Some Krooproof Valid Opinions (this being an Opinion NG)

[[email protected]]

Nelson Pass, the designer of some first rate equipment (which doesn't
even use toobs....) had this to say. Kroo will shoot at it, but let's
see with what accuracy...



>>Background

"In the 1950's most audiophiles only had
maybe 10 watts of tube amplifier available, but
they achieved realistic concert performances
with loudspeakers whose design emphasized
powerful and efficient motor assemblies and
diaphragm materials chosen for musicality, low
mass, and large radiating surfaces. Enclosures
were designed with the same thought that goes
into musical instruments, with a live harmonic
characteristic and an appreciation for fine
wood craftsmanship. Many of these products
endure as classics, and are still highly prized by
audiophiles as treasures from a golden age. They
were as much a result of refined taste and trial
and error as they were science and engineering.
For years we have asked ourselves why these
old designs are so good, and why modern
high-end audio does not show all the audible
improvements to be expected of 50 years of
technological advances.

In the 60's and 70's, high power amplifiers
became available, and loudspeaker design took
a left turn onto the road it follows today. With
mighty solid state amplifiers at the designer's
disposal, efficiency was no longer an issue, and
the design goals revolved around raising the
power handling ratings and sacrificing efficiency
in order to deliver low bass frequencies in small
enclosures. Never mind that the bass was
boomy and that the music sounded like it was
pushed through a sock; it fit on a shelf, and it
used up the higher power of the amplifier the
industry was eager to sell.

Many of the differences between then and
now are obvious. With efficiency as a priority,
classic high-end loudspeakers had sensitivities
in the range of 100 dB/watt. The old designs
used expensive magnetic circuits and tightly
toleranced motor assemblies to achieve high
force from a small amount of electrical current,
and they coupled these to lightweight paper
cones whose sonic signature was the result of
much trial and error - more art than science and
engineering.
Today, most speakers are about 87 to 92 dB/
watt, which is about 1/10 the acoustic output of
the old classics. This is the difference between
10 and 100 watts of amplifier for the same
level. The cones are heavy and the magnets
are working into wide voice coil gaps. Why is
this? It costs a lot less to do it this way, and
also loudspeaker enclosures can be made
conspicuous while retaining some low frequency
response. Much of loudspeaker science operates
on the presumption of the cone material as a
rigid piston, which plays well into the use of
heavy, thick materials in order to achieve the
character of a piston. The high mass of the
cone results in slow attack and decay response
to impulses from the amplifier, but this has been
considered an acceptable trade off. Of course,
there really is no such thing as a loudspeaker that
acts as a true piston.

The old designers knew they were never going
to get a really rigid neutral piston, so they
researched cone materials that were light, well
damped, and whose deviations from the ideal
were at least musical. This philosophy was
in keeping with the approach to the old tubes
amps as well; they didn't measure that great,
but their faults were at least musical and fairly
inoffensive. The old designers measured and
listened carefully, and were persistent. Most of
them had taste, and they knew what they wanted
when they heard it.

These light diaphragms and efficient motors
have a very dynamic quality. From silence they
spring to life in response to musical transients.
Well done, they articulate infinitesimal details
and have a warm, spacious, easy character.
The paradox is, of course, that modern designs
in many ways are not as sonically pleasing as the
old classics. For all the power available, they
have traded off dynamic range, transient attack
and decay, and articulation. They have sold their
musical souls, and they sound uneasy about it.
The old speakers came in big enclosures, made
of spruce, maple and other acoustically live
woods designed to get the last bit of bottom
end performance from a big lightweight paper
cone. Large bass-reflex boxes and horns filled
audiophile listening rooms. The wood in the
enclosures was flexible and had a sonic signature
of its own. Like the material used in the paper
cones, it was chosen for sonic harmony with the
drivers, and was the object of craftsmanship in
construction and finish.

Today? Monkey caskets: Medium density
fiberboard, or worse, particle board rules the
marketplace. It's cheap, easy to machine, and
is supposed to be acoustically dead. Actually,
it pretty much is...... dead, lifeless and
uninteresting."<< (Excerpt mine.)

If I ever visit Reno again I am going to see if Mr Pass gives tours.
That, and I want to throw something off 'the bridge'. (You know what
bridge..sacred ground trod in high heels...)

[Mike McKelvy]

Apr 17, 7:53 pm show options

>In the 60's and 70's, high power amplifiers
>became available, and loudspeaker design took
>a left turn onto the road it follows today. With
>mighty solid state amplifiers at the designer's
>disposal, efficiency was no longer an issue, and
>the design goals revolved around raising the
>power handling ratings and sacrificing efficiency
>in order to deliver low bass frequencies in small
>enclosures.

More correctly, the goals became getting smoother response as well as
deep bass.

Never mind that the bass was
>boomy and that the music sounded like it was
>pushed through a sock; it fit on a shelf, and it
>used up the higher power of the amplifier the
>industry was eager to sell.

They sell what people want to buy. Lots of reviews in Stereophile show
bass bumps and glowing reviews.

Some folks, far too many IMO, think that flat FR from speakers make
them sound lean and deficient.

>These light diaphragms and efficient motors
>have a very dynamic quality. From silence they
>spring to life in response to musical transients.
>Well done, they articulate infinitesimal details
>and have a warm, spacious, easy character.
>The paradox is, of course, that modern designs
>in many ways are not as sonically pleasing as the
>old classics

That sounds like an opinion. There are plenty of people who were
around at the time who will tell today's speakers are far more accurate
and true to the signal they are being fed, when they are designed for
that purpose. The fact is still that too many people have no
appreciation for what clean flat reproduction sounds like, if they did,
there's be no interest in speakers that have bass bumps.

>They have sold their
>musical souls, and they sound uneasy about it.
>The old speakers came in big enclosures, made
>of spruce, maple and other acoustically live
>woods designed to get the last bit of bottom
>end performance from a big lightweight paper
>cone.

IOW they made noise, cabinets aren't supposed to make noise, only the
drivers are.



Large bass-reflex boxes and horns filled
>audiophile listening rooms. The wood in the
>enclosures was flexible and had a sonic signature
>of its own.

Nowadays we call that distortion, and properly so.

Like the material used in the paper
>cones, it was chosen for sonic harmony with the
>drivers, and was the object of craftsmanship in
>construction and finish.

Bull****, they were chosen because they didn't know how to make
acousticly dead cabinets, or they were trying to sell them as
furniture, or they were trying to sound different. Such choices were
not in order to obtain the best results from the drivers.

>Today? Monkey caskets: Medium density
>fiberboard, or worse, particle board rules the
>marketplace.

Depending on the frequenies being produced and how they are braced
these can be acceptable choices.

It's cheap, easy to machine, and
>is supposed to be acoustically dead. Actually,
>it pretty much is...... dead, lifeless and
>uninteresting."<< (Excerpt mine.)

If Mr. Pass doesn't like the sound of today's speakers, he should see
if he can design his own line and see if they sell.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote:
> Nelson Pass, the designer of some first rate equipment (which
doesn't
> even use toobs....) had this to say. Kroo will shoot at it, but
let's
> see with what accuracy...

>>> Background

> "In the 1950's most audiophiles only had
> maybe 10 watts of tube amplifier available, but
> they achieved realistic concert performances
> with loudspeakers whose design emphasized
> powerful and efficient motor assemblies and
> diaphragm materials chosen for musicality, low
> mass, and large radiating surfaces. Enclosures
> were designed with the same thought that goes
> into musical instruments, with a live harmonic
> characteristic and an appreciation for fine
> wood craftsmanship. Many of these products
> endure as classics, and are still highly prized by
> audiophiles as treasures from a golden age. They
> were as much a result of refined taste and trial
> and error as they were science and engineering.
> For years we have asked ourselves why these
> old designs are so good, and why modern
> high-end audio does not show all the audible
> improvements to be expected of 50 years of
> technological advances.

Actually, there were few really-good sounding speakers in the 1950s.
Karlson weird simuliated organ pipes, Klipschorns with ringy horns,
poorly-designed bass-reflex enclosures complete with thin bass or
boom, etc.

10 watts sets the power availability levels well short of the 20-60
watts that were not uncommon.

> In the 60's and 70's, high power amplifiers
> became available, and loudspeaker design took
> a left turn onto the road it follows today. With
> mighty solid state amplifiers at the designer's
> disposal, efficiency was no longer an issue, and
> the design goals revolved around raising the
> power handling ratings and sacrificing efficiency
> in order to deliver low bass frequencies in small
> enclosures.

Trading efficiency for small size and deep bass simply works.

>Never mind that the bass was
> boomy and that the music sounded like it was
> pushed through a sock; it fit on a shelf, and it
> used up the higher power of the amplifier the
> industry was eager to sell.

I don't know what Pass was smoking in those days, but we did have some
pretty good sounding speakers.

> Many of the differences between then and
> now are obvious. With efficiency as a priority,
> classic high-end loudspeakers had sensitivities
> in the range of 100 dB/watt.

Speakers with this kind of efficiency didn't go away, they just have
to be large if they are going to have good bass.

>The old designs
> used expensive magnetic circuits and tightly
> toleranced motor assemblies to achieve high
> force from a small amount of electrical current,
> and they coupled these to lightweight paper
> cones whose sonic signature was the result of
> much trial and error - more art than science and
> engineering.

That trial-and-error stuff had a lot more error than anything else.

> Today, most speakers are about 87 to 92 dB/
> watt, which is about 1/10 the acoustic output of
> the old classics. This is the difference between
> 10 and 100 watts of amplifier for the same
> level. The cones are heavy and the magnets
> are working into wide voice coil gaps. Why is
> this? It costs a lot less to do it this way, and
> also loudspeaker enclosures can be made
> conspicuous while retaining some low frequency
> response.

Gosh, small speakers with good bass response. The pain! The anguish!
The terror!

>Much of loudspeaker science operates
> on the presumption of the cone material as a
> rigid piston,

Pass seems to be still smoking those funny cigarettes.

> which plays well into the use of
> heavy, thick materials in order to achieve the
> character of a piston. The high mass of the
> cone results in slow attack and decay response
> to impulses from the amplifier, but this has been
> considered an acceptable trade off.

Pass doesn't seem to think that multi-driver speakers are any good.
'Cause that's the solution to the problem he describes.

>Of course,
> there really is no such thing as a loudspeaker that
> acts as a true piston.

