exterior doors, acoustics ?

[Robert Morein]

Considering placing stereo speakers on a wall with an exterior door,
asymetrically placed.
The door is of dense construction, aluminum or steel over a composite core.
A double layer glass pane occupies 30% of the door area.
Wall is mahogany veneer.

Likely acoustic impact?

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> Considering placing stereo speakers on a wall with an exterior door,
> asymetrically placed.
> The door is of dense construction, aluminum or steel over a composite
core.
> A double layer glass pane occupies 30% of the door area.
> Wall is mahogany veneer.
>
> Likely acoustic impact?

Depends on the details. What speakers? What room dimensions? Where are
the speakers specifically placed? What room treatment is being used?
Scott Wheeler

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> Considering placing stereo speakers on a wall with an exterior door,
> asymmetrically placed.

> The door is of dense construction, aluminum or steel over a composite
> core. A double layer glass pane occupies 30% of the door area.
> Wall is mahogany veneer.

> Likely acoustic impact?

That door is petty much a broadband reflector. Of course, its apparently
behind the speaker. If the rest of the wall is plastered, you've got a
reflector with some diffusive edges wrapped around it, in a wall that is
also mostly a reflector. IOW, the door is probably a small influence
compared to the wall.

I'm trying to remember what speakers you are likely to use here, and how
their radiation pattern is.

[Ethan Winer]

Arny,

> I'm trying to remember what speakers you are likely to use here, and how
their radiation pattern is. <

Pardon me for hijacking the thread, but this reminds me of something I've
been trying to find for a while. I have searched the 'net high and low for
loudspeaker polar plots. Nobody seems to publish them! Maybe because they're
all so terrible? :->) The only two I've found are 1) for a huge PA horn, and
2) an estimate for a "typical" speaker shown as a crude drawing in a text
book.

Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for typical
bookshelf style speakers?

--Ethan

[audio_origami]

hi guys
it never ceases to amaze me how much the sound changes in different rooms in
my house

ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and out can
help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound better!! #
and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the furniture and
need a cup of tea..heheh

ive found getting the wife and her friend round ...to hold the speakers
while you test the sound works well:)

hope it all goes well
j7
www.audioorigami.co.uk
The home of tonearm repairs

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > Considering placing stereo speakers on a wall with an exterior door,
> > asymmetrically placed.
>
> > The door is of dense construction, aluminum or steel over a composite
> > core. A double layer glass pane occupies 30% of the door area.
> > Wall is mahogany veneer.
>
> > Likely acoustic impact?
>
> That door is petty much a broadband reflector. Of course, its apparently
> behind the speaker. If the rest of the wall is plastered, you've got a
> reflector with some diffusive edges wrapped around it, in a wall that is
> also mostly a reflector. IOW, the door is probably a small influence
> compared to the wall.
>
> I'm trying to remember what speakers you are likely to use here, and how
> their radiation pattern is.
>
Unipolar, front radiator, moderate directionality.
My impression is that the door is actually denser than the wall.
The glass is very rigid as well.
My guess is that the door is less of a problem than a typical hollow-core
interior door, which is light, flexible, and vents between the door and the
floor.

[Michael Conzo]

In article , "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com> wrote:

> Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for typical
> bookshelf style speakers?

Except for professional-type speakers, where this information is necessary
for system design, NO ONE publishes this information. It isn't particularly
useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer this information has little
to do with the perceived performance of a loudspeaker.

It's people like you searching for "good looking" polar plots that prove
this point is correct.

[Michael Conzo]

In article , "audio_origami"
> wrote:

> ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and out can
> help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound better!! #
> and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the furniture and
> need a cup of tea..heheh

This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated professionals
understand the foolishness behind "high-end" electronics, cables, green
magic markers, etc. The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS
the room. That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely on
measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average" rooms.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Michael Conzo (or whomever he's masquerading for) sneers:

>In article , "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at
>ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
>
>> Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for typical
>> bookshelf style speakers?
>
>Except for professional-type speakers, where this information is necessary
>for system design, NO ONE publishes this information. It isn't particularly
>useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer this information has little
>to do with the perceived performance of a loudspeaker.
>
>It's people like you searching for "good looking" polar plots that prove
>this point is correct.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hmmmmmmmm. Two posts out of the blue from a "new" (probably just a torresists
variant) poster, and two insult filled idotic false claims. And this is the
new RAO flamer who pretends to know about people skills? If anybody believes,
that "Mike" will be glad to see you a brand new Edsel, that runs on fertilizer
grown in his back yard.



Bruce J. Richman

[[email protected]]

Michael Conzo wrote:
> In article , "audio_origami"
> > wrote:
>
> > ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and
out can
> > help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound
better!! #
> > and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the
furniture and
> > need a cup of tea..heheh
>
> This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated
professionals
> understand the foolishness behind "high-end" electronics, cables,
green
> magic markers, etc.

You paint high end with a rather broad and biased brush.



The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS
> the room.

No it's the system as a whole which includes the room. Crap system in a
good room is just more obviously crap.


That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely on
> measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average"
rooms.

Actually the most "successful" manufacturers rely on hype and
marketing. They don't make very good speakers by and large. OTOH there
is nothing wrong with designing speakers to work optimally in "average"
rooms. It is a sensible concept for making a product for the
non-enthusiast. It is not sensible for manufacturers that are attacking
the state of the art. It is a safe assumption that hard core
enthusiasts who persue SOTA and have the money to spend on it will use
dedicated listening rooms that can be tailored to SOTA speakers that
are designed with no comprimises mandated by "average rooms."
Scott Wheeler

[Bruce J. Richman]

Scott Wheeler wrote:


>Michael Conzo wrote:
>> In article , "audio_origami"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and
>out can
>> > help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound
>better!! #
>> > and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the
>furniture and
>> > need a cup of tea..heheh
>>
>> This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated
>professionals
>> understand the foolishness behind "high-end" electronics, cables,
>green
>> magic markers, etc.
>
>You paint high end with a rather broad and biased brush.
>
>
>
>The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS
>> the room.
>
>No it's the system as a whole which includes the room. Crap system in a
>good room is just more obviously crap.
>
>
>That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely on
>> measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average"
>rooms.
>
>Actually the most "successful" manufacturers rely on hype and
>marketing. They don't make very good speakers by and large. OTOH there
>is nothing wrong with designing speakers to work optimally in "average"
>rooms. It is a sensible concept for making a product for the
>non-enthusiast. It is not sensible for manufacturers that are attacking
>the state of the art. It is a safe assumption that hard core
>enthusiasts who persue SOTA and have the money to spend on it will use
>dedicated listening rooms that can be tailored to SOTA speakers that
>are designed with no comprimises mandated by "average rooms."
>Scott Wheeler
>
>
>
The previously unheard of and undocumented Mr. Conzo has made a fairly large
number of outrageous and unsubstantiated false claims about both people and
various other subjects since his brief appearance here. Apparently, he
specializes in making antagonistric comments about others with no evide4ence to
support them. His agenda is pretty obvious, as our his prejudices.


