That's why we have two of each. Let's see if you can tell the difference between the same driver first to establish that. Not the same as what you ask but that wasn't practical or possible given the long lead time for an enabled driver (200hrs of bench break in plus several more weeks to make). I think Fostex line is pretty consistent.
Well, that leaves me out. If looking for measurable differences why not just post your measurements and leave out all these unknown chains? Has Dave ever claimed enabl makes a speaker sound like good headphones? Isn't one of the main claims of enabl improved imaging? It's been awhile since I've heard really good headphones but imaging was not their strong suit. Maybe things have changed. If it takes an enabled driver to produce these effects then to me it would logically have to take another enabled driver to hear them in a recording. FWIW I have some enabled drivers and I have not heard the claimed effects however my chain is weak. When I upgrade the rest of the system and have the evidently long time to listen to detect the difference I will then make my conclusion and even then it will be 'yes, I hear it and like it' or 'no, I don't hear it but glad you do.'
I appreciate all your efforts and have learned a lot from you. Thanks!
While the ductseal between magnet & basket does damp its primary purpose is to shape/smooth the rear exit.
dave
Somewhat of a Gordian knot is it not - trying to figure how much of what you'll hear listening to even the best recorded sound clip sample of any speaker /system combo can be attributed to components / processes that you wouldn't otherwise have in your own system.
X - perhaps my point was lost? - No doubt it'll be very interesting to see whether discernible differences can be measured between treated and non-treated drivers. What I'm saying that when listening to sound clips the extra variables added to the process by even the best equipment may be very hard for most folks to factor out. I'm not convinced it'd be as simple as "the common mode factor is removed by our brain" - or more precisely, by all listeners equally.
This is a cool test but again I don't think it'll prove anything to anyone. If a different isn't heard, well then it'll clearly be the added components masking the difference. If a difference is heard, well then it was the difference between the drivers that caused this. It is cool but not necessarily scientific from my not necessarily right definition of scientific.
I think we have a clash here as to whether a subjective difference that is immeasurable can be proven and be scientific. A blind/double blind test with enough test subjects doing enough trials in my eyes is scientific because it removes the subjective from the equation. If a difference is still found in this sort of test then that to me a scientific result that is measured with the human body as test equipment and the subjective removed.
Of course for a true study like this we also can't compare the same pair before and after treatment at the same time so we would need multiple pairs of both. And even if then a difference is heard, it is still a subjective opinion as to which sounds better and how much better.
My point isn't to discredit your experiment xrk, but to bring into light the limits of the study. If no difference is heard, it can't be expected to prove anything to everyone. And if that is enough for some to say that it is proven there is no difference, isnt that just as much confirmation bias? Im just saying the only conclusive results from this experiment is if there is a serious audible difference from this experiment. It's not that hard to prove something right, but as I think I've shown in this post, if we wanted to sufficiently disprove enabled drivers, it would be a lot harder than this and potentially impossible.
I think we have a clash here as to whether a subjective difference that is immeasurable can be proven and be scientific. A blind/double blind test with enough test subjects doing enough trials in my eyes is scientific because it removes the subjective from the equation. If a difference is still found in this sort of test then that to me a scientific result that is measured with the human body as test equipment and the subjective removed.
Of course for a true study like this we also can't compare the same pair before and after treatment at the same time so we would need multiple pairs of both. And even if then a difference is heard, it is still a subjective opinion as to which sounds better and how much better.
My point isn't to discredit your experiment xrk, but to bring into light the limits of the study. If no difference is heard, it can't be expected to prove anything to everyone. And if that is enough for some to say that it is proven there is no difference, isnt that just as much confirmation bias? Im just saying the only conclusive results from this experiment is if there is a serious audible difference from this experiment. It's not that hard to prove something right, but as I think I've shown in this post, if we wanted to sufficiently disprove enabled drivers, it would be a lot harder than this and potentially impossible.
I think you're taking his analogy to literally. I think all he's saying is if a difference is heard, then it's going to be the drivers since everything else is identical. I agree that the whole headphone chain could obscure a difference, but if a difference is heard, it's definitely a difference in the drivers
Fair enough - it certainly wouldn't be the first time I got bogged down with irrelevant minutia and missed the larger picture.
Didn't see this. This should help to reveal if there is a significant difference driver to driver. I don't think there will be or else channel imbalance would be pretty significant in a normal stereo setup
Except that the analog of the diff amp is not very sensitive. It, at a minimum, scrapes off all the lowest level information.
