"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.

"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.

Sanders wrote:

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.

You may not be alone in that understanding .... O;-) ... actually the
boars I know and just visited behave considerably better towards those
that feed them than you do.

Discussions with you involved are a waste of valuable time! You spend
all of your discussion time putting down others who disagree with you.

Dick carefully explained to you in this newsgroup, to the benefice of
many other people out there, what was wrong about your assertions and
how things really are. If you don't want to be "pierced", and most
people here have occasionally had that intense learning experience, then
do take care with the distinction between "fact", "impression" and
"assertion".

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.

Erm ... allow me to point out that Dick probably either wrote the book
or educated the author or found the errors in the book post publication.

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?

My understanding of this is that the math of weight compared to wing
area shows that wing area is too small and that what was overlooked was
a) the aero dynamic properties of a furry body and b) the lift from the
heated air inbetween the hais on the bees body.

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.

OMG ... if you think that Dick is wrong about anything, then just prove
that he is wrong and he will accept it, he did so on the two occasions
of having been wrong about something I can recall, since 1995 mind you.

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.

If the bee flies, and if theory says it can't, then fix the theory.
Prior to it becoming an urban legend I think the example with the
bumblebee was an example demonstrating that the aerodynamic theory still
needed some work, most fools it seems overlooked that as being the point
of the statement.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Sanders wrote:

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.

You may not be alone in that understanding .... O;-) ... actually the
boars I know and just visited behave considerably better towards those
that feed them than you do.

Discussions with you involved are a waste of valuable time! You spend
all of your discussion time putting down others who disagree with you.

Dick carefully explained to you in this newsgroup, to the benefice of
many other people out there, what was wrong about your assertions and
how things really are. If you don't want to be "pierced", and most
people here have occasionally had that intense learning experience, then
do take care with the distinction between "fact", "impression" and
"assertion".

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.

Erm ... allow me to point out that Dick probably either wrote the book
or educated the author or found the errors in the book post publication.

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?

My understanding of this is that the math of weight compared to wing
area shows that wing area is too small and that what was overlooked was
a) the aero dynamic properties of a furry body and b) the lift from the
heated air inbetween the hais on the bees body.

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.

OMG ... if you think that Dick is wrong about anything, then just prove
that he is wrong and he will accept it, he did so on the two occasions
of having been wrong about something I can recall, since 1995 mind you.

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.

If the bee flies, and if theory says it can't, then fix the theory.
Prior to it becoming an urban legend I think the example with the
bumblebee was an example demonstrating that the aerodynamic theory still
needed some work, most fools it seems overlooked that as being the point
of the statement.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Sanders wrote:

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.

You may not be alone in that understanding .... O;-) ... actually the
boars I know and just visited behave considerably better towards those
that feed them than you do.

Discussions with you involved are a waste of valuable time! You spend
all of your discussion time putting down others who disagree with you.

Dick carefully explained to you in this newsgroup, to the benefice of
many other people out there, what was wrong about your assertions and
how things really are. If you don't want to be "pierced", and most
people here have occasionally had that intense learning experience, then
do take care with the distinction between "fact", "impression" and
"assertion".

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.

Erm ... allow me to point out that Dick probably either wrote the book
or educated the author or found the errors in the book post publication.

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?

My understanding of this is that the math of weight compared to wing
area shows that wing area is too small and that what was overlooked was
a) the aero dynamic properties of a furry body and b) the lift from the
heated air inbetween the hais on the bees body.

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.

OMG ... if you think that Dick is wrong about anything, then just prove
that he is wrong and he will accept it, he did so on the two occasions
of having been wrong about something I can recall, since 1995 mind you.

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.

If the bee flies, and if theory says it can't, then fix the theory.
Prior to it becoming an urban legend I think the example with the
bumblebee was an example demonstrating that the aerodynamic theory still
needed some work, most fools it seems overlooked that as being the point
of the statement.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Sanders wrote:

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.

You may not be alone in that understanding .... O;-) ... actually the
boars I know and just visited behave considerably better towards those
that feed them than you do.

Discussions with you involved are a waste of valuable time! You spend
all of your discussion time putting down others who disagree with you.

Dick carefully explained to you in this newsgroup, to the benefice of
many other people out there, what was wrong about your assertions and
how things really are. If you don't want to be "pierced", and most
people here have occasionally had that intense learning experience, then
do take care with the distinction between "fact", "impression" and
"assertion".

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.

Erm ... allow me to point out that Dick probably either wrote the book
or educated the author or found the errors in the book post publication.

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?

My understanding of this is that the math of weight compared to wing
area shows that wing area is too small and that what was overlooked was
a) the aero dynamic properties of a furry body and b) the lift from the
heated air inbetween the hais on the bees body.

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.

OMG ... if you think that Dick is wrong about anything, then just prove
that he is wrong and he will accept it, he did so on the two occasions
of having been wrong about something I can recall, since 1995 mind you.

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.

If the bee flies, and if theory says it can't, then fix the theory.
Prior to it becoming an urban legend I think the example with the
bumblebee was an example demonstrating that the aerodynamic theory still
needed some work, most fools it seems overlooked that as being the point
of the statement.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

It should be noted in his diatribe, Sanders engages EXCLUSIVELY
in personal invectives and insults, diverting attention from the
fact that he is utterly unwilling or unable to deal with a single
one of the TECHNICAL points I raised. This would suggest that,
despite his strident protestations of his extensive knowledge,
he has nothing of a technical nature to share with this group.

For example, I asked a specific question of Sanders:

Things such as poor quality x-over components and
smaller wire size to cut final costs.
This is an interesting comment. Pray tell, what do you think
the effect "smaller wire" will have on the performance of
a loudspeaker?

And he utterly failed to answer this question.

Secondly, I suggested a concept as to why PA speakers were designed
the way they were, and Sanders utterly failed to address any of the
topics thering.

Thirdly, as to Sanders complaints of beng "put down, why has he chosen
to ignore the following quote of mine and thus COMPLETELY misrepresent
my views:

"I don't think anyone was calling you a complete idiot. Rather,
the objective statement was made that you were wrong."

How Sanders can view such a statement as "put down" is mysterious.

Sanders clearly has views on loudspeakers which are contrary to the
VAST knowledge base that exists, built by hundreds of researchers
and practitioners over the last 8 decades or so, bolstered by a
solid grounding in physics, honed and refined through a careful
process of theory, research, peer review and more over a repetive,
iterative process that has brought this knowledge base to a high
level. Despite Sanders claims to the contrary, I have mode NO claims
as to this being MY theory, I am but one of a number of humble
contributors to and a beneficiary of the process.

Unlike many of us who have worked for decades, studied hard, worked
with qualified colleagues and experts, Sanders has admitted in this
public forum that he has gained his "knowledge" the easy way. I
don't believe I misrepresent him by repeating his assertion that his
instructors were unnamed students working in a hi-fi store. That
he is angry that this knowledge is not congruent with this vast
body of knowledge available to anyone is surprising.

Be that all as it may. I am interested in a TECHNICAL discussion
of the TECHNICAL points rasied with someone who is interest in
their TECHNICAL implications. I am not interested in raising TECHNICAL
points only to have thgem countered with invectives, insults and
irrelevancies.

I wish Sanders well in his pursuits, and hope is is better equipped
to deal with the next and subsequent head-on collisions between the
well-understood topics of direct-radiator loudspeaker physics and
his apparently contrary views.