Bruce J. Richman

[Robert Morein]

"Michael Conzo" > wrote in message
...
> In article , "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at
> ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
>
> > Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for
typical
> > bookshelf style speakers?
>
> Except for professional-type speakers, where this information is necessary
> for system design, NO ONE publishes this information. It isn't
particularly
> useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer this information has
little
> to do with the perceived performance of a loudspeaker.
>
> It's people like you searching for "good looking" polar plots that prove
> this point is correct.


"Michael Conzo" is actually Brian L. McCarty, noted pest on
rec.audio.marketplace.
I suggest we not respond to him.

[Robert Morein]

"Michael Conzo" > wrote in message
...
> In article , "audio_origami"
> > wrote:
>
> > ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and out
can
> > help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound
better!! #
> > and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the furniture and
> > need a cup of tea..heheh
>
> This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated professionals
> understand the foolishness behind "high-end" electronics, cables, green
> magic markers, etc. The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS
> the room. That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely
on
> measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average" rooms.
>
"Michael Conzo" is actually Brian L. McCarty, noted pest on
rec.audio.marketplace.
I suggest we not respond to him.

[Robert Morein]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Conzo (or whomever he's masquerading for) sneers:
>
> >In article , "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at
> >ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
> >
> >> Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for
typical
> >> bookshelf style speakers?
> >
> >Except for professional-type speakers, where this information is
necessary
> >for system design, NO ONE publishes this information. It isn't
particularly
> >useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer this information has
little
> >to do with the perceived performance of a loudspeaker.
> >
> >It's people like you searching for "good looking" polar plots that prove
> >this point is correct.
> >
>
> Hmmmmmmmm. Two posts out of the blue from a "new" (probably just a
torresists
> variant) poster, and two insult filled idotic false claims. And this is
the
> new RAO flamer who pretends to know about people skills? If anybody
believes,
> that "Mike" will be glad to see you a brand new Edsel, that runs on
fertilizer
> grown in his back yard.
>
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>
Bruce, it's Brian L. McCarty.

[Lionel]

Robert Morein a écrit :

> "Michael Conzo" is actually Brian L. McCarty, noted pest on
> rec.audio.marketplace.
> I suggest we not respond to him.

****, this was the first time I read something interesting from him !!!!

;-)

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Michael Conzo wrote:
>> In article , "audio_origami"
>> > wrote:

>>> ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and
>>> out can help get the balance just right....although some rooms just
>>> sound better!! # and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved
>>> all the furniture and need a cup of tea..heheh

>> This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated
>> professionals understand the foolishness behind "high-end"
>> electronics, cables, green magic markers, etc.

> You paint high end with a rather broad and biased brush.

As compared to your rose-colored glasses, smeared with vinyl and vacuum tube
dust?

>> The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS
>> the room.

> No it's the system as a whole which includes the room. Crap system in
> a good room is just more obviously crap.

So here we have it. In Scott's book there is nothing but crap and utter high
end vacuum tube and vinyl retro-technology.

Guess what Scott - there is something of value in the middle that you want
to exclude. Digital can sound far better than the best vinyl, and good solid
state equipment can be economical and sonically accurate. The combination of
mid-fi electronics, a really well-tuned room and better-than-mid-fi speakers
is working and winning combination.


> That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely on
>> measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average"
>> rooms.

In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can measure the
difference between a poor room and a good room, but sometimes its easier to
just use our ears.

> Actually the most "successful" manufacturers rely on hype and marketing.

If people don't know you have it for sale, why would the run out to buy it?

> They don't make very good speakers by and large.

I dunno about that. Bose might be an example of group that is financially
successful, but sells lesser home consumer speaker systems for greater
prices. OTOH, the Harman group, PSB, Boston Acoustics, Paradigm, etc., etc
do sell a goodly volume of really pretty good speakers and seem to turn a
goodly profit. So much for Scott's broad and biased brush which strokes
against reasonably-priced audio gear.

> OTOH there is nothing wrong with designing speakers to work optimally in
> "average" rooms. It is a sensible concept for making a product for the
> non-enthusiast.

I'm trying to figure out how one would make an optimal speaker for an
average room that wasn't SOTA. Can't be done. I think this might be another
one of Scott's misapprehensions.

> It is not sensible for manufacturers that are attacking the state of the
> art.

How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like tubes
and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is? Scott is
firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was then, but this
discussion is about now.

> It is a safe assumption that hard core
> enthusiasts who pursue SOTA and have the money to spend on it will use
> dedicated listening rooms that can be tailored to SOTA speakers that
> are designed with no compromises mandated by "average rooms."

If it was only that simple. If all dedicated listening rooms had equal or
comparable acoustical properties, perhaps. In the real world there is very
little consistency. If accuracy is the goal, (accuracy being a concept that
Scott's EFX-laden system has no chance of addressing) then the best approach
for the speaker designer is to make the speaker function more independently
of the room, rather than being more dependent on the room.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael Conzo" > wrote in message


> In article , "Ethan Winer" <ethanw
> at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:

>> Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for
>> typical bookshelf style speakers?

I went around turning over the usual rocks, and came up empty.

> Except for professional-type speakers, where this information is
> necessary for system design, NO ONE publishes this information.

So it seems. Plan B might be to build a system with professional type
speakers (e.g. EV ZX-5s) so at least the speakers wouldn't be mystery meat.
Some pro monitors actually sound pretty good. For example, I have heard some
speakers made by B&C that at first glance were stage monitors, but are also
sold with appropriately redesigned cabinetry, etc., as high end home
speakers. For those who are unfamiliar with B&C they are sort of like the
Italian JBL.

