Carlp said:
Hi,
For unbiased listening tests (that show if something is significant)
the listeners should not know the variables, ruling out "both sides",
they return the "not statistically" significant result for cases any
hi-fi nut would find preposterous.
FWIW your double blind test does not require the objectivists.
It does require the subjectivists to return a highly significant result.
If this is the case the test should be repeated with a unbiased /
uninformed (of the variable) set of audiophiles. If this returns a
highly significant result some estimation of the "quality difference"
could be gleaned by very careful (and not leading) questioning.
My main interest in this thread is are people being bamboozled by BS.
My inescapable conclusion is Yes, which is why I continue.
Port/Baffle EnABLing has consumed an inordinate amount in this
thread considering the position is clear cut - put up some evidence
(repeatable measurements are far easier than listening tests) or shut up.
The debate / discussion should be about modifying drivers.
Useful information (not garbage conjecture) is interesting.
🙂/sreten.
BudP said:
Hi,
I'll note that you did not add such a proviso to the mountain
of diarrhea you have already espoused on this subject.
FWIW distrubuted mass is one of the possible methods at work,
in certain cases (added toothpaste) likely the only method at work.
For paper cones and paint it is more complex, and for all cones the
application of additional "conformal" layers can have different effects
and as such different basic models for that layers effect.
🙂/sreten.
Graham Maynard said:
Hi,
You wrote it, if you cannot work out how it comes across that is your fault.
Personally I think your backtracking and whinging about nothing.
/sreten.Sreten,
To use your own tone, you really don't get it, do you? The whole reason to have both "sides" involved is that then there would be no option to discount the results. Without that, we're nowhere.
Hmmmm. Can you explain? If it's added mass it's added mass. How does it get more complex? By changing the wave propagation in the cone itself? Isn't that what John's testing showed isn't having an effect? Please clarify.
Carl
To use your own tone, you really don't get it, do you? The whole reason to have both "sides" involved is that then there would be no option to discount the results. Without that, we're nowhere.
Hmmmm. Can you explain? If it's added mass it's added mass. How does it get more complex? By changing the wave propagation in the cone itself? Isn't that what John's testing showed isn't having an effect? Please clarify.
Carl
Carlp said:
When we use the term added mass, we're really saying any changes due to the added mass such as any possible damping effects and localized stiffening of the cone. All of that occurs with any mass of any material that one might add. It's a lot easier to just say added mass without all the rest. The change in material will change the properties. There will be additional reflections of the transverse wave adding resonances unless it damps perfectly as one example. We went through all of this, so the short term "added mass" represents all of that. It pertains to the classical mechanics.
That is in contrast to the hypothesis of a boundary layer effect.
Dave
dlr said:
dlr does a great job of summarizing the technical aspects in the data presented, and puts it into laymans terms very well. I highlighted this part of his post because I think people don't consider the relevance of measurements. I wanted to stress that what he talks about in regards to microphones is not opinion, but fact.
Microphones behave like human ears, to air pressure changes, and are extremely sensitive (more so than human ears) devices. Frustratingly so, as a matter of fact (for recording engineers). They don't lie. Period. Ever.
If a microphone did not pick it up any changes in pressure, it's because there were no changes there to pick up. Your ears would not pick it up either. Period. This is an absolute.
Think of all the brilliant minds that are out there in the world. If the measurements used for sonic testing were wholly inadequate, don't you think that these minds would debunk the inadequacy of the systems and methods of measurements in audio?
As far as subjective claims, they are not scientifically reliable. You cannot show verifiably a claim of audibility. There is no data, just a claim. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, to provide data to substantiate the claim.
As far as ports and baffles, to date, the hard data shows that a wave propagating over a .00035 high obstruction on the surface of a port or baffle shows no effect on the wave.
JohnK isolated, and tested, not EnABL, some might say. But more to the point, he tested what the mechanics of applying a .0035 high obstruction might present to a wave passing over it.
He isolated and magnified it (in favor of EnABL). I don't know how many people are seeing that.
