I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
of you goofballs will be able to understand it. The rest of
you will carp and rant and say that it is unreadable,
boring, etc., because the topic it covers will be heading
right over your heads.

The draft:

Speaker-Room Suckout and Other Tidbits.

I've mentioned this before, but I will mention it again: in
typical home-listening rooms, spaced-apart woofer (or
subwoofer) systems will generate a cancellation notch at
some bass frequency that is dependent upon both the distance
between woofer (or subwoofer) driver centers and the
frequency.

Depending upon the spacing between the systems (between
woofer or subwoofer driver centers), at some bass frequency
the rarefaction wave from one woofer or subwoofer will reach
the other woofer or subwoofer just as it is generating a
pressure wave. (More on this up ahead.) The two cancel out
and you get a power-response notch.
There is no way to get away from this with spaced
woofer/subwoofer systems generating identical or
near-identical bass signals.

A similar thing happens with single woofers and subwoofers
interacting with stiff, large-area wall, floor, and ceiling
surfaces. The large surface area will reflect back the
signal to the radiating driver as if it were being radiated
by a second woofer or subwoofer at twice the distance from
the single driver's center to the boundary. The boundary
creates a mirror-image situation that mimics a second woofer
or subwoofer driver.

For example, a situation where you have two spaced woofers
or subwoofers 12 feet apart or another situation where you
have one woofer or subwoofer 6 feet from a large boundary
will each generate a suckout notch centered at 56.5 Hz. With
one system you have a boundary and with two systems you have
a faux boundary exactly between the two sound sources.

Note that this phenomenon is unrelated to standing waves,
which involve boundary/boundary interactions. The suckout
effect is quite different and involves either
woofer/boundary interactions or woofer/woofer interactions.
There is a formula to calculate this notching as it relates
to woofer/boundary interactions:

1130/d x 0.3

Here, "d" is the distance in feet from the woofer center
(measured by the shortest route possible) to the closest
part of the boundary, and 0.3 (three tenths) is the
multiplier that calculates the frequency of the dip.
Actually, the true quarter-wavelength multiplier should be
0.25 and not 0.3. However, because the boundary surface is
not equidistant over its entire surface from the driver
center, it has been found that 0.3 works better.

When calculating the suckout notch between woofer (or
subwoofer) centers you would use half the distance (1/2d)
between them as d. You would still use the .3 multiplier,
because the spaced woofers are generating a faux flat
boundary between them.

The big problem occurs when you have multiple boundary or
inter-woofer interactions. For example, if the woofer (or
subwoofer) centers are 10 feet apart and one or more of them
are also 5 feet from a large room boundary the suckout notch
will be augmented - in this case centered at 67.8 Hz. Note
that the distances do not have to be exact. Woofers ten feet
apart will still have additional attenuation applied if one
or more of them are, say, 4 foot 10 or 5 feet 2 inches from
a room boundary. The notching is not so abrupt that slightly
different distances do not count. The suckout slope will be
gradual enough for close fairly distances to still add to
the effect. Obviously, it is a good idea to get as much
asymmetry as possible when it comes to dealing with
bass-range cancellations.

Actually, at least with full-range systems placed in typical
locations, this suckout phenomenon is more likely to be a
problem in the middle bass, instead of in the low bass,
because the woofers in such systems tend to be fairly close
to room boundaries. "Fairly close" in this case means less
than, say, three feet. However, when woofer/subwoofer
systems are placed large distances apart (more than eight
feet) or large distances from room boundaries (more than
four feet) it can happen fairly far down in frequency, too.

With single subwoofers placed in corners, the issue does not
exist, because at such close distances any boundary-related
notching would be generated well above the operating range
of the system. Indeed, one of the advantages of
subwoofer/satellite systems that use only one subwoofer (at
least as it relates to suckout notches in the range below
middle bass) is that one can position the satellites so that
any potential suckout effects they would generate would be
below their crossover-controlled operating range. And as
noted, any that the corner-located subwoofer might generate
would be above its crossover-controlled operating range.

For example, if you have a sub/sat system with the sub
located in the corner it is likely that any three-boundary
suckout notches will be between 200 and 600 Hz. Obviously,
if you have the sub/sat crossover set at 80 Hz. these
artifacts will not be reproduced by the subwoofer. At the
same time, the potential inter-woofer and some (but not all)
of the woofer/boundary artifacts that would be generated by
the satellites will be in the 50 to 70 Hz range, which is
below the 80-Hz crossover point.
This situation still does not solve any middle-bass,
closer-boundary suckout problems with the satellites, but it
does eliminate any for them that would involve
longer-distance inter-woofer or woofer/boundary artifacts.