> It isn't particularly useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer
> this information has little to do with the perceived performance of a
> loudspeaker.

I've heard the difference that controlled directivity can make in a home
setting, and I often like it. As long as listening rooms are at least
somewhat reverberent off-axis response contributes to what the listener
hears at his "sweet spot". I can point to a number of papers from Toole etc,
that correlate poor subjective scores with poor off-axis response. Listeners
tend to put their sweet spots right around the critical distance, where
there is a balance between direct on-axis response from the speaker, and
room reverberent response that has signfiicant contributions from the
off-axis response of the speaker system.

> It's people like you searching for "good looking" polar plots that prove
> this point is correct.

There's some big glitches in the polar response of just about every speaker
but full-range waveguides. Loudspeakers are quite directional at high
frequencies, and nearly omnidirectional at low frequencies. This implies
that the off axis response is anything but uniform. I don't know off-hand
what the ideal off-axis response curve would be, but I suspect that it isn't
optimal unless there is a known goal that is sucessfully engineered into the
system design.

Lately, I've heard two examples of multi-driver approaches for controlling
directivity. One creates a cardioid speaker and the other creates a
hypercardioid speaker. There are also the bi-directional designs of
Linkwitz, a man whose thoughts should not be easily dismissed. I don't know
what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure we won't find it by means of osmosis
or letting the chips fall where they may.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:23:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> wrote in message
oups.com
>> Michael Conzo wrote:
>>> In article , "audio_origami"
>>> > wrote:
>
>>>> ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and
>>>> out can help get the balance just right....although some rooms just
>>>> sound better!! # and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved
>>>> all the furniture and need a cup of tea..heheh
>
>>> This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated
>>> professionals understand the foolishness behind "high-end"
>>> electronics, cables, green magic markers, etc.
>
>> You paint high end with a rather broad and biased brush.
>
>As compared to your rose-colored glasses, smeared with vinyl and vacuum tube
>dust?
>
>>> The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS
>>> the room.
>
>> No it's the system as a whole which includes the room. Crap system in
>> a good room is just more obviously crap.
>
>So here we have it. In Scott's book there is nothing but crap and utter high
>end vacuum tube and vinyl retro-technology.
>
>Guess what Scott - there is something of value in the middle that you want
>to exclude. Digital can sound far better than the best vinyl, and good solid
>state equipment can be economical and sonically accurate. The combination of
>mid-fi electronics, a really well-tuned room and better-than-mid-fi speakers
>is working and winning combination.

Why would you argue with what he said? Is it just because it's Scott?
Because I suspect that if Tom Nousaine said exactly the same thing,
you'd be jumping on board with both feet. Or do you really believe
that a great room can turn a "crap" system into something great?

Also, Mr. Conzo's statement right before that one is incorrect in one
respect - the room is probably the most PREDICTABLE (and constant)
factor, and the one that can be adjusted for the easiest. It's
certainly the one factor that one might be able to make good
predictions "on paper" as long as all of the room variables are
described. It's far easier to do that than to try to describe the
sound of a hi-fi system solely based on spec sheets.

[Robert Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein a écrit :
>
> > "Michael Conzo" is actually Brian L. McCarty, noted pest on
> > rec.audio.marketplace.
> > I suggest we not respond to him.
>
> ****, this was the first time I read something interesting from him !!!!
>
> ;-)

For additional reading material, I suggest the warning notices on cans of
rat-poison :)

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
[snip]
>
> Lately, I've heard two examples of multi-driver approaches for controlling
> directivity. One creates a cardioid speaker and the other creates a
> hypercardioid speaker. There are also the bi-directional designs of
> Linkwitz, a man whose thoughts should not be easily dismissed. I don't
know
> what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure we won't find it by means of
osmosis
> or letting the chips fall where they may.
>
>
Anecdotally, I have found the Kef Uni-Q design to be the most tolerant of
wall placement and off-axis listening of the various speakers in my stable.
The Kefs have concentric tweeters and large mid drivers.

The least tolerant are a NEAR 50me, which have very small metal cone mids.

Both speakers subjectively perform well off-axis, but the NEARs seem to do
best with extremely wide spacing, around 120 degrees.

There is nothing in the design of these speakers that would make the
conclusion intuitive before listening. However, the large mid size of the
Kefs probably limits dispersion.

With multi-driver systems, it's obviously a complex problem, where the ear
is tolerant of defects in some bands, and intolerant in other bands.

I question whether bidirectional designs have a place in the modern world.
All geniuses explore the limits of reason, and I suspect this is Linkwitz's
example.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Michael Conzo wrote:
> >> In article , "audio_origami"
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>> ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in
and
> >>> out can help get the balance just right....although some rooms
just
> >>> sound better!! # and its hard to compare sounds once you have
moved
> >>> all the furniture and need a cup of tea..heheh
>
> >> This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated
> >> professionals understand the foolishness behind "high-end"
> >> electronics, cables, green magic markers, etc.
>
> > You paint high end with a rather broad and biased brush.
>
> As compared to your rose-colored glasses, smeared with vinyl and
vacuum tube
> dust?



Your raving mad nonsequitor is noted.


>
> >> The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS
> >> the room.
>
> > No it's the system as a whole which includes the room. Crap system
in
> > a good room is just more obviously crap.
>
> So here we have it. In Scott's book there is nothing but crap and
utter high
> end vacuum tube and vinyl retro-technology.


You are not making sense at all Arny. I suggest that you check the
oxygen levels in your basement.



>
> Guess what Scott - there is something of value in the middle that you
want
> to exclude.


What are you raving about? Where in my post did I exclude anything? You
are not making any sense.


Digital can sound far better than the best vinyl,



I have heard 24/96 recording sound as fgood or better. I have yet to
hear it from any CD on any CD player in direct comparisons.



and good solid
> state equipment can be economical and sonically accurate.


That's nice. Did I say otherwise? get a grip dude. You are babbling
about things that weren't said.


The combination of
> mid-fi electronics, a really well-tuned room and better-than-mid-fi
speakers
> is working and winning combination.


Tell me something I didn't already know dude.



