[[email protected]]

some people have hastened to suggest that there is a sharp divide
concerning the use of science vs. subjective belief systems in audio. I
would be happy to see one subjective audio "reviewer" and fellow traveler
marketing dept. who don't turn to asserted scientific validation as
quickly as they do to reporting of their perceptual events when listening
to some bit of gear and what sonic delight will follow the purchase of
same.. This can be as simple as suggesting that the speed of woofer
movement makes for "fast" bass or the need to inhibit vibration in solid
state audio amps.

The $3000 wire folk turn to pulling the cloak of science about their
sholders by offering that skin effect or quantum electron alignment or
some such the source of the reported perception events the item is said to
produce. They will even give us numbers and pretty graphs to that effect.
Almost without exception a reviewer will include such marketing blurbs as
the proported science underlying the perception effect if they have none
of their own to offer.

We who are of the view that the source of the reported perception event
likely lies in the brain and not the object need not even evoke any
science. We need only request simple common sense and simple logic. If
the object said to be the source of the perception event is inserted and
removed without the listeners knowledge and the perception effect can not
be shown beyond chance to track accordingly, a simple bit of deduction
best describes the outcome.

We need not appeal to what science is violated in the reported source of
the perception event at all nor show the claimed but not previously
demonstrated science evoked by the subjective event reporter is not
substantuated.

We need not know anything at all about electronics or acoustics nor
psycho/perceptual matters. We need only to show that the reported
perception event doesn't track the presence or not of the bit of audio
gear said to be it's source.


If it does not track the matter is settled, if it does then turning to
science makes sense least we get our cart before the horse.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
...

snip


We who are of the view that the source of the reported perception event
likely lies in the brain and not the object need not even evoke any
science. We need only request simple common sense and simple logic.
snip

Your argument fails from its own contradictions. Those folks claiming that
the ocean was flat, or that the sun truly rose in the east and circled the
earth had common sense and apparent logic on their side as well. Sometimes
reality is counterintuitive.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 18, 6:48 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
wrote in message

...

snip

We who are of the view that the source of the reported perception event
likely lies in the brain and not the object need not even evoke any
science. We need only request simple common sense and simple logic.
snip

Your argument fails from its own contradictions.
Those folks claiming that the ocean was flat, or
that the sun truly rose in the east and circled the
earth had common sense and apparent logic
on their side as well. Sometimes reality is
counterintuitive.

Indeed. Use the typical "common sense" to explain
sampling. Use "common sense" to explain why
the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen paradox. Use common
sense to explain why a narrower port has MORE
acoustic mass than a wider one of the same elngth.

On the other hand, the fact that a LOT of things
are counterintuitive to "common sense" doesn't
mean that we shouldn't strive to improve the state
of "common sense," and, so far, in describing the
physical world, the ONLY thing that has reliably
worked is science.

[[email protected]]

We who are of the view that the source of the reported perception event
likely lies in the brain and not the object need not even evoke any
science. We need only request simple common sense and simple logic.
snip

"Your argument fails from its own contradictions. Those folks claiming
that the ocean was flat, or that the sun truly rose in the east and
circled the earth had common sense and apparent logic on their side as
well. Sometimes reality is counterintuitive."

You would beright, if that was my argument.

We observe that when the source is not known among two possible ones and
the previously reported perception event fails to track switching between
them accordingly,, the gig is up. That is the kind of common sense and
logic I had in mind. Without any other knowledge necessary, any observer
would say that the perception event does not match only one of the sources
as was reported, so its origin must not be in either of the sources.

The kind of failure of common sense and logic you mention is illustrated
by those folk who claim that "fast bass" results from a lighter woofer
cone being able to move faster.

It is counter intutive to realize the flaw in that notion, as it is in a
flat ocean and relative movement of earth and sun.

[Peter Wieck]

On Jul 19, 8:11*pm, wrote:

It is counter intutive to realize the flaw in that notion, as it is in a
flat ocean and relative movement of earth and sun.

