Apologies for going OT. This was posted in the Audyssey MultEQ XT Digital Room Correction thread.
Hoping others can savor the irony.
auplater said:well, just spent a few hours reviewing (listening) to a wide variety of music I'm familiar with, and can unequivocally state mutieq makes a substantial improvement in my setup.
Best way to characterize it is a significant improvement in coherency of the sound, especially wrt percussion, trumpets, piano attack, and the inner details. I'm hearing things in music I'm familiar with that I didn't hear before.
I grabbed the spouse and had her listen (not one of her favorite pastimes), then asked her if she heard anything different. She stated that, before multieq., the bass just got louder and pounded everything, whereas now, even at lower volumes, there is more of a "presence" to the bass, the notes are clear and equal levels as they change pitch,the percussion sounds are much more distinct and pleasant, and there are more details to the sound. She said vocals weren't much changed, stating she didn't think they could get much better anyway from this setup.
So she pretty much confirmed what I'm hearing with this setup. I've still gotta rerun the setup, fiddle with the settings, listen to more symphonic works, etc., but this is as much of an improvement as I've experienced as upgrading speakers. The "sweet spot" now extends over a wide arc across the back side of the listening room as well.
I'm trying really hard not to become delusional...
John L.
Hoping others can savor the irony.
Ed LaFontaine said:
Hi Ed,
Intesting. John told me that my speakers were the best he heard that day, both in extension and balance. That didn't give me the feeling that he was lukewarm toward them. Maybe he has changed his mind since then.
John,
How can you make any judgement on the benefit or lack thereof of the EnABL application based on my speakers, without having heard them before the application? Not to mention the fact that they were the last speakers at the very end of a long day (about 20 other pairs of speaker auditioned). Everyone was experiencing some listening fatigue by that time. That was not exactly the right conditions to make any judgement from, don't you think?
FrankWW said:
For small differences, it's not claimed, it's been proven through studies by those who make a living trying to draw correlations. Would you take any prescription medicines whose efficacy was declared by the manufacturer or some group of users believing it works based on anecdotal evidence? That's the equivalent. "Take this stuff, it really works! I know, because I took it and my problem went away!!!". I suspect not.
None of the differences you mention, such as voices, are in the small category as I see it. Most voices don't have small, subtle differences. Inflection alone can make the difference, we don't just hear the tonality. If an experience listener could NOT tell the difference between singers, I'd consider them to be practically tone deaf or at least just not able to focus on what makes the significant differences. That's not a valid argument.
The skeptics have not once, ever stated that differences in drivers are not made, quite the contrary, we explicitly have stated that the mass/damping/stiffness changes will change the drivers response. No one has said that for driver mods that there may not be a change in the perception (audibility). You're making the same baseless charge as others have made periodically in this thread. I have, though, challenged audibility of the diffraction claims and I base that on years of experience in listening (subjective) and testing (objective). I don't believe that part for an instant.
This is where the work of true experts should be reviewed by those wishing to learn more. We are all rank amateurs here with regard to valid tests of audibility. Here's a good link to a short summary of the work of peer-reviewed experts who speak with authority, rather than the ramblings that go on here based solely on conjecture. I suggest digging into it more if one really wants to learn from those who make it their business to learn and publish. Their livelihood is based on this.
Published studies (as in peer reviewed)
Here's one small, interesting paragraph on that page relating to one of many important factors in valid testing:
"Consistency and hearing loss: Some listeners will listen to exactly the same setup in two different listening sessions and come up with radically different ratings for the same loudspeaker. Experiments have shown that the most erratic listeners are those with hearing loss. It turns out that people with good hearing tend to offer (emphasis mine - dlr) more consistent assessments over multiple listening sessions and tend to agree closely with each other."
