Soongsc,
What I have is an elderly Toshiba notebook, with a docking station, that holds an Echo DSP sound card. This is the one required for the Liberty Audio suite program. I also have a microphone preamp and two electret microphones. One on a long brass tube, with some electronics in a box attached to the back. The other is mounted in a mic wand and hangs on a microphone stand. A Borberly DC fet amp built by someone who knows how and the just barely able to run in windows 98, Liberty Audio suite.
If someone can direct me to an audio test suite that can run on this system and is petty close to free, I will happily learn to use it. The Laud software from this time period is very difficult to use and has no fft functionality, or rather, it has no capability to generate impulse signals.
Anybody have a suggestion?
Bud
What I have is an elderly Toshiba notebook, with a docking station, that holds an Echo DSP sound card. This is the one required for the Liberty Audio suite program. I also have a microphone preamp and two electret microphones. One on a long brass tube, with some electronics in a box attached to the back. The other is mounted in a mic wand and hangs on a microphone stand. A Borberly DC fet amp built by someone who knows how and the just barely able to run in windows 98, Liberty Audio suite.
If someone can direct me to an audio test suite that can run on this system and is petty close to free, I will happily learn to use it. The Laud software from this time period is very difficult to use and has no fft functionality, or rather, it has no capability to generate impulse signals.
Anybody have a suggestion?
Bud
BudP said:
Can you be more specific with computer model, CPU clock speed, ram size, hardisk size, which Echo model soundcard (I don't recall Echo DSP as a model but I may be wrong), budget limit? There are quite a few software that can be had for free such as SpeakerWorkshop (CSD somewhat akward but usable), ARTA (as John K has shown, cannot read and save files in demo mode, but you can use a free screen capture program to do save pics it seems fine). Basically, the hookup among these programs are pretty much the same.
To me anything under US$500 is almost free depending on what I want to do. But this might not be for someone else.
BudP said:
Sorry, Bud, I don't believe any of this for a second. It doesn't have any qualities that can alter diffraction, at all, period. I know what the sound is with diffraction and most of it removed. I have actual empirical evidence of it through my tests of systems with and without real diffraction control. .
You really need to study what diffraction really is. Explanations are provided, you totally skip any discussion on details provided and don't respond whatsoever to it, you just find new questions to raise for misdirection of the points made, all after making the same baseless claims to preface each post. John's assessment was correct. Reasoned debate with you is not possible. You claim to want to learn, but nothing gets through. It all has to fit your preconceived notions, not the actual physics.
Of course it can't, that was my point.
Dave
t-head said:
No, not the case, not a single person has said that it won't alter the driver, not one, you misrepresent the debate in saying this. The debate on drivers is strictly related to the uncorroborated claim of the physics involved. There is also not one instance where a statement was made that it would not alter the perception, either. It may make it better, it may make it worse, Bud himself has made that latter point, at least for what he would consider the first of several applications he would make. He does claim that all drivers will universally improve to the same degree, no matter what. Take that claim how you will.
Rational people do take issue with the claims related to diffraction control.
Dave
BudP said:
One of three. I use the Turtle Beach Fiji with built-in preamp. It does not require an external preamp as a result and it does not require calibration. The system you have should work just fine.
I initially ran it under DOS, put moved to Win3.1 (not reliable), then Win98SE. It works flawlessly under Win98.
"Just barely"? Either it runs or it doesn't. I recently bought a motherboard from a specialty company that has a 3G Pentium and includes an ISA board slot. It "just barely" runs pretty darn fast. I'll substitute it for my older, rebuilt-from-throw-away PII 550 that has "just barely" run for years.
That is most definitely NOT an issue with the software. Get any used PC with an ISA slot and it should work properly, to include MLS (impulse) tests. When I bought it in 1998 I ran it on a Pentium 300 for many years, then on a 1200 until that motherboard quit, so I put it into the 550 I'm currently using and about to put aside as a spare.
The test system is not the problem.
Dave
pedroskova said:
Accurate and meant to clarify the implication made that was actually an excuse for not knowing how to use the system as well as countering the patently false statement that it was incapable of impulse response measurements. That is acquired through the MLS test and is the centerpiece of the software.
LAUD requires one of three sound cards, the Echo DSP, Turtle Beach Fiji or Turtle Beach Pinnacle. They are DSP cards, early generation, highly advanced at the time and still relevant today. The software uses the card's DSP by downloading the test commands. The card then runs the entire test procedure under the full control of the DSP card, making the PC's processing speed irrelevant. Yes, it is irrelevant, so saying that it "barely runs" is an excuse.