When one searches for absolutes, one will almost inevitably be
disappointed. So far, Death and Taxes do appear to be the only
"settled absolutes" on the planet today.

Distilling your post to its essence, it is (in my opinion) a plea for
some sort of absolute - ain't gonna happen.

Common sense isn't.

I mentioned Clarke's Third Law the other day - there are four (the
last one is quite recent). You would do well to look them up.

By the way, Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there is an equal
and opposite expert.

About covers it.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


When one searches for absolutes, one will almost
inevitably be disappointed. So far, Death and Taxes do
appear to be the only "settled absolutes" on the planet
today.

Paying taxes directly can and has been avoided. No relevant avoidances of
death are known to exist, though the cryonics true believers thought that
they would laugh at us from their icy non-graves when they were alive.

Distilling your post to its essence, it is (in my
opinion) a plea for some sort of absolute - ain't gonna happen.

Absolutes do happen, and they goes well beyond the death thing. Checks clear
the bank and stay cleared. Crap flushes and stays gone. Unless you are
smoking some really good stuff, most of the stuff we take at face value in
terms of physical occurrences really happens.

Common sense isn't.

Common sense says follow the evidence.

I mentioned Clarke's Third Law the other day - there are
four (the last one is quite recent). You would do well to
look them up.

By the way, Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there
is an equal and opposite expert.

About covers it.

Well, that's why expert opinion is always in doubt.

What isn't in doubt is reliable evidence. One important life skill is
knowing it when you see it.

[[email protected]]

It is counter intutive to realize the flaw in that notion, as it is in a
flat ocean and relative movement of earth and sun.

When one searches for absolutes, one will almost inevitably be
"disappointed. So far, Death and Taxes do appear to be the only "settled
absolutes" on the planet today."

Who said anything about absolutes? The case as it stands is that
perception events commonly reported by subjective folk and said to be
related to some bit of audio gear have a record of disappearing when the
alleged source of that perception is not known to them. If that record
should change course then so be it.

Distilling your post to its essence, it is (in my opinion) a plea for
"some sort of absolute - ain't gonna happen."

Distilling your notion to its essence shows it a red herring as I have
nothing of the kind in mind. See above.

"Common sense isn't.

I mentioned Clarke's Third Law the other day - there are four (the
last one is quite recent). You would do well to look them up."

I know it, and he a hard nose scientist to the end would request no less
of subjective folk in supporting their claims then do I. The "magic"
claimed by the subjective gurus does seem to fit his law doesn't it?

"By the way, Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there is an equal and
opposite expert."

Fine, but he a hard nose scientist to the end would then proceed to
qualify what an "expert" means in the context of audio reproduction. Do
you think an astrologer would be included or one claiming esp, both areas
having self declared experts.

Outsor's first law, the rationalizations of the subjective audio radical
fringe are of the same kind as those claimed in astrology and esp,
especially in reasons they fail in being able to demonstrate basic truth
claims about same.

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:

By the way, Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there is an equal
and opposite expert.

About covers it.

Except that Clarke was wrong about that.



--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[C. Leeds]

wrote:

Outsor's first law, the rationalizations of the subjective audio radical
fringe are of the same kind as those claimed in astrology and esp,
especially in reasons they fail in being able to demonstrate basic truth
claims about same.

This was the point I was making about this tired debate. There are
extreme, thoughtless radicals on either side. For them, it is about
religion, not science.

[C. Leeds]

wrote:

The kind of failure of common sense and logic you mention is illustrated
by those folk who claim that "fast bass" results from a lighter woofer
cone being able to move faster.

Can you cite a source for this claim of yours?

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

wrote:

The kind of failure of common sense and logic you
mention is illustrated by those folk who claim that
"fast bass" results from a lighter woofer cone being
able to move faster.

Can you cite a source for this claim of yours?