No, it suggests a change in the driver response, not in all cases masking. It may be enhancement, especially if someone's hearing is less than ideal. Changes, some including increased or added resonances, can give the impression of more "detail". All one need to is take a system, any system, enhance some range such as the upper range of the tweeter or the presence region, and lo and behold, it will often immediately be claimed to have "better detail". Of course, it may in fact be less true to the original recording, but that is not used in a reliable manor as the basis for comparison here, no one has the facilities to do this kind of rigorous testing. It's exactly what many manufacturers do to enhance sales, though. Bump up the bottom and top end, it sounds better to most folks, no? Lots of extra detail in those systems.
That's what I do in all of my mods pages for the frequency domain, I highly recommend it. John k pointed this out as well, to be done in either the time or frequency domain. It's a simple matter. But it won't be absolute in its coverage as it will likely be done here since a truly valid test methodology minimally requires a large range of tests made on many axes. Each one would have to be made before and after, shown to be correctly made (as in true duplication of all test conditions), then the subtraction made. The fact is, power response is a significant source of the perception of any driver, unless you're thinking of auditioning in an anechoic chamber. A single axis, any single axis, cannot be used to try to correlate perception with measurements. It's not a simple task.
konut said:
I haven't read through it, but there may be no irony whatsoever. If the differences were in some tiny, narrow range with low magnitude high Q changes, then yes. If the EQ covers a range of areas, with one or more of low Q (known to be more easily discerned), then it might be easy to accept that those differences are not in the range of JND (just noticeable differences). Details are needed to even make any reasonable assumptions, good or bad. He did say multieq, so I take that to possibly be quite a difference and would not necessarily jump to the conclusion that you imply. That's why if one is to prove any claims, valid data is required, especially if someone is proposing that others do what that person has done.
Even as an amateur stringed instrument player (guitar and others) I can easily tell the difference between an old and a new set of strings. If tests were run, I highly suspect that the frequency response would show surprising differences. When I changed strings frequently, I noticed little difference, so I waited until I thought the change in tone was significant enough to warrant spending the money. Two new sets of strings pretty much always sounded the same. An aged set always sounded worse. Not JND.
Dave
konut said:
That isn't irony, unlike Enable, I can absolutely attest that what John(auplater) heard with his Audyssey digital room correction would have been noticeable and quantifiable. You could easily prove where the changes have come from through a measured and considered investigation. Room EQ operates entirely within known acoustic science because its built upon that understanding. Nothing much to be debated on how or why it works, only the subjective result of "is it better or worse" could be argued.
BTW I don't think its fair to try and cast some shadow over his opinion in this tread with a misleading and irrelevant quote from another thread.
Alan Hope said:
Millions do. It's called homoeopathy and its a multi-billion pound industry.
If you would, fine. I would not. Same analogy with driver mods. There's more, though. Serious research shows the fallacy of much in the audio anecdotal arena (how about AAA for short?).
It took only a brief google search to find some interesting sites on homeopathy. This is OT except for the fact that many people will even take "drugs" based on lower standards of proof, so it's not surprising that they might be more easily inclined to accept other, less deleterious anecdotal information.
Homeopathy
Dave
dlneubec said:
Hi Ed,
Intesting. John told me that my speakers were the best he heard that day, both in extension and balance. That didn't give me the feeling that he was lukewarm toward them. Maybe he has changed his mind since then.
John,
How can you make any judgement on the benefit or lack thereof of the EnABL application based on my speakers, without having heard them before the application? Not to mention the fact that they were the last speakers at the very end of a long day (about 20 other pairs of speaker auditioned). Everyone was experiencing some listening fatigue by that time. That was not exactly the right conditions to make any judgement from, don't you think?
Dan, I figured you'd have some questions... I don't mean to dismiss your speakers at all... what you say is true... except that I make the same judgement others are making with regards to supporting EnABL'd vs. non enable's speakers in this thread.
That's my real point. Not that your speakers sound bad, but if I'm disallowed to pass judgement under such conditions, so should all of the other subjective reviews...
Yours were pretty much the best heard under less than ideal conditions (Ed's and I forget 1 or two others had better bass), but as I said, subjectively, I noticed dispersion and sonic details similar , but not as pronounced, to my non-enabled dipoles.
