This is the best part - seeing surprise in Jay's voice.
Hehe but I think 2 drivers will always sound different. You can try to post 2 clips from the 2 pristine drivers and I will download Foobar and ABX them
So I was an external observer on this one, but following it nonetheless. A common question often raised about the Enable process is whether it is measurable.
This test seemed to clearly indicate that there is indeed an audible difference between the treated and untreated drivers. Was this audible difference also measurable? In other words, were there measurable differences that would also explain the audible differences?
Thanks.
This test seemed to clearly indicate that there is indeed an audible difference between the treated and untreated drivers. Was this audible difference also measurable? In other words, were there measurable differences that would also explain the audible differences?
Thanks.
A couple of extraneous comments:
Some of you didn't understand the question. The question was not which do you like better, A or B, the question was which is X, A or B. This is a common misconception of what an ABX is about. It is about differences, not preferences.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that the B and X tracks were recorded at different times. If so, I believe that this is in error. The B and X tracks should be the same session copied twice with one copy labeled B and the other X.
The results indicate to me that the enable process does indeed change the sound of a driver. But this is a no-brainer. Doping a paper cone will almost alway make an audible and measurable difference. What is not demonstrated is if the little dots make any difference. To prove/disprove this, a metal cone driver needs to be run through the same testing as here, one driver with dots, one without.
Bob
Some of you didn't understand the question. The question was not which do you like better, A or B, the question was which is X, A or B. This is a common misconception of what an ABX is about. It is about differences, not preferences.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that the B and X tracks were recorded at different times. If so, I believe that this is in error. The B and X tracks should be the same session copied twice with one copy labeled B and the other X.
The results indicate to me that the enable process does indeed change the sound of a driver. But this is a no-brainer. Doping a paper cone will almost alway make an audible and measurable difference. What is not demonstrated is if the little dots make any difference. To prove/disprove this, a metal cone driver needs to be run through the same testing as here, one driver with dots, one without.
Bob
I wouldn't quickly draw a conclusion tho.
There is audible difference between A and B but the cause is unclear. I believe that audible difference is measurable...
The treated drivers are more sensitive, unfortunately. So naturally they should produce more detailed sound. But the increased sensitivity is very likely NOT caused by added mass (aka eNable) but probably by loosening of spider etc (other treatment/conditioning).
They were recorded in the same session literally 1 minute apart. The reason I could not just take the same file and relabel it was that it would be easy (for some people) to use software to simply match the sound tracks like a fingerprint. By re-recording at the same setting but a new recording, very small differences, probably inaudible, but nonetheless would make the sound file unique from a software based match.
>>> Some of you didn't understand the question. The question was not which do you like better, A or B, the question was which is X, A or B. This is a common misconception of what an ABX is about. It is about differences, not preferences.
Guilty.
Regardless, since I preferred A then decided it sounded more like X that makes the difference between drivers, in my opinion, small.
Listening to the Norah Jones track (in this order):
A - Come away with me and I will write (cymbal) you a song...
B - Come away with me and I will write (s-cymbal) you a s-song...
Perhaps when I listen to X my ears have adjusted to the sibilance.
Next time I will listen using a few different earbuds.
Thanks XRK!
Guilty.
Regardless, since I preferred A then decided it sounded more like X that makes the difference between drivers, in my opinion, small.
Listening to the Norah Jones track (in this order):
A - Come away with me and I will write (cymbal) you a song...
B - Come away with me and I will write (s-cymbal) you a s-song...
Perhaps when I listen to X my ears have adjusted to the sibilance.
Next time I will listen using a few different earbuds.
Thanks XRK!
I would add that to identify whether the little dots make any difference one would also have to control for the effects of the "putty in the basket" as well, for it's quite possible that this could be a source of the audible differences as well.
Driver design is a compromise. You can improve one thing but other things degrade...
A soft/light cone such as paper tends to flex around its junction with the surround. This creates breakup/distortion. We can increase the damping/stiffness by adding mass especially at said region. The sensitivity and detail will be lost but now the distortion is reduced (and Fs gets lower). This treatment difference on the cone is a standard when a driver is intended for midrange or midbass/wideband.
I have been expecting the EnAble to be less sensitive but less fatiguing, a fair trade-off...
But it turns out that Enable is more sensitive (hence more detailed) and more fatiguing. The opposite of what I expected.
I know how to treat a driver to increase its sensitivity, at the cost of increased non-linear distortion. I think it's what happen with the treated driver in our test (A).
Bob hit the nail on the head. This is not a preference test, just a test to see if we can hear the differences. On the evidence, it appears that we can. Measurable differences in the frequency response are audible. Is the reverse true? If the dots, just by themselves, produce no change in the frequency response, can they still make an audible difference?
The reference is not fatiguing through the cheap speaker. I believe that the higher sensitivity triggers higher level of distortion during the recording.
Less coloured, yes.
These tests are great for comparing different drivers because you can hear how each one is balanced and pick which you prefer.
But it’s more difficult to tell the difference between a pristine driver vs a tweaked one. Essentially, these tweaks are making a good driver better by reducing some of its flaws.
When I was doing consulting several years ago (unrelated to audio) I found that customers were willing to pay a lot of money to take a solution that already offered 90 percent of what they needed and bring it closer to 95 percent.