Nothing's perfect, but there are many things that are very good.

The consequence of cone break-up is rough frequency response. Break up
happens easily as often with Pass's diefied thin paper cones as the
thick ones he rails against.

> The old designers knew they were never going
> to get a really rigid neutral piston, so they
> researched cone materials that were light, well
> damped, and whose deviations from the ideal
> were at least musical.

Nothing along those lines has been forgotten. Speakers have even
better-controlled breakup modes today than they did then.

>This philosophy was
> in keeping with the approach to the old tubes
> amps as well; they didn't measure that great,
> but their faults were at least musical and fairly
> inoffensive.

Code for "they weren't all that great, but neither are the LPs we
played, or the speakers we had at tht time".


>The old designers measured and
> listened carefully, and were persistent. Most of
> them had taste, and they knew what they wanted
> when they heard it.

Yeah, sure. That's why we had sonic abortions like the Karlson Kurve,
the Voice Of The Theater A7, The full-range version of the Klipschorn
and Cornwall, etc.

> These light diaphragms and efficient motors
> have a very dynamic quality.

Forgetting all the undamped resonances, badly-dessigned horns, etc.,
etc.

> From silence they
> spring to life in response to musical transients.
> Well done, they articulate infinitesimal details
> and have a warm, spacious, easy character.

Pass is getting old enough that his hearing is obviously in question.
That nostalgia stuff sounds good - especially if memories dominate
what you hear.

> The paradox is, of course, that modern designs
> in many ways are not as sonically pleasing as the
> old classics.

Everything was so much better in the early 50s. Why we hadn't even yet
cured poli, and blood-typing was new technology.

> For all the power available, they
> have traded off dynamic range, transient attack
> and decay, and articulation.

Not necesasrily.

>They have sold their
> musical souls, and they sound uneasy about it.

Yawn.

> The old speakers came in big enclosures, made
> of spruce, maple and other acoustically live
> woods designed to get the last bit of bottom
> end performance from a big lightweight paper
> cone.

The old speakers mostly came in plywood boxes, so you got to listen to
inter-lamination resonances. Love that dynamic buzzing sound!

> Large bass-reflex boxes and horns filled
> audiophile listening rooms. The wood in the
> enclosures was flexible and had a sonic signature
> of its own.

IOW, they had a lot of colorations.

>Like the material used in the paper
> cones, it was chosen for sonic harmony with the
> drivers, and was the object of craftsmanship in
> construction and finish.

I think most speaker makers bought their plywood from the same places
as everybody else.

> Today? Monkey caskets: Medium density
> fiberboard, or worse, particle board rules the
> marketplace. It's cheap, easy to machine, and
> is supposed to be acoustically dead. Actually,
> it pretty much is...... dead, lifeless and
> uninteresting."<< (Excerpt mine.)

Dead, as in far fewer audible resonances.

> If I ever visit Reno again I am going to see if Mr Pass gives
tours.
> That, and I want to throw something off 'the bridge'. (You know what
> bridge..sacred ground trod in high heels...)

Try throwing Pass off, and put him out of his obvious misery and
delusions.

[[email protected]]

Mike McKelvy wrote:
>

>
> If Mr. Pass doesn't like the sound of today's speakers, he should see
> if he can design his own line and see if they sell.



http://www.passlabs.com/speakers/rushmore.htm

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>
> > In the 60's and 70's, high power amplifiers
> > became available, and loudspeaker design took
> > a left turn onto the road it follows today. With
> > mighty solid state amplifiers at the designer's
> > disposal, efficiency was no longer an issue, and
> > the design goals revolved around raising the
> > power handling ratings and sacrificing efficiency
> > in order to deliver low bass frequencies in small
> > enclosures.
>
> Trading efficiency for small size and deep bass simply works.


Yes. But not that well.

>
> >Never mind that the bass was
> > boomy and that the music sounded like it was
> > pushed through a sock; it fit on a shelf, and it
> > used up the higher power of the amplifier the
> > industry was eager to sell.
>
> I don't know what Pass was smoking in those days, but we did have
some
> pretty good sounding speakers.

Lemme get this straight, 50s speakers were no good, but by the late
sixties they were OK? In the mid-70's if you wanted _good_ speakers you
ignored the ****ty ones at the chain joints and bought-an Altec
lansing, JBL or Klipsch, unless you wanted dipoles or something really
weird.

>
> > Many of the differences between then and
> > now are obvious. With efficiency as a priority,
> > classic high-end loudspeakers had sensitivities
> > in the range of 100 dB/watt.
>
> Speakers with this kind of efficiency didn't go away, they just have
> to be large if they are going to have good bass.
>
> >The old designs
> > used expensive magnetic circuits and tightly
> > toleranced motor assemblies to achieve high
> > force from a small amount of electrical current,
> > and they coupled these to lightweight paper
> > cones whose sonic signature was the result of
> > much trial and error - more art than science and
> > engineering.
>
> That trial-and-error stuff had a lot more error than anything else.

Now the errors are carefully engineered in instead of happening by
chance.






> >Much of loudspeaker science operates
> > on the presumption of the cone material as a
> > rigid piston,
>
> Pass seems to be still smoking those funny cigarettes.
>
> > which plays well into the use of
> > heavy, thick materials in order to achieve the
> > character of a piston. The high mass of the
> > cone results in slow attack and decay response
> > to impulses from the amplifier, but this has been
> > considered an acceptable trade off.
>
> Pass doesn't seem to think that multi-driver speakers are any good.
> 'Cause that's the solution to the problem he describes.
>
> >Of course,
> > there really is no such thing as a loudspeaker that
> > acts as a true piston.
>
> Nothing's perfect, but there are many things that are very good.
>
> The consequence of cone break-up is rough frequency response. Break
up
> happens easily as often with Pass's diefied thin paper cones as the
> thick ones he rails against.
>
>
>
>
> >The old designers measured and
> > listened carefully, and were persistent. Most of
> > them had taste, and they knew what they wanted
> > when they heard it.
>
> Yeah, sure. That's why we had sonic abortions like the Karlson Kurve,
> the Voice Of The Theater A7, The full-range version of the Klipschorn
> and Cornwall, etc.

The VOT's were great for their intended purpose, and have been adapted
to home use with some effort. The K-horn/LaScala/BK bass sections are
still first rate and with better tweeters and squawkers are close to
state of the art.

>
> > These light diaphragms and efficient motors
> > have a very dynamic quality.
>
> Forgetting all the undamped resonances, badly-dessigned horns, etc.,
> etc.
>
> > From silence they
> > spring to life in response to musical transients.
> > Well done, they articulate infinitesimal details
> > and have a warm, spacious, easy character.
>
> Pass is getting old enough that his hearing is obviously in question.
> That nostalgia stuff sounds good - especially if memories dominate
> what you hear.
>
> > The paradox is, of course, that modern designs
> > in many ways are not as sonically pleasing as the
> > old classics.
>
> Everything was so much better in the early 50s. Why we hadn't even
yet
> cured poli, and blood-typing was new technology.
>
> > For all the power available, they
> > have traded off dynamic range, transient attack
> > and decay, and articulation.
>
> Not necesasrily.

Usually.

>
>
> > The old speakers came in big enclosures, made
> > of spruce, maple and other acoustically live
> > woods designed to get the last bit of bottom
> > end performance from a big lightweight paper
> > cone.
>
> The old speakers mostly came in plywood boxes, so you got to listen
to
> inter-lamination resonances. Love that dynamic buzzing sound!
>
> > Large bass-reflex boxes and horns filled
> > audiophile listening rooms. The wood in the
> > enclosures was flexible and had a sonic signature
> > of its own.
>
> IOW, they had a lot of colorations.

MDF has no coloration? Bull****.
>
> >Like the material used in the paper
> > cones, it was chosen for sonic harmony with the
> > drivers, and was the object of craftsmanship in
> > construction and finish.
>
> I think most speaker makers bought their plywood from the same places
> as everybody else.
>
> > Today? Monkey caskets: Medium density
> > fiberboard, or worse, particle board rules the
> > marketplace. It's cheap, easy to machine, and
> > is supposed to be acoustically dead. Actually,
> > it pretty much is...... dead, lifeless and
> > uninteresting."<< (Excerpt mine.)
>
> Dead, as in far fewer audible resonances.

Dead, as in dead.
>
> > If I ever visit Reno again I am going to see if Mr Pass gives
> tours.
> > That, and I want to throw something off 'the bridge'. (You know
what
> > bridge..sacred ground trod in high heels...)
>
> Try throwing Pass off, and put him out of his obvious misery and
> delusions.

The Krueger Solution. If someone advocates what Arny doesn't like,
throw them off the bridge. Is that the Horst Wessel Lied I hear in the
distance?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:38:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>The old designers measured and
>> listened carefully, and were persistent. Most of
>> them had taste, and they knew what they wanted
>> when they heard it.
>
>Yeah, sure. That's why we had sonic abortions like the Karlson Kurve,
>the Voice Of The Theater A7, The full-range version of the Klipschorn
>and Cornwall, etc.

I'm sure that this mention was for my benefit.

Thanks!

Arnold seems envious of speakers that stayed on the market for more
than a couple of years.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:38:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>The old designers measured and
>>>listened carefully, and were persistent. Most of
>>>them had taste, and they knew what they wanted
>>>when they heard it.
>>
>>Yeah, sure. That's why we had sonic abortions like the Karlson Kurve,
>>the Voice Of The Theater A7, The full-range version of the Klipschorn
>>and Cornwall, etc.
>
>
> I'm sure that this mention was for my benefit.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Arnold seems envious of speakers that stayed on the market for more
> than a couple of years.


IMHO, Arnold is seriously questioning your tastes...

;-)

[Arny Krueger]

wrote:
> Mike McKelvy wrote:

>> If Mr. Pass doesn't like the sound of today's speakers, he should
see
>> if he can design his own line and see if they sell.

> http://www.passlabs.com/speakers/rushmore.htm

Well, that explains everything. Trust Pass to take the low road and
launch his product with a negative advertising campaign.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote:

> Lemme get this straight, 50s speakers were no good,

By modern standards, they were generally pretty crappy. There were a
few exceptions, but still by modern standards they were either wildly
impractical for home use (e.g. Altec A4) , or simply rare exceptions.

> but by the late sixties they were OK?

