"citronzx" wrote in message
news:aLAWb.288604$na.448590@attbi_s04...
"chung" wrote in message
...
Wessel Dirksen wrote:

Hi, this is a reply to both replies.

I see that this is a highly debatable subject and that we all seem to
agree
on the basic principles but have very different opinions on the
"unknown"
factor. My position is based on a wealth of experience where the
intangable
"that could never be the case" factor seems to regularly make very
obvious
audible differences that can't reliably be measured with test sines,
chirps,
noise etc, but can be "measured" with normal music which much more
complex.

How does one measure with normal music?

You have trouble accepting that what appears complex can be described as
a summation of sine waves?

I'll second that question. If you do not have the mathematical background
to understand Fourier serise then you have absolutly no business giving
anyone advice on matters of audio or sound.

Well, what I shall I say to this. I'm just getting used to this forum
discussion thing and I'm amazed at how we seem to need to appear to be
"smarter" than each other and be destructive. Actually we should be helping
each other understand more. I try to understand enough of Fourier summation
to understand the composition of sound and how loudspeakers work. Obviously
so do you. I think we are all intelligent affectionado's of audio so lets
get on with a friendly discussion then. If music can defined as a very
complex Fourier waveform composed of seemingly pretty close to an infinite
number of individual wavelets superimposed on each other than my point over
the state of the art in acoustic measuring stands for itself. We have no
choice but to "measure" with music and our ears because speakers must
reproduce all those superimposed wavelets, it's their job. With rudimentary
test signals which currently have a Fourier breakdown count with ussually no
more than the number of fingers on your hand (noise excepted), you aren't
really looking at what a speaker does in real life. If I really want to know
how to reproduce a cello, do you really think that a simple MLS or a sine
sweep comes close to helping me really truly understanding this? A tip of
the iceberg at best.

In this whole B&W 804 string, there seems to be a collective scientific "we
know about it and have a formula for it or it doesn't exist" mentality going
on. If you want to build a better mousetrap, take apart all the mousetraps
you come accross and do your best to understand how they work. In doing this
you will discover many unknowns about mousetraps.

Wessel



(usually it is very obvious after you improve multiple intangables) I
believe that we don't accurately know what's going at the level of
electron
flow through wire or any conductor. Ask an amp guy. They will tell you
that
PCB design is also very weird in this way.

Not at audio frequencies. PCB design is very well understood by
competent electrical engineers.

Any amp guys out there?

Well, yes.


Wessel



This is all absurd, sorry to be so blunt but its true. If you have spent
the money to own a pair of Nautilus 804's then for god sake don't go
taking
them apart. If you want to goof around then make your own speakers from
scratch. First, you won't be screwing with what is already a well
engineered design and second you might actually learn something. You can
buy drivers from many sources (including B&W on eBay) and you go nuts with
over built crossovers and cables made out of the rarest metals in the
universe. But why oh why mess with a perfectly good pair of speakers that
you WILL NOT improve? Let me repeat that, YOU WILL NOT IMPROVE THEM!
These
are not poorly made speakers, these are very well made, high quality
speakers. Any improvement will be psychological (that is if you don't
actually mess them up in the process). I have an idea, why don't you give
the money that you would waste on this project to charity, then, when you
listen to your speakers, you can know that you've actually done some good
in
the world.