The only reason that LAUD did not continue was because of Microsoft (how often has this happened over the years?). All subsequent OSes put out by MS after 98 prevent direct communication with the sound card, something required for the method used by the LAUD software.
Dave
BudP said:
Yes, precisely. The MLS technique was developed by the author of MLSSA. It provides a means to obtain an impulse response that eliminates all influence of any upstream components, that is, preamp, interconnects, amplifier, speaker cable and any intervening device. The raw driver response can be obtained from a system with the crossover in place, at the expense of some lower signal-to-noise ratio. One only need place the probe after the last component for the cross-correlation that is made. This cannot be done with a direct impulse system. The MLS has many inherent advantages.
Second, the MLS has an inherently lower noise floor and better noise rejection than a direct impulse. But the result is the same, the system acquires the impulse response of the system. EVERY MLS based measurement system uses this technique.
So the statement that it cannot generate an impulse response is implying the inability to acquire the impulse response of the system. The point is meaningless.
Let me add one more point. Every system that you may care to use will, at some point, apply some mathematical function to the acquired data in order to obtain other data. Even something as simple as the frequency response with phase data cannot be made by any standard systems, such as those that use sine-wave sweeps. This is because a sine-wave sweep is inherently lacking any phase data. A system such as LMS (part of the LMS/LEAP software) acquires ONLY the magnitude. The phase is generated afterwards via, guess what, the Hilbert-Bode transform!
The MLS provides data acquisition. The functions applied to this data yield any and all other data that is within its ability to provide. The same is true for a simply direct impulse. The impulse, FR+phase, CSD, step, distortion, etc., are all provided via application of mathematical functions to the acquired data.
Dave
dlr,
So then, this system will provide the same data, only better, when compared to the site you sent me to, for baffle edge diffraction? That site specifically shows a single impulse as the exciting element.
If this is true, then am I to look at the edge of a 14 inch diameter circular baffle, in 1 degree rotation steps from 60 degrees off axis to 90 degrees off axis? John K was suggesting a single frequency be used. Does the radius of the round baffle need to be 1/2 wave of full wave for 1 KHz? Is this meaningful when the signal is full spectrum white noise, rather than 1 single impulse at a single frequency?
This is a test set for both untreated baffle and untreated driver, untreated baffle and treated driver and a similar pattern for the baffle after treatment, for control of what I know of as diffraction.
What window should I use? What time frame should I set? You had previous issues with both, can you provide guidance before I begin?
Do I need to have on axis, 30 deg, 60 deg and 90 deg tests of all four combinations? If so what window do I use and what time interval?
This will be performed in a living room with a mix of surfaces, will these extra measurements provide enough information about the location to allow some slight trust in the tests contents?
Bud
So then, this system will provide the same data, only better, when compared to the site you sent me to, for baffle edge diffraction? That site specifically shows a single impulse as the exciting element.
If this is true, then am I to look at the edge of a 14 inch diameter circular baffle, in 1 degree rotation steps from 60 degrees off axis to 90 degrees off axis? John K was suggesting a single frequency be used. Does the radius of the round baffle need to be 1/2 wave of full wave for 1 KHz? Is this meaningful when the signal is full spectrum white noise, rather than 1 single impulse at a single frequency?
This is a test set for both untreated baffle and untreated driver, untreated baffle and treated driver and a similar pattern for the baffle after treatment, for control of what I know of as diffraction.
What window should I use? What time frame should I set? You had previous issues with both, can you provide guidance before I begin?
Do I need to have on axis, 30 deg, 60 deg and 90 deg tests of all four combinations? If so what window do I use and what time interval?
This will be performed in a living room with a mix of surfaces, will these extra measurements provide enough information about the location to allow some slight trust in the tests contents?
Bud
doing x-pear-e-mints
Bud, Bud, Bud
before you embark on an extensive set of technical exploits, do yourself a BIG favor, spend some time learning about experimental design; what constitutes valid statistical data, what it means (and especially DOESN'T mean), figure out what diffraction is all about, as John K implied, etc.....and stop shooting yourself in the foot...
My patents evolved out of fairly robust expenditures...
1) I joined a firm that had a need for what I knew
2) I observed, applied my knowledge, dissected what they were doing wrong at the time
3) I studied like hell to figure out the technology involved specific to the application (amorphous metal alloys via electroplating) (I already knew aliitle about this, as I did my thesis on it in the mid '70s)
4) I found a corporate sponsor to help with some of the costs (Burlington Industries, salary, funding, etc.)
