Re: Re: Philips DVD Home Theater System HTS3455
Amazing. Everyone is so quick to accept any and all anecdotal reports of single individuals when it's been proven by experts in the field of testing that the same person can report two entirely different responses to the identical system at two different times. These anecdotal reports have no validity. Of course, for there to be any meaning, there would have to be provable differences to be heard. There will not be for this. Much self-delusion, all tests sighted, absolutely zero in the way of valid test conditions nor is then even proof that there are differences to be heard. Nothing, but you all swallow it whole. In fact, just provide some unproven, unsubstantiated, unscientific, ill-setup test that is positive and the accolades begin anew, especially from Bud.
Congratulations go to anyone providing a positive report, even if cutup pieces of band-aids were used. At one time it was said that the enabl application had to be of a material that provided for faster speed-of-sound transmission through it. It was tied directly to BL and the speed-of-sound in the material was the key factor. I guess some "requirements" are only valid when needed to question the validity of a test that did not result in a glowing report.
This application on any non-driver surface is the exact equivalent of Tice clocks. Many swore that they, too, heard significant differences when the clock was plugged into the wall power socket. So many glowing reports were made. Of course, the improvement was claimed by those who believed to be much more pronounced when plugged into the a socket on the same circuit to which the system was connected. It supposedly worked if plugged into any one in the house, just with less effect. From what I read, nearly everyone here would believe that, too.
Dave
Alan Hope said:
Amazing. Everyone is so quick to accept any and all anecdotal reports of single individuals when it's been proven by experts in the field of testing that the same person can report two entirely different responses to the identical system at two different times. These anecdotal reports have no validity. Of course, for there to be any meaning, there would have to be provable differences to be heard. There will not be for this. Much self-delusion, all tests sighted, absolutely zero in the way of valid test conditions nor is then even proof that there are differences to be heard. Nothing, but you all swallow it whole. In fact, just provide some unproven, unsubstantiated, unscientific, ill-setup test that is positive and the accolades begin anew, especially from Bud.
Congratulations go to anyone providing a positive report, even if cutup pieces of band-aids were used. At one time it was said that the enabl application had to be of a material that provided for faster speed-of-sound transmission through it. It was tied directly to BL and the speed-of-sound in the material was the key factor. I guess some "requirements" are only valid when needed to question the validity of a test that did not result in a glowing report.
This application on any non-driver surface is the exact equivalent of Tice clocks. Many swore that they, too, heard significant differences when the clock was plugged into the wall power socket. So many glowing reports were made. Of course, the improvement was claimed by those who believed to be much more pronounced when plugged into the a socket on the same circuit to which the system was connected. It supposedly worked if plugged into any one in the house, just with less effect. From what I read, nearly everyone here would believe that, too.
Dave
What I meant about "what is being transmitted" is laser? light? etc.ronc said:
If 1500pps means 1500 scan passes per second, that's probably the highest frequency that can be measured, and it's getting pretty close to the piston mode of operation. If we look at when the patterns take effect, it's much higher frequencies than the piston mode of operation. Thus, for example, if we wish to catch a 4KHz cone breakup mode, it's necessary to be able to do 4000pps to catch it.
Re: Re: Re: Philips DVD Home Theater System HTS3455
Hi Dave,
Not quite, mate, ... just pointing out that the anecdotal effect described (deeper bass) is easy to confirm or refute by FR responses before / after. I only "accept" it as anecdotal - with all that you describe as being true of course - until somebody repeats what was done and publishes the 2 FR traces.
Also, mass hysteria is a real (fascinating - though also somewhat controversial) phenomenon. It usually displays itself as lots of people vomiting, fainting and the likes, but why should we not add "convinced of improved hifi sound" to that list?
But while a few are now trying to clarify all this, lets cut out these knee-jerk posts here and see what comes. I am a guarded "supporter", but also deeply sceptical, and certainly not immune to being unwittingly drawn in.
Cheers, Alan
dlr said:
Hi Dave,
Not quite, mate, ... just pointing out that the anecdotal effect described (deeper bass) is easy to confirm or refute by FR responses before / after. I only "accept" it as anecdotal - with all that you describe as being true of course - until somebody repeats what was done and publishes the 2 FR traces.
Also, mass hysteria is a real (fascinating - though also somewhat controversial) phenomenon. It usually displays itself as lots of people vomiting, fainting and the likes, but why should we not add "convinced of improved hifi sound" to that list?
But while a few are now trying to clarify all this, lets cut out these knee-jerk posts here and see what comes. I am a guarded "supporter", but also deeply sceptical, and certainly not immune to being unwittingly drawn in.
Cheers, Alan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Philips DVD Home Theater System HTS3455
In fact, yes, for the paragraph that you left quoted. It has been proved that the same person may indeed have a different perception of exactly the same system at different times, even under identical conditions. This in indisputable and I believe it to be a factor in much of these anecdotal reports.
