[news]

"KH" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2013 11:47 AM, news wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote:

This equine isn't merely deceased, it is badly decomposed. I suggest
you guys stop trying to convince each other and just agree to
disagree. Other than this one comment, I'm going to sit this one out.

Thank you George. I know it's hard.

Thanks in very large part to a lack of explanatory clarity, and reliance
on obfuscatory analogies of questionable cogency to support your model.

I just wonder if you all understand what
makes a Martin Logan sound different from a WAMM, a Quad sound different
from a Behringer, or yes, a 901 sound different from everything else.
What
physical quality of speakers are you hearing there? Which one is better,
or
best? Are there aspects of speaker design that you haven't yet
considered?

And once again I have to wonder if you truly understand how arrogant this
position appears? Denigration of the intellectual prowess of all
dissenters is absolutely guaranteed to fail if conversion of the
'unwashed' is your aim.

I honestly find it difficult to understand why you persist in this vein.

Arrogant but valid. George's answers were not exactly on target. Speakers
sound the way they do because of their radiation pattern and frequency
response. That's about all we can hear from any speaker. The result of
radiation pattern depends also on the speaker positioning and the room
acoustics, and Linkwitz's questions and all of my theories are about how all
that fits together. It expands our understanding of how speakers interact
with rooms beyond the simplistic frequency response and distortion of the
direct sound and shows how to use the room as part of the speaker design and
neutralize its ill effects.

That's all. Big subject with some surprising findings.

Gary Eickmeier