On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:19:14 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:14:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Let's see I have insurance, a $300,000 house a wife 2 kids and enough
knowledge to know a **** speaker from a good one. I'd say I'm doing
better
than you.

Of course, all of this stuff could be a figment of your imagination.

Come back when you've got more details.

PS, I hope that your kids have your genes...

They must, they are both extremely bright.

Ohhh, so they *do* have the mailman's genes.

Cool.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:43:33 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:31:42 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


Why try reading some books on speaker design.


Exactly!

Go ahead I'll give you a chance to catch up. Take a couple years if you
need to. Take 5 or 10.

Ummmm, read again what you wrote.

Then ask again why anyone should try reading some books on speaker
design.

s******

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:43:33 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:31:42 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


Why try reading some books on speaker design.


Exactly!

Go ahead I'll give you a chance to catch up. Take a couple years if you
need to. Take 5 or 10.

Ummmm, read again what you wrote.

Then ask again why anyone should try reading some books on speaker
design.

Sometimes the fingers don't seem to get everything the brain tells them. Of
course it should have read WHY NOT TRY READING SOME BOOKS ON SPEAKER DESIGN.

Gotta learn to proofread. So sue me.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:15:56 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:31:42 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:17:08 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you actually stupid? If
you
know
what your looking at when you read the T/S parameters you can tell
if
a
given driver is going produce more or less distortion than another.
As
has
been covered before Scan Speak drivers for example are much lower
distortion
drivers than almost any on the market. It's why I chose them for
my
speakers.

I see. There's no synergy between the cabinet, the drivers and the
room (or room position).

Of course there is but if you start with an inferior driver you still
get
inferior sound.

You haven't proved that these are "inferior drivers".

I can't explain something that don't understand.

You also haven't proved that a higher xmax automatically means "better
driver". In fact, it's funny that the highest xmax bass driver that's
been shown on this newsgroup is for a car speaker. s******

Why does that evoke a s******? Some of the drivers made for the car
audio
market are very good. JL Audio is among them. Any driver made for a
home
high fi speaker can be used in a car.

You also haven't proved that a more expensive speaker means "better
speaker" (how's *that* for a classic turnaround from the usual
"expensive hi-fi is bad" quarter?)

Nor have I claimed that as an absolute.

In fact, you haven't shown much of *anything*. Except that you're
willing to let your grudges determine how much "science" you're
willing to use.

Get some knowledge on speaker design and what the T/S parameters are and
how
they inter-relate and then I won't Have to prove it to you, you'll have
done
it yourself.

IOW, you can't defend your position.

Cool.

It's never been my position. Drivers with a higher Xmax likely will be able
to play with less distortion and be able to move more air. There are other
factors that make a driver sound good or bad. I've never said otherwise.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 02:49:00 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:15:56 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:31:42 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:17:08 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you actually stupid? If
you
know
what your looking at when you read the T/S parameters you can tell
if
a
given driver is going produce more or less distortion than another.
As
has
been covered before Scan Speak drivers for example are much lower
distortion
drivers than almost any on the market. It's why I chose them for
my
speakers.

I see. There's no synergy between the cabinet, the drivers and the
room (or room position).

Of course there is but if you start with an inferior driver you still
get
inferior sound.

You haven't proved that these are "inferior drivers".

I can't explain something that don't understand.

You also haven't proved that a higher xmax automatically means "better
driver". In fact, it's funny that the highest xmax bass driver that's
been shown on this newsgroup is for a car speaker. s******

Why does that evoke a s******? Some of the drivers made for the car
audio
market are very good. JL Audio is among them. Any driver made for a
home
high fi speaker can be used in a car.

You also haven't proved that a more expensive speaker means "better
speaker" (how's *that* for a classic turnaround from the usual
"expensive hi-fi is bad" quarter?)

Nor have I claimed that as an absolute.

In fact, you haven't shown much of *anything*. Except that you're
willing to let your grudges determine how much "science" you're
willing to use.

Get some knowledge on speaker design and what the T/S parameters are and
how
they inter-relate and then I won't Have to prove it to you, you'll have
done
it yourself.

IOW, you can't defend your position.

Cool.