A lot of people are still confused about just what the
suckout effect (often called the Allison Effect, after Roy
Allison who documented its existence years ago) is all
about. Many people will mention "floor bounce" when
discussing cancellation effects and speaker measurements,
but the phenomenon happens with all large room boundaries
and not just the floor.

This cancellation artifact impacts the power response of the
system, whereas your typical floor-bounce artifact (where a
second, reflected signal arrives later than the original
after hitting the floor between the listener and the
speaker) involves first-arrival signals. While the frequency
of a floor-bounce notch will be effected somewhat by the
listener's location, the much more important power-response
suckout will be the same anywhere in the listening room.
Below is an explanation of why the effect happens at all
with woofer/boundary interactions, with my example primarily
dealing with the effect in the middle-bass region. As noted
above, at greater distances the suckout will happen at lower
frequencies.

Let's look at a typical box loudspeaker system positioned in
a room so that its woofer cone center is about two feet from
each of the three nearest room surfaces (floor and two
intersecting walls). When the speaker is radiating a very
low frequency the cone moves relatively slowly and over a
relatively long distance. If the radiated frequency is 40
Hz, for example, it takes 1/40 second (25 milliseconds) for
the cone to execute one complete forward-backward cycle.
Each half cycle takes 12.5 milliseconds (ms).

As the cone begins a forward movement it generates the start
of a
compression wave. This impulse travels at the speed of sound
(approximately 1130 feet per second at sea level) to those
nearby room boundaries and is reflected back toward the
woofer cone, arriving there some 3.5 ms after it left, while
the woofer is still generating the compression half of the
sound cycle. The reflected waves increase the instantaneous
pressure seen by the woofer and enable it to radiate more
power than it could in free space. This is why placing
woofers (or subwoofers) close to boundaries augments their
outputs.

However, as the woofer tries to radiate at higher,
middle-bass frequencies, it must reverse its motion more
quickly. For example, at 140 Hz. (the middle bass, for
sure), the cone reverses direction every 3.5 ms. It begins
its half-cycle of motion (attempting to create a
rarefaction) just as the compression-wave reflections from
those two-foot distant room boundaries begin to arrive back
at the woofer. In this case, the reflected signal is out of
phase with the cone motion, decreasing its radiation
efficiency. The result is a suckout notch in what would
otherwise be a flat woofer-output signal.

As I indicated before, this phenomenon will exist in all
parts of the room, since it deals with the actual power
input of the speaker to the room. That sets it apart from a
standing-wave artifact, as well as from your standard
floor-bounce anomaly. It is also much more influential than
the latter, because power response is a much larger
percentage of the total output than the direct response.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
of you goofballs will be able to understand it. The rest of
you will carp and rant and say that it is unreadable,
boring, etc., because the topic it covers will be heading
right over your heads.

The draft:

Speaker-Room Suckout and Other Tidbits.

I've mentioned this before, but I will mention it again: in
typical home-listening rooms, spaced-apart woofer (or
subwoofer) systems will generate a cancellation notch at
some bass frequency that is dependent upon both the distance
between woofer (or subwoofer) driver centers and the
frequency.

Depending upon the spacing between the systems (between
woofer or subwoofer driver centers), at some bass frequency
the rarefaction wave from one woofer or subwoofer will reach
the other woofer or subwoofer just as it is generating a
pressure wave. (More on this up ahead.) The two cancel out
and you get a power-response notch.
There is no way to get away from this with spaced
woofer/subwoofer systems generating identical or
near-identical bass signals.

A similar thing happens with single woofers and subwoofers
interacting with stiff, large-area wall, floor, and ceiling
surfaces. The large surface area will reflect back the
signal to the radiating driver as if it were being radiated
by a second woofer or subwoofer at twice the distance from
the single driver's center to the boundary. The boundary
creates a mirror-image situation that mimics a second woofer
or subwoofer driver.

For example, a situation where you have two spaced woofers
or subwoofers 12 feet apart or another situation where you
have one woofer or subwoofer 6 feet from a large boundary
will each generate a suckout notch centered at 56.5 Hz. With
one system you have a boundary and with two systems you have
a faux boundary exactly between the two sound sources.