Cheers
Carlp said:
Hi,
For the first point and double blind tests its easy for a biased
objectivist to simply "not hear anything", so pointless IMO 😉.
DLR's definition of added mass is not mine, its too imprecise.
Painting an absorbtive cone can change the local properties,
e.g. making that area stiffer, it only really matters when your
trying to model it.
Toothpaste one could argue simply adds local mass.
If "distributed mass" includes all mechanical effects fair enough ...
(I was thinking of a model that allowed added areas of mass only.)
🙂/sreten.
Any processing of the cone will alter mass, damping, stiffness properties to some degree. To what degree each property will effect the driver performance depends on original cone material properties, cone shape, and surround characteristics. Unless everyone is talking about a specific driver, it seems pointless to generalize which property is dominant. Additionally, when we process the cones, it is important to know what specific performance one wishes to improve, otherwise our measurements make the same amount of sense as the listening method Bud uses.
About a month or so ago, I had the opportunity to listen to the Dynaudio Evidence Master and the Dynaudio Saphire. When I listened to the saphire, the bruch drums stood out, and I was amazed about it because I was never satisfied with how my system was revealing this aspect; however, the overall tone balance was not as good as the Evidence Master, which is the kind of balance I am used to.
So it's important to gradually focuss on issues related to a specific driver in order to break the tend to go around in circles with the discussion.
About a month or so ago, I had the opportunity to listen to the Dynaudio Evidence Master and the Dynaudio Saphire. When I listened to the saphire, the bruch drums stood out, and I was amazed about it because I was never satisfied with how my system was revealing this aspect; however, the overall tone balance was not as good as the Evidence Master, which is the kind of balance I am used to.
So it's important to gradually focuss on issues related to a specific driver in order to break the tend to go around in circles with the discussion.
sreten,
Good. That is actually the best way to attack this distributed, patterned mass question. The patterns do the actual signal alterations. The Gloss, over the entire surface of a paper cone and just patterned portions of polycarbonate, aluminum and not used at all on titanium, can be thought of as an impedence matching material. One that when used on a paper cone, allows the patterns to also control the area sections between patterns also.
I realize this sounds ridiculous, but this is what occurs.
Bud
Good. That is actually the best way to attack this distributed, patterned mass question. The patterns do the actual signal alterations. The Gloss, over the entire surface of a paper cone and just patterned portions of polycarbonate, aluminum and not used at all on titanium, can be thought of as an impedence matching material. One that when used on a paper cone, allows the patterns to also control the area sections between patterns also.
I realize this sounds ridiculous, but this is what occurs.
Bud
BudP said:
So the gloss coat has no mass? The gloss coat isn't absorbed by the paper? It doesn't make the paper stiffer? Doesn’t change the dissipation of energy in the cone?
Why not leave is as I have stated previously. The treatments results in alter cone physical properties and introduces inhomogeneities and anisotropies in those properties.
I also noticed your post in the other thread about the F200A. It got me wondering how may of those close to $400 driver you actually modified before deciding that the pattern you posted was suitable? Or are you just suggesting that pattern based on modification of a single set of drivers or perhaps you “experience”? Its one thing to suggest that people play around with a $35 driver the FE126/127 but when someone has over $700 invested in a pair drivers I hope they will have more sense that to make such an undocumented alteration without thinking about the possibility of negative results.
Or perhaps the real issue is that, as measurements have shown, in spite of the shifted resonances and altered breakup nothing really positive or negative happens at all. Perhaps it’s nothing more the cone graffiti?
BudP said:
(Polycarbonate ? AFAIK used to make nasty sounding tweeters only ....)
Hi,
No. It is not the best way to attack the question. Lumping all possible
effects together means you cannot examine each possible effect seperately.
Coating a cone can be seen as (amongst other viewpoints) as an
impedance matching or mismatching mechanism. Arbitrary rules
as to when it is or is not applicable indicates to me no real insight.
FWIW a coating will change the way various areas of the driver
interact, calling it "control" to me implies no real understanding.
Generally speaking any analysis that sounds ridiculous usually is.
Stating that it occurs is unhelpful and essentially meaningless.