It's never been my position. Drivers with a higher Xmax likely will be able
to play with less distortion and be able to move more air. There are other
factors that make a driver sound good or bad. I've never said otherwise.

So what are these myriad other factors that make the Silver Flutes
poor speakers?

Also, prove that at 50 hz, the ability to move "more air" is critical
to the sound olf a speaker. Or, stating it another way, prove that the
xmax of that particular driver will "cause" the sort of distortion to
make it sound "mediocre".

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 02:45:06 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:43:33 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:31:42 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


Why try reading some books on speaker design.


Exactly!

Go ahead I'll give you a chance to catch up. Take a couple years if
you
need to. Take 5 or 10.

Ummmm, read again what you wrote.

Then ask again why anyone should try reading some books on speaker
design.

Sometimes the fingers don't seem to get everything the brain tells them.
Of
course it should have read WHY NOT TRY READING SOME BOOKS ON SPEAKER
DESIGN.

Gotta learn to proofread. So sue me.

You know, this happens in almost *all* of your posts. hence, when you
say stupid things about your sons being smart because of your genes,
we all guffaw.

One's ability to type well is not the sole determining factor in one's
intelligence level.

What's funny is when you castigate someone for responding to what you
actually wrote. Maybe you should "proofread" your brain as well.

Maybe if you weren't so small minded and actually had a life my typos and
apparent dyslexia with the keyboard would be overlooked. Most people here
make errors when they type, even you. Most others don't feel the need to
point it out every time.

Oddly enough in one-on-one conversations with real people in real life, I
don't have any trouble being understood.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:07:44 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

You know, this happens in almost *all* of your posts. hence, when you
say stupid things about your sons being smart because of your genes,
we all guffaw.

One's ability to type well is not the sole determining factor in one's
intelligence level.

But the ability to put thoughts together are. And you fail often
enough to make it an issue.

What's funny is when you castigate someone for responding to what you
actually wrote. Maybe you should "proofread" your brain as well.

Maybe if you weren't so small minded and actually had a life my typos and
apparent dyslexia with the keyboard would be overlooked. Most people here
make errors when they type, even you. Most others don't feel the need to
point it out every time.

It's a matter of frequency. At some point, you have to stop using it
as an excuse.

Oddly enough in one-on-one conversations with real people in real life, I
don't have any trouble being understood.

OSAF.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:08:24 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

snip

Also, prove that at 50 hz, the ability to move "more air" is critical
to the sound olf a speaker. Or, stating it another way, prove that the
xmax of that particular driver will "cause" the sort of distortion to
make it sound "mediocre".

Should I assume that you're lack of a response means that I'm right
and you're wrong. Or did you just send this early without putting in
your answer?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you actually
meant to reply. I'll be waiting...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 02:49:00 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:15:56 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:31:42 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:17:08 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you actually stupid?
If
you
know
what your looking at when you read the T/S parameters you can
tell
if
a
given driver is going produce more or less distortion than
another.
As
has
been covered before Scan Speak drivers for example are much
lower
distortion
drivers than almost any on the market. It's why I chose them
for
my
speakers.

I see. There's no synergy between the cabinet, the drivers and
the
room (or room position).

Of course there is but if you start with an inferior driver you
still
get
inferior sound.

You haven't proved that these are "inferior drivers".

I can't explain something that don't understand.

You also haven't proved that a higher xmax automatically means
"better
driver". In fact, it's funny that the highest xmax bass driver
that's
been shown on this newsgroup is for a car speaker. s******

Why does that evoke a s******? Some of the drivers made for the car
audio
market are very good. JL Audio is among them. Any driver made for a
home
high fi speaker can be used in a car.

You also haven't proved that a more expensive speaker means "better
speaker" (how's *that* for a classic turnaround from the usual
"expensive hi-fi is bad" quarter?)

Nor have I claimed that as an absolute.

In fact, you haven't shown much of *anything*. Except that you're
willing to let your grudges determine how much "science" you're
willing to use.

Get some knowledge on speaker design and what the T/S parameters are
and
how
they inter-relate and then I won't Have to prove it to you, you'll
have
done
it yourself.

IOW, you can't defend your position.

Cool.

It's never been my position. Drivers with a higher Xmax likely will be
able
to play with less distortion and be able to move more air. There are
other
factors that make a driver sound good or bad. I've never said otherwise.