Note that this phenomenon is unrelated to standing waves,
which involve boundary/boundary interactions. The suckout
effect is quite different and involves either
woofer/boundary interactions or woofer/woofer interactions.
There is a formula to calculate this notching as it relates
to woofer/boundary interactions:

1130/d x 0.3

Here, "d" is the distance in feet from the woofer center
(measured by the shortest route possible) to the closest
part of the boundary, and 0.3 (three tenths) is the
multiplier that calculates the frequency of the dip.
Actually, the true quarter-wavelength multiplier should be
0.25 and not 0.3. However, because the boundary surface is
not equidistant over its entire surface from the driver
center, it has been found that 0.3 works better.

When calculating the suckout notch between woofer (or
subwoofer) centers you would use half the distance (1/2d)
between them as d. You would still use the .3 multiplier,
because the spaced woofers are generating a faux flat
boundary between them.

The big problem occurs when you have multiple boundary or
inter-woofer interactions. For example, if the woofer (or
subwoofer) centers are 10 feet apart and one or more of them
are also 5 feet from a large room boundary the suckout notch
will be augmented - in this case centered at 67.8 Hz. Note
that the distances do not have to be exact. Woofers ten feet
apart will still have additional attenuation applied if one
or more of them are, say, 4 foot 10 or 5 feet 2 inches from
a room boundary. The notching is not so abrupt that slightly
different distances do not count. The suckout slope will be
gradual enough for close fairly distances to still add to
the effect. Obviously, it is a good idea to get as much
asymmetry as possible when it comes to dealing with
bass-range cancellations.

Actually, at least with full-range systems placed in typical
locations, this suckout phenomenon is more likely to be a
problem in the middle bass, instead of in the low bass,
because the woofers in such systems tend to be fairly close
to room boundaries. "Fairly close" in this case means less
than, say, three feet. However, when woofer/subwoofer
systems are placed large distances apart (more than eight
feet) or large distances from room boundaries (more than
four feet) it can happen fairly far down in frequency, too.

With single subwoofers placed in corners, the issue does not
exist, because at such close distances any boundary-related
notching would be generated well above the operating range
of the system. Indeed, one of the advantages of
subwoofer/satellite systems that use only one subwoofer (at
least as it relates to suckout notches in the range below
middle bass) is that one can position the satellites so that
any potential suckout effects they would generate would be
below their crossover-controlled operating range. And as
noted, any that the corner-located subwoofer might generate
would be above its crossover-controlled operating range.

For example, if you have a sub/sat system with the sub
located in the corner it is likely that any three-boundary
suckout notches will be between 200 and 600 Hz. Obviously,
if you have the sub/sat crossover set at 80 Hz. these
artifacts will not be reproduced by the subwoofer. At the
same time, the potential inter-woofer and some (but not all)
of the woofer/boundary artifacts that would be generated by
the satellites will be in the 50 to 70 Hz range, which is
below the 80-Hz crossover point.
This situation still does not solve any middle-bass,
closer-boundary suckout problems with the satellites, but it
does eliminate any for them that would involve
longer-distance inter-woofer or woofer/boundary artifacts.

A lot of people are still confused about just what the
suckout effect (often called the Allison Effect, after Roy
Allison who documented its existence years ago) is all
about. Many people will mention "floor bounce" when
discussing cancellation effects and speaker measurements,
but the phenomenon happens with all large room boundaries
and not just the floor.

This cancellation artifact impacts the power response of the
system, whereas your typical floor-bounce artifact (where a
second, reflected signal arrives later than the original
after hitting the floor between the listener and the
speaker) involves first-arrival signals. While the frequency
of a floor-bounce notch will be effected somewhat by the
listener's location, the much more important power-response
suckout will be the same anywhere in the listening room.
Below is an explanation of why the effect happens at all
with woofer/boundary interactions, with my example primarily
dealing with the effect in the middle-bass region. As noted
above, at greater distances the suckout will happen at lower
frequencies.

Let's look at a typical box loudspeaker system positioned in
a room so that its woofer cone center is about two feet from
each of the three nearest room surfaces (floor and two
intersecting walls). When the speaker is radiating a very
low frequency the cone moves relatively slowly and over a
relatively long distance. If the radiated frequency is 40
Hz, for example, it takes 1/40 second (25 milliseconds) for
the cone to execute one complete forward-backward cycle.
Each half cycle takes 12.5 milliseconds (ms).

