[Scott[_6_]]

On Monday, November 11, 2013 7:16:58 PM UTC-8, John Stone wrote:
On 11/11/13 6:59 PM, in article ,

"Audio_Empire" wrote:



On Monday, November 11, 2013 10:44:14 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2013 5:06:12 AM UTC-8, news wrote:



"KH" wrote in message





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.

Clearly speaker design is not as simple as that. There are all kinds of

audible distortions in speakers beyond frequency response.



That was kind of my point. I just didn't want to get sucked into another

debate over Gary's unorthodox theories, so I just glossed over my response to

his query about why speakers sound as they do with the obvious.



Gary's "theories" around loudspeaker sound align closely with those of Amar

Bose, especially the early MIT research he conducted that ultimately led to

the Bose 901. As to whether or not this is "unorthodox" depends on how you

view that design, as it places the vast majority of its emphasis on

radiation pattern. Mr. Bose himself believed that loudspeaker distortion was

not audible, except under conditions of extreme overload.

Having heard his flagship speakers it does not surprise me that he thought speaker distortion was not audible.