In 20 years things improved quite a bit. Practicality was on the rise,
courtesy of the revolution that was sparked by AR in the mid-late 50s.

> In the mid-70's if you wanted _good_ speakers
> you ignored the ****ty ones at the chain joints and bought-an Altec
> lansing, JBL or Klipsch,

By the mid-70s you had a lot more choices than that. I guess that in
your world Cal, there never were any KLH or AR speakers. BTW in the
70s, the Klipschs were still pretty crappy.

> unless you wanted dipoles or something really weird.

Thanks for reminding me that by the 70s we had Magnepans, a number of
different ribbons, and some electrostats, all of which you are
dismissing, Cal.

[Arny Krueger]

Lionel wrote:
> dave weil a écrit :
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:38:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> The old designers measured and
>>>> listened carefully, and were persistent. Most of
>>>> them had taste, and they knew what they wanted
>>>> when they heard it.
>>>
>>> Yeah, sure. That's why we had sonic abortions like the Karlson
>>> Kurve, the Voice Of The Theater A7, The full-range version of the
>>> Klipschorn and Cornwall, etc.
>>
>>
>> I'm sure that this mention was for my benefit.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Arnold seems envious of speakers that stayed on the market for more
>> than a couple of years.
>
>
> IMHO, Arnold is seriously questioning your tastes...
>
> ;-)

In fact there are no questions left in my mind about Weil's taste.
There's nothing to question!

But his taste is no bettter than his memory of history. For example,
he just claimed that speakers like the AR-3 and JBL L-100 were only on
the market for a couple of years. LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Mike McKelvy wrote:
>
>>> If Mr. Pass doesn't like the sound of today's speakers, he should
> see
>>> if he can design his own line and see if they sell.
>
>> http://www.passlabs.com/speakers/rushmore.htm
>
> Well, that explains everything. Trust Pass to take the low road and
> launch his product with a negative advertising campaign.
>
>


What was negative about that page?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Arny Krueger]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>> Mike McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>>> If Mr. Pass doesn't like the sound of today's speakers, he should
>> see
>>>> if he can design his own line and see if they sell.
>>
>>> http://www.passlabs.com/speakers/rushmore.htm
>>
>> Well, that explains everything. Trust Pass to take the low road and
>> launch his product with a negative advertising campaign.

> What was negative about that page?

Nothing about that page. Time to get up to speed Art, and read the OP.
It quoted Pass and it had the negative comments.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Well, that explains everything. Trust Pass to take the low road and
> > launch his product with a negative advertising campaign.

> What was negative about that page?

I think this is the bit that raised Turdy's hackles:

"The old designers knew they were never going to get a really rigid
neutral piston, so they researched cone materials that were light, well
damped, and whose deviations from the ideal were at least musical. This
philosophy was in keeping with the approach to the old tubes amps as well;
they didn’t measure that great, but their faults were at least musical and
fairly inoffensive. The old designers measured and listened carefully, and
were persistent. Most of them had taste, and they knew what they wanted
when they heard it."

If you're familiar with Kroologic and other elements of Mr. ****'s wacky
religion, you'll recognize the language about tube amps. The Krooborg
interprets anything short of full-on condemnation as an attack on his own
irrational prejudices. And that reference to taste was, in the Krooborg's
eyes, purely gratuitous. That alone is enough to trigger a paranoa™
****storm.

[Arny Krueger]

George M. Middius wrote:

> Clyde Slick said:

>>Arny Krueger wrote:

>>>Clyde Slick (previously known as Art Sackman) wrote:

>>>> http://www.passlabs.com/speakers/rushmore.htm

>>> Well, that explains everything. Trust Pass to take the low road
and
>>> launch his product with a negative advertising campaign.

>> What was negative about that page?

> I think this is the bit that raised Turdy's hackles:

> "The old designers knew they were never going to get a really rigid
> neutral piston, so they researched cone materials that were light,
> well damped, and whose deviations from the ideal were at least
> musical. This philosophy was in keeping with the approach to the old
> tubes amps as well; they didn't measure that great, but their faults
> were at least musical and fairly inoffensive. The old designers
> measured and listened carefully, and were persistent. Most of them
> had taste, and they knew what they wanted when they heard it."
>
> If you're familiar with Kroologic and other elements of Mr. ****'s
> wacky religion, you'll recognize the language about tube amps. The
> Krooborg interprets anything short of full-on condemnation as an
> attack on his own irrational prejudices. And that reference to taste
> was, in the Krooborg's eyes, purely gratuitous. That alone is enough
> to trigger a paranoaT ****storm.

Actually this post by Middius shows exactly how fatally he is obsessed
with me. He didn't notice that the text that he just quoted did not
appear on the page that Art cited, namely:

http://www.passlabs.com/speakers/rushmore.htm

Therefore, Middius' post is irrelevant (as usual).

[dave weil]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 05:25:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Lionel wrote:
>> dave weil a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:38:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The old designers measured and
>>>>> listened carefully, and were persistent. Most of
>>>>> them had taste, and they knew what they wanted
>>>>> when they heard it.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, sure. That's why we had sonic abortions like the Karlson
>>>> Kurve, the Voice Of The Theater A7, The full-range version of the
>>>> Klipschorn and Cornwall, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure that this mention was for my benefit.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Arnold seems envious of speakers that stayed on the market for more
>>> than a couple of years.
>>
>>
>> IMHO, Arnold is seriously questioning your tastes...
>>
>> ;-)
>
>In fact there are no questions left in my mind about Weil's taste.
>There's nothing to question!
>
>But his taste is no bettter than his memory of history. For example,
>he just claimed that speakers like the AR-3 and JBL L-100 were only on
>the market for a couple of years. LOL!

Only Arnold could come up with a logical leap like that.

BTW, I was going to write <insert Lionel comment to enable Arnold to
respond> after the message, but I decided to let it go just to see how
predictably you'd respond. It's just like Pavlov's Dog.

[Lionel]

Arny Krueger a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:38:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>
> >
>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The old designers measured and
>>>>>listened carefully, and were persistent. Most of
>>>>>them had taste, and they knew what they wanted
>>>>>when they heard it.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, sure. That's why we had sonic abortions like the Karlson
>>>>Kurve, the Voice Of The Theater A7, The full-range version of the
>>>>Klipschorn and Cornwall, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm sure that this mention was for my benefit.
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>>
>>>Arnold seems envious of speakers that stayed on the market for more
>>>than a couple of years.
>>
>>
>>IMHO, Arnold is seriously questioning your tastes...
>>
>>;-)
>
>
> In fact there are no questions left in my mind about Weil's taste.
> There's nothing to question!


I'm afraid that you are right and that Weil hasn't any real
musical tastes, just a kind of frivolous coquetry which
gives him a excuse to discourse during hours... ;-)


> But his taste is no bettter than his memory of history. For example,
> he just claimed that speakers like the AR-3 and JBL L-100 were only on
> the market for a couple of years. LOL!

Dave "8hz" Weil is a serious audio guy !!!

:-D

[dave weil]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:41:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> wrote:
>>>> Mike McKelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If Mr. Pass doesn't like the sound of today's speakers, he should
>>> see
>>>>> if he can design his own line and see if they sell.
>>>
>>>> http://www.passlabs.com/speakers/rushmore.htm
>>>
>>> Well, that explains everything. Trust Pass to take the low road and
>>> launch his product with a negative advertising campaign.
>
>> What was negative about that page?
>
>Nothing about that page. Time to get up to speed Art, and read the OP.
>It quoted Pass and it had the negative comments.

Time for you to attribute properly, Arnold. Don't blame OTHERS for
your inability to figure out how to respond to posts.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:19:55 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>Dave Weil is a serious audio guy !!!

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:19:55 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Dave Weil is a serious idiot guy !!!
>
>

[dave weil]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:08:13 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:19:55 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dave Weil is a serious guy !!!

Only some of the time.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :

> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:08:13 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:19:55 +0200, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave Weil is a serious guy !!!
>
>
> roflmaopimptime.

Agreed.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:40:00 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:


>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:19:55 +0200, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave Weil is a serious guy !!!

>>>And I'm humble as well.

>>Agreed.

[Mike McKelvy]

Cal shows his fondness for obsolete technology and distortion once
again:

> > For all the power available, they
> > have traded off dynamic range, transient attack
> > and decay, and articulation.


> Not necesasrily.



Usually.

Depends on the drivers and the design.

> IOW, they had a lot of colorations.



>>MDF has no coloration? Bull****.

I didn't say that, it has less than solid wood which is why it used
morte than solid wood. The fact is theere is no way to eliminate all
panel resonances, so designers try to attenuate them to an inaudible
level or only send frequencies to the cabinet that are out of the range
of the resonances, IO if you have a subwoofer cabinet that vibrates at
250 Hz, don't send anything over 100 Hz.

> Dead, as in far fewer audible resonances.



>> Dead, as in dead.

As opposed to alive with audible resonances. The cabinets are not
supposed to contribute sound of their own. Vibrations from wooden
panels is fine for string instruments, pianos, and guitars, etc. but
not for speaker cabinets.

[dave weil]

On 19 Apr 2005 10:50:37 -0700, "Mike McKelvy" >
wrote:

>>>MDF has no coloration? Bull****.
>
>I didn't say that, it has less than solid wood which is why it used
>morte than solid wood.

I doubt that this is the primary motivator in the design of most
cabinets. It's probably no better than fourth, behind cost, weight and
ease of use in construction.

[Lionel]

dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :

> On 19 Apr 2005 10:50:37 -0700, "Mike McKelvy" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>MDF has no coloration? Bull****.
>>
>>I didn't say that, it has less than solid wood which is why it used
>>morte than solid wood.

Agreed.
High quality MDF is one of the best compromise for speaker
builting.
There're 1000s of threads on the question on
speaker-builders NG... And the conclusion nearly remains the
same :
- MDF for closed, vented and TL systems
- Baltic birch for horn construction.


> I doubt that this is the primary motivator in the design of most
> cabinets. It's probably no better than fourth, behind cost, weight and
> ease of use in construction.


You are wrong, McKelvy is right.

[Mike McKelvy]

Dave commented on:

>I didn't say that, it has less than solid wood which is why it used
>more than solid wood.



>I doubt that this is the primary motivator in the design of most
>cabinets. It's probably no better than fourth, behind cost, weight and

>ease of use in construction.


