Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
In article , "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is accurate or realistic. Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here, isn't it important that people like the results provided by the equipment, perhaps even more important than accuracy or realism? Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
In article , "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is accurate or realistic. Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here, isn't it important that people like the results provided by the equipment, perhaps even more important than accuracy or realism? Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote in message ...
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. Please, let's not engage in self-pity. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory" and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly? Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. Those would be the religious experts, I suspect. Once again, we're depending upon the wrong "experts." All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always prove something is right. Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts. So I bow out to the "experts". The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote in message ...
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. Please, let's not engage in self-pity. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory" and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly? Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. Those would be the religious experts, I suspect. Once again, we're depending upon the wrong "experts." All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always prove something is right. Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts. So I bow out to the "experts". The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote in message ...
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. Please, let's not engage in self-pity. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory" and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly? Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. Those would be the religious experts, I suspect. Once again, we're depending upon the wrong "experts." All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always prove something is right. Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts. So I bow out to the "experts". The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Sanders wrote in message ...
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. Please, let's not engage in self-pity. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory" and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly? Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. Those would be the religious experts, I suspect. Once again, we're depending upon the wrong "experts." All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always prove something is right. Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts. So I bow out to the "experts". The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Harvey Gerst wrote in message . ..
Sanders wrote: But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last, "experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the earth. I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time, but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago. It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization, they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious force of the time did not question at all that the earth was round. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Harvey Gerst wrote in message . ..
Sanders wrote: But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last, "experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the earth. I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time, but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago. It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization, they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious force of the time did not question at all that the earth was round. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Harvey Gerst wrote in message . ..
Sanders wrote: But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last, "experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the earth. I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time, but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago. It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization, they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious force of the time did not question at all that the earth was round. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Harvey Gerst wrote in message . ..
Sanders wrote: But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest thing in the world to do, eh? Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears don't know what they are hearing. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last, "experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the earth. I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time, but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago. It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization, they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious force of the time did not question at all that the earth was round. |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ --
not what is accurate or realistic. Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here, isn't it important that people like the results provided by the equipment, perhaps even more important than accuracy or realism? Sure, from a practical point of view. But people grovel in front of Dr. Toole as if he were some great scientist who's made significant contributions to the art of sound reproduction. And in my opinion, he's contributed nothing. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ --
not what is accurate or realistic. Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here, isn't it important that people like the results provided by the equipment, perhaps even more important than accuracy or realism? Sure, from a practical point of view. But people grovel in front of Dr. Toole as if he were some great scientist who's made significant contributions to the art of sound reproduction. And in my opinion, he's contributed nothing. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ --
not what is accurate or realistic. Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here, isn't it important that people like the results provided by the equipment, perhaps even more important than accuracy or realism? Sure, from a practical point of view. But people grovel in front of Dr. Toole as if he were some great scientist who's made significant contributions to the art of sound reproduction. And in my opinion, he's contributed nothing. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ --
not what is accurate or realistic. Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here, isn't it important that people like the results provided by the equipment, perhaps even more important than accuracy or realism? Sure, from a practical point of view. But people grovel in front of Dr. Toole as if he were some great scientist who's made significant contributions to the art of sound reproduction. And in my opinion, he's contributed nothing. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right. Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts. So I bow out to the "experts". The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion. Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important characteristics... They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this understanding to others. They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right. Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts. So I bow out to the "experts". The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion. Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important characteristics... They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this understanding to others. They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right. Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts. So I bow out to the "experts". The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion. Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important characteristics... They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this understanding to others. They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right. Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts. So I bow out to the "experts". The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion. Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important characteristics... They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this understanding to others. They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
William Sommerwerck wrote: Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important characteristics... They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this understanding to others. They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know. Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself? Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin "A life lived in fear is a life half lived." Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom" |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
William Sommerwerck wrote: Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important characteristics... They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this understanding to others. They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know. Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself? Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin "A life lived in fear is a life half lived." Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom" |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
William Sommerwerck wrote: Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important characteristics... They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this understanding to others. They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know. Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself? Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin "A life lived in fear is a life half lived." Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom" |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
William Sommerwerck wrote: Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important characteristics... They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this understanding to others. They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know. Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself? Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin "A life lived in fear is a life half lived." Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom" |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics... They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this understanding to others. They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know. Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself? With respect to #1, yes. I'm rather impatient when it comes to explaining things. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics... They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this understanding to others. They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know. Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself? With respect to #1, yes. I'm rather impatient when it comes to explaining things. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics... They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this understanding to others. They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know. Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself? With respect to #1, yes. I'm rather impatient when it comes to explaining things. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics... They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this understanding to others. They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know. Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself? With respect to #1, yes. I'm rather impatient when it comes to explaining things. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Dick Pierce wrote: Please, let's not engage in self-pity. Not self pity, but I do have a much better understanding of the phrase "Throwing your pearls before the swine" means now. Discussions with you involved are a waste of valuable time! You spend all of your discussion time putting down others who disagree with you. You think it's better to be a self proclaimed righteousness expert about sound because you can quote a formula from a book you didn't write. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory" and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly? For starters check below if you know how to use a browser. If you look, you will find they are just now starting to understand the physics behind what was once thought impossible by the experts of the time. http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/4_clas...bees.html#act2 You're the urban legend of this group and enough people believe it, so your lies perpetrate freely to those who are afraid to think for themselves or use their creativity. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. Those would be the religious experts, I suspect. Once again, we're depending upon the wrong "experts." No, the scientific community experts at that time believed what they could about reality, considering the data they could use to evaluate to make their decisions by. Your use of words to misdirect others from the fact you don't have any idea about what you are talking about is amazing. Thinking of politics Dick, you'd be a great one to run for office!!!! Dick for President in 2008!!! Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts. Yup, that's wright - DUH !!!! Yes, and you are the wrong person to quote as being an expert. There are three ways to spell the word - wright, write, and right. - DUh once again It is quite evident your teachers never bothered to teach you the elementary use of the English language, but boy, how you do know you can quote from a book is a great skill of yours........ Read the definition of "Wright" in a dictionary, that is if you can read other than do nothing but quote a bunch of specs some else who did do the trial and error work on to come up with their theories. As usual, it is not your knowledge of a subject but your negative persuasion so that others won't stand up to you about, that has put you on your throne of undisputed knowledge. You have no concept of what the spiders purpose is in a loudspeaker, among other misconceptions you are spreading. The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion. Discussions are when the experts admit they might be wrong and maybe why they are wrong. There is no discussion to be had here other than Dick is God and he will throw lighting bolts of negativism at someone who sins against HIS perfect beliefs. So as before, I'm done with someone/group who doesn't even know how to spell and use the right words in a sentence properly. It just shows me stupidity abounds in this group if you are the guru!!! How can you be so literate about any subject when you don't even know how to spell right is way beyond me! What college passed you to get a degree? Online diploma from Kmart no doubt! Have fun your highness, even Hitler had his foolish followers who thought his word was God. Fools follow experts. Real truth seekers question what others say the truth is and find the "truth" for themselves. But that is hard work and it is easier to believe someone else's truth than think for yourself. Enjoy your reign with your great misdirection ability you use to get others to stroke your insecure ego. I have seen the light from your posts and you don't have anything nice or useful to say to anyone, Just quote memorized formulas, A six year old can do that. I tried to be civil with you, but you consider my opinions that I have gained through the assimilation of personal knowledge useless because it contradicts your 35 year old theory. Build the sealed box and build the ported box and listen to what your ears hear, not what some book says about theory based specs. If BOSE 901 were so great, why did the 4" speakers need an active eq bass/trebble boost added to approximate a better sounding speaker. So as before, I'm leaving any post when the author does nothing but try to make other people look stupid because he can use a memorized formula to back his lies about how much he really knows. Good Bye And Have A Pleasant Reign Over Your Loyal Subjects! |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Dick Pierce wrote: Please, let's not engage in self-pity. Not self pity, but I do have a much better understanding of the phrase "Throwing your pearls before the swine" means now. Discussions with you involved are a waste of valuable time! You spend all of your discussion time putting down others who disagree with you. You think it's better to be a self proclaimed righteousness expert about sound because you can quote a formula from a book you didn't write. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory" and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly? For starters check below if you know how to use a browser. If you look, you will find they are just now starting to understand the physics behind what was once thought impossible by the experts of the time. http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/4_clas...bees.html#act2 You're the urban legend of this group and enough people believe it, so your lies perpetrate freely to those who are afraid to think for themselves or use their creativity. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. Those would be the religious experts, I suspect. Once again, we're depending upon the wrong "experts." No, the scientific community experts at that time believed what they could about reality, considering the data they could use to evaluate to make their decisions by. Your use of words to misdirect others from the fact you don't have any idea about what you are talking about is amazing. Thinking of politics Dick, you'd be a great one to run for office!!!! Dick for President in 2008!!! Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts. Yup, that's wright - DUH !!!! Yes, and you are the wrong person to quote as being an expert. There are three ways to spell the word - wright, write, and right. - DUh once again It is quite evident your teachers never bothered to teach you the elementary use of the English language, but boy, how you do know you can quote from a book is a great skill of yours........ Read the definition of "Wright" in a dictionary, that is if you can read other than do nothing but quote a bunch of specs some else who did do the trial and error work on to come up with their theories. As usual, it is not your knowledge of a subject but your negative persuasion so that others won't stand up to you about, that has put you on your throne of undisputed knowledge. You have no concept of what the spiders purpose is in a loudspeaker, among other misconceptions you are spreading. The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion. Discussions are when the experts admit they might be wrong and maybe why they are wrong. There is no discussion to be had here other than Dick is God and he will throw lighting bolts of negativism at someone who sins against HIS perfect beliefs. So as before, I'm done with someone/group who doesn't even know how to spell and use the right words in a sentence properly. It just shows me stupidity abounds in this group if you are the guru!!! How can you be so literate about any subject when you don't even know how to spell right is way beyond me! What college passed you to get a degree? Online diploma from Kmart no doubt! Have fun your highness, even Hitler had his foolish followers who thought his word was God. Fools follow experts. Real truth seekers question what others say the truth is and find the "truth" for themselves. But that is hard work and it is easier to believe someone else's truth than think for yourself. Enjoy your reign with your great misdirection ability you use to get others to stroke your insecure ego. I have seen the light from your posts and you don't have anything nice or useful to say to anyone, Just quote memorized formulas, A six year old can do that. I tried to be civil with you, but you consider my opinions that I have gained through the assimilation of personal knowledge useless because it contradicts your 35 year old theory. Build the sealed box and build the ported box and listen to what your ears hear, not what some book says about theory based specs. If BOSE 901 were so great, why did the 4" speakers need an active eq bass/trebble boost added to approximate a better sounding speaker. So as before, I'm leaving any post when the author does nothing but try to make other people look stupid because he can use a memorized formula to back his lies about how much he really knows. Good Bye And Have A Pleasant Reign Over Your Loyal Subjects! |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Dick Pierce wrote: Please, let's not engage in self-pity. Not self pity, but I do have a much better understanding of the phrase "Throwing your pearls before the swine" means now. Discussions with you involved are a waste of valuable time! You spend all of your discussion time putting down others who disagree with you. You think it's better to be a self proclaimed righteousness expert about sound because you can quote a formula from a book you didn't write. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory" and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly? For starters check below if you know how to use a browser. If you look, you will find they are just now starting to understand the physics behind what was once thought impossible by the experts of the time. http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/4_clas...bees.html#act2 You're the urban legend of this group and enough people believe it, so your lies perpetrate freely to those who are afraid to think for themselves or use their creativity. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. Those would be the religious experts, I suspect. Once again, we're depending upon the wrong "experts." No, the scientific community experts at that time believed what they could about reality, considering the data they could use to evaluate to make their decisions by. Your use of words to misdirect others from the fact you don't have any idea about what you are talking about is amazing. Thinking of politics Dick, you'd be a great one to run for office!!!! Dick for President in 2008!!! Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts. Yup, that's wright - DUH !!!! Yes, and you are the wrong person to quote as being an expert. There are three ways to spell the word - wright, write, and right. - DUh once again It is quite evident your teachers never bothered to teach you the elementary use of the English language, but boy, how you do know you can quote from a book is a great skill of yours........ Read the definition of "Wright" in a dictionary, that is if you can read other than do nothing but quote a bunch of specs some else who did do the trial and error work on to come up with their theories. As usual, it is not your knowledge of a subject but your negative persuasion so that others won't stand up to you about, that has put you on your throne of undisputed knowledge. You have no concept of what the spiders purpose is in a loudspeaker, among other misconceptions you are spreading. The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion. Discussions are when the experts admit they might be wrong and maybe why they are wrong. There is no discussion to be had here other than Dick is God and he will throw lighting bolts of negativism at someone who sins against HIS perfect beliefs. So as before, I'm done with someone/group who doesn't even know how to spell and use the right words in a sentence properly. It just shows me stupidity abounds in this group if you are the guru!!! How can you be so literate about any subject when you don't even know how to spell right is way beyond me! What college passed you to get a degree? Online diploma from Kmart no doubt! Have fun your highness, even Hitler had his foolish followers who thought his word was God. Fools follow experts. Real truth seekers question what others say the truth is and find the "truth" for themselves. But that is hard work and it is easier to believe someone else's truth than think for yourself. Enjoy your reign with your great misdirection ability you use to get others to stroke your insecure ego. I have seen the light from your posts and you don't have anything nice or useful to say to anyone, Just quote memorized formulas, A six year old can do that. I tried to be civil with you, but you consider my opinions that I have gained through the assimilation of personal knowledge useless because it contradicts your 35 year old theory. Build the sealed box and build the ported box and listen to what your ears hear, not what some book says about theory based specs. If BOSE 901 were so great, why did the 4" speakers need an active eq bass/trebble boost added to approximate a better sounding speaker. So as before, I'm leaving any post when the author does nothing but try to make other people look stupid because he can use a memorized formula to back his lies about how much he really knows. Good Bye And Have A Pleasant Reign Over Your Loyal Subjects! |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
