In article ,
(Bill Turner) wrote:

YOU HAVE TO LEARN WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO THE GROUP. MANY HAVE LEARNED
THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE IN THEIR QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE.

So it's what's important to the group that counts, and truth is irrelevant.


Regards,

John Byrns


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

In article ,
(Bill Turner) wrote:

YOU HAVE TO LEARN WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO THE GROUP. MANY HAVE LEARNED
THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE IN THEIR QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE.

So it's what's important to the group that counts, and truth is irrelevant.


Regards,

John Byrns


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

In rec.antiques.radio+phono Sanders wrote:
I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless.

Knowledge without backup is always useless in a discussion, your
response is that of a troll, not of someone enthousiastic about what
they learned or know.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

In rec.antiques.radio+phono Sanders wrote:
I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless.

Knowledge without backup is always useless in a discussion, your
response is that of a troll, not of someone enthousiastic about what
they learned or know.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

In rec.antiques.radio+phono Sanders wrote:
I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless.

Knowledge without backup is always useless in a discussion, your
response is that of a troll, not of someone enthousiastic about what
they learned or know.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

In rec.antiques.radio+phono Sanders wrote:
I bow out from the group as my knowledge learned is useless.

Knowledge without backup is always useless in a discussion, your
response is that of a troll, not of someone enthousiastic about what
they learned or know.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

In article ,
(Bill Turner) wrote:

TRUTH HINGES OF THE RELEVANT. FOAM ISN'T RELEVANT.

"Foam"?


Regards,

John Byrns


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

In article ,
(Bill Turner) wrote:

TRUTH HINGES OF THE RELEVANT. FOAM ISN'T RELEVANT.

"Foam"?


Regards,

John Byrns


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

In article ,
(Bill Turner) wrote:

TRUTH HINGES OF THE RELEVANT. FOAM ISN'T RELEVANT.

"Foam"?


Regards,

John Byrns


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

In article ,
(Bill Turner) wrote:

TRUTH HINGES OF THE RELEVANT. FOAM ISN'T RELEVANT.

"Foam"?


Regards,

John Byrns


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

Peter,

Top post or bottom post, I have heard both??

Here is the email I sent to Dick and didn't post it because of its
length. Here it it for those who are interested.

John

Dick,

Since you ended it with a smile I will answer back directly to you. This
is much too long for a post and it is evident you were NOT trying to be
a jerk to me. Thank You!

I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being
considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and
I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold
Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for
sale, we sold more drivers than anything.

Brands such as JBL, EV, Dynaaudio, Morrel, SEAS, etc. We even
experimented with tweeters that needed no x-over (Pizo's - lol) If you
drilled out the plastic and damped them, they would work well as super
tweets

I was a sound tech for concerts, did custom installs, did minor
electronic repair of equipment, and of course, sales. It was my job to
make sure the FOH sounded "good" whether in a concert hall or a person's
home.

The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them
were electrical engineering students up at CU. The names Thiele and
Small were used a lot by them during their creations. Some of their
creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement
(Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes
and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine
waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in
cabinets.

It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but
they just didn't sound right.

Boxes were often built with 1" HDF and braced like crazy to keep the
boxes from flexing and not projecting the sound out the front. We used
felt around the tweeters to prevent reflected sound from the tweeters
bouncing off the front of the cabinet and causing two different tweeter
signals reaching the ear. Many things were experimented with such as
driver voice coil alignment, but that really complicated box
construction vs what the ear heard.

It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the
inside of the box. Things such as poor quality x-over components and
smaller wire size to cut final costs.

We were in constant competition with "Listen Up" and their high priced
"List and Above" - "Bait and Switch" sales techniques which they had
been taken to court for more than once.

Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating
speakers he had designed. The speakers he designed were listed in an
audio magazine as some of the best of the best. He stretched it some,
as all owners will do, and did not tell you that it was referencing his
8, 10, and 12 being used for car audio. We didn't due retail car audio,
but if you knew what kind of speakers you wanted, we supplied them.

Many places referred people to us to get better speakers than the car
audio stores sold.

Your mathematical understanding of the subject is quite excellent. I
took what the techs told me as "truth" because like you, they backed up
their assumptions with the same experts you have used.

When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them
through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and
BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were
created by the techs.

There is where I "heard" the difference of speakers and what they could do.

Good tweeters would make a cymbal ring or the clock bells ring in "Time"
by Pink Floyd sound real. Cheap tweeters just hissed. I would use
acappella groups to demo midranges. Depending on the customers tastes,
ZZ Top or acoustic jazz bands were used for bass demo.

Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic
bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the
speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next
signal to come through. They could reproduce the sound of thunder well
though.

This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction.

Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always
ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box
size parameters.

My ears knew what things were supposed to sound like because of
playing/sound reinforcing live music. I sold more systems than the
sales people and they wondered why.

I believe that there are "Audio" illusions about specs just as there are
"Optical" illusions about the "visual truth" when presented to the "end
user".

I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced
about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject.

Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I
will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions
concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned
in the time I was there.

I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the
subject of sound!

Good Luck And Best Of Wishes Dick !!!!

John Sanders


Peter Larsen wrote:

Sanders wrote:


Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were
talking about.


A post from Dick Pierce constitutes just that. Relay it to your teachers
if what you posted is what they told you.

Please learn the usenet posting style, you could be a very interesting
contributor from what I have read of your posts.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Peter,

Top post or bottom post, I have heard both??

Here is the email I sent to Dick and didn't post it because of its
length. Here it it for those who are interested.

John

Dick,

Since you ended it with a smile I will answer back directly to you. This
is much too long for a post and it is evident you were NOT trying to be
a jerk to me. Thank You!

I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being
considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and
I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold
Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for
sale, we sold more drivers than anything.

Brands such as JBL, EV, Dynaaudio, Morrel, SEAS, etc. We even
experimented with tweeters that needed no x-over (Pizo's - lol) If you
drilled out the plastic and damped them, they would work well as super
tweets

I was a sound tech for concerts, did custom installs, did minor
electronic repair of equipment, and of course, sales. It was my job to
make sure the FOH sounded "good" whether in a concert hall or a person's
home.

