Re: Re: Re: diffraction... and such
Hey John
I agree with most of the points made by those who counter the modus operandi of enable. Its just that I've been reading this thread on and off since the start and we're still no closer to a consensus and its become clear that we likely never will be. Bud gets and needs no sympathy but its a shame he's had to come and give us his medical history.
Boring personal insight ahead:
I was chatting with some other members on here about various things and one point mentioned was that, very occasionally, we(myself included) all consider ourselves and our ideas to be a little too important - even if these are in grand pursuit of truth and discovery. In a thread like this it might be hard not to do that because we're on an audio forum so of course we talk only about audio and we do it over an emotionless medium - meaning there's no real room for personal/social interaction we take for granted everyday. So sometimes its good to remember that there's a person on the other side of the screen and not just an idea.
Hey John
I agree with most of the points made by those who counter the modus operandi of enable. Its just that I've been reading this thread on and off since the start and we're still no closer to a consensus and its become clear that we likely never will be. Bud gets and needs no sympathy but its a shame he's had to come and give us his medical history.
Boring personal insight ahead:
I was chatting with some other members on here about various things and one point mentioned was that, very occasionally, we(myself included) all consider ourselves and our ideas to be a little too important - even if these are in grand pursuit of truth and discovery. In a thread like this it might be hard not to do that because we're on an audio forum so of course we talk only about audio and we do it over an emotionless medium - meaning there's no real room for personal/social interaction we take for granted everyday. So sometimes its good to remember that there's a person on the other side of the screen and not just an idea.
If enable does anything under 100 Hz for a driver that and Fs of 70 I'll bet the ranch on added mass being the cause.
I agree. In a realistic sense i cant see it having much of an effect on frequencies that exceed the cone dia.At that point the wave launch dia is larger than the cone and is lifting off of the surface so there is less energy imparted to the cone.
ron
I agree. In a realistic sense i cant see it having much of an effect on frequencies that exceed the cone dia.At that point the wave launch dia is larger than the cone and is lifting off of the surface so there is less energy imparted to the cone.
ron
auplater said:
You mean this:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1427942#post1427942
Two light hearted posts alluding to my opinion on Audyssey EQ used in home theater receivers? I'm a DRC geek so expect an over inflated opinion on what is and isn't good.
If you want to know what better room EQ is and how its done I'd be happy to show you.Did you see any sort of moderator hat type thing in my post? We do have opinions like anyone else on here and those are just as likely to be wrong.
soongsc said:
The question was in relation to the text in yellow related to the impulse, whether for a calibration or measurement is immaterial.
The system uses (as does SoundEasy or any MLS-based system) an MLS stimulus with a probe feedback of the electrical signal that is then cross-correlated to acquire the impulse response eliminating upstream components. All dual-channel MLS measurement systems use this technique.
Dave
BudP said:
Bud - I think that you are referring to this paper by Prof. Ufimtsev (the father of stealth technology) - Pure genus - just beautiful work.
http://care.eng.uci.edu/pdf/cmes04_5_6_541.pdf
Sniff around section 4
In addition to the mass, for screened paper and fiber cones, a pretty good addition of stiffness from the Acrylic Gloss coat. This is also true of the full range paper cones, to the degree that the fill material supplied by the mfg. allows. In FR cones which are screened fiber, as found in the Hemp items, a very strict limit has to be observed for the Gloss amount used, or you can end up with the sorts of aberrations you would expect from having too stiff a cone. In qualitative terms, a brittle unnatural edge to most transient information. You do have to use a lot to get this effect, but this is the reason I am so careful, in my treatment posts, to explain just how to handle a limited volume brush, when applying the Gloss.
In general the patterns just perform the same function as they do in higher frequencies. Less incoherent noise, more coherent information. They typically provide more texture and better spatial information from reverberations and echoes actually in the recording. Some folks have reported more bass, but I am pretty sure that is the result of the stiffer cone.
Bud
C2C,
So even split open and zipped back up you are on the Oracle wagon?
