Surround Sound
On Monday, November 11, 2013 5:06:12 AM UTC-8, news wrote:
"KH" wrote in message=20
=20
...
=20
On 11/10/2013 11:47 AM, news wrote:
=20
Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
=20
This equine isn't merely deceased, it is badly decomposed. I suggest
=20
you guys stop trying to convince each other and just agree to
=20
disagree. Other than this one comment, I'm going to sit this one out.
=20
=20
Thank you George. I know it's hard.
=20
=20
Thanks in very large part to a lack of explanatory clarity, and relianc=
e=20
=20
on obfuscatory analogies of questionable cogency to support your model.
=20
=20
I just wonder if you all understand what
=20
makes a Martin Logan sound different from a WAMM, a Quad sound differe=
nt
=20
from a Behringer, or yes, a 901 sound different from everything else.=
=20
=20
What
=20
physical quality of speakers are you hearing there? Which one is bette=
r,=20
=20
or
=20
best? Are there aspects of speaker design that you haven't yet=20
=20
considered?
=20
=20
And once again I have to wonder if you truly understand how arrogant th=
is=20
=20
position appears? Denigration of the intellectual prowess of all=20
=20
dissenters is absolutely guaranteed to fail if conversion of the=20
=20
'unwashed' is your aim.
=20
=20
I honestly find it difficult to understand why you persist in this vein=
..
=20
=20
=20
Arrogant but valid.
No, not valid in any way shape or form.=20
George's answers were not exactly on target.
Actually they were on target even if they weren't all that technical.
Speakers=20
=20
sound the way they do because of their radiation pattern and frequency=20
=20
response. That's about all we can hear from any speaker.
Completely wrong. If this were the case all speaker designers would have to=
do would be to consider radiation patterns and then apply digital EQ. Clea=
rly speaker design is not as simple as that. There are all kinds of audible=
distortions in speakers beyond frequency response.
|