If you can hear the differences these tweaks make on this driver then buy it and enjoy.
But it’s more difficult to tell the difference between a pristine driver vs a tweaked one. Essentially, these tweaks are making a good driver better by reducing some of its flaws.
When I was doing consulting several years ago (unrelated to audio) I found that customers were willing to pay a lot of money to take a solution that already offered 90 percent of what they needed and bring it closer to 95 percent.
If you can hear the differences these tweaks make on this driver then buy it and enjoy.
So what you are saying is that some of our friends are more interested in being right that actually listening to the test.
Bob
Well, maybe. Traditional measurements (usually a swept sine wave) tell us how the driver responds to that test. In the case of a swept sine wave, you'll be able to get distortion, as well as frequency response.
However, that's not the end of the story when it comes to music signals. What the proponents of Downward Dynamic Range argue is that there's musical information at lower levels than the loudest bits, and that it's important that the driver reproduces this lower-level detail correctly. I think they're right. Inter-modulation distortion isn't represented at all by the usual measurements, but will add some low-level hash. That's not the only thing going on, either.
What we need to do now is figure out how to measure these effects. I think one way to do it would be to play, and record, some pink noise. Then play back the same signal, with a low-level swept sine added. Subtract the two, and you have an idea of what the driver does at low levels, with larger signals present.
Chris
There is strong evidence that distortion, unless it is gross, is simply not audible. There are many reasons for this. Masking is big one. See attached figure (from Toole's "Sound Reproduction"). Masking works upwards, so that a bass frequency can mask higher frequency sounds.
But let's put that aside for a while and assume that there is gross intermodulation distortion going on in our full range driver. So much that it is clearly audible. IMD can be caused by the motor, spider, surround and other elements of the driver, but the dots surely cannot affect anything other than the cone. And if we are talking about the cone, then we are talking about IMD introduced by the doppler effect where the cone is producing say 100 Hz and 3000 Hz simultaneously (quite likely in a full range driver, less of a problem in multi-way systems).
In such a situation, the 3000 Hz tone will be modulated by the 100 Hz tone. The modulation happens because the 100 Hz tone is making the cone move at a certain velocity and the 3000 Hz is riding on top of the 100 Hz tone. How then can the dots affect this situation? The distortion arises from the low tone and the high tone and their relative speed at which the cone is moving. I just don't see how the dots can affect this situation.
There is other mysterious story that is quoted by the DDR proponents about low-level sounds being reproduced better in the presence of high-level sounds. Again, masking plays a significant role here. A -40db 3 kHz signal will be completely masked by the 0 db 2 kHz signal. Doesn't matter if the loudspeaker faithfully reproduces it or not. You won't hear it. And again, it is difficult to see how the dots can have any effect on the outcome.
But putting all the theory aside, one can measure the IMD in drivers. It should be pretty easy to do. My bet is that it will not show any difference. And the ultimate test is what X was trying to do here. We can only hope that he can get his hands on two identical drivers, one with and one without the dots.
But let's put that aside for a while and assume that there is gross intermodulation distortion going on in our full range driver. So much that it is clearly audible. IMD can be caused by the motor, spider, surround and other elements of the driver, but the dots surely cannot affect anything other than the cone. And if we are talking about the cone, then we are talking about IMD introduced by the doppler effect where the cone is producing say 100 Hz and 3000 Hz simultaneously (quite likely in a full range driver, less of a problem in multi-way systems).
In such a situation, the 3000 Hz tone will be modulated by the 100 Hz tone. The modulation happens because the 100 Hz tone is making the cone move at a certain velocity and the 3000 Hz is riding on top of the 100 Hz tone. How then can the dots affect this situation? The distortion arises from the low tone and the high tone and their relative speed at which the cone is moving. I just don't see how the dots can affect this situation.
There is other mysterious story that is quoted by the DDR proponents about low-level sounds being reproduced better in the presence of high-level sounds. Again, masking plays a significant role here. A -40db 3 kHz signal will be completely masked by the 0 db 2 kHz signal. Doesn't matter if the loudspeaker faithfully reproduces it or not. You won't hear it. And again, it is difficult to see how the dots can have any effect on the outcome.
But putting all the theory aside, one can measure the IMD in drivers. It should be pretty easy to do. My bet is that it will not show any difference. And the ultimate test is what X was trying to do here. We can only hope that he can get his hands on two identical drivers, one with and one without the dots.
Attachments
In this test the xo was 600Hz. Although 1st order - so still some movement at 100Hz - the bass is attenuated quite a bit.
Distortion is person dependent. Have you taken the Klippel distortion test? Most people can't hear less than -21dB distortion. I can hear it to -45dB. So it bugs me more than it does some others.
Distortion is person dependent. Have you taken the Klippel distortion test? Most people can't hear less than -21dB distortion. I can hear it to -45dB. So it bugs me more than it does some others.
I have. I could get to -40 db. That's 1% distortion. As long as you can stay away from that amount of distortion, you are good. If you like to listen loud, just buy drivers with high quality motors and get enough area. As stated earlier, distortion is simply not a factor, or at least shouldn't be.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.