The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them
were electrical engineering students up at CU. The names Thiele and
Small were used a lot by them during their creations. Some of their
creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement
(Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes
and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine
waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in
cabinets.

It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but
they just didn't sound right.

Boxes were often built with 1" HDF and braced like crazy to keep the
boxes from flexing and not projecting the sound out the front. We used
felt around the tweeters to prevent reflected sound from the tweeters
bouncing off the front of the cabinet and causing two different tweeter
signals reaching the ear. Many things were experimented with such as
driver voice coil alignment, but that really complicated box
construction vs what the ear heard.

It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the
inside of the box. Things such as poor quality x-over components and
smaller wire size to cut final costs.

We were in constant competition with "Listen Up" and their high priced
"List and Above" - "Bait and Switch" sales techniques which they had
been taken to court for more than once.

Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating
speakers he had designed. The speakers he designed were listed in an
audio magazine as some of the best of the best. He stretched it some,
as all owners will do, and did not tell you that it was referencing his
8, 10, and 12 being used for car audio. We didn't due retail car audio,
but if you knew what kind of speakers you wanted, we supplied them.

Many places referred people to us to get better speakers than the car
audio stores sold.

Your mathematical understanding of the subject is quite excellent. I
took what the techs told me as "truth" because like you, they backed up
their assumptions with the same experts you have used.

When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them
through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and
BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were
created by the techs.

There is where I "heard" the difference of speakers and what they could do.

Good tweeters would make a cymbal ring or the clock bells ring in "Time"
by Pink Floyd sound real. Cheap tweeters just hissed. I would use
acappella groups to demo midranges. Depending on the customers tastes,
ZZ Top or acoustic jazz bands were used for bass demo.

Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic
bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the
speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next
signal to come through. They could reproduce the sound of thunder well
though.

This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction.

Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always
ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box
size parameters.

My ears knew what things were supposed to sound like because of
playing/sound reinforcing live music. I sold more systems than the
sales people and they wondered why.

I believe that there are "Audio" illusions about specs just as there are
"Optical" illusions about the "visual truth" when presented to the "end
user".

I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced
about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject.

Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I
will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions
concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned
in the time I was there.

I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the
subject of sound!

Good Luck And Best Of Wishes Dick !!!!

John Sanders


Peter Larsen wrote:

Sanders wrote:


Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were
talking about.


A post from Dick Pierce constitutes just that. Relay it to your teachers
if what you posted is what they told you.

Please learn the usenet posting style, you could be a very interesting
contributor from what I have read of your posts.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Peter,

Top post or bottom post, I have heard both??

Here is the email I sent to Dick and didn't post it because of its
length. Here it it for those who are interested.

John

Dick,

Since you ended it with a smile I will answer back directly to you. This
is much too long for a post and it is evident you were NOT trying to be
a jerk to me. Thank You!

I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being
considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and
I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold
Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for
sale, we sold more drivers than anything.

Brands such as JBL, EV, Dynaaudio, Morrel, SEAS, etc. We even
experimented with tweeters that needed no x-over (Pizo's - lol) If you
drilled out the plastic and damped them, they would work well as super
tweets

I was a sound tech for concerts, did custom installs, did minor
electronic repair of equipment, and of course, sales. It was my job to
make sure the FOH sounded "good" whether in a concert hall or a person's
home.

The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them
were electrical engineering students up at CU. The names Thiele and
Small were used a lot by them during their creations. Some of their
creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement
(Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes
and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine
waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in
cabinets.

It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but
they just didn't sound right.

Boxes were often built with 1" HDF and braced like crazy to keep the
boxes from flexing and not projecting the sound out the front. We used
felt around the tweeters to prevent reflected sound from the tweeters
bouncing off the front of the cabinet and causing two different tweeter
signals reaching the ear. Many things were experimented with such as
driver voice coil alignment, but that really complicated box
construction vs what the ear heard.

It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the
inside of the box. Things such as poor quality x-over components and
smaller wire size to cut final costs.

We were in constant competition with "Listen Up" and their high priced
"List and Above" - "Bait and Switch" sales techniques which they had
been taken to court for more than once.

Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating
speakers he had designed. The speakers he designed were listed in an
audio magazine as some of the best of the best. He stretched it some,
as all owners will do, and did not tell you that it was referencing his
8, 10, and 12 being used for car audio. We didn't due retail car audio,
but if you knew what kind of speakers you wanted, we supplied them.

Many places referred people to us to get better speakers than the car
audio stores sold.

Your mathematical understanding of the subject is quite excellent. I
took what the techs told me as "truth" because like you, they backed up
their assumptions with the same experts you have used.

When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them
through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and
BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were
created by the techs.

There is where I "heard" the difference of speakers and what they could do.

Good tweeters would make a cymbal ring or the clock bells ring in "Time"
by Pink Floyd sound real. Cheap tweeters just hissed. I would use
acappella groups to demo midranges. Depending on the customers tastes,
ZZ Top or acoustic jazz bands were used for bass demo.

Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic
bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the
speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next
signal to come through. They could reproduce the sound of thunder well
though.

This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction.

Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always
ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box
size parameters.

My ears knew what things were supposed to sound like because of
playing/sound reinforcing live music. I sold more systems than the
sales people and they wondered why.

I believe that there are "Audio" illusions about specs just as there are
"Optical" illusions about the "visual truth" when presented to the "end
user".

I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced
about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject.

Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I
will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions
concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned
in the time I was there.

I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the
subject of sound!

Good Luck And Best Of Wishes Dick !!!!

John Sanders


Peter Larsen wrote:

Sanders wrote:


Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were
talking about.


A post from Dick Pierce constitutes just that. Relay it to your teachers
if what you posted is what they told you.

Please learn the usenet posting style, you could be a very interesting
contributor from what I have read of your posts.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Peter,

Top post or bottom post, I have heard both??