Until such time as Sanders has something of substance to contribute,
I withdraw.

It should be noted in his diatribe, Sanders engages EXCLUSIVELY
in personal invectives and insults, diverting attention from the
fact that he is utterly unwilling or unable to deal with a single
one of the TECHNICAL points I raised. This would suggest that,
despite his strident protestations of his extensive knowledge,
he has nothing of a technical nature to share with this group.

For example, I asked a specific question of Sanders:

Things such as poor quality x-over components and
smaller wire size to cut final costs.
This is an interesting comment. Pray tell, what do you think
the effect "smaller wire" will have on the performance of
a loudspeaker?

And he utterly failed to answer this question.

Secondly, I suggested a concept as to why PA speakers were designed
the way they were, and Sanders utterly failed to address any of the
topics thering.

Thirdly, as to Sanders complaints of beng "put down, why has he chosen
to ignore the following quote of mine and thus COMPLETELY misrepresent
my views:

"I don't think anyone was calling you a complete idiot. Rather,
the objective statement was made that you were wrong."

How Sanders can view such a statement as "put down" is mysterious.

Sanders clearly has views on loudspeakers which are contrary to the
VAST knowledge base that exists, built by hundreds of researchers
and practitioners over the last 8 decades or so, bolstered by a
solid grounding in physics, honed and refined through a careful
process of theory, research, peer review and more over a repetive,
iterative process that has brought this knowledge base to a high
level. Despite Sanders claims to the contrary, I have mode NO claims
as to this being MY theory, I am but one of a number of humble
contributors to and a beneficiary of the process.

Unlike many of us who have worked for decades, studied hard, worked
with qualified colleagues and experts, Sanders has admitted in this
public forum that he has gained his "knowledge" the easy way. I
don't believe I misrepresent him by repeating his assertion that his
instructors were unnamed students working in a hi-fi store. That
he is angry that this knowledge is not congruent with this vast
body of knowledge available to anyone is surprising.

Be that all as it may. I am interested in a TECHNICAL discussion
of the TECHNICAL points rasied with someone who is interest in
their TECHNICAL implications. I am not interested in raising TECHNICAL
points only to have thgem countered with invectives, insults and
irrelevancies.

I wish Sanders well in his pursuits, and hope is is better equipped
to deal with the next and subsequent head-on collisions between the
well-understood topics of direct-radiator loudspeaker physics and
his apparently contrary views.

Until such time as Sanders has something of substance to contribute,
I withdraw.

It should be noted in his diatribe, Sanders engages EXCLUSIVELY
in personal invectives and insults, diverting attention from the
fact that he is utterly unwilling or unable to deal with a single
one of the TECHNICAL points I raised. This would suggest that,
despite his strident protestations of his extensive knowledge,
he has nothing of a technical nature to share with this group.

For example, I asked a specific question of Sanders:

Things such as poor quality x-over components and
smaller wire size to cut final costs.
This is an interesting comment. Pray tell, what do you think
the effect "smaller wire" will have on the performance of
a loudspeaker?

And he utterly failed to answer this question.

Secondly, I suggested a concept as to why PA speakers were designed
the way they were, and Sanders utterly failed to address any of the
topics thering.

Thirdly, as to Sanders complaints of beng "put down, why has he chosen
to ignore the following quote of mine and thus COMPLETELY misrepresent
my views:

"I don't think anyone was calling you a complete idiot. Rather,
the objective statement was made that you were wrong."

How Sanders can view such a statement as "put down" is mysterious.

Sanders clearly has views on loudspeakers which are contrary to the
VAST knowledge base that exists, built by hundreds of researchers
and practitioners over the last 8 decades or so, bolstered by a
solid grounding in physics, honed and refined through a careful
process of theory, research, peer review and more over a repetive,
iterative process that has brought this knowledge base to a high
level. Despite Sanders claims to the contrary, I have mode NO claims
as to this being MY theory, I am but one of a number of humble
contributors to and a beneficiary of the process.

Unlike many of us who have worked for decades, studied hard, worked
with qualified colleagues and experts, Sanders has admitted in this
public forum that he has gained his "knowledge" the easy way. I
don't believe I misrepresent him by repeating his assertion that his
instructors were unnamed students working in a hi-fi store. That
he is angry that this knowledge is not congruent with this vast
body of knowledge available to anyone is surprising.

Be that all as it may. I am interested in a TECHNICAL discussion
of the TECHNICAL points rasied with someone who is interest in
their TECHNICAL implications. I am not interested in raising TECHNICAL
points only to have thgem countered with invectives, insults and
irrelevancies.

I wish Sanders well in his pursuits, and hope is is better equipped
to deal with the next and subsequent head-on collisions between the
well-understood topics of direct-radiator loudspeaker physics and
his apparently contrary views.

Until such time as Sanders has something of substance to contribute,
I withdraw.

It should be noted in his diatribe, Sanders engages EXCLUSIVELY
in personal invectives and insults, diverting attention from the
fact that he is utterly unwilling or unable to deal with a single
one of the TECHNICAL points I raised. This would suggest that,
despite his strident protestations of his extensive knowledge,
he has nothing of a technical nature to share with this group.

For example, I asked a specific question of Sanders:

Things such as poor quality x-over components and
smaller wire size to cut final costs.
This is an interesting comment. Pray tell, what do you think
the effect "smaller wire" will have on the performance of
a loudspeaker?

And he utterly failed to answer this question.

Secondly, I suggested a concept as to why PA speakers were designed
the way they were, and Sanders utterly failed to address any of the
topics thering.

Thirdly, as to Sanders complaints of beng "put down, why has he chosen
to ignore the following quote of mine and thus COMPLETELY misrepresent
my views:

"I don't think anyone was calling you a complete idiot. Rather,
the objective statement was made that you were wrong."

How Sanders can view such a statement as "put down" is mysterious.

Sanders clearly has views on loudspeakers which are contrary to the
VAST knowledge base that exists, built by hundreds of researchers
and practitioners over the last 8 decades or so, bolstered by a
solid grounding in physics, honed and refined through a careful
process of theory, research, peer review and more over a repetive,
iterative process that has brought this knowledge base to a high
level. Despite Sanders claims to the contrary, I have mode NO claims
as to this being MY theory, I am but one of a number of humble
contributors to and a beneficiary of the process.

Unlike many of us who have worked for decades, studied hard, worked
with qualified colleagues and experts, Sanders has admitted in this
public forum that he has gained his "knowledge" the easy way. I
don't believe I misrepresent him by repeating his assertion that his
instructors were unnamed students working in a hi-fi store. That
he is angry that this knowledge is not congruent with this vast
body of knowledge available to anyone is surprising.

Be that all as it may. I am interested in a TECHNICAL discussion
of the TECHNICAL points rasied with someone who is interest in
their TECHNICAL implications. I am not interested in raising TECHNICAL
points only to have thgem countered with invectives, insults and
irrelevancies.

I wish Sanders well in his pursuits, and hope is is better equipped
to deal with the next and subsequent head-on collisions between the
well-understood topics of direct-radiator loudspeaker physics and
his apparently contrary views.

Until such time as Sanders has something of substance to contribute,
I withdraw.

In article , Sanders
wrote:

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.