He can cite me, because I've been hearing this particular piece of weirdness
on Usenet forums for over a decade. ;-)

However, here are some links, one from people I'd hope knew better:

http://www.d-s-t.com.au/caraudio/pdf...ss_sub_xls.pdf

www.mtxaudio.eu/IMG/pdf/Leaflet_MTX_2004_uk.pdf

[Robert Sink]

writes:

some people have hastened to suggest that there is a sharp divide
concerning the use of science vs. subjective belief systems in audio. I
would be happy to see one subjective audio "reviewer" and fellow traveler
marketing dept. who don't turn to asserted scientific validation as

[...]

I think reviews are of limited use to begin with, especially when you
are talking about a product that is either given away to review or put
on long term loan to review, because there is a bias instilled in the
reviewer to 'return the favor' so to speak.

If a lot of people review a product favorably, then it may have some
merit, but the most important part of the process to me is how that
product sounds on my system.

Having said that, there are a limited number of products that you can
do this with; It's unlikely a company, for instance Theta (or
their retailer), will let you audition their $10-15k Citadel monoblocks
on your system. Hence, you are forced to believe reviews (be they
based in reality, science, or some pseudo in between) and/or listen to
said product on a completely different system in a completely
different location.

What's important to me is being introduced to a product (review) and
for me to be able to evaulate it on my system--everything else is
pretty much noise because I'm unlikely to drop big bucks on something
that I cannot directly evauluate the delta of on my system previously.

It is this dilemma, given the cost, volume, and availability of high
end audio that is the most stifling because there is no real suitable
model for a consumer to evaulate a piece on their system unless they
have a very strong relationship with a retailer (i.e. bought a lot
from them previously) and even still, you are locked into what said
retailer carries.

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message


wrote:

Outsor's first law, the rationalizations of the
subjective audio radical fringe are of the same kind as
those claimed in astrology and esp, especially in
reasons they fail in being able to demonstrate basic
truth claims about same.

Agreed. When audiophiles claim sonic benefits for cables that make no
corresponding changes to signals passing through them, in essence they are
claiming physical effects due to non-physical occurrences. In short,
miracles.

This was the point I was making about this tired debate.
There are extreme, thoughtless radicals on either side.
For them, it is about religion, not science.

Quickly bringing up the extreme, thoughtless radicals on either side and
making them the center of one's contributions to the debate would seem to be
an excluded-middle argument.

[[email protected]]

The kind of failure of common sense and logic you mention is illustrated
by those folk who claim that "fast bass" results from a lighter woofer
cone being able to move faster.

"Can you cite a source for this claim of yours?"

It is not my claim as though I thought of it, it has been discussed many
times in many places. Here is one general discussion absent the math:

'SoundStage! Max dB - Fast Bass, Slow Bass - Myth vs. Fact'

http://www.soundstage.com/maxdb/maxdb061999.htm

It is an ironic observation that the same site has audio reviews where
this very myth is evoked to explain what is said to be "fast" about a
speaker.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:25:29 -0700, Robert Sink wrote
(in article ):

writes:

some people have hastened to suggest that there is a sharp divide
concerning the use of science vs. subjective belief systems in audio. I
would be happy to see one subjective audio "reviewer" and fellow traveler
marketing dept. who don't turn to asserted scientific validation as

[...]

I think reviews are of limited use to begin with, especially when you
are talking about a product that is either given away to review or put
on long term loan to review, because there is a bias instilled in the
reviewer to 'return the favor' so to speak.

I assure you that there is no such bias. I have lambasted equipment that was
given to me. If it doesn't perform, it doesn't perform. No ifs ands or buts.

If a lot of people review a product favorably, then it may have some
merit, but the most important part of the process to me is how that
product sounds on my system.

True enough.

Having said that, there are a limited number of products that you can
do this with; It's unlikely a company, for instance Theta (or
their retailer), will let you audition their $10-15k Citadel monoblocks
on your system. Hence, you are forced to believe reviews (be they
based in reality, science, or some pseudo in between) and/or listen to
said product on a completely different system in a completely
different location.