Dick Pierce wrote: Please, let's not engage in self-pity. Not self pity, but I do have a much better understanding of the phrase "Throwing your pearls before the swine" means now. Discussions with you involved are a waste of valuable time! You spend all of your discussion time putting down others who disagree with you. You think it's better to be a self proclaimed righteousness expert about sound because you can quote a formula from a book you didn't write. But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to fly, yet they do fly. Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory" and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly? For starters check below if you know how to use a browser. If you look, you will find they are just now starting to understand the physics behind what was once thought impossible by the experts of the time. http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/4_clas...bees.html#act2 You're the urban legend of this group and enough people believe it, so your lies perpetrate freely to those who are afraid to think for themselves or use their creativity. Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around the earth. Those would be the religious experts, I suspect. Once again, we're depending upon the wrong "experts." No, the scientific community experts at that time believed what they could about reality, considering the data they could use to evaluate to make their decisions by. Your use of words to misdirect others from the fact you don't have any idea about what you are talking about is amazing. Thinking of politics Dick, you'd be a great one to run for office!!!! Dick for President in 2008!!! Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts. Yup, that's wright - DUH !!!! Yes, and you are the wrong person to quote as being an expert. There are three ways to spell the word - wright, write, and right. - DUh once again It is quite evident your teachers never bothered to teach you the elementary use of the English language, but boy, how you do know you can quote from a book is a great skill of yours........ Read the definition of "Wright" in a dictionary, that is if you can read other than do nothing but quote a bunch of specs some else who did do the trial and error work on to come up with their theories. As usual, it is not your knowledge of a subject but your negative persuasion so that others won't stand up to you about, that has put you on your throne of undisputed knowledge. You have no concept of what the spiders purpose is in a loudspeaker, among other misconceptions you are spreading. The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion. Discussions are when the experts admit they might be wrong and maybe why they are wrong. There is no discussion to be had here other than Dick is God and he will throw lighting bolts of negativism at someone who sins against HIS perfect beliefs. So as before, I'm done with someone/group who doesn't even know how to spell and use the right words in a sentence properly. It just shows me stupidity abounds in this group if you are the guru!!! How can you be so literate about any subject when you don't even know how to spell right is way beyond me! What college passed you to get a degree? Online diploma from Kmart no doubt! Have fun your highness, even Hitler had his foolish followers who thought his word was God. Fools follow experts. Real truth seekers question what others say the truth is and find the "truth" for themselves. But that is hard work and it is easier to believe someone else's truth than think for yourself. Enjoy your reign with your great misdirection ability you use to get others to stroke your insecure ego. I have seen the light from your posts and you don't have anything nice or useful to say to anyone, Just quote memorized formulas, A six year old can do that. I tried to be civil with you, but you consider my opinions that I have gained through the assimilation of personal knowledge useless because it contradicts your 35 year old theory. Build the sealed box and build the ported box and listen to what your ears hear, not what some book says about theory based specs. If BOSE 901 were so great, why did the 4" speakers need an active eq bass/trebble boost added to approximate a better sounding speaker. So as before, I'm leaving any post when the author does nothing but try to make other people look stupid because he can use a memorized formula to back his lies about how much he really knows. Good Bye And Have A Pleasant Reign Over Your Loyal Subjects! |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... I'm a degreed EE, and I reviewed audio equipment for over a decade. You're trying to apply "common sense" to an issue where math and physics provide a more-accurate explanation of what's going on. So you have an EE degree too, and you feel the need to tell us rather than let the facts speak. I've certainly read plenty of uneducated reviews in audio mags too unfortunately. To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_ resonant than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero" more quickly. The system Q is dependent on the box design. not the box type. The driver should return to zero when the signal does, period. Just where is the math and physics you speak of? To the best of my knowledge, a driver cannot "return to rest" before the signal. Of course it can, that's when the voice coil burns out :-) Sorry, but science _is_ on my side. A sealed box is superior to ported. Sorry but opinions are NOT science. In scientific terms you MUST state under what conditions you believe it is superior. Obviously efficiency/bandwidth product is NOT one of the conditions! Why? Because (given a maximally flat design) a sealed box rolls off at 12db/8ve, while a ported box falls at 24dB/8ve. The tradeoff is that the ported box gains efficiency in exchange for the more-abrupt rolloff. Which appears to be the reason that most companies have switched to ported designs -- even AR. Exactly, which proves neither is superior in all cases. All other things being equal (including the corner frequency), would you rather listen to a speaker with a two-pole rolloff, or a four-pole rolloff? Well, which has less phase shift? Lower group delay? Rings less? The one which is more accurate regardless of design. In "High-Performance Loudspeakers" (a book which, oddly, pays almost no attention to electrostatic and orthodynamic/ribbon systems) the author claims that listeners prefer overdamped bass, even when the corner frequency is higher than that of a sealed or ported box. This isn't at all surprising, because an overdamped design, thought it "lingers," does not ring, and it has _more_ output below the corner frequency than a sealed or ported design. Such blanket statements are utterly devoid of any meaning. If I put a 5" speaker in an overdamped cabinet, will it have more output at 30Hz than a 15" woofer in a suitably ported enclosure with an Fc of 33 Hz? Of course not. Why not evaluate each design on it's merits. Is that too hard for you to do? People who try to reduce everything to black and white, do no-one a service. TonyP. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... I'm a degreed EE, and I reviewed audio equipment for over a decade. You're trying to apply "common sense" to an issue where math and physics provide a more-accurate explanation of what's going on. So you have an EE degree too, and you feel the need to tell us rather than let the facts speak. I've certainly read plenty of uneducated reviews in audio mags too unfortunately. To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_ resonant than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero" more quickly. The system Q is dependent on the box design. not the box type. The driver should return to zero when the signal does, period. Just where is the math and physics you speak of? To the best of my knowledge, a driver cannot "return to rest" before the signal. Of course it can, that's when the voice coil burns out :-) Sorry, but science _is_ on my side. A sealed box is superior to ported. Sorry but opinions are NOT science. In scientific terms you MUST state under what conditions you believe it is superior. Obviously efficiency/bandwidth product is NOT one of the conditions! Why? Because (given a maximally flat design) a sealed box rolls off at 12db/8ve, while a ported box falls at 24dB/8ve. The tradeoff is that the ported box gains efficiency in exchange for the more-abrupt rolloff. Which appears to be the reason that most companies have switched to ported designs -- even AR. Exactly, which proves neither is superior in all cases. All other things being equal (including the corner frequency), would you rather listen to a speaker with a two-pole rolloff, or a four-pole rolloff? Well, which has less phase shift? Lower group delay? Rings less? The one which is more accurate regardless of design. In "High-Performance Loudspeakers" (a book which, oddly, pays almost no attention to electrostatic and orthodynamic/ribbon systems) the author claims that listeners prefer overdamped bass, even when the corner frequency is higher than that of a sealed or ported box. This isn't at all surprising, because an overdamped design, thought it "lingers," does not ring, and it has _more_ output below the corner frequency than a sealed or ported design. Such blanket statements are utterly devoid of any meaning. If I put a 5" speaker in an overdamped cabinet, will it have more output at 30Hz than a 15" woofer in a suitably ported enclosure with an Fc of 33 Hz? Of course not. Why not evaluate each design on it's merits. Is that too hard for you to do? People who try to reduce everything to black and white, do no-one a service. TonyP. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... I'm a degreed EE, and I reviewed audio equipment for over a decade. You're trying to apply "common sense" to an issue where math and physics provide a more-accurate explanation of what's going on. So you have an EE degree too, and you feel the need to tell us rather than let the facts speak. I've certainly read plenty of uneducated reviews in audio mags too unfortunately. To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_ resonant than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero" more quickly. The system Q is dependent on the box design. not the box type. The driver should return to zero when the signal does, period. Just where is the math and physics you speak of? To the best of my knowledge, a driver cannot "return to rest" before the signal. Of course it can, that's when the voice coil burns out :-) Sorry, but science _is_ on my side. A sealed box is superior to ported. Sorry but opinions are NOT science. In scientific terms you MUST state under what conditions you believe it is superior. Obviously efficiency/bandwidth product is NOT one of the conditions! Why? Because (given a maximally flat design) a sealed box rolls off at 12db/8ve, while a ported box falls at 24dB/8ve. The tradeoff is that the ported box gains efficiency in exchange for the more-abrupt rolloff. Which appears to be the reason that most companies have switched to ported designs -- even AR. Exactly, which proves neither is superior in all cases. All other things being equal (including the corner frequency), would you rather listen to a speaker with a two-pole rolloff, or a four-pole rolloff? Well, which has less phase shift? Lower group delay? Rings less? The one which is more accurate regardless of design. In "High-Performance Loudspeakers" (a book which, oddly, pays almost no attention to electrostatic and orthodynamic/ribbon systems) the author claims that listeners prefer overdamped bass, even when the corner frequency is higher than that of a sealed or ported box. This isn't at all surprising, because an overdamped design, thought it "lingers," does not ring, and it has _more_ output below the corner frequency than a sealed or ported design. Such blanket statements are utterly devoid of any meaning. If I put a 5" speaker in an overdamped cabinet, will it have more output at 30Hz than a 15" woofer in a suitably ported enclosure with an Fc of 33 Hz? Of course not. Why not evaluate each design on it's merits. Is that too hard for you to do? People who try to reduce everything to black and white, do no-one a service. TonyP. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... I'm a degreed EE, and I reviewed audio equipment for over a decade. You're trying to apply "common sense" to an issue where math and physics provide a more-accurate explanation of what's going on. So you have an EE degree too, and you feel the need to tell us rather than let the facts speak. I've certainly read plenty of uneducated reviews in audio mags too unfortunately. To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_ resonant than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero" more quickly. The system Q is dependent on the box design. not the box type. The driver should return to zero when the signal does, period. Just where is the math and physics you speak of? To the best of my knowledge, a driver cannot "return to rest" before the signal. Of course it can, that's when the voice coil burns out :-) Sorry, but science _is_ on my side. A sealed box is superior to ported. Sorry but opinions are NOT science. In scientific terms you MUST state under what conditions you believe it is superior. Obviously efficiency/bandwidth product is NOT one of the conditions! Why? Because (given a maximally flat design) a sealed box rolls off at 12db/8ve, while a ported box falls at 24dB/8ve. The tradeoff is that the ported box gains efficiency in exchange for the more-abrupt rolloff. Which appears to be the reason that most companies have switched to ported designs -- even AR. Exactly, which proves neither is superior in all cases. All other things being equal (including the corner frequency), would you