At the risk of embarrassing myself as I am not familiar with the
subtleties of the meaning of the phrase "Throwing your pearls before the
swine" but taking it literally, I would say it is Dick who should have new
appreciation for its meaning as a result of this exchange, he was the one
scattering the pearls, you were throwing rusty ball bearings before the
swine.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

In article , Sanders
wrote:

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.

At the risk of embarrassing myself as I am not familiar with the
subtleties of the meaning of the phrase "Throwing your pearls before the
swine" but taking it literally, I would say it is Dick who should have new
appreciation for its meaning as a result of this exchange, he was the one
scattering the pearls, you were throwing rusty ball bearings before the
swine.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

In article , Sanders
wrote:

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.

At the risk of embarrassing myself as I am not familiar with the
subtleties of the meaning of the phrase "Throwing your pearls before the
swine" but taking it literally, I would say it is Dick who should have new
appreciation for its meaning as a result of this exchange, he was the one
scattering the pearls, you were throwing rusty ball bearings before the
swine.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

In article , Sanders
wrote:

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.

At the risk of embarrassing myself as I am not familiar with the
subtleties of the meaning of the phrase "Throwing your pearls before the
swine" but taking it literally, I would say it is Dick who should have new
appreciation for its meaning as a result of this exchange, he was the one
scattering the pearls, you were throwing rusty ball bearings before the
swine.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

Dick Pierce wrote:

Sanders wrote in message ...

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."

I disagree with this. The religious 'experts' of the time did not think
the earth was flat. The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought
the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's
weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology. He finds himself
grudgingly admitting that Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore,
Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in
other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the
matter in doubt.

Dick Pierce wrote:

Sanders wrote in message ...

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."

I disagree with this. The religious 'experts' of the time did not think
the earth was flat. The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought
the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's
weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology. He finds himself
grudgingly admitting that Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore,
Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in
other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the
matter in doubt.

Dick Pierce wrote:

Sanders wrote in message ...

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."

I disagree with this. The religious 'experts' of the time did not think
the earth was flat. The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought
the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's
weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology. He finds himself
grudgingly admitting that Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore,
Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in
other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the
matter in doubt.

Dick Pierce wrote:

Sanders wrote in message ...

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."

I disagree with this. The religious 'experts' of the time did not think
the earth was flat. The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought
the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's
weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology. He finds himself
grudgingly admitting that Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore,
Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in
other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the
matter in doubt.

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message . com...

Until such time as Sanders has something of substance to contribute,
I withdraw.

I pray you may not withhold your edification for the mere annoyances
encountered on USENET with some who may be threatened by correction.
Many who do not post but avidly read are not overly slack in
recognizing wheat from chaff, and pearl from spitball. As it was,
your informative post setting in order various mechanical
considerations with a minumum of vitriolism, was of considerable and
timely value to me in a completely different endeavor. I'd suggest
that it is unnecessary to counter arguements after one posts confident
& proven academicaly-sound truth, and that both stand or fall on their
own merits, without further and needless effort from the one who took
the time to set the precepts in order.

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message . com...

Until such time as Sanders has something of substance to contribute,
I withdraw.

I pray you may not withhold your edification for the mere annoyances
encountered on USENET with some who may be threatened by correction.
Many who do not post but avidly read are not overly slack in
recognizing wheat from chaff, and pearl from spitball. As it was,
your informative post setting in order various mechanical
considerations with a minumum of vitriolism, was of considerable and
timely value to me in a completely different endeavor. I'd suggest
that it is unnecessary to counter arguements after one posts confident
& proven academicaly-sound truth, and that both stand or fall on their
own merits, without further and needless effort from the one who took
the time to set the precepts in order.

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message . com...

Until such time as Sanders has something of substance to contribute,
I withdraw.

I pray you may not withhold your edification for the mere annoyances
encountered on USENET with some who may be threatened by correction.
Many who do not post but avidly read are not overly slack in
recognizing wheat from chaff, and pearl from spitball. As it was,
your informative post setting in order various mechanical
considerations with a minumum of vitriolism, was of considerable and
timely value to me in a completely different endeavor. I'd suggest
that it is unnecessary to counter arguements after one posts confident
& proven academicaly-sound truth, and that both stand or fall on their
own merits, without further and needless effort from the one who took
the time to set the precepts in order.

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message . com...

Until such time as Sanders has something of substance to contribute,
I withdraw.

I pray you may not withhold your edification for the mere annoyances
encountered on USENET with some who may be threatened by correction.
Many who do not post but avidly read are not overly slack in
recognizing wheat from chaff, and pearl from spitball. As it was,
your informative post setting in order various mechanical
considerations with a minumum of vitriolism, was of considerable and
timely value to me in a completely different endeavor. I'd suggest
that it is unnecessary to counter arguements after one posts confident
& proven academicaly-sound truth, and that both stand or fall on their
own merits, without further and needless effort from the one who took
the time to set the precepts in order.

This post is not about speakers, nor about any of the issues it
attempts to construct. It is about an unhappy and insecure poster who
cannot even recognize an obviously wry, creative misuse of an English
word within context of its remark, and makes several paragraphs of
venom over one's own misunderstanding. Vast thinking in a half-vast
manner? :-)

Sanders wrote in message ...
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!

This post is not about speakers, nor about any of the issues it
attempts to construct. It is about an unhappy and insecure poster who
cannot even recognize an obviously wry, creative misuse of an English
word within context of its remark, and makes several paragraphs of
venom over one's own misunderstanding. Vast thinking in a half-vast
manner? :-)

Sanders wrote in message ...
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!

This post is not about speakers, nor about any of the issues it
attempts to construct. It is about an unhappy and insecure poster who
cannot even recognize an obviously wry, creative misuse of an English
word within context of its remark, and makes several paragraphs of
venom over one's own misunderstanding. Vast thinking in a half-vast
manner? :-)

Sanders wrote in message ...
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!

This post is not about speakers, nor about any of the issues it
attempts to construct. It is about an unhappy and insecure poster who
cannot even recognize an obviously wry, creative misuse of an English
word within context of its remark, and makes several paragraphs of
venom over one's own misunderstanding. Vast thinking in a half-vast
manner? :-)

Sanders wrote in message ...
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!

Until such time as Sanders has something of substance to contribute,
I withdraw.

Don't withdraw because of me. There are things others want/need from you!

I am sure you are not even close to the way I misinterpeted your post
and it it was miscommunication between us that got out of hand.

I am not going to post here again, so you have no need to worry about
any contradictions to your theory of how a "good" speaker should
reproduce sound accurately.

Engineers and technicians will always see things from different viewpoints

IE: Do "electrons" move or do the "holes" move in electronics.

It was your theory of "experts" and how you treated other "experts" on
other fields that set it off.

IE: urban ledgend with no reference to back it up. Religous experts
saying the world was flat, etc.

The thing about the smaller wire was how mfg will cut corners in
production of loudspeakers that the end consumer never sees.

Why have 12g wire to the box and use 16g from the speaker terminal to
the woofer? The speaker mfg saves $$$ by using 16g instead of 12g.

That was just to say how the best designs get compromised in production
for the consumers.

You made it sound like you were very educated, like it was an ego thing
of "I am a Doctor", and a know it all about all things you discussed as
an expert, that was why the bs about the "Wright" Brothers came back.