To my mind reviewers serve a couple of fairly important duties. First of all,
the most successful of them are entertaining to read. Buff magazines like
high-end audio rags are, after all. first and foremost, entertainment.
Secondly, a reviewer can make the readership aware of (actually, "aware of"
is not exactly the correct phrase; "familiar with" works better) products and
procedures that the reader might have no previous knowledge of. Also, in that
same vein, the reviewer might find some feature or control function that is
not covered in the manufacturer's specs or product description. Case in
point: I was looking for a video DVD recorder. I had just about settled on
one particular Sony model after perusing the various manufacturer's web
sites. Then I ran across a review of that burner. In the review, I found that
it only had ONE S-VHS input connector and it was on the FRONT of the unit.
Well, this wasn't reflected in any of the literature from Sony, and for my
use was totally unacceptable. I was ready to order that model before I saw
the review. I'd say that was a VERY useful review.

In my opinion, a reviewer is best used as a tool to introduce and describe
new equipment and further, to peak consumer interest. Using the reviewer's
impressions of the performance of the device under consideration for anything
other than as a broad brush stroke based upon previous experience with that
reviewer's opinions, is a poor use of the review.

What's important to me is being introduced to a product (review) and
for me to be able to evaulate it on my system--everything else is
pretty much noise because I'm unlikely to drop big bucks on something
that I cannot directly evauluate the delta of on my system previously.

And so you should not. Anyone who chooses equipment based solely upon a
review is not a very smart shopper.

It is this dilemma, given the cost, volume, and availability of high
end audio that is the most stifling because there is no real suitable
model for a consumer to evaulate a piece on their system unless they
have a very strong relationship with a retailer (i.e. bought a lot
from them previously) and even still, you are locked into what said
retailer carries.

Luckily, most electronics are so transparent these days, that choosing them
is like choosing what flavor ice cream you want today. Speakers are more
problematical. One MUST hear speakers in order to judge. Specs mean nothing
in that particular area of audio.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:31:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

wrote:

The kind of failure of common sense and logic you
mention is illustrated by those folk who claim that
"fast bass" results from a lighter woofer cone being
able to move faster.

Can you cite a source for this claim of yours?

He can cite me, because I've been hearing this particular piece of weirdness
on Usenet forums for over a decade. ;-)

However, here are some links, one from people I'd hope knew better:

http://www.d-s-t.com.au/caraudio/pdf...ss_sub_xls.pdf

www.mtxaudio.eu/IMG/pdf/Leaflet_MTX_2004_uk.pdf




Physics says that a lighter cone results from less mass and less mass,
according to Sir Issac makes the cone easier to accelerate and decelerate.
Whether this results in "faster bass" I don't know because of the other
things that come into play such as the design of the speaker's suspension,
the strength of the magnetic field and the design of the voice coil and
whether or not the voice coil utilizes a shorted turn.

[[email protected]]

"What's important to me is being introduced to a product (review) and
for me to be able to evaulate it on my system--everything else is
pretty much noise because I'm unlikely to drop big bucks on something
that I cannot directly evauluate the delta of on my system previously.

It is this dilemma, given the cost, volume, and availability of high
end audio that is the most stifling because there is no real suitable
model for a consumer to evaulate a piece on their system unless they
have a very strong relationship with a retailer (i.e. bought a lot
from them previously) and even still, you are locked into what said
retailer carries."

I hear you, which is why I think the hifi mags. would do us all a great
service and drop the "audition" nonsense altogether. Even if they could
demonstrate its validity, it is irrelevant information specific only to
their specific set of gear and listening context etc.; which lends itself
not at all to the listener's own such context. But one suggests they
would quickly cease having a reason to exist.

If as I think that wire is wire and to a large degree amps and cd players
etc. are commodity items with no difference in sonic reproduction of
music, then doing blind listening tests and reporting results would soon
be redundant and boring. Where would they have to go if some hifi mag.
had done the nelson pass / yamaha integrated test showing an audio dealer
could not spot the pass amp with which he had long experience in his
system using his music?

