auplater said:
Precisely my point! I "knew" what to expect, and was disappointed.
Before the RMAF blind demo (not double blind) I had done the EnABL treatment on 2 sets of drivers and liked the results. But I was perfectly willing to admit that I might be wrong, might even be imagining the differences.
So going into the test I was a bit biased, biased slightly in favor of EnABL, with a thought I might be simply imagining the difference - good old wishful thinking. Really expected the test to be inconclusive. One of those "I think I hear a difference" things.
In fact I did hear differences, I just didn't like them. That's why I was sorely disappointed. EnABL made a difference, but it was a change that I did not like.
The O'Henry ending, of course, is that I was wrong about which drivers where which. The drivers I disliked were the UNtreated pair, even tho I did not know it at the time.
You can shoot all the bullets you want at the test, does not matter to me. It was a good test. Perfect? No, but still pretty good. And my accidental confusion over the drivers trumped my own prejudice. =)
john k... said:
If you'd like to discuss that it seems to be starting here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118668
dave
auplater said:
There's no confusion.
If an attempt is made to ignore human behaviour and fallibility variables when using humans as a barometer, then the data is suspect, unreliable and open to interpretation.
That seriously compromises the validity of the test, and any conclusions drawn upon the data are merely speculative.
Cheers
"Left/right brain differences are by no means proven."
Just about nothing can be proven as far as the physical world is concerned. If you enjoy proving things, go study math. BTW it's not only popular literature that refers to brain lobe differences. I commend wider reading to anyone.
This is beside the point though. Apart from a few unfortunates, most humans have rational and more diffuse ways of mentally processing information. Sitting in a tightly controlled environment is more conducive to the former than the latter. Sitting in your own sofa favours the other kinds of perception/processing. That does not invalidate those modes of perception, especially since it is those modes that are to be addressed by a treatment such as EnABL.
As many are pointing out now, DBT testing "is! is not!" is a bit OT here. Bud's technique needs science to explain the phenomena, not to prove or disprove them. Those that are on a crusade to do either are wasting valuable time and resources. Science could help refine the techniques and find applications not thought of thus far. And perhaps provide a language that everyone can use to describe these phenomena without alienation. Fortunately Bud is quite prolific in finding new applications. If you're interested in the subject, engage with it and stop brandishing semantics.
Just about nothing can be proven as far as the physical world is concerned. If you enjoy proving things, go study math. BTW it's not only popular literature that refers to brain lobe differences. I commend wider reading to anyone.
This is beside the point though. Apart from a few unfortunates, most humans have rational and more diffuse ways of mentally processing information. Sitting in a tightly controlled environment is more conducive to the former than the latter. Sitting in your own sofa favours the other kinds of perception/processing. That does not invalidate those modes of perception, especially since it is those modes that are to be addressed by a treatment such as EnABL.
As many are pointing out now, DBT testing "is! is not!" is a bit OT here. Bud's technique needs science to explain the phenomena, not to prove or disprove them. Those that are on a crusade to do either are wasting valuable time and resources. Science could help refine the techniques and find applications not thought of thus far. And perhaps provide a language that everyone can use to describe these phenomena without alienation. Fortunately Bud is quite prolific in finding new applications. If you're interested in the subject, engage with it and stop brandishing semantics.
JacquesToo,
I appreciate your comments. The folks who are here posing as skeptics are indeed just that, some of them are not here to find out what is going on, just to either force it into what forms they have available and diminish it's importance, for a variety of reasons, or sneer and jeer from the peanut gallery, almost regardless of intelligible content to the jeering. Others skeptics have a different view point and are interested in the investigation.
All of this is important and part of getting anything new accepted into "known" phenomena. The investigative skeptics have actually been forth coming with information, that is pertinent to EnABL. We have seen a very interesting set of CSD waterfall charts, publicly displayed and mounted in an A/B blink format for a very short time, that actually showed what EnABL does for the maximum signal FR and it's decay.
The changes brought about by this tiny amount of EnABL pattern mass, on a badly behaving 61/2 inch metal driver, were eye opening indeed. In a general sense a removal of many artifacts that were extraneous to the specific driver output. The four main nodal standing waves were reduced to three, moved down slightly in frequency, "tightened up" in their shape and their stepped ringing, as a standing wave, was clearly evident. There were other smoothed areas, reductions in decaying signals, but overall the EnABL'd driver looked just as awful as the untreated one, albeit more focused and with less noise content. Or, exactly as had been claimed from the beginning of this thread. It was nice to see conventional test equipment performing properly, in skilled hands, and showing EnABL quite clearly.