Given the above description it still seems to me you have no real
idea of what is going on or the mechanisms of operation of a
typical cone driver over its full frequency range.
DLR made a manful attempt at explaining some of this in post #75.
http://www.klippel.de/pubs/Klippel papers/Measurement_and_Visualization_Cone_vibration_06.pdf
See section 4 for some good examples.
🙂/sreten.
Hi,
I did say give them enough rope ........
Credibility rating with anyone with half a brain is asymptoting to zero.
🙂/sreten.
I did say give them enough rope ........
Credibility rating with anyone with half a brain is asymptoting to zero.
🙂/sreten.
Lurking mostly
I find this thread degenerating to the typical level of "who's is largest" on the part of some of the skeptics, vs. "shoot the messenger" model from the believers, as seems to be the all too familiar common denominator, be it cable sound, "active" vs. "passive", "full range" vs. "multi driver".. etc.
Since I've been "scolded" by both the "EE" mentality for my "naive" questions re: ratshack meters, and likewise from the subjective camp re: statistical testing methods ( for leaving out what should be obvious, seeing as I was looking to elicit some discussion, not reprobation, btw) I've reverted to lurking occasionally, since no one is presenting anything useful beyond Dave's earlier insights about diffraction and John K's screening tests supporting the mass modification effects.
Shame really, as I initially learned some stuff, and initially was interested in enabl as a useful adjunct until the psychopseudotechnobabble became unbearable from the believer agenda and convinced me beyond a doubt of the utter irrationality of this approach to improved sound.
{now switching to lurker mode}
John L.
I find this thread degenerating to the typical level of "who's is largest" on the part of some of the skeptics, vs. "shoot the messenger" model from the believers, as seems to be the all too familiar common denominator, be it cable sound, "active" vs. "passive", "full range" vs. "multi driver".. etc.
Since I've been "scolded" by both the "EE" mentality for my "naive" questions re: ratshack meters, and likewise from the subjective camp re: statistical testing methods ( for leaving out what should be obvious, seeing as I was looking to elicit some discussion, not reprobation, btw) I've reverted to lurking occasionally, since no one is presenting anything useful beyond Dave's earlier insights about diffraction and John K's screening tests supporting the mass modification effects.
Shame really, as I initially learned some stuff, and initially was interested in enabl as a useful adjunct until the psychopseudotechnobabble became unbearable from the believer agenda and convinced me beyond a doubt of the utter irrationality of this approach to improved sound.
{now switching to lurker mode}
John L.
John L.
So, get some cheap speakers, buy a kit from Ed and proceed to learn for your self. Make up your own mind. You have some extremely good loudspeakers to compare your efforts with. Seems to me you should be able to work both sides of the fence with some experience in hand.
John K,
Of course the gloss coat has mass. However, the actual results of an EnABL treatment are not dependent upon the gloss coat. It is there for good reason and I am sure it provides the very same results regardless of whose reason you choose, but it is not, by itself capable of providing the sort of clarity that the pattern provides.
John, you have already shown what EnABL will do.
The sort of resolution and control of excessive and added instability, shown in your blink CSD comparison, at full amplitude, is also shown at low amplitude, all of the way to the end of the test graph. This is what EnABL patterns provide. If you were to add a gloss coat to that driver, the CSD plot would be different, but the characteristic limiting of small signal instability would remain.
As for whether or not these shifted resonances and altered breakup modes, inhomogeneities and anisotropies in the driver properties, actually show nothing really positive or negative happening at all comment, you have no basis in fact or fiction to back up this statement with.
What none of you skeptics have dealt with to date, is the large body of anecdotal reports pointing to a very positive result from applying EnABL. To attempt to point a finger to idiocy, placebo, and mass hysteria, as the reason for the positive anecdotal evidence is both unscientific and disingenuous. The people in this Forum are not an uneducated mass of ignorant slobs, willing to accept smoke and mirrors. Some are willing to experiment, some others, like yourself, are willing to provide time and thought to testing for objective results.
None of these results are presented or represented with anything but a negative set of connotations, not one, not once. All testing provided by others has been dismissed as poorly documented or without sufficient statistical relevance, unless it showed a negative result.
