Please describe "conventional distortion measures". Which ones were in discussion in the threads? Which were suggested as meaningful? I'll be interested in your recounting of that.
You misinterpret what he said. He does not dismiss all distortion measurements, it's the correlation with perception that is the issue. I and others have not tried to make that correlation, rather we promote its use to assess changes. You were one of those so concerned with changes that might be 20db down or more. That does not show easily in standard FR measurements, but distortion measurements, a broad set, can easily show some of the change at that level. If you dismiss that, you dismiss all objective methods for this level of change. Many here try to grasp at just that, yours is not an exception.
You also are attempting to refute by implication, rather disingenuously I would say: "i am reaping the benefits of EnABL", as if I or any other skeptic of the mechanism (note the distinction) claimed that treated drivers were not altered. I've lost track of how many times I've had to say that from day one of my posts, I said that the driver FR would change.
All I can say to this is, it's immaterial to the discussion and so is your point of benefiting. It is meaningless, FR change is a given. Remember that everyone readily accepted the claim of no FR change to a treated driver in the beginning I don't think you were an exception to that. No one was, everyone was on the band-wagon.
Yours is an attempt to dismiss a valid means to assess a driver treatment, any kind. It's misguided and wrong. You claim to want to "decipher what is happening", but are quick to dismiss relevant test methods.
Dave
You misinterpret what he said. He does not dismiss all distortion measurements, it's the correlation with perception that is the issue. I and others have not tried to make that correlation, rather we promote its use to assess changes. You were one of those so concerned with changes that might be 20db down or more. That does not show easily in standard FR measurements, but distortion measurements, a broad set, can easily show some of the change at that level. If you dismiss that, you dismiss all objective methods for this level of change. Many here try to grasp at just that, yours is not an exception.
You also are attempting to refute by implication, rather disingenuously I would say: "i am reaping the benefits of EnABL", as if I or any other skeptic of the mechanism (note the distinction) claimed that treated drivers were not altered. I've lost track of how many times I've had to say that from day one of my posts, I said that the driver FR would change.
All I can say to this is, it's immaterial to the discussion and so is your point of benefiting. It is meaningless, FR change is a given. Remember that everyone readily accepted the claim of no FR change to a treated driver in the beginning I don't think you were an exception to that. No one was, everyone was on the band-wagon.
Yours is an attempt to dismiss a valid means to assess a driver treatment, any kind. It's misguided and wrong. You claim to want to "decipher what is happening", but are quick to dismiss relevant test methods.
Dave
So show us what you can come up with the way you like to work rather attack what others are doing?😀 Obviously with your experience you should have the ability to define what specifications will conclude what you thyink is good music reproduction, and that you have designed speakers that meet those requirements.dlr said:
John K has designed his system, I am designing mine, Bud is presenting his methods. So what exactly do you think should be evidence if better reproduction?
Don't really know what you are trying to do other than just find fault without any contribution. But I'm sure the majority of the people that hear a difference using the EnABL process is interested in finding a technical way to predict what they can expect by measurements etc. So that they know how to optimize the application. For people that cannot even hear the difference, of course all this does not make any sense. I agree it's not the best process in the world, but it still has some benefits under certain conditions, and this is what lots of people are trying to figure out.dlr said:
soongsc said:
So show us what you can come up with the way you like to work rather attack what others are doing?😀 Obviously with your experience you should have the ability to define what specifications will conclude what you thyink is good music reproduction, and that you have designed speakers that meet those requirements.
Excuse me, I am not attacking what others are doing. Proponents have been very consistent in finding fault with every method of objective measurements. Your memory seems to very short on that. What you, I or anyone thinks is "good music reproduction" doesn't mean squat in an objective thread, take that to the other thread.
soongsc said:
I don't think there's much interest at all in actually finding out any way to predict anything. The only way to do that is with measurements. In one way or another, attempts have been made to discredit them all. All that matters is what is claimed to be heard and what is preferred, not what is predictable nor what is accurate. That was the reason I posted that last line from Geddes, because this is precisely how most here approach it:
"Anyone who says "its what you like that matters", does not have accuracy as the goal, it is preference, and distortion is usually prefered." That is it here in a nutshell.