John L.
dlr said:
Absolutely. I'm a doctor, and medicine has always been riddled with subjective notions. We were taught how to extract proof from subjective opinion statistically - modern medical science is built on the tedious double-blind rct (as has been proposed in this thread). Without that you have only opinion - and the bleedin' obvious.
Not totally straightforward though - try proving scientifically that SET amps are more musical than transistor amps. You can - but you end up using science as a language to describe generally accepted opinion. The science does convince in the end, but to some extent the tail wags the dog here IMO.
Re: Irony?
You outright reject ANY subjective obseration regarding EnABL, yet are quite smug about submiting subjective evaluation when it suits you. You expect respect in this regard? Not doubting the changes that you prefer, just show the same respect for others.
Either you're not trying hard enough or its too late.
auplater said:
You outright reject ANY subjective obseration regarding EnABL, yet are quite smug about submiting subjective evaluation when it suits you. You expect respect in this regard? Not doubting the changes that you prefer, just show the same respect for others.
auplater said:
Either you're not trying hard enough or its too late.
Re: Re: Irony? BS
Ah yes..the ad hominem starts... if you dislike my posts, put me on your ignore list. You seem to be clueless... I don't reject subjective enabl observations... I just reject the position that they somehow prove the treatment is more than a tweak. Take your personal attacks to email, please. Better yet, don't make them in the ffirst place.
John L.
konut said:
Ah yes..the ad hominem starts... if you dislike my posts, put me on your ignore list. You seem to be clueless... I don't reject subjective enabl observations... I just reject the position that they somehow prove the treatment is more than a tweak. Take your personal attacks to email, please. Better yet, don't make them in the ffirst place.
John L.
Well, based upon the relatively narrow changes in frequency response, most seeming to be a reduction of peak value with a modest change in position tied to some of those, adding an area wide peak, as the enhancement an EnABL'd driver provides, might not be the mechanism of change.
Again I have to point out that the subjective effect is an increase in downward information coherence and content. As if the energy that has gotten "loose" from the information packet, in an untreated speaker, and appears as energy to a microphone and noise to our correlator that is reconstructing the packet in our brain, has somehow stopped getting loose, in an EnABL'd driver.
I have no problem with John L's description of Dan's speakers. Most especially given the circumstances. He heard and described exactly what EnABL provides, more uncorrupted information, as opposed to more of any other quality or quantity. EnABL is not going to make any speaker it is applied to, the "BEST" speaker ever. It is only going to make it exhibit those very qualities he spoke of. The "sounded very good" part is the key here.
EnABL'd drivers do not stand out. There is not a "breathtaking" quality to them in any way. The typical first response I see from folks, is one of cautious relief. The speakers don't sound worse, or the same, as what they have heard before. EnABL is about subtle information correctness, even when it is aiding the correctness of a loud blaring horn or drum, as apposed to a tiny chime. It is about the structure of the information presented, in time.
That John L caught enough of what they provide, in 10 minutes of listening, at the end of a long speaker demo program, shows me he is used to information rich speakers, with significant abilities in downward coherent information content. That his speakers appear to be comprised of primarily free ribbon and planar drivers does support that.
John K posted a pair of CSD plots of what appeared to be a troubled, 6 inch metal driver, with and without EnABL, that showed a general, across the FR from 100 Hz on up, lessening of lumpiness in decay. Also showing a distinct ordering of the ringing nodes, as they decayed, the elimination of one of the nodes and a general "tightening up and regularizing" of the shape of those prominent features. This is the first time I have seen a test result that looked like what I would expect to see, based upon what I regularly hear from EnABL.
The actual EnABL effect does not become an OMG event until your hearing has adjusted to the lack of masking and begins to listen, in detail, to the much less noisy and much better organized sound field. A lot of what EnABL brings about depends upon the subjective "learning" of the correlator. I cannot claim the alteration this CSD blink comparison shows is what EnABL is providing, in this comparative sequence, but it is the first hope I have, that we might actually begin to link audible changes in the wide band region EnABL affects, to equally wide band changes in a well done CSD test, that was not aimed at finding this exact result.