I am beginning to wonder about the neutrality of this group of skeptics activities, with respect to investigating EnABL. Interesting how so many of you showed up on the original thread, right about the time this thread was occurring.
http://www.pesupport.com/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=393330
John, I have accepted your evidence for EnABL being a purely patterned mass event. I have accepted your and other skeptics often rude comments and portrayals, of my ability to think and write.
I think it is about time that you actually have an anecdotal experience of EnABL. So that you can link your test data and your comments, on the ability of individuals on this forum to recognize improvements, to the level of results these skilled and intelligent people have reported.
Bud
So, get some cheap speakers, buy a kit from Ed and proceed to learn for your self. Make up your own mind. You have some extremely good loudspeakers to compare your efforts with. Seems to me you should be able to work both sides of the fence with some experience in hand.
John K,
Of course the gloss coat has mass. However, the actual results of an EnABL treatment are not dependent upon the gloss coat. It is there for good reason and I am sure it provides the very same results regardless of whose reason you choose, but it is not, by itself capable of providing the sort of clarity that the pattern provides.
John, you have already shown what EnABL will do.
The sort of resolution and control of excessive and added instability, shown in your blink CSD comparison, at full amplitude, is also shown at low amplitude, all of the way to the end of the test graph. This is what EnABL patterns provide. If you were to add a gloss coat to that driver, the CSD plot would be different, but the characteristic limiting of small signal instability would remain.
As for whether or not these shifted resonances and altered breakup modes, inhomogeneities and anisotropies in the driver properties, actually show nothing really positive or negative happening at all comment, you have no basis in fact or fiction to back up this statement with.
What none of you skeptics have dealt with to date, is the large body of anecdotal reports pointing to a very positive result from applying EnABL. To attempt to point a finger to idiocy, placebo, and mass hysteria, as the reason for the positive anecdotal evidence is both unscientific and disingenuous. The people in this Forum are not an uneducated mass of ignorant slobs, willing to accept smoke and mirrors. Some are willing to experiment, some others, like yourself, are willing to provide time and thought to testing for objective results.
None of these results are presented or represented with anything but a negative set of connotations, not one, not once. All testing provided by others has been dismissed as poorly documented or without sufficient statistical relevance, unless it showed a negative result.
I am beginning to wonder about the neutrality of this group of skeptics activities, with respect to investigating EnABL. Interesting how so many of you showed up on the original thread, right about the time this thread was occurring.
http://www.pesupport.com/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=393330
John, I have accepted your evidence for EnABL being a purely patterned mass event. I have accepted your and other skeptics often rude comments and portrayals, of my ability to think and write.
I think it is about time that you actually have an anecdotal experience of EnABL. So that you can link your test data and your comments, on the ability of individuals on this forum to recognize improvements, to the level of results these skilled and intelligent people have reported.
Bud
BudP said:
You have no basis in fact to make the latter contention. You have no evidence whatsoever. It is ironic that you would take John to task, then in your very next paragraph do exactly the same thing yourself, make claims without substantiation. The difference is that John has hard evidence, you have had none.
On the contrary, John has hard data to back up his claim, a documented basis in fact, something you have never provided. Every last claim you have made and continue to make is subjective and conjecture. Period. I suggest you re-evaluate who has what facts on their side.
There you go again. We have dealt with the anecdotal reports. On drivers we've all said it will make a change, good or bad, I don't know and frankly I don't care. The issue was with the fully discredited claim of BL effects and other claims. On baffles and ports with all hard data (measurements) and supporting theory in solid confirmation that it does essentially nothing (as expected) and with the years of real experience with measuring various aspects of diffration myself, there is nothing that can explain it other than placebo. Period. Subjective claims offer nothing of merit You may not like that conclusion, but there's no evidence to counter that. Anecdotal evidence is no proof of anything.
Uneducated, no, but they most certainly did so. They believed the smoke and mirrors of BL effects, full diffraction control, soliton wave creation and low frequencies being altered so that they pass through walls for starters. You really shouldn't argue from that standpoint given the history in the threads.