Here is the email I sent to Dick and didn't post it because of its
length. Here it it for those who are interested.

John

Dick,

Since you ended it with a smile I will answer back directly to you. This
is much too long for a post and it is evident you were NOT trying to be
a jerk to me. Thank You!

I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being
considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and
I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold
Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for
sale, we sold more drivers than anything.

Brands such as JBL, EV, Dynaaudio, Morrel, SEAS, etc. We even
experimented with tweeters that needed no x-over (Pizo's - lol) If you
drilled out the plastic and damped them, they would work well as super
tweets

I was a sound tech for concerts, did custom installs, did minor
electronic repair of equipment, and of course, sales. It was my job to
make sure the FOH sounded "good" whether in a concert hall or a person's
home.

The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them
were electrical engineering students up at CU. The names Thiele and
Small were used a lot by them during their creations. Some of their
creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement
(Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes
and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine
waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in
cabinets.

It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but
they just didn't sound right.

Boxes were often built with 1" HDF and braced like crazy to keep the
boxes from flexing and not projecting the sound out the front. We used
felt around the tweeters to prevent reflected sound from the tweeters
bouncing off the front of the cabinet and causing two different tweeter
signals reaching the ear. Many things were experimented with such as
driver voice coil alignment, but that really complicated box
construction vs what the ear heard.

It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the
inside of the box. Things such as poor quality x-over components and
smaller wire size to cut final costs.

We were in constant competition with "Listen Up" and their high priced
"List and Above" - "Bait and Switch" sales techniques which they had
been taken to court for more than once.

Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating
speakers he had designed. The speakers he designed were listed in an
audio magazine as some of the best of the best. He stretched it some,
as all owners will do, and did not tell you that it was referencing his
8, 10, and 12 being used for car audio. We didn't due retail car audio,
but if you knew what kind of speakers you wanted, we supplied them.

Many places referred people to us to get better speakers than the car
audio stores sold.

Your mathematical understanding of the subject is quite excellent. I
took what the techs told me as "truth" because like you, they backed up
their assumptions with the same experts you have used.

When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them
through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and
BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were
created by the techs.

There is where I "heard" the difference of speakers and what they could do.

Good tweeters would make a cymbal ring or the clock bells ring in "Time"
by Pink Floyd sound real. Cheap tweeters just hissed. I would use
acappella groups to demo midranges. Depending on the customers tastes,
ZZ Top or acoustic jazz bands were used for bass demo.

Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic
bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the
speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next
signal to come through. They could reproduce the sound of thunder well
though.

This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction.

Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always
ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box
size parameters.

My ears knew what things were supposed to sound like because of
playing/sound reinforcing live music. I sold more systems than the
sales people and they wondered why.

I believe that there are "Audio" illusions about specs just as there are
"Optical" illusions about the "visual truth" when presented to the "end
user".

I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced
about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject.

Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I
will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions
concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned
in the time I was there.

I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the
subject of sound!

Good Luck And Best Of Wishes Dick !!!!

John Sanders


Peter Larsen wrote:

Sanders wrote:


Fine, tell my teachers that they didn't know what they were
talking about.


A post from Dick Pierce constitutes just that. Relay it to your teachers
if what you posted is what they told you.

Please learn the usenet posting style, you could be a very interesting
contributor from what I have read of your posts.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Sanders wrote:

Peter,

Top post or bottom post, I have heard both??

Neither actually, look at how Dick wrote his follow up to you. Please
allow me to leave the rest uncommented except for a thank you.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


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

Sanders wrote:

Peter,

Top post or bottom post, I have heard both??

Neither actually, look at how Dick wrote his follow up to you. Please
allow me to leave the rest uncommented except for a thank you.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


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

Sanders wrote:

Peter,

Top post or bottom post, I have heard both??

Neither actually, look at how Dick wrote his follow up to you. Please
allow me to leave the rest uncommented except for a thank you.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


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

Sanders wrote:

Peter,

Top post or bottom post, I have heard both??

Neither actually, look at how Dick wrote his follow up to you. Please
allow me to leave the rest uncommented except for a thank you.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


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

Sanders wrote in message ...
Top post or bottom post, I have heard both??

How about addressing points where they are made?

I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being
considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and
I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold
Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for
sale, we sold more drivers than anything.

[lots of details snipped}

The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them
were electrical engineering students up at CU.

So, in fact, NONE of them were "instructors" in the common usage
of the term, i.e., there profession was not as instructors. Indeed,
it's doubtful that they were studying acoustics, and probably
knew fairly little about loudspeakers, as they were simply, as you
stated, students. So, it's not only possible, it may well be LIKELY
that they were, in a word, wrong.

The names Thiele and
Small were used a lot by them during their creations.

Yes, and my grandfather kissed Jane Withers.

Some of their
creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement
(Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes
and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine
waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in
cabinets.

It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but
they just didn't sound right.

All of your details are most enlightening. What they do is paint
a very clear and unabiguous picture of an electroncis/speaker dealer
and distributor that has little in the way of real design expertise
and measurement facilities. You describe a lot of fiddling and trial-
and-error guesswork and dead end "experiments" and more. Much of the
stuff you describe those with the requisite knowledge and experience
wouldn't eveb bother trying: they'e already did the stuff when they
were kids or know better not to waste their time..

I knew Mr. Gold, several of the driver manufacturing companies I have
provided engineering consultation to sold Mr. Gold drivers. I know
reasonably well who he is and what his capabilities are. He was a good
dealer for some products.

But, with all due respect to Mr. Gold and his establishment, that's
ALL he was. This is no denigration of him or his organization, but
Gold Sound was not then and certainly is not now considered in the
industry a center of loudspeaker physics or engineering. They are
a dealer.

It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the
inside of the box. 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?

Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating
speakers he had designed.