There have been other tests, some hotly disputed as they should not have been even possible, from software utilizing the Hilbert transform for analysis. Never the less they are available on this site and were performed under rigorous conditions and with equally skilled hands.
Even more tests are coming up, with more data to be culled. However, the current wrangle is about the leading edge, not the trailing edge of the signal. Dave (dlr) maintains the information is in the tests, but no one has shown us where, to date. Not arguing it isn't there, just waiting for the skilled skeptics to show us where.
There is also the potential for actually looking at the diaphragm as it creates a compression wave in the air, comprised of the initial piston stroke from the voice coil and the emission from the rest of the cone, created by a transverse wave. The subsequent phase incoherent ringing, of same signal information, from reflected transverse wave creations, at from 3 to 15 times the speed of the initial compression wave, in air is what currently being looked at.
This ringing of same signal information is not related to those nodal ridges we saw so clearly, and so clearly changed, in that earlier CSD. These ringing events will be incorporated into those nodes, if they have the proper frequencies, no doubt of that. However, they are the standing waves that EnABL actually acts upon, and I am sure they are dealt with just as they were in that CSD. Some will be eliminated and others just dispersed more quickly. This is also an early claim for EnABL and we will find a way to display it, since it is well out of the just noticeable category, in a subjective sense.
So, as you can see, the skeptics are actually very helpful. You should not feel dispirited when it seems EnABL is being disproved, as John K disassembles my reasoning behind the subjective analysis tools I use, when I treat a driver for the first time. I will not stop using them and buried in this thread, I have consistently described them and how to use them, for your own investigations. Eventually there will be objective counterparts, officially accepted words and the math will have been done. EnABL and it's descendent's will become common, to everyone's benefit.
Even the wrangle about double blind tests is not off topic. A true set of these has been performed, long ago and in NJ. The man who performed those tests is deceased and the results have been presented here in an anecdotal fashion. No claims are to be made from them, due to these problems, but I have no concerns about the results of a true double blind test, with properly EnABL'd drivers.
EnABL is thriving and the anecdotal evidence for extensions beyond just the drivers is mounting. The skeptics are satisfied as to the validity of EnABL on a driver. They just have their own set of values and limits that they place upon the data presented so far. It is cautious and rightfully so. They have a responsibility to quantitative practices and I would chide them if they did not uphold that responsibility.
This does not affect the rest of us at all. My responsibility to the qualitative sector is to make sure that if you are going to treat a set of drivers, that I have successfully treated, you have enough information to do so. And, if you are going to move on to other drivers, that I make myself available to aid that activity.
I have done so and will continue to do so. There is no reason for anyone who is interested in exploring this seductive pattern not to do so. The science isn't suddenly going to make EnABL non viable. It isn't going to make a fool out of anyone who does explore, with some guidance. EnABL is as functional as the qualitative, anecdotal comments claim. The quantitative understanding will come along in time.
Bud
I appreciate your comments. The folks who are here posing as skeptics are indeed just that, some of them are not here to find out what is going on, just to either force it into what forms they have available and diminish it's importance, for a variety of reasons, or sneer and jeer from the peanut gallery, almost regardless of intelligible content to the jeering. Others skeptics have a different view point and are interested in the investigation.
All of this is important and part of getting anything new accepted into "known" phenomena. The investigative skeptics have actually been forth coming with information, that is pertinent to EnABL. We have seen a very interesting set of CSD waterfall charts, publicly displayed and mounted in an A/B blink format for a very short time, that actually showed what EnABL does for the maximum signal FR and it's decay.
The changes brought about by this tiny amount of EnABL pattern mass, on a badly behaving 61/2 inch metal driver, were eye opening indeed. In a general sense a removal of many artifacts that were extraneous to the specific driver output. The four main nodal standing waves were reduced to three, moved down slightly in frequency, "tightened up" in their shape and their stepped ringing, as a standing wave, was clearly evident. There were other smoothed areas, reductions in decaying signals, but overall the EnABL'd driver looked just as awful as the untreated one, albeit more focused and with less noise content. Or, exactly as had been claimed from the beginning of this thread. It was nice to see conventional test equipment performing properly, in skilled hands, and showing EnABL quite clearly.