5) I performed INTELLIGENT ANOVA, trial & error <=not too much, as I quickly learned this is inefficient... and refromulated my goals and criteria per well known multivariable designs and techniques.
6) applied for and received patents for multi ideas
6) Quit employment and exploited said patent information via extensive consulting and development contracts
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...berger+AND+nickel&RS=lichtenberger+AND+nickel
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...berger+AND+nickel&RS=lichtenberger+AND+nickel
As a consequence, I've reaped $$$$$$ from reputation and contracts... try it, it works! But... ya gotta know what you're talking about...
John L.
Bud, Bud, Bud
before you embark on an extensive set of technical exploits, do yourself a BIG favor, spend some time learning about experimental design; what constitutes valid statistical data, what it means (and especially DOESN'T mean), figure out what diffraction is all about, as John K implied, etc.....and stop shooting yourself in the foot...
My patents evolved out of fairly robust expenditures...
1) I joined a firm that had a need for what I knew
2) I observed, applied my knowledge, dissected what they were doing wrong at the time
3) I studied like hell to figure out the technology involved specific to the application (amorphous metal alloys via electroplating) (I already knew aliitle about this, as I did my thesis on it in the mid '70s)
4) I found a corporate sponsor to help with some of the costs (Burlington Industries, salary, funding, etc.)
5) I performed INTELLIGENT ANOVA, trial & error <=not too much, as I quickly learned this is inefficient... and refromulated my goals and criteria per well known multivariable designs and techniques.
6) applied for and received patents for multi ideas
6) Quit employment and exploited said patent information via extensive consulting and development contracts
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...berger+AND+nickel&RS=lichtenberger+AND+nickel
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...berger+AND+nickel&RS=lichtenberger+AND+nickel
As a consequence, I've reaped $$$$$$ from reputation and contracts... try it, it works! But... ya gotta know what you're talking about...
John L.
auplater,
That is good advice. Here is my off topic reply.
The last time a tried to read a paper on diffraction, I found myself regaining consciousness, under the computer desk. I am not supposed to even try to read higher math, ever again, as of 1981.
And, if I find myself once again able to, I need to be in a neurologists office that day, because seizures are very near. I spent 10 years with a drug induced pre frontal lobotomy, to overcome my march to Grand Mal. Most abstract thought capability fled during that time.
Makes studying things pretty difficult and causes me to ask a lot of dumb questions, as I build a model representative of an abstract math model, used by un brain damaged folks. Usually requires cut and try methodology, lot's of time spent and any help in shortening that process is always appreciated.
I do have analogues for most of calculus, derived from the realization that we are hard wired for it. So I do have a "look to leap" intuitive tool, that usually gets me close to an answer and between grinding it out in iterative tests and branching logic format for steps, to set up a semblance of an orderly investigation, I do come to answers. A good number of them work very well. Not many of them fit entirely within lumped sum parameters.
Just so you and everyone else, knows why I do what I do, when there is an easier way to do it. For you.
I can provide the URL for the paper for anyone wanting to read it, but I have to dig through C2CThomas's emails to me, to find it. I deleted it from my computer. It was just too fascinating.
Bud
That is good advice. Here is my off topic reply.
The last time a tried to read a paper on diffraction, I found myself regaining consciousness, under the computer desk. I am not supposed to even try to read higher math, ever again, as of 1981.
And, if I find myself once again able to, I need to be in a neurologists office that day, because seizures are very near. I spent 10 years with a drug induced pre frontal lobotomy, to overcome my march to Grand Mal. Most abstract thought capability fled during that time.
Makes studying things pretty difficult and causes me to ask a lot of dumb questions, as I build a model representative of an abstract math model, used by un brain damaged folks. Usually requires cut and try methodology, lot's of time spent and any help in shortening that process is always appreciated.
I do have analogues for most of calculus, derived from the realization that we are hard wired for it. So I do have a "look to leap" intuitive tool, that usually gets me close to an answer and between grinding it out in iterative tests and branching logic format for steps, to set up a semblance of an orderly investigation, I do come to answers. A good number of them work very well. Not many of them fit entirely within lumped sum parameters.
Just so you and everyone else, knows why I do what I do, when there is an easier way to do it. For you.
I can provide the URL for the paper for anyone wanting to read it, but I have to dig through C2CThomas's emails to me, to find it. I deleted it from my computer. It was just too fascinating.
Bud
diffraction... and such
I know what you mean...I'm no math wiz either...