I still disagree with you about the spider being stiff, as its purpose
is to keep the voice coil in the proper horizontal tolerances for
movement inside the magnetic field gap.

The vertical movement of the spider should be as "loose as a goose" and
offer no resistance to the voice coil's desire to move.

This desire of no resistance for the voice coil movement is why better
woofers also have vented coils so the air pressure is taken out of the
equation, which I am sure you could quote how it affects the speaker
movement and I can't. JBL engineers must do it for a reason.

Best wishes, even if I do not completly agree with all of your posts!

John

Until such time as Sanders has something of substance to contribute,
I withdraw.

Don't withdraw because of me. There are things others want/need from you!

I am sure you are not even close to the way I misinterpeted your post
and it it was miscommunication between us that got out of hand.

I am not going to post here again, so you have no need to worry about
any contradictions to your theory of how a "good" speaker should
reproduce sound accurately.

Engineers and technicians will always see things from different viewpoints

IE: Do "electrons" move or do the "holes" move in electronics.

It was your theory of "experts" and how you treated other "experts" on
other fields that set it off.

IE: urban ledgend with no reference to back it up. Religous experts
saying the world was flat, etc.

The thing about the smaller wire was how mfg will cut corners in
production of loudspeakers that the end consumer never sees.

Why have 12g wire to the box and use 16g from the speaker terminal to
the woofer? The speaker mfg saves $$$ by using 16g instead of 12g.

That was just to say how the best designs get compromised in production
for the consumers.

You made it sound like you were very educated, like it was an ego thing
of "I am a Doctor", and a know it all about all things you discussed as
an expert, that was why the bs about the "Wright" Brothers came back.

I still disagree with you about the spider being stiff, as its purpose
is to keep the voice coil in the proper horizontal tolerances for
movement inside the magnetic field gap.

The vertical movement of the spider should be as "loose as a goose" and
offer no resistance to the voice coil's desire to move.

This desire of no resistance for the voice coil movement is why better
woofers also have vented coils so the air pressure is taken out of the
equation, which I am sure you could quote how it affects the speaker
movement and I can't. JBL engineers must do it for a reason.

Best wishes, even if I do not completly agree with all of your posts!

John

Until such time as Sanders has something of substance to contribute,
I withdraw.

Don't withdraw because of me. There are things others want/need from you!

I am sure you are not even close to the way I misinterpeted your post
and it it was miscommunication between us that got out of hand.

I am not going to post here again, so you have no need to worry about
any contradictions to your theory of how a "good" speaker should
reproduce sound accurately.

Engineers and technicians will always see things from different viewpoints

IE: Do "electrons" move or do the "holes" move in electronics.

It was your theory of "experts" and how you treated other "experts" on
other fields that set it off.

IE: urban ledgend with no reference to back it up. Religous experts
saying the world was flat, etc.

The thing about the smaller wire was how mfg will cut corners in
production of loudspeakers that the end consumer never sees.

Why have 12g wire to the box and use 16g from the speaker terminal to
the woofer? The speaker mfg saves $$$ by using 16g instead of 12g.

That was just to say how the best designs get compromised in production
for the consumers.

You made it sound like you were very educated, like it was an ego thing
of "I am a Doctor", and a know it all about all things you discussed as
an expert, that was why the bs about the "Wright" Brothers came back.

I still disagree with you about the spider being stiff, as its purpose
is to keep the voice coil in the proper horizontal tolerances for
movement inside the magnetic field gap.

The vertical movement of the spider should be as "loose as a goose" and
offer no resistance to the voice coil's desire to move.

This desire of no resistance for the voice coil movement is why better
woofers also have vented coils so the air pressure is taken out of the
equation, which I am sure you could quote how it affects the speaker
movement and I can't. JBL engineers must do it for a reason.

Best wishes, even if I do not completly agree with all of your posts!

John

Until such time as Sanders has something of substance to contribute,
I withdraw.

Don't withdraw because of me. There are things others want/need from you!

I am sure you are not even close to the way I misinterpeted your post
and it it was miscommunication between us that got out of hand.

I am not going to post here again, so you have no need to worry about
any contradictions to your theory of how a "good" speaker should
reproduce sound accurately.

Engineers and technicians will always see things from different viewpoints

IE: Do "electrons" move or do the "holes" move in electronics.

It was your theory of "experts" and how you treated other "experts" on
other fields that set it off.

IE: urban ledgend with no reference to back it up. Religous experts
saying the world was flat, etc.

The thing about the smaller wire was how mfg will cut corners in
production of loudspeakers that the end consumer never sees.

Why have 12g wire to the box and use 16g from the speaker terminal to
the woofer? The speaker mfg saves $$$ by using 16g instead of 12g.

That was just to say how the best designs get compromised in production
for the consumers.

You made it sound like you were very educated, like it was an ego thing
of "I am a Doctor", and a know it all about all things you discussed as
an expert, that was why the bs about the "Wright" Brothers came back.

I still disagree with you about the spider being stiff, as its purpose
is to keep the voice coil in the proper horizontal tolerances for
movement inside the magnetic field gap.

The vertical movement of the spider should be as "loose as a goose" and
offer no resistance to the voice coil's desire to move.

This desire of no resistance for the voice coil movement is why better
woofers also have vented coils so the air pressure is taken out of the
equation, which I am sure you could quote how it affects the speaker
movement and I can't. JBL engineers must do it for a reason.

Best wishes, even if I do not completly agree with all of your posts!

John

Sanders wrote:


I still disagree with you about the spider being stiff, as its purpose
is to keep the voice coil in the proper horizontal tolerances for
movement inside the magnetic field gap.

The vertical movement of the spider should be as "loose as a goose" and
offer no resistance to the voice coil's desire to move.

This desire of no resistance for the voice coil movement is why better
woofers also have vented coils so the air pressure is taken out of the
equation, which I am sure you could quote how it affects the speaker
movement and I can't. JBL engineers must do it for a reason.

John,

Some of us here know a little bit about speakers. In my case, I was at JBL from
the early to late 60's, and I designed the D130F, the D120F, the D110F, and the
D140F musical instrument speakers.

In the 70's, I was Vice President of Acoustic Control and responsible for the
design of the Acoustic 260 and 360 systems, to name just two popular models.

During the late 80s, I worked as "Director of Electronics" at IMC (International
Music Company) in Texas. There, I designed the Ross Hurricane PA speakers, and
worked with Bob Gault at Eminence on the design of the 12" speakers for the
Jackson and Charvel guitar and bass amplifiers. I also worked on studio monitor
designs for Akai.

I won't list all my credentials, but they include work on the Rhodes Piano with
Harold Rhodes at Fender, and some interesting speaker design work for various
companies you've heard of, such as Yamaha, and a few others.

Good enough credentials for you, John? Trust me when I tell you that Dick
Pierce knows a whole lot more about current speaker theory and design than I do.
When he speaks, I listen. You'd be wise to do the same.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

Sanders wrote:


I still disagree with you about the spider being stiff, as its purpose
is to keep the voice coil in the proper horizontal tolerances for
movement inside the magnetic field gap.

The vertical movement of the spider should be as "loose as a goose" and
offer no resistance to the voice coil's desire to move.

This desire of no resistance for the voice coil movement is why better
woofers also have vented coils so the air pressure is taken out of the
equation, which I am sure you could quote how it affects the speaker
movement and I can't. JBL engineers must do it for a reason.