There have been other tests, some hotly disputed as they should not have been even possible, from software utilizing the Hilbert transform for analysis. Never the less they are available on this site and were performed under rigorous conditions and with equally skilled hands.
Even more tests are coming up, with more data to be culled. However, the current wrangle is about the leading edge, not the trailing edge of the signal. Dave (dlr) maintains the information is in the tests, but no one has shown us where, to date. Not arguing it isn't there, just waiting for the skilled skeptics to show us where.
There is also the potential for actually looking at the diaphragm as it creates a compression wave in the air, comprised of the initial piston stroke from the voice coil and the emission from the rest of the cone, created by a transverse wave. The subsequent phase incoherent ringing, of same signal information, from reflected transverse wave creations, at from 3 to 15 times the speed of the initial compression wave, in air is what currently being looked at.
This ringing of same signal information is not related to those nodal ridges we saw so clearly, and so clearly changed, in that earlier CSD. These ringing events will be incorporated into those nodes, if they have the proper frequencies, no doubt of that. However, they are the standing waves that EnABL actually acts upon, and I am sure they are dealt with just as they were in that CSD. Some will be eliminated and others just dispersed more quickly. This is also an early claim for EnABL and we will find a way to display it, since it is well out of the just noticeable category, in a subjective sense.
So, as you can see, the skeptics are actually very helpful. You should not feel dispirited when it seems EnABL is being disproved, as John K disassembles my reasoning behind the subjective analysis tools I use, when I treat a driver for the first time. I will not stop using them and buried in this thread, I have consistently described them and how to use them, for your own investigations. Eventually there will be objective counterparts, officially accepted words and the math will have been done. EnABL and it's descendent's will become common, to everyone's benefit.
Even the wrangle about double blind tests is not off topic. A true set of these has been performed, long ago and in NJ. The man who performed those tests is deceased and the results have been presented here in an anecdotal fashion. No claims are to be made from them, due to these problems, but I have no concerns about the results of a true double blind test, with properly EnABL'd drivers.
EnABL is thriving and the anecdotal evidence for extensions beyond just the drivers is mounting. The skeptics are satisfied as to the validity of EnABL on a driver. They just have their own set of values and limits that they place upon the data presented so far. It is cautious and rightfully so. They have a responsibility to quantitative practices and I would chide them if they did not uphold that responsibility.
This does not affect the rest of us at all. My responsibility to the qualitative sector is to make sure that if you are going to treat a set of drivers, that I have successfully treated, you have enough information to do so. And, if you are going to move on to other drivers, that I make myself available to aid that activity.
I have done so and will continue to do so. There is no reason for anyone who is interested in exploring this seductive pattern not to do so. The science isn't suddenly going to make EnABL non viable. It isn't going to make a fool out of anyone who does explore, with some guidance. EnABL is as functional as the qualitative, anecdotal comments claim. The quantitative understanding will come along in time.
Bud
The test was done with the volume set at 75dB @ 1000Hz which would not create any significant distortion issues for a decent full range driver.
Quote from the Sterophile review...
So the SL3 offers:
- no single point source radiation
- low sensitivity
- crossover circuits and
- electronic frequency compensation right in the mid range between 250 - 500Hz+.
Doesn't sound very revealing to me.
Cheers,
Alex
BudP said:
Spoken like a true politician. Vote for me and the world will be a better place. I particularly like the part about reflected waves traveling 3 to 15 time faster than the original wave. "EnABL is as functional as the qualitative, anecdotal comments claim. "
Maybe, in some cases. What about the qualitative, anecdotal comments that claim it made things worse? I've received email indicating just such.
"The quantitative understanding will come along in time."
The quantitative understanding is aready here. You just don't want to accept it.
I see as I write this that john has replied, but I'll post this nevertheless.
Just what "analysis" was that? There wasn't any "analysis" other than a fuzzy reference to the phase response. It wasn't an analysis of an kind.
There was also nothing rigorous in those tests. Quite the contrary, most of the tests you reference with regard to phase have been nothing short of simplistic with little to no clearly defined test conditions. As long as it was positive, you call it rigorous. It was not.