Do you really want to re-hash this? The data is what it is. The testing presented by proponents, what little there was, was interpreted badly, amateurishly I have to say it was so in error. The negative "connotations" were nothing more than objective evaluation of objective measurements. You and others were by your own measurements and evidence in your posts not able to recognize 5db swings in an SPL response until it was pointed out. Again, another place you really shouldn't try to go again.
What does that matter? It doesn't change the factual errors, misinterpretation and unsupportable, sometimes wild claims once made. Measurements are what they are, protestations change nothing.
Dave
How about answering the question Bud?
"I also noticed your post in the other thread about the F200A. It got me wondering how may of those close to $400 drivers you actually modified before deciding that the pattern you posted was suitable? Or are you just suggesting that pattern based on modification of a single set of drivers or perhaps your “experience”? "
So just how many of these drivers did you modify and subjectively evaluate that you conclusively recommend others follow in you path? The recommended treatment is far more complex than what has previously been discussed and the manufacture has done some extensive damping of its own. Even with all your experience, the lack of any predictive tool would still suggest that with this driver you were working in uncharted territory and it would seem unlikely that such a complicated treatment procedure with multiple rings, front and back, multiple coats of gloss, special treatment of the dome,.... could be arrived at with one take, let alone be close to repeatable. It seems a lot more like ad hoc modifications piled one on top of the other. Call it rude. Call it skeptical. Call it what you like. I have my own name for it.
As for the PE thread, well I don't know about that. Yes I saw it, but I had been following this the Enable thread from the start. Having owned Ohm F's some years ago it caught my interest. But at the time I was involved with Lynn O's thread. I finally bailed out of that one because I realized it was little more then mental masturbation; over a year, 133 pages and nothing to speak of to date.
"I also noticed your post in the other thread about the F200A. It got me wondering how may of those close to $400 drivers you actually modified before deciding that the pattern you posted was suitable? Or are you just suggesting that pattern based on modification of a single set of drivers or perhaps your “experience”? "
So just how many of these drivers did you modify and subjectively evaluate that you conclusively recommend others follow in you path? The recommended treatment is far more complex than what has previously been discussed and the manufacture has done some extensive damping of its own. Even with all your experience, the lack of any predictive tool would still suggest that with this driver you were working in uncharted territory and it would seem unlikely that such a complicated treatment procedure with multiple rings, front and back, multiple coats of gloss, special treatment of the dome,.... could be arrived at with one take, let alone be close to repeatable. It seems a lot more like ad hoc modifications piled one on top of the other. Call it rude. Call it skeptical. Call it what you like. I have my own name for it.
As for the PE thread, well I don't know about that. Yes I saw it, but I had been following this the Enable thread from the start. Having owned Ohm F's some years ago it caught my interest. But at the time I was involved with Lynn O's thread. I finally bailed out of that one because I realized it was little more then mental masturbation; over a year, 133 pages and nothing to speak of to date.
John,
Good points and from what I have to date presented, for full range drivers, quite pertinent. For me, the Fostex F200 was a simple application. It is a simple cone, the back side damping is not new, the under dome damping is a 'Well, they finally did one right" rather than a surprise, the cone face damping/fill is not different in nature from others I have encountered, with Morel and Vifa among them.
I did approach it with the same respect I have for every other driver I treat, but nothing I did was in the least bit unusual, to me. I have deliberately not dealt with this sort of full treatment before. Just because the Gloss coating on the back side can be overdone. You do have to deliberately not follow instructions to get it wrong enough to be a problem, but you can screw it up.
So, only one pair of the Fostex drivers. Also only one pair of the Lowther DX 4 drivers, one pair of the Lowther PM6A drivers, one pair of the Lowther A45 drivers and only one pair of the Hemp Acoustics FR8c drivers. Two of which are more expensive than the Fostex F200 and all four of which are quite a bit more difficult to treat, for the first time ever. I would not change any of the treatments, on any of these drivers, in treating another set.