And as an aside, if you can't listen to stereo in stereo one of the key differentiators has been tossed out completely.
dave
And this is where I said xrk's experiment won't be able to prove enabled drivers as ineffective. Too many variables to say that if a difference isn't heard that it means the enabled drivers are indistinguishable.
X, make sure that this is not a preference test.
Don't ask: which driver do you like better?
Ask: can you tell which out of the two drivers sounds like this third driver?
Put together three clips. A, B, and X. X is your reference, A and B are the two options. You can make X either the enabled or the clean driver, doesn't matter. Just ask if the listeners can correctly match the drivers. If you have two pairs of drivers, you can do two pairs of ABX clips.
Neither camp will be convinced of the outcome, but at least it will be a fun test.
Don't ask: which driver do you like better?
Ask: can you tell which out of the two drivers sounds like this third driver?
Put together three clips. A, B, and X. X is your reference, A and B are the two options. You can make X either the enabled or the clean driver, doesn't matter. Just ask if the listeners can correctly match the drivers. If you have two pairs of drivers, you can do two pairs of ABX clips.
Neither camp will be convinced of the outcome, but at least it will be a fun test.
If the drivers sound different enough we should be able to hear it. If not, then an argument can be made that under the circumstances, either the details were lost in the mix or the drivers don't sound different enough.
It's my understanding the Scan Speak sounds better than the Vifa even tho they have similar measurements. Clearly, they are not the same driver but I do wonder sometimes how much of a difference I would hear if I listened to them in person.
I'd imagine the enabled driver will still have that charactaristic Fostex sound overall - if perhaps with the edge taken off a bit. X has already said it sounds good subjectively so it's already 'won' in a way.
It's my understanding the Scan Speak sounds better than the Vifa even tho they have similar measurements. Clearly, they are not the same driver but I do wonder sometimes how much of a difference I would hear if I listened to them in person.
I'd imagine the enabled driver will still have that charactaristic Fostex sound overall - if perhaps with the edge taken off a bit. X has already said it sounds good subjectively so it's already 'won' in a way.
Last edited:
I like the ABX which one sounds like X test - maybe 1 sound clip with 3 genres on it? Jazz/vocals/Rock. 90 seconds total and 30 seconds ea.
I did a little more listening today with the pristine driver and even with this xo not perfectly sorted out - it sounds really good. Frankly, I am quite surprised how good a first order xo can sound given that aluminum woofers are notorious for having a higher frequency breakup mode that can be problematic. I am not detecting that at all from listening to several tracks now. I am settling in on a 1.2in setback for the mid-tweet as suggested by Byrtt. It seems to give the best rising edge time alignment.
I think folks will be pleasantly surprised by how good this sounds when they listen to the test clips. The distortion is very low and the mids and highs are very clear with no sibillance.
It sounds so good I will probably build a dedicated passive speaker based on this design. It's flexible as you have the option of an OB or a sealed Dagger on top. It will use the same trapezoid baffle though to minimize diffraction effects. The wraparound wings are asymmetric to reduce diffraction even further. The crossover is super simple contrary to most first order crossovers that require a lot notch filters. The bass unit can be sealed or for those who like more bass extension can add a reflex port (although that is not the best for great time coherency).
I think folks will be pleasantly surprised by how good this sounds when they listen to the test clips. The distortion is very low and the mids and highs are very clear with no sibillance.
It sounds so good I will probably build a dedicated passive speaker based on this design. It's flexible as you have the option of an OB or a sealed Dagger on top. It will use the same trapezoid baffle though to minimize diffraction effects. The wraparound wings are asymmetric to reduce diffraction even further. The crossover is super simple contrary to most first order crossovers that require a lot notch filters. The bass unit can be sealed or for those who like more bass extension can add a reflex port (although that is not the best for great time coherency).
Last edited:
I think that's a good idea. I'm gonna throw some song/album ideas out there.
Kind of blue - miles Davis
Pawn shop - sublime
Off the wall(the song not the album, but the whole album is good haha) - Michael Jackson
Also maybe some orchestral music too? Idk I know that's pretty hard to accurately recreate.
Great work X, as usual. My humble opinion would be to lower the 600Hz crossover slightly down, say 200-250Hz. The objective is to measure/hear difference between stock and freckled fullrange. The higher you cross it, more of the woofer will be heard, harder to spot the differences.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.