Thanks, that is indeed the paper. For me it is about as dangerous and seductive a document as you could find. Thanks for providing the link. I am still not going to download it again. The web site it comes from has even more of those things on it.
Bud
So even split open and zipped back up you are on the Oracle wagon?
Thanks, that is indeed the paper. For me it is about as dangerous and seductive a document as you could find. Thanks for providing the link. I am still not going to download it again. The web site it comes from has even more of those things on it.
Bud
Half Full
Budp,
You are truly amazing! I shudder to think how it is to walk in your shoes. In spite of the your trials you persevere and STILL be able to contribute. THANK YOU.
I have yet to try EnABL but I am certain that I will as I am a DIYer. I just "DO-IT" and experience it for myself. Maybe, just maybe through my experience, I could contribute in hopes of furthering what you have achieved. (Which is exactly you ask of us) But regardless, doing it for the FUN of it is enough. If it brings us closer to our music which we all so doggedly pursue, its a WIN-WIN.
You don't have to prove anything to me. I'm a DIYer.
Budp,
You are truly amazing! I shudder to think how it is to walk in your shoes. In spite of the your trials you persevere and STILL be able to contribute. THANK YOU.
I have yet to try EnABL but I am certain that I will as I am a DIYer. I just "DO-IT" and experience it for myself. Maybe, just maybe through my experience, I could contribute in hopes of furthering what you have achieved. (Which is exactly you ask of us) But regardless, doing it for the FUN of it is enough. If it brings us closer to our music which we all so doggedly pursue, its a WIN-WIN.
You don't have to prove anything to me. I'm a DIYer.
peterbrorsson,
Yes, most of the "texture" will have information in higher frequencies, that allow an easier audition of the difference. In the true bass region it is more a lack of confusing signals than an "improvement" of what should be there.
Spatially descriptive, low frequency decay, actually has a correctness to it's "sloshing about the hall" character that you get in music venues. Live, outdoor bass, has the same energetic but dead quality you find in a park with band shell.
Since John K showed that there is just the slightest bit of difference between treated and untreated drivers at low frequencies, as far as ultimate spl and decay is concerned, this can only be a more ordered energy. The information construct has not been disturbed to the point that the internal limits in our correlator, cannot recognize the structure.
I don't think EnABL adds or takes away any energy, other than a modest dissipation loss due to the pattern. Instead, my view has always been, that it just allows the energy exiting a driver, to do so with less restructuring of those characteristics that provide us with "information", as opposed to random noise, of equal energy, but without that structure intact.
Secips,
It is good that you look to walk in another's shoes. The shudder only comes from the alieness of those thoughts. To actually walk in these shoes is no more apparent to me, than yours are to you.
There are benefits to understanding the physical world without the strictures of math and it's requirement for specific results. Every single innovation I have discovered, has been due to accepting all of the disparate and nonconforming results, as potentially valid and potentially important. Certainly does make my investigations long and mentally taxing.
The reward is seeing the face of a guitar player light up, with interest and the sudden arrival of their muse, when they come upon the single "voiced" output transformer, found on a switch box amongst numerous others, that suits their artistic taste. You cannot imagine how many concerts I have been a witness to, when a musician suddenly and unconsciously stops "testing" and begins making music, just because the output transformer responds in a way that frees them to do so.
That this sort of thing is an engineered event came after it's discovery, as an unpredicted failure to perform, as the vastly simplified lumped capacitive event, common in the design formulas used to design transformers, indicated that it should.
And so, my intellectual life is really quite interesting, and EnABL is only one of the bizarre solutions to have passed through it. I don't mind, it is the air I breathe. I do get worried about some folks responses though, worried about their health and well being when they get as irritated as they do. That is a draw back, for me, and so I don't say too much about most of the things I have at work here, in my own pea patch.
Bud
Yes, most of the "texture" will have information in higher frequencies, that allow an easier audition of the difference. In the true bass region it is more a lack of confusing signals than an "improvement" of what should be there.