There is no wrangle, you are making a false claim, that's it. There is no leading edge controversy other than your assumptions that john has since shown to be without merit.
If you want to challenge the present capabilities and data in measurement systems, then let's see it. You evidently do not understand what is in them and what is not, yet if evidence to support your hypothesis is not provided, you simply continue to ask others to do more for you. That is unlikely to occur in any verifiable way. You need to step up to the plate yourself.
Not going to happen. I'll believe it when I see it.
Define incoherent, with specifics to the physics, please.
And how did you arrive at that (broad) description of speed? 3-15 times? What calculation did you use? Since you specified it fairly definitively, you MUST have done some sort of mathematical calculation or derivation.
And you KNOW this definitively how?
I will state up front, here and now, this is never, ever going to happen. Someone, anyone, PLEASE, prove me wrong. Others here may find satisfaction in these words without support whatsoever, but it's nothing more than words based on mistaken, unquestioning belief. Believers never, ever challenge. They hear what they expect to hear.
Talk about equivocation. There's nothing but anecdotal evidence in 99% of this thread, including the above. No science involved, simply a desire to believe.
And it has no validity whatsoever except to unquestioning believers.
Please, Bud, don't make up patently false statements such as this. We do not accept one iota of the "validity" of this on a driver. No, it is NOT doing anything of the sort. It is nothing more than the classical response to added mass, damping and localized stiffening of the diaphragm. Not one bit more.
Of course not, the others believe unquestioningly. Why should factual data affect them?
On this single aspect, there's no reason to take issue. The distributed added mass makes a typical, expected change in resonances, moves them around, increases some, decreases some, nothing out of the ordinary. That alone is supportable. As to improvement in perception, no guarantees whatsoever.
On that last statement, balogny, not like you want to see. No here will ever do that. You can't provide it and from what's been seen in this thread, not one proponent here has the capability to do so, either. John's point was spot on.
And please, actually answer the questions, they're not rhetorical. Don't simply make some new, sweeping and broad response that answers nothing. In the past, many significant questions have pretty much gone without direct response. Lacking response, one can only assume that they the answers might be a bit painful. Please clarify those questions and prove me wrong.
Dave
BudP said:
Just what "analysis" was that? There wasn't any "analysis" other than a fuzzy reference to the phase response. It wasn't an analysis of an kind.
There was also nothing rigorous in those tests. Quite the contrary, most of the tests you reference with regard to phase have been nothing short of simplistic with little to no clearly defined test conditions. As long as it was positive, you call it rigorous. It was not.
There is no wrangle, you are making a false claim, that's it. There is no leading edge controversy other than your assumptions that john has since shown to be without merit.
If you want to challenge the present capabilities and data in measurement systems, then let's see it. You evidently do not understand what is in them and what is not, yet if evidence to support your hypothesis is not provided, you simply continue to ask others to do more for you. That is unlikely to occur in any verifiable way. You need to step up to the plate yourself.
Not going to happen. I'll believe it when I see it.
Define incoherent, with specifics to the physics, please.
And how did you arrive at that (broad) description of speed? 3-15 times? What calculation did you use? Since you specified it fairly definitively, you MUST have done some sort of mathematical calculation or derivation.
And you KNOW this definitively how?
I will state up front, here and now, this is never, ever going to happen. Someone, anyone, PLEASE, prove me wrong. Others here may find satisfaction in these words without support whatsoever, but it's nothing more than words based on mistaken, unquestioning belief. Believers never, ever challenge. They hear what they expect to hear.
Talk about equivocation. There's nothing but anecdotal evidence in 99% of this thread, including the above. No science involved, simply a desire to believe.
And it has no validity whatsoever except to unquestioning believers.
Please, Bud, don't make up patently false statements such as this. We do not accept one iota of the "validity" of this on a driver. No, it is NOT doing anything of the sort. It is nothing more than the classical response to added mass, damping and localized stiffening of the diaphragm. Not one bit more.
Of course not, the others believe unquestioningly. Why should factual data affect them?
On this single aspect, there's no reason to take issue. The distributed added mass makes a typical, expected change in resonances, moves them around, increases some, decreases some, nothing out of the ordinary. That alone is supportable. As to improvement in perception, no guarantees whatsoever.