Once again, I'll post a link that provides a synopsis of some of the studies made by some of the most respected researchers in audio. Not one person made a single comment the first time. Makes me wonder if anyone took time to read any of it. Probably not, since it refutes so much of the "methodology" used here. If one truly wants to learn in the area of audio perception, this should be a requirement, especially for those here making the claims about ports and baffles as they do. This should be separated from drivers since it's easily proved that there is a change in frequency response, mechanism aside.
Toole and Olive - real research
There is also a factor that will make this even more difficult. Room conditions make any measurements in the frequency range problematic. In the absence of a true anechoic chamber or a large, quiet outdoor setup with raised platform or in-ground 2-pi conditions, changes made to a port must be measured as a close-mic setup at the port. Whatever changes are made, even IF they were significant, would very possibly not show up due to the mic position. I have even less confidence in the ability of the few here who would make tests of this nature, due to the increased degree of difficulty. This is in the area of significant room influence, not easily handled for testing of this nature.
Absolutely. Expectation of improvement can be a powerful influence. You seem to be practically the only one acknowledging this.
I consider much of the proponents post as "knee-jerk" since so often it is a refutation of known, valid measurement procedures or is a direct challenge to those who have spent literally years studying and measuring. Why no "knee-jerk" comments when it comes from the other side? No, I'll say my piece, whether considered by some to be knee-jerk or not. Ridiculous is ridiculous, regardless of sincerity.
BTW, what's knee-jerk? Was it the part about the changing requirements clearly evident throughout the thread? It's significant in its absence. What's your take on the large number of inconsistencies, of which this is but one? Consider at first that the FR was declared to be not influenced at all. Not one proponent challenged this, either.
Dave
Alan Hope said:
In fact, yes, for the paragraph that you left quoted. It has been proved that the same person may indeed have a different perception of exactly the same system at different times, even under identical conditions. This in indisputable and I believe it to be a factor in much of these anecdotal reports.
Once again, I'll post a link that provides a synopsis of some of the studies made by some of the most respected researchers in audio. Not one person made a single comment the first time. Makes me wonder if anyone took time to read any of it. Probably not, since it refutes so much of the "methodology" used here. If one truly wants to learn in the area of audio perception, this should be a requirement, especially for those here making the claims about ports and baffles as they do. This should be separated from drivers since it's easily proved that there is a change in frequency response, mechanism aside.
Toole and Olive - real research
There is also a factor that will make this even more difficult. Room conditions make any measurements in the frequency range problematic. In the absence of a true anechoic chamber or a large, quiet outdoor setup with raised platform or in-ground 2-pi conditions, changes made to a port must be measured as a close-mic setup at the port. Whatever changes are made, even IF they were significant, would very possibly not show up due to the mic position. I have even less confidence in the ability of the few here who would make tests of this nature, due to the increased degree of difficulty. This is in the area of significant room influence, not easily handled for testing of this nature.
Absolutely. Expectation of improvement can be a powerful influence. You seem to be practically the only one acknowledging this.
I consider much of the proponents post as "knee-jerk" since so often it is a refutation of known, valid measurement procedures or is a direct challenge to those who have spent literally years studying and measuring. Why no "knee-jerk" comments when it comes from the other side? No, I'll say my piece, whether considered by some to be knee-jerk or not. Ridiculous is ridiculous, regardless of sincerity.
BTW, what's knee-jerk? Was it the part about the changing requirements clearly evident throughout the thread? It's significant in its absence. What's your take on the large number of inconsistencies, of which this is but one? Consider at first that the FR was declared to be not influenced at all. Not one proponent challenged this, either.
Dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: Philips DVD Home Theater System HTS3455
I might suggest that T/S parameters of the driver in the box before and after would clearly show if there were indeed deeper bass. On the other hand, deeper bass could arise simply from moving the speaker or a slight change in listening position. This is why closely controlled experiments, both objective and subjective are required.
But what continues to amaze me it that Bud is quick to accept anything offering positive support for treatment, like his 20 year old discussion with Ned N., even though he apparently claims not to know even what Ned was talking about, not even a clue.
But Bud is no dummy. The one thing I will say is that he clearly understands that the longer this thread continues the longer his name is in the spotlight. Of course, once the light burns out there won't be much to argue about and Enable will drift back into the shadows again. For that, the commentary, pro or anti, only extends the life. The long term judge of the treatment is time. Time always gets it right.
Alan Hope said:
I might suggest that T/S parameters of the driver in the box before and after would clearly show if there were indeed deeper bass. On the other hand, deeper bass could arise simply from moving the speaker or a slight change in listening position. This is why closely controlled experiments, both objective and subjective are required.