If ability to predict and accuracy of response were desired, there wouldn't be such resistance to the one and only way to get there, measurements and correlation of them with perception. That's what serious companies do. That's what Geddes and others do to the nth degree. There may not be consensus as to the way to do that (dipoles, waveguides, electostats, etc.), but the goal is the same and the means to that goal is generally the same. Most in this thread have been trying to find a way to make measurements show what they hear, rather than simply show reality and act on that. More than that, attempts to discredit measurements pervades the threads, especially when it does not support some hypothesis or what is claimed to be heard. When it is contradictory, the classic response is "it doesn't show what I hear". Well, it shows reality, what one hears is colored by their perception. Accurate prediction doesn't enter it at all because few know what the reality of their drivers is to start. It's little more than taking a colored driver and changing the coloration.
Dave
Dave,
I'm not gonna argue over your proposition (as I understand it) that if EnABL is so great then people should be willing to use it on any system without any testing. Whatever. I don't operate that way and I don't think most people do either. Is that really how you operate?
As for my confidence, again, please read my post. I said, essentially, I have no position one way or the other (neither support nor oppose). My point was, confidence in EnABL isn't relevant to me. I most certainly didn't make your point for you. Please, if you're gonna pick nits over my posts, at least get what I say right. (And please don't pretend to know what I'm saying. You only sound silly doing so.)
As for your post 523, I've re-read it a few times and I stand by my question. What's a "big buck" system, and what is your point? If it's simply to badger someone to try EnABL on a system that they feel a risk over, fine, my Ohm's would qualify (all three drivers could be EnABL'ed). If your point is that EnABL is irrelevant on multi-way systems, maybe you're right. Neither you nor I can say without trying it and measuring (or A/B blind testing). Whatever the case, I was simply asking for clarity.
Carl
Carlp said:
Keep in mind that many of the claims that have been made of EnABL are presented as absolutes with not a lot of physical evidence.
Claims of soundwaves passing through walls differently due to EnABL, EnABL'd drivers having reduced "noise" and improved transient response, and improved clarity and resolution.
EnABL (as I see it) is being presented as a universal technological advancement, and one that defies conventional scientific measurements.
The way I see EnABL being presented, is that it's positive benefits are a given.
Those are pretty bold claims. The saying goes "Extraordinary claims must be backed up by extraordinary proof".
I still don't know why JohnK and dlr get harped on for their conclusions drawn on the data to date. Neither has claimed that the added mass of EnABL would not have any effect on how the driver sounds. Ever.
I see them as more impartial than most proponents of EnABL.
Based on the scale of claims of EnABL, something significant must be measureable by the current scientific methods for speaker measuring.
Just my two cents...
Cheers
dlr said:
Over & over again it has been suggested that one practise on a bunch of cheap drivers until you are comfortable with your technique before proceeding to the good drivers. It is just a side effect that this will give you a "test"
dave
Daygloworange said:
G'day Daygloworange,
Impartial = neutral, fair, unbiased, unprejudiced.
You're joking...right?
Cheers,
Alex
I see what others are doing, I've seen nothing from you saying what is a better way. Look forward to seeing that.dlr said:
Okay Guys,
I think we are getting a little too wound up here.
Daygloworange is pointing to something very important. EnABL has been presented as providing some very strong positive benefits for all loudspeakers. On the face of it, this is an idiotic and presumptuous set of claims. It matters not one whit whether the claims are overstated, true as given, or understated, with respect to what is heard before and after a treatment.
Don't get me wrong here, the music value uncovered by these treatments is a valid one and if you are in a position to experience it, from a pair of EnABL'd full range drivers, or a multiway system, you are very fortunate. Your experience is real and every bit as satisfying as you think it is. None of the skeptics are saying it isn't. What they are saying is, for objective presentation of a repeatable, engineering based alteration in performance, those positive results you experience are not of value.
From their point of view, this is not about the music... yet. The tests coming up and the results from them are not going to be about "proving" that what you hear is actually happening. It is happening to you, trust me on this. You do not need objective testing to prove it is actually happening, so please relax.
The test results are going to be a beginning to an exploration of what is measurable, how repeatable those measurements are, whether they can also be found in a neutral and unbiased audition, and next to last, what are the repeatable and consistent limits of the application across many drivers.
Last comes the question about applicability, in a manufacturing environment. If all of these various investigations produce positive results, EnABL will be the ground breaking sort of change the subjective respondents to hearing a treated set of drivers, think it is.
At the moment it is not anything more than an art form. Yes it does all that is claimed, but it is not usable by those engineers who will end up stuck with figuring out how to use it.