John,

Some of us here know a little bit about speakers. In my case, I was at JBL from
the early to late 60's, and I designed the D130F, the D120F, the D110F, and the
D140F musical instrument speakers.

In the 70's, I was Vice President of Acoustic Control and responsible for the
design of the Acoustic 260 and 360 systems, to name just two popular models.

During the late 80s, I worked as "Director of Electronics" at IMC (International
Music Company) in Texas. There, I designed the Ross Hurricane PA speakers, and
worked with Bob Gault at Eminence on the design of the 12" speakers for the
Jackson and Charvel guitar and bass amplifiers. I also worked on studio monitor
designs for Akai.

I won't list all my credentials, but they include work on the Rhodes Piano with
Harold Rhodes at Fender, and some interesting speaker design work for various
companies you've heard of, such as Yamaha, and a few others.

Good enough credentials for you, John? Trust me when I tell you that Dick
Pierce knows a whole lot more about current speaker theory and design than I do.
When he speaks, I listen. You'd be wise to do the same.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

Sanders wrote:


I still disagree with you about the spider being stiff, as its purpose
is to keep the voice coil in the proper horizontal tolerances for
movement inside the magnetic field gap.

The vertical movement of the spider should be as "loose as a goose" and
offer no resistance to the voice coil's desire to move.

This desire of no resistance for the voice coil movement is why better
woofers also have vented coils so the air pressure is taken out of the
equation, which I am sure you could quote how it affects the speaker
movement and I can't. JBL engineers must do it for a reason.

John,

Some of us here know a little bit about speakers. In my case, I was at JBL from
the early to late 60's, and I designed the D130F, the D120F, the D110F, and the
D140F musical instrument speakers.

In the 70's, I was Vice President of Acoustic Control and responsible for the
design of the Acoustic 260 and 360 systems, to name just two popular models.

During the late 80s, I worked as "Director of Electronics" at IMC (International
Music Company) in Texas. There, I designed the Ross Hurricane PA speakers, and
worked with Bob Gault at Eminence on the design of the 12" speakers for the
Jackson and Charvel guitar and bass amplifiers. I also worked on studio monitor
designs for Akai.

I won't list all my credentials, but they include work on the Rhodes Piano with
Harold Rhodes at Fender, and some interesting speaker design work for various
companies you've heard of, such as Yamaha, and a few others.

Good enough credentials for you, John? Trust me when I tell you that Dick
Pierce knows a whole lot more about current speaker theory and design than I do.
When he speaks, I listen. You'd be wise to do the same.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

Sanders wrote:


I still disagree with you about the spider being stiff, as its purpose
is to keep the voice coil in the proper horizontal tolerances for
movement inside the magnetic field gap.

The vertical movement of the spider should be as "loose as a goose" and
offer no resistance to the voice coil's desire to move.

This desire of no resistance for the voice coil movement is why better
woofers also have vented coils so the air pressure is taken out of the
equation, which I am sure you could quote how it affects the speaker
movement and I can't. JBL engineers must do it for a reason.

John,

Some of us here know a little bit about speakers. In my case, I was at JBL from
the early to late 60's, and I designed the D130F, the D120F, the D110F, and the
D140F musical instrument speakers.

In the 70's, I was Vice President of Acoustic Control and responsible for the
design of the Acoustic 260 and 360 systems, to name just two popular models.

During the late 80s, I worked as "Director of Electronics" at IMC (International
Music Company) in Texas. There, I designed the Ross Hurricane PA speakers, and
worked with Bob Gault at Eminence on the design of the 12" speakers for the
Jackson and Charvel guitar and bass amplifiers. I also worked on studio monitor
designs for Akai.

I won't list all my credentials, but they include work on the Rhodes Piano with
Harold Rhodes at Fender, and some interesting speaker design work for various
companies you've heard of, such as Yamaha, and a few others.

Good enough credentials for you, John? Trust me when I tell you that Dick
Pierce knows a whole lot more about current speaker theory and design than I do.
When he speaks, I listen. You'd be wise to do the same.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

TonyP wrote in message .net...
Dick Pierce wrote:

Sanders wrote in message ...

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."

I disagree with this. The religious 'experts' of the time did not think
the earth was flat. The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought
the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's
weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology. He finds himself
grudgingly admitting that Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore,
Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in
other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the
matter in doubt.

Indeed, and if you read further, you will find that I allude to this
fact elsewhere. My use of the term "religious" was meant to refer to
the holding of beliefs often in contravention to demonstrable fact
as well as a more encompassing label than just "western religions."

But you simply reinforce the point.

Ten years ago a similar discussion of "experts" came up in this news
group, for which I posted the following response:

"The real experts don't really disagree. It's the quasi-experts
and/or self-appointed experts who seem to populate the popular
music press. The theory has been around long enough to be
proven correct."

"Just wondering.....How do you get to be an expert? Is there some
exam I could take ? Could I put it on my CV?"

There are two ways to become an expert. The easiest way is to
say "I am an expert", put it on your CV, and you are an expert
until someone challenges you to demonstrate this by asking you a
question that requires REAL expertise.

The more difficult way is to study a long time, to put in 20
hour days, 6-7 days a week, in the trenches, to see what works
and what doesn't, to say dumb things and then be forced to eat
those dumb things diced into crow pie, to try things out,
understand why they failed or succeeded, and, always, learn,
learn, learn. Do this for about 20 years, take the result, put
it on your CV, and you are an expert until someone challenges
this by asking you a question that requires REAL expertise.

It's the aftermath of trying to answer that question that
separates the experts from the charlatains.

TonyP wrote in message .net...
Dick Pierce wrote:

Sanders wrote in message ...

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."

I disagree with this. The religious 'experts' of the time did not think
the earth was flat. The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought
the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's
weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology. He finds himself
grudgingly admitting that Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore,
Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in
other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the
matter in doubt.

Indeed, and if you read further, you will find that I allude to this
fact elsewhere. My use of the term "religious" was meant to refer to
the holding of beliefs often in contravention to demonstrable fact
as well as a more encompassing label than just "western religions."

But you simply reinforce the point.

Ten years ago a similar discussion of "experts" came up in this news
group, for which I posted the following response:

"The real experts don't really disagree. It's the quasi-experts
and/or self-appointed experts who seem to populate the popular
music press. The theory has been around long enough to be
proven correct."

"Just wondering.....How do you get to be an expert? Is there some
exam I could take ? Could I put it on my CV?"

There are two ways to become an expert. The easiest way is to
say "I am an expert", put it on your CV, and you are an expert
until someone challenges you to demonstrate this by asking you a
question that requires REAL expertise.

The more difficult way is to study a long time, to put in 20
hour days, 6-7 days a week, in the trenches, to see what works
and what doesn't, to say dumb things and then be forced to eat
those dumb things diced into crow pie, to try things out,
understand why they failed or succeeded, and, always, learn,
learn, learn. Do this for about 20 years, take the result, put
it on your CV, and you are an expert until someone challenges
this by asking you a question that requires REAL expertise.

It's the aftermath of trying to answer that question that
separates the experts from the charlatains.

TonyP wrote in message .net...
Dick Pierce wrote:

Sanders wrote in message ...

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."

I disagree with this. The religious 'experts' of the time did not think
the earth was flat. The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought
the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's
weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology. He finds himself
grudgingly admitting that Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore,
Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in
other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the
matter in doubt.