Again, all due respect to Mr. Gold and other companies who use the
court system: a court filled with lawyers is without a doubt the
the group of people LEAST qualified to make judgements on the
engineering properties or quality of speakers. Further, having,
in fact, been called as an expert witness on a number of such cases,
I can assure you that once one gets down to brass tacks, there is
SO little that is truly new and something not known to experts in
the field, that if Mr. Gold did win, it was on the persistance of
his legal team, NOT on the uniqueness on his designs.

When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them
through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and
BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were
created by the techs.

Two comments: first, suggesting, even infereentially, that Bose
and B&W are somehow equivalent is a most telling comment, regrettably,
to many, it's amusing at the very best. Second, if you want to play
force of expert, consider the level of expertise that exists at both
companies, regardless of what I ar anyone may or may not think of
the products, both companies have on staff some of finest engineers
in the business.

Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic
bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the
speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next
signal to come through.

And they were wrong. It's as simple as that. Assuming you are
representing their viewpoints correctly, and I mean not to be
insulting, but they do NOT have a clue as to what they are talking
about.

This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction.

Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always
ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box
size parameters.

And here is PRECISELY where the gap between your assumptions and reality
bites you in the rear. The requirements for PA systems is VERY DIFFERENT
then for home music reproduction. These speakers, because of the very
large volumes they must fill, end up with design criteria that are very
different. ALL speakers must deal with the limits of the bandwidth-
efficiency-enclosure volume tradeoff equation:

n0 = kn Vb F3^3

where n0 is the passband reference efficiency, kn is the system
efficiency constant, Vb is the enclosure volume and F3 is the low
end cutoff. The value for kn in reflex systems is twice that as
for sealed box, but in a PA situation, you're requirements are
severaly constrained: you HAVE to minimize Vb (for portability)
and maximize n0 (for maximum acoustic output). Thus, you are
FORCED into using reflex tuning AND a high cutoff frequency. As
a result, you end up with light-weight cones, for high efficiency,
and relatively stiff suspensions, becaause since the enclosure
compliance is low (the cabinet is small) the suspension compliance
must ALSO be low.

From this, without the REAL background that you and, quite apparently,
your "instructors" were lacking, you were unable to extrapolate the
underlying principles, of which you were all unaware, to the more
general case.

I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced
about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject.

I don't think anyone was calling you a complete idiot. Rather, the
objective statement was made that you were wrong. Thank you for
providing the basis of your opinions, we are enlightened now as to
WHY you and your instructors were wrong.

Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I
will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions
concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned
in the time I was there.

So, now, where does that make any sense? "Okay, I found out I was wrong,
there's a lot to learn here, so I will leave."

I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the
subject of sound!

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Sanders wrote in message ...
Top post or bottom post, I have heard both??

How about addressing points where they are made?

I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being
considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and
I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold
Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for
sale, we sold more drivers than anything.

[lots of details snipped}

The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them
were electrical engineering students up at CU.

So, in fact, NONE of them were "instructors" in the common usage
of the term, i.e., there profession was not as instructors. Indeed,
it's doubtful that they were studying acoustics, and probably
knew fairly little about loudspeakers, as they were simply, as you
stated, students. So, it's not only possible, it may well be LIKELY
that they were, in a word, wrong.

The names Thiele and
Small were used a lot by them during their creations.

Yes, and my grandfather kissed Jane Withers.

Some of their
creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement
(Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes
and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine
waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in
cabinets.

It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but
they just didn't sound right.

All of your details are most enlightening. What they do is paint
a very clear and unabiguous picture of an electroncis/speaker dealer
and distributor that has little in the way of real design expertise
and measurement facilities. You describe a lot of fiddling and trial-
and-error guesswork and dead end "experiments" and more. Much of the
stuff you describe those with the requisite knowledge and experience
wouldn't eveb bother trying: they'e already did the stuff when they
were kids or know better not to waste their time..

I knew Mr. Gold, several of the driver manufacturing companies I have
provided engineering consultation to sold Mr. Gold drivers. I know
reasonably well who he is and what his capabilities are. He was a good
dealer for some products.

But, with all due respect to Mr. Gold and his establishment, that's
ALL he was. This is no denigration of him or his organization, but
Gold Sound was not then and certainly is not now considered in the
industry a center of loudspeaker physics or engineering. They are
a dealer.

It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the
inside of the box. 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?

Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating
speakers he had designed.

Again, all due respect to Mr. Gold and other companies who use the
court system: a court filled with lawyers is without a doubt the
the group of people LEAST qualified to make judgements on the
engineering properties or quality of speakers. Further, having,
in fact, been called as an expert witness on a number of such cases,
I can assure you that once one gets down to brass tacks, there is
SO little that is truly new and something not known to experts in
the field, that if Mr. Gold did win, it was on the persistance of
his legal team, NOT on the uniqueness on his designs.

When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them
through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and
BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were
created by the techs.

Two comments: first, suggesting, even infereentially, that Bose
and B&W are somehow equivalent is a most telling comment, regrettably,
to many, it's amusing at the very best. Second, if you want to play
force of expert, consider the level of expertise that exists at both
companies, regardless of what I ar anyone may or may not think of
the products, both companies have on staff some of finest engineers
in the business.

Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic
bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the
speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next
signal to come through.

And they were wrong. It's as simple as that. Assuming you are
representing their viewpoints correctly, and I mean not to be
insulting, but they do NOT have a clue as to what they are talking
about.

This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction.

Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always
ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box
size parameters.

And here is PRECISELY where the gap between your assumptions and reality
bites you in the rear. The requirements for PA systems is VERY DIFFERENT
then for home music reproduction. These speakers, because of the very
large volumes they must fill, end up with design criteria that are very
different. ALL speakers must deal with the limits of the bandwidth-
efficiency-enclosure volume tradeoff equation:

n0 = kn Vb F3^3

where n0 is the passband reference efficiency, kn is the system
efficiency constant, Vb is the enclosure volume and F3 is the low
end cutoff. The value for kn in reflex systems is twice that as
for sealed box, but in a PA situation, you're requirements are
severaly constrained: you HAVE to minimize Vb (for portability)
and maximize n0 (for maximum acoustic output). Thus, you are
FORCED into using reflex tuning AND a high cutoff frequency. As
a result, you end up with light-weight cones, for high efficiency,
and relatively stiff suspensions, becaause since the enclosure
compliance is low (the cabinet is small) the suspension compliance
must ALSO be low.