rather listen to a speaker with a two-pole rolloff, or a four-pole rolloff? Well, which has less phase shift? Lower group delay? Rings less? The one which is more accurate regardless of design. In "High-Performance Loudspeakers" (a book which, oddly, pays almost no attention to electrostatic and orthodynamic/ribbon systems) the author claims that listeners prefer overdamped bass, even when the corner frequency is higher than that of a sealed or ported box. This isn't at all surprising, because an overdamped design, thought it "lingers," does not ring, and it has _more_ output below the corner frequency than a sealed or ported design. Such blanket statements are utterly devoid of any meaning. If I put a 5" speaker in an overdamped cabinet, will it have more output at 30Hz than a 15" woofer in a suitably ported enclosure with an Fc of 33 Hz? Of course not. Why not evaluate each design on it's merits. Is that too hard for you to do? People who try to reduce everything to black and white, do no-one a service. TonyP. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message om... I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time, but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago. It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization, they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious force of the time did not question at all that the earth was round. Unfortunately there are always people who reject science. Despite the Greeks knowing FAR more about physics 2000 years ago, there were many people in the middle ages who did believe the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe. Even today there are those who would ban all scientific knowledge, usually because they have none. TonyP. |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message om... I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time, but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago. It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization, they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious force of the time did not question at all that the earth was round. Unfortunately there are always people who reject science. Despite the Greeks knowing FAR more about physics 2000 years ago, there were many people in the middle ages who did believe the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe. Even today there are those who would ban all scientific knowledge, usually because they have none. TonyP. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message om... I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time, but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago. It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization, they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious force of the time did not question at all that the earth was round. Unfortunately there are always people who reject science. Despite the Greeks knowing FAR more about physics 2000 years ago, there were many people in the middle ages who did believe the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe. Even today there are those who would ban all scientific knowledge, usually because they have none. TonyP. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes - long post
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message om... I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time, but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago. It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization, they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious force of the time did not question at all that the earth was round. Unfortunately there are always people who reject science. Despite the Greeks knowing FAR more about physics 2000 years ago, there were many people in the middle ages who did believe the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe. Even today there are those who would ban all scientific knowledge, usually because they have none. TonyP. |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
"Sanders" wrote in message ... You think it's better to be a self proclaimed righteousness expert about sound because you can quote a formula from a book you didn't write. Fortunately most people here are greatful of Dick's ability to quote supportable facts and be able to back them up. You're the urban legend of this group and enough people believe it, so your lies perpetrate freely to those who are afraid to think for themselves or use their creativity. It's exactly the idea of "creative" facts that many are trying to overcome. Once again, we're depending upon the wrong "experts." No, the scientific community experts at that time believed what they could about reality, considering the data they could use to evaluate to make their decisions by. Which ones did you speak to exactly? Your use of words to misdirect others from the fact you don't have any idea about what you are talking about is amazing. If anyone doesn't know what he's talking about, it certainly ISN'T Dick Pierce! Thinking of politics Dick, you'd be a great one to run for office!!!! Dick for President in 2008!!! It would certainly be a huge improvement on George. Yes, and you are the wrong person to quote as being an expert. There are three ways to spell the word - wright, write, and right. - DUh once again Proving once again you have NO idea which fields of study correspond to which experts. It is quite evident your teachers never bothered to teach you the elementary use of the English language, but boy, how you do know you can quote from a book is a great skill of yours........ Read the definition of "Wright" in a dictionary, that is if you can read other than do nothing but quote a bunch of specs some else who did do the trial and error work on to come up with their theories. Just how fragile is your ego that you need to denigrate Dick for trying to enlighten you on a subject where your knowledge is sadly lacking. You have no concept of what the spiders purpose is in a loudspeaker, among other misconceptions you are spreading. You haven't been here long have you :-) The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion. Discussions are when the experts admit they might be wrong and maybe why they are wrong. There is no discussion to be had here other than Dick is God and he will throw lighting bolts of negativism at someone who sins against HIS perfect beliefs. Prove him wrong and I'm sure Dick will thank you for adding to his knowledge. Until you can, best shut up. How can you be so literate about any subject when you don't even know how to spell right is way beyond me! And many others things are too it