Indeed, and if you read further, you will find that I allude to this
fact elsewhere. My use of the term "religious" was meant to refer to
the holding of beliefs often in contravention to demonstrable fact
as well as a more encompassing label than just "western religions."

But you simply reinforce the point.

Ten years ago a similar discussion of "experts" came up in this news
group, for which I posted the following response:

"The real experts don't really disagree. It's the quasi-experts
and/or self-appointed experts who seem to populate the popular
music press. The theory has been around long enough to be
proven correct."

"Just wondering.....How do you get to be an expert? Is there some
exam I could take ? Could I put it on my CV?"

There are two ways to become an expert. The easiest way is to
say "I am an expert", put it on your CV, and you are an expert
until someone challenges you to demonstrate this by asking you a
question that requires REAL expertise.

The more difficult way is to study a long time, to put in 20
hour days, 6-7 days a week, in the trenches, to see what works
and what doesn't, to say dumb things and then be forced to eat
those dumb things diced into crow pie, to try things out,
understand why they failed or succeeded, and, always, learn,
learn, learn. Do this for about 20 years, take the result, put
it on your CV, and you are an expert until someone challenges
this by asking you a question that requires REAL expertise.

It's the aftermath of trying to answer that question that
separates the experts from the charlatains.

TonyP wrote in message .net...
Dick Pierce wrote:

Sanders wrote in message ...

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."

I disagree with this. The religious 'experts' of the time did not think
the earth was flat. The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought
the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's
weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology. He finds himself
grudgingly admitting that Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore,
Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in
other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the
matter in doubt.

Indeed, and if you read further, you will find that I allude to this
fact elsewhere. My use of the term "religious" was meant to refer to
the holding of beliefs often in contravention to demonstrable fact
as well as a more encompassing label than just "western religions."

But you simply reinforce the point.

Ten years ago a similar discussion of "experts" came up in this news
group, for which I posted the following response:

"The real experts don't really disagree. It's the quasi-experts
and/or self-appointed experts who seem to populate the popular
music press. The theory has been around long enough to be
proven correct."

"Just wondering.....How do you get to be an expert? Is there some
exam I could take ? Could I put it on my CV?"

There are two ways to become an expert. The easiest way is to
say "I am an expert", put it on your CV, and you are an expert
until someone challenges you to demonstrate this by asking you a
question that requires REAL expertise.

The more difficult way is to study a long time, to put in 20
hour days, 6-7 days a week, in the trenches, to see what works
and what doesn't, to say dumb things and then be forced to eat
those dumb things diced into crow pie, to try things out,
understand why they failed or succeeded, and, always, learn,
learn, learn. Do this for about 20 years, take the result, put
it on your CV, and you are an expert until someone challenges
this by asking you a question that requires REAL expertise.

It's the aftermath of trying to answer that question that
separates the experts from the charlatains.

Sanders wrote in message ...
Until such time as Sanders has something of substance to contribute,
I withdraw.

Don't withdraw because of me. There are things others want/need from you!

You minsunderstand, I am withdrawing NOT from the group, but from
the invective-laden thread.

I am sure you are not even close to the way I misinterpeted your post
and it it was miscommunication between us that got out of hand.

I am not going to post here again, so you have no need to worry about
any contradictions to your theory of how a "good" speaker should
reproduce sound accurately.

Again, you misrepresent my words. I NEVER said it was "my" theory.
I gave you a set of specific citations in the hope that, like any
diligent practitioner or even some moderately interested in the topic,
you'd reference those citations as well as pursue follow-ons.

Instead, you choose to represent this as "my" theory. Tell me, but
how is this misrepresentation in any way fair?

Engineers and technicians will always see things from different viewpoints

IE: Do "electrons" move or do the "holes" move in electronics.

Does each description lead to wildy different predictions of
conduction? If they do, at least one of them has to be wrong. If
they don't, they are equivalent in the domains in which they work.

It was your theory of "experts" and how you treated other "experts" on
other fields that set it off.

IE: urban ledgend with no reference to back it up. Religous experts
saying the world was flat, etc.

My suggestion, Sanders, is that you consult a book on world religions.
While some western religions have accepted a spherical earth model
for a long time, western eligions have NOT been the dominant
philosophical model in the world.

The thing about the smaller wire was how mfg will cut corners in
production of loudspeakers that the end consumer never sees.

Why have 12g wire to the box and use 16g from the speaker terminal to
the woofer? The speaker mfg saves $$$ by using 16g instead of 12g.

That was just to say how the best designs get compromised in production
for the consumers.

But you have failed utterly to answer the question: what is the
TECHNICAL shortcoming to using a smaller gauge wire inside a woofer.
The economic advantage you cite is extraordinarily minor. Let's assume
the length of wire between the woofer and the terminal is 16 inches
long. How much money is saved by using 16 gauge instead of 12 gauge?
Well, a look at a number of distributor web sites for 16 and 12 gauge
two-conductor stranded PVC insulated wire shows costs in the realm of
$0.07/ft for 16 gauage and $0.18/ft for 12 gauge.

Now, in our hypothetical speaker, that means a cost of about 10 cents
for the 16 gauge and 24 cents for the 12 gauge, a difference, per
cabinet of 12 cents. Even considering a typical 4:1 effective cost
markup between material cost and recommended retail price, that's
less than a dollar impact on the RETAIL cost of a pair of speakers.
Now, I would argue that such small difference does NOT constitute a
strong economic incentive for going to smaller gauge wire. And, in fact,
having been a consultant to a number of loudspeaker system manufacturers,
I can tell you that this cost difference is, indeed, NOT a point of
concern to any of these manufacturers UNLESS they're econimic situation
is SO marginal as to put the entire company into jeoprady.

Beyond that, why is cutting cost, in and of itself, a bad thing? That's
a nonsensical position to take, I would posit. If it can be shown that
if part costs 24 cents and an equivalent part costs 10 cents, why does
it NOT make sense to use the 10 cent part? It increases the profit margin
to the manufacturer, provides room for adjusting the final price if that
accomodates the customer. Unless it can be shown that the 10 cent part
impacts the PERFORMANCE of the speaker in a deleterious fashion, what
is the motivation for NOT using that part?

So, now that I have provided some factual data to support the counter
to your assertion that they are doing it to cut costs, or most certainly
suggested that cost does not seem to be the determing factor, we must now
turn to the TECHNICAL side of your assert, at which point I repeat my
question, precisely as I asked it:

what do you think the effect "smaller wire" will have on the
performance of a loudspeaker?

This, in essence, boils the question down to a purely technical one.
One in which facts can be presented, evaluated and either supported
or refuted ONLY on the TECHNICAL merits of the argument, NOT on the
personalities or whose "instructors" are better or anything.

Again, you made the original assertion,

Things such as poor quality x-over components and smaller wire
size to cut final costs.

and I ask, what is the effect on the TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE of the
wire size, which you have now constrained to be the difference
between 16 guage and 12 gauge connecting the speaker terminal to
the woofer? The question is as simple as that.