So what are these myriad other factors that make the Silver Flutes
poor speakers?


Get a book and do your own research. This is tiresome and I feel no
obligation to educate someone who has made it their goal attack every word I
write and hasn't the simple courtesy to **** up a perfectly respectable
memorial to the great Johnny Cash, simply because I was the one who
initiated it.

Also, prove that at 50 hz, the ability to move "more air" is critical
to the sound olf a speaker. Or, stating it another way, prove that the
xmax of that particular driver will "cause" the sort of distortion to
make it sound "mediocre".

Why do keep asking me to prove things I never said?

Answer this question: Why do some designs have muliple drivers covering the
same frequency range?

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:19:01 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


Get a book and do your own research. This is tiresome and I feel no
obligation to educate someone who has made it their goal attack every word I
write and hasn't the simple courtesy to **** up a perfectly respectable
memorial to the great Johnny Cash, simply because I was the one who
initiated it.

Quit yer whining.

You attack virtually everything that Trotsky writes as well, so
apparetnly, this behavior isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to
be.

Also, prove that at 50 hz, the ability to move "more air" is critical
to the sound olf a speaker. Or, stating it another way, prove that the
xmax of that particular driver will "cause" the sort of distortion to
make it sound "mediocre".

Why do keep asking me to prove things I never said?

Answer this question: Why do some designs have muliple drivers covering the
same frequency range?

I see. You're not willing to back up your statements.

Fair enough.

You keep talking about moving more air, as a benefit of xmax. If you
don't think that moving more air isn't a factor in the quality of a
speaker that's not designed for deep bass, why initiate that line of
reasoning in the first place?

This is just one example of how you make statements and then backtrack
when called on them.

*You're* supposed to be the speaker expert, right?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:19:01 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


Get a book and do your own research. This is tiresome and I feel no
obligation to educate someone who has made it their goal attack every
word I
write and hasn't the simple courtesy to **** up a perfectly respectable
memorial to the great Johnny Cash, simply because I was the one who
initiated it.

Quit yer whining.

You attack virtually everything that Trotsky writes as well, so
apparetnly, this behavior isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to
be.

When Trots first made his appearance here and before he made a rep as a
complete ass, I tried to have a civil discussion with him. Naturally it
failed. He like you finds a reason to denigrate people over trivial things.
He's also shown himself to lack integrity by welching on a bet he made under
conditions he agreed to.

I just had a discussion where I did not attack him on anything and still the
nasty comments and insults from him.
If you or he want courtesy from me, you'll need to earn it.

Also, prove that at 50 hz, the ability to move "more air" is critical
to the sound olf a speaker. Or, stating it another way, prove that the
xmax of that particular driver will "cause" the sort of distortion to
make it sound "mediocre".

Why do keep asking me to prove things I never said?

Answer this question: Why do some designs have muliple drivers covering
the
same frequency range?

I see. You're not willing to back up your statements.

Fair enough.

You keep talking about moving more air, as a benefit of xmax. If you
don't think that moving more air isn't a factor in the quality of a
speaker that's not designed for deep bass, why initiate that line of
reasoning in the first place?

Once again you're asking me to defend a position I never took.

This is just one example of how you make statements and then backtrack
when called on them.

I'm not back tracking, I'm simply tired of having an argument over
everything I say. I challenged you to do your own research and find out for
yourself. Since everything I write you find fault with, I refuse to discuss
it with you. Do some research and I won't have to explain it to you and you
won't need to argue with me about it.

*You're* supposed to be the speaker expert, right?

Not in the same league as guys like D'Appolito, Kantor, Pierce, or some
other well known names but enough to know what some of the important facts
are.

Maybe you could try over on RAHE or RAP and someone will have the patience
to discuss this stuff with you.

Dave Weil wrote:


On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:14:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Let's see I have insurance, a $300,000 house a wife 2 kids and enough
knowledge to know a **** speaker from a good one. I'd say I'm doing better
than you.

Of course, all of this stuff could be a figment of your imagination.

Come back when you've got more details.

PS, I hope that your kids have your genes...