seems. What college passed you to get a degree? Was English your major? I guess it wasn't science anyway. Online diploma from Kmart no doubt! I guess you failed in your application for one. Fools follow experts. Bigger fools ignore them without any justification. Real truth seekers question what others say the truth is and find the "truth" for themselves. But that is hard work and it is easier to believe someone else's truth than think for yourself. So what "Truth" have you found for yourself that proves Dick wrong? I'm sure were all interested to know. Enjoy your reign with your great misdirection ability you use to get others to stroke your insecure ego. That would be the one writing all this crap because someone proved him wrong. I have seen the light from your posts and you don't have anything nice or useful to say to anyone, Just quote memorized formulas, A six year old can do that. How old do you have to be to accept when you are wrong? Build the sealed box and build the ported box and listen to what your ears hear, not what some book says about theory based specs. I'll bet Dick has built or overseen the building of *FAR* more boxes and conducted ***FAR*** more tests that you are likely to do in your lifetime. If BOSE 901 were so great, why did the 4" speakers need an active eq bass/trebble boost added to approximate a better sounding speaker. I don't believe anyone said they were great, but active EQ alone, is not the problem. So as before, I'm leaving any post when the author does nothing but try to make other people look stupid because he can use a memorized formula to back his lies about how much he really knows. Better than calling someone a liar with ***NO*** proof whatsoever. In fact your whole post is free from any technical facts at all. I guess memorising formulae is beyond your capabilities :-) TonyP. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Old speaker boxes
"Sanders" wrote in message ... You think it's better to be a self proclaimed righteousness expert about sound because you can quote a formula from a book you didn't write. Fortunately most people here are greatful of Dick's ability to quote supportable facts and be able to back them up. You're the urban legend of this group and enough people believe it, so your lies perpetrate freely to those who are afraid to think for themselves or use their creativity. It's exactly the idea of "creative" facts that many are trying to overcome. Once again, we're depending upon the wrong "experts." No, the scientific community experts at that time believed what they could about reality, considering the data they could use to evaluate to make their decisions by. Which ones did you speak to exactly? Your use of words to misdirect others from the fact you don't have any idea about what you are talking about is amazing. If anyone doesn't know what he's talking about, it certainly ISN'T Dick Pierce! Thinking of politics Dick, you'd be a great one to run for office!!!! Dick for President in 2008!!! It would certainly be a huge improvement on George. Yes, and you are the wrong person to quote as being an expert. There are three ways to spell the word - wright, write, and right. - DUh once again Proving once again you have NO idea which fields of study correspond to which experts. It is quite evident your teachers never bothered to teach you the elementary use of the English language, but boy, how you do know you can quote from a book is a great skill of yours........ Read the definition of "Wright" in a dictionary, that is if you can read other than do nothing but quote a bunch of specs some else who did do the trial and error work on to come up with their theories. Just how fragile is your ego that you need to denigrate Dick for trying to enlighten you on a subject where your knowledge is sadly lacking. You have no concept of what the spiders purpose is in a loudspeaker, among other misconceptions you are spreading. You haven't been here long have you :-) The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion. Discussions are when the experts admit they might be wrong and maybe why they are wrong. There is no discussion to be had here other than Dick is God and he will throw lighting bolts of negativism at someone who sins against HIS perfect beliefs. Prove him wrong and I'm sure Dick will thank you for adding to his knowledge. Until you can, best shut up. How can you be so literate about any subject when you don't even know how to spell right is way beyond me! And many others things are too it seems. What college passed you to get a degree? Was English your major? I guess it wasn't science anyway. Online diploma from Kmart no doubt! I guess you failed in your application for one. Fools follow experts. Bigger fools ignore them without any justification. Real truth seekers question what others say the truth is and find the "truth" for themselves. But that is hard work and it is easier to believe someone else's truth than think for yourself. So what "Truth" have you found for yourself that proves Dick wrong? I'm sure were all interested to know. Enjoy your reign with your great misdirection ability you use to get others to stroke your insecure ego. That would be the one writing all this crap because someone proved him wrong. I have seen the light from your posts and you don't have anything nice or useful to say to anyone, Just quote memorized formulas, A six year old can do that. How old do you have to be to accept when you are wrong? Build the sealed box and build the ported box and listen to what your ears hear, not what some book says about theory based specs. I'll bet Dick has built or overseen the building of *FAR* more boxes and conducted ***FAR*** more tests that you are likely to do in your lifetime. If BOSE 901 were so great, why did the 4" speakers need an active eq bass/trebble boost added to approximate a better sounding speaker. I don't believe anyone said they were great, but active EQ alone, is not the problem. So as before, I'm leaving any post when the author does nothing but try to make other people look stupid because he can use a memorized formula to back his lies about how much he really knows. Better than calling someone a liar with ***NO*** proof whatsoever. In fact your whole post is free from any technical facts at all. I guess memorising formulae is beyond your capabilities :-) TonyP. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bose 901 Review | General | |||
My equipment review of the Bose 901 | Audio Opinions | |||
Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
bulding speaker boxes and bass tubes | General | |||
Speaker Wiring affects phase relationships | Car Audio |