Doubt what you want, but the fact is still that MDF is less resonant
than solid wood, which makes it a better choice for spaeaker cabinets
than solid wood. IIRC it also tends to be heavier than solid wood. It's
a bitch to cut though because it tends to chip and if you aren't
careful with screws and T nuts you wind up going through it. You will
notice the DIY crowd can use any kind of construction materials they
want becuase they don't have to please anyone or hit a price point in
the marketplace, do not use solid woods, they use MDF or Baltic Birch
plywood.

[Lionel]

Mike McKelvy a écrit :
> Dave commented on:
>
>
>>I didn't say that, it has less than solid wood which is why it used
>>more than solid wood.
>
>
>
>
>>I doubt that this is the primary motivator in the design of most
>>cabinets. It's probably no better than fourth, behind cost, weight and
>
>
>>ease of use in construction.
>
>
>
> Doubt what you want, but the fact is still that MDF is less resonant
> than solid wood, which makes it a better choice for spaeaker cabinets
> than solid wood. IIRC it also tends to be heavier than solid wood. It's
> a bitch to cut though because it tends to chip and if you aren't
> careful with screws and T nuts you wind up going through it. You will
> notice the DIY crowd can use any kind of construction materials they
> want becuase they don't have to please anyone or hit a price point in
> the marketplace, do not use solid woods, they use MDF or Baltic Birch
> plywood.
>

An other quality of the MDF for speaker construction is its
good dimensional stability in the time and under different
climats.

PS : discussing *serious* audio issues with Dave "8hz" Weil
is a waste of time.

[dave weil]

On 19 Apr 2005 13:08:41 -0700, "Mike McKelvy" >
wrote:

>Dave commented on:
>
>>I didn't say that, it has less than solid wood which is why it used
>>more than solid wood.
>
>
>
>>I doubt that this is the primary motivator in the design of most
>>cabinets. It's probably no better than fourth, behind cost, weight and
>
>>ease of use in construction.
>
>
>Doubt what you want, but the fact is still that MDF is less resonant
>than solid wood, which makes it a better choice for spaeaker cabinets
>than solid wood. IIRC it also tends to be heavier than solid wood. It's
>a bitch to cut though because it tends to chip and if you aren't
>careful with screws and T nuts you wind up going through it. You will
>notice the DIY crowd can use any kind of construction materials they
>want becuase they don't have to please anyone or hit a price point in
>the marketplace, do not use solid woods, they use MDF or Baltic Birch
>plywood.

And back before MDF, laminated plywood was used far more often than
solid wood for many of the reasons that I mentioned.

Same deal.

By ease of use of construction, I meant that it's much easier to store
MDF than solid wood, which needs more care in storage due to
considerations such as aging and humidity control as well as
considerations such as finish grading. Sorry to have been unclear on
that.

And your point about weight is what I was talking about, shipping
costs being a somewhat important factor in the selling of speakers.

PS, I was speaking commercially, as I thought that you were addressing
that aspect.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 16:00:40 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>And your point about weight is what I was talking about, shipping
>costs being a somewhat important factor in the selling of speakers.

I typed this before I realized that I was in error. I would concede
this point. I was originally thinking about the perception of the
consumer that a heavier product would be better, but I think that the
increased cost of shipping would trump that, so I'd concede that
point.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On 19 Apr 2005 13:08:41 -0700, "Mike McKelvy" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Dave commented on:
>>
>>
>>>I didn't say that, it has less than solid wood which is why it used
>>>more than solid wood.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I doubt that this is the primary motivator in the design of most
>>>cabinets. It's probably no better than fourth, behind cost, weight and
>>
>>>ease of use in construction.
>>
>>
>>Doubt what you want, but the fact is still that MDF is less resonant
>>than solid wood, which makes it a better choice for spaeaker cabinets
>>than solid wood. IIRC it also tends to be heavier than solid wood. It's
>>a bitch to cut though because it tends to chip and if you aren't
>>careful with screws and T nuts you wind up going through it. You will
>>notice the DIY crowd can use any kind of construction materials they
>>want becuase they don't have to please anyone or hit a price point in
>>the marketplace, do not use solid woods, they use MDF or Baltic Birch
>>plywood.
>
>
> And back before MDF, laminated plywood was used far more often than
> solid wood for many of the reasons that I mentioned.

Wrong once again...
Before MDF manufacturers and speaker builders were mostly
using wood chipboard (particle board ?)

[dave weil]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:20:50 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>> And back before MDF, laminated plywood was used far more often than
>> solid wood for many of the reasons that I mentioned.
>
>Wrong once again...
>Before MDF manufacturers and speaker builders were mostly
>using wood chipboard (particle board ?)

I didn't say that they weren't. I said that they were using laminated
plywood far more often than solid wood. Which is NOT wrong.

But nice try anyway.

[Lionel]

dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :

> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:20:50 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>And back before MDF, laminated plywood was used far more often than
>>>solid wood for many of the reasons that I mentioned.
>>
>>Wrong once again...
>>Before MDF manufacturers and speaker builders were mostly
>>using wood chipboard (particle board ?)
>
>
> I didn't say that they weren't. I said that they were using laminated
> plywood far more often than solid wood. Which is NOT wrong.
>
> But nice try anyway.

You can play on the words as you want...

You are just proving that you don't know what you are
speaking about (one more time) and that you *don't*
understand the *very* basic pros and cons of material
choices in speaker building.

Pitiful try once again.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> wrote:
>>>> Mike McKelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If Mr. Pass doesn't like the sound of today's speakers, he should
>>> see
>>>>> if he can design his own line and see if they sell.
>>>
>>>> http://www.passlabs.com/speakers/rushmore.htm
>>>
>>> Well, that explains everything. Trust Pass to take the low road and
>>> launch his product with a negative advertising campaign.
>
>> What was negative about that page?
>
> Nothing about that page. Time to get up to speed Art, and read the OP.
> It quoted Pass and it had the negative comments.
>
>

one would think thatn you had enough sense to
post the link that goes directly to the material you
are complaining about. Wait a minute, any sensible person
would NOT expect you to be so competent.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>> Clyde Slick said:
>
>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>>>Clyde Slick (previously known as Art Sackman) wrote:
>
>>>>> http://www.passlabs.com/speakers/rushmore.htm
>
>>>> Well, that explains everything. Trust Pass to take the low road
> and
>>>> launch his product with a negative advertising campaign.
>
>>> What was negative about that page?
>
>> I think this is the bit that raised Turdy's hackles:
>
>> "The old designers knew they were never going to get a really rigid
>> neutral piston, so they researched cone materials that were light,
>> well damped, and whose deviations from the ideal were at least
>> musical. This philosophy was in keeping with the approach to the old
>> tubes amps as well; they didn't measure that great, but their faults
>> were at least musical and fairly inoffensive. The old designers
>> measured and listened carefully, and were persistent. Most of them
>> had taste, and they knew what they wanted when they heard it."
>>
>> If you're familiar with Kroologic and other elements of Mr. ****'s
>> wacky religion, you'll recognize the language about tube amps. The
>> Krooborg interprets anything short of full-on condemnation as an
>> attack on his own irrational prejudices. And that reference to taste
>> was, in the Krooborg's eyes, purely gratuitous. That alone is enough
>> to trigger a paranoaT ****storm.
>
> Actually this post by Middius shows exactly how fatally he is obsessed
> with me. He didn't notice that the text that he just quoted did not
> appear on the page that Art cited, namely:
>
> http://www.passlabs.com/speakers/rushmore.htm
>
> Therefore, Middius' post is irrelevant (as usual).
>

DIMWIT!!!!!
That's the page YOU cited!!!!!
though you later stated you were referring to
some different material.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> >>>>> http://www.passlabs.com/speakers/rushmore.htm

> >> If you're familiar with Kroologic and other elements of Mr. ****'s
> >> wacky religion, you'll recognize the language about tube amps. The
> >> Krooborg interprets anything short of full-on condemnation as an
> >> attack on his own irrational prejudices. And that reference to taste
> >> was, in the Krooborg's eyes, purely gratuitous. That alone is enough
> >> to trigger a paranoaT ****storm.

> > He didn't notice that the text that he just quoted did not
> > appear on the page that Art cited, namely:
> > http://www.passlabs.com/speakers/rushmore.htm

duh...... Time to wipe yourself, Arnii.

I'll bet you still haven't had yourself properly diagnosted. Am I right,
or am I right?

> DIMWIT!!!!!
> That's the page YOU cited!!!!!

No sooner do I mention Kroologic than Turdy dumps some on RAO. Sad.™

[Mike McKelvy]

>Dave commented on:

>>I didn't say that, it has less than solid wood which is why it used
>>more than solid wood.


>>I doubt that this is the primary motivator in the design of most
>>cabinets. It's probably no better than fourth, behind cost, weight
and


>>ease of use in construction.


>Doubt what you want, but the fact is still that MDF is less resonant
>than solid wood, which makes it a better choice for spaeaker cabinets
>than solid wood. IIRC it also tends to be heavier than solid wood.
It's
>a bitch to cut though because it tends to chip and if you aren't
>careful with screws and T nuts you wind up going through it. You will

>notice the DIY crowd can use any kind of construction materials they
>want becuase they don't have to please anyone or hit a price point in
>the marketplace, do not use solid woods, they use MDF or Baltic Birch
>plywood.



>And back before MDF, laminated plywood was used far more often >than
>solid wood for many of the reasons that I mentioned.

>Same deal.

That's right same deal, it is less resonant.


>By ease of use of construction, I meant that it's much easier to store

>MDF than solid wood, which needs more care in storage due to
>considerations such as aging and humidity control as well as
>considerations such as finish grading. Sorry to have been unclear on
>that.

Making it a win-win, less resonant, less money, less trouble. It's
simply better material to build speaker cabinets from, assuming you
don't want the cabinet to contribute sound of it's own. Look up any
guyide to speaker building and you'll see the same recomendations, MDF,
or Baltic Birch plywood. The only other suggestion is constrained
layers of those materials plus something in betwwen, which makes it
more expensive again.



>PS, I was speaking commercially, as I thought that you were
>addressing
>that aspect.


I was speaking about the best way to build speakers, for DIY or for
commerical manufacture, you use what works best. mOst commerical
speakers of any kind of decent quality use MDF.
DIYers use MDFor Baltic Birch most of the time. Ocaaisionally, you
will find some more exotic construction but only by thsose who are
fanatics, but never IME solid wood, because it vibrates more.