>
>
> > That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely on
> >> measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average"
> >> rooms.
>
> In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
measure the
> difference between a poor room and a good room, but sometimes its
easier to
> just use our ears.
>
> > Actually the most "successful" manufacturers rely on hype and
marketing.
>
> If people don't know you have it for sale, why would the run out to
buy it?



Another weird nonsequitor.



>
> > They don't make very good speakers by and large.
>
> I dunno about that.


Maybe because you are near deaf?


Bose might be an example of group that is financially
> successful, but sells lesser home consumer speaker systems for
greater
> prices.

Bose is the most successful speaker manufacturer on the earth. they
don't make very good speakers. That was my point.


OTOH, the Harman group, PSB, Boston Acoustics, Paradigm, etc., etc
> do sell a goodly volume of really pretty good speakers and seem to
turn a
> goodly profit. So much for Scott's broad and biased brush which
strokes
> against reasonably-priced audio gear.


So much for Arny understanding the difference between pretty good and
very good.



>
> > OTOH there is nothing wrong with designing speakers to work
optimally in
> > "average" rooms. It is a sensible concept for making a product for
the
> > non-enthusiast.
>
> I'm trying to figure out how one would make an optimal speaker for an

> average room that wasn't SOTA. Can't be done.



You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer so it's no surprise that
this idea would ellude you.


I think this might be another
> one of Scott's misapprehensions.


No, just another example of your hatred and distrust towards those
seeking excellence.



>
> > It is not sensible for manufacturers that are attacking the state
of the
> > art.
>
> How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like
tubes
> and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is?


Obviously the answer is over your little pin head.



Scott is
> firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was then, but
this
> discussion is about now.

You are babbling again Arny. Where in your bizarre brain did you come
up with that date though?



>
> > It is a safe assumption that hard core
> > enthusiasts who pursue SOTA and have the money to spend on it will
use
> > dedicated listening rooms that can be tailored to SOTA speakers
that
> > are designed with no compromises mandated by "average rooms."
>
> If it was only that simple.

It actually is Arny.


If all dedicated listening rooms had equal or
> comparable acoustical properties, perhaps.


I see, you don't understand the word "tailored."


In the real world there is very
> little consistency.

As if you were the least bit in touch with the real world.


If accuracy is the goal, (accuracy being a concept that
> Scott's EFX-laden system has no chance of addressing) then the best
approach
> for the speaker designer is to make the speaker function more
independently
> of the room, rather than being more dependent on the room.


I suggest you talk some speaker designers before making such an ass of
yourself. In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average room.
Scott Wheeler

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> Michael Conzo wrote:
>>>> In article , "audio_origami"
>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>> ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and
>>>>> out can help get the balance just right....although some rooms just
>>>>> sound better!! # and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved
>>>>> all the furniture and need a cup of tea..heheh

>>>> This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated
>>>> professionals understand the foolishness behind "high-end"
>>>> electronics, cables, green magic markers, etc.

>>> You paint high end with a rather broad and biased brush.

>> As compared to your rose-colored glasses, smeared with vinyl and
>> vacuum tube dust?

> Your raving mad nonsequitor is noted.

What a cogent, insightful response!

>>>> The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS
>>>> the room.

>>> No it's the system as a whole which includes the room. Crap system in
>>> a good room is just more obviously crap.

>> So here we have it. In Scott's book there is nothing but crap and
>> utter high end vacuum tube and vinyl retro-technology.

> You are not making sense at all Arny. I suggest that you check the
> oxygen levels in your basement.

So you have no relevant response but to make incorrect claims about where
sit when I post?

>> Guess what Scott - there is something of value in the middle that
>> you want to exclude.

> What are you raving about? Where in my post did I exclude anything?
> You are not making any sense.

Scott it appears that your lack of personal insight is preventing you from
seeing your excluded-middle argument.

>> Digital can sound far better than the best vinyl,

> I have heard 24/96 recording sound as fgood or better. I have yet to
> hear it from any CD on any CD player in direct comparisons.

You use one of those high end players that has poorer audio performance than
a $49 DVD player, right Scott?

>> and good solid
>> state equipment can be economical and sonically accurate.

> That's nice. Did I say otherwise?

Sure many times.

>get a grip dude. You are babbling about things that weren't said.

Scott it appears that your lack of personal insight is preventing you from
seeing your bigoted claims about sonic superiority for obsolete technology
like tubes and vinyl.

> The combination of
>> mid-fi electronics, a really well-tuned room and better-than-mid-fi
>> speakers is working and winning combination.

> Tell me something I didn't already know dude.

Well thanks for agreeing with me Soctt. If mid-fi electronics, a really
well-tuned room and better-than-mid-fispeakers are a working and winning
combination, then it sort of makes a travesty out of high end electronics,
doesn't it?

>>> That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely on
>>>> measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average"
>>>> rooms.

>> In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
>> measure the difference between a poor room and a good room, but
>> sometimes its easier to just use our ears.

>>> Actually the most "successful" manufacturers rely on hype and
>>> marketing.

>> If people don't know you have it for sale, why would the run out to
>> buy it?

> Another weird nonsequitor.

Just adressing your negative envious posturing about sucessful
manufacturers. Scott.

>>> They don't make very good speakers by and large.

>> I dunno about that.

> Maybe because you are near deaf?

Derlusions of omniscience, noted.

> Bose might be an example of group that is financially
>> successful, but sells lesser home consumer speaker systems for
> greater prices.

> Bose is the most successful speaker manufacturer on the earth. they
> don't make very good speakers. That was my point.

Since you didn't mention them by name, but instead indicted a broad range of
speaker manufacturers, we have to take the total meaning of what you said,
which is considerably broader than this.

> OTOH, the Harman group, PSB, Boston Acoustics, Paradigm, etc., etc
>> do sell a goodly volume of really pretty good speakers and seem to
>> turn a goodly profit. So much for Scott's broad and biased brush
>> which strokes against reasonably-priced audio gear.

> So much for Arny understanding the difference between pretty good and
> very good.

Inability to interpret a common figure os speech noted.

Desire to create a straw man by splitting haris noted.

>>> OTOH there is nothing wrong with designing speakers to work
>>> optimally in "average" rooms. It is a sensible concept for making a
>>> product for the non-enthusiast.