But what continues to amaze me it that Bud is quick to accept anything offering positive support for treatment, like his 20 year old discussion with Ned N., even though he apparently claims not to know even what Ned was talking about, not even a clue.
But Bud is no dummy. The one thing I will say is that he clearly understands that the longer this thread continues the longer his name is in the spotlight. Of course, once the light burns out there won't be much to argue about and Enable will drift back into the shadows again. For that, the commentary, pro or anti, only extends the life. The long term judge of the treatment is time. Time always gets it right.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Philips DVD Home Theater System HTS3455
...are you playing psychoanalyst, or do you just get a kick out of putting other people down?
I find it odd that you and dlr indignantly bid farewell to this thread at least once a week... only to show up the next day. Why are you helping to keep the thread that so needs to die on top of the forum?
...maybe you have a need to be in the spotlight?
john k... said:
...are you playing psychoanalyst, or do you just get a kick out of putting other people down?
I find it odd that you and dlr indignantly bid farewell to this thread at least once a week... only to show up the next day. Why are you helping to keep the thread that so needs to die on top of the forum?
...maybe you have a need to be in the spotlight?
staggerlee said:
I rejected the offer because after coming to some agreement in the discussion here (on the form) Bud reverted back to claming what we had agreed upon as being not relevant was suddenly relevant again. His constant flip flopping lead me to conclude that what I heard and any correlation between what I heard and what I might measured would be deemed irrelevant if it did not fit Bud's preconceived notions as to what is going on.
staggerlee said:
But I have never refuted that Enable may, will, can change the way a driver sounds. I believe that it most likely will, and my own experiments have verified that such treatment (though unsanctioned) does change the driver behavior. The point of controversy is that the observed changes in measured response have been rejected as the cause of the subjective change in sound. It's sort of like painting a black car red and then the observer says, "Sure the car looks red now, but it's not because it has been painted red. Prove it looks red because you painted it red." Well, all things given the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. So I suspect that the differences that are measured do indeed give rise to the differences that are heard.
Where to begin???
While I agree that such control and careful study is the only way to provide REASONABLE proof (or lack of proof), we're still left with the statistical uncertainty that even those tests might not be entirely true - hence my bringing up Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg and the like in an earlier post. I assume the skeptics are familiar with statistical analysis? But can't there be some useful information pulled from some simple double blind tests or some other simplified tests?
Dave and John, you would both do a great service to this thread if you DID listen to and test the drivers at whatever level you feel comfortable doing. I'd assume you'd be among the least likely to be susceptible to the "mass hysteria" problem you speak of... There are probably many here who would appreciate your honest evaluations.
In the end, I don't give a blink about what the cause of the change is, and I don't care if Bud is full of hot air in his analyses of the causes of changes. If the tweak provides sound I like, that's what matters to me. So I'm surprised that John sounds like he believes people are hearing a difference that they call improvement. Is all this blather (on all sides) really just about whether the difference is due to boundary layer effects or frequency response, damping, e-i-e-i-ooooo...?
Carl
While I agree that such control and careful study is the only way to provide REASONABLE proof (or lack of proof), we're still left with the statistical uncertainty that even those tests might not be entirely true - hence my bringing up Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg and the like in an earlier post. I assume the skeptics are familiar with statistical analysis? But can't there be some useful information pulled from some simple double blind tests or some other simplified tests?
Dave and John, you would both do a great service to this thread if you DID listen to and test the drivers at whatever level you feel comfortable doing. I'd assume you'd be among the least likely to be susceptible to the "mass hysteria" problem you speak of... There are probably many here who would appreciate your honest evaluations.
In the end, I don't give a blink about what the cause of the change is, and I don't care if Bud is full of hot air in his analyses of the causes of changes. If the tweak provides sound I like, that's what matters to me. So I'm surprised that John sounds like he believes people are hearing a difference that they call improvement. Is all this blather (on all sides) really just about whether the difference is due to boundary layer effects or frequency response, damping, e-i-e-i-ooooo...?
Carl
Carlp said:
There are two cases. One, as John and I have both stated without exception, the application to a driver makes a difference. No double-blind test needed, we both agreed with that up front. Every measurement supplied validates frequency response changes. No problem.
First, note that your "mass hysteria" quote was not mine, it's Alan's, though my comments were simliar. I just agreed with it.
The "mass hysteria" is not related to drivers at all, it has to do with ports and baffles. If you care to see the kind of application that really can make a difference with supporting measurements fully documented, see my article in the ONE 2005 issue of audioXpress. There won't be a change in baffles with enabl. I've got too much else to do than waste time on that. In the end, it would be a negative, so there would be no "proof" as it is impossible to prove a negative. I recognize the sincerity of the request, but it would go nowhere. Believers would still believe.