They would have to drop the selling of sonic difference and find other
reasons to report introduction of new gear based on technical advances or
features and functionality or some such. They would all become stereo
review. However the ego hit of replacing hemselves as fonts of
extraordinary sonic perception ability would be impossible.

[Peter Wieck]

On Jul 22, 6:23*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Quickly bringing up the extreme, thoughtless radicals on either side and
making them the center of one's contributions to the debate would seem to be
an excluded-middle argument.


AKA Occam's Razor.

Something either is, or it is not. And the thoughtless radicals spend
their entire lives believing that for something to be NOT, means that
is MUST be its opposite. Those things that are not black therefore
must be white.

No, the principle of the excluded middle simply states that something
that is not black merely need be not black. Accordingly, it could be
white. It could also be mocha, puce, mauve, or any of the primaries
and many, many other things - just not black.

Understand that, and the rules of logic become fairly clear. It is a
logical fallacy to attempt to prove the negative, but a single
positive does mean that something necessarily "IS".

So, if one chooses to believe that something unproven cannot be,
(violation of Clarke's First Law - as he has come up before) - then
one is living in a world before that thing is shown. A simple Lucifer
(self-striking) match would have been black magic in Europe in 800AD,
but not in Greece in 100BC where the principles of that particular
chemistry were well understood. And Quantum Physics would have been
laughed out of court in the time of Newton.

Where one is on very shaky ground is attempting to PROVE that
something as-yet unproven cannot be.

I seem to remember the analogy of the cleared check - I would suggest
that the purveyor of that analogy look up the "Nigerian Scam" on the
net - and see how that works and how those checks actually *clear* -
for a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Final

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[[email protected]]

"Physics says that a lighter cone results from less mass and less mass,
according to Sir Issac makes the cone easier to accelerate and decelerate.
Whether this results in "faster bass" I don't know because of the other
things that come into play such as the design of the speaker's suspension,
the strength of the magnetic field and the design of the voice coil and
whether or not the voice coil utilizes a shorted turn."

Of such things is the common sense offered which in fact is counter
intuitive to actual audio reproduction.

The short version is this, cone mass speaks to the upper limit of the
frequency range. If two cones, one having double the mass of the other,
are producing 100 hz then all the "speed" needed to produce it is at hand
in both and that "speed" is exactly the same for both.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:31:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

wrote:

The kind of failure of common sense and logic you
mention is illustrated by those folk who claim that
"fast bass" results from a lighter woofer cone being
able to move faster.

Can you cite a source for this claim of yours?

He can cite me, because I've been hearing this
particular piece of weirdness on Usenet forums for over
a decade. ;-)

However, here are some links, one from people I'd hope
knew better:

http://www.d-s-t.com.au/caraudio/pdf...ss_sub_xls.pdf

www.mtxaudio.eu/IMG/pdf/Leaflet_MTX_2004_uk.pdf

Physics says that a lighter cone results from less mass
and less mass, according to Sir Issac makes the cone
easier to accelerate and decelerate.

That speaks to mechanical efficiency. Unfortunately speakers are supposed to
have an acoustical output. The need to transform energy from mechanical to
acoustical has dramatic effects on the situation, to say the least. ;-)

Whether this results in "faster bass" I don't know because of the
other things that come into play such as the design of
the speaker's suspension, the strength of the magnetic
field and the design of the voice coil and whether or not
the voice coil utilizes a shorted turn.

The fallacy of "fast bass" as applied to woofers in multi-way systems is
demonstrated by the fact that we almost always drive woofers through
electrical networks that are generally the main limitation on their high
frequency response.

We drive woofers through electrical networks that limit their high frequency
response to avoid rough response due to cone breakup and the narrowing of
directivity at higher frequencies due to the size of the diaphragm.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 22, 10:47 pm, wrote:
"Physics says that a lighter cone results from
less mass and less mass, according to Sir
Issac makes the cone easier to accelerate
and decelerate.