As the cone begins a forward movement it generates the start
of a
compression wave. This impulse travels at the speed of sound
(approximately 1130 feet per second at sea level) to those
nearby room boundaries and is reflected back toward the
woofer cone, arriving there some 3.5 ms after it left, while
the woofer is still generating the compression half of the
sound cycle. The reflected waves increase the instantaneous
pressure seen by the woofer and enable it to radiate more
power than it could in free space. This is why placing
woofers (or subwoofers) close to boundaries augments their
outputs.

However, as the woofer tries to radiate at higher,
middle-bass frequencies, it must reverse its motion more
quickly. For example, at 140 Hz. (the middle bass, for
sure), the cone reverses direction every 3.5 ms. It begins
its half-cycle of motion (attempting to create a
rarefaction) just as the compression-wave reflections from
those two-foot distant room boundaries begin to arrive back
at the woofer. In this case, the reflected signal is out of
phase with the cone motion, decreasing its radiation
efficiency. The result is a suckout notch in what would
otherwise be a flat woofer-output signal.

As I indicated before, this phenomenon will exist in all
parts of the room, since it deals with the actual power
input of the speaker to the room. That sets it apart from a
standing-wave artifact, as well as from your standard
floor-bounce anomaly. It is also much more influential than
the latter, because power response is a much larger
percentage of the total output than the direct response.

Howard Ferstler

"At least' you only had one "at least".

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
I decided

garbage deleted

Back to the drawing board.

Cheers,

Margaret

"Clyde Slick" reproduced all that waffle . . .


"At least' you only had one "at least".


If only you'd snipped it . . .

As it is I can now see why nobody takes this guy seriously as an 'expert'.

I've seen better explainations by 'O' level students (that used to be at age
17, here in the UK).

_________
Geoff B

Howard Ferstler said:

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review.

What amp is that and how does it sound?

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
of you goofballs will be able to understand it. The rest of
you will carp and rant and say that it is unreadable,
boring, etc., because the topic it covers will be heading
right over your heads.

[snip]

Actually, it's rather lowbrow. Howard has chosen to enlighten the reader on
the consequences of the least favorable placement of a loudspeaker,
equidistant from three room boundaries, an exemplar of bad,bad,bad luck.

As is customary for Howard, he provides no citation of the quoted facts,
giving it a plagiaristic flavor. Since Howard is a librarian and not an
acoustician, he must be paraphrasing some written source. I wonder what it
is?

The style of writing is the simplistic take one usually finds in My Weekly
Reader, but without the elan of that publication.

And Howard even gets the speed of sound wrong. From
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...re/q0126.shtml,
the ASTM speed of sound is defined as 1,116.4 feet/second, not 1130.

My **** tickets make better reading. Who could I submit them to?

"New Geoff" m.gjb SPHERICAL wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" reproduced all that waffle . . .


"At least' you only had one "at least".



I left it so you could check out my 'math'.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
Howard Ferstler said:

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review.

What amp is that and how does it sound?


It sounds the same.

Howard said:

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
of you goofballs

What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you mentally
retarded?
Autistic? What?

Boon

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Howard said:

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
of you goofballs

What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you
mentally retarded?
Autistic? What?

From the Marc Phillips school of *charm*....

LOL!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Howard said:

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
of you goofballs

What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you
mentally retarded?
Autistic? What?

From the Marc Phillips school of *charm*....


A person who:
1. shamelessly uses his own son's death to launch personal attacks on the
internet
2. shamelessly uses his own son's death to troll for sympathy on the
internet
3. loves to brag how he "outlives his opponents" in response to obituaries
and
4. whose name has become synonymous to child pornographer and pedophile
through several incidents some of which (by his own admission) have led to a
police investigation

should perhaps not make comments about *charm* in a public forum.

LOL!

I bet your family and relatives aren't.

MvBB

"Robert Morein" said:

And Howard even gets the speed of sound wrong. From
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...re/q0126.shtml,
the ASTM speed of sound is defined as 1,116.4 feet/second, not 1130.

Not with his "humidity control".

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

New Geoff wrote:

"Clyde Slick" reproduced all that waffle . . .


"At least' you only had one "at least".


If only you'd snipped it . . .

As it is I can now see why nobody takes this guy seriously as an 'expert'.

I've seen better explainations by 'O' level students (that used to be at age
17, here in the UK).

