "not subtle" effects of EnABL despite the testing that has suggested or even proven otherwise. This thread won't be put to bed until mutually agreed upon study conditions are met. If you've published scientific research, I'm sure you know this...
Carl
Sorry to say that I usually use whatever tools I can afford to look at data. Therefore methods of testing are not the same as manufacturing QC tools. Basically we started out with the same cap but found those produced at different times sounded different. Instead of telling the manufacturer they sounded different, we decided to provide data showing that they were indeed different. Bear in mind that no small audio company can efford to have all tools that necessary to QC each and every type of component. Some knowledge on how to use existing tools cost effectively is very important. At least our findings surprised the manufacturer because there the ones we identified were not the best spec in normal parameters they used.dlr said:
The same issue is evaluating EnABL or other patterns. We just have to use different methods to find reliable way of identifying what works and what not. Whatever others may think, as long as the methods help us is what counts. I have shared some. If people don't like them, then it's just up to them.
hello,
a few days ago i bought a pair of Audio Nirvana 6.5 for cheap at ebay.
i already enabl'ed them and now i am also thinking about slicing the cone as they demonstrated it in this thread
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=141325
and this posting
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1653556#post1653556
would it be wise to do both, enabling AND "cone-slicing"? or woul it be counterproductive?
i know that enabling works , and once i sliced the cone of a visaton w170 and it also worked fine , but i never did both at the same time .
yours sincerely,
mike
a few days ago i bought a pair of Audio Nirvana 6.5 for cheap at ebay.
i already enabl'ed them and now i am also thinking about slicing the cone as they demonstrated it in this thread
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=141325
and this posting
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1653556#post1653556
would it be wise to do both, enabling AND "cone-slicing"? or woul it be counterproductive?
i know that enabling works
, and once i sliced the cone of a visaton w170 and it also worked fine , but i never did both at the same time .yours sincerely,
mike
LilMik said:
i know that enabling works
mike
Hi,
Well it does not work in the manner described in the patent.
Should you slice up the cones ? You tell me ... My personal opinion
is it probably would makes things better but this is not guaranteed.
EnaBLing does not do anything that cannot be explained by added
mass and there is no evidence whatsoever as a form of modifying
a driver that it is an optimised procedure, despite contrary claims.
Are the two procedures in combination counterproductive ?
I find that idea highly unlikely as there is no mechanism for that
to be the case, slicing will have far more effect than EnaBLing.
/sreten.hello sreten,
thank you very much for your opinion . i appreciate it.
about enabling, i don't know why it works or how it works, but i "know" i can hear a "not-so-small" difference.
if you (or anybody else) would like to see some measurements of my AN before "slicing" the cone and after "slicing", i can post them; if i treat the cone that way.
unfortunately my equipment is not very good so i couldn't see any significant changes before and after enabling the cone.
yours sincerely,
mike
thank you very much for your opinion
. i appreciate it. about enabling, i don't know why it works or how it works, but i "know" i can hear a "not-so-small" difference.
if you (or anybody else) would like to see some measurements of my AN before "slicing" the cone and after "slicing", i can post them; if i treat the cone that way.
unfortunately my equipment is not very good so i couldn't see any significant changes before and after enabling the cone.
yours sincerely,
mike
Hi LiMik,
EnABL will continue to provide the benefits you have experienced.
I have no idea what benefit slicing is purported to have, but, if it reduces physical distortion in the diaphragm or eliminates Raleigh wave propagation, then those, or any other benefits, will just be added on to the in room propagation benefits EnABL provides.
Bud
EnABL will continue to provide the benefits you have experienced.
I have no idea what benefit slicing is purported to have, but, if it reduces physical distortion in the diaphragm or eliminates Raleigh wave propagation, then those, or any other benefits, will just be added on to the in room propagation benefits EnABL provides.
Bud