Spatially descriptive, low frequency decay, actually has a correctness to it's "sloshing about the hall" character that you get in music venues. Live, outdoor bass, has the same energetic but dead quality you find in a park with band shell.
Since John K showed that there is just the slightest bit of difference between treated and untreated drivers at low frequencies, as far as ultimate spl and decay is concerned, this can only be a more ordered energy. The information construct has not been disturbed to the point that the internal limits in our correlator, cannot recognize the structure.
I don't think EnABL adds or takes away any energy, other than a modest dissipation loss due to the pattern. Instead, my view has always been, that it just allows the energy exiting a driver, to do so with less restructuring of those characteristics that provide us with "information", as opposed to random noise, of equal energy, but without that structure intact.
Secips,
It is good that you look to walk in another's shoes. The shudder only comes from the alieness of those thoughts. To actually walk in these shoes is no more apparent to me, than yours are to you.
There are benefits to understanding the physical world without the strictures of math and it's requirement for specific results. Every single innovation I have discovered, has been due to accepting all of the disparate and nonconforming results, as potentially valid and potentially important. Certainly does make my investigations long and mentally taxing.
The reward is seeing the face of a guitar player light up, with interest and the sudden arrival of their muse, when they come upon the single "voiced" output transformer, found on a switch box amongst numerous others, that suits their artistic taste. You cannot imagine how many concerts I have been a witness to, when a musician suddenly and unconsciously stops "testing" and begins making music, just because the output transformer responds in a way that frees them to do so.
That this sort of thing is an engineered event came after it's discovery, as an unpredicted failure to perform, as the vastly simplified lumped capacitive event, common in the design formulas used to design transformers, indicated that it should.
And so, my intellectual life is really quite interesting, and EnABL is only one of the bizarre solutions to have passed through it. I don't mind, it is the air I breathe. I do get worried about some folks responses though, worried about their health and well being when they get as irritated as they do. That is a draw back, for me, and so I don't say too much about most of the things I have at work here, in my own pea patch.
Bud
Soongsc,
Me too. My thought is to take some 3 inch abs pipe, cap one end with a flange with bolts, mount it to a plywood round and mount a Lazy Ed between that and another piece of square plywood. With 1 degree holes drilled and a drop bolt from the top. Fill the tube with sand and cap it with an end piece.
Then fabricate a short stand with T sections on both ends, one end with a 1/4 round section cut out and two holes for two bolts to go through to mount the driver to. Then probably glue a block onto the end cap, with holes for the bottom T of the bracket. Maybe two of these with the back just a post to rest the magnet on. Then foam wrapped around auto carpet underlayment on the uprights. This should get me a pretty silent fixture, that I can actually make.
I am sure there will be difficulties to overcome, but that is why you troll through one of those big box hardware stores here. Someone has usually invented and is making for cheap, some item you can co opt into your own project.
All of that gets me a nude on a pedestal, that I can measure in increments and clog up a hard drive with the data. Then will come a fixture for a 14 inch diameter baffle and the same story all over again. Then a closed box with square edges and minimal damping materials inside.
The speakers are here, so I will just put a stealth patten and gloss coat on two of the Fe 127's and proceed. This will be new and unusual for me, now that Dave has assured me that white noise is the way to obtain a pulse and MLS data from.
My only previous experience, other than the entire time I spent working for Mille' Nestorovic, where anyone around me knew more about what I was doing with speakers than I did, was using a program and Franklin computer that generated a chirp. In fact, that is what those CSD sections came from, that are in the much reviled white paper, over on positive feedback. Those were obtained in 1985 or 1986 and Larry Arnst drove the machine.
Then of course will come all of the arguing and hand gestures over what the data shows. It will have to be in there somewhere, somehow, or so I have been told.
Bud
Me too. My thought is to take some 3 inch abs pipe, cap one end with a flange with bolts, mount it to a plywood round and mount a Lazy Ed between that and another piece of square plywood. With 1 degree holes drilled and a drop bolt from the top. Fill the tube with sand and cap it with an end piece.