_________
Geoff B

Right over your head.

Howard Ferstler

Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
I decided

garbage deleted

Back to the drawing board.

Cheers,

Margaret

Right over your head.

Howard Ferstler

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review.

What amp is that and how does it sound?

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
Good amp, though.

Howard Ferstler

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
Howard Ferstler said:

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review.

What amp is that and how does it sound?


It sounds the same.

After carefully matching levels in each channel, you are
absolutely correct.

Howard Ferstler

Robert Morein wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
of you goofballs will be able to understand it. The rest of
you will carp and rant and say that it is unreadable,
boring, etc., because the topic it covers will be heading
right over your heads.

[snip]

Actually, it's rather lowbrow. Howard has chosen to enlighten the reader on
the consequences of the least favorable placement of a loudspeaker,
equidistant from three room boundaries, an exemplar of bad,bad,bad luck.

As is customary for Howard, he provides no citation of the quoted facts,
giving it a plagiaristic flavor. Since Howard is a librarian and not an
acoustician, he must be paraphrasing some written source. I wonder what it
is?

The style of writing is the simplistic take one usually finds in My Weekly
Reader, but without the elan of that publication.

And Howard even gets the speed of sound wrong. From
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...re/q0126.shtml,
the ASTM speed of sound is defined as 1,116.4 feet/second, not 1130.

Depends upon altitude. Close enough for audio.

My **** tickets make better reading. Who could I submit them to?

Right over your head.

Howard Ferstler

Marc Phillips wrote:

Howard said:

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
of you goofballs

What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you mentally
retarded?
Autistic? What?

Boon

Yep, it went right over your head.

Howard Ferstler

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Marc Phillips said:

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
of you goofballs

What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you mentally
retarded?
Autistic? What?

Harold's bloviations on Usenet are rehearsals. He's rehearsing the spiel
he uses on certain low-end magazine editors. Not the ones who have
already been co-opted into Hivethink. It's for the other ones, the ones
who are Normal -- who appreciate having choices in the marketplace.
Harold has to keep rehearsing his "it's over your head" shinola, and the
simple rulebook approach he yaps about, and the wrecking ball and other
tortured analogies. He has to keep rehearsing because, you know,
sometimes he forgets his lines when he's performing, so to speak.

Went over your head, too. Not surprising.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
I decided

garbage deleted

Back to the drawing board.

Cheers,

Margaret

Right over your head.

Howard Ferstler

Dear Mr. Numbnuts,

It does not take a proctologist to identify *feces* and *the rectum* that
spews it. Much to *your* detriment.

Cheers,

MvBB

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
Howard Ferstler said:

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review.

What amp is that and how does it sound?


It sounds the same.

After carefully matching levels in each channel, you are
absolutely correct.


AMAZING!
you don't even have to compare it to anything else
for you to say it sounds the same!
What a 'rigorous' analysis!
Sounds the same as WHAT, dunderhead?

Howard said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Howard said:

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
of you goofballs

What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you mentally
retarded?
Autistic? What?

Boon

Yep, it went right over your head.

Thanks for admitting to your autism. Now we can treat you appropriately.

Boon

Sander said:

Howard Ferstler said:

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review.

What amp is that and how does it sound?

You know, this is a perfectly valid question, one that I hoped Howard would
answer. He chose instead to write "it went over your head" repeatedly and
autistically to everyone who criticized him.

It's one thing that Howard doesn't seem to grasp the idea that no one wants to
pander to his obsessive need to be recognized as an expert in audio. It's
quite another that he ignores his one chance to actually engage in an actual
discussion of what he wrote.

Howard Ferstler is, and always will be, a fraud.

Boon

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 9/30/2004 5:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review.

What amp is that and how does it sound?

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
Good amp, though.


How is it good if it costs 3,000 dollars and sounds no better than an amp at
10th it's price?

Howard Ferstler said:

What amp is that and how does it sound?

Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
Good amp, though.

This magazine isn't sold locally here.
Oh well, sooner or later you'll quote yourself here.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

(Marc Phillips) said:

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review.

What amp is that and how does it sound?

You know, this is a perfectly valid question, one that I hoped Howard would
answer. He chose instead to write "it went over your head" repeatedly and
autistically to everyone who criticized him.

