[Low Hertz]

On Monday, November 10, 2014 3:58:50 AM UTC-8, Barkingspyder wrote:
On Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:21:12 AM UTC-7, news wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:39:04 AM UTC-7, news wrote:
=20
The subjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry
about

what they hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless
if it

is done under sighted conditions.

No, it is not "totally" meaningless. yes it is flavored with sighted
bias. But honestly so are your personal perceptions of your own
stereo. Does that make your perceptions meaningless? You have talked
about those perceptions at length and have come up with some very
unconventional beliefs on stereo playback based on those perceptions.
=20
Not totally unconventional. There are a few others who have observed th=
e=20
same, such as Linkwitz, Moulton, Davis, maybe include Toole if you cons=
ider=20
his reports on the prefernce for a wide, smooth response to indicate=
=20
something about radiation pattern.
=20
But all of that is why I, too, must compare my new speakers against som=
e=20
conventional ones in a blind study.
=20
I do wish I knew which Scott you are, so that I know what body of disco=
urse=20
we are referring to when you mention that you have read my material bef=
ore.
=20
Gary Eickmeier
=20
Why compare your speakers in a blind study at all? The difference betwee=
n speakers are not in any question, their differences are usually painfully=
obvious. The use of blind testing that I know about is to determine so ca=
lled subtle differences. Nothing subtle about speakers, they are and alway=
s have been the weakest link in the audio chain. =20
=20
Frequency response is all over the map and often times so is the impedanc=
e. They can present loads that make amps cry uncle. =20
=20
The only blind testing of speakers that I know of that have any meaning a=
re the ones done by the BBC when they were getting out of building their ow=
n speakers and deciding which speakers from which company they were going t=
o choose. They wanted the most accurate speakers they could get, so they l=
ined up some likely candidates based on measured performance and blind list=
ening. As we all probably know Dynaudio won. Not that hard to see why onc=
e you listen to any Dynaudio speaker, at least that's been my experience. =
I have yet to hear a better tweeter made by anybody than the D28 and the T3=
30. =20
=20
But I digress.
=20
I ask again why would you need to compare speakers in blind listening com=
parisons? I know you have a thing for direct reflecting speakers, and almo=
st nobody seems to understand why, but to compare them to any more conventi=
onal speakers is bound to show a difference.
=20
For any other audio device blind comparisons likely are going to show no =
difference, assuming everything is working like it should and one designer =
has not decided to try for something other than accurate response, meaning =
flat frequency response. =20
=20
I have a hard time understanding why this is still being talked about as =
if double blind testing had not been shown to be the best possible way to d=
etermine if there is any difference between audio devices. Why do people s=
till tell the same stories about non-existent stress? Can the subjective p=
undits really be powerful enough and persuasive enough to fool so many peop=
le so often?

As a musician and good friends with luthiers, you have to understand that
virtually no Stradivarious violins are in original condition. To begin with=
,
their necks/fingerboards were adapted for modern music. =20

That's less of a consequence as violin shops, to make the instrument sound
immediately bigger and louder, removed wood. This provided short term bene=
fit, but in the long run, without the mass the tone became compromised,
as it takes mass for a clean sound to carry.

Carbon fiber is interesting. If you heard carbon fiber dropped it has a ho=
rrible metallic sound. Yes, I've heard Lewis and Clark instruments, and th=
ey are amazing for what they are. But in cold weather, musicians such as Y=
o Yo Ma, were considering using them, but the weather warmed up enough so t=
hey were able to use their warmer, richer sounding spruce and maple instrum=
ents.

I'd like a Lewis and Clark bass as a back up instrument, they're light weig=
ht, indestructible, sound good. But they sound no where near as complex and=
interesting as my old Italian bass.

For a while Coda make great carbon fiber bows, Coda Orchestral Bows.

I wanted one but they no longer make that model. It drew a lot of sound an=
d spoke really quickly. The new models are much stiffer and I don't like t=
hem.