I was watching this show called Crank Yankers on the Comedy Channel. I was
really surprised to see on of the puppets there who looked and sounded just
like Mikey. He calls himself "Special Ed" and likes to say things like "Do you
like Jello ----------- Yeaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!, Do you like Jello ---------
Yeaaaaaaaa !!!, Do you like Jelllo ------------- Yeaaaaaa !!!", etc.


So now we know what Mikey's "real" job is.





Bruce J. Richman

Dr. Richman said:

I was watching this show called Crank Yankers on the Comedy Channel. I was
really surprised to see on of the puppets there who looked and sounded just
like Mikey. He calls himself "Special Ed" and likes to say things like "Do
you
like Jello ----------- Yeaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!, Do you like Jello ---------
Yeaaaaaaaa !!!, Do you like Jelllo ------------- Yeaaaaaa !!!", etc.

"Knock knock."

"Who's there?"

"Yay! I got ya! Yaaaay!"

Boon

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:07:44 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

You know, this happens in almost *all* of your posts. hence, when you
say stupid things about your sons being smart because of your genes,
we all guffaw.

One's ability to type well is not the sole determining factor in one's
intelligence level.

But the ability to put thoughts together are. And you fail often
enough to make it an issue.

What's funny is when you castigate someone for responding to what you
actually wrote. Maybe you should "proofread" your brain as well.

Maybe if you weren't so small minded and actually had a life my typos and
apparent dyslexia with the keyboard would be overlooked. Most people
here
make errors when they type, even you. Most others don't feel the need to
point it out every time.

It's a matter of frequency. At some point, you have to stop using it
as an excuse.

And what's your excuse for being a contentious *******?

Oddly enough in one-on-one conversations with real people in real life, I
don't have any trouble being understood.

OSAF.

No, just a fact. None of the people I engage in conversation with are shy
about pointing out such things, plus I never misspell anything I say. :-)

Mr. Phillips wrote:


Dr. Richman said:

I was watching this show called Crank Yankers on the Comedy Channel. I was
really surprised to see on of the puppets there who looked and sounded just
like Mikey. He calls himself "Special Ed" and likes to say things like "Do
you
like Jello ----------- Yeaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!, Do you like Jello ---------
Yeaaaaaaaa !!!, Do you like Jelllo ------------- Yeaaaaaa !!!", etc.

"Knock knock."

"Who's there?"

"Yay! I got ya! Yaaaay!"

Boon









LOL!

So you've seen Mikey there, too?



Bruce J. Richman

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:19:14 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:14:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Let's see I have insurance, a $300,000 house a wife 2 kids and enough
knowledge to know a **** speaker from a good one. I'd say I'm doing
better
than you.

Of course, all of this stuff could be a figment of your imagination.

Come back when you've got more details.

PS, I hope that your kids have your genes...

They must, they are both extremely bright.

Ohhh, so they *do* have the mailman's genes.

Cool.

And that's why our conversations are over.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Dave Weil wrote:


On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:14:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Let's see I have insurance, a $300,000 house a wife 2 kids and enough
knowledge to know a **** speaker from a good one. I'd say I'm doing
better
than you.

Of course, all of this stuff could be a figment of your imagination.

Come back when you've got more details.

PS, I hope that your kids have your genes...







I was watching this show called Crank Yankers on the Comedy Channel. I
was
really surprised to see on of the puppets there who looked and sounded
just
like Mikey.

And how exactly would you know what I look or sound like Bean Counter?

He calls himself "Special Ed" and likes to say things like "Do you
like Jello ----------- Yeaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!, Do you like Jello ---------
Yeaaaaaaaa !!!, Do you like Jelllo ------------- Yeaaaaaa !!!", etc.


So now we know what Mikey's "real" job is.

What's yours Quackenbush?



Bruce J. Richman

In article ,
(Marc Phillips) wrote:

Dr. Richman said:



Mr. Phillips wrote:


Dr. Richman said:

I was watching this show called Crank Yankers on the Comedy Channel. I
was
really surprised to see on of the puppets there who looked and sounded
just
like Mikey. He calls himself "Special Ed" and likes to say things like
"Do
you
like Jello ----------- Yeaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!, Do you like Jello ---------
Yeaaaaaaaa !!!, Do you like Jelllo ------------- Yeaaaaaa !!!", etc.