On that last statement, balogny, not like you want to see. No here will ever do that. You can't provide it and from what's been seen in this thread, not one proponent here has the capability to do so, either. John's point was spot on.
And please, actually answer the questions, they're not rhetorical. Don't simply make some new, sweeping and broad response that answers nothing. In the past, many significant questions have pretty much gone without direct response. Lacking response, one can only assume that they the answers might be a bit painful. Please clarify those questions and prove me wrong.
Dave
Re: Re: Re: Subjective testing
Visited past owner of Martin Logans whom had given them away for free and bought a pair of Avantgarde's saying he did not consider the MartinLogans hifi anymore. Although I do not quite agree his Avantgarde's sound better, but it clearly shows how much preferences can differ.AJinFLA said:
I would really welcome that. But I wonder just how Bud would response when it showed that the compression wave emanates form the driver surface due to the deformation of the surface as a function of time (surface velocity) and that the surface velocity would show waves moving out over the cone and reflected back and the development of standing waves..... whether the driver was enabled or not, with the only difference being the frequencies and magnitudes of those waves before and after treatment. I know this will be the result because such results are already indicated by the data that has been presented.
The antidotal claims Bud is making are just that. And as long as a good result is obtained in a single case that claim can be made. But it can not be generalized. Bud’s commentaries are quite typical of anyone making unsubstantiated claims: Misdirection. When evidence is presented than contradicts the claims, point in another direction, “If the glove doesn’t fit you must acquit.” If the evidence doesn’t support the claim or if the evidence contradicts the claim, then it must be that the evidence must not be relevant. The problem here is that what has been discussed as part of the physical processes can not be disputed. It can not be irrelevant. The properties of the cone can not be altered, inhomogeneities created, without having a consequence, positive or negative. What continues to interest me is why Bud feels it is necessary to refute evidence that the ordinary results of altering the cone are what are at work here. If it is assumed for the moment that enable works in all cases, would it be so bad if it were proven that Enable works by these means? Why is the simple solution repeatedly rejected? Why must it delve into the mystic and speculative? It is because it isn’t what enable does or doesn’t do that makes the treatment attractive or controversial. It is the hype that is the key here. Take away the mysticism and what is left is pretty ordinary.
john k... said:
This makes complete sense. What is under scrutiny are the, seemingly, insignificant magnitudes of change, as reflected in the before and after CSD plots, that are PERCIEVED as more than insignificant. As you posted in #2683, changes of 1db, or less, can be percieved when 50db above the hearing threshold.
It has not been my impression that Bud is trying to claim any mystical power of his patterns. And while his hypothosis for the changes may not pass the scrutiny of eventual testing protocols, he seems willing to accept whatever those tests might reveal. I'm hoping further testing reveals why the patterns, at specific locations on the cone, work the way they do, and further clarify where the pattern, or a different pattern, may further refine this technique. I find it facinating.
dlr,
You are correct, the upper number should have been 6 times.
"Coherence is the property of wave-like states that enables them to exhibit interference. It is also the parameter that quantifies the quality of the interference (also known as the degree of coherence). It was originally introduced in connection with Young’s double-slit experiment in optics but is now used in any field that involves waves, such as acoustics, electrical engineering, neuroscience, and quantum physics. In interference, at least two wave-like entities are combined and, depending on the relative phase between them, they can add constructively or subtract destructively." Wickipedia
If we assume that there are reflected transverse waves in the cone and that they are traveling at from 3 to 6 times the speed of the compression wave arising from the voice coil in air, and that the frequency of the reflected wave is that of the original wave, there will also be compression waves that exit into the air during the decay of the original piston pulse. It is also possible that there will be interference with that initial compression wave.
"Interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that result in a new wave pattern.
As most commonly used, the term interference usually refers to the interaction of waves which are correlated or coherent with each other, either because they come from the same source or because they have the same or nearly the same frequency.
Two non-monochromatic waves are only fully coherent with each other if they both have exactly the same range of wavelengths and the same phase differences at each of the constituent wavelengths.