Then fabricate a short stand with T sections on both ends, one end with a 1/4 round section cut out and two holes for two bolts to go through to mount the driver to. Then probably glue a block onto the end cap, with holes for the bottom T of the bracket. Maybe two of these with the back just a post to rest the magnet on. Then foam wrapped around auto carpet underlayment on the uprights. This should get me a pretty silent fixture, that I can actually make.
I am sure there will be difficulties to overcome, but that is why you troll through one of those big box hardware stores here. Someone has usually invented and is making for cheap, some item you can co opt into your own project.
All of that gets me a nude on a pedestal, that I can measure in increments and clog up a hard drive with the data. Then will come a fixture for a 14 inch diameter baffle and the same story all over again. Then a closed box with square edges and minimal damping materials inside.
The speakers are here, so I will just put a stealth patten and gloss coat on two of the Fe 127's and proceed. This will be new and unusual for me, now that Dave has assured me that white noise is the way to obtain a pulse and MLS data from.
My only previous experience, other than the entire time I spent working for Mille' Nestorovic, where anyone around me knew more about what I was doing with speakers than I did, was using a program and Franklin computer that generated a chirp. In fact, that is what those CSD sections came from, that are in the much reviled white paper, over on positive feedback. Those were obtained in 1985 or 1986 and Larry Arnst drove the machine.
Then of course will come all of the arguing and hand gestures over what the data shows. It will have to be in there somewhere, somehow, or so I have been told.
Bud
Dave assured no such thing
Please try to keep any technical information correct, especially when quoting or referencing what someone posted. I said no such thing. White noise has nothing to do with the data acquisition. The description provided that you referenced said that the MLS sounds like white noise, which it does.
The MLS systems generate a signal that is called a Maximum Length Sequence (hence MLS) of known content and wide-band. The impulse response of the driver can then be extracted from the cross-correlation of the mic and probe signals. This impulse response then provides the data from which the FR, CSD and step responses can be determined.
If you're going to present data, it would behoove you to learn a bit more detail of just what it is, its capabilities as well as its limitations, as well as what the data is actually showing. Misinterpretation is not uncommon, as has been made evident at various points in this thread, including yours above. I'm sure that you want your information to be credible. Be prepared to spend some time on this.
I hope that your microphone is calibrated and that you have that calibration file to enter into LAUD.
Dave
BudP said:
Please try to keep any technical information correct, especially when quoting or referencing what someone posted. I said no such thing. White noise has nothing to do with the data acquisition. The description provided that you referenced said that the MLS sounds like white noise, which it does.
The MLS systems generate a signal that is called a Maximum Length Sequence (hence MLS) of known content and wide-band. The impulse response of the driver can then be extracted from the cross-correlation of the mic and probe signals. This impulse response then provides the data from which the FR, CSD and step responses can be determined.
If you're going to present data, it would behoove you to learn a bit more detail of just what it is, its capabilities as well as its limitations, as well as what the data is actually showing. Misinterpretation is not uncommon, as has been made evident at various points in this thread, including yours above. I'm sure that you want your information to be credible. Be prepared to spend some time on this.
I hope that your microphone is calibrated and that you have that calibration file to enter into LAUD.
Dave
masking
One could also wonder whether there is any masking going on within all the anecdotal subjective interpretations also,eh?
Hence many of the questions for, oh, how many months now??? Maybe we're finally getting somewhere here ...perhaps "expectation effect" could also mask some results ??
Oh wait! I guess that's already been asked....
John L.
soongsc said:
One could also wonder whether there is any masking going on within all the anecdotal subjective interpretations also,eh?
Hence many of the questions for, oh, how many months now??? Maybe we're finally getting somewhere here ...perhaps "expectation effect" could also mask some results ??
Oh wait! I guess that's already been asked....
John L.
auplater,
Have you read post #37?
In it Bud posits some reservations for the relative success dlneubec might expect with EnABL on the speakers he was working on...the same you have heard and base your comments on regarding the merits of EnABL. Bud hasn't heard those speakers that I know of...however his intuition led him to have reservations about the results...reservations that may have anticipated a lukewarm review....I find that interesting.