"Knock knock."

"Who's there?"

"Yay! I got ya! Yaaaay!"

Boon









LOL!

So you've seen Mikey there, too?

You know, I was thinking about how Arny goes on a week's vacation every year,
and as soon as he comes back, he feels compelled to note that the flame wars
on RAO continued on unfettered without him, therefore "proving" that it is
not he who is mucking up the place.

At the same time, whenever he's gone, at least a couple of people on Arny's
side turn up the noise and act unusually dumb for the same period. This year,
we have Bob Morien and Milke McKelvy playing the role of ridiculous pariahs.
Is this a little too coordinated, or what?

Don't forget the Montgolfier brothers.

And what the **** does Arny need a vacation from, anyway?

He's roadieing for the Austin City Limits fest in exchange for board
tapes.

Stephen

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:19:01 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


Get a book and do your own research. This is tiresome and I feel no
obligation to educate someone who has made it their goal attack every

word I

write and hasn't the simple courtesy to **** up a perfectly respectable
memorial to the great Johnny Cash, simply because I was the one who
initiated it.

Quit yer whining.

You attack virtually everything that Trotsky writes as well, so
apparetnly, this behavior isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to
be.


When Trots first made his appearance here and before he made a rep as a
complete ass, I tried to have a civil discussion with him. Naturally it
failed. He like you finds a reason to denigrate people over trivial
things.
He's also shown himself to lack integrity by welching on a bet he made
under
conditions he agreed to.

I just had a discussion where I did not attack him on anything and
still the
nasty comments and insults from him.


That's pretty much just a bunch of bull****, Mickey. You said my
speakers were crap, and then later contradicted yourself and said you'd
'recommend them to people.' When I asked you why you'd change your tune
like this, you were unable to answer. At some point you've been
lying--can you explain which one's the lie?

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:07:44 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


You know, this happens in almost *all* of your posts. hence, when you
say stupid things about your sons being smart because of your genes,
we all guffaw.


One's ability to type well is not the sole determining factor in one's
intelligence level.

But the ability to put thoughts together are. And you fail often
enough to make it an issue.


What's funny is when you castigate someone for responding to what you
actually wrote. Maybe you should "proofread" your brain as well.


Maybe if you weren't so small minded and actually had a life my
typos and
apparent dyslexia with the keyboard would be overlooked. Most people

here

make errors when they type, even you. Most others don't feel the
need to
point it out every time.

It's a matter of frequency. At some point, you have to stop using it
as an excuse.


And what's your excuse for being a contentious *******?


Oddly enough in one-on-one conversations with real people in real
life, I
don't have any trouble being understood.

OSAF.


No, just a fact. None of the people I engage in conversation with are shy
about pointing out such things, plus I never misspell anything I say.


Do you ever say anthing you misspell?

Marc Phillips wrote:

Dr. Richman said:




Mr. Phillips wrote:



Dr. Richman said:


I was watching this show called Crank Yankers on the Comedy
Channel. I was
really surprised to see on of the puppets there who looked and
sounded just
like Mikey. He calls himself "Special Ed" and likes to say things
like "Do
you
like Jello ----------- Yeaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!, Do you like Jello
---------
Yeaaaaaaaa !!!, Do you like Jelllo ------------- Yeaaaaaa !!!", etc.

"Knock knock."

"Who's there?"

"Yay! I got ya! Yaaaay!"

Boon









LOL!

So you've seen Mikey there, too?


You know, I was thinking about how Arny goes on a week's vacation
every year,
and as soon as he comes back, he feels compelled to note that the
flame wars on
RAO continued on unfettered without him, therefore "proving" that it
is not he
who is mucking up the place.

At the same time, whenever he's gone, at least a couple of people on
Arny's
side turn up the noise and act unusually dumb for the same period.
This year,
we have Bob Morien and Milke McKelvy playing the role of ridiculous
pariahs.
Is this a little too coordinated, or what?

And what the **** does Arny need a vacation from, anyway?



Too much NAMBLing?

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:51:53 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:19:01 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


Get a book and do your own research. This is tiresome and I feel no
obligation to educate someone who has made it their goal attack every
word I
write and hasn't the simple courtesy to **** up a perfectly respectable
memorial to the great Johnny Cash, simply because I was the one who
initiated it.