If Pass wants to build speakers that vibrate more, let him, hell he
still makes tube gear so he obviously waxes nostalgic about obsolete
technology.

Look at the the most highly regarded speakers and find one thing in
common, they all brag about cabinets that don't contribute audibel
vibration, Wilson, Legacy, B&W, Conrad Johnson, ProAc, the list goes on
and on.

[Lionel]

Mike McKelvy a écrit :
>>Dave commented on:
>
>
>>>I didn't say that, it has less than solid wood which is why it used
>>>more than solid wood.
>
>
>
>>>I doubt that this is the primary motivator in the design of most
>>>cabinets. It's probably no better than fourth, behind cost, weight
>
> and
>
>
>
>>>ease of use in construction.
>
>
>
>>Doubt what you want, but the fact is still that MDF is less resonant
>>than solid wood, which makes it a better choice for spaeaker cabinets
>>than solid wood. IIRC it also tends to be heavier than solid wood.
>
> It's
>
>>a bitch to cut though because it tends to chip and if you aren't
>>careful with screws and T nuts you wind up going through it. You will
>
>
>>notice the DIY crowd can use any kind of construction materials they
>>want becuase they don't have to please anyone or hit a price point in
>>the marketplace, do not use solid woods, they use MDF or Baltic Birch
>>plywood.
>
>
>
>
>>And back before MDF, laminated plywood was used far more often >than
>>solid wood for many of the reasons that I mentioned.
>
>
>>Same deal.
>
>
> That's right same deal, it is less resonant.
>
>
>
>>By ease of use of construction, I meant that it's much easier to store
>
>
>>MDF than solid wood, which needs more care in storage due to
>>considerations such as aging and humidity control as well as
>>considerations such as finish grading. Sorry to have been unclear on
>>that.
>
>
> Making it a win-win, less resonant, less money, less trouble. It's
> simply better material to build speaker cabinets from, assuming you
> don't want the cabinet to contribute sound of it's own. Look up any
> guyide to speaker building and you'll see the same recomendations, MDF,
> or Baltic Birch plywood. The only other suggestion is constrained
> layers of those materials plus something in betwwen, which makes it
> more expensive again.
>
>
>
>
>>PS, I was speaking commercially, as I thought that you were
>>addressing
>>that aspect.
>
>
>
> I was speaking about the best way to build speakers, for DIY or for
> commerical manufacture, you use what works best. mOst commerical
> speakers of any kind of decent quality use MDF.
> DIYers use MDFor Baltic Birch most of the time. Ocaaisionally, you
> will find some more exotic construction but only by thsose who are
> fanatics, but never IME solid wood, because it vibrates more.

I am builting now a 1.2 meters floorstanding speaker and I
am testing a sandwich construction. From inside to outside :
- approx. 3mm bitumen sealing (stinking) mixture
- 10mm MDF
- 7mm "fibrafloor" (fiberwood acoustic insulation)
- 15mm pinewood

Since one month I am conscientiously and generously
"painting" them with a solution of flax oil and spirit of
turpentine in order to prevent (if possible) pinewood
unpredictable behaviour... ;-)


> If Pass wants to build speakers that vibrate more, let him, hell he
> still makes tube gear so he obviously waxes nostalgic about obsolete
> technology.
>
> Look at the the most highly regarded speakers and find one thing in
> common, they all brag about cabinets that don't contribute audibel
> vibration, Wilson, Legacy, B&W, Conrad Johnson, ProAc, the list goes on
> and on.

[Clyde Slick]

"Mike McKelvy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Look at the the most highly regarded speakers and find one thing in
> common, they all brag about cabinets that don't contribute audibel
> vibration, Wilson, Legacy, B&W, Conrad Johnson, ProAc, the list goes on
> and on.
>

Duh..Mikey
Conrad Johnson speakers?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Mike McKelvy" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Look at the the most highly regarded speakers and find one thing in
>>common, they all brag about cabinets that don't contribute audibel
>>vibration, Wilson, Legacy, B&W, Conrad Johnson, ProAc, the list goes on
>>and on.
>>
>
>
> Duh..Mikey
> Conrad Johnson speakers?

Yes, Duh..Sackman,
"SRS (Synthesis Reference System) speaker".

:-D

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick a écrit :
>> "Mike McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>>Look at the the most highly regarded speakers and find one thing in
>>>common, they all brag about cabinets that don't contribute audibel
>>>vibration, Wilson, Legacy, B&W, Conrad Johnson, ProAc, the list goes on
>>>and on.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Duh..Mikey
>> Conrad Johnson speakers?
>
> Yes, Duh..Sackman,
> "SRS (Synthesis Reference System) speaker".
>
> :-D


Not here:
http://www.conradjohnson.com/

Was it soemthing they did a while ago?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>
>>>"Mike McKelvy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Look at the the most highly regarded speakers and find one thing in
>>>>common, they all brag about cabinets that don't contribute audibel
>>>>vibration, Wilson, Legacy, B&W, Conrad Johnson, ProAc, the list goes on
>>>>and on.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Duh..Mikey
>>>Conrad Johnson speakers?
>>
>>Yes, Duh..Sackman,
>>"SRS (Synthesis Reference System) speaker".
>>
>>:-D
>
>
>
> Not here:
> http://www.conradjohnson.com/
>
> Was it soemthing they did a while ago?

Make your own search lazy, cretin.

[dave weil]

>> Making it a win-win, less resonant, less money, less trouble. It's
>> simply better material to build speaker cabinets from, assuming you
>> don't want the cabinet to contribute sound of it's own.

Just so you understand, I'm not contesting the FACT that MDF is a
better material. I was just talking about commercial considerations,
since that's where most cabinets originate. As you know, the bean
counters rarely are worried about sound considerations when it
conflicts with cost and productivity <g>.

[Lionel]

dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>
>>>Making it a win-win, less resonant, less money, less trouble. It's
>>>simply better material to build speaker cabinets from, assuming you
>>>don't want the cabinet to contribute sound of it's own.
>
>
> Just so you understand, I'm not contesting the FACT that MDF is a
> better material.

Translation :
"So you finally proved that I was wrong but as I am
prideless (and that I think you are an idiot), I just make a
pirouette and... hop ! I am right now."

> I was just talking about commercial considerations,
> since that's where most cabinets originate. As you know, the bean
> counters rarely are worried about sound considerations

???????

> when it
> conflicts with cost and productivity <g>.

LOL !!!!! What an interesting discussion !!!
Dave Weil is really a *serious* audio guy.

:-D

[dave weil]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:10:19 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>
>dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>>
>>>>Making it a win-win, less resonant, less money, less trouble. It's
>>>>simply better material to build speaker cabinets from, assuming you
>>>>don't want the cabinet to contribute sound of it's own.
>>
>>
>> Just so you understand, I'm not contesting the FACT that MDF is a
>> better material.
>
>Translation :
>"So you finally proved that I was wrong but as I am
>prideless (and that I think you are an idiot), I just make a
>pirouette and... hop ! I am right now."

No...if you read my original post, I didn't comment on anything other
the ordering of reasons for using MDF, and, as I later clarified, I
was speaking commercially, which is implied in the first post anyway,
since the vast majority of speaker cabinets are build commercially
anyway.

It was YOU who jumped in, pirouetting and hectoring. It's funny how
you jump to virtually every one of my posts. I guess you're my own
little flea circus.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:10:19 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>Dave Weil is really a *serious* audio guy.

Sometimes. However, I don't build "stinky" speakers.

[Mike McKelvy]

Dave Weil says:



Just so you understand, I'm not contesting the FACT that MDF is a
better material. I was just talking about commercial considerations,
since that's where most cabinets originate. As you know, the bean
counters rarely are worried about sound considerations when it
conflicts with cost and productivity


__________________________________________________ ____________________________________-

But the bean counters like to be employed and competition being what it
is they would choose the superior material. There's no know benefit to
using expensive capacitors or wire, yet some manfacturers do to hint
that they make a superior product. Fortunately for the consumer MDF is
as I said, a win-win.

[Mike McKelvy]

Art says:

Duh..Mikey
Conrad Johnson speakers?

__________________________________________________

Ooops. I got a name wrong.

[dave weil]

On 20 Apr 2005 08:23:52 -0700, "Mike McKelvy" >
wrote:

>But the bean counters like to be employed and competition being what it
>is they would choose the superior material.

This happens far less than you'd like to imagine, especially for the
large, mass market companies. They are only money engineers after all.
They know what builds a strong financial foundation, and this is often
at odds with the other types of engineers.

[Mike McKelvy]

Art wonders:

Was it soemthing they did a while ago?
__________________________________________________ _____
I was searching for speaker cabinet constuction articles yesterday and
I thought I saw something about them making speakers, which is why I
referenced them in the other post.

[dave weil]

On 20 Apr 2005 08:38:54 -0700, "Mike McKelvy" >
wrote:

>Art wonders:
>
>Was it soemthing they did a while ago?
>__________________________________________________ _____
>I was searching for speaker cabinet constuction articles yesterday and
>I thought I saw something about them making speakers, which is why I
>referenced them in the other post.

You can read a mention of them here:

http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/conradjohnson/

Interesting "behind-the-scenes" article as well.

[Mike McKelvy]

Dave said:

On 20 Apr 2005 08:23:52 -0700, "Mike McKelvy" >
wrote:



>But the bean counters like to be employed and competition being what
it
>is they would choose the superior material.


>This happens far less than you'd like to imagine, especially for the
>large, mass market companies. They are only money engineers >after
all.

And the way you make money is to produce a decent product. All
companies search for ways to cut costs, especially if they can keep
quality high.

>They know what builds a strong financial foundation, and this is
>often
>at odds with the other types of engineers.


Strong fiancial foundations are built on producing things people want
to buy and being able to make a profit at it. Speaker companies aren't
run by saints, just people who want to make a product they can sell.
You notice there are speakers in many different price ranges, yet they
all choose to build from the least resonant material that fits the
price point they are selling to. Once you get past a certain price
point, MDF is the standard.

[Mike McKelvy]

Duh..Mikey
Conrad Johnson speakers?


http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/conradjohnson/

[Mike McKelvy]

>Art wonders:

>Was it soemthing they did a while ago?
>_____________________________=AD__________________ ________
>I was searching for speaker cabinet constuction articles yesterday and

>I thought I saw something about them making speakers, which is why I
>referenced them in the other post.