And now, how does that translate to the acoustical
domain? Most assuredly not in any way that the
intuitive lot assumes.

Whether this results in "faster bass" I don't
know because of the other things that come
into play such as the design of the speaker's
suspension,

Actually, largely irrelevant except on higher order
effects.

the strength of the magnetic field and the design
of the voice coil

Which primarily determines efficiency.

whether or not the voice coil utilizes a shorted turn."

Largely irrelevant.

Of such things is the common sense offered
which in fact is counter intuitive to actual audio
reproduction.

Indeed.

The short version is this, cone mass speaks to
the upper limit of the frequency range.

No, it does not: it speaks to the efficiency of the driver.
The voice coil current driving comes of two different
masses does, indeed, result in two different velocities,
but the end result is NOT bandwidth, but output.

If two cones, one having double the mass of the
other, are producing 100 hz then all the "speed"
needed to produce it is at hand in both and that
"speed" is exactly the same for both.

Well, all other things being equal, the acceleration
of the cone is halved, but the net result is NOT a
reduction in the transient response, but a reduction
in the efficiency.

The whole "woofer speed" nonsense COMPLETELY
ignores the actual physics of how loudspeakers work.
Above resonance, ALL direct-radiator speakers operate
in what's called the mass-controlled region. For a given
acoustical output level, the accelleration is constant
with frequency, resulting in a velocity that goes as the
inverse of frequency and an excursion that goes as the
inverse square of frequency.

The proponents of the "fast woofer" nonsense are
fond of misquoting Netwon and claiming "F=ma"
without having the faintest idea of what the implications
of that and the actual electrical/mechanical/acoustical
implications of this are, we end up in the current mess
we find ourselves

What happens is, essentially, this: the sound pressure
level of a speaker is proprtional to the ACCELERATION
of the cone. And, since, F=ma or, more properly, a = F/m,
then sound pressure level is inversely proportional to
the mass. More mass, less sound pressure level.

That means, all other things being equal, a heavier cone
will simply result ina LERSS EFFICIENT speaker, NOT
a "slower" speaker in the sense of reduced transient
response. If you want the heavier woofer to "go faster,"
turn the volume up!

Now, one of the real problems lies in the definition
of "faster" means. Unfortunately, in this case, it means
whatever vague notion the person using the term
wants to or thinks it means.

What seems to be the common thread, though,
encompasses soft-terms like "boominess" or
"tight bass." Ironically, all these terms refer NOT to
phenomenon that are "fast," implying high-frequency
performance, but describe behaviors at the LOW END
of the speaker's frequency range, i.e., at the low
frequency cutoff of the speaker.

Essentially, we're talking about the damping of the
speaker and/or enclosure SYSTEM at the fundamental
system/enclosure resonance.

It's easiest to describe the required behavior for sealed-
box, non ported system, and that required behavior
simply comes down to the ratio of stored energy to
energy dissipative mechanisms, encompassed in
a single parameter called the total system Q. Two
systems with the same low frequency cutoff and the
same system Q WILL have the same "speed:": even
if one has a woofer with a cone of 1 gram and the
other with a woofer cone of 1 kilogram. They will be
decidely different woofers, to be sure, but they WILL
have the same transient response.

The HIGH FREQUENCY limitations of the driver are
NOT a primary result of differences in mass. Rather,
they are a very complex function of cone material
and composition (which controls stiffness and internal
propogation velocity), cone profile, edge termination,
flexibility of attachment points and more. In fact, it's
often the case that a thicker, heavier cone has BETTER
high-frequency response (and, thus is :"faster") because
a thicker cone is mechanically stiffer.