From this, without the REAL background that you and, quite apparently,
your "instructors" were lacking, you were unable to extrapolate the
underlying principles, of which you were all unaware, to the more
general case.

I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced
about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject.

I don't think anyone was calling you a complete idiot. Rather, the
objective statement was made that you were wrong. Thank you for
providing the basis of your opinions, we are enlightened now as to
WHY you and your instructors were wrong.

Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I
will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions
concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned
in the time I was there.

So, now, where does that make any sense? "Okay, I found out I was wrong,
there's a lot to learn here, so I will leave."

I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the
subject of sound!

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Sanders wrote in message ...
Top post or bottom post, I have heard both??

How about addressing points where they are made?

I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being
considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and
I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold
Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for
sale, we sold more drivers than anything.

[lots of details snipped}

The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them
were electrical engineering students up at CU.

So, in fact, NONE of them were "instructors" in the common usage
of the term, i.e., there profession was not as instructors. Indeed,
it's doubtful that they were studying acoustics, and probably
knew fairly little about loudspeakers, as they were simply, as you
stated, students. So, it's not only possible, it may well be LIKELY
that they were, in a word, wrong.

The names Thiele and
Small were used a lot by them during their creations.

Yes, and my grandfather kissed Jane Withers.

Some of their
creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement
(Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes
and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine
waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in
cabinets.

It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but
they just didn't sound right.

All of your details are most enlightening. What they do is paint
a very clear and unabiguous picture of an electroncis/speaker dealer
and distributor that has little in the way of real design expertise
and measurement facilities. You describe a lot of fiddling and trial-
and-error guesswork and dead end "experiments" and more. Much of the
stuff you describe those with the requisite knowledge and experience
wouldn't eveb bother trying: they'e already did the stuff when they
were kids or know better not to waste their time..

I knew Mr. Gold, several of the driver manufacturing companies I have
provided engineering consultation to sold Mr. Gold drivers. I know
reasonably well who he is and what his capabilities are. He was a good
dealer for some products.

But, with all due respect to Mr. Gold and his establishment, that's
ALL he was. This is no denigration of him or his organization, but
Gold Sound was not then and certainly is not now considered in the
industry a center of loudspeaker physics or engineering. They are
a dealer.

It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the
inside of the box. 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?

Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating
speakers he had designed.

Again, all due respect to Mr. Gold and other companies who use the
court system: a court filled with lawyers is without a doubt the
the group of people LEAST qualified to make judgements on the
engineering properties or quality of speakers. Further, having,
in fact, been called as an expert witness on a number of such cases,
I can assure you that once one gets down to brass tacks, there is
SO little that is truly new and something not known to experts in
the field, that if Mr. Gold did win, it was on the persistance of
his legal team, NOT on the uniqueness on his designs.

When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them
through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and
BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were
created by the techs.

Two comments: first, suggesting, even infereentially, that Bose
and B&W are somehow equivalent is a most telling comment, regrettably,
to many, it's amusing at the very best. Second, if you want to play
force of expert, consider the level of expertise that exists at both
companies, regardless of what I ar anyone may or may not think of
the products, both companies have on staff some of finest engineers
in the business.

Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic
bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the
speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next
signal to come through.

And they were wrong. It's as simple as that. Assuming you are
representing their viewpoints correctly, and I mean not to be
insulting, but they do NOT have a clue as to what they are talking
about.

This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction.

Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always
ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box
size parameters.

And here is PRECISELY where the gap between your assumptions and reality
bites you in the rear. The requirements for PA systems is VERY DIFFERENT
then for home music reproduction. These speakers, because of the very
large volumes they must fill, end up with design criteria that are very
different. ALL speakers must deal with the limits of the bandwidth-
efficiency-enclosure volume tradeoff equation:

n0 = kn Vb F3^3

where n0 is the passband reference efficiency, kn is the system
efficiency constant, Vb is the enclosure volume and F3 is the low
end cutoff. The value for kn in reflex systems is twice that as
for sealed box, but in a PA situation, you're requirements are
severaly constrained: you HAVE to minimize Vb (for portability)
and maximize n0 (for maximum acoustic output). Thus, you are
FORCED into using reflex tuning AND a high cutoff frequency. As
a result, you end up with light-weight cones, for high efficiency,
and relatively stiff suspensions, becaause since the enclosure
compliance is low (the cabinet is small) the suspension compliance
must ALSO be low.

From this, without the REAL background that you and, quite apparently,
your "instructors" were lacking, you were unable to extrapolate the
underlying principles, of which you were all unaware, to the more
general case.

I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced
about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject.

I don't think anyone was calling you a complete idiot. Rather, the
objective statement was made that you were wrong. Thank you for
providing the basis of your opinions, we are enlightened now as to
WHY you and your instructors were wrong.

Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I
will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions
concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned
in the time I was there.

So, now, where does that make any sense? "Okay, I found out I was wrong,
there's a lot to learn here, so I will leave."

I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the
subject of sound!

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Sanders wrote in message ...
Top post or bottom post, I have heard both??

How about addressing points where they are made?

I didn't mention the company, because I wasn't sure about it being
considered advertising for his company. I was a struggling musician and
I had worked for a company back in Denver in mid 70'- 90' named "Gold
Sound", who other than having just "boxes" with drivers in them for
sale, we sold more drivers than anything.

[lots of details snipped}

The speaker techs that worked there were my instructors. All of them
were electrical engineering students up at CU.

So, in fact, NONE of them were "instructors" in the common usage
of the term, i.e., there profession was not as instructors. Indeed,
it's doubtful that they were studying acoustics, and probably
knew fairly little about loudspeakers, as they were simply, as you
stated, students. So, it's not only possible, it may well be LIKELY
that they were, in a word, wrong.