But you have to slog thu it and figure out what the HE!! is being presented until you reach that AHA! moment.... things become clear... you hit yourself on the head and say "Why didn't I see that before?" Doesn't take abstract thought... just perseverance
It's not as difficult as it seems.... you'd really do yourself and others a favor here by moving away from the current analytical effort, spending some time grunting thru the math, statistics, physics, engineering, stop attempting lame explanations... and then come back when you KNOW that what you present is correct and ask the appropriate questions.
Unless and until then... expect more heartburn
just my 2 cents...
John L.
I know what you mean...I'm no math wiz either...
But you have to slog thu it and figure out what the HE!! is being presented until you reach that AHA! moment.... things become clear... you hit yourself on the head and say "Why didn't I see that before?" Doesn't take abstract thought... just perseverance
It's not as difficult as it seems.... you'd really do yourself and others a favor here by moving away from the current analytical effort, spending some time grunting thru the math, statistics, physics, engineering, stop attempting lame explanations... and then come back when you KNOW that what you present is correct and ask the appropriate questions.
Unless and until then... expect more heartburn
just my 2 cents...
John L.
grand mal
well... tegretol can help... as well as competent medical care... (my daughter suffered from epilepsy until age 6) she just scored 33 on the ACT for college admission (out of a perfect score of 36)national average ~20
I run a pediatric medical practice.. I know about this stuff... if you can't stand the heat.. etc.
John L.
well... tegretol can help... as well as competent medical care... (my daughter suffered from epilepsy until age 6) she just scored 33 on the ACT for college admission (out of a perfect score of 36)national average ~20
I run a pediatric medical practice.. I know about this stuff... if you can't stand the heat.. etc.
John L.
auplater,
Tegretol was the drug of choice. The problem is a fore brain lesion caused by bone occlusion, a fairly large one. To date syncopal spells are all that I have to put up with. Unless I black out, trying to read a document written in quadrature. Just as I did as a young man, when doing the same thing.
I was taken off of tegretol because my body was developing a toxic reaction to even the maintenance level of the drug. My only regrets are loss of my math skills, beyond geometry and simple algebra and a total loss of time based memory structure. The memories before tegretol are there, without any time clues and the memories during drug treatment are pure chaos and very disorienting. Short term memory is still wrecked, but at least I have a sense of continuity since the early 90's
So, I live a quiet, basically stress free life, with a constant attempt to reign in intellectual excitement. I began this thread just to pass along what knowledge I have. The theory's portrayed are just my understanding of what I portray. I find them useful in predicting what I can do with EnABL and some other equally bizarre discoveries. That they don't fit applied engineering principles or others understanding of potential mechanisms, does not cause me concern.
I do get concerned when people attack my models, not because they are my models, but because most of them have become very frustrated and angry, when I don't seem to respond to their criticisms of those models. For the most part I cannot respond, except to point out what my direct experience is and what thoughts lead me to that experience. I am not being stubborn, I simply cannot grasp what they are portraying, without an amazing amount of work upon their part, to allow me to make a different model from the one I have. I am grateful for their efforts and you will note that some progress has been made.
As for
I did not start this thread for those purposes. I am really here only to facilitate others experiments with this odd and rather narrow pattern range. As I have said before. Why it works is immaterial to me. I have what models I could develop, they work well enough for me to make some predictions about how to treat specific drivers, successfully. I am quite sure that other sorts of patterns can be found and I completely support that effort.
I am saddened that those of you who have a more conventional viewpoint are upset. It does cause me grief to see Dave and John K get as irritated as they do. If I could change to their mental format and use conventional tools of analysis I am sure I would. I do not have the option and advancing age is not widening those options, quite the contrary.
So, I will continue to do what I set out to do here. And, I will explore what I can of the baffle issue. I don't expect my explorations or my understandings derived from them, to be particularly suited to those of you, whom I already upset. I apologize for this. But, I do intend to push on and I will continue to ask infuriating questions from anyone who happens by. Infuriating because, if I would "just do the math" the answer would be obvious to me. I agree.
Bud
Tegretol was the drug of choice. The problem is a fore brain lesion caused by bone occlusion, a fairly large one. To date syncopal spells are all that I have to put up with. Unless I black out, trying to read a document written in quadrature. Just as I did as a young man, when doing the same thing.