But, all of these higher-order effects are largely irrelevant
for two reasons (actually, essentially the same reason
restated slightly differently):

1. Unless incompetently designed, the signal is limited
via the crossover to bandwidths LESS THAN the intrinsic
bandwidth of the woofer,

2. Regardless of how "fast" a woofer is, it will (or it
shouldn't_ ever move faster than the signal driving it,
and bass signals are, by fundamental definition,
NOT FAST.

[C. Leeds]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"C. Leeds" wrote in message

wrote:

The kind of failure of common sense and logic you
mention is illustrated by those folk who claim that
"fast bass" results from a lighter woofer cone being
able to move faster.

I asked:

Can you cite a source for this claim of yours?

Arny sez:

He can cite me, because I've been hearing this particular piece of weirdness
on Usenet forums for over a decade. ;-)

However, here are some links...

That's just hearsay. I'm asking for quotes from people who've made the
claim. Not links, mind you, but quotes, as called for in r.a.h-e guidelines.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 23, 9:26 am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"C. Leeds" wrote in message

wrote:

The kind of failure of common sense and logic you
mention is illustrated by those folk who claim that
"fast bass" results from a lighter woofer cone being
able to move faster.

I asked:

Can you cite a source for this claim of yours?

Arny sez:
He can cite me, because I've been hearing this particular piece of weirdness
on Usenet forums for over a decade. ;-)

However, here are some links...

That's just hearsay. I'm asking for quotes from people who've made the
claim. Not links, mind you, but quotes, as called for in r.a.h-e guidelines.

Look at the links, the quotes are there.

But since you don't seem to be enamored of that
logic, try the following from this newsgroup (try doing
a search of the newsgroup for "fast bass", it's actually
quite easy):

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: John Heisch
Date: 1995/08/15
Subject: Fast subwoofers?

When talking about speakers, "fast" usually refers
to transient response. Transient response refers
to a speaker diaphragm's ability to respond quickly
to any signal change. To reproduce a square wave
accurately, a speaker's cone would have to move
out instantly, stay there briefly, then move back
instantly, etc. No speaker can do this, of course, but
the faster a speaker can move in response to a
signal, the "faster" it is. Smaller speaker diaphragms
typically have less mass and therefore theoretically
can change direction faster when called upon to do
so. Therefore, subwoofers containing speakers with
smaller, lighter diaphragms usually have better transient
response. The tradeoff is efficiency. Smaller speakers
do not move as much air as larger ones. As always,
there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Despite its intuitive appeakl, nearly every assertion this
poster makes is technically wrong. for example:

* To reproduce a square wave accurately requires
an infinite bandwidth.

* To approximate a square wave whose fundamental
is above the system resonance merely requires the
cone have constant acceleration in one direction then
the other, NOT contant excursion.

* Smaller cones have greater efficiency because they
have lower mass, but lower efficiency because they
have a smaller area. Since area and cone mass are
very closely related, the two cancel each other out and,
all other things being equal, a small cone has the same
efficiency as a large cone.

And there are many other examples.:

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: (Andr Jute)
Date: 1998/01/09
Subject: Why do small speakers sound faster?

John, you might consider the mass of a large woofer
cone to be moved. It has a certain inertia related to its
mass, which has to be accelerated and slowed down
again.

And, as is common, Jute either ignores or is unaware
of the fact that acceleration translates DIRECTLY to
efficiency, NOT transient response.

There are several hundred other instances, available
by typing in less than a dozen letters and hitting the right
button.

[Harry Lavo]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"C. Leeds" wrote in message

wrote:

The kind of failure of common sense and logic you
mention is illustrated by those folk who claim that
"fast bass" results from a lighter woofer cone being
able to move faster.

I asked:

Can you cite a source for this claim of yours?

Arny sez:

He can cite me, because I've been hearing this particular piece of
weirdness on Usenet forums for over a decade. ;-)

However, here are some links...

That's just hearsay. I'm asking for quotes from people who've made the
claim. Not links, mind you, but quotes, as called for in r.a.h-e
guidelines.

I'm sorry. All the strawmen have died and are no longer available to quote
directly! :-)