Have you read post #37?
In it Bud posits some reservations for the relative success dlneubec might expect with EnABL on the speakers he was working on...the same you have heard and base your comments on regarding the merits of EnABL. Bud hasn't heard those speakers that I know of...however his intuition led him to have reservations about the results...reservations that may have anticipated a lukewarm review....I find that interesting.
Re: masking
You know what's interesting is an assumption that a description is necessarily flawed because a human, and therefore flawed instrument, produced it.
For instance, it's often claimed memory for audible events is too evanescent to be reliable, and other times it's claimed description is tainted by imagination, that the subjectivity of one person is not accessible to another, and so forth.
Interestingly, audible memory - a flawed instrument as claimed by many - seems quite reliable for certain things which rely on fairly subtle differences in the audible signal.
An opera freak or just perhaps even an experienced listener can often tell within one or two bars the singer is, say, Jussi Bjoerling or any of a dozen other singers, and he can tell you just about as quickly that he doesn't know who it is.
He can probably tell you who it is whether it's heard over a $10 plastic radio or a really good multi thousand $ system.
In other words, that "aural image", or characteristic sound, is really durable through time.
But when an experienced listener reports a more than just noticeable difference in the presentation of his sound system, that is to say its characteristic sound which he's been hearing for a long time, then his aural memory is dismissed as unreliable.
To say, "Well, that's different," is really weak. It deservedly invites Bronx cheers.
It's especially weak since quite often the change in aural presentation has been described well enough to suggest a pretty straight forward direction of inquiry.
The before and after descriptions of "successful" enabl treatments do indeed suggest that some masking element in the speaker's overall presentation has been diminished.
I should think therefore the first line of inquiry is discover what these elements might be.
To this end, what's so difficult about subtracting the original impulse response signal from the recorded output of a speaker before and after enabling and comparing them? (I'm a bull in the technological china shop, so I'd like to know because, as far as I can tell, nobody talking here has done this).
This could have two benefits.
We could hit the books and see what the psychoacoustic implications are.
It might give useful direction to inquiry as to what are the physical parameters of the treatment which have most effect.
auplater said:
You know what's interesting is an assumption that a description is necessarily flawed because a human, and therefore flawed instrument, produced it.
For instance, it's often claimed memory for audible events is too evanescent to be reliable, and other times it's claimed description is tainted by imagination, that the subjectivity of one person is not accessible to another, and so forth.
Interestingly, audible memory - a flawed instrument as claimed by many - seems quite reliable for certain things which rely on fairly subtle differences in the audible signal.
An opera freak or just perhaps even an experienced listener can often tell within one or two bars the singer is, say, Jussi Bjoerling or any of a dozen other singers, and he can tell you just about as quickly that he doesn't know who it is.
He can probably tell you who it is whether it's heard over a $10 plastic radio or a really good multi thousand $ system.
In other words, that "aural image", or characteristic sound, is really durable through time.
But when an experienced listener reports a more than just noticeable difference in the presentation of his sound system, that is to say its characteristic sound which he's been hearing for a long time, then his aural memory is dismissed as unreliable.
To say, "Well, that's different," is really weak. It deservedly invites Bronx cheers.
It's especially weak since quite often the change in aural presentation has been described well enough to suggest a pretty straight forward direction of inquiry.
The before and after descriptions of "successful" enabl treatments do indeed suggest that some masking element in the speaker's overall presentation has been diminished.
I should think therefore the first line of inquiry is discover what these elements might be.
To this end, what's so difficult about subtracting the original impulse response signal from the recorded output of a speaker before and after enabling and comparing them? (I'm a bull in the technological china shop, so I'd like to know because, as far as I can tell, nobody talking here has done this).
This could have two benefits.
We could hit the books and see what the psychoacoustic implications are.
It might give useful direction to inquiry as to what are the physical parameters of the treatment which have most effect.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.