Quit yer whining.

You attack virtually everything that Trotsky writes as well, so
apparetnly, this behavior isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to
be.

When Trots first made his appearance here and before he made a rep as a
complete ass, I tried to have a civil discussion with him. Naturally it
failed. He like you finds a reason to denigrate people over trivial things.
He's also shown himself to lack integrity by welching on a bet he made under
conditions he agreed to.

I just had a discussion where I did not attack him on anything and still the
nasty comments and insults from him.
If you or he want courtesy from me, you'll need to earn it.

Funny. I feel the same way about you.

Also, prove that at 50 hz, the ability to move "more air" is critical
to the sound olf a speaker. Or, stating it another way, prove that the
xmax of that particular driver will "cause" the sort of distortion to
make it sound "mediocre".

Why do keep asking me to prove things I never said?

Answer this question: Why do some designs have muliple drivers covering
the
same frequency range?

I see. You're not willing to back up your statements.

Fair enough.

You keep talking about moving more air, as a benefit of xmax. If you
don't think that moving more air isn't a factor in the quality of a
speaker that's not designed for deep bass, why initiate that line of
reasoning in the first place?

Once again you're asking me to defend a position I never took.

Why in heaven's name did you use xmax (the *only* spec that I think
you've even mentioned IIRC) as some sort of reason for calling
Trotsky's speakers "mediocre". If you want to talk the talk, you've
got to walk the walk.

This is just one example of how you make statements and then backtrack
when called on them.

I'm not back tracking, I'm simply tired of having an argument over
everything I say. I challenged you to do your own research and find out for
yourself. Since everything I write you find fault with, I refuse to discuss
it with you. Do some research and I won't have to explain it to you and you
won't need to argue with me about it.

The only things you have mentioned have been xmax (which you now seem
to have retracted) and price.

*You're* supposed to be the speaker expert, right?

Not in the same league as guys like D'Appolito, Kantor, Pierce, or some
other well known names but enough to know what some of the important facts
are.

Maybe you might mention them then.

Maybe you could try over on RAHE or RAP and someone will have the patience
to discuss this stuff with you.

In other words, you can't support your position.

Cool.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:24:14 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:14:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Nice career choice, your parents must be so proud.

I agree. They are probably looking down on me right now, feeling
nothing but pride.

Right, I'm sure when you were born they thought someday he'll grow and be
a
waiter.

Well, your parents probably didn't think that their kid would grow up
to be an asshole either. I can change my career, but can you stip
being an asshole. Probably not.

No I can't stip (sic).

(apologies to Winston Churchill)

Of course, we don't even know *what* you do, so I have no idea whether
your parents would be proud of you or not.

We know that at least waiting tables is an honorable profession.

That requires no special skill.

And your profession does?

You'll have to keep wondering won't you?

Gee, I thought our conversation was over.

You can't even get *that* right.

"trotsky" wrote in message
k.net...
Michael Mckelvy wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:19:01 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


Get a book and do your own research. This is tiresome and I feel no
obligation to educate someone who has made it their goal attack every

word I

write and hasn't the simple courtesy to **** up a perfectly
respectable
memorial to the great Johnny Cash, simply because I was the one who
initiated it.

Quit yer whining.

You attack virtually everything that Trotsky writes as well, so
apparetnly, this behavior isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to
be.


When Trots first made his appearance here and before he made a rep as a
complete ass, I tried to have a civil discussion with him. Naturally it
failed. He like you finds a reason to denigrate people over trivial
things.
He's also shown himself to lack integrity by welching on a bet he made
under
conditions he agreed to.

I just had a discussion where I did not attack him on anything and
still the
nasty comments and insults from him.


That's pretty much just a bunch of bull****, Mickey. You said my
speakers were crap, and then later contradicted yourself and said you'd
'recommend them to people.'

I didn't say I'd recomend them to people, I said I'd mention them.

When I asked you why you'd change your tune
like this, you were unable to answer. At some point you've been
lying--can you explain which one's the lie?

It's simple, as always you don't understand English. No matter how bad I
spell or type you can't have me say something I didn't say.

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
k.net...

Michael Mckelvy wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..