He directed me to the next issue of TSS, which isn;t available here.
It's just a matter of time before Uncle Howie will quote himself on
this forum, though. I know he can't resist.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

From: Sander deWaal
Date: 10/1/2004 6:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Howard Ferstler said:

What amp is that and how does it sound?

Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
Good amp, though.

This magazine isn't sold locally here.
Oh well, sooner or later you'll quote yourself here.

He may quote "himself" but we may never know who the true author is any time he
does so.

"Howard Ferstler" offered the balanced critical response of...


Right over your head.


Uhm, no - it passed somewhere between ankle and knee height . . .

I'm quite aware of the supposed points you were trying to make, but they
were poorly presented with no suporting references or evidence.

Certainly in my degree (never mind Masters) work, such an article would have
been returned with a "Resubmit" notice.

I see from other posters that I am not alone in feeling that perhaps you are
batting out of your league and should consider toning down your
self-important "I know better than you" attitude. Perhaps we might actually
find something of note in your frequent postings.

_______
Geoff B

"New Geoff" m.gjb SPHERICAL said:

I see from other posters that I am not alone in feeling that perhaps you are
batting out of your league and should consider toning down your
self-important "I know better than you" attitude. Perhaps we might actually
find something of note in your frequent postings.

"Note" is actually one of his most used words, note.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:

[snip]

And Howard even gets the speed of sound wrong. From
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...re/q0126.shtml,
the ASTM speed of sound is defined as 1,116.4 feet/second, not 1130.

Depends upon altitude. Close enough for audio.

Then why did you quote the wrong figure?


My **** tickets make better reading. Who could I submit them to?

Right over your head.

Howard Ferstler

May I have a list of editors who have accepted material from you?
OTOH, I could simply send them to you in a baggie, and you could
plagiarize.

George M. Middius said:

Sander deWaal said:

Perhaps we might actually
find something of note in your frequent postings.

"Note" is actually one of his most used words, note.

Mr. De,will its like you, can go to Goggle for some evidents -- NOt! ;-)

And when was the last time one of you goofballs took a proper DBT,
slick?
At least the $3000 dollar amp that was dumped on my doorstep, gets a
thorough review, note.

Read all about it in the new issue of The Thenthible Thound, Clyde.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

George M. Middius said:

Sander deWaal said:

Perhaps we might actually
find something of note in your frequent postings.

"Note" is actually one of his most used words, note.

Mr. De,will its like you, can go to Goggle for some evidents -- NOt! ;-)

And when was the last time one of you goofballs took a proper DBT,
slick?

Can you not see something so OBVIOUS? Are you calling me a LIAR, sir?
Your extraordinary claims are ANTI-SCIENCE.


Rubbish! Music is art, audio is engineering.....................


At least the $3000 dollar amp that was dumped on my doorstep, gets a
thorough review, note.

Your 'claims' are BIZARRE, sir. In the REAL world, the ear is most
certainly probabilistic, and a very basic level, due to the fact that
the CNS has to determine detectable changes in a pseudo-poisson
distribution of neural firings. Can you DISPUTE that with FACTS or are
you GOING TO LIE SOME MORE?


Absolute nonsense. Why do you think vinyl is obsolete?
I master my own CDs, and I have a Nagra to prove it..................


Read all about it in the new issue of The Thenthible Thound, Clyde.

Stand and deliver!


My Krell sounds the same as any Yamaha, I just happen to like the
thick faceplate....................


--
Stewart Drinkalot

-Sometimes I fart, Audio is boring.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Sander deWaal said:

Perhaps we might actually
find something of note in your frequent postings.

"Note" is actually one of his most used words, note.

Mr. De,will its like you, can go to Goggle for some evidents -- NOt! ;-)

And when was the last time one of you goofballs took a proper DBT,
slick?

Can you not see something so OBVIOUS? Are you calling me a LIAR, sir?
Your extraordinary claims are ANTI-SCIENCE.

At least the $3000 dollar amp that was dumped on my doorstep, gets a
thorough review, note.

Your 'claims' are BIZARRE, sir. In the REAL world, the ear is most
certainly probabilistic, and a very basic level, due to the fact that
the CNS has to determine detectable changes in a pseudo-poisson
distribution of neural firings. Can you DISPUTE that with FACTS or are
you GOING TO LIE SOME MORE?