I was taken off of tegretol because my body was developing a toxic reaction to even the maintenance level of the drug. My only regrets are loss of my math skills, beyond geometry and simple algebra and a total loss of time based memory structure. The memories before tegretol are there, without any time clues and the memories during drug treatment are pure chaos and very disorienting. Short term memory is still wrecked, but at least I have a sense of continuity since the early 90's
So, I live a quiet, basically stress free life, with a constant attempt to reign in intellectual excitement. I began this thread just to pass along what knowledge I have. The theory's portrayed are just my understanding of what I portray. I find them useful in predicting what I can do with EnABL and some other equally bizarre discoveries. That they don't fit applied engineering principles or others understanding of potential mechanisms, does not cause me concern.
I do get concerned when people attack my models, not because they are my models, but because most of them have become very frustrated and angry, when I don't seem to respond to their criticisms of those models. For the most part I cannot respond, except to point out what my direct experience is and what thoughts lead me to that experience. I am not being stubborn, I simply cannot grasp what they are portraying, without an amazing amount of work upon their part, to allow me to make a different model from the one I have. I am grateful for their efforts and you will note that some progress has been made.
As for
I did not start this thread for those purposes. I am really here only to facilitate others experiments with this odd and rather narrow pattern range. As I have said before. Why it works is immaterial to me. I have what models I could develop, they work well enough for me to make some predictions about how to treat specific drivers, successfully. I am quite sure that other sorts of patterns can be found and I completely support that effort.
I am saddened that those of you who have a more conventional viewpoint are upset. It does cause me grief to see Dave and John K get as irritated as they do. If I could change to their mental format and use conventional tools of analysis I am sure I would. I do not have the option and advancing age is not widening those options, quite the contrary.
So, I will continue to do what I set out to do here. And, I will explore what I can of the baffle issue. I don't expect my explorations or my understandings derived from them, to be particularly suited to those of you, whom I already upset. I apologize for this. But, I do intend to push on and I will continue to ask infuriating questions from anyone who happens by. Infuriating because, if I would "just do the math" the answer would be obvious to me. I agree.
Bud
Re: diffraction... and such
John can't you give it rest. There's cables debates that you need to go see to by the sounds of things. Your not getting much joy here maybe better luck there eh?
Sorry to hear about your troubles Bud. I think you do better than most of us on here regardless. What you acknowledge as lacking in math, its quite obvious that its made up for in other area's.
auplater said:
John can't you give it rest. There's cables debates that you need to go see to by the sounds of things. Your not getting much joy here maybe better luck there eh?
Sorry to hear about your troubles Bud. I think you do better than most of us on here regardless. What you acknowledge as lacking in math, its quite obvious that its made up for in other area's.
Re: Re: diffraction... and such
I don't engage in cable debates...
I'm not trying (nor are any of the other "skeptics" here I believe) trying to give Bud a hard time. I simply point out that bizarre unfounded descriptions counter to known theory and observation are gonna raise skepticism on the part of those who work their entire lives trying to clarify misconceptions when we know (often through hard time) better.
You don't seem to have much patience for my journey into room correction, btw. Best to practice what you preach.
Since you da boss...
Okay I'll just go away...
Bye.
John L.
AntShinOBIWAN said:
I don't engage in cable debates...
I'm not trying (nor are any of the other "skeptics" here I believe) trying to give Bud a hard time. I simply point out that bizarre unfounded descriptions counter to known theory and observation are gonna raise skepticism on the part of those who work their entire lives trying to clarify misconceptions when we know (often through hard time) better.
You don't seem to have much patience for my journey into room correction, btw. Best to practice what you preach.
Since you da boss...
Okay I'll just go away...
Bye.
John L.
"Cilla, if you are listening, do you know enough housewives in England that you could set up a test? By now, that may be one of the few groups that would not be pre biased, by contact with this thread."
Bud,
Perhaps I could enlist the help of the local Women's Institute and organize a Tupperware and EnABL party. Mind you, even a thumbs-up from the formidable WI wouldn't convince the skeptics. For whom nothing will ever count as evidence; the bottomless abyss of skepticism will always provide an easy escape and retreat.
( Even when dead they wouldn't be convinced of their death. Since they have no proof of life it follows there could be no proof of death.)
Still, what are they to the truly creative ones.........?
Cilla
Bud,
Perhaps I could enlist the help of the local Women's Institute and organize a Tupperware and EnABL party. Mind you, even a thumbs-up from the formidable WI wouldn't convince the skeptics. For whom nothing will ever count as evidence; the bottomless abyss of skepticism will always provide an easy escape and retreat.
( Even when dead they wouldn't be convinced of their death. Since they have no proof of life it follows there could be no proof of death.)
Still, what are they to the truly creative ones.........?
Cilla
- Status
- Not open for further replies.