On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:19:01 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:



Get a book and do your own research. This is tiresome and I feel no
obligation to educate someone who has made it their goal attack every

word I


write and hasn't the simple courtesy to **** up a perfectly

respectable

memorial to the great Johnny Cash, simply because I was the one who
initiated it.

Quit yer whining.

You attack virtually everything that Trotsky writes as well, so
apparetnly, this behavior isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to
be.


When Trots first made his appearance here and before he made a rep as a
complete ass, I tried to have a civil discussion with him. Naturally it
failed. He like you finds a reason to denigrate people over trivial
things.
He's also shown himself to lack integrity by welching on a bet he made
under
conditions he agreed to.

I just had a discussion where I did not attack him on anything and
still the
nasty comments and insults from him.


That's pretty much just a bunch of bull****, Mickey. You said my
speakers were crap, and then later contradicted yourself and said you'd
'recommend them to people.'


I didn't say I'd recomend them to people, I said I'd mention them.



Why would you even mention them if you feel the driver quality is
inferior? Regardless of which word you use, the probablility of your
lying here is running right around 100%.



When I asked you why you'd change your tune

like this, you were unable to answer. At some point you've been
lying--can you explain which one's the lie?


It's simple, as always you don't understand English. No matter how bad I
spell or type you can't have me say something I didn't say.



See above, and try to come up with a better excuse, please.

"trotsky" wrote in message
k.net...
Michael Mckelvy wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
k.net...

Michael Mckelvy wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..


On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:19:01 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:



Get a book and do your own research. This is tiresome and I feel no
obligation to educate someone who has made it their goal attack
every

word I


write and hasn't the simple courtesy to **** up a perfectly

respectable

memorial to the great Johnny Cash, simply because I was the one who
initiated it.

Quit yer whining.

You attack virtually everything that Trotsky writes as well, so
apparetnly, this behavior isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to
be.


When Trots first made his appearance here and before he made a rep as
a
complete ass, I tried to have a civil discussion with him. Naturally
it
failed. He like you finds a reason to denigrate people over trivial
things.
He's also shown himself to lack integrity by welching on a bet he made
under
conditions he agreed to.

I just had a discussion where I did not attack him on anything and
still the
nasty comments and insults from him.


That's pretty much just a bunch of bull****, Mickey. You said my
speakers were crap, and then later contradicted yourself and said you'd
'recommend them to people.'


I didn't say I'd recomend them to people, I said I'd mention them.



Why would you even mention them if you feel the driver quality is
inferior?

Because not everybodyhears the same as i do, nor do they have the same
requirements for space and appearance as I do. I know many people who never
listen at live levels or who might need something thatwould be suitable for
a smallish room. In such case your speakers might fit their needs. Because
the customer is given a chance to hear them in their own room and decide for
themselves it's a no lose situation for them, plus there's the oppurtunity
for me to hear them and make an even more informed judgement.

Regardless of which word you use, the probablility of your
lying here is running right around 100%.

The probablility of you lying is always 100%. I did no such thing.

When I asked you why you'd change your tune

like this, you were unable to answer. At some point you've been
lying--can you explain which one's the lie?


It's simple, as always you don't understand English. No matter how bad
I
spell or type you can't have me say something I didn't say.



See above, and try to come up with a better excuse, please.

Please go **** yourself until you learn what the differnce betwen a mention
and a recomendation is.

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
k.net...


Why would you even mention them if you feel the driver quality is
inferior?


Because not everybodyhears the same as i do, nor do they have the same
requirements for space and appearance as I do. I know many people who
never
listen at live levels or who might need something thatwould be
suitable for
a smallish room. In such case your speakers might fit their needs.
Because
the customer is given a chance to hear them in their own room and
decide for
themselves it's a no lose situation for them, plus there's the oppurtunity
for me to hear them and make an even more informed judgement.

Regardless of which word you use, the probablility of your

lying here is running right around 100%.


The probablility of you lying is always 100%. I did no such thing.

When I asked you why you'd change your tune


like this, you were unable to answer. At some point you've been
lying--can you explain which one's the lie?


It's simple, as always you don't understand English. No matter how bad

I

spell or type you can't have me say something I didn't say.



See above, and try to come up with a better excuse, please.