As a driver tweak I'm in full agreement with you. But the debate is on several aspects, boundary layer being the basis for all claimed changes, driver, port, baffle room resonances, even after the change in frequency response of the was proved, but for the driver only. Everything else was by extension to any surface on which the application is applied. I totally reject the latter, all of my experience shows it to be useless to pursue.
Dave
Re: Re: Philips DVD Home Theater System HTS3455
It would follow logically that if the changes are audible then differences should be apparant in measurements.
We are not talking 'just noticeable difference' in this case.
With regard to the 'deeper' bass - I don't know whether the bass FR has actually changed or if the bass that was already there is now able to be heard more clearly.
I suspect the latter because, from my experience, EnABL unmasks information that is already there.
It would follow logically that if the changes are audible then differences should be apparant in measurements.
We are not talking 'just noticeable difference' in this case.
With regard to the 'deeper' bass - I don't know whether the bass FR has actually changed or if the bass that was already there is now able to be heard more clearly.
I suspect the latter because, from my experience, EnABL unmasks information that is already there.
Hey dlr,
Your KEF (Celestion) F15 2-Way is a bass reflex design.
Why not try applying EnABL the port of one of these just to see if there is an audible difference?
Your KEF (Celestion) F15 2-Way is a bass reflex design.
Why not try applying EnABL the port of one of these just to see if there is an audible difference?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Philips DVD Home Theater System HTS3455
Knee-jerk responses are coming from both camps.
Two people chatting about a subjective observation -> "Amazing, everyone is so quick to accept anecdote etc"
Two people chatting about objective tests -> Ah but of course this phenomenon may defy such testing etc.
The lines have now been drawn in the sand. Some kind souls have offered to do objective tests in as rigorous a manner as they are able. I, for one, look forward to their report.
OK, EnABLing of baffles seems to be one thing that you won't even countenance. It's photos-in-the-freezer territory for you! I'm less sure - though I might just do my own little blinded test just to make up my own mind one way or the other. I've decided NOT to EnABL all the chambers in my Sachikos, but will put a single ring on one baffle put the speakers together and get an accomplice to feed a left channel to speaker A-then-B or B-then-A at random (coin toss) and document which. I will document what I hear - say 40 times with some familiar CDs.
Then we will put his key together with my observations, and publish the results here.
Interested? Not that it really bothers me
Cheers, Alan
dlr said:
Knee-jerk responses are coming from both camps.
Two people chatting about a subjective observation -> "Amazing, everyone is so quick to accept anecdote etc"
Two people chatting about objective tests -> Ah but of course this phenomenon may defy such testing etc.
The lines have now been drawn in the sand. Some kind souls have offered to do objective tests in as rigorous a manner as they are able. I, for one, look forward to their report.
OK, EnABLing of baffles seems to be one thing that you won't even countenance. It's photos-in-the-freezer territory for you! I'm less sure - though I might just do my own little blinded test just to make up my own mind one way or the other. I've decided NOT to EnABL all the chambers in my Sachikos, but will put a single ring on one baffle put the speakers together and get an accomplice to feed a left channel to speaker A-then-B or B-then-A at random (coin toss) and document which. I will document what I hear - say 40 times with some familiar CDs.
Then we will put his key together with my observations, and publish the results here.
Interested? Not that it really bothers me
Cheers, Alan
Dave,
Absolutely right. My apologies. I did realize this but I didn't make it clear. AND I apologize for confusing the difference in the discussion between the baffle treatment vs the driver treatment. BUT, as for the believers still believing even if you were to test driver and baffle treatments, remember that there are many out here who AREN'T believers, but simply people who are intrigued about the possibilities and open to all sides - and would benefit from your testing.
Of course, just as the placebo effect could make believers hear differences from baffle treatments, I wonder if it could also make disbelievers NOT hear actual differences. Hmmmmm......
Carl
Absolutely right. My apologies. I did realize this but I didn't make it clear. AND I apologize for confusing the difference in the discussion between the baffle treatment vs the driver treatment. BUT, as for the believers still believing even if you were to test driver and baffle treatments, remember that there are many out here who AREN'T believers, but simply people who are intrigued about the possibilities and open to all sides - and would benefit from your testing.
Of course, just as the placebo effect could make believers hear differences from baffle treatments, I wonder if it could also make disbelievers NOT hear actual differences. Hmmmmm......
Carl
Carlp said:
Of course it could! That's the WHOLE POINT of carefully designed tests... separating the wheat from the chaff... seems to be a HIGHLY unpopular goal here.. probably because it takes alot of work to do it right...
This is exactly the faulty logic that seems rampant on this wandering thread... placebo effect is placebo effect. If the testing conditions are set up correctly, all expectation effects (whether supporting the hypothesis or the null) will be exposed. Your argument only demonstrates your lack of understanding the reality of honest testing.
back to lurking mode...
John L.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.