Really John, I do have the necessary level of experience and a working model of what these various patterns and gloss coatings will do. The patterns don't just go somewhere, I actually have a mathematically derived model, written in Auto Cad Lisp, that provides me with the conic sections for all of the cones, with patterns already applied. The new middle pattern sets, from Soongsc's work, have been tested on 14 different drivers and while I don't have that ring set as part of the Lisp model, I do have an effective prediction technique for it's placement. I will not speculate as to that ring set's effectiveness, vis a vis the CSD plots provided, but my subsequent application of the middle pattern to a set of the Jordan drivers he developed it on, also provided the same benefit on other drivers.
I realize it is near to impossible for you to credit this technique, and my experience with it, as any sort of substantially correct procedure. I don't blame you, but this is not the only controversial invention I have come up with. All of them share one facet, they don't fit within the normal bounds of accepted practices, provided by logical extensions from known and substantiated investigations.
I have provided some information on another of these and you may or may not have heard rumors of a third. I can assure you there are more of them, all of them work, and where it is important, are safer to use than other constructions that perform the same function. They also out perform those other much more logically arrived at constructions.
As for the Fostex F200 A, I stand by my application and the instructions I have provided. One pair of drivers was all I needed to optimize that driver, to the maximum level that EnABL can provide.
And here is the real reason for my entire presentation over all of these pages of wrangling. I want to see the rest of you come up with your own practices. Practices that substantially outperform EnABL. Soongsc has already done so. I am providing EnABL to all of you for free, to encourage you to look closely at the time domain portion of loudspeakers. It's investigation will provide you with some fabulously musical returns.
John you have already poked at this, with the tests that accompanied the EnABL blink CSD. I applauded those tests then. I still do so and I sincerely hope all of you will move on, figure out what the patterned mass, on a vibrating surface, can be optimized into providing and be responsible for a significant performance improvement. On your own terms, with the level of proof of principle and practices that you need.
Bud
Good points and from what I have to date presented, for full range drivers, quite pertinent. For me, the Fostex F200 was a simple application. It is a simple cone, the back side damping is not new, the under dome damping is a 'Well, they finally did one right" rather than a surprise, the cone face damping/fill is not different in nature from others I have encountered, with Morel and Vifa among them.
I did approach it with the same respect I have for every other driver I treat, but nothing I did was in the least bit unusual, to me. I have deliberately not dealt with this sort of full treatment before. Just because the Gloss coating on the back side can be overdone. You do have to deliberately not follow instructions to get it wrong enough to be a problem, but you can screw it up.
So, only one pair of the Fostex drivers. Also only one pair of the Lowther DX 4 drivers, one pair of the Lowther PM6A drivers, one pair of the Lowther A45 drivers and only one pair of the Hemp Acoustics FR8c drivers. Two of which are more expensive than the Fostex F200 and all four of which are quite a bit more difficult to treat, for the first time ever. I would not change any of the treatments, on any of these drivers, in treating another set.
Really John, I do have the necessary level of experience and a working model of what these various patterns and gloss coatings will do. The patterns don't just go somewhere, I actually have a mathematically derived model, written in Auto Cad Lisp, that provides me with the conic sections for all of the cones, with patterns already applied. The new middle pattern sets, from Soongsc's work, have been tested on 14 different drivers and while I don't have that ring set as part of the Lisp model, I do have an effective prediction technique for it's placement. I will not speculate as to that ring set's effectiveness, vis a vis the CSD plots provided, but my subsequent application of the middle pattern to a set of the Jordan drivers he developed it on, also provided the same benefit on other drivers.
I realize it is near to impossible for you to credit this technique, and my experience with it, as any sort of substantially correct procedure. I don't blame you, but this is not the only controversial invention I have come up with. All of them share one facet, they don't fit within the normal bounds of accepted practices, provided by logical extensions from known and substantiated investigations.
I have provided some information on another of these and you may or may not have heard rumors of a third. I can assure you there are more of them, all of them work, and where it is important, are safer to use than other constructions that perform the same function. They also out perform those other much more logically arrived at constructions.
As for the Fostex F200 A, I stand by my application and the instructions I have provided. One pair of drivers was all I needed to optimize that driver, to the maximum level that EnABL can provide.