The names Thiele and
Small were used a lot by them during their creations.

Yes, and my grandfather kissed Jane Withers.

Some of their
creations were failures. Others like the all Dyna MTM arrangement
(Diapolado?) were amazing sound for the price as compared to other boxes
and how they were built. We even took new drivers and ran low power sine
waves through them to "break in" the spiders before installing them in
cabinets.

It was amazing how some drivers would spec out as more accurate, but
they just didn't sound right.

All of your details are most enlightening. What they do is paint
a very clear and unabiguous picture of an electroncis/speaker dealer
and distributor that has little in the way of real design expertise
and measurement facilities. You describe a lot of fiddling and trial-
and-error guesswork and dead end "experiments" and more. Much of the
stuff you describe those with the requisite knowledge and experience
wouldn't eveb bother trying: they'e already did the stuff when they
were kids or know better not to waste their time..

I knew Mr. Gold, several of the driver manufacturing companies I have
provided engineering consultation to sold Mr. Gold drivers. I know
reasonably well who he is and what his capabilities are. He was a good
dealer for some products.

But, with all due respect to Mr. Gold and his establishment, that's
ALL he was. This is no denigration of him or his organization, but
Gold Sound was not then and certainly is not now considered in the
industry a center of loudspeaker physics or engineering. They are
a dealer.

It is amazing how many corners are cut when the customer doesn't see the
inside of the box. 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?

Ron Gold, the owner, even had a judgment on them for duplicating
speakers he had designed.

Again, all due respect to Mr. Gold and other companies who use the
court system: a court filled with lawyers is without a doubt the
the group of people LEAST qualified to make judgements on the
engineering properties or quality of speakers. Further, having,
in fact, been called as an expert witness on a number of such cases,
I can assure you that once one gets down to brass tacks, there is
SO little that is truly new and something not known to experts in
the field, that if Mr. Gold did win, it was on the persistance of
his legal team, NOT on the uniqueness on his designs.

When I took customers into the "listening rooms", I would take them
through many different listening scenarios. Speakers, like B&W and
BOSE, were a joke compared to many of the things in there that were
created by the techs.

Two comments: first, suggesting, even infereentially, that Bose
and B&W are somehow equivalent is a most telling comment, regrettably,
to many, it's amusing at the very best. Second, if you want to play
force of expert, consider the level of expertise that exists at both
companies, regardless of what I ar anyone may or may not think of
the products, both companies have on staff some of finest engineers
in the business.

Ported rolled suspension boxes could not match the "snap" of an acoustic
bass in a sealed box. They explained it to me as the "throw" of the
speaker was extended for too long of a time to be ready for the next
signal to come through.

And they were wrong. It's as simple as that. Assuming you are
representing their viewpoints correctly, and I mean not to be
insulting, but they do NOT have a clue as to what they are talking
about.

This is where I got my assumptions about speaker box construction.

Building PA speakers using rigid surrounds BY JBL and EV were always
ported using the Small/Thiele parameters in construction of port/box
size parameters.

And here is PRECISELY where the gap between your assumptions and reality
bites you in the rear. The requirements for PA systems is VERY DIFFERENT
then for home music reproduction. These speakers, because of the very
large volumes they must fill, end up with design criteria that are very
different. ALL speakers must deal with the limits of the bandwidth-
efficiency-enclosure volume tradeoff equation:

n0 = kn Vb F3^3

where n0 is the passband reference efficiency, kn is the system
efficiency constant, Vb is the enclosure volume and F3 is the low
end cutoff. The value for kn in reflex systems is twice that as
for sealed box, but in a PA situation, you're requirements are
severaly constrained: you HAVE to minimize Vb (for portability)
and maximize n0 (for maximum acoustic output). Thus, you are
FORCED into using reflex tuning AND a high cutoff frequency. As
a result, you end up with light-weight cones, for high efficiency,
and relatively stiff suspensions, becaause since the enclosure
compliance is low (the cabinet is small) the suspension compliance
must ALSO be low.

From this, without the REAL background that you and, quite apparently,
your "instructors" were lacking, you were unable to extrapolate the
underlying principles, of which you were all unaware, to the more
general case.

I hope this clears up that I am not such a complete idiot as referenced
about my knowledge and there is a basis for my opinions on the subject.

I don't think anyone was calling you a complete idiot. Rather, the
objective statement was made that you were wrong. Thank you for
providing the basis of your opinions, we are enlightened now as to
WHY you and your instructors were wrong.

Since you are considered the group's head guru on sound/speaker tech, I
will bow out from the group about making any more "stupid" suggestions
concerning sound and its faithful reproduction from what I have learned
in the time I was there.

So, now, where does that make any sense? "Okay, I found out I was wrong,
there's a lot to learn here, so I will leave."

I was not trying to be a jerk prima-donna about my knowledge of the
subject of sound!

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.

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.

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

So I bow out to the "experts".

John

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.

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.

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

So I bow out to the "experts".

John

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.

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.

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

So I bow out to the "experts".

John

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.

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.

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

So I bow out to the "experts".

John

Sanders wrote:

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.

Well, that's a start.

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.

They fly because they do follow aerodynamic theory. Some of the old theorys
were wrong, just as some of the "theories" you mentioned were wrong.

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the
theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last,
"experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the
earth.

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

Dick doesn't deal in a bunch of bogus "theories". You could learn a great deal
about sound from his posts. If you choose not to, that's your decision. For
the rest of us, we are fortunate to have Dick here. He has "always" backed up
any assertions he makes with hard scientific evidence, not "bogus theories". He
is, by any standard you choose to use, an "audio expert"; your speaker installer
friends at Gold Sound were not.

So I bow out to the "experts".
John

With a condescending sneer? Yeah, right. Really classy exit. Don't slam the
door on your way out.

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

Sanders wrote:

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.

Well, that's a start.

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.

