[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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.

Yes, some of Gary's theories do align closely with Amar Bose' early research.
But parroting Dr. Bose is not the sum total of Gary's stereo theories, which ARE
more than a little unorthodox.