Please go **** yourself until you learn what the differnce betwen a
mention
and a recomendation is.



Please do the same since you refuse to admit that you are lying. You
have said in your exchange with weil--today, no less--that you think
they are a bad value even though you haven't heard them. You were
begging me to get into a discussion about speakers, and had to LIE to do it.

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
nk.net...

Michael Mckelvy wrote:


"trotsky" wrote in message
ink.net...



Why would you even mention them if you feel the driver quality is
inferior?


Because not everybodyhears the same as I do, nor do they have the same
requirements for space and appearance as I do. I know many people who
never
listen at live levels or who might need something that would be
suitable for
a smallish room. In such case your speakers might fit their needs.
Because
the customer is given a chance to hear them in their own room and
decide for
themselves it's a no lose situation for them, plus there's the

oppurtunity

for me to hear them and make an even more informed judgement.

Regardless of which word you use, the probablility of your


lying here is running right around 100%.


The probablility of you lying is always 100%. I did no such thing.


When I asked you why you'd change your tune



like this, you were unable to answer. At some point you've been
lying--can you explain which one's the lie?


It's simple, as always you don't understand English. No matter how

bad

I


spell or type you can't have me say something I didn't say.



See above, and try to come up with a better excuse, please.


Please go **** yourself until you learn what the differnce betwen a
mention
and a recomendation is.



Please do the same since you refuse to admit that you are lying.


I can't admit to something that didn't happen.



No, you definitely lied.



You

have said in your exchange with weil--today, no less--that you think
they are a bad value even though you haven't heard them.


And I gave the reasons why.



To whom? Not to me. You were being two faced, Mickey, which I
summarized by saying you were lying.



You were

begging me to get into a discussion about speakers,


I never begged you to do anything. I started a thread to get some tech
info.
As usual you had precious little to offer.


The numbers don't mean much to me, Mickey. Nobody with a brain thinks
you can tell what I speaker sounds like from the specs. I designed and
built the speaker, discovered that it was more tonally accurate than 95%
of the other speakers that I've heard on the market, and decided that
was a pretty good reason for being.



and had to LIE to do it.

I stated clearly that I thought they were inferior drivers based on their
specs.



Every DIY guy that has used Silver Flutes have described them as
incredibly accurate for the price point. You're lying again because
you're jealous. Just stop lying.



Not that they sounded bad per se, but that they would likely have trouble
playing at live levels without audible distortion.


Describe "live levels". Then describe the percentage of people that
listen at these SPLs



For backround music they may be fine, they still are not in the same
league
as the kind of drivers I would choose and they are IMO grossly overpriced.
A quick look at the DIY market should show anybody willing to look that
there are better quality speakers for far less money.



That's why you're not good with speakers. There's far more to it than
the raw materials.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:50:56 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 14:45:25 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 11:47:45 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Given some of Greg's previous statements, it seems that he has a
presonal
bias in favor of a certain type of distrtion that he considers
"musical.''

I would imagine that this could be applied to virtually *any*
speaker
manufacturer.

I hope not. The idea is no audible distorion.

Shw me a speaker with *no* audible distortion.

I'd like to note how bad the apparent educational level of Mr.
McKelvy
is. Very poor typing skills indeed.

You may think so, however I know enough to use high quality drivers
when
building sp[eker systems.

Irony alert!

This would explain his disdain for very accurate drivers of well
braced
cabinets.

I think it explains *any* speaker manufacturer's output, even yours.

I think most manufacturers (the good ones anyway) do extensive
measurements
to try and obtain a speaker that performs with very flat FR no audible
cabinet vibrations. I don't believe there could very many out there
striving for cabinet audiblility.

Every speaker manufacturer is looking for a "sound", even it's a
claimed "no distortion" sound, because they know, AS DO YOU, that a
distortionless speaker DOES NOT EXIST.

That doesn't mean there aren't some speakers that come closer to it than
others.

Greg's would be rather farther from that goal than closer.

Which is a statement that you claim shouldn't be made, since you
haven't listened to them.

If you had 1,000 monkeys who don't know and don't care about loudspeaker
technology assembling speakers, would the results be any better or any worse
than one human who doesn't know and doesn't care about loudspeaker
technology?