That first subjective impression spoken of by Chrisb and Dave /10 is just the relaxation brought about by realizing" oh, this isn't worse than the other speakers.... oh, this is really pretty easy to listen to... oh, nothing seems particularly wrong here". After that, the real EnABL event begins to become apparent. That people intimately familiar with the acoustic event, that is live music, respond more quickly and to a greater degree than an ordinary person, just reinforces my point, in my opinion.
Bud
Again I have to point out that the subjective effect is an increase in downward information coherence and content. As if the energy that has gotten "loose" from the information packet, in an untreated speaker, and appears as energy to a microphone and noise to our correlator that is reconstructing the packet in our brain, has somehow stopped getting loose, in an EnABL'd driver.
I have no problem with John L's description of Dan's speakers. Most especially given the circumstances. He heard and described exactly what EnABL provides, more uncorrupted information, as opposed to more of any other quality or quantity. EnABL is not going to make any speaker it is applied to, the "BEST" speaker ever. It is only going to make it exhibit those very qualities he spoke of. The "sounded very good" part is the key here.
EnABL'd drivers do not stand out. There is not a "breathtaking" quality to them in any way. The typical first response I see from folks, is one of cautious relief. The speakers don't sound worse, or the same, as what they have heard before. EnABL is about subtle information correctness, even when it is aiding the correctness of a loud blaring horn or drum, as apposed to a tiny chime. It is about the structure of the information presented, in time.
That John L caught enough of what they provide, in 10 minutes of listening, at the end of a long speaker demo program, shows me he is used to information rich speakers, with significant abilities in downward coherent information content. That his speakers appear to be comprised of primarily free ribbon and planar drivers does support that.
John K posted a pair of CSD plots of what appeared to be a troubled, 6 inch metal driver, with and without EnABL, that showed a general, across the FR from 100 Hz on up, lessening of lumpiness in decay. Also showing a distinct ordering of the ringing nodes, as they decayed, the elimination of one of the nodes and a general "tightening up and regularizing" of the shape of those prominent features. This is the first time I have seen a test result that looked like what I would expect to see, based upon what I regularly hear from EnABL.
The actual EnABL effect does not become an OMG event until your hearing has adjusted to the lack of masking and begins to listen, in detail, to the much less noisy and much better organized sound field. A lot of what EnABL brings about depends upon the subjective "learning" of the correlator. I cannot claim the alteration this CSD blink comparison shows is what EnABL is providing, in this comparative sequence, but it is the first hope I have, that we might actually begin to link audible changes in the wide band region EnABL affects, to equally wide band changes in a well done CSD test, that was not aimed at finding this exact result.
That first subjective impression spoken of by Chrisb and Dave /10 is just the relaxation brought about by realizing" oh, this isn't worse than the other speakers.... oh, this is really pretty easy to listen to... oh, nothing seems particularly wrong here". After that, the real EnABL event begins to become apparent. That people intimately familiar with the acoustic event, that is live music, respond more quickly and to a greater degree than an ordinary person, just reinforces my point, in my opinion.
Bud
Dave, dlr,
My point was not that subjective data is to be preferred.
I said before and I'll say it again. If you get a series of descriptions with commonalities - and we do in this case - then it is worth pursuing those commonalities as a direction for inquiry. I didn't say pursue homeopathic straw men.
I didn't say take it on faith.
I never said otherwise.
I said more than just noticeable differences but of course, as I said, in this case somehow, it's claimed, "that's different."
If the speaker's whole aural presentation is changed, then that is more than a just noticeable difference. It's a big, fat difference every bit as strong as being able to tell the difference between singers. (Subtle difference: try and identify the trained singer from the oscilloscope trace).
Bronx cheer, baby.
So what's your point? I wrote almost those very words here about a gazillion pages back. I didn't say take it on faith. I said a direction for investigation.
Despite your denial, the descriptions do very much imply diminution of masking phenomena which suggests a line of investigation....
No, I'm not. All data is imperfect. Weeding out and gathering commonalities from descriptions is good practice: it's the primary information - you have to stay faithful to first principles but you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time you tackle a problem.
