I didn't realize that Planet 10's contributions were so controvercial as to close the first thread. I thought a lot of good views were gathered in this thread. And so long as the Indian Feathers or the Pineapple look alike were not 'Enabled' I didn't think it was so controversial views that were voiced. So what was the reason ?
/Erling
/Erling
Last edited:
I doubt i had anything to do with it being closed (i actually was unaware it was), i just happened to make the last post before it was. After all, isn't one "cable thread" enuff 
EnABL is certainlt a controversial topic. How could those little spots possibily make a significant difference on a loudspeaker? That was certainly my attitude when i 1st saw it. Sending off a set of drivers to get done was at the time as much a test to show that it didn't make significant differences. Expectations were that i'd be underwhelmed. The rest thou is history.
The subject of my last post in the earlier thread certainly needs discussion as i belive it opens up a hole new cans of worms, and requires a reexamining of many things in light of these results. I still need to wade thru the papaers proper, but the HiFI Critic overview is already food for thot.
For instance, the comment about the efforts required to fabricate a switchbox that didn't get in the way, may well have implications completely outside of any other problems with the validity of some blind tests that use a switch-box for comparison (ie probably most ABX tests)
dave
EnABL is certainlt a controversial topic. How could those little spots possibily make a significant difference on a loudspeaker? That was certainly my attitude when i 1st saw it. Sending off a set of drivers to get done was at the time as much a test to show that it didn't make significant differences. Expectations were that i'd be underwhelmed. The rest thou is history.
The subject of my last post in the earlier thread certainly needs discussion as i belive it opens up a hole new cans of worms, and requires a reexamining of many things in light of these results. I still need to wade thru the papaers proper, but the HiFI Critic overview is already food for thot.
For instance, the comment about the efforts required to fabricate a switchbox that didn't get in the way, may well have implications completely outside of any other problems with the validity of some blind tests that use a switch-box for comparison (ie probably most ABX tests)
dave
I don't think so. It was wery obvious that '45' from the very beginning was out on very thin ice. I think everyone was aware of that. As soon as he publishsed his first pictures this would have been clear..
We can of course talk to length over time alignment problems but as no more evidence was put forward, I can't see no reason why a more rigor treatment shouldn't have been put forward to '45' earlier, then.
Now a lot of wievs have got lost just by the moderator's decision. Is this what you want ?
/Erling
We can of course talk to length over time alignment problems but as no more evidence was put forward, I can't see no reason why a more rigor treatment shouldn't have been put forward to '45' earlier, then.
Now a lot of wievs have got lost just by the moderator's decision. Is this what you want ?
/Erling
Hi Planet10,
The mention of EnABL and the ensuing inevitable turmoil may have had to do with the demise of the previous thread. Although interesting, it was rather off-topic. Perhaps we could start a new EnABL thread to segregate such discussions, however unfortunately such discussions are likely fated to be less than cordial.
The mention of EnABL and the ensuing inevitable turmoil may have had to do with the demise of the previous thread. Although interesting, it was rather off-topic. Perhaps we could start a new EnABL thread to segregate such discussions, however unfortunately such discussions are likely fated to be less than cordial.
I did it when two people kept up useless bickering after being requested not to, completely derailing any useful input. If it starts here, Hammer Time will include Sin Bin Time.
(what follows is my opinion as a member and is not necessarily echoed by the (diverse) management team. I will try to keep the comments within what a long-standing, objective observer would conclude, but it will inevitably be coloured by my long membership on the forum, tenure as a long-standing moderator, and past chief moderator)
What has happened to diyAudio? The major thing that has happened is that it has gotten bigger. Much bigger.
If one takes a look at the curve of post contents anytime in the past (excluding a few blips), you'll find broadly the same proportion of objective, subjective, whiny, noise, useful and absolutely brilliant posts.
Because of the larger numbers, you find more extremists on either end of the spectrum willing to "strongly" protest their POV.
