At least you took the time to prove it to yourself, not like some of the tiresome no-personal-experience-with-EnABLE naysayers that are participating in this thread.
Last edited:
relax dave, I replied to this one as it was the one that directly quoted my earlier post.
just courtesy I guess, if someone makes an effort to respond to something I have written I usually feel bound to answer. Unless it is a natural stop and requires no answer.
And, make no mistake here, I am completely in your camp both regarding this topic and the natural flight of fancy that seem to go hand in hand with being an audiophile.
I was deadly serious when I wished that more were truly interested in finding out, instead for whatever reason we DO revert to tribalism on forums.
Strangely enough, the act of getting together I have found to be the most effective tool for working around this, it does not mean that suddenly all our opinions or viewpoints become homogenised, or that we lose our basic viewpoint in audio, but it is true that the, at times, fierce antagonistic element found on forums dissappears.
Now, would YOU accept a believer coming on and saying (not referring to pano BTW) I not only heard the difference in a DBT, but preferred it?? (Unlike you seem to infer, I really don't think it will be audible, let alone getting to the stage of being able to have a preference...having said that I have not tested the proposition).
IF you are completely honest, I'd hazard your initial reaction would be 'no way, it must have been conducted improperly' no??
I will be honest, it certainly would be my first thought.
At least I am aware that I have prejudices.....and so all my earlier stuff was biographical in a way.
Equally, someone on the other side when confronted with 'I heard no difference' would use excuses of another flavour.
It's just the nature of the human beast sadly.
I was pondering what has been written here just before, and I asked myself 'what would it take for ME to accept a negative result'? (ie one that goes against what I think is the case)...it may be interesting to get other peoples answer to this very question, from each side of the debate.
The only real thing I came up with was that I needed to 'trust' the source. It would, of course, have to be the results of a true properly conducted DBT.
So my thinking went along the lines of SY. I have never met the man, yet we seem to be in accord somewhere, somehow (mentally I mean), so if he were to say 'I conducted dbt on *bill* and he was able to discern the treated driver to X degree of reliability' then I would accept it (let's leave aside preference yeah? if preference is allowed then why are we having the discussion?? meaning it is perfectly fine what people prefer.)
[I only mention SY because, in the past, he has expressed a willingness to conduct a proper DBT if others are interested]
But that leads into another interesting area of forums...WHY do I trust SY?? What IS it that makes a person sort people into 'good' and 'bad' guys if you will?? The good we trust, the bad we dismiss.
At the bottom I think it is mainly because we already have the same viewpoint.
back to square one, we accept the data we already agree with, reject the data we already disagree with.
No true desire to learn.
I know I am guilty of it (but am aware of it so I take the time to try and see where I may be wrong) and I suspect we all are subject to it.
Now, I did intend to try an actual comparative test between treated and non treated (rather than just the box) and I intended to do it this way (in the hope it may help carlp if his ever gets off the ground)
The hard part is the actual comparison, and the time taken. To me the easiest would be treat one driver only (and hope the two are pretty close toleranced) and have them side by side directly in front.
the test of course would be in mono. If that is good enough for sean olive it's good enough for me!🙂
All that is needed to be done then is flick from 'left' to 'right' (an acoustically transparent screen may be needed) and we can have a treated vs untreated comparo. There is the last confounder that they are still not physically occupying the same position in space, but they are as close as we can get them.
A simple series of tests with each being the left or right should take care of that if needed. But to get to that stage there would need to be a clear indication that they were distinguishable..if so swap them (or not, you get the drift) and see if the trait still emerges, ie it follows one or the other.
Last edited:
terry j & all, I appreciate your comments
The 2 pair of speakers I'll bring to Frankfort, KY on Nov. 20 will allow such a comparison. Granted, the drivers were chosen by the middleman when he pulled them from the shelf to send to me...they would have some variation within the manufacture's range. They are made as stereo pairs, that subverts the value for comparing treated vs. treated... The crossover components are matched to the limitations of my gear...(1-2%?).
Should I run a WT3 sweep on the units?
Is there a difference? Is one "better"? ...'tis not up to me...
The 2 pair of speakers I'll bring to Frankfort, KY on Nov. 20 will allow such a comparison. Granted, the drivers were chosen by the middleman when he pulled them from the shelf to send to me...they would have some variation within the manufacture's range. They are made as stereo pairs, that subverts the value for comparing treated vs. treated... The crossover components are matched to the limitations of my gear...(1-2%?).
Should I run a WT3 sweep on the units?
Is there a difference? Is one "better"? ...'tis not up to me...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but we've got to separate treatment of diaphragms vs. immobile objects such as baffle edges. I accept that diaphragms will change and it may be audible, though not to the extent of eliminating things like breakup and not with the qualities as espoused by some. Treatment on immobile objects, not even significantly measurable differences can occur when tests are made to maximize that possibility.