Hint: for others interested in analyzing the situation, here's
the relevant data for your enlightenment: 16 gauge copper has
a DC resistance of 0.00402 ohms/ft, while 12 gauge has a DC
resistance of 0.00159 ohms/ft. If relevant, the fusing current
of the two are 117 amperes (16 gauge) and 235 amperes (12 gauge)
Assume a nominal 8 ohm woofer whose voice coil DC resistance is
6.25 ohms. Additionally consider as well a nominal 4 ohm woofer
with a DC resistance of 3.4 ohms. Assume an in-enclosure system
Qtc of 0.707 with a Qec of 0.89 under the conditons of Rg = 0.

You made it sound like you were very educated, like it was an ego thing
of "I am a Doctor", and a know it all about all things you discussed as
an expert, that was why the bs about the "Wright" Brothers came back.

It was purely BS, indeed. You focussed NOT on the TECHNICAL matters
being discussed, but on the fact that I type VERY fast and occasionally
make simple typographic errors.

I still disagree with you about the spider being stiff, as its purpose
is to keep the voice coil in the proper horizontal tolerances for
movement inside the magnetic field gap.

You may disagree all you want, and until you have the factual data to
support your position, it's merely one of unsubstantiated opinion.

I have, in fact, design MANY woofers and tweeters in my career,
INCLUDING, interestingly enough, a number that your friend Mr. Gold
purchased. I have measured many, many thousands of drivers, and have
a stock of driver components, including spiders and surrounds, on hand
from a number of component manufacturers specifically to provide
factual information to my clients.

I have DONE the experiment that shows the opposite of your assertion
to be the case. In it's simplest form, the hypothesis is thus:

Permise #1: The fundamental mechanical resonance of a woofer is
determined by the moving mass of the driver Mms and the
mechanical stiffness of the driver Kms as:

Fs = (2 pi sqrt(Mms/Kms)^-1

Premise #2: Given two parallel mechanical stiffness, the surround
stiffness Ksurr and the spider stiffness Kspid the total
resulting stiffness is:

Kms = Ksurr + Kspid

Please note that these two premises are not unique to loudspeakers, but
are describer by the generalm physics of mechanical harmonic oscillators.

From these two premises we can derive a third:

Premise #3: removing one or the otherv suspension components
from the driver will change the total stiffness of the driver
and thus its resonant frequency in proportion to the square
root of magnitude of the stiffness removed.

Now, unless you are willing to challenge these fundamental premises,
I suggest we proceed directly to my hypothesis:

Hypothesis: The centering spider provides the dominant mechanical
stiffness in most modern-day high-quality woofers. Therefore,
if one removes hust the spider, the resonant frequency should
drop by a factor significantly larger than if one were to remove
just the suspension.

Now this is completely equivalent to saying that such a driver built
without a spider will have a lower resonant frequency than the same
built without a suspension. Certainly neither constitute a viable
driver, since you have centering issues in both cases, but, as an
experiment to test the hypothesis, it's a completely valid set of
methods.

(of course, both ignore the far more direct method of measuring
stiffness directly, which what all of this is actually based
upon. But since most people do not have access to an inventory
of speaker components, the "removal" method is what remains.

Now, the hypothetical rubber meets the physical reality road. After
having conducted precisely this experiment, quite literally, HUNDREDS
of times, the result is that in a typical high-quality woofer, the
mechanical stiffness of the spider is at minimum TWICE that of the
surround and more typically on the order of 3-4 times that of the
surround. This is born out by the fact that removing the spider
results in a drop in resonaont frequency by as much as a factor of 2,
more typically on the order of about 1/2 an octave, while removing just
the surround results in a decrease in resonant frequency of only about
10%,

Unless you are willing and ready to propose a heretofore unknown
mechanism, the data quite stringly supports the hypothesis that it is
the spider that is the source of most of the mechanical stiffness in
most high-quality woofers these days.

The vertical movement of the spider should be as "loose as a goose" and
offer no resistance to the voice coil's desire to move.

That may be your assumption, but, alas, the data suggests quite the
contrary. 25 years ago I heald the same opinion, until the data showed
how wrong that opinion was.

This desire of no resistance for the voice coil movement is why better
woofers also have vented coils so the air pressure is taken out of the
equation, which I am sure you could quote how it affects the speaker
movement and I can't. JBL engineers must do it for a reason.

There are, in fact, several reasons why poles are vented:

1. The total displacement volume of the air behind the dustcap is
quite large for even small excursions. Thus, the resulting
large proportional changes in it's volume are often sufficient
to extend the compression beyond adiabatically linear compression.

But while the compression RATIO is large, the total volume
compressed is small, and thus does not materially affect the
total system stiffness.

2. In high-power applications that one often finds JBL woofers used
form venting the pole piece dramatically improves air cooling of
the voice coil by substantially increasing the colume of air
continuously moved through the gap.

3. The pumping of air through the gap in a non-vented situation may
lead to extraneous noise and distortion.

Please refer to the work of Gander at JBL and others on this topic,
published in the mid 1980's in JAES.

It is also noted that you failed to address the technicalm points I
raised about the role of enclosure to driver compliance ratios in
tuning vented systems, a hallmark foundation of the Thiele/Small
model. You may certainly choose to continue to ignore it, I was merely
challenging, on a technical basis, the technical validity of your
assertion regarding the suitability of driver compliance to reflex
implementations.

Sanders wrote in message ...
Until such time as Sanders has something of substance to contribute,
I withdraw.

Don't withdraw because of me. There are things others want/need from you!

You minsunderstand, I am withdrawing NOT from the group, but from
the invective-laden thread.

I am sure you are not even close to the way I misinterpeted your post
and it it was miscommunication between us that got out of hand.

I am not going to post here again, so you have no need to worry about
any contradictions to your theory of how a "good" speaker should
reproduce sound accurately.

Again, you misrepresent my words. I NEVER said it was "my" theory.
I gave you a set of specific citations in the hope that, like any
diligent practitioner or even some moderately interested in the topic,
you'd reference those citations as well as pursue follow-ons.

Instead, you choose to represent this as "my" theory. Tell me, but
how is this misrepresentation in any way fair?

Engineers and technicians will always see things from different viewpoints

IE: Do "electrons" move or do the "holes" move in electronics.

Does each description lead to wildy different predictions of
conduction? If they do, at least one of them has to be wrong. If
they don't, they are equivalent in the domains in which they work.

It was your theory of "experts" and how you treated other "experts" on
other fields that set it off.

IE: urban ledgend with no reference to back it up. Religous experts
saying the world was flat, etc.

My suggestion, Sanders, is that you consult a book on world religions.
While some western religions have accepted a spherical earth model
for a long time, western eligions have NOT been the dominant
philosophical model in the world.

The thing about the smaller wire was how mfg will cut corners in
production of loudspeakers that the end consumer never sees.

Why have 12g wire to the box and use 16g from the speaker terminal to
the woofer? The speaker mfg saves $$$ by using 16g instead of 12g.

That was just to say how the best designs get compromised in production
for the consumers.

But you have failed utterly to answer the question: what is the
TECHNICAL shortcoming to using a smaller gauge wire inside a woofer.
The economic advantage you cite is extraordinarily minor. Let's assume
the length of wire between the woofer and the terminal is 16 inches
long. How much money is saved by using 16 gauge instead of 12 gauge?
Well, a look at a number of distributor web sites for 16 and 12 gauge
two-conductor stranded PVC insulated wire shows costs in the realm of
$0.07/ft for 16 gauage and $0.18/ft for 12 gauge.