They fly because they do follow aerodynamic theory. Some of the old theorys
were wrong, just as some of the "theories" you mentioned were wrong.

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the
theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last,
"experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the
earth.

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

Dick doesn't deal in a bunch of bogus "theories". You could learn a great deal
about sound from his posts. If you choose not to, that's your decision. For
the rest of us, we are fortunate to have Dick here. He has "always" backed up
any assertions he makes with hard scientific evidence, not "bogus theories". He
is, by any standard you choose to use, an "audio expert"; your speaker installer
friends at Gold Sound were not.

So I bow out to the "experts".
John

With a condescending sneer? Yeah, right. Really classy exit. Don't slam the
door on your way out.

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

Sanders wrote:

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.

Well, that's a start.

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.

They fly because they do follow aerodynamic theory. Some of the old theorys
were wrong, just as some of the "theories" you mentioned were wrong.

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the
theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last,
"experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the
earth.

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

Dick doesn't deal in a bunch of bogus "theories". You could learn a great deal
about sound from his posts. If you choose not to, that's your decision. For
the rest of us, we are fortunate to have Dick here. He has "always" backed up
any assertions he makes with hard scientific evidence, not "bogus theories". He
is, by any standard you choose to use, an "audio expert"; your speaker installer
friends at Gold Sound were not.

So I bow out to the "experts".
John

With a condescending sneer? Yeah, right. Really classy exit. Don't slam the
door on your way out.

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

Sanders wrote:

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.

Well, that's a start.

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.

They fly because they do follow aerodynamic theory. Some of the old theorys
were wrong, just as some of the "theories" you mentioned were wrong.

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the
theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last,
"experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the
earth.

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

Dick doesn't deal in a bunch of bogus "theories". You could learn a great deal
about sound from his posts. If you choose not to, that's your decision. For
the rest of us, we are fortunate to have Dick here. He has "always" backed up
any assertions he makes with hard scientific evidence, not "bogus theories". He
is, by any standard you choose to use, an "audio expert"; your speaker installer
friends at Gold Sound were not.

So I bow out to the "experts".
John

With a condescending sneer? Yeah, right. Really classy exit. Don't slam the
door on your way out.

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

I am a passing listener to this exchange and am now about to become an
active participant, per se.

I have read much of the discussion and without the original input from Mr.
Sanders, I doubt that the rest of us sideline weasels would have been able
to enjoy some free acoustic education education and for me even,
enlightenment, on Speaker design and Enclosure design as well as some of the
more important formulae as considered by Mr. Pierce in his presentation of
the various engineering theories.

I learned something here, not much, as my math is no longer as strong as
others, but I did learn some stuff.

I would like to thank Mr. Sanders for relating his personal experiences and
Mr. Pierce for taking the time to respond to various points of Mr. Sanders
with the appropriate input with being high and mighty about it.

I myself, in my youth, built many a Speaker enclosure with various types of
drivers in use. Some of these experiments were good, some not. The two best
experiments that worked well, were, a Fibreglass Horn, modeled off the metal
horn of an Altec A7. It's redeeming feature was that it did not ring when
struck. The second experiment was an attempt to copy Klipsch LaScala's, and
this was also modestly succesfull, producing a very deep bass capable bin.
As to the math, well, thta never came into the question at the time, I din't
even know that there was math or physics principles to describe what was
going on or not going on. Had I known much more, I am sure thta I would have
paid attention.

One thing this effort has done for me is to consider that the next pair of
speakers I build, should be done from good quality modern components and
wiht a matched good quality modern enclosure design. No longer is it
suffcicient to slap a well stregnthened box together with a speaker bought
at Radio Shack, the results will be mixed at best.

Taking into consideration thta there are some knowledgeable Audio Engineers
participating in this conference, I would like to pose a rather broad
question on your opinions.

Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician
performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20 years at
the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large amount of his
fundemental work has gone into use by a number of Canadian Speaker
manufacturers.

Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work he did and
would the use of his work have resulted in a many different Canadian
manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between the various
manufacturers?

Regards, Richard Tomkins (sideline weasel)

I am a passing listener to this exchange and am now about to become an
active participant, per se.

I have read much of the discussion and without the original input from Mr.
Sanders, I doubt that the rest of us sideline weasels would have been able
to enjoy some free acoustic education education and for me even,
enlightenment, on Speaker design and Enclosure design as well as some of the
more important formulae as considered by Mr. Pierce in his presentation of
the various engineering theories.

I learned something here, not much, as my math is no longer as strong as
others, but I did learn some stuff.

I would like to thank Mr. Sanders for relating his personal experiences and
Mr. Pierce for taking the time to respond to various points of Mr. Sanders
with the appropriate input with being high and mighty about it.

I myself, in my youth, built many a Speaker enclosure with various types of
drivers in use. Some of these experiments were good, some not. The two best
experiments that worked well, were, a Fibreglass Horn, modeled off the metal
horn of an Altec A7. It's redeeming feature was that it did not ring when
struck. The second experiment was an attempt to copy Klipsch LaScala's, and
this was also modestly succesfull, producing a very deep bass capable bin.
As to the math, well, thta never came into the question at the time, I din't
even know that there was math or physics principles to describe what was
going on or not going on. Had I known much more, I am sure thta I would have
paid attention.

One thing this effort has done for me is to consider that the next pair of
speakers I build, should be done from good quality modern components and
wiht a matched good quality modern enclosure design. No longer is it
suffcicient to slap a well stregnthened box together with a speaker bought
at Radio Shack, the results will be mixed at best.

Taking into consideration thta there are some knowledgeable Audio Engineers
participating in this conference, I would like to pose a rather broad
question on your opinions.

Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician
performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20 years at
the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large amount of his
fundemental work has gone into use by a number of Canadian Speaker
manufacturers.

Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work he did and
would the use of his work have resulted in a many different Canadian
manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between the various
manufacturers?

Regards, Richard Tomkins (sideline weasel)

I am a passing listener to this exchange and am now about to become an
active participant, per se.