And here is the real reason for my entire presentation over all of these pages of wrangling. I want to see the rest of you come up with your own practices. Practices that substantially outperform EnABL. Soongsc has already done so. I am providing EnABL to all of you for free, to encourage you to look closely at the time domain portion of loudspeakers. It's investigation will provide you with some fabulously musical returns.
John you have already poked at this, with the tests that accompanied the EnABL blink CSD. I applauded those tests then. I still do so and I sincerely hope all of you will move on, figure out what the patterned mass, on a vibrating surface, can be optimized into providing and be responsible for a significant performance improvement. On your own terms, with the level of proof of principle and practices that you need.
Bud
Dave,
Maybe this explains a lot. No, I don't hear any of the "believers" accepting any one description of what's happening. I hear a surprising number of people saying they hear a significant improvement and lots of guessing about what might be at work, followed by lots of 
theoretical naysayers and a few good tests by John K.What's revealing is that maybe it's simply the ability to trash others on this thread that motivates some...
It's easy to tear apart a theory. It's another thing entirely to propose something creative and new and stand up to the attacks. Good on ya, Bud, whether you're right or wrong.
Carl (just trying to catch up to John K's smilies)
Hi Bud,
You wrote >>
look closely at the time domain portion of loudspeakers <<
If only there had been as many page filling discussions about air-side effects in 'music time' prior to composite wave launch as there have been re-stating technicalities about what was expected could not be and has been proved cannot be happening, in order that fresh 'music time' examinations can be made.
However, maybe a problem exists here now, in that the likelyhood of anyone publically making any suggestions for open perusal and disemmination will be less likely due to the responses which have already been witnessed, whether the attitudes seen in responses were intended or not.
Theory should be for discussing and sharing, and for explanation rather than for use as a personal weapon in an 'I'm right - you're wrong' scenario.
'Make so much noise that the truth will be buried'?
Can't happen in diyAudio - too open:
And a permanent record too!
The long term outcome cannot be anything less than those who make incorrect statements eventually being shown wrong.
Anyone any closer to evaluating port EnABLE with a mid-bass waveform; which will remove the moving-mass modification element from findings ?
Cheers ....... Graham.
You wrote >>
look closely at the time domain portion of loudspeakers <<
If only there had been as many page filling discussions about air-side effects in 'music time' prior to composite wave launch as there have been re-stating technicalities about what was expected could not be and has been proved cannot be happening, in order that fresh 'music time' examinations can be made.
However, maybe a problem exists here now, in that the likelyhood of anyone publically making any suggestions for open perusal and disemmination will be less likely due to the responses which have already been witnessed, whether the attitudes seen in responses were intended or not.
Theory should be for discussing and sharing, and for explanation rather than for use as a personal weapon in an 'I'm right - you're wrong' scenario.
'Make so much noise that the truth will be buried'?
Can't happen in diyAudio - too open:
And a permanent record too!
The long term outcome cannot be anything less than those who make incorrect statements eventually being shown wrong.
Anyone any closer to evaluating port EnABLE with a mid-bass waveform; which will remove the moving-mass modification element from findings ?
Cheers ....... Graham.
BudP said:
Ok, if you say so. But I still ain't going to take my Ferrari to a Miata expert for service, any more that I would go to a brain surgeon for heart surgery. Your experience with drivers that require a simple treatment could possibly prepare you to develop an understanding that a driver like the F200A needs 3 front cone rings, a rear ring, multiple front and rear gloss coats and further treatment to the dome, plus whatever else I missed, and may qualify you to undertake such an investigation, but the idea that you just sat down and did it doesn't sit well with me, particularly when your expertise lead you to propose a mechanism of how enable worked (your working model?) which has now been accepted by you as incorrect.
Carlp said:
I check the other thread regularly. I haven't seen a "surprising number "unless by surprising you mean relatively few. I see that both threads dropped off the board until Bud rejuvenated them the other day. I see very few posts in the other thread reporting any listening experience at all. It is mainly about posting "how to's", mostly by Bud.