Dave finds it:

>You can read a mention of them here:

>http://www.soundstagelive.com/=ADfactorytours/conradjohnson/


>Interesting "behind-the-scenes" article as well.


That is the one I saw yesterday.

[Mike McKelvy]

Ooops. I got a name wrong.


Or not.

[dave weil]

On 20 Apr 2005 10:04:35 -0700, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>>Art wonders:
>
>>Was it soemthing they did a while ago?
>>_____________________________*____________________ ______
>>I was searching for speaker cabinet constuction articles yesterday and
>
>>I thought I saw something about them making speakers, which is why I
>>referenced them in the other post.
>
>
>Dave finds it:
>
>>You can read a mention of them here:
>
>>http://www.soundstagelive.com/*factorytours/conradjohnson/
>
>
>>Interesting "behind-the-scenes" article as well.
>
>
>That is the one I saw yesterday.

Shame they didn't have any pictures of the speaker, only those nasty
ole non MDF Wilsons <g>.

A company with the legacy of that company should have an archive area
for people to access the old products.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:10:19 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>>
>>>>>Making it a win-win, less resonant, less money, less trouble. It's
>>>>>simply better material to build speaker cabinets from, assuming you
>>>>>don't want the cabinet to contribute sound of it's own.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just so you understand, I'm not contesting the FACT that MDF is a
>>>better material.
>>
>>Translation :
>>"So you finally proved that I was wrong but as I am
>>prideless (and that I think you are an idiot), I just make a
>>pirouette and... hop ! I am right now."
>
>
> No...if you read my original post, I didn't comment on anything other
> the ordering of reasons for using MDF, and, as I later clarified, I
> was speaking commercially, which is implied in the first post anyway,
> since the vast majority of speaker cabinets are build commercially
> anyway.


Yes but you are still wrong and you prove one more time that
you speak about things that you really don't know :

If like you said :

" As you know, the bean counters rarely are worried about
sound considerations when it conflicts with cost and
productivity <g>. "


Speaker manufacturers would use chipboard which is really
*cheaper* than MDF *BUT* which is *better* material than the
wood for speaker construction.

Note that I lready gave you all the keys of the discussions
just above in the thread.

I'm sorry, you lose,

again.

:-D

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:10:19 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Dave Weil is really a *serious* audio guy.
>
>
> Sometimes. However, I don't build "stinky" speakers.

I know. This explains why you don't know and why you don't
understand anything to speaker construction...

;-)

[Lionel]

Mike McKelvy a écrit :
> Dave Weil says:
>
>
>
> Just so you understand, I'm not contesting the FACT that MDF is a
> better material. I was just talking about commercial considerations,
> since that's where most cabinets originate. As you know, the bean
> counters rarely are worried about sound considerations when it
> conflicts with cost and productivity
>
>
> __________________________________________________ ____________________________________-
>
> But the bean counters like to be employed and competition being what it
> is they would choose the superior material. There's no know benefit to
> using expensive capacitors or wire, yet some manfacturers do to hint
> that they make a superior product. Fortunately for the consumer MDF is
> as I said, a win-win.

Chipboard is less expensive than MDF but still better than wood.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:21:00 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>Speaker manufacturers would use chipboard which is really
>*cheaper* than MDF *BUT* which is *better* material than the
>wood for speaker construction.

They use BOTH far more than solid wood. But I still maintain that the
use for most speakers is based more on cost than sonic qualities.

You can argue the point all you want...

[Lionel]

dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:21:00 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Speaker manufacturers would use chipboard which is really
>>*cheaper* than MDF *BUT* which is *better* material than the
>>wood for speaker construction.
>
>
> They use BOTH far more than solid wood.

You are still wrong MDF is hugely more used than chipboard
which proves that your economical argument is *stupid*.

Sorry, you lose...

;-)

> But I still maintain that the
> use for most speakers is based more on cost than sonic qualities.


And I still maintain that you don't know what you are
speaking about...


> You can argue the point all you want...

LOL, "8hz" Dave is cornered... :-D

Oh, Dave do you know that strong thick carton board is a
best material than wood for speaker manufacturing ?
It is really less expensive than chipboard or MDF but nearly
no manufacturer use it...

Sorry you lose,

again.

:-D

[dave weil]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:58:16 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>
>dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:21:00 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Speaker manufacturers would use chipboard which is really
>>>*cheaper* than MDF *BUT* which is *better* material than the
>>>wood for speaker construction.
>>
>>
>> They use BOTH far more than solid wood.
>
>You are still wrong MDF is hugely more used than chipboard
>which proves that your economical argument is *stupid*.
>
>Sorry, you lose...

Nope.

You can keep spinning all you want. Obviously, you don't have anything
better to do...

[Lionel]

dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:58:16 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:21:00 +0200, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Speaker manufacturers would use chipboard which is really
>>>>*cheaper* than MDF *BUT* which is *better* material than the
>>>>wood for speaker construction.
>>>
>>>
>>>They use BOTH far more than solid wood.
>>
>>You are still wrong MDF is hugely more used than chipboard
>>which proves that your economical argument is *stupid*.
>>
>>Sorry, you lose...
>
>
> Nope.
>
> You can keep spinning all you want. Obviously, you don't have anything
> better to do...

LOL ! According to Stephen "Now comes the "refusing to
answer questions" part of the show...

If your economical argument is valid how do you explain that
speaker manufacturers prefer to use MDF which is more
expensive rather than chipboard which is cheaper ?
Both are acoustically better than wood ?
Eh Dave ? Where are you ?

[Schizoid Man]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

"Mike McKelvy" > wrote in message

>> Look at the the most highly regarded speakers and find one thing in
>> common, they all brag about cabinets that don't contribute audibel
>> vibration, Wilson, Legacy, B&W, Conrad Johnson, ProAc, the list goes on
>> and on.
>>
>
> Duh..Mikey
> Conrad Johnson speakers?

I'm sure there's a perfectly legitimate explanation. Perhaps it's a liberal
conspiracy.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:11:46 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:58:16 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:21:00 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Speaker manufacturers would use chipboard which is really
>>>>>*cheaper* than MDF *BUT* which is *better* material than the
>>>>>wood for speaker construction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They use BOTH far more than solid wood.
>>>
>>>You are still wrong MDF is hugely more used than chipboard
>>>which proves that your economical argument is *stupid*.
>>>
>>>Sorry, you lose...
>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> You can keep spinning all you want. Obviously, you don't have anything
>> better to do...
>
>LOL ! According to Stephen "Now comes the "refusing to
>answer questions" part of the show...
>
>If your economical argument is valid how do you explain that
>speaker manufacturers prefer to use MDF which is more
>expensive rather than chipboard which is cheaper ?
>Both are acoustically better than wood ?
>Eh Dave ? Where are you ?

Nashville. You?

[Lionel]

"8 hz" dave in the "refusing to answer questions" part of
the show... :

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:11:46 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:58:16 +0200, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:21:00 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Speaker manufacturers would use chipboard which is really
>>>>>>*cheaper* than MDF *BUT* which is *better* material than the
>>>>>>wood for speaker construction.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>They use BOTH far more than solid wood.
>>>>
>>>>You are still wrong MDF is hugely more used than chipboard
>>>>which proves that your economical argument is *stupid*.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, you lose...
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>>
>>>You can keep spinning all you want. Obviously, you don't have anything
>>>better to do...
>>
>>LOL ! According to Stephen "Now comes the "refusing to
>>answer questions" part of the show...
>>
>>If your economical argument is valid how do you explain that
>>speaker manufacturers prefer to use MDF which is more
>>expensive rather than chipboard which is cheaper ?
>>Both are acoustically better than wood ?
>>Eh Dave ? Where are you ?
>
>
> Nashville. You?


Nashville ? Oh yes, the world capital of the
marshmallow-music... ;-)

Please Dave explain us one more time why speaker
manufacturers prefer to use MDF...

:-D

[dave weil]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:21:23 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>"8 hz" dave in the "refusing to answer questions" part of
>the show... :
>
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:11:46 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:58:16 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:21:00 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Speaker manufacturers would use chipboard which is really
>>>>>>>*cheaper* than MDF *BUT* which is *better* material than the
>>>>>>>wood for speaker construction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They use BOTH far more than solid wood.
>>>>>
>>>>>You are still wrong MDF is hugely more used than chipboard
>>>>>which proves that your economical argument is *stupid*.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, you lose...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nope.
>>>>
>>>>You can keep spinning all you want. Obviously, you don't have anything
>>>>better to do...
>>>
>>>LOL ! According to Stephen "Now comes the "refusing to
>>>answer questions" part of the show...
>>>
>>>If your economical argument is valid how do you explain that
>>>speaker manufacturers prefer to use MDF which is more
>>>expensive rather than chipboard which is cheaper ?
>>>Both are acoustically better than wood ?
>>>Eh Dave ? Where are you ?
>>
>>
>> Nashville. You?
>
>
>Nashville ? Oh yes

You?

[Lionel]

"8 hz" dave still refuse to answer the question ;-) :

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:21:23 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"8 hz" dave in the "refusing to answer questions" part of
>>the show... :
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:11:46 +0200, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:58:16 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:21:00 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Speaker manufacturers would use chipboard which is really
>>>>>>>>*cheaper* than MDF *BUT* which is *better* material than the
>>>>>>>>wood for speaker construction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They use BOTH far more than solid wood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are still wrong MDF is hugely more used than chipboard
>>>>>>which proves that your economical argument is *stupid*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, you lose...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>You can keep spinning all you want. Obviously, you don't have anything
>>>>>better to do...
>>>>
>>>>LOL ! According to Stephen "Now comes the "refusing to
>>>>answer questions" part of the show...
>>>>
>>>>If your economical argument is valid how do you explain that
>>>>speaker manufacturers prefer to use MDF which is more
>>>>expensive rather than chipboard which is cheaper ?
>>>>Both are acoustically better than wood ?
>>>>Eh Dave ? Where are you ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Nashville. You?
>>
>>
>>Nashville ? Oh yes the world capital of the marshmallow-music... ;-)
>
>
> You?


Answer my question first... ;-)

[dave weil]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:45:51 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>"8 hz" dave still refuse to answer the question ;-) :
>
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:21:23 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"8 hz" dave in the "refusing to answer questions" part of
>>>the show... :
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:11:46 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:58:16 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dave "8 hz" weil a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:21:00 +0200, Lionel >
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Speaker manufacturers would use chipboard which is really
>>>>>>>>>*cheaper* than MDF *BUT* which is *better* material than the
>>>>>>>>>wood for speaker construction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>They use BOTH far more than solid wood.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are still wrong MDF is hugely more used than chipboard
>>>>>>>which proves that your economical argument is *stupid*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sorry, you lose...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You can keep spinning all you want. Obviously, you don't have anything
>>>>>>better to do...
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL ! According to Stephen "Now comes the "refusing to
>>>>>answer questions" part of the show...
>>>>>
>>>>>If your economical argument is valid how do you explain that
>>>>>speaker manufacturers prefer to use MDF which is more
>>>>>expensive rather than chipboard which is cheaper ?
>>>>>Both are acoustically better than wood ?
>>>>>Eh Dave ? Where are you ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nashville. You?
>>>
>>>
>>>Nashville ? Oh yes the world capital of the marshmallow-music... ;-)
>>
>>
>> You?
>
>
>Answer my question first... ;-)

If you think about the difference in price between MDF and particle
board, vs. either of the above with solid wood (or even plywood for
that matter), you'll have the answer to your question.

If you want to quibble me to death over small increments, be my guest.
Yet, I don't see you backing up your statement with facts. I'll bet
that if you look at the aggregate number of ALL speaker cabinets
built, you're probably wrong with your basic premise anyway.

Time for you to let this mountain that you've built out of a mole hill
die.

[Lionel]

"8 hz" dave still refuse to answer the question :

You haven't answer to the question.
I repeat it :
"If your economical argument is valid how do you explain
that speaker manufacturers prefer to use MDF which is more
expensive rather than chipboard which is cheaper ?"

> you're probably wrong.

Probably ? Like in "probably 8 hz" ?

;-)

[dave weil]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:26:50 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>
>"8 hz" dave still refuse to answer the question :
>
>You haven't answer to the question.
>I repeat it :
>"If your economical argument is valid how do you explain
>that speaker manufacturers prefer to use MDF which is more
>expensive rather than chipboard which is cheaper ?"

I already did.

Cardboard is even cheaper but they don't use THAT.

I know that you refuse to understand the economics of putting a
product to market, but you don't have to trumpet it so loudly.

BTW, you didn't address MY last point, so what's the big deal?

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:26:50 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"8 hz" dave still refuse to answer the question :
>>
>>You haven't answer to the question.
>>I repeat it :
>>"If your economical argument is valid how do you explain
>>that speaker manufacturers prefer to use MDF which is more
>>expensive rather than chipboard which is cheaper ?"
>
>
> I already did.

Wrong.

> I know that you refuse to understand the economics of putting a
> product to market, but you don't have to trumpet it so loudly.

Concerning MDF and answering to McKelvy argument :
"I didn't say that, it has less than solid wood which is why
it usedmorte than solid wood."

you have written :

"I doubt that this is the primary motivator in the design of
most cabinets. It's probably no better than fourth, behind
cost, weight and ease of use in construction."

So my question is :

"If your economical argument is valid how do you explain
that speaker manufacturers prefer to use MDF which is more
expensive rather than chipboard which is cheaper ?"


> BTW, you didn't address MY last point, so what's the big deal?

You still haven't answered to my question.

;-)

[dave weil]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:54:27 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>
>> BTW, you didn't address MY last point, so what's the big deal?
>
>You still haven't answered to my question.

Nor have you mine.

I answered your question when I asked you rate the relative cost of
MDF and pressboard vs. either of the above vs. solid wood.

Cat got your tongue?

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
> Make your own search lazy, cretin.

Sorry, for a moment i forgot you were French.
Thanks for reminding me.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Mike McKelvy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Art says:
>
> Duh..Mikey
> Conrad Johnson speakers?
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> Ooops. I got a name wrong.
>

According to Lionel, you were correct.
He says cj once made a reference speaker system.
But he wasn't very helpful with any info



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 20 Apr 2005 08:38:54 -0700, "Mike McKelvy" >
> wrote:
>
>>Art wonders:
>>
>>Was it soemthing they did a while ago?
>>__________________________________________________ _____
>>I was searching for speaker cabinet constuction articles yesterday and
>>I thought I saw something about them making speakers, which is why I
>>referenced them in the other post.
>
> You can read a mention of them here:
>
> http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/conradjohnson/
>
> Interesting "behind-the-scenes" article as well.

Thanks for the info.
Obviously, you are not French.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Mike McKelvy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Art wonders:
>
> Was it soemthing they did a while ago?
> __________________________________________________ _____
> I was searching for speaker cabinet constuction articles yesterday and
> I thought I saw something about them making speakers, which is why I
> referenced them in the other post.
>

thanks for the info, obviously,
you are not French.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mike McKelvy]

Lionel said:

Mike McKelvy a =E9crit :




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> Dave Weil says:

> Just so you understand, I'm not contesting the FACT that MDF is a
> better material. I was just talking about commercial considerations,
> since that's where most cabinets originate. As you know, the bean
> counters rarely are worried about sound considerations when it
> conflicts with cost and productivity


>
______________________________=AD_________________ _____________=AD_________=
_________________-



> But the bean counters like to be employed and competition being what
it
> is they would choose the superior material. There's no know benefit
to
> using expensive capacitors or wire, yet some manfacturers do to hint
> that they make a superior product. Fortunately for the consumer MDF
is
> as I said, a win-win.



>>Chipboard is less expensive than MDF but still better than wood.

True but inferior to MDF and only used in really cheap speakers.
Sometimes you might find a cabinet made from 3/4" chipboard and 3/4"
MDF, but in most speakers that I've seen, MDF is the standard unless
they use some higher tech nono-wood product.

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:54:27 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> BTW, you didn't address MY last point, so what's the big deal?
>>
>>You still haven't answered to my question.
>
> Nor have you mine.
>
> I answered your question when I asked you rate the relative cost of
> MDF and pressboard vs. either of the above vs. solid wood.

www.homedepot.com

[Lionel]

In >, Clyde Slick wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> Make your own search lazy, cretin.
>
> Sorry, for a moment i forgot you were French.
> Thanks for reminding me.

Do you mean that Frenchs are more honest than your American fellows !
Interesting confession... Thank you.

:-D

[Lionel]

In . com>, Mike McKelvy
wrote :

> Lionel said:
>
> Mike McKelvy a écrit :
>
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
>
>> Dave Weil says:
>
>> Just so you understand, I'm not contesting the FACT that MDF is a
>> better material. I was just talking about commercial considerations,
>> since that's where most cabinets originate. As you know, the bean
>> counters rarely are worried about sound considerations when it
>> conflicts with cost and productivity
>
>
>>
> ______________________________*___________________ ___________
__________________________-
>
>
>
>> But the bean counters like to be employed and competition being what
> it
>> is they would choose the superior material. There's no know benefit
> to
>> using expensive capacitors or wire, yet some manfacturers do to hint
>> that they make a superior product. Fortunately for the consumer MDF
> is
>> as I said, a win-win.
>
>
>
>>>Chipboard is less expensive than MDF but still better than wood.
>
> True but inferior to MDF and only used in really cheap speakers.

Agreed.

> Sometimes you might find a cabinet made from 3/4" chipboard and 3/4"
> MDF, but in most speakers that I've seen, MDF is the standard unless
> they use some higher tech nono-wood product.

Agreed.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Mike McKelvy wrote:
> Dave Weil says:
>
>
>
> Just so you understand, I'm not contesting the FACT that MDF is a
> better material. I was just talking about commercial considerations,
> since that's where most cabinets originate. As you know, the bean
> counters rarely are worried about sound considerations when it
> conflicts with cost and productivity
>
>
> __________________________________________________ ____________________________________-
>
> But the bean counters like to be employed and competition being what it
> is they would choose the superior material. There's no know benefit to
> using expensive capacitors or wire, yet some manfacturers do to hint
> that they make a superior product. Fortunately for the consumer MDF is
> as I said, a win-win.

In english: It's cheaper and it works better.

Btw, there are better materials - just check the RAO FAQ. Marble
and Corian(there's a new MDF-like marble and quartz product
competing with Corian out now, too) But MDF gets to job done for
the same price as plywood. There's also synthetic marble, which is
powdered marble and epoxy. It's very "dead" as far as resonance goes.
Almost as good as cement(but far stronger and not fragile at all)

Heavy though. Corain is simmilar - indestructable and beautiful
speaker in one step, but you need a small lift to move it.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Lionel wrote:

> Mike McKelvy a écrit :
>
>> Dave Weil says:
>>
>>
>>
>> Just so you understand, I'm not contesting the FACT that MDF is a
>> better material. I was just talking about commercial considerations,
>> since that's where most cabinets originate. As you know, the bean
>> counters rarely are worried about sound considerations when it
>> conflicts with cost and productivity
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________ ____________________________________-
>>
>>
>> But the bean counters like to be employed and competition being what it
>> is they would choose the superior material. There's no know benefit to
>> using expensive capacitors or wire, yet some manfacturers do to hint
>> that they make a superior product. Fortunately for the consumer MDF is
>> as I said, a win-win.
>
> Chipboard is less expensive than MDF but still better than wood.

But it's more resonant, so for speakers, it's not worth saving the
1-2 dollars a sheet. Now, if they made 1 inch HDF, we'd be in heaven.
Currently 1/4 inch is as thick as they make it. You know the stuff -
your clipboard is probably made from it.

[Lionel]

Joseph Oberlander a écrit :
> Mike McKelvy wrote:
>
>> Dave Weil says:
>>
>>
>>
>> Just so you understand, I'm not contesting the FACT that MDF is a
>> better material. I was just talking about commercial considerations,
>> since that's where most cabinets originate. As you know, the bean
>> counters rarely are worried about sound considerations when it
>> conflicts with cost and productivity
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________ ____________________________________-
>>
>>
>> But the bean counters like to be employed and competition being what it
>> is they would choose the superior material. There's no know benefit to
>> using expensive capacitors or wire, yet some manfacturers do to hint
>> that they make a superior product. Fortunately for the consumer MDF is
>> as I said, a win-win.
>
>
> In english: It's cheaper and it works better.
>
> Btw, there are better materials - just check the RAO FAQ. Marble
> and Corian(there's a new MDF-like marble and quartz product
> competing with Corian out now, too) But MDF gets to job done for
> the same price as plywood. There's also synthetic marble, which is
> powdered marble and epoxy. It's very "dead" as far as resonance goes.
> Almost as good as cement(but far stronger and not fragile at all)
>
> Heavy though. Corain is simmilar - indestructable and beautiful
> speaker in one step, but you need a small lift to move it.
>

It is also very difficult to machine.
You need high quality router bits... Not chinese ones like
mine. :-)

[Lionel]

Joseph Oberlander a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>> Mike McKelvy a écrit :
>>
>>> Dave Weil says:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just so you understand, I'm not contesting the FACT that MDF is a
>>> better material. I was just talking about commercial considerations,
>>> since that's where most cabinets originate. As you know, the bean
>>> counters rarely are worried about sound considerations when it
>>> conflicts with cost and productivity
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________ ____________________________________-
>>>
>>>
>>> But the bean counters like to be employed and competition being what it
>>> is they would choose the superior material. There's no know benefit to
>>> using expensive capacitors or wire, yet some manfacturers do to hint
>>> that they make a superior product. Fortunately for the consumer MDF is
>>> as I said, a win-win.
>>
>>
>> Chipboard is less expensive than MDF but still better than wood.
>
>
> But it's more resonant, so for speakers, it's not worth saving the
> 1-2 dollars a sheet.

True. But at constant thickness the difference in price is
more important.

> Now, if they made 1 inch HDF, we'd be in heaven.
> Currently 1/4 inch is as thick as they make it. You know the stuff -
> your clipboard is probably made from it.

Due to Audax close out :-( ... I have purchased enough
drivers to built 4 pair of speakers. :-)
I would like to use this new MDF that you can bend and curve
without any special tools nor heat.

[Mike McKelvy]

Joseph Oberalnder said:

>There's also synthetic marble, which is
>powdered marble and epoxy. It's very "dead" as far as resonance goes.

>Almost as good as cement(but far stronger and not fragile at all)

I recall an article in Speaker Builder a few years ago that indicated
cement was not a good material for speaker enclosures.
I have to find it and refresh my memory about it however. There ahave
a few articles on the subject of resonance and enclosure materials, one
of which was by someone giving a recipe for his own material that he
was marketing in Europe. That particular article indicated that 3/4"
mDF was better than 1" MDF based on some formula of merit he came up
with.
Another one was on panel damping and was very thorough, but IIRC did
not deal with cement at all, but did show that you can't completely
damp panel resonance, you can only slightly shift it or attenuate it.
In the end it seems that constrained layers is the best for the job,
but it comes at a price that not everyone is willing to pay.

For some interesting cabinets look for King Daddy's DIY web site:
http://www.geocities.com/kingdaddykeith/Kingdaddys_DIY_Projects.html?1078331..

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> Make your own search lazy, cretin.
>>
>> Sorry, for a moment i forgot you were French.
>> Thanks for reminding me.
>
> Do you mean that Frenchs are more honest than your American fellows !
> Interesting confession... Thank you.
>
I meant that the French are arrogant, but it is now evident I should
add that thay are stupid and dishonest.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[[email protected]]

Mike McKelvy wrote:
<<snip>>
> If Pass wants to build speakers that vibrate more, let him, hell he
> still makes tube gear so he obviously waxes nostalgic about obsolete
> technology.
>

Where? When? Nelson Pass has AFAIK never commercially offered nor
published a design using vacuum tubes.

You're worse than Arny.

[[email protected]]

Unfortunately for listeners, however.

[Mike McKelvy]

Cal nitpicks:

Mike McKelvy wrote:


<<snip>>


> If Pass wants to build speakers that vibrate more, let him, hell he
> still makes tube gear so he obviously waxes nostalgic about obsolete
> technology.


>> Where? When? Nelson Pass has AFAIK never commercially offered nor
>>published a design using vacuum tubes.

>You're worse than Arny.

Not commercially, but he has designed them. No surprise you remain
clueless, again.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote:
> Mike McKelvy wrote:
> <<snip>>
>> If Pass wants to build speakers that vibrate more, let him, hell he
>> still makes tube gear so he obviously waxes nostalgic about
obsolete
>> technology.
>>
>
> Where? When? Nelson Pass has AFAIK never commercially offered nor
> published a design using vacuum tubes.

I think that's right. However Pass has been pushing SS designs with
many of the well-known failings of vacuum-tube SETs.


> You're worse than Arny.

Cal, I don't think Mike has had nearly deconstructed you nearly as
much as I have. Keep up the good work!

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Make your own search lazy, cretin.
>>>
>>>Sorry, for a moment i forgot you were French.
>>>Thanks for reminding me.
>>
>>Do you mean that Frenchs are more honest than your American fellows !
>>Interesting confession... Thank you.
>>
>
> I meant that the French are arrogant, but it is now evident I should
> add that thay are stupid and dishonest.

I will be more modest saying that theses qualificatives
perfectly apply to Art Sackman. ;-)

[Mike McKelvy]

I think that's right. However Pass has been pushing SS designs with
many of the well-known failings of vacuum-tube SETs.


> You're worse than Arny.


>>Cal, I don't think Mike has had nearly deconstructed you nearly as
>>much as I have. Keep up the good work!

It appears I was under the mistake notion that the Zen Amps that Pass
has been designing for his DIY site, were tubed. My apologies to Cal
for my mistake, no doubt brought about by the use of the term "Single
Ended," which I had only heard of in reference to really crappy tube
gear.

[Mike McKelvy]

Here's another response that discusses what speaker cabinets should be
guilt from.
As usual the experts disagree with you.

Richard D Pierce Jan 2 1994, 7:08 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: (Richard D Pierce) - Find messages by this
author
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 02:09:28 GMT
Local: Sun,Jan 2 1994 6:09 pm
Subject: Re: Speaker design (was: Speaker stands...)
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse



In article > C.L. Freemesser
writes:
>In article > Richard D Pierce writes:
>>In most cases, the dimensions and driver layout are dictated NOT by
>>acoustical design principles, but by cosmetics needed to drive sales
and
>>economic expediency in manufacturing.

>Could you elaborate on this? I'm going to be building a pair of
>speakers for my rack system within the next few months, and I'd be
>very interested in some tips from those more knowledgeable about
>acoustics.



We all certainly laud you on your decision to strike out on your own
and
wish you the best of success. However, you've already made some
choices
that simply aren't going to work.

The very first thing you should do is pick up a copy of Vance
Dickason's
book "The Loudspeaker Design Cookbook" from Audio Amateur Press. It has

more real and useful information in it for people such as yourself than

any other book around. Accept no substitutes.


Let's look at some of your designs and see what problems you may
encounter.



>I had planned on a 3-way speaker system, with a 10" woofer (on bottom)

>6.5" midrange, and perhaps a 3" tweeter, all in a "floor-model" box,
>made of solid oak. There will be a port, perhaps between the woofer
and
>midrange. There will, of course, be 2 of these "boxes".


The selection of drivers is based on a large set of often competing
design
goals. Thus, the final driver array is almost always due to several
compromises. What criteria are you using for choosing this particular
combination? For example, most 3" tweeters are very inexpensive and
exceptionally poor quality. Often manufacturers who use such end up
paying
no more than a dollar or two for them, and they perform as you would
expect, poorly.

Using a solid wood such as oak is actually a bad idea for loudspeaker
enclosures, because solid wood, despite its appearance and many
preconceptions, has the wrong mechanical and acoustical properties for
loudspeakers. The materials used in high quality cabinets are almost
always a composition material of some sort. One common material is
something called MDF (or medium density fiber board). It is a heavy,
dense, acoustically inert (relatively speaking) anisotropic (the same
in
all directions) material with good machining and gluing properties.


You mention using a port. Why? In a properly design speaker, the woofer

and the enclosure MUST be designed as a single integrated system. Are
you
aware of why a port is used and the criteria used for determining it's
size? It's very important to do it right. Simply adding a port to a
speaker without understanding why will invariably make a system worse.



>The speakers themselves will be either MTX or Rockford Fosgates,
>each being 4 ohm, and all 3 wired in series to provide a decent
>total impedance of 12 ohms. I have given some thought
>to making the woofer 8 ohms, to give it more power, but that pushes
>the total impedance up to an uncomfortably high 16 ohms.


It seems you've already made a choice of drivers but, as above, based
on
what criteria? The brands you mention are acceptable quality, but there
is
a vast array of much higher quality drivers available at reasonable
prices. Why not explore those?.

Unfortunately, the way you plan to hook your drivers up is doomed to
failure. Multi-way systems do not have their drivers hooked in series.
They use a circuit called a crossover that sends the appropriate range
of
frequencies to each driver. As with the woofer and the cabinet, the
crossover and drivers MUST be designed as an integrated system in order
to
work properly. Simply hooking them up as you suggest will lead to a
system
that sounds terrible and has poor power handling capacity (since the
tweeter will invariably act as little more than a short-life fuse for
the
rest of the drivers.


Using, then, properly selected 4 ohm drivers with a properly designed
crossover will probably lead to a speaker whose impedance is
"nominally" 4
ohms, but may have variations with a high of possibly several dozen
ohms
(the woofer at low frequencies), to a low of maybe (depending upon the
crossover and drivers) of a couple of ohms in the midrange or treble,
in
the vicinity of the crossover points.



>Why build my own? As you stated above, speakers are built for
>ease of production, not for optimum sound. Most of the ones I've
heard
>that I can afford suck. SO, I might as well try it! I can always put
>the bare speakers in my car if these things don't turn out well. :^)


Given the right path, you surely could design and build a system that
is
quite satisfactory. However, you're not anywhere near that path now.
Building such a system is completely within your grasp, you just need
the
right materials and the right direction. I can't suggest more strongly
getting ahold of Dickason's book. It contains 99% of what you need even
if
you progress to the point of serious advanced amateur status.

I would hate to see you put a lot of effort into a pair of speakers,
only
to find that, given your ideas above, it is absolutely guaranteed to
sound
and perform terribly. Such an outcome will probably discourage any
further
attempts. Instead, spend more time thinking and researching, do some
reading, and your first system may well be quite impressive.


Good luck.


--
| Dick Pierce |
| Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
| 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
| (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) |