>> I'm trying to figure out how one would make an optimal speaker for an
>> average room that wasn't SOTA. Can't be done.

> You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer so it's no surprise that
> this idea would ellude you.

Attempt to substitude a childish insult for a cogent response, noted.

> I think this might be another one of Scott's misapprehensions.

> No, just another example of your hatred and distrust towards those
> seeking excellence.

Since you have such a bad-sounding CD player Scott, how can you honestly be
talking about excellence?

>>> It is not sensible for manufacturers that are attacking the state
>>> of the art.

>> How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like
>> tubes and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is?

> Obviously the answer is over your little pin head.

Attempt to substitude a childish insult for a cogent response, noted.


>> Scott is
>> firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was then, but
>> this discussion is about now.

> You are babbling again Arny. Where in your bizarre brain did you come
> up with that date though?

Tubes and vinyl, which you tell us is the be-all and end=-all of high
performance audio, Scott.

>>> It is a safe assumption that hard core
>>> enthusiasts who pursue SOTA and have the money to spend on it will
>>> use dedicated listening rooms that can be tailored to SOTA speakers that
>>> are designed with no compromises mandated by "average rooms."

>> If it was only that simple.

> It actually is Arny.

Lack of substantiation noted.

OSAF noted.

> If all dedicated listening rooms had equal or
>> comparable acoustical properties, perhaps.

> I see, you don't understand the word "tailored."

Tailored to what, Scott?

> In the real world there is very little consistency.

> As if you were the least bit in touch with the real world.

Attempt to substitude a childish insult for a cogent response, noted.

>> If accuracy is the goal, (accuracy being a concept that
>> Scott's EFX-laden system has no chance of addressing) then the best
>> approach for the speaker designer is to make the speaker function
>> more independently of the room, rather than being more dependent on
>> the room.

> I suggest you talk some speaker designers before making such an ass of
> yourself.

I get it, this is just like the over-the hill retro-technology recording
engineers that you usually rant about, right Scott?


>In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average
> room.

Delusioins of omniscience noted.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
>> measure the difference between a poor room and a good room, but
>> sometimes its easier to just use our ears.

> substitute 1. amplifier for room:

> "In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
> measure the difference between a poor amplifier and a good amplifier,
> but sometimes its easier to just use our ears."

This of course ruins the truth of my statement, because as a rule rooms
sound different, but good amps don't.

> .................................................. ...
> substitute 2. loudspeaker for room:

> "In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
> measure the difference between a poor loudspeaker and a good
> loudspeaker, but sometimes its easier to
> just use our ears."

This is closer to the truth because as a rule, all speakers sound different.
It's takes a major effort to even make two supposedly identical speakers
sound close to each other. One reason for this is the fact that merely
relocating a speaker a few feet makes it sound different due to room
effects.

> What was your case again, for level-matched, double blind testing, Arny ?

That's pretty well known. In cases where the differences are likely to be
subtle, listening tests should be level-matched and double blind. However,
the audible differences between rooms and speakers are likely to be highly
non-subtle.

>> How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like
>> tubes and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is?
>> Scott is firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was
>> then, but this discussion is about now.

> We know about your 2005 SOTA, eh, Arny ? It's the 44.1 KHz/16 bit CD
> format, no?

44/16 is a fine distribution format. One can level-matched, double blind
compare it to so-called hi-rez formats all day long and find not one audible
difference.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
:

: Just adressing your negative envious posturing about sucessful
: manufacturers. Scott.
:
: Derlusions of omniscience, noted.
:
: Inability to interpret a common figure os speech noted.
:
: Desire to create a straw man by splitting haris noted.
:
: Delusioins of omniscience noted.
:

No worries, Arny, we can still interpret - takes some heavy equipment, though
:-)
Rudy

[Ethan Winer]

Arny,

> I can point to a number of papers from Toole etc, that correlate poor
subjective scores with poor off-axis response. <

Yes, and these days with home theaters, versus one person sitting listening,
there are three or more seats side by side that all need to receive the same
sound quality.

> This implies that the off axis response is anything but uniform. <

I'm sure! I'll explain more about my reasons for wanting this in my reply to
Michael/Brian.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Michael,

> It isn't particularly useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer
this information has little to do with the perceived performance of a
loudspeaker. <

I would dispute that off-axis response is unimportant, and Arny gave some
good reasons. But here's my real motive for wanting to have a better idea of
what most speakers really do:

A lot of audiophiles treat their entire front wall with thin absorption,
like 1-inch 703 rigid fiberglass, because they are told that loudspeakers
radiate mids and highs out the rear so that's another point of first
reflections. I know intuitively, and by listening, that lows are much more
omnidirectional than mids and highs. But in order to determine how much
thickness is needed on the front wall - or if any absorption is even needed
there at all - I need to know at what frequency most speakers "cross over"
from sending out the front to radiating omnidirectionally. I don't even care
about the specific lobing patterns at higher frequencies, so much as the
frequency at which a basic change in directionality occurs.

I would test this myself but it's a huge pain in the butt to run a bunch of
really long wires outside, borrow a tall ladder to place a speaker on, put a
microphone on a long pole, and so forth. I mean, someone somewhere must have
already done this properly in an anechoic chamber!

--Ethan

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
:
:
: > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: > ...
:
: >> In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
: >> measure the difference between a poor room and a good room, but
: >> sometimes its easier to just use our ears.
:
: > substitute 1. amplifier for room:
:
: > "In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
: > measure the difference between a poor amplifier and a good amplifier,
: > but sometimes its easier to just use our ears."
:
: This of course ruins the truth of my statement, because as a rule rooms
: sound different, but good amps don't.
:
: > .................................................. ...
: > substitute 2. loudspeaker for room:
:
: > "In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
: > measure the difference between a poor loudspeaker and a good
: > loudspeaker, but sometimes its easier to
: > just use our ears."
:
: This is closer to the truth because as a rule, all speakers sound different.
: It's takes a major effort to even make two supposedly identical speakers
: sound close to each other. One reason for this is the fact that merely
: relocating a speaker a few feet makes it sound different due to room
: effects.
:
: > What was your case again, for level-matched, double blind testing, Arny ?
:
: That's pretty well known. In cases where the differences are likely to be
: subtle, listening tests should be level-matched and double blind. However,
: the audible differences between rooms and speakers are likely to be highly
: non-subtle.
:
: >> How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like
: >> tubes and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is?
: >> Scott is firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was
: >> then, but this discussion is about now.
:
: > We know about your 2005 SOTA, eh, Arny ? It's the 44.1 KHz/16 bit CD
: > format, no?
:
: 44/16 is a fine distribution format. One can level-matched, double blind
: compare it to so-called hi-rez formats all day long and find not one audible
: difference.

hmm, is that one of Randy's million buck challenges ? That could be
interesting...