Related to immobile objects, sure I'd think that first, there's simply no basis for why it might be remotely audible. Our measurement gear is far more sensitive than our ears and it doesn't change those. On drivers, I'd be easily inclined to accept an audible change. As I've stated repeatedly, it's also easily measured. Change may be good, may be bad, but it won't do things claimed that are easily disproven such as dramatic elimination of serious resonances.
This was going to be my first response when first reading your post. The problem is not just a DBT, it requires, as you say, one properly conducted, but I'd add that it has to be statistically significant as a test of enough subjects. I don't see this level of study being conducted if one intends to prove anything. Even in that case it's presented as statistical evidence, not a pure proof.
I've spent years on the boards, learned much, and continue to learn. I accept some information depending on either the source or the data presented, remain on the fence on many others (especially when the topic is perception). That does not mean that I should disregard certain basics of physics. Audio is related to wavelength in all aspects. Small bumps on immobile objects that cannot even alter the response so that a mic placed extremely closely to maximize sensitivity to the issue don't measure a change certainly qualifies as completely disproving of their influence in my mind. The height of those bumps simply cannot alter frequencies in our range of hearing. Before those were made I had years of measuring (and listening to) a wide variety of attempts at altering response of immobile objects (such as baffle edges) that create significant diffraction. The measurements referenced simply were more confirmation of my own testing.
I doubt I would reject anyone's claims of hearing a difference in such a test. Many (not you) seem to be confused as to what the skepticism is about. I would reject claims of elimination of things like breakup and any audible effects on immobile objects.
BTW, the original skepticism was the fanciful claims about the physics behind the alterations as applied to diaphragms, not at all about audibility.
Dave
thanks dave...deep down I still feel we are not as open to opposing ideas as we may like to think we are..the need for a dbt cuts many ways haha. (ie we are swayed by unknown conclusions and ideas as much as we are by subconscious stimulae)
Now, one of my 'main objections' regarding stuff like this is our natural tendency to exaggerate, and I feel this comes across in audiophile land by what I term the 'concentration on minutiae'.
That was not an attempt to derail or trivialise, but more an acknowledgement of my own ignorance in the area of cone treatment. You seem ready to accept THAT a change in sound will occur (I mean on a theoretical level I can understand it, but honestly, what 'added mass' are we talking here??)
I get that the proponents would say that it is NOT a matter of added mass, but for now let's keep it that way ok?
HOW audible, exactly, are these magnitude of changes?? Why do you accept that it could/should make an audible difference? Have you experience with this??
This is not a deflection, and I am admitting I have no experience with it at all. Say I lay a smear of PVC on the driver, the added mass would be insignificant, yet would it be audible?? That would tend to add credence to (at least) an audible change with the enabled driver...better or worse remains subjective.
Put another way, just how much treatment (of any kind) is required to effect a change audibly??
Now, one of my 'main objections' regarding stuff like this is our natural tendency to exaggerate, and I feel this comes across in audiophile land by what I term the 'concentration on minutiae'.
That was not an attempt to derail or trivialise, but more an acknowledgement of my own ignorance in the area of cone treatment. You seem ready to accept THAT a change in sound will occur (I mean on a theoretical level I can understand it, but honestly, what 'added mass' are we talking here??)
I get that the proponents would say that it is NOT a matter of added mass, but for now let's keep it that way ok?
HOW audible, exactly, are these magnitude of changes?? Why do you accept that it could/should make an audible difference? Have you experience with this??
This is not a deflection, and I am admitting I have no experience with it at all. Say I lay a smear of PVC on the driver, the added mass would be insignificant, yet would it be audible?? That would tend to add credence to (at least) an audible change with the enabled driver...better or worse remains subjective.
Put another way, just how much treatment (of any kind) is required to effect a change audibly??
Here you are quite correct. I have not seen it implied that this was a rigorous scientific test. There simply were not enough controls. The test results were given for what they are, anecdotal.
Here you are wrong and making baseless assumptions. You simply can not know this. To assume this bias is just as useless as a listening test without good controls. It is simply opinion. You usually don't like that. 😉
The fly in the ointment there is that one of the very telling differences between treated & untreated drivers (in my (anecdotal) experience, blind or sighted) is that the treated drivers are able to throw a much larger, more realistic 3D image. You need stereo for that.
dave
mea culpa
Unfortunately, this experience seems oft quoted as verification that enabl somehow has been vindicated re: blind testing, as the listeners were fooled into believing the enabled drivers were inferior when in fact the ole switcheroo was in effect. As I said, valid for those in attendance... I just wonder what the point of repeated postings of it accomplishes...😕
I guess the qualifier "maybe" was not explicit enough to indicate I was stating an opinion refering to the test purveyors intentions, not the audience results...