I have repeatedly asked Dave and both John's to stick around, precisely for that point of view. It is not any more pleasant for me to sit through the process, than it is for you. But it is an absolutely necessary process. And if we hope to be able to buy a manufactured product, that works at the level of an EnABL'd full range driver, it must happen here first, as a very detailed questioning of the measured performance and unbiased auditions coming up.
As before, I fully support the process.
Now about this full range system madness, I still think it is a criminal idea. A treated full range three or four way system is so much better, in all of the subjective areas presented to date, for single full range drivers, that it will just overpower any sort of unbiased auditions. At least with the full range drivers the auditions will have some sort hope of objectivity.. With a multi way system, this just will not be available. So one whole leg of what these tests must stand on will have to be discarded.
Don't do it. If there are some, with an adequate amount of money to allow shipping full systems around the country, and you simply must have this art form applied to your multiway system, PM me, we will discuss it.
For the skeptics, just hang on, you will not be disappointed.
Bud
I think we are getting a little too wound up here.
Daygloworange is pointing to something very important. EnABL has been presented as providing some very strong positive benefits for all loudspeakers. On the face of it, this is an idiotic and presumptuous set of claims. It matters not one whit whether the claims are overstated, true as given, or understated, with respect to what is heard before and after a treatment.
Don't get me wrong here, the music value uncovered by these treatments is a valid one and if you are in a position to experience it, from a pair of EnABL'd full range drivers, or a multiway system, you are very fortunate. Your experience is real and every bit as satisfying as you think it is. None of the skeptics are saying it isn't. What they are saying is, for objective presentation of a repeatable, engineering based alteration in performance, those positive results you experience are not of value.
From their point of view, this is not about the music... yet. The tests coming up and the results from them are not going to be about "proving" that what you hear is actually happening. It is happening to you, trust me on this. You do not need objective testing to prove it is actually happening, so please relax.
The test results are going to be a beginning to an exploration of what is measurable, how repeatable those measurements are, whether they can also be found in a neutral and unbiased audition, and next to last, what are the repeatable and consistent limits of the application across many drivers.
Last comes the question about applicability, in a manufacturing environment. If all of these various investigations produce positive results, EnABL will be the ground breaking sort of change the subjective respondents to hearing a treated set of drivers, think it is.
At the moment it is not anything more than an art form. Yes it does all that is claimed, but it is not usable by those engineers who will end up stuck with figuring out how to use it.
I have repeatedly asked Dave and both John's to stick around, precisely for that point of view. It is not any more pleasant for me to sit through the process, than it is for you. But it is an absolutely necessary process. And if we hope to be able to buy a manufactured product, that works at the level of an EnABL'd full range driver, it must happen here first, as a very detailed questioning of the measured performance and unbiased auditions coming up.
As before, I fully support the process.
Now about this full range system madness, I still think it is a criminal idea. A treated full range three or four way system is so much better, in all of the subjective areas presented to date, for single full range drivers, that it will just overpower any sort of unbiased auditions. At least with the full range drivers the auditions will have some sort hope of objectivity.. With a multi way system, this just will not be available. So one whole leg of what these tests must stand on will have to be discarded.
Don't do it. If there are some, with an adequate amount of money to allow shipping full systems around the country, and you simply must have this art form applied to your multiway system, PM me, we will discuss it.
For the skeptics, just hang on, you will not be disappointed.
Bud
Carlp said:
I probably over-react at times given the tone of some posts and the frequent attempts to dismiss objective approaches. I read posts literally and try to take posts on the words used. That is a problem on the web. You do ask here for me not to pretend to know what you're saying. I try to do that. I go by the words in the post. Sometimes they are contradictory and I saw yours that way in the wording used.
I would not touch my main drivers, despite the claims of all drivers benefiting. I reject that outright. If someone were to modify the type I use, document the changes and demonstrate improvement, I might actually consider it. Until then, I will not even go the route of treating cheap drivers in order to convince me to treat my expensive ones, since I know through experience that treatment of and response change to one driver cannot be translated into the same occurring on another one, despite the claims. That is absurd. There is no objective data whatsoever to support that, there is nothing but anecdotes and my direct experience of treating drivers supports that position.
As far as I know, there is no one in particular to badger. I'm aware of no one with a multi-way considering anything to their main (as in only) system and to me that is very telling. I originally made a simple query, is there anyone in the thread with a multi-way actually planning to entirely treat 9as in all drivers) their system? More importantly, able and willing to document the change. I am quite serious on that as an inquiry, there's no one I knew of to badger. Daygloworange wrote a good summary that is in line with my position. That is part of what prompted my query.