It is the job of the janitors (ie the mod team) to try to keep the signal-to-noise ratio as high as possible and still leave people's ability to freely post their views (this is not easy, and requires a lot of subjective choices based on solid objective guidlines). Repeating the same point over & over again without adding anything new gets you put into the whiners category, and you'll see "duplicates" deleted as irrelevant (you already made your point) and in extreme cases members will find themselves under moderation, so that noise never makes it to the forum. More people, more extremists make this more & more work.
Civil discourse with technical merit is highly prized. That the forum has been able to keep this relatively high has attracted some real "audio rockstars". That the freedom to question, and tend towards unfettered free speech scares off those with big egos and thin skins.
As an outlet some threads are left to have a high signal-to-noise ratio, in an attempt to keep the noise out of other threads. You venture into them only if you have thick skin.
As always (i believe) the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I believe that measurement is very important, but i also know that our capability to measure is very immature. Physics is applied math, and until recently all problems have been pigeon-holed into that part of math than can be described as linear. This represents probably 5% of the space of solutions. Of late (the last 30-40 years) progress has been made in starting to explore the rest of the space. Still, these are being explored by breaking the problems into tiny little pieces that within themselves are linear. Then brute force is applied in the form of huge super-computers to iteratively brute force an answer. Bigger, faster computers mean a finer mesh. We are still thou at a point analogous to before the invention of the Calculus. This is expensive and so far has been only seriously applied to big problems like nukes & the weather.
It is not unknown in in audio, one example that stands out in my mind, is Martin King's application of ANSYS (available only thanx to his employer) to clearly show how a bass reflex box morphs into an ML-TL. Despite this, it is largely ignored and not understood by many.
This means we only have crude models of how sound reproduction works. And therefore one can not ignore the best analysis tool that we have, 2 ears + a brain. An exclamation point was added to this belief recently by the reading of FLoyd Tools's book.
We have to let what we hear lead us in attempting to figure out what to measure, yet at the same time understand that 2 ears + a brain can be mislead by what we see & what we expect.
Nothing should be discounted and an open-mind must be kept. We must keep pushing forward, and in many places this forum has become a place where the bleeding edge is being pushed forward. Expect wild goose chases & wrong turns. Also expect paradym shifting discoveries as well as slow plodding evolution.
A good example of this is Dr Geddes work on perception of distortions in loudspeakers. In his book on loudspeakers, there is a whole chapter on distortion in loudspeakers. Now he says skip it, it is irrelevant (interestingly enuff this puts into question the relevance of a lot of discussion on distortion including much of the highly reguarded work done by Zaph for instance).
To make diyAudio a better forum keep in mind these guidlines, civil discourse, tolerance & respect of others views & experiences, an open mind, and intolerance of extreme views when expressed over & over again endlessly. Think before you post.
Also keep in mind that this is an international forum and that for a majority of members English is not their 1st language (althou many of them have better language skills than some who only speak English) and consideration but be given of this when evaluating what the other member is trying to communicate.
May the force be with you
dave
What has happened to diyAudio? The major thing that has happened is that it has gotten bigger. Much bigger.
If one takes a look at the curve of post contents anytime in the past (excluding a few blips), you'll find broadly the same proportion of objective, subjective, whiny, noise, useful and absolutely brilliant posts.
Because of the larger numbers, you find more extremists on either end of the spectrum willing to "strongly" protest their POV.
It is the job of the janitors (ie the mod team) to try to keep the signal-to-noise ratio as high as possible and still leave people's ability to freely post their views (this is not easy, and requires a lot of subjective choices based on solid objective guidlines). Repeating the same point over & over again without adding anything new gets you put into the whiners category, and you'll see "duplicates" deleted as irrelevant (you already made your point) and in extreme cases members will find themselves under moderation, so that noise never makes it to the forum. More people, more extremists make this more & more work.
Civil discourse with technical merit is highly prized. That the forum has been able to keep this relatively high has attracted some real "audio rockstars". That the freedom to question, and tend towards unfettered free speech scares off those with big egos and thin skins.