🙄
btw: I have no problem with opinions, everyone has one, you know...😉 and seeing how misinterpetation is so prevalent on web forums (testosterone poisoning and all that), I'd rather see them stated as such.🙂😉
John L.
Unfortunately, this experience seems oft quoted as verification that enabl somehow has been vindicated re: blind testing, as the listeners were fooled into believing the enabled drivers were inferior when in fact the ole switcheroo was in effect. As I said, valid for those in attendance... I just wonder what the point of repeated postings of it accomplishes...😕
I guess the qualifier "maybe" was not explicit enough to indicate I was stating an opinion refering to the test purveyors intentions, not the audience results...
🙄btw: I have no problem with opinions, everyone has one, you know...😉 and seeing how misinterpetation is so prevalent on web forums (testosterone poisoning and all that), I'd rather see them stated as such.🙂😉
John L.
Hi,
FWIW you cannot work around a pile of technical nonnsense no
matter how hard you try. This parrot has been dead for a long time.
rgds, sreten.
FWIW you cannot work around a pile of technical nonnsense no
matter how hard you try. This parrot has been dead for a long time.
rgds, sreten.
maybe dave, but then again maybe not?? You seem able (or enabled) easily to do it, you'd have plenty of treated and untreated drivers laying around, give it a whirl?
It may not tell the whole story, but if you try it and it does enough to lead to reliable identification then that is good data for anyone who wants to set up a test.
I too am a bit wary of group demos, from reports of toe tapping in a linn demo to jon dunlavy holding up a pair of chunky cables and all hear the difference (but the cables do not get plugged in, just held up), and my own personal observations of how the 'story grows' when people get together and discuss what they have heard.
The fish just get's bigger and bigger! Very much an insight into human behaviour that one.
I have. We try to keep a pair of pairs of matched speakers around for demo (efficiency within 0.1 dB). Used to be a set of mFonken, since FE127 discontinued now mMar-Kel70. Most people don't have much trouble telling them apart and prefer the treated drivers. With the EnABLed drivers the "back wall blows out" & it becomes harder to localize the speakers, so it is pretty easy if you listen for that. With mono (which i have done way less often) it is not as easy.
dave
ahh, ok, gotcha. But I was 'trying' to make it easier for *us* guys that don't have lot's of treated vs untreated laying around, AND avoid the time of swapping (even if we had them).
So it sounds kinda hard to do for a test, unless you (or someone similar) was able to bring two completed sets of speakers. Which makes it all a bit too hard for most cases.
Maybe if carlp (for example) did find interested people, he could somehow borrow some from you, but we are getting way too complicated now I suspect.
cheers
So it sounds kinda hard to do for a test, unless you (or someone similar) was able to bring two completed sets of speakers. Which makes it all a bit too hard for most cases.
Maybe if carlp (for example) did find interested people, he could somehow borrow some from you, but we are getting way too complicated now I suspect.
cheers
Actually I have a spare pair of untreated, matched FE127 drivers, in Fonken boxes. There was a pair of treated 127 drivers in another set of boxes once upon a time... I got a funny late night phone call from our "northern savage" neighbors, after having shipped the boxes north for a gathering.....
It really is not necessary to have all four drivers matched, just the pairs, the differences are not subtle, in stereo illusion mode.
Were those boxes to arrive at Carl P's, with a last of the line, matched set of 127 eN drivers, I am sure I could send the cabinets I have here with the stock matched pair. The same offer has been made to a number of skeptics, but somehow something always changes, a misunderstood word here a lack of interest there etc.
As an aside Terry, I would be very interested in a pic of your EnABL'd box if you have one. Not to pick at, I don't play that game, but to learn from. I always learn more from failures than successes it seems.
Mille' Nestorovic tried for years teach me how to be able to make judgments on monaural speakers, claiming it was the only way to understand how a speaker system was operating. I was never better than average odds at discovering what was wrong or right under those circumstances, so I have great respect for those who have spent the years acquainting themselves with that method. Mille' was literally always correct in his assessments of what was wrong and what needed to be done to eliminate a problem, when assessing a monaural speaker system. And, those changes were reflected in the stereo illusion performance.
It really is not necessary to have all four drivers matched, just the pairs, the differences are not subtle, in stereo illusion mode.
Were those boxes to arrive at Carl P's, with a last of the line, matched set of 127 eN drivers, I am sure I could send the cabinets I have here with the stock matched pair. The same offer has been made to a number of skeptics, but somehow something always changes, a misunderstood word here a lack of interest there etc.
As an aside Terry, I would be very interested in a pic of your EnABL'd box if you have one. Not to pick at, I don't play that game, but to learn from. I always learn more from failures than successes it seems.