Look, everybody, regardless of their hearing, is an expert at listening to their own system, even as you are with your instrument:
No, wait! "That's different," right? '
'
My point was not that subjective data is to be preferred.
I said before and I'll say it again. If you get a series of descriptions with commonalities - and we do in this case - then it is worth pursuing those commonalities as a direction for inquiry. I didn't say pursue homeopathic straw men.
I didn't say take it on faith.
I never said otherwise.
I said more than just noticeable differences but of course, as I said, in this case somehow, it's claimed, "that's different."
If the speaker's whole aural presentation is changed, then that is more than a just noticeable difference. It's a big, fat difference every bit as strong as being able to tell the difference between singers. (Subtle difference: try and identify the trained singer from the oscilloscope trace).
Bronx cheer, baby.
So what's your point? I wrote almost those very words here about a gazillion pages back. I didn't say take it on faith. I said a direction for investigation.
Despite your denial, the descriptions do very much imply diminution of masking phenomena which suggests a line of investigation....
No, I'm not. All data is imperfect. Weeding out and gathering commonalities from descriptions is good practice: it's the primary information - you have to stay faithful to first principles but you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time you tackle a problem.
Look, everybody, regardless of their hearing, is an expert at listening to their own system, even as you are with your instrument:
No, wait! "That's different," right? '
'They're euphonic. They have an always on nice button. They produce whole number harmonics (distortion) which fit nicely with the structure of our ears and hearing.
A decent amplifier should not be producing "musical" or "unmusical" distortion.
Ya mighta noticed we got troubles enough with speakers!
FrankWW said:
They're euphonic. They have an always on nice button. They produce whole number harmonics (distortion) which fit nicely with the structure of our ears and hearing.
A decent amplifier should not be producing "musical" or "unmusical" distortion.
Ya mighta noticed we got troubles enough with speakers!
I know (I also own a valve amp). But if we didn't have the subjective observation, it is not "scientifically" obvious that high levels of even-harmonics should sound MUCH better than low levels of odd-harmonics. And nothing I know of in the "structure" of our ears (they're essentially microphones), and the auditory pathways in our brains, suggests in any way that we would enjoy valve distortion over transistor distortion.
... A long way of getting round to saying that without "subjective anecdote" - we would not have EnABL to play with at all.
Blood and sand what a cr4p post. I'm tired.
frankWW said:
dlr said:
The study of the human hearing/recognition mechanism is a fascinating and complex one.
Yes, humans can hear and recall better than most people in audio think they can.
The predominant recognizeable character in human voices are resonances known as formants. Each human has their own individual ones. Instruments have them as well. These resonances are independant of pitch (played or sung).
Some (usually trained) people can recall pitch strictly from memory. This is commonly called "perfect pitch".
However, nearly all humans have what is known as "relative pitch". We recall the proper intervals between pitches (tones). An example of this is when you hear someone sing the National anthem and you hear them go "off key" when singing acappella. We all know when someone's intonation is off, because our ear has been conditioned (also known as "tempering") to (in Western culture) a diatonic scale.
Well versed (in audio or music) people can recall frequency/amplitude from memory as well. Engineers can do it in recording sessions, musicians can re-adjust settings on their gear by ear with great consistency.
Although I tend to favour objective quantification as a means to assurance of repeatability and validity, I cannot simply eschew the fact that humans can most certainly be keenly persceptive to minute details to the senses.
A couple of things in that article stood out to me, as I have often debated them with other audiophiles.
This has been my position all along. I come from a pro audio/studio background, and as such, greatly value transparency.
I find (surprisingly) that not a lot (I would even venture to say, not the majority) of audiophiles prefer neutral. They tend to like exaggerated sonic reproduction.
In a lot of cases, I can't say I fault them (per se), as a lot of recordings are less than Hi-Fidelity. So I take it as (for them) a means to and end, to try and mitigate the fidelity of lackluster recordings with an exaggerated playback chain.