Unfortunately in the REAL world AES white papers are often used as toilet
paper by people tricked by a Yamaha integrated amp that then become brown
papers. I know, I made the trip to Florida. Have amp, will travel. In my
professional capacity and due to my standing in the professional audio
community, standing in the professional audio community I can state on
behalf of the entire professional audio community that an entire basement
converted to a one giant subwoofer and a Corvette (0-60 in 3.5 seconds, 220
mph, 55 mpg, 1.7 G's, 47 Hsu subwoofers in the trunk, 155dB @ 6Hz) in the
garage will yield maximum return for your audio investment. Any incremental
performance will be judged against a Yamaha integrated amp and will be
proven to be an overkill with no audible benefits like happened in Florida
in the 90's. Unfortunately people often buy midranges and tweeters without
realizing that subwoofers have to be corner loaded or else you are wasting
your investment unless of course you fill the entire room with subwoofers in
which case not every subwoofer can be corner loaded but that's okay because
the other subwoofers will form artificial corners for the remaining
subwoofers and everything is OK and you can then start thinking about adding
a midrange and a tweeter to your system. Of course you you can always stick
a few *top-rated* Hsu TN subwoofers in the refrigerator first if you really
like bass. I reviewed them and they really are brilliantly designed.

If you are hard to convince, just drop me a note and I'll pack the Yamaha
integrated amp and proove that you need to learn to be critical of your
white papers before you wipe.

George M. Middius said:

Absolute nonsense. Why do you think vinyl is obsolete?
I master my own CDs, and I have a Nagra to prove it..................

I've conducted bias controlled listening tests where a system using a
133-foot pair of networked high-end speaker cables in a room with
pronounced 20 Hz "resonances" that would have to have at least one
dimension on the order of 28 feet for a 1st mode excitation. Humans are
not responsive to my own tests of pshychoacoustics. I am NOT a
journalist. I am NOT a reporter. I am NOT on staff at any
magazine. I have NEVER been on staff at any magazine.

Hah! My ****in' valve amps will destroy your frilly nylons in a
naosecond, you will note.

My Krell sounds the same as any Yamaha, I just happen to like the
thick faceplate....................

I am interested in fiund what changes sound and what doesn't. It doesn't
matter to me if it embarasses you. Oh Stu thtis is just ane xcuse. You
know that you said prior that anuhting Isaid woulf be considered null
and void but your enthisusumm for cars is unnevering. I'n not. Never
was. Never will be.

My valve dealer left 23.000 boxes of KT88s in my dungeons, with which
me and Dr. Kernith will have a good time while smoking for 3000 quid
marihuana away. Nurse!

No ****in' lie, you clod.

--
td

Sanding the Wall rote:


George M. Middius said:

Absolute nonsense. Why do you think vinyl is obsolete?
I master my own CDs, and I have a Nagra to prove it..................

I've conducted bias controlled listening tests where a system using a
133-foot pair of networked high-end speaker cables in a room with
pronounced 20 Hz "resonances" that would have to have at least one
dimension on the order of 28 feet for a 1st mode excitation. Humans are
not responsive to my own tests of pshychoacoustics. I am NOT a
journalist. I am NOT a reporter. I am NOT on staff at any
magazine. I have NEVER been on staff at any magazine.

Hah! My ****in' valve amps will destroy your frilly nylons in a
naosecond, you will note.

My Krell sounds the same as any Yamaha, I just happen to like the
thick faceplate....................

I am interested in fiund what changes sound and what doesn't. It doesn't
matter to me if it embarasses you. Oh Stu thtis is just ane xcuse. You
know that you said prior that anuhting Isaid woulf be considered null
and void but your enthisusumm for cars is unnevering. I'n not. Never
was. Never will be.

My valve dealer left 23.000 boxes of KT88s in my dungeons, with which
me and Dr. Kernith will have a good time while smoking for 3000 quid
marihuana away. Nurse!

No ****in' lie, you clod.

--
td









Bruce J. Richman

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

Sanding the Wall rote:


George M. Middius said:

Absolute nonsense. Why do you think vinyl is obsolete?
I master my own CDs, and I have a Nagra to prove it..................

I've conducted bias controlled listening tests where a system using a
133-foot pair of networked high-end speaker cables in a room with
pronounced 20 Hz "resonances" that would have to have at least one
dimension on the order of 28 feet for a 1st mode excitation. Humans are
not responsive to my own tests of pshychoacoustics. I am NOT a
journalist. I am NOT a reporter. I am NOT on staff at any
magazine. I have NEVER been on staff at any magazine.