Mille' Nestorovic tried for years teach me how to be able to make judgments on monaural speakers, claiming it was the only way to understand how a speaker system was operating. I was never better than average odds at discovering what was wrong or right under those circumstances, so I have great respect for those who have spent the years acquainting themselves with that method. Mille' was literally always correct in his assessments of what was wrong and what needed to be done to eliminate a problem, when assessing a monaural speaker system. And, those changes were reflected in the stereo illusion performance.
I think you may be reading too much into this. It was a single listener who was fooled - me. Others may have been, I have no idea. AFAIK, no attempt was made to fool anyone, there was no "ole switheroo." I simply assumed I knew the order, for some reason that I don't remember. I was wrong. The test was set up to be blind, the pattern was not visible. Thus I believe the order was not stated. I'd have to ask someone else who attended about that.
Not sure what "valid for those in attendance" has to do with anything. Wouldn't that be the case for any listening test? Or was there something special about this one that made it invalid for those not there? Can you explain?
I only brought it up because of posts # 884, 886, 887, 889 & 890.
That said, it really isn't the technical side of things, is it?
If a DBT test were to materialize under my offer, I just want to make clear that I would want assistance to set up a test that would hold up reasonably well to scrutiny from any side, and it would have to include a mix of "skeptics" "believers" and perhaps some undecideds (like me).
FWIW, I still have not tried EnABL nor have I heard it, and I remain skeptical but open-minded about it. I do have a "kit" to do the application but just have too many projects on my plate to take it on (Picasa Web Albums - C Paulsen - DIY plus a few others, some speakers, a new driveway, barn roof prior to creating a listening room, etc. etc.).
FWIW, I still have not tried EnABL nor have I heard it, and I remain skeptical but open-minded about it. I do have a "kit" to do the application but just have too many projects on my plate to take it on (Picasa Web Albums - C Paulsen - DIY plus a few others, some speakers, a new driveway, barn roof prior to creating a listening room, etc. etc.).
I have carry bags for them. A pr of milliSize boxes fit perfect into am old Mac 128/512 carry case. Local pickup only -- althou i do make it to Canada (the mainland) on occasion.
dave
hi bud, I MAY be able to rustle up a pic, I didn't take one but I think some were taken.
Just to clarify, they were not mine. We have a yearly GTG over here and some guys bring different systems etc etc, makes for a great fun weekend when a bunch of mates re-meet yearly, with different systems spread throughout the house. We can wander thru the different rooms listening to very varied systems.
But, let's be honest here, it's mainly an excuse for a bloody good pissup!
I may have some details wrong, but it was a fostex 206 (I'm not a single driver guy) in dallas backloaded horns????
The box itself (NOT the driver, the owner would not allow that IIRC) was enabled, I do not want to say who it was if he wishes to remain anonymous (tho he can also tell us if he wishes).
I THINK the box enable is his own 'invention'??? Anyway, will try and find the pic, will send a PM to the owner, he may have one.
Well carl, gtg's are always fun, but I agree with you, if you wanted to investigate such a contentious area, it would be best to be as robust as you could. Not worth the effort and grief otherwise. (haha, do any of us really think this would settle anything??)
Dave, I must have a look at an atlas!! Are you on googlemap me type of thing?? Mainland?? It's ALL canada ain't it?? haha
Just to clarify, they were not mine. We have a yearly GTG over here and some guys bring different systems etc etc, makes for a great fun weekend when a bunch of mates re-meet yearly, with different systems spread throughout the house. We can wander thru the different rooms listening to very varied systems.
But, let's be honest here, it's mainly an excuse for a bloody good pissup!
I may have some details wrong, but it was a fostex 206 (I'm not a single driver guy) in dallas backloaded horns????
The box itself (NOT the driver, the owner would not allow that IIRC) was enabled, I do not want to say who it was if he wishes to remain anonymous (tho he can also tell us if he wishes).
I THINK the box enable is his own 'invention'??? Anyway, will try and find the pic, will send a PM to the owner, he may have one.
Well carl, gtg's are always fun, but I agree with you, if you wanted to investigate such a contentious area, it would be best to be as robust as you could. Not worth the effort and grief otherwise. (haha, do any of us really think this would settle anything??)
Dave, I must have a look at an atlas!! Are you on googlemap me type of thing?? Mainland?? It's ALL canada ain't it?? haha
We here like to call it the Independent Republic of Vancouver Island
I'm at:
48°29'43.15"N
123°31'56.15"W
dave
I'm at:
48°29'43.15"N
123°31'56.15"W
dave
ok, found it. is there a bridge, or is it a ferry?? hey, when you say the mainland, you could also mean washington state??
looking at the amp...alaska, what an odd thing. Was that ever part of canada??
must google...alaska, the short history.
well, I did not manage to find a way to plug your actual co-ordinates in, but I DID find vancouver island.
looking at the amp...alaska, what an odd thing. Was that ever part of canada??
must google...alaska, the short history.
well, I did not manage to find a way to plug your actual co-ordinates in, but I DID find vancouver island.