Again, it doesn't matter what I think is big bucks. I have what I consider big bucks as far as the drivers used and I rotate drivers from time to time. I have shelves of raw drivers to play with. There are some more expensive, some less. But my primary setup is at any given time a significant chunk of change to me. That's my metric, does the person investing their money think of it as big bucks. That's it, it's not for me to decide. But if someone cares to do this with a less expensive multi-way, fine as well. So far neither have been used.
Dave
Thread cleaned up.
If this topic can't be discussed civilly and without personal quips and comebacks then its been mentioned that the mods will consider closing it for a short period to allow things to calm down. I've lost track of how many reported posts we've had concerning this thread. Come on guys, this is very unlike the loudspeaker forum.
Alex from Oz said:
No, I'm not joking Alex. How unfair have they been? Despite being skeptical, I see both JohnK and dlr willing to discuss and elaborate on their positions a great deal.
You have to remember that as individuals, we accumulate knowledge, and based on that knowledge, we use that as a tool to garner more knowledge, with the benefit of insight, hindsight and predictability.
If we throw something in the air, based on knowledge gained as early as childhood, we know that it will come back down to the ground. It's gravity. We know the name of ther mechanics involved, but not necesarilly what the mechanisms at play are.
Based on that knowledge, we instinctively know that in order to get a ball to someone elses glove, we have to compensate for gravity by throwing the ball at a certain height higher than the target glove based on the velocity that we are going to throw it at.
This is the human mind at work in a physical world. The illustration I just give shows how we extrapolate, and form conclusions based on knowledge and empirical experimentation.
JohnK and dlr obviously have many years of experience with testing speaker drivers. Based on years of experience, they come to understand a lot of the mechanics of how drivers make sound, and how physics allow them to make sound well, and how physics prevents them from sounding well.
Based on that experience, they would naturally be skeptical of one thing or another. It would be uncharacteristic of any human to not have any area in which to be skeptical.
Quite frankly, there is nothing inherently wrong with being skeptical. The problem would be if they were blindly dogmatic, and unwilling to accept there might be a basis for something without further investigation. That would be arrogance. I don't see that either.
My background is that I am a classically trained musician (25 years), I play multiple instruments quite well, have over 20 years experience as a recording engineer, own my own 24 bit digital recording studio, and over the last number of years, have built a number of high end custom speakers for established speaker designers.
My hobbies and interests, as well as a hunger for knowledge has also led me to read much about Formula One technology, aviation, high performance boat technology, automobile techology etc...
I also understand very well, how instruments make sound. I also understand very well how to modify the way they sound. I own over a dozen intruments. Guitars, amplifiers, violins and drums, and percussion instruments. I have understood for years how to tune drums, and how various drum shells sound, due to thickness, species of wood, mounting hardware, drumhead types, and tuning methods. I also have many years practical experience with cymbals, and how to modify decay and resonances of both cymbals and drums with applying various damping materials to them.
I also understand waveforms of complex acoustics events, having thousands of hours invested in digital sampling since the late 80's. I have worked with visual editing of complex (digitally sampled) waveforms for years.
All these areas have much science applied to understanding complex physics, and how the apply to technological advancements. History and hindsight shows the progression of technologies, and the failure of progression as well.
I look at EnABL based on my experiences, you look at it based on yours. You formulate opinions, and reach conclusions based on your unique disposition, and I do based on mine.
I don't see where the problem is, in EnABL being challenged. I would consider it more a problem if people just merely adopted it based on verbal evidence alone.
dlr pointing out that no one has gone ahead and modified an entire (expensive) multi-way speaker with EnABL is pointing out reality. No one is willing to do it, based on the evidence (anecdotal or physical) to date.
It's a valid, and impartial observation. No?
You could accuse me of being biased. I have challenged many of the claims of EnABL myself. It didn't prevent me from aiding in arranging for additional scientific testing.
I've stated that I don't believe that EnABL will do anything on baffles and ports, but am willing (when time permits) to test this as well.
If tests come back showing that there is something to be measured, then I am willing and able to change my thinking in order to try and understand what possible explanation there could be.
So technically, how does my bias hurt EnABL?
What personal gain do any of the skeptics have in EnABL being disproven?
Cheers
proof is in the pudding
You need objective testing to prove that the stated result applies to anyone else besides the observer. Hence this thread...