Another study done in Ottawa, Canada, at the NRC (National Research Council) drew some similar findings the study that dlr linked to earlier.
http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/psbnrc/
Cheers
Maybe all this unbelieving banter is worth something, but it sure is boring. The only important issue here, IMO, is that Bud has come up with something valuable regarding the functioning of loudspeaker surfaces that has to be understood better. Whether he is an erudite physicist is besides the point. It surely is much less tiring to read his speculative posts than wading through the emotional faux scientific filler posts in this thread.
As to anecdotal evidence: before gravitation was formalised, not falling off the earth was anecdotal. Some folks expanded rather wildly upon this, certainly stifling the shipping industry a tad at first. In retrospect this speculation might as well have provided the boost that world exploration required. It all boils down to being scared.
Consider: isn't subjective evaluation the actual object of study here? Deriding/dismissing it is surely not going to make it go away. And is it really trying to stand in for proper scientific method in this thread? I don't think so.
Another thing here that bothers me is the constant deus ex machina of frequency response. So what? Sure, Fourier provided a handy tool. And everybody loves to transform to the frequency domain. Works just fine for digital audio too. After a while everything looks like a nail.
It appears that Bud is proposing a kind of allpass behaviour for his spots. And that is audible, ask Linkwitz. Why not stick to this part of the problem for a while? It might aid understanding. And keep the FR mongers at bay.
As to anecdotal evidence: before gravitation was formalised, not falling off the earth was anecdotal. Some folks expanded rather wildly upon this, certainly stifling the shipping industry a tad at first. In retrospect this speculation might as well have provided the boost that world exploration required. It all boils down to being scared.
Consider: isn't subjective evaluation the actual object of study here? Deriding/dismissing it is surely not going to make it go away. And is it really trying to stand in for proper scientific method in this thread? I don't think so.
Another thing here that bothers me is the constant deus ex machina of frequency response. So what? Sure, Fourier provided a handy tool. And everybody loves to transform to the frequency domain. Works just fine for digital audio too. After a while everything looks like a nail.
It appears that Bud is proposing a kind of allpass behaviour for his spots. And that is audible, ask Linkwitz. Why not stick to this part of the problem for a while? It might aid understanding. And keep the FR mongers at bay.
G'day All,
Just back from a relaxing weekend away.
We stayed in a house that had a Teac MCDX10 Mini Hifi which is a satellite + sub woofer system.
The driver for the subwoofer is completely contained in the box and all the bass exits from a single bass port with a flare at its end.
The bass sounded boomy and boxy so I wondered if EnABLing the port might make an 'audible difference' similar to what I reported in post #2428.
I didn't have any double sided tape with me so I thought about it for a while and decided to try cutting up the sticky sides of a bandaid with scissors to make the EnABL blocks.
I applied the ENABL pattern to the inside of the bass port on the straight part of the port just before the flare at the opening.
EnABLing the port did not improve the overall balance of the system.
However, the bass did become cleaner, more detailed and less boxy. And this was also clearly heard by a friend who is deaf in one ear and has no 'audio' knowledge whatsoever.
Don't believe it? Good place to start. Try it on your own system and let me know what happens.
Cheers
Just back from a relaxing weekend away.
We stayed in a house that had a Teac MCDX10 Mini Hifi which is a satellite + sub woofer system.
The driver for the subwoofer is completely contained in the box and all the bass exits from a single bass port with a flare at its end.
The bass sounded boomy and boxy so I wondered if EnABLing the port might make an 'audible difference' similar to what I reported in post #2428.
I didn't have any double sided tape with me so I thought about it for a while and decided to try cutting up the sticky sides of a bandaid with scissors to make the EnABL blocks.
I applied the ENABL pattern to the inside of the bass port on the straight part of the port just before the flare at the opening.
EnABLing the port did not improve the overall balance of the system.
However, the bass did become cleaner, more detailed and less boxy. And this was also clearly heard by a friend who is deaf in one ear and has no 'audio' knowledge whatsoever.
Don't believe it? Good place to start. Try it on your own system and let me know what happens.
Cheers
- Status
- Not open for further replies.