The total phase difference is derived from the sum of both the path difference and the initial phase difference (if the waves are generated from 2 or more different sources). It can then be concluded whether the waves reaching a point are in phase(constructive interference) or out of phase (destructive interference)." Wickipedia
I wanted to look at a cone surface for evidence of these reflected waves. In our discussions, Dan Wiggins said that EnABL only need provide 20 dB of suppression to provide what he was hearing from a treated driver. The surround on that driver was not a heavy rubber surround, rather, a thin closed cell, large pore foam.
Dave, why do continually take my statements out of context and then attempt to twist them to suit your position as a non believer? None of the people reporting anecdotal evidence are some sort of religious believers, they are rational folks who are reporting a difference that they can hear, that is considerably greater than a JND. Your continued rant about this believer nonsense and your deliberate attempts to twist my statements are leaving you looking like a religious nut, rather than the sane and reasoned individual you portray yourself as. Will you please calm down? No one's life is on the line here.
Bud
You are correct, the upper number should have been 6 times.
"Coherence is the property of wave-like states that enables them to exhibit interference. It is also the parameter that quantifies the quality of the interference (also known as the degree of coherence). It was originally introduced in connection with Young’s double-slit experiment in optics but is now used in any field that involves waves, such as acoustics, electrical engineering, neuroscience, and quantum physics. In interference, at least two wave-like entities are combined and, depending on the relative phase between them, they can add constructively or subtract destructively." Wickipedia
If we assume that there are reflected transverse waves in the cone and that they are traveling at from 3 to 6 times the speed of the compression wave arising from the voice coil in air, and that the frequency of the reflected wave is that of the original wave, there will also be compression waves that exit into the air during the decay of the original piston pulse. It is also possible that there will be interference with that initial compression wave.
"Interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves that result in a new wave pattern.
As most commonly used, the term interference usually refers to the interaction of waves which are correlated or coherent with each other, either because they come from the same source or because they have the same or nearly the same frequency.
Two non-monochromatic waves are only fully coherent with each other if they both have exactly the same range of wavelengths and the same phase differences at each of the constituent wavelengths.
The total phase difference is derived from the sum of both the path difference and the initial phase difference (if the waves are generated from 2 or more different sources). It can then be concluded whether the waves reaching a point are in phase(constructive interference) or out of phase (destructive interference)." Wickipedia
I wanted to look at a cone surface for evidence of these reflected waves. In our discussions, Dan Wiggins said that EnABL only need provide 20 dB of suppression to provide what he was hearing from a treated driver. The surround on that driver was not a heavy rubber surround, rather, a thin closed cell, large pore foam.
Dave, why do continually take my statements out of context and then attempt to twist them to suit your position as a non believer? None of the people reporting anecdotal evidence are some sort of religious believers, they are rational folks who are reporting a difference that they can hear, that is considerably greater than a JND. Your continued rant about this believer nonsense and your deliberate attempts to twist my statements are leaving you looking like a religious nut, rather than the sane and reasoned individual you portray yourself as. Will you please calm down? No one's life is on the line here.
Bud
First, you didn't respond to the vast majority of my post.
Second, a Wikipedia definition is NOT a response.
Third, 3 or 6 or 15 times, whatever. I wasn't correct or wrong about anything, I asked you to provide meaning to the numbers. You haven't provided anything at all. It's a number, pulled out of thin air for all we can tell, there's nothing in those numbers. They're meaningless at this point.
If we assume...It is also possible...
As my father used to say, if pigs had wings they could fly. There's nothing in that paragraph of any significance, either. John has shown what is in all probability occurring.
This in no way addresses a single point in my post, either. Just more misdirection with an anecdote. With his resources, if Dan cared to delve into it, I feel sure that he'd provide truly useful data. Of course, it may be counter to what you would hope to see, but we'll not likely ever know. Until that occurs, it's just another unsubstantiated anecdote. It also is not an answer to any questions raised.
I am not twisting anything. I'm trying to "wrangle" a real response to legitimate questions to get more than anecdotes, without success so far. Evidence that directly refutes your claims are ignored entirely or the data is misrepresented in your descriptions of them. Response to specific details is absent, time after time. John provided what your posts lack altogether, specifics with references that are unequivocal. Yet you fail to address them directly and, in fact, not even obliquely. You simply re-state your position some other way as if an end-around the facts is valid. None of that is.