Now, in our hypothetical speaker, that means a cost of about 10 cents
for the 16 gauge and 24 cents for the 12 gauge, a difference, per
cabinet of 12 cents. Even considering a typical 4:1 effective cost
markup between material cost and recommended retail price, that's
less than a dollar impact on the RETAIL cost of a pair of speakers.
Now, I would argue that such small difference does NOT constitute a
strong economic incentive for going to smaller gauge wire. And, in fact,
having been a consultant to a number of loudspeaker system manufacturers,
I can tell you that this cost difference is, indeed, NOT a point of
concern to any of these manufacturers UNLESS they're econimic situation
is SO marginal as to put the entire company into jeoprady.

Beyond that, why is cutting cost, in and of itself, a bad thing? That's
a nonsensical position to take, I would posit. If it can be shown that
if part costs 24 cents and an equivalent part costs 10 cents, why does
it NOT make sense to use the 10 cent part? It increases the profit margin
to the manufacturer, provides room for adjusting the final price if that
accomodates the customer. Unless it can be shown that the 10 cent part
impacts the PERFORMANCE of the speaker in a deleterious fashion, what
is the motivation for NOT using that part?

So, now that I have provided some factual data to support the counter
to your assertion that they are doing it to cut costs, or most certainly
suggested that cost does not seem to be the determing factor, we must now
turn to the TECHNICAL side of your assert, at which point I repeat my
question, precisely as I asked it:

what do you think the effect "smaller wire" will have on the
performance of a loudspeaker?

This, in essence, boils the question down to a purely technical one.
One in which facts can be presented, evaluated and either supported
or refuted ONLY on the TECHNICAL merits of the argument, NOT on the
personalities or whose "instructors" are better or anything.

Again, you made the original assertion,

Things such as poor quality x-over components and smaller wire
size to cut final costs.

and I ask, what is the effect on the TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE of the
wire size, which you have now constrained to be the difference
between 16 guage and 12 gauge connecting the speaker terminal to
the woofer? The question is as simple as that.

Hint: for others interested in analyzing the situation, here's
the relevant data for your enlightenment: 16 gauge copper has
a DC resistance of 0.00402 ohms/ft, while 12 gauge has a DC
resistance of 0.00159 ohms/ft. If relevant, the fusing current
of the two are 117 amperes (16 gauge) and 235 amperes (12 gauge)
Assume a nominal 8 ohm woofer whose voice coil DC resistance is
6.25 ohms. Additionally consider as well a nominal 4 ohm woofer
with a DC resistance of 3.4 ohms. Assume an in-enclosure system
Qtc of 0.707 with a Qec of 0.89 under the conditons of Rg = 0.

You made it sound like you were very educated, like it was an ego thing
of "I am a Doctor", and a know it all about all things you discussed as
an expert, that was why the bs about the "Wright" Brothers came back.

It was purely BS, indeed. You focussed NOT on the TECHNICAL matters
being discussed, but on the fact that I type VERY fast and occasionally
make simple typographic errors.

I still disagree with you about the spider being stiff, as its purpose
is to keep the voice coil in the proper horizontal tolerances for
movement inside the magnetic field gap.

You may disagree all you want, and until you have the factual data to
support your position, it's merely one of unsubstantiated opinion.

I have, in fact, design MANY woofers and tweeters in my career,
INCLUDING, interestingly enough, a number that your friend Mr. Gold
purchased. I have measured many, many thousands of drivers, and have
a stock of driver components, including spiders and surrounds, on hand
from a number of component manufacturers specifically to provide
factual information to my clients.

I have DONE the experiment that shows the opposite of your assertion
to be the case. In it's simplest form, the hypothesis is thus:

Permise #1: The fundamental mechanical resonance of a woofer is
determined by the moving mass of the driver Mms and the
mechanical stiffness of the driver Kms as:

Fs = (2 pi sqrt(Mms/Kms)^-1

Premise #2: Given two parallel mechanical stiffness, the surround
stiffness Ksurr and the spider stiffness Kspid the total
resulting stiffness is:

Kms = Ksurr + Kspid

Please note that these two premises are not unique to loudspeakers, but
are describer by the generalm physics of mechanical harmonic oscillators.

From these two premises we can derive a third:

Premise #3: removing one or the otherv suspension components
from the driver will change the total stiffness of the driver
and thus its resonant frequency in proportion to the square
root of magnitude of the stiffness removed.

Now, unless you are willing to challenge these fundamental premises,
I suggest we proceed directly to my hypothesis:

Hypothesis: The centering spider provides the dominant mechanical
stiffness in most modern-day high-quality woofers. Therefore,
if one removes hust the spider, the resonant frequency should
drop by a factor significantly larger than if one were to remove
just the suspension.

Now this is completely equivalent to saying that such a driver built
without a spider will have a lower resonant frequency than the same
built without a suspension. Certainly neither constitute a viable
driver, since you have centering issues in both cases, but, as an
experiment to test the hypothesis, it's a completely valid set of
methods.

(of course, both ignore the far more direct method of measuring
stiffness directly, which what all of this is actually based
upon. But since most people do not have access to an inventory
of speaker components, the "removal" method is what remains.

Now, the hypothetical rubber meets the physical reality road. After
having conducted precisely this experiment, quite literally, HUNDREDS
of times, the result is that in a typical high-quality woofer, the
mechanical stiffness of the spider is at minimum TWICE that of the
surround and more typically on the order of 3-4 times that of the
surround. This is born out by the fact that removing the spider
results in a drop in resonaont frequency by as much as a factor of 2,
more typically on the order of about 1/2 an octave, while removing just
the surround results in a decrease in resonant frequency of only about
10%,

Unless you are willing and ready to propose a heretofore unknown
mechanism, the data quite stringly supports the hypothesis that it is
the spider that is the source of most of the mechanical stiffness in
most high-quality woofers these days.

The vertical movement of the spider should be as "loose as a goose" and
offer no resistance to the voice coil's desire to move.

That may be your assumption, but, alas, the data suggests quite the
contrary. 25 years ago I heald the same opinion, until the data showed
how wrong that opinion was.

This desire of no resistance for the voice coil movement is why better
woofers also have vented coils so the air pressure is taken out of the
equation, which I am sure you could quote how it affects the speaker
movement and I can't. JBL engineers must do it for a reason.

There are, in fact, several reasons why poles are vented:

1. The total displacement volume of the air behind the dustcap is
quite large for even small excursions. Thus, the resulting
large proportional changes in it's volume are often sufficient
to extend the compression beyond adiabatically linear compression.

But while the compression RATIO is large, the total volume
compressed is small, and thus does not materially affect the
total system stiffness.

2. In high-power applications that one often finds JBL woofers used
form venting the pole piece dramatically improves air cooling of
the voice coil by substantially increasing the colume of air
continuously moved through the gap.

3. The pumping of air through the gap in a non-vented situation may
lead to extraneous noise and distortion.

Please refer to the work of Gander at JBL and others on this topic,
published in the mid 1980's in JAES.

It is also noted that you failed to address the technicalm points I
raised about the role of enclosure to driver compliance ratios in
tuning vented systems, a hallmark foundation of the Thiele/Small
model. You may certainly choose to continue to ignore it, I was merely
challenging, on a technical basis, the technical validity of your
assertion regarding the suitability of driver compliance to reflex
implementations.