[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:19:32 -0700, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 7/23/2012 6:19 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Barkingspyder wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:33:42 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

snip
Watch the video - what a totally clueless "design" team!
By now you all may know my spiel - that there is no theory for how
to approach loudspeaker
design in the quest for the realistic reproduction of auditory
perspective -
stereo theory. I can stand here and tell all who will listen that
what we
hear are the Big Three - radiation pattern, room positioning, and
acoustical qualities of the room, and they will not hear me, as if I
am ****ing in the
wind.

How wet does one need to be before stopping seems the prudent path?

snip

I find it best to not be confrontational most of the time.

It's fascinating to me how many in audio think that they need to rely on
"experts" rather than think for themselves.

It's fascinating how you continue to insult people's intelligence, all
the while doggedly thinking that is a winning communication strategy.

This means if any new ideas come
along, they will be automatically rejected because it isn't what the
"experts" thought before. This point is important enough for me to quote
Amar Bose's opening paragraph in his famous presentation in Technology
Review in 1973:

"If the field of sound recording and reproduction didn't have so many
experts - many of htem not in the discipline of acoustics - I could confine
myself to a straightforward technical presentation of our research. But this
field is one in which everybody knows something and almost everybody has
some interest and some preconceived ideas. If I just made a technical
presentation, some of the results would be so controversial that unless one
also knew how they were developed, the mismatch between the preconception
and the results would be severe. So I'll try to go through the years the
years from '56 to the present. In this manner, I think I can present the
developments in in the way they occurred to us. The sequence will be
evident: and then when I arrive at some results that are quite
controversial, at least you will know how they came about."

This could well be another more circuitous way of saying "if you
understand the physics, you won't believe the hype I'm about to peddle".
He freely admits that his technical presentation, even with the
historical path laid bare, will be unconvincing (i.e. "quite
controversial"). If the theory and math were there, it would be
convincing - or at least worth investigating by *someone* other than him.

Most of you probably will not have read that paper, or would have
pooh-poohed it out of hand because you don't like the 901 speaker.

True, to many, from what I've heard and read. If the result of the
research is a product that sounds marginal at best, either the premise,
the engineering, the design, and or the construction - or all as
contributors - make studying the approach rather pointless. At least to me.

You remind me of an old friend who had a pair of Bose 501's. To him,
they were the height of fidelity. To me, the worst sounding speaker I
ever heard (that wasn't broken). There is no theory, no explanation, no
"image" that would change the fact that to me those 501's were
abominations, and to him Nirvana.

snip
"There must be other parameters important to hearing that had not yet been
considered in speaker design."

Perhaps he was recalling Hamlet?

In a word, most of the experts that you outline as having put me in my place
have not gone beyond 1965, and are still fooling around with crossovers and
spikes and stiffness of enclosures and driver materials and anything and
everything that has nothing to do with audibility, and not even considering
the most audible aspect of speaker design, which is radiation pattern.

THAT is why my exhortation to someone to please explain to me why this
Wilson team of experts didn't even mention the first two of The Big Three,
which are the most audible aspects of speakers and rooms.

Perhaps if you read anything about the Wilson design process you'd have
a better understanding. They do care about radiation patterns, and
design to help eliminate the comb filtering artifacts you find so
euphonic. But it's pretty silly to cite a marketing video for a 3rd
generation speaker as a comprehensive guide to their engineering philosophy.


When I saw the video and heard him say he memorizes the sound, I
thought to myself "SHEESH you should know better."

Actually, I think that is exactly what he does. He designs to reproduce
what he remembers (faulty though it be) of live performances. Not a way
for absolute accuracy to be sure, but a good way of achieving a speaker
that is voiced the way he personally thinks sounds "best" or as
producing the most "live" sound. If you have similar tastes, it'll work
for you as well.

I did lke the
notion of using the various rooms, and I assume at some point they do
some kind of anechoic testing. I do not think their speakers are
monstrosities, the ones I've heard sound good, but massively
overpriced.

What isn't massively overpriced in "high end audio"? I wouldn't say
that Wilson is breaking new trail in that respect; but the pack running
in front of them is pretty thin. I'd be hard pressed to justify paying
retail for their products.

snip

It's not enough to state that someone got it all wrong; you should tell why
you think that.

To quote; "go back through the What We Can Hear and Mind Stretchers
threads." I think you'll find a wealth of reason why folks would think
that.

snip
This is a whole new way of looking at the problem and I can't seem to shock
anyone into considering it, for reasons they can't explain, just as you
can't.

You bemoan the fact that no one can understand you, or they refuse to
listen, yet when reasons are given to you, or direct questions posed to
you, you simply ignore them. Saying "for reasons they can't explain" is
a false statement. To make it true, you have to modify it as "for
reasons they can't explain to my satisfaction and/or understanding".
They are not congruent statements. The latter is clearly a fools errand.

All most of them say is that I am not an expert, or I am all wrong,
or what are my CV, or am I an EE. STOP THAT.

Perhaps you've not noticed, but these repeated "STOP" and "STOP THAT"
tantrums isn't getting it done.

If you can't articulate your
objections to IMT, then get off the pot.

You're now a Moderator, eh? Agree with me or go home?

snip
I apologize for hijacking your thread. Can't help myself, after seeing that
ridiculous video of the Wilson stuff, which annoyed me to the extent you see
before you. Watts and Puppies and Sophias and WAMMs with all of the drivers
on the front of the box - dear God please make it stop.

They sound very good, why stop? The reality is, a great many people
spend big bucks on Wilsons (and a myriad other direct radiation designs)
because they believe they sound great. Your self described "best
designed speaker" on the other hand, is a footnote in audio history.
Speakers are not cables - they, and they rooms they're in, and the
recordings they play - are inherently inaccurate, and preference plays a
major role. At some point, the numbers stack up against your speaker
design choice - and the numbers don't lie when preference is the sole
criterion.

Go ahead - call this the "McDonalds argument" - you know where that will
lead.


This is well put. Gary is a nice guy, but he has a "bee in his bonnet" over
this pet notion of his and he won't let it go. I wrote a similar tome in
response to the quoted post, above, but The Moderators wouldn't let me post
it (I e-mailed it to Gary anyway 8^). Gary doesn't seem to get that most of
the more knowledgeable amongst us simply don't agree with his basic premiss
or the (largely anecdotal) "evidence " he uses to support it. Most people
would be content with the responses he has received, but not Gary. He keeps
beating a dead horse over this, and he doesn't seem to understand that it's a
pointless, nay, an empty, procedure. How many times has said that he is
through "hijacking threads" in order to repeat his theory, only to do it
again and again?

And you are right again when you say that he has been told time and time
again, in thread after thread WHY people disagree with him. But he ignores
those reasons and falls back on "not being understood" or being ignored
because of a lack of credentials. Well, he is understood. I understand
perfectly what his assertion is as I suspect you and and a number of others
do as well, but the fact remains that I do not agree with his assertion. I
don't agree with it because my experience tells me that it is wrong. I
dismiss his paper not because he lacks credentials, but because his data is
unscientific and not rigorously researched.

As a group, we are all audio enthusiasts here. So, it can be said that we are
Gary Eickmeier's peers. So in a way, we have "peer reviewed" his paper and
found it wanting. Now, under the strict precepts of the scientific method, it
is up to Gary to withdraw the paper, go back to his research, fix those
things to which his peers object, and resubmit his "findings" in a modified
paper! 8^) Isn't that the usual procedure? Is incessant whining over a peer
review rejection part of the scientific method? I don't think so...