You are now back to lumping everything together, drivers, baffles, horns, ports, etc. I accept that there may be audible differences in drivers, it's likely the case, thought the mechanism is certainly at issue. Anyone who claims to hear any change related to ports, baffles or horns is hearing what they want to hear. Rationality has nothing to do with it. It is placebo for those, nothing else. Simply because someone says they hear something means nothing. There is no physics in this area that allows a rational person who understands the underlying physics, however, to accept it as fact. JND has nothing to do with it. Anecdotal claims other than on drivers makes any reports from those persons unreliable altogether.
There is irony in that last paragraph.
I am calm. Frustrated in getting little in the way of direct responses, yes. I will not stand idly by, however, when misrepresentation is made repeatedly that might induce an unsuspecting reader to believe any of this for other than what it is, a plain tweak of a driver and pure nonsense outside of drivers. You yourself have pointed out that it may be detrimental. That certainly bears repeating, but it doesn't come from you.
You have no factual data to support your position, all data, theory and analysis presented is in total contradiction to your claims, questions raised are not answered with little other than repeated anecdotes and re-statements of claims, so it's incumbent on those who will challenge this to do so directly, logically, thoroughly and honestly. A discussion board (as I understand them to be) is not there just to be a virtual megaphone with cheerleader squad for whatever anyone may want to claim.
That is, unless the moderators here support that. The board's relevance won't last long in that case.
In the end I want to see facts, not unsupported hypothesis and anecdotes. The former is lacking almost completely from proponents, the latter is littered throughout the thread.
Dave
Second, a Wikipedia definition is NOT a response.
Third, 3 or 6 or 15 times, whatever. I wasn't correct or wrong about anything, I asked you to provide meaning to the numbers. You haven't provided anything at all. It's a number, pulled out of thin air for all we can tell, there's nothing in those numbers. They're meaningless at this point.
BudP said:
If we assume...It is also possible...
As my father used to say, if pigs had wings they could fly. There's nothing in that paragraph of any significance, either. John has shown what is in all probability occurring.
This in no way addresses a single point in my post, either. Just more misdirection with an anecdote. With his resources, if Dan cared to delve into it, I feel sure that he'd provide truly useful data. Of course, it may be counter to what you would hope to see, but we'll not likely ever know. Until that occurs, it's just another unsubstantiated anecdote. It also is not an answer to any questions raised.
I am not twisting anything. I'm trying to "wrangle" a real response to legitimate questions to get more than anecdotes, without success so far. Evidence that directly refutes your claims are ignored entirely or the data is misrepresented in your descriptions of them. Response to specific details is absent, time after time. John provided what your posts lack altogether, specifics with references that are unequivocal. Yet you fail to address them directly and, in fact, not even obliquely. You simply re-state your position some other way as if an end-around the facts is valid. None of that is.
You are now back to lumping everything together, drivers, baffles, horns, ports, etc. I accept that there may be audible differences in drivers, it's likely the case, thought the mechanism is certainly at issue. Anyone who claims to hear any change related to ports, baffles or horns is hearing what they want to hear. Rationality has nothing to do with it. It is placebo for those, nothing else. Simply because someone says they hear something means nothing. There is no physics in this area that allows a rational person who understands the underlying physics, however, to accept it as fact. JND has nothing to do with it. Anecdotal claims other than on drivers makes any reports from those persons unreliable altogether.
There is irony in that last paragraph.
I am calm. Frustrated in getting little in the way of direct responses, yes. I will not stand idly by, however, when misrepresentation is made repeatedly that might induce an unsuspecting reader to believe any of this for other than what it is, a plain tweak of a driver and pure nonsense outside of drivers. You yourself have pointed out that it may be detrimental. That certainly bears repeating, but it doesn't come from you.
You have no factual data to support your position, all data, theory and analysis presented is in total contradiction to your claims, questions raised are not answered with little other than repeated anecdotes and re-statements of claims, so it's incumbent on those who will challenge this to do so directly, logically, thoroughly and honestly. A discussion board (as I understand them to be) is not there just to be a virtual megaphone with cheerleader squad for whatever anyone may want to claim.
That is, unless the moderators here support that. The board's relevance won't last long in that case.
In the end I want to see facts, not unsupported hypothesis and anecdotes. The former is lacking almost completely from proponents, the latter is littered throughout the thread.
Dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.