I have read much of the discussion and without the original input from Mr.
Sanders, I doubt that the rest of us sideline weasels would have been able
to enjoy some free acoustic education education and for me even,
enlightenment, on Speaker design and Enclosure design as well as some of the
more important formulae as considered by Mr. Pierce in his presentation of
the various engineering theories.

I learned something here, not much, as my math is no longer as strong as
others, but I did learn some stuff.

I would like to thank Mr. Sanders for relating his personal experiences and
Mr. Pierce for taking the time to respond to various points of Mr. Sanders
with the appropriate input with being high and mighty about it.

I myself, in my youth, built many a Speaker enclosure with various types of
drivers in use. Some of these experiments were good, some not. The two best
experiments that worked well, were, a Fibreglass Horn, modeled off the metal
horn of an Altec A7. It's redeeming feature was that it did not ring when
struck. The second experiment was an attempt to copy Klipsch LaScala's, and
this was also modestly succesfull, producing a very deep bass capable bin.
As to the math, well, thta never came into the question at the time, I din't
even know that there was math or physics principles to describe what was
going on or not going on. Had I known much more, I am sure thta I would have
paid attention.

One thing this effort has done for me is to consider that the next pair of
speakers I build, should be done from good quality modern components and
wiht a matched good quality modern enclosure design. No longer is it
suffcicient to slap a well stregnthened box together with a speaker bought
at Radio Shack, the results will be mixed at best.

Taking into consideration thta there are some knowledgeable Audio Engineers
participating in this conference, I would like to pose a rather broad
question on your opinions.

Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician
performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20 years at
the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large amount of his
fundemental work has gone into use by a number of Canadian Speaker
manufacturers.

Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work he did and
would the use of his work have resulted in a many different Canadian
manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between the various
manufacturers?

Regards, Richard Tomkins (sideline weasel)

I am a passing listener to this exchange and am now about to become an
active participant, per se.

I have read much of the discussion and without the original input from Mr.
Sanders, I doubt that the rest of us sideline weasels would have been able
to enjoy some free acoustic education education and for me even,
enlightenment, on Speaker design and Enclosure design as well as some of the
more important formulae as considered by Mr. Pierce in his presentation of
the various engineering theories.

I learned something here, not much, as my math is no longer as strong as
others, but I did learn some stuff.

I would like to thank Mr. Sanders for relating his personal experiences and
Mr. Pierce for taking the time to respond to various points of Mr. Sanders
with the appropriate input with being high and mighty about it.

I myself, in my youth, built many a Speaker enclosure with various types of
drivers in use. Some of these experiments were good, some not. The two best
experiments that worked well, were, a Fibreglass Horn, modeled off the metal
horn of an Altec A7. It's redeeming feature was that it did not ring when
struck. The second experiment was an attempt to copy Klipsch LaScala's, and
this was also modestly succesfull, producing a very deep bass capable bin.
As to the math, well, thta never came into the question at the time, I din't
even know that there was math or physics principles to describe what was
going on or not going on. Had I known much more, I am sure thta I would have
paid attention.

One thing this effort has done for me is to consider that the next pair of
speakers I build, should be done from good quality modern components and
wiht a matched good quality modern enclosure design. No longer is it
suffcicient to slap a well stregnthened box together with a speaker bought
at Radio Shack, the results will be mixed at best.

Taking into consideration thta there are some knowledgeable Audio Engineers
participating in this conference, I would like to pose a rather broad
question on your opinions.

Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician
performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20 years at
the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large amount of his
fundemental work has gone into use by a number of Canadian Speaker
manufacturers.

Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work he did and
would the use of his work have resulted in a many different Canadian
manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between the various
manufacturers?

Regards, Richard Tomkins (sideline weasel)

Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician
performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20
years at the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large
amount of his fundemental work has gone into use by a number of
Canadian Speaker manufacturers.

Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work
he did and would the use of his work have resulted in a many different
Canadian manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between
the various manufacturers?

Having met Dr. Toole, sat in on some listening sessions, and read bits and
pieces of his writing, it is my opinion that he has contributed nothing whatever
_fundamental_ to the arts and sciences of sound reproduction.

His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is
accurate or realistic.

Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician
performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20
years at the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large
amount of his fundemental work has gone into use by a number of
Canadian Speaker manufacturers.

Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work
he did and would the use of his work have resulted in a many different
Canadian manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between
the various manufacturers?

Having met Dr. Toole, sat in on some listening sessions, and read bits and
pieces of his writing, it is my opinion that he has contributed nothing whatever
_fundamental_ to the arts and sciences of sound reproduction.

His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is
accurate or realistic.

Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician
performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20
years at the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large
amount of his fundemental work has gone into use by a number of
Canadian Speaker manufacturers.

Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work
he did and would the use of his work have resulted in a many different
Canadian manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between
the various manufacturers?

Having met Dr. Toole, sat in on some listening sessions, and read bits and
pieces of his writing, it is my opinion that he has contributed nothing whatever
_fundamental_ to the arts and sciences of sound reproduction.

His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is
accurate or realistic.

Dr. Floyd Toole, a renowned Canadian, physicist and phycho-acoustician
performed a great deal of experimentation and measurements over 20
years at the laboratories of the National Research Council. A large
amount of his fundemental work has gone into use by a number of
Canadian Speaker manufacturers.

Would the community of todays Audio Engineers agree with the work
he did and would the use of his work have resulted in a many different
Canadian manufactured speakers sounding similar in nature between
the various manufacturers?

Having met Dr. Toole, sat in on some listening sessions, and read bits and
pieces of his writing, it is my opinion that he has contributed nothing whatever
_fundamental_ to the arts and sciences of sound reproduction.

His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is
accurate or realistic.

In article , "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is
accurate or realistic.

Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here, isn't it
important that people like the results provided by the equipment, perhaps
even more important than accuracy or realism?


Regards,

John Byrns


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

In article , "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is
accurate or realistic.

Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here, isn't it
important that people like the results provided by the equipment, perhaps
even more important than accuracy or realism?


Regards,

John Byrns


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