"The full proverb is indeed the proof of the pudding is in the eating and proof has the sense of “test” (as it also has, or used to have, in phrases such as proving-ground and printer’s proof). The proverb literally says that you won’t know whether food has been cooked properly until you try it. Or, putting it figuratively, don’t assume that something is in order or believe what you are told, but judge the matter by testing it; it’s much the same philosophy as in seeing is believing and actions speak louder than words."
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pro1.htm
John L.
sreten said:
Yes you do, that is the point of this thread./sreten.
You need objective testing to prove that the stated result applies to anyone else besides the observer. Hence this thread...
"The full proverb is indeed the proof of the pudding is in the eating and proof has the sense of “test” (as it also has, or used to have, in phrases such as proving-ground and printer’s proof). The proverb literally says that you won’t know whether food has been cooked properly until you try it. Or, putting it figuratively, don’t assume that something is in order or believe what you are told, but judge the matter by testing it; it’s much the same philosophy as in seeing is believing and actions speak louder than words."
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pro1.htm
John L.
I've just given a couple of students a warmup on what to expect when they get into the audio world.😀 Very different from other technology proffessions. (Assuming there are quite a few proffessionals here)ShinOBIWAN said:
Thread cleaned up.
If this topic can't be discussed civilly and without personal quips and comebacks then its been mentioned that the mods will consider closing it for a short period to allow things to calm down. I've lost track of how many reported posts we've had concerning this thread. Come on guys, this is very unlike the loudspeaker forum.
DGO,
Hmmmm. I don't read the proponents that way but if I put my head on that way, I suppose I can see how opponents might get worked up the way they seem to. Helps to walk in another's shoes and you've helped me do that a little. I still get frustrated by the tone of some, but I can see how it might happen.
As for John K and dlr, I don't hear them being taken to task for their conclusions except when they take those beyond the testing results at hand to make broader statements than the evidence supports (IMO). And maybe a little for their tone. But again, that may be simple misunderstanding. I do think some on this thread sometimes jump to conclusions about what is said without really hearing or understanding. I've done it myself.
We'd all do well to try to take all this a little less personally, something you seem to do well.
Carl
dlr,
I'm not sure we're very far off, you and I. I wouldn't touch my main drivers either - at least not without testing on cheap drivers first. Even then I'd approach more valuable drivers with trepidation. But I might well do it if I like what I hear on the cheaper ones. I do believe that different drivers would react differently (as I think I've heard proponents say), hence my cautious approach.
That said, if I'd done as many drivers as Bud seems to have done, successfully if you believe him, maybe I'd feel differently. But to me that's the point. Few people are willing to risk perfectly good equipment on a theory. EnABL may still be a "theory" for most of us (not the right word, perhaps) but I've had high hopes this thread would lead to the testing necessary to flesh that out a bit. Good on John K for doing some very sound testing so far. Good on DGO for offering to do more testing.
But I'm still waiting for that double blind test using folks from this thread.
I wanna be there just to watch (and maybe 
).Carl
dlr,
Dave, would you please comment on setting up Liberty Audio Suite to obtain impulse measurements at low and very low levels? I have not done this and wondered if you had ever attempted it.
Bud
Dave, would you please comment on setting up Liberty Audio Suite to obtain impulse measurements at low and very low levels? I have not done this and wondered if you had ever attempted it.
Bud
BudP said:
I assume that you're speaking of the drive signal. You can take measurements at any signal level, you simply have to adjust the two input channels for the signal level used to optimize the range, i.e. get maximum sensitivity without overload. LAUD has a number of ways to do it in the Acquire/Adjust menu options. The only useful one I've found is the one that does an auto adjust of both channels independently.
It's usually sufficient to set the drive level you plan to use most frequently for a given distance, then adjust and save it as a configuration file. You can then re-load it as needed or set it to auto-load for dedicated shortcuts. The LAUD documentation will describe how to do all of this. Small changes in the volume setting don't show much change in the measurements after this setup is done. It'll beep if an input is over-driven.
Another reason to use a configuration file is that if you don't, you won't have the mic calibration file loaded automatically and you have to manually load the mic cal file every time you start LAUD.
Keep in mind that if you use low to very low signal levels, you could easily have poor signal/noise ratio, especially in the mid to lower frequencies if you're not in a quiet environment. All of my measurements use the option for multiple measurements at a modest level and averaging (eight) to improve the SNR. I've run tests of that against high power levels that show little variation, but my basement is a very quiet environment. Go too low, however, and you'll see the low end start to wander due to poor SNR.
The is for FR only. Distortion measurements likely require more attention to detail.
Dave