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com


>>> In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average
>>> room.

>> Delusions of omniscience noted.

> I've heard your brand of speakers Arny.

Which brand might that be, Scott?

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com
>
>
> >>> In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average
> >>> room.
>
> >> Delusions of omniscience noted.
>
> > I've heard your brand of speakers Arny.
>
> Which brand might that be, Scott?

If you don't know I suggest you check your speakers and then get to a
doctor to see about your memory problems. If they are not what you
claimed them to be in your posts I suggest you try telling the truth in
the future.


Scott Wheeler

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com
>>
>>
>>>>> In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average
>>>>> room.
>>
>>>> Delusions of omniscience noted.
>>
>>> I've heard your brand of speakers Arny.
>>
>> Which brand might that be, Scott?
>
> If you don't know I suggest you check your speakers and then get to a
> doctor to see about your memory problems. If they are not what you
> claimed them to be in your posts I suggest you try telling the truth
> in the future.

Scott, that seems to be a very round-about way of admitting that even though
you've claimed that you've heard my brand of speakers, you don't actually
know what brand of speakers I listen to.

You've been despondent ever since I kicked your hinnie in California
Superior Court and your libel suit against, right?

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> oups.com
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average
> >>>>> room.
> >>
> >>>> Delusions of omniscience noted.
> >>
> >>> I've heard your brand of speakers Arny.
> >>
> >> Which brand might that be, Scott?
> >
> > If you don't know I suggest you check your speakers and then get to
a
> > doctor to see about your memory problems. If they are not what you
> > claimed them to be in your posts I suggest you try telling the
truth
> > in the future.
>
> Scott, that seems to be a very round-about way of admitting that even
though
> you've claimed that you've heard my brand of speakers, you don't
actually
> know what brand of speakers I listen to.

No, it's a direct way of saying I have heard the speakers you claim to
own. I don't know that you are telling the truth.


>
> You've been despondent ever since I kicked your hinnie in California
> Superior Court and your libel suit against, right?


Your question makes no sense Arny. No such event ever took place in the
real world. Your delusions are a source of amusement for me not a
source of despondence. When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are
you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this tactic
of yours.



Scott Wheeler

[Lionel]

a écrit :

> When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are
> you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this tactic
> of yours.

Are you sure that it is part of Mr Atkinson's intentions ?
Aren't you afraid to already "pollute" the futur debate ?
Are interested in a debate or in a wrestling match ?

Sounds like if you were waiting for a kind of revenge from the meeting.

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
> a =E9crit :
>
> > When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are
> > you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this
tactic
> > of yours.
>
> Are you sure that it is part of Mr Atkinson's intentions ?

I suspect so. I think most people enter debates intending to kick some
butt.



> Aren't you afraid to already "pollute" the futur debate ?


No.



> Are interested in a debate or in a wrestling match ?


Depends on who is wrestling.



>
> Sounds like if you were waiting for a kind of revenge from the
meeting.


I'm in it for the laughs. I see it as a win /win situation. I think it
will be funny if he shows or if he doesn't. Do you think anything more
than that can come of a debate between Atkinson and Krueger? Do you
think anyone will come away with a different perspective on audio? I
don't.


Scott Wheeler

[Lionel]

a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are
>>>you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this
>
> tactic
>
>>>of yours.
>>
>>Are you sure that it is part of Mr Atkinson's intentions ?
>
>
> I suspect so. I think most people enter debates intending to kick some
> butt.

Yes it's often the case but in this case I think it would be interesting
to let the things go naturally before to throw the baby out with the
bath water.



>>Aren't you afraid to already "pollute" the futur debate ?
>
>
>
> No.
>
>
>
>
>>Are interested in a debate or in a wrestling match ?
>
>
>
> Depends on who is wrestling.
>
>
>
>
>>Sounds like if you were waiting for a kind of revenge from the
>
> meeting.
>
>
> I'm in it for the laughs. I see it as a win /win situation. I think it
> will be funny if he shows or if he doesn't.

Fair enough.

> Do you think anything more
> than that can come of a debate between Atkinson and Krueger? Do you
> think anyone will come away with a different perspective on audio? I
> don't.

Most of the time I am very nasty but sometime I'm naively idealist...

....But I am not waiting that this meeting change people perspective
about audio but just that it contributes (at least for few of the
attendees) to make the antagonisms a little bit less exacerbate and a
little bit more human.

[[email protected]]

Lionel wrote:
> a =E9crit :
> > Lionel wrote:
> >
> a =E9crit :
> >>
> >>
> >>>When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are
> >>>you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this
> >
> > tactic
> >
> >>>of yours.
> >>
> >>Are you sure that it is part of Mr Atkinson's intentions ?
> >
> >
> > I suspect so. I think most people enter debates intending to kick
some
> > butt.
>
> Yes it's often the case but in this case I think it would be
interesting
> to let the things go naturally before to throw the baby out with the
> bath water.
>
>
>
> >>Aren't you afraid to already "pollute" the futur debate ?
> >
> >
> >
> > No.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Are interested in a debate or in a wrestling match ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Depends on who is wrestling.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Sounds like if you were waiting for a kind of revenge from the
> >
> > meeting.
> >
> >
> > I'm in it for the laughs. I see it as a win /win situation. I think
it
> > will be funny if he shows or if he doesn't.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > Do you think anything more
> > than that can come of a debate between Atkinson and Krueger? Do you
> > think anyone will come away with a different perspective on audio?
I
> > don't.
>
> Most of the time I am very nasty but sometime I'm naively idealist...
>
> ...But I am not waiting that this meeting change people perspective
> about audio but just that it contributes (at least for few of the
> attendees) to make the antagonisms a little bit less exacerbate and a

> little bit more human.