Hah! My ****in' valve amps will destroy your frilly nylons in a
naosecond, you will note.

My Krell sounds the same as any Yamaha, I just happen to like the
thick faceplate....................

I am interested in fiund what changes sound and what doesn't. It doesn't
matter to me if it embarasses you. Oh Stu thtis is just ane xcuse. You
know that you said prior that anuhting Isaid woulf be considered null
and void but your enthisusumm for cars is unnevering. I'n not. Never
was. Never will be.

My valve dealer left 23.000 boxes of KT88s in my dungeons, with which
me and Dr. Kernith will have a good time while smoking for 3000 quid
marihuana away. Nurse!

No ****in' lie, you clod.

--
td









Bruce J. Richman



Left you speechless, didn't I? ;-)

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Sanding the Wall rote:




George M. Middius said:

Absolute nonsense. Why do you think vinyl is obsolete?
I master my own CDs, and I have a Nagra to prove it..................

I've conducted bias controlled listening tests where a system using a
133-foot pair of networked high-end speaker cables in a room with
pronounced 20 Hz "resonances" that would have to have at least one
dimension on the order of 28 feet for a 1st mode excitation. Humans are
not responsive to my own tests of pshychoacoustics. I am NOT a
journalist. I am NOT a reporter. I am NOT on staff at any
magazine. I have NEVER been on staff at any magazine.

Hah! My ****in' valve amps will destroy your frilly nylons in a
naosecond, you will note.

My Krell sounds the same as any Yamaha, I just happen to like the
thick faceplate....................

I am interested in fiund what changes sound and what doesn't. It doesn't
matter to me if it embarasses you. Oh Stu thtis is just ane xcuse. You
know that you said prior that anuhting Isaid woulf be considered null
and void but your enthisusumm for cars is unnevering. I'n not. Never
was. Never will be.

My valve dealer left 23.000 boxes of KT88s in my dungeons, with which
me and Dr. Kernith will have a good time while smoking for 3000 quid
marihuana away. Nurse!

No ****in' lie, you clod.

--
td









Irrelevance and grammatical errors noted.

If iron knees killed!

I knew that stuff decades ago. LOT'S !
I'll soon be expanding my trailer complex to the tune of 100 Large! (and still
have plenty left over with which to wipe).

Prove it !


Nathan Detroit

New Geoff wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" offered the balanced critical response of...


Right over your head.

Uhm, no - it passed somewhere between ankle and knee height . .

I'm quite aware of the supposed points you were trying to make, but they
were poorly presented with no suporting references or evidence.

It is typical for the goofball segment to critique my
writing style instead of the content. It is all they have to
work with. However, my editors feel that my style is just
fine, and so the opinions of the more dysfunctional types
who hang around here do not really mean much to me.

Certainly in my degree (never mind Masters) work, such an article would have
been returned with a "Resubmit" notice.

It was published in an audio "hobby" magazine, and was not
designed to hit the bulls eye at the JAES. I suppose that
your idea of a proper technical article would be something
one would find in Stereophile or The Absolute Sound.

I see from other posters that I am not alone in feeling that perhaps you are
batting out of your league and should consider toning down your
self-important "I know better than you" attitude. Perhaps we might actually
find something of note in your frequent postings.

I am sure that if there is something there "of note" you
will spot it in spite of any "I know better than you"
attitude I might have.

The problem the tweakos have is that they have been babied
by the mainstream for so long that they actually think they
have a leg to stand on. However, they do not, and it is high
time that someone came along and called the idiots just what
they a idiots. I'll leave it to guys like you to handle
the nitwits with kid gloves.

Howard Ferstler

Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:

Dear Mr. Numbnuts,

It does not take a proctologist to identify *feces* and *the rectum* that
spews it. Much to *your* detriment.

Cheers,

MvBB

It is interesting how you nitwits are compelled to behave as
you do. You are either childish jerks who have to worship
your often overpriced and usually esoteric audio systems as
if they were attached to church alters, or else you are
con-artist sales clerks, tweako journalists, or slick
marketing people who have a vested interest in keeping
tweako audio buffs fully tweaked.

Howard Ferstler

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 9/30/2004 5:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
Good amp, though.

How is it good if it costs 3,000 dollars and sounds no better than an amp at
10th it's price?

Well, contrary to the beliefs entertained by a few, it is
possible for an expensive amp made by a small company to
still be good.

Howard Ferstler