As an outlet some threads are left to have a high signal-to-noise ratio, in an attempt to keep the noise out of other threads. You venture into them only if you have thick skin.
As always (i believe) the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I believe that measurement is very important, but i also know that our capability to measure is very immature. Physics is applied math, and until recently all problems have been pigeon-holed into that part of math than can be described as linear. This represents probably 5% of the space of solutions. Of late (the last 30-40 years) progress has been made in starting to explore the rest of the space. Still, these are being explored by breaking the problems into tiny little pieces that within themselves are linear. Then brute force is applied in the form of huge super-computers to iteratively brute force an answer. Bigger, faster computers mean a finer mesh. We are still thou at a point analogous to before the invention of the Calculus. This is expensive and so far has been only seriously applied to big problems like nukes & the weather.
It is not unknown in in audio, one example that stands out in my mind, is Martin King's application of ANSYS (available only thanx to his employer) to clearly show how a bass reflex box morphs into an ML-TL. Despite this, it is largely ignored and not understood by many.
This means we only have crude models of how sound reproduction works. And therefore one can not ignore the best analysis tool that we have, 2 ears + a brain. An exclamation point was added to this belief recently by the reading of FLoyd Tools's book.
We have to let what we hear lead us in attempting to figure out what to measure, yet at the same time understand that 2 ears + a brain can be mislead by what we see & what we expect.
Nothing should be discounted and an open-mind must be kept. We must keep pushing forward, and in many places this forum has become a place where the bleeding edge is being pushed forward. Expect wild goose chases & wrong turns. Also expect paradym shifting discoveries as well as slow plodding evolution.
A good example of this is Dr Geddes work on perception of distortions in loudspeakers. In his book on loudspeakers, there is a whole chapter on distortion in loudspeakers. Now he says skip it, it is irrelevant (interestingly enuff this puts into question the relevance of a lot of discussion on distortion including much of the highly reguarded work done by Zaph for instance).
To make diyAudio a better forum keep in mind these guidlines, civil discourse, tolerance & respect of others views & experiences, an open mind, and intolerance of extreme views when expressed over & over again endlessly. Think before you post.
Also keep in mind that this is an international forum and that for a majority of members English is not their 1st language (althou many of them have better language skills than some who only speak English) and consideration but be given of this when evaluating what the other member is trying to communicate.
May the force be with you
dave
very well put Dave.
Regarding the forum at large there do seem to be a few members who can have exceptionally insulting posts removed - but without doing the Sin Bin time which others would have to suffer. There was a blatant, legally actionable, example removed (pretty soon after posting) from a thread without any explanation , warning or punishment. The poster is still being basically aggressive and nasty, unhelpful, and generally acting as though he should have his root canal work done! How do such situations come about?
Regarding the forum at large there do seem to be a few members who can have exceptionally insulting posts removed - but without doing the Sin Bin time which others would have to suffer. There was a blatant, legally actionable, example removed (pretty soon after posting) from a thread without any explanation , warning or punishment. The poster is still being basically aggressive and nasty, unhelpful, and generally acting as though he should have his root canal work done!
How do such situations come about?
This forum, as do most, soaks in social context. It's inescapable. Top of my 'most aggravating' list is the large number of social statements masquerading as canonical technical arguments.
A post claiming CDs sound better smeared with duck dung I can handle, it's completely outside the realm of science and taken as such. Follow some of the technical arguments here though and the metrics of audibility shift by context, an 'obvious' frequency response variation in a tube amp for example will be unquestionably audible, the same or greater from the interaction of speaker cable and load discounted since 'everyone knows cables have no sound'. Audible thresholds of distortion are another, varying by device and context. Some will claim to hear the effect of distortions an order of magnitude lower than any speaker's if a tube generates it.
These are social statements, outside the bounds of science while being presented as science. It's a large part of the friction here.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.