That is a very nice sentiment. I don't share your optimism but I am not
against pleasant surprises. I have seen nothing in Arny that makes me
think he can rise to this level. It is often the case that such
advisaries are polite in face to face meetings only to resort to the
uglyness when back on line. Now that would be boring and fruitless.
I'll settle for the entertainment.


Scott Wheeler

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> oups.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average
>>>>>>> room.
>>>>
>>>>>> Delusions of omniscience noted.
>>>>
>>>>> I've heard your brand of speakers Arny.
>>>>
>>>> Which brand might that be, Scott?

>>> If you don't know I suggest you check your speakers and then get to a
>>> doctor to see about your memory problems. If they are not what you
>>> claimed them to be in your posts I suggest you try telling the truth
>>> in the future.

>> Scott, that seems to be a very round-about way of admitting that
>> even though you've claimed that you've heard my brand of speakers,
>> you don't actually know what brand of speakers I listen to.

> No, it's a direct way of saying I have heard the speakers you claim to
> own. I don't know that you are telling the truth.

Well Scott, here's your second chance. If you've heard my brand of speakers,
tell the nice people what brand my speakers are.

>> You've been despondent ever since I kicked your hinnie in California
>> Superior Court and your libel suit against, right?

> Your question makes no sense Arny. No such event ever took place in
> the real world.

Oh Scott, so you're telling us that I lost that lawsuit that you filed
against me about a year ago?

Or, are you saying that no such lawsuit was never filed?

Because if it was filed, and you didn't win it, then I won.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com


> I think most people enter debates intending to kick some butt.

> I see it as a win /win situation.

How self-contradictory can Scott get in the same post?

[Lionel]

a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
a écrit :
>>
>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>
a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are
>>>>>you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this
>>>
>>>tactic
>>>
>>>
>>>>>of yours.
>>>>
>>>>Are you sure that it is part of Mr Atkinson's intentions ?
>>>
>>>
>>>I suspect so. I think most people enter debates intending to kick
>
> some
>
>>>butt.
>>
>>Yes it's often the case but in this case I think it would be
>
> interesting
>
>>to let the things go naturally before to throw the baby out with the
>>bath water.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Aren't you afraid to already "pollute" the futur debate ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are interested in a debate or in a wrestling match ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Depends on who is wrestling.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sounds like if you were waiting for a kind of revenge from the
>>>
>>>meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm in it for the laughs. I see it as a win /win situation. I think
>
> it
>
>>>will be funny if he shows or if he doesn't.
>>
>>Fair enough.
>>
>>
>>>Do you think anything more
>>>than that can come of a debate between Atkinson and Krueger? Do you
>>>think anyone will come away with a different perspective on audio?
>
> I
>
>>>don't.
>>
>>Most of the time I am very nasty but sometime I'm naively idealist...
>>
>>...But I am not waiting that this meeting change people perspective
>>about audio but just that it contributes (at least for few of the
>>attendees) to make the antagonisms a little bit less exacerbate and a
>
>
>>little bit more human.
>
>
> That is a very nice sentiment.

;-)

> I don't share your optimism but I am not
> against pleasant surprises.


I am not particulary optimist, it's not really my point.
Let's put the things like that : I think that it would be *polite* to
preserve for Mr Atkinson the *possibility* to reap the fruits (if any)
of his investment (not only in term of cost).
I agree that this bearing imply from us a certain reserve which is
antipodal to the nasty fun we are looking for here....


> I have seen nothing in Arny that makes me
> think he can rise to this level.

I disagree, seems to me that Krueger is improving his on-line behaviour.

> It is often the case that such
> advisaries are polite in face to face meetings only to resort to the
> uglyness when back on line.

True. Politely inhibited. ;-)

> Now that would be boring and fruitless.
> I'll settle for the entertainment.

Have fun.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
>
> > I think most people enter debates intending to kick some butt.
>
> > I see it as a win /win situation.
>
> How self-contradictory can Scott get in the same post?

Are you really this stupid or are you just bored and trolling? Really?
Scott Wheeler

[Robert Morein]

"Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message
...
> Michael,
>
>> It isn't particularly useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer
> this information has little to do with the perceived performance of a
> loudspeaker. <
>
Your response is thoughtful.
But it is characteristic of Brian L. McCarty that he never responds to a
reply.
The way his brain works, all his posts must be unsolicited and
confrontational.
Anything else would smack of cooperativeness, but his subconcious mind is in
perpetual rebellion.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> oups.com
> >>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>> oups.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average
> >>>>>>> room.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Delusions of omniscience noted.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I've heard your brand of speakers Arny.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which brand might that be, Scott?
>
> >>> If you don't know I suggest you check your speakers and then get
to a
> >>> doctor to see about your memory problems. If they are not what
you
> >>> claimed them to be in your posts I suggest you try telling the
truth
> >>> in the future.
>
> >> Scott, that seems to be a very round-about way of admitting that
> >> even though you've claimed that you've heard my brand of speakers,
> >> you don't actually know what brand of speakers I listen to.
>
> > No, it's a direct way of saying I have heard the speakers you claim
to
> > own. I don't know that you are telling the truth.
>
> Well Scott, here's your second chance. If you've heard my brand of
speakers,
> tell the nice people what brand my speakers are.




You really forgot what you posted?



>
> >> You've been despondent ever since I kicked your hinnie in
California
> >> Superior Court and your libel suit against, right?
>
> > Your question makes no sense Arny. No such event ever took place in
> > the real world.
>
> Oh Scott, so you're telling us that I lost that lawsuit that you
filed
> against me about a year ago?




No, I'm telling you that what you described never happened. I needed to
correct a technical mistake in the service of the lawsuit and chose not
to because I came to realize you were not worth the effort. No ruling
on the case was ever made. No "butt kicking" ever took place except in
your imagination.



>
> Or, are you saying that no such lawsuit was never filed?


Not very bright are you?



>
> Because if it was filed, and you didn't win it, then I won.


In your imagination perhaps. In court not at all. Feel free to cite any
ruling from the court on the merits of the case if you think otherwise.
They are a matter of public record.


Scott Wheeler

[Sander deWaal]

said:

>I'm in it for the laughs. I see it as a win /win situation. I think it
>will be funny if he shows or if he doesn't. Do you think anything more
>than that can come of a debate between Atkinson and Krueger? Do you
>think anyone will come away with a different perspective on audio? I
>don't.

