Disingenuous posts? Not at all. I included a link to the source post.
I ‘don’t accept unsupported claims without question’ either.
In post # 2422 I listed a number of ‘unsupported claims’ you have made specifically in relation to the efficacy of EnABL treatment on the baffle.
You have no first hand experience with EnABL’d baffles, no factual data and no anecdotal evidence of your own.
I do have first hand experience with baffle EnABL and have repeatedly observed an ‘audible’ difference across a number of speakers of different sizes and types.
You emphatically dismiss the effects of EnABLing the baffle as 'placebo effect' or 'just predisposition through power of suggestion' yet find excuses when challenged to try it for yourself. That is disingenuous and ‘a disservice to those who want to learn the facts.’
You bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to this thread, but specifically in relation to EnABL on baffles your mind is completely closed.
There is a big difference between drivers and baffles. I've gotten involved in the driver issue because the laws of physics, particularly as they apply to mechanical vibrations and wave propagation, tell me there could be an effect. Bud and I are at somewhat opposite ends of the spectrum as to how those laws are applied to a driver, but that is really a different issue. I want to listen to the driver myself to observe (or not) the effect on treating a driver. Regardless of what I hear, it won't change the physics. This is a case of using physics to understand what is or could happen and one’s ears to assess the magnitude of the effect.
When it comes to a baffle Bud and I are again at very different ends of the spectrum as to how the physics applies. The difference is that when the baffle problem is examined the physics immediately show that little, if any, of what is claimed can happen, regardless of which explanation of the process is accepted. It is not an issue of assessing the magnitude of the effect. The little dashes on the baffle are not going to alter the physics of edge diffraction. They aren't going to stop an acoustic wave from reaching the edge and they are not going to prevent or alter what happens when that wave does reach the edge.
In the driver case, without hearing the drivers I can make the argument that the explanation of how enable works is highly flawed but I can not make the conclusion that the effect isn't real. With a baffle the argument goes right to the conclusion that the claimed results are not valid. Frankly, with all the claims about enable I think the claims regarding baffle diffraction lend more to discrediting the treatment, in general, than anything else. It is sort of like saying you should wear black close in winter because they will absorb more heat and keep you warmer, and then saying you should paint you car black too because additional heat absorbed will improve fuel economy. The first scenario make sense, but it’s a matter of how much warmer would you really be? The second scenario is nonsense. Taken together, the invalidity of second scenario only leads one to question and be suspicious of the validity of the first. It’s like Judge Judy says, “If you lied to me about that, how can I believe anything you say?”
I you hear a difference with enabled baffles it is because you want to hear a difference not because there is a difference.
When it comes to a baffle Bud and I are again at very different ends of the spectrum as to how the physics applies. The difference is that when the baffle problem is examined the physics immediately show that little, if any, of what is claimed can happen, regardless of which explanation of the process is accepted. It is not an issue of assessing the magnitude of the effect. The little dashes on the baffle are not going to alter the physics of edge diffraction. They aren't going to stop an acoustic wave from reaching the edge and they are not going to prevent or alter what happens when that wave does reach the edge.
In the driver case, without hearing the drivers I can make the argument that the explanation of how enable works is highly flawed but I can not make the conclusion that the effect isn't real. With a baffle the argument goes right to the conclusion that the claimed results are not valid. Frankly, with all the claims about enable I think the claims regarding baffle diffraction lend more to discrediting the treatment, in general, than anything else. It is sort of like saying you should wear black close in winter because they will absorb more heat and keep you warmer, and then saying you should paint you car black too because additional heat absorbed will improve fuel economy. The first scenario make sense, but it’s a matter of how much warmer would you really be? The second scenario is nonsense. Taken together, the invalidity of second scenario only leads one to question and be suspicious of the validity of the first. It’s like Judge Judy says, “If you lied to me about that, how can I believe anything you say?”
I you hear a difference with enabled baffles it is because you want to hear a difference not because there is a difference.
attitude
Maybe you should read through all of Dave's posts and drop the judgement attitude. I've learned alot of ancillary info re: diffraction, driver behavior, etc. from both Dave's and John K's posts in this thread. It's about the only worthwhile info contained here.
What's disingenuous is the constant barrage of purported data (some claimed to be "blind"), supposedly valid as interpreted under "scientific" conditions, that, when presented as such for review, is fraught with errors, poor or non existent controls, lack of rigour as implemented, etc. When I (and others) point this out, we're demonized as naysayers, disbelievers, etc., not to mention ad hominem flat out insults. This aspect reminds me so much of the classic "do wires make a difference" or "double blind / abx testing" threads that have occurred on various forums since the 1970's...
John L.
Carlp said:
Maybe you should read through all of Dave's posts and drop the judgement attitude. I've learned alot of ancillary info re: diffraction, driver behavior, etc. from both Dave's and John K's posts in this thread. It's about the only worthwhile info contained here.
What's disingenuous is the constant barrage of purported data (some claimed to be "blind"), supposedly valid as interpreted under "scientific" conditions, that, when presented as such for review, is fraught with errors, poor or non existent controls, lack of rigour as implemented, etc. When I (and others) point this out, we're demonized as naysayers, disbelievers, etc., not to mention ad hominem flat out insults. This aspect reminds me so much of the classic "do wires make a difference" or "double blind / abx testing" threads that have occurred on various forums since the 1970's...
John L.
I though I would post a few figures of what I believe is a very, very good driver. It was measured at about 1/3M on a 2' x2' baffle, thus minimizing the effects of diffraction. It's about as good as it gets, even with the small glitch at 1.5k Hz.
FR:
Step Response:
CSD:
Burst:
Group Delay:
I'm wondering how a Fostex 127e will compare, enabled or not???
FR:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Step Response:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
CSD:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Burst:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Group Delay:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I'm wondering how a Fostex 127e will compare, enabled or not???
dlr is right on with regard to diffraction being burried in the impulse response. However there is a way to get a better grip on it. Use a circular baffle with driver centered. It's the worst configuration for diffraction since it makes all the primary diffraction effects fixed at a specific time. Since diffraction is an additive effect, as opposed to a convolution, it is fairly simple to separate out the effects of diffraction from the impulse response: 1) Make a measurement of the driver in an infinite baffle.
2) Make the measurement on a circular baffle (or any baffle)
3) make sure the impusled are scaled correctly
4) subtract the infinite baffle impulse from the baffled impulse
What is left is the diffraction signature. The circular baffle will maximize the effect.
2) Make the measurement on a circular baffle (or any baffle)
3) make sure the impusled are scaled correctly
4) subtract the infinite baffle impulse from the baffled impulse
What is left is the diffraction signature. The circular baffle will maximize the effect.
soongsc said:
Take a look at LEAP 5.
Transducer modelling:
http://www.linearx.com/products/software/LEAP5/EnclosureShop/EncShp04.htm
And how it relates to baffle diffraction simulation:
http://www.linearx.com/products/software/LEAP5/EnclosureShop/EncShp10.htm
ShinOBIWAN said:
Thanks for the links, I'll have to bookmark them, especially the second one.
What I found to be of most interest are the second and third order representations on the diffraction page. Off-axis measurements I've made had exhibited some of these effects related to the side dimensions of the boxes, primarily depth. LEAP would be nice to work with, too bad it's so expensive.
Dave
soongsc said:
The BDS has options designed to allow quick-n-dirty sims or more complex, but time consuming calculations. It was part of the evolution of the development that Paul made. He got into it simply at first, then kept expanding the capabilities of it. You can use point source, area source, simple calculations (quick, less accurate) or complex (more compute intensive, more accurate). He also provided off-axis mic position, baffle tilt, etc. It's a nice tool for general baffle layout and shape decisions.
I haven't done much with SoundEasy, but it has its own set of options. It would appear that LEAP may be the most elaborate, but it's also the most expensive.
The BDS is free. Dave
I have noticed that many offer sort of multiple source over an area, and it seems to smooth the ripples. But if it is multiple point source, this seems more like the way NXT drivers operate.dlr said:
The BDS has options designed to allow quick-n-dirty sims or more complex, but time consuming calculations. It was part of the evolution of the development that Paul made. He got into it simply at first, then kept expanding the capabilities of it. You can use point source, area source, simple calculations (quick, less accurate) or complex (more compute intensive, more accurate). He also provided off-axis mic position, baffle tilt, etc. It's a nice tool for general baffle layout and shape decisions.
I haven't done much with SoundEasy, but it has its own set of options. It would appear that LEAP may be the most elaborate, but it's also the most expensive.
Dave
Really wish SoundEasy could allow the user to import a complicated enclosure shape and look at diffraction effects. I think probably single point source is worst case condition. if this condition looks good, then probably the baffle is good.
planet10 said:
Really? Those test results: burst, CSD, step response, GD, are very good indicators of the coherency and transient behavior of the driver.
Compare them to an ideal 2nd order high pass response (electrical filter) with about the sane FR. This IS as good as it gets for a 2nd order HP response.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
>>> Pull one of the drivers out of your TV set and get a sneak preview.
Yes, the 127e can sound bad, much like a tv set. But in the right box and with the right electronics it sounds excellent.
There are many great box designs for the 127e. Too many to count. Pair them with tubes or digital amp in small to medium sized room for amazing sound. They have the ability to put you in front of the performers.
Godzilla
Yes, the 127e can sound bad, much like a tv set. But in the right box and with the right electronics it sounds excellent.
There are many great box designs for the 127e. Too many to count. Pair them with tubes or digital amp in small to medium sized room for amazing sound. They have the ability to put you in front of the performers.
Godzilla
- Status
- Not open for further replies.