I think whatever the outcome of this debate will be, it won't change
anything on RAO or one of the other newsgroups.
It might be that Arnold gets praised for stepping in front of what has
to be a hostile audience for him, in which case one could say that
Arnold has "won" regardless.

However, I don't think both Atkinson and Krueger think of this in
terms of winning or losing.
Remember they're both members of the AES, and both have some
accomplishments in audio.

Let's just give both of them the respect and rest they deserve to
properly prepare for the debate and stop discussing until the debate
is over.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Lionel]

Sander deWaal a écrit :

> Let's just give both of them the respect and rest they deserve to
> properly prepare for the debate and stop discussing until the debate
> is over.

Why are you envying Middius' clearness and concision ?


;-)

[Robert Morein]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> said:
>
[snip]
>
> Let's just give both of them the respect and rest they deserve to
> properly prepare for the debate and stop discussing until the debate
> is over.
>
I would feel more comfortable if you used those words with respect to the
Hatfields and the McCoys.

[Robert Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> a écrit :
[snip]
>
> I disagree, seems to me that Krueger is improving his on-line behaviour.
>
I think he has. On several recent occasions, Arny has provided technical
input to some of my questions, which is remarkable, considering our previous
record.

FWIW, I've always had the feeling that if I had the opportunity to
blind-test equipment, I would use it. I don't believe it can be any worse
than sighted comparison, provided the comparator is made of very good stuff.

However, in the past, Arny has claimed that individuals who have not
performed ABX comparisons of equipment were not entitled to be taken
seriously. On some subjects, he has claimed that others are not entitled to
speak. This is psychological deviancy, particularly as Arny seemed
completely unaware that disenfranchisement of the audiophile community
doesn't help his cause.

Arny has also claimed that all "good amplifiers" are sonically
indistinguishable. This is utterly laughable to the many of us who have
experienced differences almost as significant as between speakers. His
strident claim is/was apparently based upon a very small number of
amplifiers, which he felt to be a sufficient sample of the universe of
amplifiers.

This kind of thing happens when the man becomes the cause. The search for
self-esteem takes many strange turns. I have always felt that if Arny held
his audio experiments at emotional arm's length, he would have much to
contribute. Psychological balance is everything.

[Lionel]

In >, Robert Morein wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> a écrit :
> [snip]
>>
>> I disagree, seems to me that Krueger is improving his on-line behaviour.
>>
> I think he has. On several recent occasions, Arny has provided technical
> input to some of my questions, which is remarkable, considering our
> previous record.
>
> FWIW, I've always had the feeling that if I had the opportunity to
> blind-test equipment, I would use it. I don't believe it can be any worse
> than sighted comparison, provided the comparator is made of very good
> stuff.

Agreed, IMHO ABX comparator is a tool among many other tools.
I read that the Krueger's one could have some statistical flaws. If true
this is obviously redhibitory for this kind of tool.
Since I haven't the competence nor knowledge to comment on these alleged
"flaws" I cannot comment anymore.

BUT if I was Krueger I would try to get the involvement of a statistician
member of the scientific community to guarantee the scientific "sealing" of
my tool.

> However, in the past, Arny has claimed that individuals who have not
> performed ABX comparisons of equipment were not entitled to be taken
> seriously. On some subjects, he has claimed that others are not entitled
> to speak.

The way to expose that is a little bit "brutal" but on this particular
subject I must say that I agree with him.
Usenet is so full of people who are commenting without any experience on the
base of their virtual Internet life.

On this forum recently George M. Middius, Krueger's most relentless
detractor, had made very bad comments about a wine that he has *never*
tasted.
Middius has never had the "courage" to give me an online explanation to his
statement. He only answered via third party that his comments were based on
an (undescribed) "overwhelming consensus of the opinions of wine
connoisseurs".

I let you imagine the mockeries, insults, quolibets... If Krueger has done
such on-line statement

> This is psychological deviancy, particularly as Arny seemed
> completely unaware that disenfranchisement of the audiophile community
> doesn't help his cause.

I have recently tried to advocate the POV of about 50% of the world
population about the conflict in Palestine and I am now the the
"anti-semitic" "hamas lover"... Note that nobody has *never* been able to
support this accustations with one of my writings...

Wasn't you speaking of "psychological deviancy"... ;-)

> Arny has also claimed that all "good amplifiers" are sonically
> indistinguishable. This is utterly laughable to the many of us who have
> experienced differences almost as significant as between speakers.

Mr Atkinson's Stereophile has recently written that "Shakti Stone" is a
"good" device...
In a first time I am a little bit skeptical but I am waiting for Fella's
experimentation review.

> His strident claim is/was apparently based upon a very small number of
> amplifiers, which he felt to be a sufficient sample of the universe of
> amplifiers.
>
> This kind of thing happens when the man becomes the cause. The search for
> self-esteem takes many strange turns. I have always felt that if Arny held
> his audio experiments at emotional arm's length, he would have much to
> contribute. Psychological balance is everything.

You are a scientific Bob, I'm not.
I'm sure that during your studies and your life you have met a lot of
"Arnold Krueger". The scientific environment is full of guys with serious
ego problems...

On this NG your indubitable advantage on me is that you can quickly find
informations, arguments... to validate or invalidate a non-scientific
theory/statement.

Since your post seems to be more psychology oriented I will conclude saying
that I am sincerely *astonished* that the RAO contributors have let to
George M. Middius the leadership of the anti-Krueger's crusade.
Seems *to me* the same symptomatic "bad choice" than the American's one on
2004 November, 2nd.

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>Since your post seems to be more psychology oriented I will conclude saying
>that I am sincerely *astonished* that the RAO contributors have let to
>George M. Middius the leadership of the anti-Krueger's crusade.


Silly, isn't it?
It used to be Alan Derrida, but he is no more.

BTW George gets paid a helluva lot for that job ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius > said:

>> BTW George gets paid a helluva lot for that job ;-)

>Speaking of which, next time you repair something for me, I want it
>delivered by hand in your private boat.


OK, but it'll still be COD, just like the other 20 or so RAO regulars
I repaired stuff for.

Do you mind if The Devil comes along? He's such a marvel at
navigating, you will note.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "