Re: Okay, here it is.

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
link.net

> http://www.jupiter-audio.com

> And be brutally honest.

Nice looking web site.

Driver tech specs etc. at http://www.madisound.com/silverflute.html

Good luck!

[Oily Tartlet]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 12:39:26 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>http://www.jupiter-audio.com

>And be brutally honest.

Wow! Gorgeous website! Good luck with your new business.

--
The Devil

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 12:39:26 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>
>
>And be brutally honest.

You know we will <chuckle>

First of all, nice pic on the home page. I'm a bit confused about the
pic of the guy sitting in front of his sofa on the last page though.
I'm sure it's supposed to be a "lifestyle" shot, but I'm not sure if
it adds anything to the mix. I like the cropped speaker shot right
below him.

Second, I like the name.

Third, I like the idea of a ribbon driver. I've never liked their look
on a small box speaker, but that's irrelevant. Having said that, do
you want to use the word "zippy" in your advertising"? I'm not sure
why that seems strange to me, because I might use that as a positive
term in casual conversation. It just seems a bit to close to "edgy" or
"brittle" or "too bright" for ad copy.

Fourth, I'd take the pictures of you off of the site. It makes it look
like you're assembling the things in a spare bedroom (which you might
very well be doing, but that isn't the feeling that the nice web site
gives).

Shouldn't it be specs, not spec.'s on the subwoofer page (I've never
been sure of the rule for abbreviations, but I think that specs has
entered the language as a word of its own)? All I know is that it
doesn't look correct. And speaking of that page, you excoriate other
manufacturers for not quoting certain specs and yet you don't give a
complete set of specs yourself. Just pointing that out. After all, you
have the specs on the speaker page. Oversight maybe?

I would make the photos on the product page clickable to a larger
size. It would be nice to see the details.

Finally, are you going to offer a money back guarantee to those who
pony up over the internet at this early date without having the chance
tohear them? If so, you should probably say so and not just leave it
as an implication. If not, then I doubt you're going to move very many
of these puppies.

Oh yeah, wouldn't you have to charge sales tax to people in IL? You
need to fix your site to take care of this calculation atuomatically
or you run the risk of serious trouble from your state tax department.

A last comment - I like the look of the web site. It's very clean,
modern and somewhat Euro without being totally minimalistic.

Good luck.

[Oily Tartlet]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 08:48:29 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>>And be brutally honest.
>
>You know we will <chuckle>
>
>First of all, nice pic on the home page. I'm a bit confused about the
>pic of the guy sitting in front of his sofa on the last page though.
>I'm sure it's supposed to be a "lifestyle" shot, but I'm not sure if
>it adds anything to the mix. I like the cropped speaker shot right
>below him.

I've just finished reading / scanning the whole site, and I have to
agree. I don't get that picture either.

>Second, I like the name.

I don't. But that's not important.

>Third, I like the idea of a ribbon driver. I've never liked their look
>on a small box speaker, but that's irrelevant. Having said that, do
>you want to use the word "zippy" in your advertising"? I'm not sure
>why that seems strange to me, because I might use that as a positive
>term in casual conversation. It just seems a bit to close to "edgy" or
>"brittle" or "too bright" for ad copy.

Agreed.

>Fourth, I'd take the pictures of you off of the site. It makes it look
>like you're assembling the things in a spare bedroom (which you might
>very well be doing, but that isn't the feeling that the nice web site
>gives).

Also agreed.

>Shouldn't it be specs, not spec.'s on the subwoofer page (I've never
>been sure of the rule for abbreviations, but I think that specs has
>entered the language as a word of its own)? All I know is that it
>doesn't look correct. And speaking of that page, you excoriate other
>manufacturers for not quoting certain specs and yet you don't give a
>complete set of specs yourself. Just pointing that out. After all, you
>have the specs on the speaker page. Oversight maybe?

Agreed again. And yes, it should be 'specs'. There are a few typos and
glitches in diction, but nothing horrendous.

>I would make the photos on the product page clickable to a larger
>size. It would be nice to see the details.

Definitely agreed. I tried clicking the pics to get the full-size
version and of course it didn't happen. Full-size pics would be very
nice indeed.

>Finally, are you going to offer a money back guarantee to those who
>pony up over the internet at this early date without having the chance
>tohear them? If so, you should probably say so and not just leave it
>as an implication. If not, then I doubt you're going to move very many
>of these puppies.
>
>Oh yeah, wouldn't you have to charge sales tax to people in IL? You
>need to fix your site to take care of this calculation atuomatically
>or you run the risk of serious trouble from your state tax department.
>
>A last comment - I like the look of the web site. It's very clean,
>modern and somewhat Euro without being totally minimalistic.

Agreed again.

--
Oily Tartlet

[Joe Duffy]

In article . net>,
trotsky > wrote:
>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>
>
>And be brutally honest.
>

Impossible without listening.
I hope that sound as good as you say,
and provide the value as well.
All the best on your endeavor!



Joe

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:04:24 +0100, Oily Tartlet >
wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 08:48:29 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>>And be brutally honest.
>>
>>You know we will <chuckle>
>>
>>First of all, nice pic on the home page. I'm a bit confused about the
>>pic of the guy sitting in front of his sofa on the last page though.
>>I'm sure it's supposed to be a "lifestyle" shot, but I'm not sure if
>>it adds anything to the mix. I like the cropped speaker shot right
>>below him.
>
>I've just finished reading / scanning the whole site, and I have to
>agree. I don't get that picture either.
>
>>Second, I like the name.
>
>I don't. But that's not important.
>
>>Third, I like the idea of a ribbon driver. I've never liked their look
>>on a small box speaker, but that's irrelevant. Having said that, do
>>you want to use the word "zippy" in your advertising"? I'm not sure
>>why that seems strange to me, because I might use that as a positive
>>term in casual conversation. It just seems a bit to close to "edgy" or
>>"brittle" or "too bright" for ad copy.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>Fourth, I'd take the pictures of you off of the site. It makes it look
>>like you're assembling the things in a spare bedroom (which you might
>>very well be doing, but that isn't the feeling that the nice web site
>>gives).
>
>Also agreed.
>
>>Shouldn't it be specs, not spec.'s on the subwoofer page (I've never
>>been sure of the rule for abbreviations, but I think that specs has
>>entered the language as a word of its own)? All I know is that it
>>doesn't look correct. And speaking of that page, you excoriate other
>>manufacturers for not quoting certain specs and yet you don't give a
>>complete set of specs yourself. Just pointing that out. After all, you
>>have the specs on the speaker page. Oversight maybe?
>
>Agreed again. And yes, it should be 'specs'. There are a few typos and
>glitches in diction, but nothing horrendous.
>
>>I would make the photos on the product page clickable to a larger
>>size. It would be nice to see the details.
>
>Definitely agreed. I tried clicking the pics to get the full-size
>version and of course it didn't happen. Full-size pics would be very
>nice indeed.
>
>>Finally, are you going to offer a money back guarantee to those who
>>pony up over the internet at this early date without having the chance
>>tohear them? If so, you should probably say so and not just leave it
>>as an implication. If not, then I doubt you're going to move very many
>>of these puppies.
>>
>>Oh yeah, wouldn't you have to charge sales tax to people in IL? You
>>need to fix your site to take care of this calculation atuomatically
>>or you run the risk of serious trouble from your state tax department.
>>
>>A last comment - I like the look of the web site. It's very clean,
>>modern and somewhat Euro without being totally minimalistic.
>
>Agreed again.

Agreed with everything so far - nice looking. But on the subwoofer
page, I would really go for a more upbeat opening than "I've got some
bad news for you folks: the subwoofers currently available for
consumer purchase aren't good". I suspect there will be many who stop
reading at that point. Tell us how good this sub is, not how bad every
sub is.

Otherwise, agreed on the various linguistic and grammatical errors.
Needs a long slow read.

Also rather more about what the speakers do rather than what you did
would make for a better message.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:04:24 +0100, Oily Tartlet >
wrote:

>
>>I would make the photos on the product page clickable to a larger
>>size. It would be nice to see the details.
>
>Definitely agreed. I tried clicking the pics to get the full-size
>version and of course it didn't happen. Full-size pics would be very
>nice indeed.

I think that just about everyone will try to enlarge the pics. And
some, like me, will then try to click the little boxes on the side of
the pics only to find that they're only a design feature.

It's possible that you might not want such a "vulgar" feature on a
nice artsy web site like that (at least on the product pages). If
that's the case, then you might set up an "images" page that
incorporates the ability to view larger pics.

Just my .02.

[Oily Tartlet]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:24:36 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>I think that just about everyone will try to enlarge the pics. And
>some, like me, will then try to click the little boxes on the side of
>the pics only to find that they're only a design feature.

Hehe. I did that too. :-)

>It's possible that you might not want such a "vulgar" feature on a
>nice artsy web site like that (at least on the product pages). If
>that's the case, then you might set up an "images" page that
>incorporates the ability to view larger pics.

Or simply have the large picture in the top left of the page change to
show the full-size picture of the image you select. That would also be
in keeping with the high-quality feel of the site, I think. Of course,
there could be a separate gallery of larger pictures too. Maybe we
could see the drivers up close and some elegant shots of the
electronics.

--
Oily Tartlet

[dave weil]

One other style point that I meant to mention:

What's up with the word Kontact with the weird Eastern European dot
above the K?

It just looks like an pretentious affectation, especially when it's
spelled in the English style on the link. I'd ditch that if I were
you...

[Lionel Chapuis]

trotsky a écrit :
> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>
>
> And be brutally honest.
>
Not enough sex !

[Oily Tartlet]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:40:23 +0100, Don Pearce >
wrote:

>Now, now - let's be nice to him for a while. He appears to have an
>honest job, after all.

I thought I *was* being nice to him. :-)

Actually, I am genuinely impressed. Although I love the site's design
aesthetic, I think the speakers themselves sound interesting. I'd
never heard of the driver manufacturer, and I do like ribbons rather a
lot.

--
Oily Tartlet

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> link.net
>
>
> >http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>
>
> >And be brutally honest.
>
>
> Nice looking web site.
>
> Driver tech specs etc. at http://www.madisound.com/silverflute.html
>
> Good luck!
>
>

Thanks, I appreciate it.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 12:39:26 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>
> >http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >
> >
> >And be brutally honest.
>
>
> You know we will
>
> First of all, nice pic on the home page. I'm a bit confused about the
> pic of the guy sitting in front of his sofa on the last page though.
> I'm sure it's supposed to be a "lifestyle" shot, but I'm not sure if
> it adds anything to the mix. I like the cropped speaker shot right
> below him.


Filip, my web designer, put that guy in. I have no idea who he is.

>
>
> Second, I like the name.
>
> Third, I like the idea of a ribbon driver. I've never liked their look
> on a small box speaker, but that's irrelevant. Having said that, do
> you want to use the word "zippy" in your advertising"?



Of course--in tribute to Zipser. More to the point, in my mind it's a
fine line between sounding stodgy and sounding too conversational.


> I'm not sure
> why that seems strange to me, because I might use that as a positive
> term in casual conversation. It just seems a bit to close to "edgy" or
> "brittle" or "too bright" for ad copy.


It's just a euphemism for "lively", which is perhaps too common a
description in the audio lexicon. Although I do agree that there can be
other connotations. (And believe me, I wasn't expecting all this
agreement.)

>
>
> Fourth, I'd take the pictures of you off of the site. It makes it look
> like you're assembling the things in a spare bedroom (which you might
> very well be doing, but that isn't the feeling that the nice web site
> gives).


Again, that wasn't my idea. But if people are going to use that as an
excuse not to buy then they'd probably wind up returning them for some
other bull**** reason. In my opinion, audiodom needs to stop pandering
to neuroses.

>
>
> Shouldn't it be specs, not spec.'s on the subwoofer page (I've never
> been sure of the rule for abbreviations, but I think that specs has
> entered the language as a word of its own)? All I know is that it
> doesn't look correct. And speaking of that page, you excoriate other
> manufacturers for not quoting certain specs and yet you don't give a
> complete set of specs yourself. Just pointing that out. After all, you
> have the specs on the speaker page. Oversight maybe?


Yeah, I've already pointed that out to Filip. I gave him a set of
features and specifications (maybe it's best to avoid the abbreviation
altogether?) and he forgot to include them. I also did what I thought
was a very cool LtbAQs (Likely to be Asked Questions) which should be
showing up any day now, too. Good call on your part, though. (I'm
really, really not prepared for so much agreement!)

>
>
> I would make the photos on the product page clickable to a larger
> size. It would be nice to see the details.


Damn, I thought of that too, but haven't mentioned it to Filip. I think
it's expected based on what you see on other websites. Plus, I paid a
pretty penny to have a photographer take those shots, so I'd hope they'd
look good enlarged. There's supposed to be a flash intro on the home
page, so I'll wait and see if he does the thumbnail thing when that's
included.

>
>
> Finally, are you going to offer a money back guarantee to those who
> pony up over the internet at this early date without having the chance
> tohear them? If so, you should probably say so and not just leave it
> as an implication. If not, then I doubt you're going to move very many
> of these puppies.


Damn, dave, if this were a test you'd have scored 100. I had turned in
a terms and conditions that have yet to be posted as well. I'm offering
a 45 day money back guarantee where all you have to pay is shipping if
the speakers are returned. What do you think of the factory direct
thing, anyway? At this point I'm not prepared to do high volume, so I'm
not looking for a dealer base. But I'm not sure I'll ever be looking
for a dealer base, either.

>
>
> Oh yeah, wouldn't you have to charge sales tax to people in IL? You
> need to fix your site to take care of this calculation atuomatically
> or you run the risk of serious trouble from your state tax department.


That was in the terms and conditions, too. Maybe I'll give an "all
clear" when the site is at 100%. I'm not going to start advertising
till this is the case.

>
>
> A last comment - I like the look of the web site. It's very clean,
> modern and somewhat Euro without being totally minimalistic.
>
> Good luck.


Thanks.

>
>

[trotsky]

Joe Duffy wrote:

> In article . net>,
> trotsky wrote:
>
> >http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >
> >
> >And be brutally honest.
> >
>
>
> Impossible without listening.
>



I can send you a pair to evaluate if you'd like.

>
>
>

[trotsky]

Don Pearce wrote:

>
>
>
> Agreed with everything so far - nice looking. But on the subwoofer
> page, I would really go for a more upbeat opening than "I've got some
> bad news for you folks: the subwoofers currently available for
> consumer purchase aren't good". I suspect there will be many who stop
> reading at that point. Tell us how good this sub is, not how bad every
> sub is.


Damn, that's a valid point. In my defense, I'd have to say it's also a
fine line between sounding too polite and sounding arrogant. (And if
anybody's the expert on this, it's me.) The bottom line is what I'm
saying is basically true.

>
>
> Otherwise, agreed on the various linguistic and grammatical errors.
> Needs a long slow read.
>
> Also rather more about what the speakers do rather than what you did
> would make for a better message.


Hopefully you will find some of that covered in the LtbAQs when those
are posted to the site.

[WolfgangGoldberg]

>From: trotsky

>http://www.jupiter-audio.com


Such lovely speakers even my Sophie would have allowed them in the house. (May
she rest in peace.)

A great success you should have. Then maybe you make a few shekels and be a
nice boychik instead of ... But I digress.

Wolfgang Goldberg MD
(Knower of All Things Worth Knowing and a few that... So nu? You want blood,
yet?)

[trotsky]

Oily Tartlet wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:12:50 +0100, Don Pearce
> wrote:
>
>
> >Agreed with everything so far - nice looking. But on the subwoofer
> >page, I would really go for a more upbeat opening than "I've got some
> >bad news for you folks: the subwoofers currently available for
> >consumer purchase aren't good". I suspect there will be many who stop
> >reading at that point. Tell us how good this sub is, not how bad every
> >sub is.
> >
> >Otherwise, agreed on the various linguistic and grammatical errors.
> >Needs a long slow read.
> >
> >Also rather more about what the speakers do rather than what you did
> >would make for a better message.
>
>
> Well . . . yes. But that wouldn't be quite to Greg's style, would it?


"Like a club tie, a firm handshake, a certain look in the eye and an
easy smile"

I'll bet you know what Pink Floyd lyric that's from.

[Oily Tartlet]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:31:18 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>"Like a club tie, a firm handshake, a certain look in the eye and an
>easy smile"
>
>I'll bet you know what Pink Floyd lyric that's from.

My mind has gone to the Dogs.

--
Thine

[trotsky]

Oily Tartlet wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:05:30 GMT, trotsky wrote:
>
>
> >Thanks! You do realize you're in agreement with Krueger on this?
>
>
> It had to happen once.



It probably has something to do with his home planet being so close to
the Earth.

[trotsky]

Oily Tartlet wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:31:18 GMT, trotsky wrote:
>
>
> >"Like a club tie, a firm handshake, a certain look in the eye and an
> >easy smile"
> >
> >I'll bet you know what Pink Floyd lyric that's from.
>
>
> My mind has gone to the Dogs.



"You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to." Those have to
be words Arnii takes with him to church.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:21:54 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 12:39:26 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>>
>>
>> >http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>> >
>> >
>> >And be brutally honest.
>>
>>
>> You know we will
>>
>> First of all, nice pic on the home page. I'm a bit confused about the
>> pic of the guy sitting in front of his sofa on the last page though.
>> I'm sure it's supposed to be a "lifestyle" shot, but I'm not sure if
>> it adds anything to the mix. I like the cropped speaker shot right
>> below him.
>
>
>Filip, my web designer, put that guy in. I have no idea who he is.

Personally, I would have preferred a buxom, redheaded spiky-haired
girl in a slinky dress. But that's just me.

BTW, I'm not opposed to a non-product lifestyle shot. It just seemed
weird.

>> Second, I like the name.
>>
>> Third, I like the idea of a ribbon driver. I've never liked their look
>> on a small box speaker, but that's irrelevant. Having said that, do
>> you want to use the word "zippy" in your advertising"?
>
>
>
>Of course--in tribute to Zipser. More to the point, in my mind it's a
>fine line between sounding stodgy and sounding too conversational.

I just brought it up because of the different connotations that might
be generated.

>> I'm not sure
>> why that seems strange to me, because I might use that as a positive
>> term in casual conversation. It just seems a bit to close to "edgy" or
>> "brittle" or "too bright" for ad copy.
>
>
>It's just a euphemism for "lively", which is perhaps too common a
>description in the audio lexicon. Although I do agree that there can be
>other connotations. (And believe me, I wasn't expecting all this
>agreement.)

Yeah, as I said, I've used the word in a positive sense in casual
conversations, but only when I was sure that I could amplify or modify
if necessary. It's harder to do that in ad copy.

>> Fourth, I'd take the pictures of you off of the site. It makes it look
>> like you're assembling the things in a spare bedroom (which you might
>> very well be doing, but that isn't the feeling that the nice web site
>> gives).
>
>
>Again, that wasn't my idea. But if people are going to use that as an
>excuse not to buy then they'd probably wind up returning them for some
>other bull**** reason. In my opinion, audiodom needs to stop pandering
>to neuroses.

Still, you want to sell the speakers and not give any unnecessary
possible objections. The whole idea of a slick (not a prejorative term
in this case) web site is to give the impression that one is dealing
with a company that's "professional". Don't get me wrong - I'm not
emplying that a cottage industry company can't be professional. But
it's a bit like sausage - you don't always want to know how it's made,
especially when you're spending over a thousand bucks for something.
Better to leave it to the imagination. Also, those pictures stick out
like a sore thumb. They aren't of the same quality as the others (even
the one of the guy in front of the sofa). They look like someone just
took a digital shot over your shoulder. They don't looked composed
like the others.

>> Shouldn't it be specs, not spec.'s on the subwoofer page (I've never
>> been sure of the rule for abbreviations, but I think that specs has
>> entered the language as a word of its own)? All I know is that it
>> doesn't look correct. And speaking of that page, you excoriate other
>> manufacturers for not quoting certain specs and yet you don't give a
>> complete set of specs yourself. Just pointing that out. After all, you
>> have the specs on the speaker page. Oversight maybe?
>
>
>Yeah, I've already pointed that out to Filip. I gave him a set of
>features and specifications (maybe it's best to avoid the abbreviation
>altogether?) and he forgot to include them. I also did what I thought
>was a very cool LtbAQs (Likely to be Asked Questions) which should be
>showing up any day now, too. Good call on your part, though. (I'm
>really, really not prepared for so much agreement!)

I don't think that it's necessary to avoid the abbreviation, since
your tone is already conversational and informal.

>> I would make the photos on the product page clickable to a larger
>> size. It would be nice to see the details.
>
>
>Damn, I thought of that too, but haven't mentioned it to Filip. I think
>it's expected based on what you see on other websites. Plus, I paid a
>pretty penny to have a photographer take those shots, so I'd hope they'd
>look good enlarged. There's supposed to be a flash intro on the home
>page, so I'll wait and see if he does the thumbnail thing when that's
>included.

That's the good thing about a shakeout cruise. You get to fix things.

Still, I'mnot sure that I'd want those shots to be clickable, simply
because it's such a clean site (I'm generally disappointed when I
click on a big pic only to have a big pic show up on a white
background without any sort of border or other nice touches). If you
*do* have a large pic pop up, try to have it come up on a nice
background or maybe have it have a cool artsy frame - you know the
kind - with a broken smudgy outline like this:

http://www.pbase.com/image/20936180/original

>> Finally, are you going to offer a money back guarantee to those who
>> pony up over the internet at this early date without having the chance
>> tohear them? If so, you should probably say so and not just leave it
>> as an implication. If not, then I doubt you're going to move very many
>> of these puppies.
>
>
>Damn, dave, if this were a test you'd have scored 100. I had turned in
>a terms and conditions that have yet to be posted as well. I'm offering
>a 45 day money back guarantee where all you have to pay is shipping if
>the speakers are returned. What do you think of the factory direct
>thing, anyway?

I think it's almost a mandatory thing if you're going to market via
the internet. I also like the idea of an introductory discount as
well.

Keep in mind that you need to consider what you will do if someone
returns a speaker that is damaged in someway. I'd have all of the
terms spelled out as completely as possible. Gotta think of the worst
case scenarios, you know.

> At this point I'm not prepared to do high volume, so I'm
>not looking for a dealer base. But I'm not sure I'll ever be looking
>for a dealer base, either.

Hopefully you'll be able to generate positive word of mouth.

I wouldn't forgo trying to get them reviewed in print.

>> Oh yeah, wouldn't you have to charge sales tax to people in IL? You
>> need to fix your site to take care of this calculation atuomatically
>> or you run the risk of serious trouble from your state tax department.
>
>
>That was in the terms and conditions, too. Maybe I'll give an "all
>clear" when the site is at 100%. I'm not going to start advertising
>till this is the case.

Sounds like you're well on your way.

>> A last comment - I like the look of the web site. It's very clean,
>> modern and somewhat Euro without being totally minimalistic.
>>
>> Good luck.
>
>
>Thanks.

You're welcome.

All of these things I've mentioned have been simply subjective
opinions of course, EXCEPT for the sales tax deal. It shouldn't be any
big deal to have them fix the calculations part. Keep in mind though
that you might need to research what other states are doing as well -
I know that Tennessee is starting to get aggressive about requiring
sales tax from out of state vendors. So far, I think that they're just
going after the big fish, but there will probably be a trickle down
effect later.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:33:07 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>> One other style point that I meant to mention:
>>
>> What's up with the word Kontact with the weird Eastern European dot
>> above the K?
>>
>> It just looks like an pretentious affectation, especially when it's
>> spelled in the English style on the link. I'd ditch that if I were
>> you...
>>
>
>Okay, now we're in the realm of splitting hairs. How about a little bit
>more feedback on how the speakers themselves look, or are new models of
>speakers just a boring subject at this point in audio history?

Ummmm, it's not splitting hairs. You asked for opinions of the web
site, right? That word stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Others might
not notice it - others might actually think it looks cool. I just
think it's weird. There's no other connection between Hungarian (or
whatever language it is) other than that word. I *did* notice that
your web design company has done some eastern European and Russian
logos.

I already commented on the speakers' look when I mentioned that I
don't like the way that big square ribbon tweeters look on a small box
speaker. I also noted that it wasn't all that important.

I assume that the speakers' finishes look pretty nice, but until I can
see larger pictures, it could just be plastic veneer for all I can
see.

I certainly can't speak to how they sound, which is surely the most
important thing...

[MiNE 109]

In article . net>,
trotsky > wrote:

> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>
>
> And be brutally honest.
>

Site looks good. Did Mark Levinson lend you his trumpet?

Stephen

[Joe Duffy]

In article .net>,
trotsky > wrote:
>Joe Duffy wrote:
>
>> In article . net>,
>> trotsky wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>> >
>> >
>> >And be brutally honest.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Impossible without listening.
>>
>
>
>
>I can send you a pair to evaluate if you'd like.
>
>>
>
Hmmm, possibly.
I'll email you.



Joe

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:
> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>
>
> And be brutally honest.
>

Nice site.

Few things, though. The pages are modem friendly, simple, use a lot
of the same graphics, and also have no java. Nice.

I'd add a slightly off-white background or something though - maybe
a bit of paper-esque texture. A flat white field is a bit bland.

Bookshelf speaker page:
Looks like a nice speaker. One gripe, though. Surely with a woofer
that large, you can get better bass than 50hz? The problem with
50hz is that it means you must have a subwoofer for decent sound.
If you could get it down to 40 or 35 hz with, say, a slightly deeper
cabinet, it would be attractive to more potential customers.

7 3/4 inches deep is awfully thin. I say make it 10 inches deep or
so and get better bass. Or, drop to a 6 inch woofer and get better
speed. Using an 8 inch woofer in a small cabinet that limits it to
50hz is a bit of a waste, IMO.

They are front-ported, though - a good thing. Rear ports suck, IMO.

Subwoofer page:
I noticed that the subwoofer had no specs listed. Distortion
would be nice to list as well. Also, what kind of driver does it use?
For $1250, you can get a servo sub.

Oh - and at the 1000+ price range, most subwoofers don't pull that
massive power/bad amp and sloppy bass trick either. Velodyne and
Martin Logan don't and they both have good, clean servo subs in
the same price range.

If it is a normal conventional driver, honestly, $1250 is too much money.
Nobody cares about whether the feet are plastic or not - they want good
clean bass.

Also, will it accept a remote power on input? Does it have a variable
cutoff filter? It would be nice to have features like this so that
your control would be at the unit and not based upon what the crummy
A/V processor thinks it should be doing.

Perhaps the subwoofer has all of this. Without specs, I can't tell
fom looking at the page as to why this is better than the Velodyne.
(no dis on your product - just no data there to draw conclusions from)

All pages:
Ditch the MSRP nonsense. If you sell them and they are good, that's
what they sell for. It makes it look like you are trying to justify the
price.

About Us Page:
The About Us page should have less blather about your goals and a bit
added about your facilities, tech setup, and such. If you use the
latest programs and testing chambers(renting one out is perfectly
acceptable), then mention it. For all we know, this is one guy in the
back of his house making speakers. Again, no dis meannt - just no
information.


Contact Us Page:
The P.O. box thing kind of sucks. If you're in a business or
commercial workshop of any kind, list it as a secondary address
and offer tours - the kind of stop on by and take a look sort
of thing.

I hate small comment boxes. Make it either pop up the user's
email program or make it at the bottom and at least 40 characters
wide. It's hard to write in little boxes more than a line or two
of questions.

Also:
Have a specials/demo unit/blems/customer returns page. Surely
there are a few that poorer people might be interested in.

Have a news page. Where we can hear these demoed or what trade
or music shows you are going to. Most audio manufacturers forget
this part and it's a shame as most consumers don't know about
these shows. If I was thinking about buying your speakers,
knowing where to buy them(if you have distributors) or where
to look at them would be important.

[Lionel Chapuis]

trotsky a écrit :
> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>
>
> And be brutally honest.
>
May I suggest you that :

"...equally adept at reproducing T. Rex footsteps in a home theater, or
T. Rex music in a two channel system."

doesn't really fit the feeling of the site : trumpet, flower, silk/satin

I don't speak as an expert in audio but and expert in bad joke. To be
sure of that see my previous post (sorry for that ;-) )

Lionel

[John Atkinson]

trotsky > wrote in message . net>...
> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>
> And be brutally honest.

Nice-looking site Mr. Singh. And while we may have had some arguments
in the past I take my hat off to you for putting your money where
your mouth is and starting your own business.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Lionel Chapuis]

Lionel Chapuis a écrit :
> trotsky a écrit :
>
>> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>
>>
>> And be brutally honest.
>>
> May I suggest you that :
>
> "...equally adept at reproducing T. Rex footsteps in a home theater, or
> T. Rex music in a two channel system."
>
> doesn't really fit the feeling of the site : trumpet, flower, silk/satin
>
> I don't speak as an expert in audio but and expert in bad joke. To be
> sure of that see my previous post (sorry for that ;-) )
>
> Lionel
>

Ooops I've done an error trying to add that :
Are you sure your customer know Marc Bolan? Yes, are you sure that they
like him ? Worst, are you sure that they aren't snob who focus only on
classical music ? They will turn back, thinking your "Subterfuge" is to
much typed rock'n'roll...
Your speakers look good and sound good with all kind of music.
Don't take the above in bad part. Save such "easy joke" for your shop. I
don't really know US customers but remember you are selling "de luxe"
products at a pretty high price ! I understand you want to communicate
friendly but don't write it.
This could be temperate by the fact that on the net people usually don't
watch so carefully the "blah, blah" but take care of my advise if you
issue some lifleats based on the web site.

I haven't pretention to give you a marketing lesson, I repeat that I
don't know "de luxe" US customer.

Sincerely,
Lionel

[trotsky]

Oily Tartlet wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:33:07 GMT, trotsky wrote:
>
>
> >dave weil wrote:
> >
> >
> >>One other style point that I meant to mention:
> >>
> >>What's up with the word Kontact with the weird Eastern European dot
> >>above the K?
> >>
> >>It just looks like an pretentious affectation, especially when it's
> >>spelled in the English style on the link. I'd ditch that if I were
> >>you...
>
>
> >Okay, now we're in the realm of splitting hairs. How about a little bit
> >more feedback on how the speakers themselves look, or are new models of
> >speakers just a boring subject at this point in audio history?
>
>
> Now, now. Play nice!
>
> Actually, I agree with dave on the 'Kontact' thing. I didn't notice
> first off, but when he mentioned it and I went back to have a look, I
> thought it gave the page an odd, thematically disjointed feel. Which
> is a shame, given the quality, homologous feel of the site overall.
>
> It also reminded me of Linn.



That's a fair cop. Linn isn't the first name that comes to mind where
musical accuracy is concerned (though they have made some good products
over the years, regardless of what Pinky says.)


>
>
> I do however like you using the abbreviation 'LtbAQs' instead of the
> usual 'FAQs'. I think that's another nice arty touch that'll be right
> at home on your site. I think if some of the writing were tidied up
> (and the photos of you working on what seems to be a wallpapering
> table were replaced with something else), the site would sell your
> company as a distinct, classy, professional manufacturer of speaker
> products.
>
> As for the speakers themselves, I think their dimensions are a little
> ugly, but what can you do when the tweeter is a long ribbon? The
> cabinets however look nicely finished. I'm not sold on the sub, but
> that's just my opinion.


The sub is really musical. As I say on the site, most of the subs I've
seen are junk, so I think it has a reason for being.

[George M. Middius]

The Doofalizer whined:

> >And be brutally honest.

> Impossible without listening.

He's talking about the Web site, you idiot.

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:

> In article . net>,
> trotsky wrote:
>
>
> >http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >
> >
> >And be brutally honest.
> >
>
>
> Site looks good. Did Mark Levinson lend you his trumpet?


Okay, that made me laugh. No, he didn't lend me his trumpet, because I
refused to give him advice on female orgasms.

[trotsky]

John Atkinson wrote:

> trotsky wrote in message
> . net>...
>
> >http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >
> >And be brutally honest.
>
> Nice-looking site Mr. Singh. And while we may have had some arguments
> in the past I take my hat off to you for putting your money where
> your mouth is and starting your own business.


Thanks. I don't expect to go the way of Waveform, either.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 19:21:25 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>MiNE 109 wrote:
>
>> In article . net>,
>> trotsky wrote:
>>
>>
>> >http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>> >
>> >
>> >And be brutally honest.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Site looks good. Did Mark Levinson lend you his trumpet?
>
>
>Okay, that made me laugh. No, he didn't lend me his trumpet, because I
>refused to give him advice on female orgasms.

And now look at him. No more Kim Cattrell.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > Nice-looking site Mr. Singh. And while we may have had some arguments
> > in the past I take my hat off to you for putting your money where
> > your mouth is and starting your own business.

> Thanks. I don't expect to go the way of Waveform, either.

Is that your way of saying you'll refuse to have your speakers
reviewed in Stereophile?

[MiNE 109]

In article . net>,
trotsky > wrote:

<snip>

> The sub is really musical. As I say on the site, most of the subs I've
> seen are junk, so I think it has a reason for being.

I'm glad you like it. Maybe your ad copy could be more positive so as
not to give a "subs suck, here's another one" impression. Why is less eq
better? Now that you've mentioned junky sub feet, what kind does yours
have? That kind of thing.

Gotta like the sand.

Stephen

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:04:24 +0100, Oily wrote

>I don't. But that's not important.
>

One would prefer Mother****er Audio.




Audiophiles give me the willies, note.

[George M. Middius]

Goofy made a funny!

> >I don't. But that's not important.

> One would prefer Mother****er Audio.

Very good, Mr. Willies. How about the products -- Stainless Steel
Speakers?

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> trotsky wrote:
>
> > http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >
> >
> > And be brutally honest.
> >
>
> Nice site.
>
> Few things, though. The pages are modem friendly, simple, use a lot
> of the same graphics, and also have no java. Nice.
>
> I'd add a slightly off-white background or something though - maybe
> a bit of paper-esque texture. A flat white field is a bit bland.
>
> Bookshelf speaker page:
> Looks like a nice speaker. One gripe, though. Surely with a woofer
> that large, you can get better bass than 50hz? The problem with
> 50hz is that it means you must have a subwoofer for decent sound.
> If you could get it down to 40 or 35 hz with, say, a slightly deeper
> cabinet, it would be attractive to more potential customers.


Well, that's a quandary. Specs (or spec.'s) don't mean much to me, the
sound is all that matters. The sound is hard to communicate on a
website, of course, but I gave it my best shot. That said, my speaker
have way better bass quality than many speakers with quoted 35 or 40 Hz
bass cutoff frequencies. I'm not bragging--I've just spent a lot of
time listening and feel that I know the strengths and weakness of the
speaker pretty well. They reproduce bass guitar as well as any speaker
I've heard, for example.

>
>
> 7 3/4 inches deep is awfully thin. I say make it 10 inches deep or
> so and get better bass. Or, drop to a 6 inch woofer and get better
> speed. Using an 8 inch woofer in a small cabinet that limits it to
> 50hz is a bit of a waste, IMO.
>
> They are front-ported, though - a good thing. Rear ports suck, IMO.


That's the thing, though. To make a deeper cabinet the port would have
to go on the back. You can't make the cabinet with any more internal
volume if you want a flat response from the woofer.

>
>
> Subwoofer page:
> I noticed that the subwoofer had no specs listed. Distortion
> would be nice to list as well. Also, what kind of driver does it use?
> For $1250, you can get a servo sub.


It's a Peerless woofer. And you can't get a sub with the build quality
of mine for anywhere near the price. The specs, as I told dave weil,
were omitted but should be up in the next day or two.

>
>
> Oh - and at the 1000+ price range, most subwoofers don't pull that
> massive power/bad amp and sloppy bass trick either. Velodyne and
> Martin Logan don't and they both have good, clean servo subs in
> the same price range.


If you think those things sound good more power to you.

>
>
> If it is a normal conventional driver, honestly, $1250 is too much money.
> Nobody cares about whether the feet are plastic or not - they want good
> clean bass.


Honestly, if you can find a subwoofer that weighs 85 lbs, has real wood
veneer, one of the best bass drivers on the market, etc. I would be
shocked. And there's a reason servo technology isn't used on main
speakers anymore: it doesn't sound good.



> Also, will it accept a remote power on input?


I'm not sure what that means, but it does have signal sensing auto power-on.


> Does it have a variable
> cutoff filter?



All powered subs do. It's a law. Fortunately, the variable LPF is
defeatable, thus if you have a home theater processor with built in
crossover there's no redundancy.


> It would be nice to have features like this so that
> your control would be at the unit and not based upon what the crummy
> A/V processor thinks it should be doing.


Actually, you're generally better off using the digital crossover in a
processor when possible.

>
> Perhaps the subwoofer has all of this. Without specs, I can't tell
> fom looking at the page as to why this is better than the Velodyne.
> (no dis on your product - just no data there to draw conclusions from)
>
> All pages:
> Ditch the MSRP nonsense. If you sell them and they are good, that's
> what they sell for. It makes it look like you are trying to justify the
> price.


MSRP is necessary because if decide to go through normal distribution
channels that's what they'll sell for.

>
>
> About Us Page:
> The About Us page should have less blather about your goals and a bit
> added about your facilities, tech setup, and such. If you use the
> latest programs and testing chambers(renting one out is perfectly
> acceptable), then mention it. For all we know, this is one guy in the
> back of his house making speakers. Again, no dis meannt - just no
> information.


No information to give. I don't do tests other than listening tests.
The crossovers were designed based on measurements to yield the flattest
frequency response, that's about it. The concept here is that many
speakers use "state of the art" design and construction techniques and
still don't sound very good. I use a common sense approach because that
is what's really needed. If you think, for example, that putting some
sort of material or compound to make the cabinets more inert, as many
"high end" manufacturers do, then you don't understand what makes a
speaker sound good. I'm sure there are "measurements" that claim that's
the way to go, but that's where measurements are a detriment rather than
a help.

>
>
>
> Contact Us Page:
> The P.O. box thing kind of sucks. If you're in a business or
> commercial workshop of any kind, list it as a secondary address
> and offer tours - the kind of stop on by and take a look sort
> of thing.
>
> I hate small comment boxes. Make it either pop up the user's
> email program or make it at the bottom and at least 40 characters
> wide. It's hard to write in little boxes more than a line or two
> of questions.
>
> Also:
> Have a specials/demo unit/blems/customer returns page. Surely
> there are a few that poorer people might be interested in.
>
> Have a news page. Where we can hear these demoed or what trade
> or music shows you are going to. Most audio manufacturers forget
> this part and it's a shame as most consumers don't know about
> these shows. If I was thinking about buying your speakers,
> knowing where to buy them(if you have distributors) or where
> to look at them would be important.


I think you're past your allotment of criticisms. Tell me what company
you work for and I'll be happy to point out all the gaffes in their
sales and marketing.

[Oily Tartlet]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 21:38:22 GMT,
(Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote:

>One would prefer Mother****er Audio.

<cough, splutter, choke>

--
Oily Tartlet

[Trevor Wilson]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
link.net...
> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>
>
> And be brutally honest.
>

**Best wishes for your new venture Greg.

If I may, I will offer a suggestion: Have you considered addressing the
diffraction effects on your enclosures?

The site looks great. If I may be so crass: How much did it cost? My site is
in desperate need of upgrading.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Bob Morein]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
link.net...
> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>
>
> And be brutally honest.
>
The speakers look interesting, but don't utilize well known tricks for
reducing diffraction around the front baffle.
Both Dunlavy and Spica used felt effectively, and the results were
noteworthy imaging. Others have used widely radiused enclosures, but the
technique has not obtained visual acceptance.

Since felt has an appearance issue, makers would rather ignore the fact of
baffle diffraction, and instead, lure the listener with a nice finish.

You could be innovative here by offering, as a tweak, removable absorbers
for the baffle with an attractive, textured appearance.

[George M. Middius]

Trevor Wilson said:

> The site looks great. If I may be so crass: How much did it cost? My site is
> in desperate need of upgrading.

Silly boy. All you have to do is download all the code, buy
yourself an HTML editing tool (not Front Page, a real one), and
substitute your text and pictures for what's already there.

You're right about your site too.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 19:21:25 GMT, trotsky wrote:
>
>
> >MiNE 109 wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article . net>,
> >> trotsky wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And be brutally honest.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Site looks good. Did Mark Levinson lend you his trumpet?
> >
> >
> >Okay, that made me laugh. No, he didn't lend me his trumpet, because I
> >refused to give him advice on female orgasms.
>
>
> And now look at him. No more Kim Cattrell.


Or Cattrall as the case may be. I sure hope that trumpet is the right size.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >> Nice-looking site Mr. Singh. And while we may have had some arguments
> >>in the past I take my hat off to you for putting your money where
> >>your mouth is and starting your own business.
>
>
>
> >Thanks. I don't expect to go the way of Waveform, either.
>
>
> Is that your way of saying you'll refuse to have your speakers
> reviewed in Stereophile?
>

Well, I can't predict the future, but I certainly wouldn't have them
reviewed now just because I couldn't handle the resulting sales volume.
I'll probably try a few online reviews, though.

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:

> In article ,
> trotsky wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >The sub is really musical. As I say on the site, most of the subs I've
> >seen are junk, so I think it has a reason for being.
>
>
> I'm glad you like it. Maybe your ad copy could be more positive so as
> not to give a "subs suck, here's another one" impression. Why is less eq
> better? Now that you've mentioned junky sub feet, what kind does yours
> have? That kind of thing.
>
> Gotta like the sand.


God, these are hard questions. I think I go into it a bit further in
the LtbAQs, which should be posted to the site any day now. I'll have
to check that, though. In my defense, though, the conundrum of subs
designed primarily for home theater and being mediocre for music comes
up ALL THE TIME on the sales floor, and I believe I clearly addressed this.

[Daniel]

(John Atkinson) wrote in message >...
> trotsky > wrote in message . net>...
> > http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >
> > And be brutally honest.
>
> Nice-looking site Mr. Singh. And while we may have had some arguments
> in the past I take my hat off to you for putting your money where
> your mouth is and starting your own business.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

A review sure would be nice.

[trotsky]

Bob Morein wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> link.net...
>
> >http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >
> >
> >And be brutally honest.
> >
>
> The speakers look interesting, but don't utilize well known tricks for
> reducing diffraction around the front baffle.
> Both Dunlavy and Spica used felt effectively, and the results were
> noteworthy imaging.


Didn't seem to keep them in business, though. Imaging may be the single
biggest instance of the audio biz chasing its tail, btw.


> Others have used widely radiused enclosures, but the
> technique has not obtained visual acceptance.
>
> Since felt has an appearance issue, makers would rather ignore the fact of
> baffle diffraction, and instead, lure the listener with a nice finish.
>
> You could be innovative here by offering, as a tweak, removable absorbers
> for the baffle with an attractive, textured appearance.


While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying felt
around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I was shocked
at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

[trotsky]

Lionel Chapuis wrote:

> Lionel Chapuis a écrit :
>
> > Lionel Chapuis a écrit :
> >
> >> trotsky a écrit :
> >>
> >>> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> And be brutally honest.
> >>>
> >> May I suggest you that :
> >>
> >> "...equally adept at reproducing T. Rex footsteps in a home theater,
> >> or T. Rex music in a two channel system."
> >>
> >> doesn't really fit the feeling of the site : trumpet, flower,
> silk/satin
> >>
> >> I don't speak as an expert in audio but and expert in bad joke. To be
> >> sure of that see my previous post (sorry for that ;-) )
> >>
> >> Lionel
>
>
> This will also keep you out of nasty jokes like :
>
> "...equally adept at reproducing T. Rex footsteps in a home theater, or
> T. Rex music in a two channel system."
>
> "Guess why ?
> - 'cause it looks like *a* T. Rex


That's fine, I like bombast. The next sub I'm going to do will be
called "The Mongo", which probably doesn't translate to French too good.
I'm also going to do a speaker called "Gargantua"--I'll bet you it
will do a damn good job playing Bonecrusher, too.

[MiNE 109]

In article . net>,
trotsky > wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > trotsky wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >The sub is really musical. As I say on the site, most of the subs I've
> > >seen are junk, so I think it has a reason for being.
> >
> >
> > I'm glad you like it. Maybe your ad copy could be more positive so as
> > not to give a "subs suck, here's another one" impression. Why is less eq
> > better? Now that you've mentioned junky sub feet, what kind does yours
> > have? That kind of thing.
> >
> > Gotta like the sand.
>
>
> God, these are hard questions. I think I go into it a bit further in
> the LtbAQs, which should be posted to the site any day now. I'll have
> to check that, though. In my defense, though, the conundrum of subs
> designed primarily for home theater and being mediocre for music comes
> up ALL THE TIME on the sales floor, and I believe I clearly addressed this.
>

More power to you on that.

Stephen

[MiNE 109]

In article . net>,
trotsky > wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > trotsky wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >The sub is really musical. As I say on the site, most of the subs I've
> > >seen are junk, so I think it has a reason for being.
> >
> >
> > I'm glad you like it. Maybe your ad copy could be more positive so as
> > not to give a "subs suck, here's another one" impression. Why is less eq
> > better? Now that you've mentioned junky sub feet, what kind does yours
> > have? That kind of thing.
> >
> > Gotta like the sand.
>
>
> God, these are hard questions. I think I go into it a bit further in
> the LtbAQs, which should be posted to the site any day now. I'll have
> to check that, though. In my defense, though, the conundrum of subs
> designed primarily for home theater and being mediocre for music comes
> up ALL THE TIME on the sales floor, and I believe I clearly addressed this.
>

More power to you on that.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MiNE 109 said:

> > In my defense, though, the conundrum of subs
> > designed primarily for home theater and being mediocre for music comes
> > up ALL THE TIME on the sales floor, and I believe I clearly addressed this.

> More power to you on that.

I don't like speakers that attack too aggressively.

[trotsky]

Lionel Chapuis wrote:

> trotsky a écrit :
>
> > That's fine, I like bombast. The next sub I'm going to do will be
> > called "The Mongo", which probably doesn't translate to French too
> > good. I'm also going to do a speaker called "Gargantua"--I'll bet you
> > it will do a damn good job playing Bonecrusher, too.
> >
> I know it's stupid. But did you already read something really
> intelligent here ?
> You prefer to have them trolling in your back ?



I had some trolling in my back once, but I took some Doan's pills.


> Up to you man...
> You have been here for long time before this post you know the rules...


How do you know how long I've been here?

>
>
> I cannot imagine that you are so proud to post here asking for "brutal
> but friendly" critics. Most of these guys are like hyenas waiting you
> fail to make good jokes.
> It's the last place I would have post such message !
> Let's say I read about 2 maximum 3 honest authors. Ask privatly on my
> mail I'll give you the names.
> Take your time Greg, you have already done a good job but your marketing
> is too poor.
> As already said I don't care about your sympathy.



Are you a sockpuppet?

>
>

[Lionel Chapuis]

George M. Middius a écrit :
>
> trotsky said:
>
>
>>>>Thanks. I don't expect to go the way of Waveform, either.
>
>
>>>Is that your way of saying you'll refuse to have your speakers
>>>reviewed in Stereophile?
>
>
>
>>Well, I can't predict the future, but I certainly wouldn't have them
>>reviewed now just because I couldn't handle the resulting sales volume.
>
>
> Never mind, I wasn't joking after all.
>
>
>> I'll probably try a few online reviews, though.
>
>
> Does Howie publish his "stuff" online? Time to call in a marker.
>
>
Do you want an other glass of champagne Mr. Middius, tastes these
cookies they are marvelloussssssssssssssss!

[Lionel Chapuis]

George M. Middius a écrit :

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
>>> Nice-looking site Mr. Singh. And while we may have had some arguments
>>>in the past I take my hat off to you for putting your money where
>>>your mouth is and starting your own business.
>
>
>
>>Thanks. I don't expect to go the way of Waveform, either.
>
>
> Is that your way of saying you'll refuse to have your speakers
> reviewed in Stereophile?
>
>
>
Ah! Ah! Ah! this Mr Middius what an humorist...
Vous reprendrez bien du pudding ?

[George M. Middius]

"Lionel Chapuis" (LOL! LOt"S!) said:

> Do you want an other glass of champagne Mr. Middius, tastes these
> cookies they are marvelloussssssssssssssss!

If you're buying, I want a new car.

[Lionel Chapuis]

George M. Middius a écrit :

>
> The Doofalizer whined:
>
>
>>>And be brutally honest.
>
>
>
>> Impossible without listening.
>
>
> He's talking about the Web site, you idiot.
>
>
Don't worry Mr. Middius he's the neighbor's son he's a little bit stupid
but let me introduce Sir......

[Oily Tartlet]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 02:57:56 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
<lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:

>Do you want an other glass

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Oh dear, dear, dear.

--
Oily Tartlet

[Lionel Chapuis]

trotsky a écrit :

> Are you a sockpuppet?
>
What do you mean ?
Which type there's here at least 5 to 10 different categories.

[Lionel Chapuis]

Oily Tartlet a écrit :
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:31:18 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>"Like a club tie, a firm handshake, a certain look in the eye and an
>>easy smile"
>>
>>I'll bet you know what Pink Floyd lyric that's from.
>
>
> My mind has gone to the Dogs.
>
> --
> Thine
Dogs eat dogs

[Oily Tartlet]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 03:30:40 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
> wrote:

>Dogs eat dogs

I'm sorry, but I can't stand to see your lever of pulvarity to Englash
the lauginage.

--
Oily Tartlet

[Marc Phillips]

Congratulations, Greg! Everything looks great.

Any chance of you experimenting with exotic wood finishes in the future?

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Greg said:

>Lionel Chapuis wrote:
>
>> trotsky a écrit :
>>
>> > That's fine, I like bombast. The next sub I'm going to do will be
>> > called "The Mongo", which probably doesn't translate to French too
>> > good. I'm also going to do a speaker called "Gargantua"--I'll bet you
>> > it will do a damn good job playing Bonecrusher, too.
>> >
>> I know it's stupid. But did you already read something really
>> intelligent here ?
>> You prefer to have them trolling in your back ?
>
>
>
>I had some trolling in my back once, but I took some Doan's pills.
>
>
>> Up to you man...
>> You have been here for long time before this post you know the rules...
>
>
>How do you know how long I've been here?
>
>>
>>
>> I cannot imagine that you are so proud to post here asking for "brutal
>> but friendly" critics. Most of these guys are like hyenas waiting you
>> fail to make good jokes.
>> It's the last place I would have post such message !
>> Let's say I read about 2 maximum 3 honest authors. Ask privatly on my
>> mail I'll give you the names.
>> Take your time Greg, you have already done a good job but your marketing
>> is too poor.
>> As already said I don't care about your sympathy.
>
>
>
>Are you a sockpuppet?

Of course.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Greg said:

>John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> trotsky wrote in message
>> . net>...
>>
>> >http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>> >
>> >And be brutally honest.
>>
>> Nice-looking site Mr. Singh. And while we may have had some arguments
>> in the past I take my hat off to you for putting your money where
>> your mouth is and starting your own business.
>
>
>Thanks. I don't expect to go the way of Waveform, either.

I would find it very amusing if your speakers made the RC list. ;-)

Boon

[Bob Morein]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Bob Morein wrote:
>
> > "trotsky" wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >
> > >http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> > >
> > >
> > >And be brutally honest.
> > >
> >
> > The speakers look interesting, but don't utilize well known tricks for
> > reducing diffraction around the front baffle.
> > Both Dunlavy and Spica used felt effectively, and the results were
> > noteworthy imaging.
>
>
> Didn't seem to keep them in business, though. Imaging may be the single
> biggest instance of the audio biz chasing its tail, btw.

What's going to keep you in business?
I gave you an innovation. Be smart and use it.
>
> > Others have used widely radiused enclosures, but the
> > technique has not obtained visual acceptance.
> >
> > Since felt has an appearance issue, makers would rather ignore the fact
of
> > baffle diffraction, and instead, lure the listener with a nice finish.
> >
> > You could be innovative here by offering, as a tweak, removable
absorbers
> > for the baffle with an attractive, textured appearance.
>
>
> While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying felt
> around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I was shocked
> at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not broke, don't fix
it.

You don't understand the issue. The felt ring has nothing to do with
coloration. It causes the tweeter to act more like the ideal point radiator.

[Bruce J. Richman]

George M. Middius wrote:


>trotsky said:
>
>> > >Thanks. I don't expect to go the way of Waveform, either.
>
>> > Is that your way of saying you'll refuse to have your speakers
>> > reviewed in Stereophile?
>
>> Well, I can't predict the future, but I certainly wouldn't have them
>> reviewed now just because I couldn't handle the resulting sales volume.
>
>Never mind, I wasn't joking after all.
>
>> I'll probably try a few online reviews, though.
>
>Does Howie publish his "stuff" online? Time to call in a marker.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I heard Howie is on a brief hiaturs from reviewing subs until he has a chance
to upgrade his favorite piece of test equipment - the HF Signature Pro
Wrecking Ball.



Bruce J. Richman

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:

>> Contact Us Page:
>> The P.O. box thing kind of sucks. If you're in a business or
>> commercial workshop of any kind, list it as a secondary address
>> and offer tours - the kind of stop on by and take a look sort
>> of thing.
>>
>> I hate small comment boxes. Make it either pop up the user's
>> email program or make it at the bottom and at least 40 characters
>> wide. It's hard to write in little boxes more than a line or two
>> of questions.
>>
>> Also:
>> Have a specials/demo unit/blems/customer returns page. Surely
>> there are a few that poorer people might be interested in.
>>
>> Have a news page. Where we can hear these demoed or what trade
>> or music shows you are going to. Most audio manufacturers forget
>> this part and it's a shame as most consumers don't know about
>> these shows. If I was thinking about buying your speakers,
>> knowing where to buy them(if you have distributors) or where
>> to look at them would be important.
>
>
>
> I think you're past your allotment of criticisms. Tell me what company
> you work for and I'll be happy to point out all the gaffes in their
> sales and marketing.

I do systems consutling. Work for myself. :)

These last points are minor website things, in any case.
I am being honest here - small comment boxes suck, IMO.
News and specials/returns pages would be nice.
Being able to walk in to the shop would be as well. OTOH, if
it's in your workshop or garage, then I understand.

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson said:
>
>
>>The site looks great. If I may be so crass: How much did it cost? My site is
>>in desperate need of upgrading.
>
>
> Silly boy. All you have to do is download all the code, buy
> yourself an HTML editing tool (not Front Page, a real one), and
> substitute your text and pictures for what's already there.

I use HomeSite myself. Nice editor for not a lot of cash.

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:

> While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying felt
> around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I was shocked
> at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

Well, big tweeters are like bigger speakers in that they tend to stress
a bit less trying to get all the sound out. The sound is a bit cleaner.
(something like a planar panel is an extreme example of this)

I'm frankly amazed that 1 inch dome tweeters do as well as they do.
That's an awfully small area for the entire top end to be coming from.

(hey - I like ribbons and planar speakers, so shoot me) :)

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:

>> 7 3/4 inches deep is awfully thin. I say make it 10 inches deep or
>> so and get better bass. Or, drop to a 6 inch woofer and get better
>> speed. Using an 8 inch woofer in a small cabinet that limits it to
>> 50hz is a bit of a waste, IMO.
>>
>> They are front-ported, though - a good thing. Rear ports suck, IMO.

Yeah - I can see that. But surely, there must be some method to do it.
The JBL 4408A speakers have larger cabinets that are deeper and are
rated at +/- 2db, so it should be possible. Front ported, too.

I'm just saying that more bass response *might* be possible.

> That's the thing, though. To make a deeper cabinet the port would have
> to go on the back. You can't make the cabinet with any more internal
> volume if you want a flat response from the woofer.

Yeah, I can see that. There must be a way, though, as I've seen
deeper and larger cabinets that are front ported.

>>
>>
>> Subwoofer page:
>> I noticed that the subwoofer had no specs listed. Distortion
>> would be nice to list as well. Also, what kind of driver does it use?
>> For $1250, you can get a servo sub.

(snip)

> If you think those things sound good more power to you.

No dis - just no data on the page.

>> Also, will it accept a remote power on input?
>
> I'm not sure what that means, but it does have signal sensing auto
> power-on.

Yeah. That's what I meant. Some don't believe it or not.


> All powered subs do. It's a law. Fortunately, the variable LPF is
> defeatable, thus if you have a home theater processor with built in
> crossover there's no redundancy.

Nice. That's what I meant - something you can switch on and off to
use both ways. I'm a fan of letting the speakers do the job instead
of fancy processing modes, but YMMV I guess - to each their own.

More options is a good thing.

Btw - who makes the power amp module? Just curious.

>> All pages:
>> Ditch the MSRP nonsense. If you sell them and they are good, that's
>> what they sell for. It makes it look like you are trying to justify the
>> price.
>
> MSRP is necessary because if decide to go through normal distribution
> channels that's what they'll sell for.

Ah. Okay. :)

>> About Us Page:
>> The About Us page should have less blather about your goals and a bit
>> added about your facilities, tech setup, and such. If you use the
>> latest programs and testing chambers(renting one out is perfectly
>> acceptable), then mention it. For all we know, this is one guy in the
>> back of his house making speakers. Again, no dis meannt - just no
>> information.
>
> No information to give. I don't do tests other than listening tests.
> The crossovers were designed based on measurements to yield the flattest
> frequency response, that's about it. The concept here is that many
> speakers use "state of the art" design and construction techniques and
> still don't sound very good.

Still, when the other makers do all of this, it's going to be almost
a necessary evil to convince most customers.

> I use a common sense approach because that
> is what's really needed. If you think, for example, that putting some
> sort of material or compound to make the cabinets more inert, as many
> "high end" manufacturers do, then you don't understand what makes a
> speaker sound good.

Otoh, sometimes it does make a great deal of improvement.

[George M. Middius]

Joseph Oberlander said:

> >>The site looks great. If I may be so crass: How much did it cost? My site is
> >>in desperate need of upgrading.
> >
> >
> > Silly boy. All you have to do is download all the code, buy
> > yourself an HTML editing tool (not Front Page, a real one), and
> > substitute your text and pictures for what's already there.
>
> I use HomeSite myself. Nice editor for not a lot of cash.

Allow me to correct myself: Unless you have a technical background
in software, get an HTML editor with a WYSIWIG viewer.

[trotsky]

Lionel Chapuis wrote:
> trotsky a écrit :
>
>> Are you a sockpuppet?
>>
> What do you mean ?
> Which type there's here at least 5 to 10 different categories.


Whatever kind is the most ****ty.

[trotsky]

Oily Tartlet wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 03:30:40 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Dogs eat dogs
>
>
> I'm sorry, but I can't stand to see your lever of pulvarity to Englash
> the lauginage.


A French Krueger--how unclean can you get?

[trotsky]

Bob Morein wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>Bob Morein wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"trotsky" wrote in message
link.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And be brutally honest.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The speakers look interesting, but don't utilize well known tricks for
>>>reducing diffraction around the front baffle.
>>>Both Dunlavy and Spica used felt effectively, and the results were
>>>noteworthy imaging.
>>
>>
>>Didn't seem to keep them in business, though. Imaging may be the single
>>biggest instance of the audio biz chasing its tail, btw.
>
>
> What's going to keep you in business?
> I gave you an innovation. Be smart and use it.
>
>>> Others have used widely radiused enclosures, but the
>>>technique has not obtained visual acceptance.
>>>
>>>Since felt has an appearance issue, makers would rather ignore the fact
>>
> of
>
>>>baffle diffraction, and instead, lure the listener with a nice finish.
>>>
>>>You could be innovative here by offering, as a tweak, removable
>>
> absorbers
>
>>>for the baffle with an attractive, textured appearance.
>>
>>
>>While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying felt
>>around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I was shocked
>>at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not broke, don't fix
>
> it.
>
> You don't understand the issue. The felt ring has nothing to do with
> coloration. It causes the tweeter to act more like the ideal point radiator.


No, cabinet diffraction causes frequency response aberrations.

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> trotsky wrote:
>
>>> Contact Us Page:
>>> The P.O. box thing kind of sucks. If you're in a business or
>>> commercial workshop of any kind, list it as a secondary address
>>> and offer tours - the kind of stop on by and take a look sort
>>> of thing.
>>>
>>> I hate small comment boxes. Make it either pop up the user's
>>> email program or make it at the bottom and at least 40 characters
>>> wide. It's hard to write in little boxes more than a line or two
>>> of questions.
>>>
>>> Also:
>>> Have a specials/demo unit/blems/customer returns page. Surely
>>> there are a few that poorer people might be interested in.
>>>
>>> Have a news page. Where we can hear these demoed or what trade
>>> or music shows you are going to. Most audio manufacturers forget
>>> this part and it's a shame as most consumers don't know about
>>> these shows. If I was thinking about buying your speakers,
>>> knowing where to buy them(if you have distributors) or where
>>> to look at them would be important.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you're past your allotment of criticisms. Tell me what
>> company you work for and I'll be happy to point out all the gaffes in
>> their sales and marketing.
>
>
> I do systems consutling. Work for myself. :)
>
> These last points are minor website things, in any case.
> I am being honest here - small comment boxes suck, IMO.
> News and specials/returns pages would be nice.
> Being able to walk in to the shop would be as well. OTOH, if
> it's in your workshop or garage, then I understand.


Gotta start somewhere. It doesn't make the product any less excellent.

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> trotsky wrote:
>
>> While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying felt
>> around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I was
>> shocked at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not broke,
>> don't fix it.
>
>
> Well, big tweeters are like bigger speakers in that they tend to stress
> a bit less trying to get all the sound out. The sound is a bit cleaner.
> (something like a planar panel is an extreme example of this)
>
> I'm frankly amazed that 1 inch dome tweeters do as well as they do.
> That's an awfully small area for the entire top end to be coming from.


I think if the same amount of time and money had been spent on the
development of planar drivers it would be shocking how well they'd perform.

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:

>> These last points are minor website things, in any case.
>> I am being honest here - small comment boxes suck, IMO.
>> News and specials/returns pages would be nice.
>> Being able to walk in to the shop would be as well. OTOH, if
>> it's in your workshop or garage, then I understand.
>
>
>
> Gotta start somewhere. It doesn't make the product any less excellent.

No it doesn't. I made no comments other than the woofer size
about the product itself, you'll note. Just website/info.

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> Oily Tartlet wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 03:30:40 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dogs eat dogs
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I can't stand to see your lever of pulvarity to
>> Englash the lauginage.

> A French Krueger--how unclean can you get?

You know I try to be nice with you Singh, and your basic nature always
screws things up. But what should one expect from a second-rate midwest
clone of Middius?

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message


> Bob Morein wrote:

>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>> hlink.net...

>>> While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying
>>> felt around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I
>>> was shocked at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not
>>> broke, don't fix it.

>> You don't understand the issue. The felt ring has nothing to do with
>> coloration. It causes the tweeter to act more like the ideal point
>> radiator.

> No, cabinet diffraction causes frequency response aberrations.

Since each guy is about half right and half wrong, this could prove to be
the start of a lasting hatred.

;-)

[Bob Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Bob Morein wrote:
>
> >> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> >> hlink.net...
>
> >>> While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying
> >>> felt around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I
> >>> was shocked at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not
> >>> broke, don't fix it.
>
> >> You don't understand the issue. The felt ring has nothing to do with
> >> coloration. It causes the tweeter to act more like the ideal point
> >> radiator.
>
> > No, cabinet diffraction causes frequency response aberrations.
>
> Since each guy is about half right and half wrong, this could prove to be
> the start of a lasting hatred.
>
> ;-)
>
There already is :).
You are correct, and so is Trotsky in his correction. Diffraction causes
comb filtering, which is one way of looking at the disorganized mess
produced by Trotsky's hard baffle.
So I amend my claim to simply state that felt, or an attractive material,
makes things better.

Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice subcontracted parts
provide little differentiation, and unless the design has been thoroughly
tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a turntable, and lots of experience,
holds little chance of technical equality with products from larger
companies, even if their drivers are not quite as good.

Felt could have made a distinction but it doesn't fit into his marketing
scheme.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Bob Morein wrote:
>>
>>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>> hlink.net...
>>
>>>>> While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying
>>>>> felt around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I
>>>>> was shocked at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not
>>>>> broke, don't fix it.
>>
>>>> You don't understand the issue. The felt ring has nothing to do
>>>> with coloration. It causes the tweeter to act more like the ideal
>>>> point radiator.
>>
>>> No, cabinet diffraction causes frequency response aberrations.
>>
>> Since each guy is about half right and half wrong, this could prove
>> to be the start of a lasting hatred.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
> There already is :).

Oh dear, my registry of RAO feuds had become out-fo-date.


> You are correct, and so is Trotsky in his correction. Diffraction
> causes comb filtering, which is one way of looking at the
> disorganized mess produced by Trotsky's hard baffle.

Oh here we go again. Sooner or later the discussion had to move from Singh's
web site to the actual performance of Singh's loudspeaker products.

> So I amend my claim to simply state that felt, or an attractive
> material, makes things better.

...at least some of the time.

> Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice
> subcontracted parts provide little differentiation,

True.

It does help to have a superior product to back up the brave-sounding prose.

> and unless the
> design has been thoroughly tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a
> turntable, and lots of experience, holds little chance of technical
> equality with products from larger companies, even if their drivers
> are not quite as good.

But are these drivers really any better?

Two key parameters for low frequency drivers for small speakers are Xmax and
smoothness of response near the crossover frequency.

http://www.madisound.com/silverflute.html gives me no comfort in either
area.

As far as the tweeters go, here's a pretty credible-looking comparative
look:

http://ldsg.snippets.org/sect-4.php3

Like the reviewer, I see the YAG-20 as being underspecified.

A lot of the success of Jupiter audio's full-range product rests in the
design of its crossover, at which point the supporting website text gets
really well, underspecified.

There's that word again!

> Felt could have made a distinction but it doesn't fit into his
> marketing scheme.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Oily Tartlet wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 03:30:40 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dogs eat dogs
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm sorry, but I can't stand to see your lever of pulvarity to
>>>Englash the lauginage.
>>
>
>>A French Krueger--how unclean can you get?
>
>
> You know I try to be nice with you Singh, and your basic nature always
> screws things up. But what should one expect from a second-rate midwest
> clone of Middius?


Come on, Arny, you have to expect me to get a few licks in for old
times' sake. I haven't even misspelled your name once, for example.

[trotsky]

Bob Morein wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"trotsky" > wrote in message

>>
>>
>>>Bob Morein wrote:
>>
>>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>
>>>>>While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying
>>>>>felt around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I
>>>>>was shocked at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not
>>>>>broke, don't fix it.
>>>>
>>>>You don't understand the issue. The felt ring has nothing to do with
>>>>coloration. It causes the tweeter to act more like the ideal point
>>>>radiator.
>>>
>>>No, cabinet diffraction causes frequency response aberrations.
>>
>>Since each guy is about half right and half wrong, this could prove to be
>>the start of a lasting hatred.
>>
>>;-)
>>
>
> There already is :).
> You are correct, and so is Trotsky in his correction. Diffraction causes
> comb filtering, which is one way of looking at the disorganized mess
> produced by Trotsky's hard baffle.
> So I amend my claim to simply state that felt, or an attractive material,
> makes things better.
>
> Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice subcontracted parts
> provide little differentiation, and unless the design has been thoroughly
> tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a turntable, and lots of experience,
> holds little chance of technical equality with products from larger
> companies, even if their drivers are not quite as good.
>
> Felt could have made a distinction but it doesn't fit into his marketing
> scheme.


As ever, Bob, the best test you can give a speaker is listening. And
unless you have a pretty good concept of what musicality in a
loudspeaker means, all the quasi-anechoic methods in the world aren't
going to help.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>
>>>>Bob Morein wrote:
>>>
>>>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>>>While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about trying
>>>>>>felt around the tweeter. After enough time had passed, though, I
>>>>>>was shocked at how sweet sounding the tweeter became. If it's not
>>>>>>broke, don't fix it.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't understand the issue. The felt ring has nothing to do
>>>>>with coloration. It causes the tweeter to act more like the ideal
>>>>>point radiator.
>>>>
>>>>No, cabinet diffraction causes frequency response aberrations.
>>>
>>>Since each guy is about half right and half wrong, this could prove
>>>to be the start of a lasting hatred.
>>>
>>>;-)
>>>
>>
>>There already is :).
>
>
> Oh dear, my registry of RAO feuds had become out-fo-date.
>
>
>
>>You are correct, and so is Trotsky in his correction. Diffraction
>>causes comb filtering, which is one way of looking at the
>>disorganized mess produced by Trotsky's hard baffle.
>
>
> Oh here we go again. Sooner or later the discussion had to move from Singh's
> web site to the actual performance of Singh's loudspeaker products.
>
>
>>So I amend my claim to simply state that felt, or an attractive
>>material, makes things better.
>
>
> ..at least some of the time.
>
>
>>Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice
>>subcontracted parts provide little differentiation,
>
>
> True.
>
> It does help to have a superior product to back up the brave-sounding prose.
>
>
>>and unless the
>>design has been thoroughly tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a
>>turntable, and lots of experience, holds little chance of technical
>>equality with products from larger companies, even if their drivers
>>are not quite as good.
>
>
> But are these drivers really any better?
>
> Two key parameters for low frequency drivers for small speakers are Xmax and
> smoothness of response near the crossover frequency.
>
> http://www.madisound.com/silverflute.html gives me no comfort in either
> area.
>
> As far as the tweeters go, here's a pretty credible-looking comparative
> look:
>
> http://ldsg.snippets.org/sect-4.php3
>
> Like the reviewer, I see the YAG-20 as being underspecified.
>
> A lot of the success of Jupiter audio's full-range product rests in the
> design of its crossover, at which point the supporting website text gets
> really well, underspecified.
>
> There's that word again!


Krueger, at the risk of overstating the obvious, you and Bob Morion are
hardly the target audience for my speakers. Now don't make me take the
kid gloves off.

[trotsky]

Girth wrote:
> Girth > wrote:
>
>
>>>Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice subcontracted parts
>>>provide little differentiation, and unless the design has been thoroughly
>>>tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a turntable, and lots of experience,
>>>holds little chance of technical equality with products from larger
>>>companies, even if their drivers are not quite as good.
>>
>>I'm trying to recall the name of the speaker builder who has become
>>very successful in recent times for the kits (and builds?) he
>>produces, many listeners claiming they beat commercial designs many
>>times the price. This guy had some noval marketing ideas, such as
>>circulating a set of the demo speakers between people shipping point
>>to point.
>
>
> Ellis Audio! Worth a look, Greg.
>
> http://www.ellisaudio.com/


Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, the speaker looks like every DIY
speaker I see being touted on various audio forums. I will read up on
his marketing concepts, though.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Girth wrote:
> "Bob Morein" > wrote:
>
>
>>Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice subcontracted parts
>>provide little differentiation, and unless the design has been thoroughly
>>tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a turntable, and lots of experience,
>>holds little chance of technical equality with products from larger
>>companies, even if their drivers are not quite as good.
>
>
> I'm trying to recall the name of the speaker builder who has become
> very successful in recent times for the kits (and builds?) he
> produces, many listeners claiming they beat commercial designs many
> times the price. This guy had some noval marketing ideas, such as
> circulating a set of the demo speakers between people shipping point
> to point.

I think they guys running Ellis Audio and the one running Shamrock Audio
(both use simmilar designs and ship the speaker set around techniques)
both have a lot of experience. They also have insane amounts of testing
and math and experience in building custom cabinets and crossovers.

They definately are the exception to the rule.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Girth wrote:
> Girth > wrote:
>
>
>>>Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice subcontracted parts
>>>provide little differentiation, and unless the design has been thoroughly
>>>tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a turntable, and lots of experience,
>>>holds little chance of technical equality with products from larger
>>>companies, even if their drivers are not quite as good.
>>
>>I'm trying to recall the name of the speaker builder who has become
>>very successful in recent times for the kits (and builds?) he
>>produces, many listeners claiming they beat commercial designs many
>>times the price. This guy had some noval marketing ideas, such as
>>circulating a set of the demo speakers between people shipping point
>>to point.
>
>
> Ellis Audio! Worth a look, Greg.
>
> http://www.ellisaudio.com/

Note the incredible detail on the tech side on his pages. That's
how he goes a long ways towards getting rid of the guy in the
garage picture in most people's minds.

And - as far as I can tell - all his technical talk and tweaks
he's tried make sense on paper.

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:
>
>
> Girth wrote:
>
>> Girth > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice
>>>> subcontracted parts
>>>> provide little differentiation, and unless the design has been
>>>> thoroughly
>>>> tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a turntable, and lots of
>>>> experience,
>>>> holds little chance of technical equality with products from larger
>>>> companies, even if their drivers are not quite as good.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm trying to recall the name of the speaker builder who has become
>>> very successful in recent times for the kits (and builds?) he
>>> produces, many listeners claiming they beat commercial designs many
>>> times the price. This guy had some noval marketing ideas, such as
>>> circulating a set of the demo speakers between people shipping point
>>> to point.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ellis Audio! Worth a look, Greg.
>> http://www.ellisaudio.com/
>
>
>
> Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, the speaker looks like every DIY
> speaker I see being touted on various audio forums. I will read up on
> his marketing concepts, though.

Go to:
http://www.shamrockaudio.com/eire.htm
Note the $2995 price. This speaker is virutally identical in sound to
the Ellis Audio offering. Why the pric difference? One is a company
and one is a guy who isn't interested in making a profit. Many people
agree they sound very close to each other.

You can't possibly beat his marketing concepts, because he isn't
playing that game or trying to make a living off of his work.
(much like say, the guy who builds telescopes in his free time - some
fine examples are out there that would cost thousands more on the open
market)

Is the Shamrock Audio worth $2995? IMO, no. There are better speakers
out there for much less money from Tannoy, Ke5f, Jeseph Audio, and
others. Is the Ellis Audio good for its price? Absolutely. He's
making a $1300 speaker that sounds great. He's making no profit on it,
though, because he lacks the economics of scale and discounts that the
big manufacturers would have. They could probably build it for $500
their cost.(minus the gorgeous laquer finish he does as an option)

They'd sell it for $1500 MSRP and on sale for $1300 or so. Hence,
it's not a bad speaker for the price compared to the big boys.

Note - his claims that it sounds better than $2500 speakers are
marketing, honestly. Compared to DIY type offerings like the Eire,
sure. Compared to a pair of Tannoys(real ones - not Saturns) or
Joseph Audio or some B&W towers? Um... No.

To Trotsky:
I'd see if you could get a listen to his speakers in person.
Bring yours for a side-by-side comparison.

Works out bugs - or maybe if yours is better, help him do
the same. Everyone wins and gets a better speakers. :)

[John Stone]

in article , Joseph Oberlander at
wrote on 9/3/03 12:44 PM:

> Go to:
> http://www.shamrockaudio.com/eire.htm
> Note the $2995 price. This speaker is virutally identical in sound to
> the Ellis Audio offering. Why the pric difference? One is a company
> and one is a guy who isn't interested in making a profit. Many people
> agree they sound very close to each other.

How do you know this? Have you listened to both side by side and couldn't
tell the difference-or are you just speculating? I can see many reasons why
those 2 systems wouldn't sound anything like each other.

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Girth wrote:
>
>> Girth > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice
>>>> subcontracted parts
>>>> provide little differentiation, and unless the design has been
>>>> thoroughly
>>>> tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a turntable, and lots of experience,
>>>> holds little chance of technical equality with products from larger
>>>> companies, even if their drivers are not quite as good.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm trying to recall the name of the speaker builder who has become
>>> very successful in recent times for the kits (and builds?) he
>>> produces, many listeners claiming they beat commercial designs many
>>> times the price. This guy had some noval marketing ideas, such as
>>> circulating a set of the demo speakers between people shipping point
>>> to point.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ellis Audio! Worth a look, Greg.
>> http://www.ellisaudio.com/
>
>
> Note the incredible detail on the tech side on his pages. That's
> how he goes a long ways towards getting rid of the guy in the
> garage picture in most people's minds.


AYOC? A generic website with generic pictures and a note saying,
"Sorry, guys, all my stuff is in boxes right now" is okay because he
spent some quality time with some meters?

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> trotsky wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Girth wrote:
>>
>>> Girth > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice
>>>>> subcontracted parts
>>>>> provide little differentiation, and unless the design has been
>>>>> thoroughly
>>>>> tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a turntable, and lots of
>>>>> experience,
>>>>> holds little chance of technical equality with products from larger
>>>>> companies, even if their drivers are not quite as good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying to recall the name of the speaker builder who has become
>>>> very successful in recent times for the kits (and builds?) he
>>>> produces, many listeners claiming they beat commercial designs many
>>>> times the price. This guy had some noval marketing ideas, such as
>>>> circulating a set of the demo speakers between people shipping point
>>>> to point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ellis Audio! Worth a look, Greg.
>>> http://www.ellisaudio.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, the speaker looks like every DIY
>> speaker I see being touted on various audio forums. I will read up on
>> his marketing concepts, though.
>
>
> Go to:
> http://www.shamrockaudio.com/eire.htm
> Note the $2995 price. This speaker is virutally identical in sound to
> the Ellis Audio offering.


You've heard this difference, or did the meters and measurements do the
listening for you?


Why the pric difference? One is a company
> and one is a guy who isn't interested in making a profit. Many people
> agree they sound very close to each other.


Can I have their names? And do you really expect a guy that isn't
interested in making money to be around to service his product down the
line?


> You can't possibly beat his marketing concepts, because he isn't
> playing that game or trying to make a living off of his work.
> (much like say, the guy who builds telescopes in his free time - some
> fine examples are out there that would cost thousands more on the open
> market)


Telescopes. Got it. And if you get a good one I'll bet you can see
Jupiter!


> Is the Shamrock Audio worth $2995? IMO, no.


If it's got a solid wood baffle that's pretty rare. I'm sure you've got
a point, though.


There are better speakers
> out there for much less money from Tannoy, Ke5f, Jeseph Audio, and
> others. Is the Ellis Audio good for its price? Absolutely. He's
> making a $1300 speaker that sounds great. He's making no profit on it,
> though, because he lacks the economics of scale and discounts that the
> big manufacturers would have. They could probably build it for $500
> their cost.(minus the gorgeous laquer finish he does as an option)


Did you buy a pair, then? If not, why not?


> They'd sell it for $1500 MSRP and on sale for $1300 or so. Hence,
> it's not a bad speaker for the price compared to the big boys.
>
> Note - his claims that it sounds better than $2500 speakers are
> marketing, honestly. Compared to DIY type offerings like the Eire,
> sure. Compared to a pair of Tannoys(real ones - not Saturns) or
> Joseph Audio or some B&W towers? Um... No.


I really don't see your point, even a little bit.


> To Trotsky:
> I'd see if you could get a listen to his speakers in person.
> Bring yours for a side-by-side comparison.


Bring them where? Are you translating your post from another language?


> Works out bugs - or maybe if yours is better, help him do
> the same. Everyone wins and gets a better speakers. :)


Yes. I can see why you'd need those telescopes.

[trotsky]

Girth wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander > wrote:
>
>
>>You can't possibly beat his marketing concepts, because he isn't
>>playing that game or trying to make a living off of his work.
>
>
> I've just been having a closer look at the website, Greg I didn't
> realise he was doing this for free. Still, I rate the idea of having a
> demo pair 'doing the rounds'.


I like this idea too.

[Powell]

"trotsky" wrote

> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>
> And be brutally honest.
>
I see the site was built with Adobe GoLive 6... nice
program. Where are your META NAME: Keywords, description and
revisit-after? You'll need these tags
for best search engine placement. What is your
geographic service area for your products?

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Morein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>>>> hlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> While the speakers were still breaking in, I thought about
>>>>>>> trying felt around the tweeter. After enough time had passed,
>>>>>>> though, I was shocked at how sweet sounding the tweeter became.
>>>>>>> If it's not broke, don't fix it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't understand the issue. The felt ring has nothing to do
>>>>>> with coloration. It causes the tweeter to act more like the ideal
>>>>>> point radiator.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, cabinet diffraction causes frequency response aberrations.
>>>>
>>>> Since each guy is about half right and half wrong, this could prove
>>>> to be the start of a lasting hatred.
>>>>
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> There already is :).
>>
>>
>> Oh dear, my registry of RAO feuds had become out-fo-date.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You are correct, and so is Trotsky in his correction. Diffraction
>>> causes comb filtering, which is one way of looking at the
>>> disorganized mess produced by Trotsky's hard baffle.
>>
>>
>> Oh here we go again. Sooner or later the discussion had to move from
>> Singh's web site to the actual performance of Singh's loudspeaker
>> products.
>>
>>
>>> So I amend my claim to simply state that felt, or an attractive
>>> material, makes things better.
>>
>>
>> ..at least some of the time.
>>
>>
>>> Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice
>>> subcontracted parts provide little differentiation,
>>
>>
>> True.
>>
>> It does help to have a superior product to back up the
>> brave-sounding prose.
>>
>>
>>> and unless the
>>> design has been thoroughly tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a
>>> turntable, and lots of experience, holds little chance of technical
>>> equality with products from larger companies, even if their drivers
>>> are not quite as good.
>>
>>
>> But are these drivers really any better?
>>
>> Two key parameters for low frequency drivers for small speakers are
>> Xmax and smoothness of response near the crossover frequency.
>>
>> http://www.madisound.com/silverflute.html gives me no comfort in
>> either area.
>>
>> As far as the tweeters go, here's a pretty credible-looking
>> comparative look:
>>
>> http://ldsg.snippets.org/sect-4.php3
>>
>> Like the reviewer, I see the YAG-20 as being underspecified.
>>
>> A lot of the success of Jupiter audio's full-range product rests in
>> the design of its crossover, at which point the supporting website
>> text gets really well, underspecified.
>>
>> There's that word again!
>
>
> Krueger, at the risk of overstating the obvious, you and Bob Morion
> are hardly the target audience for my speakers.

Right, our IQs are in the triple-digits.

> Now don't make me
> take the kid gloves off.

Singh, quit putting on airs. You don't own any figurative "kid gloves".
Probably don't own any real ones, either.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> >>I haven't even misspelled your name once, for example.

> > Rarely does anybody actually misspell it. I, for one, have never
> > "misspelled" it.

> Oh, right, I forgot the etymology of the name "Krooger".

I believe I coined that spelling. Do you need some quality time with a
dictionary, maybe?

[trotsky]

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

>>Krueger, at the risk of overstating the obvious, you and Bob Morion
>>are hardly the target audience for my speakers.
>
>
> Right, our IQs are in the triple-digits.


Dude, you're not supposed to count the decimal points.


>>Now don't make me
>>take the kid gloves off.
>
>
> Singh, quit putting on airs. You don't own any figurative "kid gloves".
> Probably don't own any real ones, either.


But of course you do--and we won't go into what kid was used, either.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> trotsky said:
>
>
>>>>I haven't even misspelled your name once, for example.
>>>
>
>>>Rarely does anybody actually misspell it. I, for one, have never
>>>"misspelled" it.
>>
>
>
>>Oh, right, I forgot the etymology of the name "Krooger".
>
>
> I believe I coined that spelling. Do you need some quality time with a
> dictionary, maybe?


No, but perhaps you could recount the story of how Krueger two different
spellings of his name on two different websites. Did the weasel even
have an explanation for this?

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:
>
>
> Girth wrote:
>
>> trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice
>>>>>> subcontracted parts
>>>>>> provide little differentiation, and unless the design has been
>>>>>> thoroughly
>>>>>> tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a turntable, and lots of
>>>>>> experience,
>>>>>> holds little chance of technical equality with products from larger
>>>>>> companies, even if their drivers are not quite as good.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to recall the name of the speaker builder who has become
>>>>> very successful in recent times for the kits (and builds?) he
>>>>> produces, many listeners claiming they beat commercial designs many
>>>>> times the price. This guy had some noval marketing ideas, such as
>>>>> circulating a set of the demo speakers between people shipping point
>>>>> to point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ellis Audio! Worth a look, Greg.
>>>> http://www.ellisaudio.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, the speaker looks like every DIY
>>> speaker I see being touted on various audio forums. I will read up
>>> on his marketing concepts, though.
>>
>>
>>
>> How important is the look? Having said that, the finish on Ellis's
>> speakers are by all accounts excellent.
>
>
>
> No, I'm sure it is. In fact, I'm sure the speakers themselves are quite
> good. But there's umpteen DIY posts where people have photos that are
> just as generic looking, such that you really can't get a handle on how
> the speakers are going to look in the flesh.

http://www.ellisaudio.com/FinishingWood.htm

Based upon his methods, I'd say he's doing it exactly right. Note how
he states elsewhere that he couldn't even get woodshops in his area
to even DO it as it was too labor intensive. 5-6 coats with the 0000
steel wool as a top finish is exactly right. Yes, it takes HOURS per
cabinet. The guy must have an obsession or arms of a bodybuilder
to do all that work. $200 more is a steal for that finish.

http://www.ellisaudio.com/finishcomments.htm
$700-$1000 for a cabinet at woodworking shop prices seems about right.

This is where he eats his profit. M0st companties would slap together
the cabinet for $200-$300 and be done with it.

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:

> AYOC? A generic website with generic pictures and a note saying,
> "Sorry, guys, all my stuff is in boxes right now" is okay because he
> spent some quality time with some meters?
>

He recently moved from Colorado Springs(IIRC) to another state.

[Schizoid Man]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> trotsky said:
>
> > >>I haven't even misspelled your name once, for example.
>
> > > Rarely does anybody actually misspell it. I, for one, have never
> > > "misspelled" it.
>
> > Oh, right, I forgot the etymology of the name "Krooger".
>
> I believe I coined that spelling. Do you need some quality time with a
> dictionary, maybe?
>

A dictionary, an English teacher, a volume of Wren and Martin and perhaps an
IQ test.

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message

> Girth wrote:
>> Joseph Oberlander > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> http://www.ellisaudio.com/
>>>
>>> Note the incredible detail on the tech side on his pages. That's
>>> how he goes a long ways towards getting rid of the guy in the
>>> garage picture in most people's minds.
>>>
>>> And - as far as I can tell - all his technical talk and tweaks
>>> he's tried make sense on paper.

>> The cynicism page made me laugh!! Ellis certainly cuts through the
>> BS.

Yes, he cuts the BS up into slices and tries to sell it to the hapless
reader.

> Yeah. :)

> Note how he obsesses about screws and types of glue and...

Well there's the brass screws he uses in his crossovers and the screw job he
gives anybody who actually believes his crap.

> Exactly the sort of fine-tweaking that the big firms do and 95%
> of the independants don't bother with.

That's because they have at least the foggiest notion of what science and
engineering is all about.

> Small changes are important and the big boys(tm) know that.

It makes great advertising copy, if you have the stomach for that sort of
thing.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> >>>>I haven't even misspelled your name once, for example.
> >>>
> >
> >>>Rarely does anybody actually misspell it. I, for one, have never
> >>>"misspelled" it.
> >>
> >
> >
> >>Oh, right, I forgot the etymology of the name "Krooger".
> >
> >
> > I believe I coined that spelling. Do you need some quality time with a
> > dictionary, maybe?
>
>
> No,

Wrong answer.

> but perhaps you could recount the story of how Krueger two different
> spellings of his name on two different websites. Did the weasel even
> have an explanation for this?

You sound like Mickey McBugEater. Who is "the weasel"?

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> trotsky wrote:


>> No, I'm sure it is. In fact, I'm sure the speakers themselves are
>> quite good. But there's umpteen DIY posts where people have photos
>> that are just as generic looking, such that you really can't get a
>> handle on how the speakers are going to look in the flesh.
>
>
> http://www.ellisaudio.com/FinishingWood.htm
>
> Based upon his methods, I'd say he's doing it exactly right. Note how
> he states elsewhere that he couldn't even get woodshops in his area
> to even DO it as it was too labor intensive. 5-6 coats with the 0000
> steel wool as a top finish is exactly right. Yes, it takes HOURS per
> cabinet. The guy must have an obsession or arms of a bodybuilder
> to do all that work. $200 more is a steal for that finish.
>
> http://www.ellisaudio.com/finishcomments.htm
> $700-$1000 for a cabinet at woodworking shop prices seems about right.
>
> This is where he eats his profit. M0st companties would slap together
> the cabinet for $200-$300 and be done with it.


Again, I fail to see your point. Do you really think in depth
descriptions of wood finishing is a strong selling point? And do you
think selling speakers for less than they're worth is a good business model?

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> trotsky wrote:
>
>> AYOC? A generic website with generic pictures and a note saying,
>> "Sorry, guys, all my stuff is in boxes right now" is okay because he
>> spent some quality time with some meters?
>>
>
> He recently moved from Colorado Springs(IIRC) to another state.


Colorado Springs isn't a state, but I think I know what you're trying to
say.

[trotsky]

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

>>
>>>>Krueger, at the risk of overstating the obvious, you and Bob Morion
>>>>are hardly the target audience for my speakers.
>>>
>>>
>>>Right, our IQs are in the triple-digits.
>>
>>
>>Dude, you're not supposed to count the decimal points.
>
>
> An IQ with decimal places? It would take a real obsessive-compulsive to
> imagine that!
>
>
>>>>Now don't make me
>>>>take the kid gloves off.
>>>
>>>Singh, quit putting on airs. You don't own any figurative "kid
>>>gloves". Probably don't own any real ones, either.
>>
>
>>But of course you do
>
>
> As in goat skin gloves, yes.
>
>
>>and we won't go into what kid was used, either.
>
>
> The goat they came from was yours, Singh.


That one just whizzed right past you, didn't it. I guess I've still got it!

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> >>>>>Rarely does anybody actually misspell it. I, for one, have never
> >>>>>"misspelled" it.

> >>>>Oh, right, I forgot the etymology of the name "Krooger".

> >>>I believe I coined that spelling. Do you need some quality time with a
> >>>dictionary, maybe?

> >>No,

> > Wrong answer.

I take it you're conceding that on this point, the entire exchange
flew straight over your slopey little head.


> >>but perhaps you could recount the story of how Krueger two different
> >>spellings of his name on two different websites. Did the weasel even
> >>have an explanation for this?

> > You sound like Mickey McBugEater. Who is "the weasel"?

> Krueger, who else?

Sorry, does not compute. Weasels are cunning, crafty, and intuitive.
Krooger is none of the above. Try to get your anthropomorphism more in
tune with reality, please.

> You anally follow his every exploit,

A bizarre accusation. What planet are you inhabiting now? And speaking
of "anally", what have you done with Jocasta?


> surely you remember how he used a different spelling of his name when he posted to rahe.

Surely I don't. But since you do, is the point you're making that
Krooger is a hypocrite? What shocking news.


> That's the etymology of the spelling "Krooger", right?

You have exited the remotest neighborhood of what sane people would
recognize as making sense.

> Turn off the "Queer as Folk" tape and pay attention.

??

First you accuse me of being obsessed with Mr. ****, then you swing
around and accuse me of watching TV at the same time as I play on
Usenet.

Oh wait -- that was your grindingly desperate last call for the "I'm
better 'cause I fantasize about women" shot, right? You should get to
know StynchBlob. Aside from his inane hangups with "objectivity", his
cave-man politics, and the whole JEE-zus routine, you two should have
a merry dance to celebrate your alleged sexual "orientations".



Oh, one last thing -- it's reported that the biggest segment of QaF's
audience is straight women. If you knew any of those, you could
demonstrate your great sensitivity by watching the show with them and
screaming "dirty faggot!" every time the guys' clothes came off.

[Lionel Chapuis]

Oily Tartlet a écrit :
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 03:12:56 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
> <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote:
>
>
>>>Are you a sockpuppet?
>
>
>
>>What do you mean ?
>>Which type there's here at least 5 to 10 different categories.
>
>
> You're the tardiloquous teknonymy type.
>
> --
> Oily Tartlet

I hope in a first time that your name was an anagram of "dirty
toilet"... which could be funny on RAO. I'm little bit disappointed but
not srprised.


Lionel Chapuis
PS : time to play for you...

[Oily Tartlet]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:03:18 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
> wrote:

>I hope in a first time that your name was an anagram of "dirty
>toilet"... which could be funny on RAO. I'm little bit disappointed but
>not srprised.

Wasn't it Sartre who said 'Hell is other people'?

>Lionel Chapuis
>PS : time to play for you...

Don't break the spoon.

--
Oily Tartlet

[Oily Tartlet]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:58:10 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
> wrote:

>"L'enfer c'est les autres"
>Yes you're right ! You read it ? Is it just a well-known sentence ?
>Be careful to out of context misunderstanding.

It shØuld æ ì a çommonesqÜe sãyethpedìmentré.

--
Oily Tartlet

[Bob Morein]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> >
>
> >>Krueger, at the risk of overstating the obvious, you and Bob Morion
> >>are hardly the target audience for my speakers.
> >
> >
> > Right, our IQs are in the triple-digits.
>
Greg, the felt is supposed to go on the front of the speakers, not in your
ears.

[Bob Morein]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Girth wrote:
> > Girth > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Greg will learn soon enough that a cute website and nice subcontracted
parts
> >>>provide little differentiation, and unless the design has been
thoroughly
> >>>tuned using quasi-anechoic methods, a turntable, and lots of
experience,
> >>>holds little chance of technical equality with products from larger
> >>>companies, even if their drivers are not quite as good.
> >>
> >>I'm trying to recall the name of the speaker builder who has become
> >>very successful in recent times for the kits (and builds?) he
> >>produces, many listeners claiming they beat commercial designs many
> >>times the price. This guy had some noval marketing ideas, such as
> >>circulating a set of the demo speakers between people shipping point
> >>to point.
> >
> >
> > Ellis Audio! Worth a look, Greg.
> >
> > http://www.ellisaudio.com/
>
>
I'll take a demo set, providing they come with high quality binding posts
that are easily removable.

[Bob Morein]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> > trotsky wrote:
>
>
> >> No, I'm sure it is. In fact, I'm sure the speakers themselves are
> >> quite good. But there's umpteen DIY posts where people have photos
> >> that are just as generic looking, such that you really can't get a
> >> handle on how the speakers are going to look in the flesh.
> >
> >
> > http://www.ellisaudio.com/FinishingWood.htm
> >
> > Based upon his methods, I'd say he's doing it exactly right. Note how
> > he states elsewhere that he couldn't even get woodshops in his area
> > to even DO it as it was too labor intensive. 5-6 coats with the 0000
> > steel wool as a top finish is exactly right. Yes, it takes HOURS per
> > cabinet. The guy must have an obsession or arms of a bodybuilder
> > to do all that work. $200 more is a steal for that finish.
> >
> > http://www.ellisaudio.com/finishcomments.htm
> > $700-$1000 for a cabinet at woodworking shop prices seems about right.
> >
> > This is where he eats his profit. M0st companties would slap together
> > the cabinet for $200-$300 and be done with it.
>
>
> Again, I fail to see your point. Do you really think in depth
> descriptions of wood finishing is a strong selling point? And do you
> think selling speakers for less than they're worth is a good business
model?
>
Be sure to advertise how many cans of Krylon you use on each.

[Lionel Chapuis]

Oily Tartlet a écrit :
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:58:10 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"L'enfer c'est les autres"
>>Yes you're right ! You read it ? Is it just a well-known sentence ?
>>Be careful to out of context misunderstanding.
>
>
> It shØuld æ ì a çommonesqÜe sãyethpedìmentré.
>
> --
> Oily Tartlet

I was sure of that ! Read it again...

[trotsky]

Girth wrote:
> trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>>>No, I'm sure it is. In fact, I'm sure the speakers themselves are
>>>>quite good. But there's umpteen DIY posts where people have photos
>>>>that are just as generic looking, such that you really can't get a
>>>>handle on how the speakers are going to look in the flesh.
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.ellisaudio.com/FinishingWood.htm
>>>
>>>Based upon his methods, I'd say he's doing it exactly right. Note how
>>>he states elsewhere that he couldn't even get woodshops in his area
>>>to even DO it as it was too labor intensive. 5-6 coats with the 0000
>>>steel wool as a top finish is exactly right. Yes, it takes HOURS per
>>>cabinet. The guy must have an obsession or arms of a bodybuilder
>>>to do all that work. $200 more is a steal for that finish.
>>>
>>>http://www.ellisaudio.com/finishcomments.htm
>>>$700-$1000 for a cabinet at woodworking shop prices seems about right.
>>>
>>>This is where he eats his profit. M0st companties would slap together
>>>the cabinet for $200-$300 and be done with it.
>>
>>Again, I fail to see your point. Do you really think in depth
>>descriptions of wood finishing is a strong selling point?
>
>
> For some people, probably. Castle put a lot of emphasis on the wood
> finishing in their brochures. That's not the reason I bought
> Harlech's, nor why you bought Howard's, but certainly *some* customers
> appreciate it.


The teak finish did prompt me to buy a teak cabinet. Regardless, the
guy that does my cabinets does an excellent job with the finishes, so I
think I have that base covered. Boon's question about exotic finishes
I'm sure will come up eventually, though.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> trotsky said:
>
>
>>>>>>>Rarely does anybody actually misspell it. I, for one, have never
>>>>>>>"misspelled" it.
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>Oh, right, I forgot the etymology of the name "Krooger".
>>>>>
>
>>>>>I believe I coined that spelling. Do you need some quality time with a
>>>>>dictionary, maybe?
>>>>
>
>>>>No,
>>>
>
>>>Wrong answer.
>>
>
> I take it you're conceding that on this point, the entire exchange
> flew straight over your slopey little head.
>
>
>
>>>>but perhaps you could recount the story of how Krueger two different
>>>>spellings of his name on two different websites. Did the weasel even
>>>>have an explanation for this?
>>>
>
>>>You sound like Mickey McBugEater. Who is "the weasel"?
>>
>
>
>>Krueger, who else?
>
>
> Sorry, does not compute. Weasels are cunning, crafty, and intuitive.
> Krooger is none of the above. Try to get your anthropomorphism more in
> tune with reality, please.


Et tu, Brute? Are we really going to have to have another discussion
about the vernacular?


>>You anally follow his every exploit,
>
>
> A bizarre accusation. What planet are you inhabiting now? And speaking
> of "anally", what have you done with Jocasta?


I knew that was coming. Sorry, but not every household shares your wont
for sexual dysfunction.


>>surely you remember how he used a different spelling of his name when he posted to rahe.
>
>
> Surely I don't. But since you do, is the point you're making that
> Krooger is a hypocrite? What shocking news.


No, the point I'm making is that you used to have a cute story at the
ready on how the permutation "Krooger" came up, and now you don't have
jack cheese.


>>That's the etymology of the spelling "Krooger", right?
>
>
> You have exited the remotest neighborhood of what sane people would
> recognize as making sense.


Right. So you just glossed over Oberlander's contributions.


>>Turn off the "Queer as Folk" tape and pay attention.
>
>
> ??
>
> First you accuse me of being obsessed with Mr. ****, then you swing
> around and accuse me of watching TV at the same time as I play on
> Usenet.


I'm not accusing you of anything. I came back here after a four month
hiatus with all kinds of olive branches coming out of my ass, and you
appeared to be in a hurry to see if I've still got game. You tell me
what I'm supposed to think.


> Oh wait -- that was your grindingly desperate last call for the "I'm
> better 'cause I fantasize about women" shot, right? You should get to
> know StynchBlob. Aside from his inane hangups with "objectivity", his
> cave-man politics, and the whole JEE-zus routine, you two should have
> a merry dance to celebrate your alleged sexual "orientations".


You're being too sensitive. (What new?) The only gay issue I'm ****ed
off about is the fact that Madonna got to stick her tongue in Britney's
mouth and not me.


> Oh, one last thing -- it's reported that the biggest segment of QaF's
> audience is straight women. If you knew any of those, you could
> demonstrate your great sensitivity by watching the show with them and
> screaming "dirty faggot!" every time the guys' clothes came off.


Or not.

[trotsky]

Oily Tartlet wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:58:10 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"L'enfer c'est les autres"
>>Yes you're right ! You read it ? Is it just a well-known sentence ?
>>Be careful to out of context misunderstanding.
>
>
> It shØuld æ ì a çommonesqÜe sãyethpedìmentré.


Flase calim.

[trotsky]

Bob Morein wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message

>>
>>>>Krueger, at the risk of overstating the obvious, you and Bob Morion
>>>>are hardly the target audience for my speakers.
>>>
>>>
>>>Right, our IQs are in the triple-digits.
>>
> Greg, the felt is supposed to go on the front of the speakers, not in your
> ears.


You attributed a quote from Krueger as a quote from me. Where did you
put your felt?

[trotsky]

Oily Tartlet wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 01:16:18 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>>It shØuld æ ì a çommonesqÜe sãyethpedìmentré.
>>
>>
>>Flase calim.
>
>
> From a pley, then. But mostly it shØuld æ ì a çommonesqÜe
> sãyethpedìmentré.


Jrazu!

[Lionel Chapuis]

Oily Tartlet a écrit :
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 01:16:18 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>>It shØuld æ ì a çommonesqÜe sãyethpedìmentré.
>>
>>
>>Flase calim.
>
>
> From a pley, then. But mostly it shØuld æ ì a çommonesqÜe
> sãyethpedìmentré.
>
> --
> Oily Tartlet

Is this strange noise coming from your mouth, Stinky Toilet ?

[Annika1980]

>From: trotsky

>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>
>
>And be brutally honest.

Speakers for fat midgets?

[GeoSynch]

Lionel Chapuis ventured:

> > You're the tardiloquous teknonymy type.

> > --
> > Oily Tartlet

> I hope in a first time that your name was an anagram of "dirty
> toilet"... which could be funny on RAO. I'm little bit disappointed but
> not srprised.

Try "Artly Toilet"


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

I wrote:

> > > You're the tardiloquous teknonymy type.

> > > --
> > > Oily Tartlet

> > I hope in a first time that your name was an anagram of "dirty
> > toilet"... which could be funny on RAO. I'm little bit disappointed but
> > not srprised.

> Try "Artly Toilet"

Or "real tilt toy" or "ol tit realty"


GeoSynch

[Bob Morein]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bob Morein wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >>>>Krueger, at the risk of overstating the obvious, you and Bob Morion
> >>>>are hardly the target audience for my speakers.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Right, our IQs are in the triple-digits.
> >>
> > Greg, the felt is supposed to go on the front of the speakers, not in
your
> > ears.
>
>
> You attributed a quote from Krueger as a quote from me. Where did you
> put your felt?
>
Your presumed source of my attribution is incorrect.

[tor b]

>
>
>It probably has something to do with his home planet being so close to
>the Earth.
>
>
>

That's funny yes.

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:

(snip a bunch of sniping) He's legitimate and as soon as he gets back
and running(his first move in like 15+ years, so be patient), he'll
post his number as well. Ring him up and talk when that happens.

> I see. So he's an established company and even if he is hit by a bus
> the consumer could repair the speakers themselves. They sound perfect.

The same could be said about half a dozen companies. What if Paradigm
went out of business? Same scenario applies. Tough luck - except that
they use proprietary parts.

What about YOUR speakers? What if YOU dropped dead in six months?

Same answer - because they use components that you can locate
and purchase yourself to affect repairs(or get a technicial to do
it for you). Last time I called JBL, they said - oh - sorry - that
speaker we no longer make tweeters for. That was like 15 years ago,
but I was FUBAR. One of the biggest companies in the world and I couldn't
repair the speaker to factory specs at ANY price.

Same difference. You buy. You use. Repairs and long-term
viability of the company is moot.


>> Actually, that is what you'd think. Then you see them spending six
>> months in a workshop at the observatory grinding the lens alone.
>
> Agreed--if only that time could be spent applying lacquer.

Well, 5-6 hours applying laquer is more than most manufacturers or
even woodworking professionals want to deal with. Hence his quote
by them of "oh oh - that's going to cost a lot of money"

>> As perfect results as any top-end scope. In fact, I took a class
>> in astronomy from a person who made a whole new TYPE of telescope
>> in the 70's and sells them comercially. Turned a backyard project
>> into a full-fledged business.
>
> Kewl--can we check out his website now?

Sure.(checks) http://www.everythingintheuniv.com/index.html
He made the telescope for Edmunds Scientific, actually. Lots of patent
royalties. Very cool newtonian in a circular ball-shaped mount.
The oiea is that you can place it in a foam or wooden mount and rotate
it quickly to any direction. No kludgy mount required.

That was a long time ago, though. Mostly, now, he teaches. Very
good classes, btw - worth the trouble if you are in the N.Cal area
to go attend his lectures.

http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp?pn=3002001
Typical design. A small one. The advantage is low cost and light
weight. $199 gets you a 105mm primary mirror. Big lens for the dollar.

http://www.madbbs.com/~bemusabord/astroscan.html
A review of it. The best beginner scope on the market. 10 lbs,
seconds to set up, ultra compact, and perfect for planetary
viewing. Pick out and find nebulas in seconds.

Anyways...

>> See Jupiter? You have to be kidding. One guy there was building
>> a 20 inch Newtonian(cripes!) after his 12 inch he built just wasn't
>> big(?) enough. Took me over later to show me the 20 incher in the
>> process of being ground. Gheez what a huge piece of glass.
>
> So when are you claiming to have actually been on the planet Jupiter, then?

No - but just like speakers, DIY projects can(though usually are not)
be amazing performers for the money. With a 20 inch Newtonian?
Seeing Jupiter (YOU were the one who said it would probably be lucky
to see Jupiter)is child's play.


>>> Did you buy a pair, then? If not, why not?
>>
>> No money. Lol. Spent it on a newer car instead and my JBLs are
>> adequate for HT and music. Not great, like a pair of Maggie 1.6s, but
>> kid and cat friendly and decent enough sound.
>
> That's real interesting. As Shakespeare might've said, seems like much
> ado about nothing.

Shall I go into the deficiencies for your speakers, then?
Or should I be nice and limit my comments to the website?

[Trevor Wilson]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson said:
>
> > > Allow me to correct myself: Unless you have a technical background
> > > in software, get an HTML editor with a WYSIWIG viewer.
> >
> > **Any suggestions?
>
> http://www.anydownloads.com/webauthoring/

**Thanks for that.

>
>
> Download a couple of trial versions and see for yourself. How did you
> publish your current version? There's no claim of authorship in the
> code. Doesn't even show which publishing tool was used.

**That's because it was done with raw HTML. No WYSIWYG. Quite cumbersome,
which is why I have not updated it. Far too time consuming.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Michael Mckelvy]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
link.net...
> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>
>
> And be brutally honest.


Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?

Looks like cheaply made drivers. Who makes the boxes?

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Krueger, at the risk of overstating the obvious, you and Bob
>>>>> Morion are hardly the target audience for my speakers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, our IQs are in the triple-digits.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dude, you're not supposed to count the decimal points.
>>
>>
>> An IQ with decimal places? It would take a real obsessive-compulsive
>> to imagine that!
>>
>>
>>>>> Now don't make me
>>>>> take the kid gloves off.
>>>>
>>>> Singh, quit putting on airs. You don't own any figurative "kid
>>>> gloves". Probably don't own any real ones, either.
>>>
>>
>>> But of course you do
>>
>>
>> As in goat skin gloves, yes.
>>
>>
>>> and we won't go into what kid was used, either.
>>
>>
>> The goat they came from was yours, Singh.

> That one just whizzed right past you, didn't it.

I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.

>I guess I've still got it!

Yup Singh, you're still a creep and a pervert.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 02:59:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"trotsky" > wrote in message
link.net...
>> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>
>>
>> And be brutally honest.
>
>
>Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
>
>Looks like cheaply made drivers. Who makes the boxes?

Let's all pause a moment and remember Mr. McKelvy's speakers...

....of course it's a little hard since he's been out of "business" for
quite a while now.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> trotsky said:
>
>
>>>I take it you're conceding that on this point, the entire exchange
>>>flew straight over your slopey little head.
>>
>
> Still no response, Gamish One?


Nobody doubts that your head is more slopey than mine. Do you have
opposing thumbs?


>>>Sorry, does not compute. Weasels are cunning, crafty, and intuitive.
>>>Krooger is none of the above. Try to get your anthropomorphism more in
>>>tune with reality, please.
>>
>
>
>>Et tu, Brute?
>
>
> That accusation was one of betrayal. What the **** is wrong with
> you?


A stab in the back by any other name...


>>Are we really going to have to have another discussion
>>about the vernacular?
>
>
> There's regular vernacular, and then there's yours. Perhaps you
> would be so kind as to tell us what *you* mean by "weasel".


No, I wouldn't. Ask any regular on the group (other than Oberlander,
who seems quite challenged by the language) if Krueger is a weasel and
what do you think the answer would be?


Krooger
> is a sick, disgusting pervert; a paranoid, egotistical, self-hating
> ****; and a compulsive liar of epochal proportion.


And those are just his good qualities.


I've never heard
> anybody call him "weasel" before. You once called Zippy a weasel,


Either one would try and scam a church congregation for money. You or I
wouldn't.


> and also the leader of "a network of weasels". That was
> comprehensible. Zippy was sneaky and slippery and always attuned to
> some angle, ethical or not. But Kroo****? I don't see him falling
> under the "vernacular" meaning of the word. So go ahead and spread
> the wisdom.


The real question is why you and your house of cards world hasn't gone
postal yet. "You *******! You used the wrong word to describe Krueger!"


>>>>You anally follow his every exploit,
>>>
>>>
>>>A bizarre accusation. What planet are you inhabiting now? And speaking
>>>of "anally", what have you done with Jocasta?
>>
>>
>>I knew that was coming. Sorry, but not every household shares your wont
>>for sexual dysfunction.
>
>
> IKYABWAI #1


Stating a fact isn't an IKYABWAI.


>>>>surely you remember how he used a different spelling of his name when he posted to rahe.
>>>
>>>
>>>Surely I don't. But since you do, is the point you're making that
>>>Krooger is a hypocrite? What shocking news.
>>
>>
>>No, the point I'm making is that you used to have a cute story at the
>>ready on how the permutation "Krooger" came up, and now you don't have
>>jack cheese.
>
>
> A "cute story"? All I've ever said, to the best of my recollection,
> is I applied that spelling to mock Mr. ****. It's not "misspelling",
> though, a point that seems to have eluded you to this day. If you
> want to recount my "cute story", be my guest. Maybe I'll remember
> saying it.


Does this ring any bells?

http://www.google.com/groups?q=Krooger+spelling+his+name+group:rec.audio .opinion&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=sjqi7tgc2dokuvtck17ebrvq6pll3cmj1m%404ax.com&rnum=1

Time to rearrange that house of cards!


>>>>That's the etymology of the spelling "Krooger", right?
>>>
>>>
>>>You have exited the remotest neighborhood of what sane people would
>>>recognize as making sense.
>>
>>
>>Right. So you just glossed over Oberlander's contributions.
>
>
> Untrue. I am unaware of any "contributions" Obie made to this
> particular discussion.


Does "discussion" mean "thread" or something different? Why do I think
my head might explode if I try and intrepret what the **** it is you're
trying to say?


>>>>Turn off the "Queer as Folk" tape and pay attention.
>>>
>>>
>>>??
>>>
>>>First you accuse me of being obsessed with Mr. ****, then you swing
>>>around and accuse me of watching TV at the same time as I play on
>>>Usenet.
>>
>>
>>I'm not accusing you of anything. I came back here after a four month
>>hiatus with all kinds of olive branches coming out of my ass, and you
>>appeared to be in a hurry to see if I've still got game. You tell me
>>what I'm supposed to think.
>
>
> You should know, not think, that in my opinion, you don't have game,
> never have had it, and never will have it. Your arbitrary and empty
> proclamations of victory are second only to Krooger's in
> vacuousness.


That's just lame. Between you, me, and Oily, we have some of the
funnier and more biting comments on this group. You're in denial. In
fact, you have even more issues now than you've ever had.


> And if my first guess and my second guess about the reference to QaF
> were both wrong, why don't you tell us what you actually meant.


No. Why don't you tell us why not referring to "Krooger" as a
misspelling means something to you? Then explain why referring to him
as a weasel is so utterly wrong in your mind. Then segue into why you
even bother talking about him at all after all this time.


>>>Oh wait -- that was your grindingly desperate last call for the "I'm
>>>better 'cause I fantasize about women" shot, right? You should get to
>>>know StynchBlob. Aside from his inane hangups with "objectivity", his
>>>cave-man politics, and the whole JEE-zus routine, you two should have
>>>a merry dance to celebrate your alleged sexual "orientations".
>>
>>
>>You're being too sensitive. (What new?) The only gay issue I'm ****ed
>>off about is the fact that Madonna got to stick her tongue in Britney's
>>mouth and not me.
>
>
> So suddenly, after a brief break from one group where everybody
> recognized you as the Mad Hatter of audio, you've corrected your
> homophobia? Forgive me for doubting. RAO did have the dubious
> pleasure of witnessing your fun-loving personality blossoming on
> some other groups in the meantime, you know.


It's just part of the shtick, George. As is racism. It's whatever
strikes one as funny or button pushing at the time. I don't expect
you'd understand, though, with your religious adherence to the
misspelling of one idiot's name.


>>>Oh, one last thing -- it's reported that the biggest segment of QaF's
>>>audience is straight women. If you knew any of those, you could
>>>demonstrate your great sensitivity by watching the show with them and
>>>screaming "dirty faggot!" every time the guys' clothes came off.
>>
>>
>>Or not.
>
>
> Score!(tm)


Zzzzz.

[trotsky]

Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>
>>
>>And be brutally honest.
>
>
>
> Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
>
> Looks like cheaply made drivers.


Mickey, first of all that is simply not true, and second you need to
divorce the "look" of the drivers from the quality of the results.


Who makes the boxes?


A professional cabinet maker.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> >>>I take it you're conceding that on this point, the entire exchange
> >>>flew straight over your slopey little head.
> >>
> >
> > Still no response, Gamish One?
>
>
> Nobody doubts that your head is more slopey than mine. Do you have
> opposing thumbs?

IKYABWAI #2


> >>Et tu, Brute?

> > That accusation was one of betrayal. What the **** is wrong with
> > you?

> A stab in the back by any other name...

This is another illustration of how you and "the vernacular" have
parted ways. In what way did I betray you? Did I force you to show
off your not-ready-for-primetime web site?



> >>Are we really going to have to have another discussion
> >>about the vernacular?
> >
> >
> > There's regular vernacular, and then there's yours. Perhaps you
> > would be so kind as to tell us what *you* mean by "weasel".
>
>
> No, I wouldn't. Ask any regular on the group (other than Oberlander,
> who seems quite challenged by the language) if Krueger is a weasel and
> what do you think the answer would be?

OK, let's ask. Anybody? Ring in if you have a vote.


> Krooger
> > is a sick, disgusting pervert; a paranoid, egotistical, self-hating
> > ****; and a compulsive liar of epochal proportion.
>
>
> And those are just his good qualities.

Ah, good. We can agree on the most glaringly obvious of facts.


> I've never heard
> > anybody call him "weasel" before. You once called Zippy a weasel,
>
>
> Either one would try and scam a church congregation for money. You or I
> wouldn't.
>
>
> > and also the leader of "a network of weasels". That was
> > comprehensible. Zippy was sneaky and slippery and always attuned to
> > some angle, ethical or not. But Kroo****? I don't see him falling
> > under the "vernacular" meaning of the word. So go ahead and spread
> > the wisdom.
>
>
> The real question is why you and your house of cards world hasn't gone
> postal yet. "You *******! You used the wrong word to describe Krueger!"

You *******! Your speakers are way overpriced and besides, they
don't have grilles!

Now deal the cards and take your mind off Jocasta.


> >>>>You anally follow his every exploit,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>A bizarre accusation. What planet are you inhabiting now? And speaking
> >>>of "anally", what have you done with Jocasta?
> >>
> >>
> >>I knew that was coming. Sorry, but not every household shares your wont
> >>for sexual dysfunction.
> >
> >
> > IKYABWAI #1
>
>
> Stating a fact isn't an IKYABWAI.

Are you being serious? I'm asking because in the real world (try to
think back, you might have some recollection), I don't know what
your sex life with Mama Singh is really like, nor do you know what
mine is like, nor with whom it takes place. These are merely
playground jabs and insults. Do you understand? So when I poke you,
and you poke back with essentially the same insult, that's an
IKYABWAI. I have an image of the second child in the exchange losing
his temper, stamping his feet, and shrieking "I know you are but
what am I! I know you are but what am I!" (You're the second child.)


> >>No, the point I'm making is that you used to have a cute story at the
> >>ready on how the permutation "Krooger" came up, and now you don't have
> >>jack cheese.
> >
> >
> > A "cute story"? All I've ever said, to the best of my recollection,
> > is I applied that spelling to mock Mr. ****. It's not "misspelling",
> > though, a point that seems to have eluded you to this day. If you
> > want to recount my "cute story", be my guest. Maybe I'll remember
> > saying it.
>
>
> Does this ring any bells?
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=sjqi7tgc2dokuvtck17ebrvq6pll3cmj1m%404 ax.com


Of course I remember that one, but it's not "cute" in my book --
it's straight-up exposition. While I have your errant attention
focused, please note two defining statements I made:

> "Misspelling" connotes error.
> Variations on certain idiots' names are done *deliberately*.

Aside from your bollixing of those two definitions in today's
exchange, what is your point? That I should repeat the same
background story every time Krooger misuses the word "misspell"?


> Time to rearrange that house of cards!

Whatever, Mr. Whacko.


> >>Right. So you just glossed over Oberlander's contributions.
> >
> >
> > Untrue. I am unaware of any "contributions" Obie made to this
> > particular discussion.
>
>
> Does "discussion" mean "thread" or something different?

In this context, I meant "subthread". We're not exactly talking
about the highs and lows of your web site, now are we?

> Why do I think
> my head might explode if I try and intrepret what the **** it is you're
> trying to say?

I'm saying you're just as wacky as you ever were, just as much in
need of therapy or other treatment, and just as poorly in contact
with reality as some months ago.


> >>>>Turn off the "Queer as Folk" tape and pay attention.
> > You should know, not think, that in my opinion, you don't have game,
> > never have had it, and never will have it. Your arbitrary and empty
> > proclamations of victory are second only to Krooger's in
> > vacuousness.
>
>
> That's just lame. Between you, me, and Oily, we have some of the
> funnier and more biting comments on this group. You're in denial. In
> fact, you have even more issues now than you've ever had.

No, it's accurate. Your "humor" is at best intermittent in my book.
And my "issues" with you are the same as ever.

It's a sad fact that the crazier a person is, the less ability he
has to understand what it means to be crazy.


> > And if my first guess and my second guess about the reference to QaF
> > were both wrong, why don't you tell us what you actually meant.
>
>
> No.

Thank you for admitting you have no idea what's going through your
chaotic mess of a "mind" from minute to minute.


> Why don't you tell us why not referring to "Krooger" as a
> misspelling means something to you?

Sorry, but you're gibbering. When somebody (typically Krooger
himself) *does* call it a misspelling, that's the error. If somebody
does *not* call it that, who cares? Other than you, I mean.


> Then explain why referring to him
> as a weasel is so utterly wrong in your mind.

I already did. Does your new 'scrip interfere with short-term
memory? Let me remind you: I gave several (five, I think) adjectives
that I believe should modify a person whom one compares to a weasel.
I said Krooger doesn't have any of those characteristics. I went on
to give some pungent descriptions that I believe do fit Krooger
accurately.

Are you having trouble concentrating? It comes down to this: Weasels
all have fur. Krooger does not have fur. Therefore Krooger cannot be
a weasel.

> Then segue into why you
> even bother talking about him at all after all this time.

Same reason we talk about you and Howie, I suppose -- it's fun to
kick the cripple's crutch.


> > So suddenly, after a brief break from one group where everybody
> > recognized you as the Mad Hatter of audio, you've corrected your
> > homophobia? Forgive me for doubting. RAO did have the dubious
> > pleasure of witnessing your fun-loving personality blossoming on
> > some other groups in the meantime, you know.
>
>
> It's just part of the shtick, George. As is racism. It's whatever
> strikes one as funny or button pushing at the time. I don't expect
> you'd understand, though, with your religious adherence to the
> misspelling of one idiot's name.

I thought you were telling us earlier how highly advanced and
"biting" your humor was. Now it turns out you don't even know what's
"funny" until you've bumped your head on the door frame a few times.


> > Score!(tm)
>
>
> Zzzzz.

Self-mockery? That's a bit advanced for you. But enjoy your nap.

[Leon North]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> trotsky wrote:
> > http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >
> >
> > And be brutally honest.
> >
>
> Nice site.
>
> Few things, though. The pages are modem friendly, simple, use a lot
> of the same graphics, and also have no java.

You sure about that? The source view shows text/javascript.

Be that as it may, with the exception of typos, the site is quite striking.
Good job.

LN

[tor b]

Trotsky wrote:

> > No, the point I'm making is that you used to have a cute story at the
> > ready on how the permutation "Krooger" came up, and now you don't have
> > jack cheese.
>
Whoever is posting as "George M. Middius" these days wrote:
>
> A "cute story"? All I've ever said, to the best of my recollection,
> is I applied that spelling to mock Mr. ****. It's not "misspelling",
> though, a point that seems to have eluded you to this day. If you
> want to recount my "cute story", be my guest. Maybe I'll remember
> saying it.
>
>

Maybe you should ask one of the other "Georges" ;-)

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> Congratulations, Greg! Everything looks great.
>
> Any chance of you experimenting with exotic wood finishes in the future?
>
> Boon
>
>
>
>
If he actually sells any of these the profits should give him plenty of R&D
money. $1000.00 markup, sheesh.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 02:59:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"trotsky" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >>
> >>
> >> And be brutally honest.
> >
> >
> >Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
> >
> >Looks like cheaply made drivers. Who makes the boxes?
>
> Let's all pause a moment and remember Mr. McKelvy's speakers...
>
> ...of course it's a little hard since he's been out of "business" for
> quite a while now.

At least I used decent quality drivers from Scan-Speak and Focal not some
knock off crap from the far east.

Let's see what happens when Greggy gets a reveiw.
Let's see where he is in a year.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >
> >>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >>
> >>
> >>And be brutally honest.
> >
> >
> >
> > Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
> >
> > Looks like cheaply made drivers.
>
>
> Mickey, first of all that is simply not true, and second you need to
> divorce the "look" of the drivers from the quality of the results.
>
>
> Who makes the boxes?
>
>
> A professional cabinet maker.
>
>
Woodstyle? Through Madisound?

[Michael Mckelvy]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >
> >>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >>
> >>
> >>And be brutally honest.
> >
> >
> >
> > Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
> >
> > Looks like cheaply made drivers.
>
>
> Mickey, first of all that is simply not true, and second you need to
> divorce the "look" of the drivers from the quality of the results.
>

Sorry, but when the drivers sell retail for 27.50 they are cheap drivers.

>
> Who makes the boxes?
>
>
> A professional cabinet maker.
>
>

[dave weil]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 17:17:09 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 02:59:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"trotsky" > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>> >> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And be brutally honest.
>> >
>> >
>> >Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
>> >
>> >Looks like cheaply made drivers. Who makes the boxes?
>>
>> Let's all pause a moment and remember Mr. McKelvy's speakers...
>>
>> ...of course it's a little hard since he's been out of "business" for
>> quite a while now.
>
>At least I used decent quality drivers from Scan-Speak and Focal not some
>knock off crap from the far east.

Of course, you didn't use any exotic drivers either IIRC.

>Let's see what happens when Greggy gets a reveiw.
>Let's see where he is in a year.

As a former manufacturer and entrepreneur, you are mighty quick to
criticize someone who's attempting the same thing.

You suck.

Really you do.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 17:17:09 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 02:59:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"trotsky" > wrote in message
> >> link.net...
> >> >> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And be brutally honest.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
> >> >
> >> >Looks like cheaply made drivers. Who makes the boxes?
> >>
> >> Let's all pause a moment and remember Mr. McKelvy's speakers...
> >>
> >> ...of course it's a little hard since he's been out of "business" for
> >> quite a while now.
> >
> >At least I used decent quality drivers from Scan-Speak and Focal not some
> >knock off crap from the far east.
>
> Of course, you didn't use any exotic drivers either IIRC.
>
There's nothing exotic about what I see in Greg's speakers,except the
markup. Try reading up on Focal and Scan Speak before you shoot from the
hip and show what an idiot you are.

> >Let's see what happens when Greggy gets a reveiw.
> >Let's see where he is in a year.
>
> As a former manufacturer and entrepreneur, you are mighty quick to
> criticize someone who's attempting the same thing.
>
Perhaps you might wish to peruse some of the criticism I got from Greg sound
unheard. There's history.

> You suck.
>
> Really you do.
>
And Greg is as pure as the driven snow.

[trotsky]

Leon North wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>
>>trotsky wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>>
>>>
>>>And be brutally honest.
>>>
>>
>>Nice site.
>>
>>Few things, though. The pages are modem friendly, simple, use a lot
>>of the same graphics, and also have no java.
>
>
> You sure about that? The source view shows text/javascript.
>
> Be that as it may, with the exception of typos, the site is quite striking.
> Good job.


Thanks Leon, that's good of you to say.

[trotsky]

Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>
>>
>>And be brutally honest.
>>
>
>
> Lessee, Total manufacturing cost, approx 150.00 per side plus packaging,
> maybe another 25.00, plus shipping.
>
> Your kind of greedy ****er aren't you?


You're way of on all counts. As usual.

[trotsky]

Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 02:59:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>
>>>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And be brutally honest.
>>>
>>>
>>>Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
>>>
>>>Looks like cheaply made drivers. Who makes the boxes?
>>
>>Let's all pause a moment and remember Mr. McKelvy's speakers...
>>
>>...of course it's a little hard since he's been out of "business" for
>>quite a while now.
>
>
> At least I used decent quality drivers from Scan-Speak and Focal not some
> knock off crap from the far east.
>
> Let's see what happens when Greggy gets a reveiw.


Are you offering to review them, Mickey? Who'd be dumb enough to trust you?

[trotsky]

Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And be brutally honest.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
>>>
>>>Looks like cheaply made drivers.
>>
>>
>>Mickey, first of all that is simply not true, and second you need to
>>divorce the "look" of the drivers from the quality of the results.
>>
>>
>> Who makes the boxes?
>>
>>
>>A professional cabinet maker.
>>
>>
>
> Woodstyle? Through Madisound?


Guess again. Although I have heard that they do do custom work. You
really need to do your homework, Mickey.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> >>
> >>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>And be brutally honest.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
> >>>
> >>>Looks like cheaply made drivers.
> >>
> >>
> >>Mickey, first of all that is simply not true, and second you need to
> >>divorce the "look" of the drivers from the quality of the results.
> >>
> >>
> >> Who makes the boxes?
> >>
> >>
> >>A professional cabinet maker.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Woodstyle? Through Madisound?
>
>
> Guess again. Although I have heard that they do do custom work. You
> really need to do your homework, Mickey.
>
>
With a response a vaugue as " a professional cabinet builder" it's kind of
difficult.

[trotsky]

Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 02:59:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And be brutally honest.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
>>>>>
>>>>>Looks like cheaply made drivers. Who makes the boxes?
>>>>
>>>>Let's all pause a moment and remember Mr. McKelvy's speakers...
>>>>
>>>>...of course it's a little hard since he's been out of "business" for
>>>>quite a while now.
>>>
>>>
>>>At least I used decent quality drivers from Scan-Speak and Focal not
>>
> some
>
>>>knock off crap from the far east.
>>>
>>>Let's see what happens when Greggy gets a reveiw.
>>
>>
>>Are you offering to review them, Mickey? Who'd be dumb enough to trust
>
> you?
>
> Who'd be dumb enough to buy a speaker from a known liar and welcher?


Is that what happened to your company?

[Michael Mckelvy]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> >>
> >>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>And be brutally honest.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
> >>>
> >>>Looks like cheaply made drivers.
> >>
> >>
> >>Mickey, first of all that is simply not true, and second you need to
> >>divorce the "look" of the drivers from the quality of the results.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Sorry, but when the drivers sell retail for 27.50 they are cheap
drivers.
>
>
> Right. Well there are all those other reasonably priced speakers with
> ribbon tweeters to consider. Oh wait, there aren't any others. It's
> called finding a niche, Mickey. Again, your comments can only be
> interpreted as sour grapes.
>
Or someone who has some backround in how much this stuff costs from having
done it.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >
> >>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >>
> >>
> >>And be brutally honest.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Lessee, Total manufacturing cost, approx 150.00 per side plus packaging,
> > maybe another 25.00, plus shipping.
> >
> > Your kind of greedy ****er aren't you?
>
>
> You're way of on all counts. As usual.
>
>
Bull****. I'm very close and you know it. The only error possible is in
the cost of the cabinets. It is possible that you could pay a bit more than
I guesstimate, but I doubt by much.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:22:21 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 17:17:09 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 02:59:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"trotsky" > wrote in message
> >> >> link.net...
> >> >> >> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And be brutally honest.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Looks like cheaply made drivers. Who makes the boxes?
> >> >>
> >> >> Let's all pause a moment and remember Mr. McKelvy's speakers...
> >> >>
> >> >> ...of course it's a little hard since he's been out of "business"
for
> >> >> quite a while now.
> >> >
> >> >At least I used decent quality drivers from Scan-Speak and Focal not
some
> >> >knock off crap from the far east.
> >>
> >> Of course, you didn't use any exotic drivers either IIRC.
> >>
> >There's nothing exotic about what I see in Greg's speakers,except the
> >markup. Try reading up on Focal and Scan Speak before you shoot from the
> >hip and show what an idiot you are.
>
> You don't consider ribbon tweeters exotic? I guess that's why you see
> so many designs using them...
>
> <shrug>
You really are a moron about this aren't you?

Ribbon drivers can be mad at home on your kitchen table, try looking up some
back issues of audioXpress.

Good ones cost much more than $25.00 because if they don't they tend to fry.


> I seem to remember your speakers being run of the mill DIY designs
> (although I only looked at your AOL Hometown site once). I don't
> remember anything out of the ordinary. Who knows, they might have
> sounded great for all I know. I try not to comment on things that I
> haven't heard, although I will reference comments from people who
> *have* heard things.
>
> >> >Let's see what happens when Greggy gets a reveiw.
> >> >Let's see where he is in a year.
> >>
> >> As a former manufacturer and entrepreneur, you are mighty quick to
> >> criticize someone who's attempting the same thing.
> >>
> >Perhaps you might wish to peruse some of the criticism I got from Greg
sound
> >unheard. There's history.
>
> Soooo, that's what this hostility is all about...payback. It has
> nothing to do with the merits of the product. It's all about hurt
> feelings. Figures.
>
It has to with years of **** being dished by a liar and a welcher. Some who
made life here for everyone a ****ing nightmare. Frankly I hope speakers
take up all his time and keep off this board.

> >> You suck.
> >>
> >> Really you do.
> >>
> >And Greg is as pure as the driven snow.
>
> You have obviously forgotten the amount of **** that I got from Greg.
> Still, I think it's cool that he's willing to risk a lot for something
> that he believes in.
>
That's the difference between us I don't think he believes in anything
except being an asshole.

> You've really shown yourself in recent days not only to be a sloppy
> thinker (and typist) but also a mean, petty individual. I hope you're
> better in real life...
>
And you didn't wait until the last few days. You started with personal
attacks almost from the beginning.

You have a lot of ****ing nerve telling me I have a closed mind when you
never were the least bit inclined to have you mind changed, especially in
light of the fact that on gun control you were DEAD ****ing wrong.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> >>
> >>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 02:59:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>And be brutally honest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Looks like cheaply made drivers. Who makes the boxes?
> >>>>
> >>>>Let's all pause a moment and remember Mr. McKelvy's speakers...
> >>>>
> >>>>...of course it's a little hard since he's been out of "business" for
> >>>>quite a while now.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>At least I used decent quality drivers from Scan-Speak and Focal not
> >>
> > some
> >
> >>>knock off crap from the far east.
> >>>
> >>>Let's see what happens when Greggy gets a reveiw.
> >>
> >>
> >>Are you offering to review them, Mickey? Who'd be dumb enough to trust
> >
> > you?
> >
> > Who'd be dumb enough to buy a speaker from a known liar and welcher?
>
>
> Is that what happened to your company?
>
>
No, Greg. My company is still me and I still make speakers. I just make
them for friends and friends of friends.

[Oily Tartlet]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:56:46 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>Ribbon drivers can be mad at home on your kitchen table,

I get that all the time. Dratted mad ribbon drivers at home on my
kitchen table.

By the way, when you have a spare moment, please use it to kill
yourself. Set a good example for Arnii. I know how you love him so,
and it would seem only right that you do something truly wonderful for
him. Show him the way out of his misery, there's a good boy.

--
Oily Tartlet

[dave weil]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:38:39 -0700, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>
>"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>> > "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>Congratulations, Greg! Everything looks great.
>> >>
>> >>Any chance of you experimenting with exotic wood finishes in the future?
>> >>
>> >>Boon
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > If he actually sells any of these the profits should give him plenty of
>R&D
>> > money. $1000.00 markup, sheesh.
>>
>>
>> What's the exact percentage that's acceptable, Mickey? Your comment can
>> only be interpreted as sour grapes.
>>
>Normal markup you should know, unless of course your former boss didn't
>trust you with that info. When I managed a hi-fi store. the normal mark up
>was double.

Ummm, you're confusing markups. The "double" markup would be from cost
to "retail". This has nothing to do with the manufacturer's own
markup.

Once again, you can't seem to think straight.

>No sour grapes Greggy-puss, I still make money building speakers.

I'm sure that you give them away for virtually nothing.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:58:03 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 02:59:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
>> > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>And be brutally honest.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Looks like cheaply made drivers. Who makes the boxes?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Let's all pause a moment and remember Mr. McKelvy's speakers...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>...of course it's a little hard since he's been out of "business" for
>> >>>>quite a while now.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>At least I used decent quality drivers from Scan-Speak and Focal not
>> >>
>> > some
>> >
>> >>>knock off crap from the far east.
>> >>>
>> >>>Let's see what happens when Greggy gets a reveiw.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Are you offering to review them, Mickey? Who'd be dumb enough to trust
>> >
>> > you?
>> >
>> > Who'd be dumb enough to buy a speaker from a known liar and welcher?
>>
>>
>> Is that what happened to your company?
>>
>>
>No, Greg. My company is still me and I still make speakers. I just make
>them for friends and friends of friends.

Which is why you can "give them away".

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:

>> Sorry, but when the drivers sell retail for 27.50 they are cheap drivers.
>
>
>
> Right. Well there are all those other reasonably priced speakers with
> ribbon tweeters to consider. Oh wait, there aren't any others. It's
> called finding a niche, Mickey. Again, your comments can only be
> interpreted as sour grapes.

$27.50 drivers? Talk about a cheapass.

Oh - but the $1500 price is plausable? Try putting in $100 drivers
at least and then try to impress anybody.

Each speaker should have a good $400-$500 in components and cabinet
if you're selling them for that much profit as an individual or they
just won't sell or compete against the big boys.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:38:39 -0700, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
> >
> >"trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> >> > "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> >>Congratulations, Greg! Everything looks great.
> >> >>
> >> >>Any chance of you experimenting with exotic wood finishes in the
future?
> >> >>
> >> >>Boon
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > If he actually sells any of these the profits should give him plenty
of
> >R&D
> >> > money. $1000.00 markup, sheesh.
> >>
> >>
> >> What's the exact percentage that's acceptable, Mickey? Your comment
can
> >> only be interpreted as sour grapes.
> >>
> >Normal markup you should know, unless of course your former boss didn't
> >trust you with that info. When I managed a hi-fi store. the normal mark
up
> >was double.
>
> Ummm, you're confusing markups. The "double" markup would be from cost
> to "retail". This has nothing to do with the manufacturer's own
> markup.
>
Depends on the Manufacturer doesn't it?

> Once again, you can't seem to think straight.
>
> >No sour grapes Greggy-puss, I still make money building speakers.
>
> I'm sure that you give them away for virtually nothing.
>
You are? Now who can't think straight?

[Joseph Oberlander]

dave weil wrote:

> I seem to remember your speakers being run of the mill DIY designs
> (although I only looked at your AOL Hometown site once). I don't
> remember anything out of the ordinary. Who knows, they might have
> sounded great for all I know. I try not to comment on things that I
> haven't heard, although I will reference comments from people who
> *have* heard things.

His problem is that he's fighting economy of scale and labor.
If Tannoy, for instance, makes a pair of speakers that costs them
$250 per speaker and sells for $1500(Tannoy S8 L/R is about this
ratio as near as I can tell), a consumer without their in-house
cabinet fabrication facilities, purchasing power, and ability
to buy parts directly from the manufacturer at fantastic prices
because thye order millions of dollars worth at once - they would
spend twice as much on the same quality components.

That means a $500 per speaker cost to make a Tannoy S8 L/R
as near as I can tell for the DIYer.

Now, $500 profit is fine, but trying to reverse-engineer a
price you should be selling them for as a DIYer based upon
commercial business pofit models will price you right out
of the market.

Trotsky's speakers should sell for $750 a pair as a $750
pair of commercial speakers will be virtually the same
in components and sound. $1500 is too much.

>
>>>>Let's see what happens when Greggy gets a reveiw.
>>>>Let's see where he is in a year.
>>>
>>>As a former manufacturer and entrepreneur, you are mighty quick to
>>>criticize someone who's attempting the same thing.
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps you might wish to peruse some of the criticism I got from Greg sound
>>unheard. There's history.
>
>
> Soooo, that's what this hostility is all about...payback. It has
> nothing to do with the merits of the product. It's all about hurt
> feelings. Figures.
>
>
>>>You suck.
>>>
>>>Really you do.
>>>
>>
>>And Greg is as pure as the driven snow.
>
>
> You have obviously forgotten the amount of **** that I got from Greg.
> Still, I think it's cool that he's willing to risk a lot for something
> that he believes in.
>
> You've really shown yourself in recent days not only to be a sloppy
> thinker (and typist) but also a mean, petty individual. I hope you're
> better in real life...
>

[trotsky]

Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And be brutally honest.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
>>>>>
>>>>>Looks like cheaply made drivers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mickey, first of all that is simply not true, and second you need to
>>>>divorce the "look" of the drivers from the quality of the results.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry, but when the drivers sell retail for 27.50 they are cheap
>>
> drivers.
>
>>
>>Right. Well there are all those other reasonably priced speakers with
>>ribbon tweeters to consider. Oh wait, there aren't any others. It's
>>called finding a niche, Mickey. Again, your comments can only be
>>interpreted as sour grapes.
>>
>
> Or someone who has some backround in how much this stuff costs from having
> done it.


I'm not sure I follow you, Mickey. You're estimates were wrong, plain
and simple. Moreover, you don't seem to have an inkling of what profit
margins mean, because if you did you'd realize my speakers are underpriced.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message

> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>> link.net...
>>>
>>>> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And be brutally honest.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
>>>
>>> Looks like cheaply made drivers.
>>
>>
>> Mickey, first of all that is simply not true, and second you need to
>> divorce the "look" of the drivers from the quality of the results.

> Sorry, but when the drivers sell retail for 27.50 they are cheap drivers.

Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to be
spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce deep, clean bass.
It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver when 5.5 mm is more typical for a high
performance driver, and 7.6 mm is SOTA. Ironically some of these more
competent drivers retail for only a few dollars more.

Oh well, when you're trying to push an 8" driver as a high performance
woofer, you mustn't upstage it with your mini-speaker.

I notice that Singh couldn't even come up with a unique name for his
"Jupiter" speakers. Just search on "jupiter" and "loudspeaker" on google and
see how many web sites come in ahead of Singh's. The lack of creativity
doesn't bother me nearly as much as its impact on potential customer's
ability to find his site.

[trotsky]

Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...


>>Is that what happened to your company?
>>
>>
>
> No, Greg. My company is still me and I still make speakers. I just make
> them for friends and friends of friends.


That's not exactly a rousing success. Since you're obviously looking to
dispense advice, why don't you tell us speaker manufacturers what not to do.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:58:03 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:

>>No, Greg. My company is still me and I still make speakers. I just make
>>them for friends and friends of friends.
>
>
> Which is why you can "give them away".


Does he still charge the $1050 to "friends", or is he on the special
buddy pricing scale now? And when is he going to get to the words of
wisdom about successfully marketing a product? Does he feel there is
anything that makes his product unique?

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> trotsky wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>
>
>>> If he actually sells any of these the profits should give him plenty
>>> of R&D
>>> money. $1000.00 markup, sheesh.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What's the exact percentage that's acceptable, Mickey? Your comment
>> can only be interpreted as sour grapes.
>
>
> Ellis Audio - he's making as near as I can tell, about $200 per
> speaker if you figure that 15 or so hours per cabinet is only
> worth the markup in price over the parts/kit he sells.


That's not a business model, that's a hobby. Do you think B&W does
business that way?


> For all of his work and anal finishing and grain selection
> and assembly and... Gheez. NO other manufacturer at that price
> makes cabinets like that or even tries to. He's eating tons of
> profit making them like that.


And why would anyone want to "eat tons of profit", other than perhaps
having sniffed too many wood finishing products?


> Sorry, Trotsky - his drivers cost more, his parts do as well,
> and his cabinets are real woodworking and not assembled in
> a shop by someone else who is charging you full price for
> their work.


And yet you don't own a pair. Sell some of those telescopes and buy them.


> His business model stinks. His profit margins are insanely low
> by choice. No sane person would run a business like that.


Yes, of course, then why bother discussing it over the course of ten
Usenet postings?


> Unfortunately, he's one of your closest competitors because of
> his $2500+ market price speakers that he's selling for just over
> his cost. Why? Because he's doing it as a hobby and not an income.
>
> Consumers could care less.


Consumer don't exist if they don't know about the product. If he
advertised he would be losing money on every pair that he sold. Please
explain this to Mickey McKelvy for me.


> That means to compete, you wither must make a better speaker or
> lower your profit margins.


I've already done both. And I intend to market them successfully. And
I would be surprised if the Subterfuge outsold the Europas, which nobody
seems to want to mention.

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> trotsky wrote:
>
>>> Sorry, but when the drivers sell retail for 27.50 they are cheap drivers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Right. Well there are all those other reasonably priced speakers with
>> ribbon tweeters to consider. Oh wait, there aren't any others. It's
>> called finding a niche, Mickey. Again, your comments can only be
>> interpreted as sour grapes.
>
>
> $27.50 drivers? Talk about a cheapass.
>
> Oh - but the $1500 price is plausable? Try putting in $100 drivers
> at least and then try to impress anybody.
>
> Each speaker should have a good $400-$500 in components and cabinet
> if you're selling them for that much profit as an individual or they
> just won't sell or compete against the big boys.


That's cool, Joe. Let us know when your speaker company gets off the
ground.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 22:05:17 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>> >Normal markup you should know, unless of course your former boss didn't
>> >trust you with that info. When I managed a hi-fi store. the normal mark
>up
>> >was double.
>>
>> Ummm, you're confusing markups. The "double" markup would be from cost
>> to "retail". This has nothing to do with the manufacturer's own
>> markup.
>>
>Depends on the Manufacturer doesn't it?

You show me a manufacturer whose markup from parts to retail is double
and then we'll talk. I'm not talking about people like you and Ellis,
who do it for a hobby. After all, you have a wait a year for Ellis'
speakers. So there *is* a hidden cost there as well.

>> Once again, you can't seem to think straight.
>>
>> >No sour grapes Greggy-puss, I still make money building speakers.
>>
>> I'm sure that you give them away for virtually nothing.
>>
>You are? Now who can't think straight?

Well, you are. You're probably marking them up less than half, but
you're not exactly doing it as a business, now are you? Heck, if you
were doing them for friends, one wouldn't expect that you would mark
them up *that* much. Making $400+ per pair of speakers for a few hours
work seems like you're taking advantage of your friends. Still, when
it comes to doing it as a business, you'd never be able to survive on
that sort of markup, even as a part-time business (as you found out).

<shrug>

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to be
>spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce deep, clean bass.
>It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver

No it's not.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 05:14:24 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote:

>His problem is that he's fighting economy of scale and labor.
>If Tannoy, for instance, makes a pair of speakers that costs them
>$250 per speaker and sells for $1500(Tannoy S8 L/R is about this
>ratio as near as I can tell), a consumer without their in-house
>cabinet fabrication facilities, purchasing power, and ability
>to buy parts directly from the manufacturer at fantastic prices
>because thye order millions of dollars worth at once - they would
>spend twice as much on the same quality components.
>
>That means a $500 per speaker cost to make a Tannoy S8 L/R
>as near as I can tell for the DIYer.
>
>Now, $500 profit is fine, but trying to reverse-engineer a
>price you should be selling them for as a DIYer based upon
>commercial business pofit models will price you right out
>of the market.
>
>Trotsky's speakers should sell for $750 a pair as a $750
>pair of commercial speakers will be virtually the same
>in components and sound. $1500 is too much.

Ummmm, it's quite possible that Greg's speakers have an actual cost of
close to the cost that you quote for Tannoy, depending on the cost of
the cabinets. Independent cabinet-makers charge quite a bit of money,
and even many of the Madisound cabinets cost around $150 ea. and
that's for "mass-produced" cabinets (I've never seen one so I can't
comment on the fit and finish as opposed to Greg's cabinets, which I
haven't seen either). It's not hard to see his cabinets costing more
than $150 each, which would put it right in line with your
calculations for what you seem to consider a "fair markup", even for a
company that has economies of scale on their side.

You seem almost as confused as Mr. McKelvy at this point. Or maybe you
just weren't expressing yourself properly.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:56:46 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:22:21 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 17:17:09 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 02:59:34 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"trotsky" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> link.net...
> >> >> >> >> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> And be brutally honest.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Looks like cheaply made drivers. Who makes the boxes?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Let's all pause a moment and remember Mr. McKelvy's speakers...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ...of course it's a little hard since he's been out of "business"
> >for
> >> >> >> quite a while now.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >At least I used decent quality drivers from Scan-Speak and Focal
not
> >some
> >> >> >knock off crap from the far east.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, you didn't use any exotic drivers either IIRC.
> >> >>
> >> >There's nothing exotic about what I see in Greg's speakers,except the
> >> >markup. Try reading up on Focal and Scan Speak before you shoot from
the
> >> >hip and show what an idiot you are.
> >>
> >> You don't consider ribbon tweeters exotic? I guess that's why you see
> >> so many designs using them...
> >>
> >> <shrug>
> >You really are a moron about this aren't you?
> >
> >Ribbon drivers can be mad at home on your kitchen table, try looking up
some
> >back issues of audioXpress.
> >
> >Good ones cost much more than $25.00 because if they don't they tend to
fry.
> >
> >
> >> I seem to remember your speakers being run of the mill DIY designs
> >> (although I only looked at your AOL Hometown site once). I don't
> >> remember anything out of the ordinary. Who knows, they might have
> >> sounded great for all I know. I try not to comment on things that I
> >> haven't heard, although I will reference comments from people who
> >> *have* heard things.
> >>
> >> >> >Let's see what happens when Greggy gets a reveiw.
> >> >> >Let's see where he is in a year.
> >> >>
> >> >> As a former manufacturer and entrepreneur, you are mighty quick to
> >> >> criticize someone who's attempting the same thing.
> >> >>
> >> >Perhaps you might wish to peruse some of the criticism I got from Greg
> >sound
> >> >unheard. There's history.
> >>
> >> Soooo, that's what this hostility is all about...payback. It has
> >> nothing to do with the merits of the product. It's all about hurt
> >> feelings. Figures.
> >>
> >It has to with years of **** being dished by a liar and a welcher. Some
who
> >made life here for everyone a ****ing nightmare. Frankly I hope speakers
> >take up all his time and keep off this board.
>
> >> >> You suck.
> >> >>
> >> >> Really you do.
> >> >>
> >> >And Greg is as pure as the driven snow.
> >>
> >> You have obviously forgotten the amount of **** that I got from Greg.
> >> Still, I think it's cool that he's willing to risk a lot for something
> >> that he believes in.
> >>
> >That's the difference between us I don't think he believes in anything
> >except being an asshole.
> >
> >> You've really shown yourself in recent days not only to be a sloppy
> >> thinker (and typist) but also a mean, petty individual. I hope you're
> >> better in real life...
> >>
> >And you didn't wait until the last few days. You started with personal
> >attacks almost from the beginning.
> >
> >You have a lot of ****ing nerve telling me I have a closed mind when you
> >never were the least bit inclined to have you mind changed, especially in
> >light of the fact that on gun control you were DEAD ****ing wrong.
>
> Now now, Mike, it's clear that you have lost your temper and you're
> sputtering.
>
You just can't stop the condecension.

> The fact that I lost patience with your insane gun ramblings is no
> reflection on who was right or wrong.

I think thatthe fact that you can't back up any of your beliefs with facts
DOES have something to with ME being right.

I simply got tired of your
> almost incoherent postings and your disregard for the readibility of
> your posts and the incomprehensibility of your thought processes.
>
> Sorry, you lose.
>
> Again.
>
> PS, this post of yours is just as poorly constructed as ever. The
> Seattle school system should be ashamed.

Table three needs a setup.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> > trotsky wrote:
> >
> >>> Sorry, but when the drivers sell retail for 27.50 they are cheap
drivers.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Right. Well there are all those other reasonably priced speakers with
> >> ribbon tweeters to consider. Oh wait, there aren't any others. It's
> >> called finding a niche, Mickey. Again, your comments can only be
> >> interpreted as sour grapes.
> >
> >
> > $27.50 drivers? Talk about a cheapass.
> >
> > Oh - but the $1500 price is plausable? Try putting in $100 drivers
> > at least and then try to impress anybody.
> >
> > Each speaker should have a good $400-$500 in components and cabinet
> > if you're selling them for that much profit as an individual or they
> > just won't sell or compete against the big boys.
>
>
> That's cool, Joe. Let us know when your speaker company gets off the
> ground.
>
>
Let us know when yours does.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
...
> trotsky wrote:
>
> >> Sorry, but when the drivers sell retail for 27.50 they are cheap
drivers.
> >
> >
> >
> > Right. Well there are all those other reasonably priced speakers with
> > ribbon tweeters to consider. Oh wait, there aren't any others. It's
> > called finding a niche, Mickey. Again, your comments can only be
> > interpreted as sour grapes.
>
> $27.50 drivers? Talk about a cheapass.
>
That's what Madisound sells them for retail, if Greg buys in any kind of
quantity he gets a discount.

> Oh - but the $1500 price is plausable? Try putting in $100 drivers
> at least and then try to impress anybody.
>
> Each speaker should have a good $400-$500 in components and cabinet
> if you're selling them for that much profit as an individual or they
> just won't sell or compete against the big boys.
>

[Michael Mckelvy]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Congratulations, Greg! Everything looks great.
> >>>>
> >>>>Any chance of you experimenting with exotic wood finishes in the
future?
> >>>>
> >>>>Boon
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>If he actually sells any of these the profits should give him plenty of
> >>
> > R&D
> >
> >>>money. $1000.00 markup, sheesh.
> >>
> >>
> >>What's the exact percentage that's acceptable, Mickey? Your comment can
> >>only be interpreted as sour grapes.
> >>
> >
> > Normal markup you should know, unless of course your former boss didn't
> > trust you with that info. When I managed a hi-fi store. the normal mark
up
> > was double.
>
>
> When was that, the 50s? Mark up on video is typically 10 to 15%, and
> every year video becomes a larger part of the business, unless you do
> strictly two channel. Also, it's not uncommon for manufacturers to
> raise the dealer cost on an item without changing the retail price, thus
> shrinking margins.
>
>
> > No sour grapes Greggy-puss, I still make money building speakers.
>
>
> That's vague, Mickey. Oh, and how come you didn't have any words of
> wisdom on my subwoofer? Your critique was conspicuously absent, buddy.
>
>
Dime a dozen. If you wanted a good sub you'd have used a beeter driver
capable of delivering deep bass and stop with the bull**** about "musical"
aterm that doesn't apply to the range of frequencies coming from a properly
crossed over sub. Adire would probably have made a deal with you on their
Shiva's wich will get you down to the 20 Hz range without EQ and with very
low distortion.

Of course you might have had to spend more than 25 bucks.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 05:14:24 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> > wrote:
>
>
>>His problem is that he's fighting economy of scale and labor.
>>If Tannoy, for instance, makes a pair of speakers that costs them
>>$250 per speaker and sells for $1500(Tannoy S8 L/R is about this
>>ratio as near as I can tell), a consumer without their in-house
>>cabinet fabrication facilities, purchasing power, and ability
>>to buy parts directly from the manufacturer at fantastic prices
>>because thye order millions of dollars worth at once - they would
>>spend twice as much on the same quality components.
>>
>>That means a $500 per speaker cost to make a Tannoy S8 L/R
>>as near as I can tell for the DIYer.
>>
>>Now, $500 profit is fine, but trying to reverse-engineer a
>>price you should be selling them for as a DIYer based upon
>>commercial business pofit models will price you right out
>>of the market.
>>
>>Trotsky's speakers should sell for $750 a pair as a $750
>>pair of commercial speakers will be virtually the same
>>in components and sound. $1500 is too much.
>
>
> Ummmm, it's quite possible that Greg's speakers have an actual cost of
> close to the cost that you quote for Tannoy, depending on the cost of
> the cabinets. Independent cabinet-makers charge quite a bit of money,
> and even many of the Madisound cabinets cost around $150 ea. and
> that's for "mass-produced" cabinets (I've never seen one so I can't
> comment on the fit and finish as opposed to Greg's cabinets, which I
> haven't seen either). It's not hard to see his cabinets costing more
> than $150 each, which would put it right in line with your
> calculations for what you seem to consider a "fair markup", even for a
> company that has economies of scale on their side.


Should I send you a pair to evaluate, dave? I have the black pair
currently in California for a friend of mine to check out, and if I
can't get a review out right away I can have them sent to you to check
out. Then you can *really* be brutally honest.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 06:22:18 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>> Now now, Mike, it's clear that you have lost your temper and you're
>> sputtering.
>>
>You just can't stop the condecension.

I wasn't being condescending (note spelling) at all. I was speaking
literally.

>> The fact that I lost patience with your insane gun ramblings is no
>> reflection on who was right or wrong.
>
>I think thatthe fact that you can't back up any of your beliefs with facts
>DOES have something to with ME being right.

I backed them up with facts, time and time again. Frankly, almost
every sentence you write is rife with typing errors, poor grammar,
misspelling, etc. Why you try to communicate in a written forum is
beyond me.

>I simply got tired of your
>> almost incoherent postings and your disregard for the readibility of
>> your posts and the incomprehensibility of your thought processes.
>>
>> Sorry, you lose.
>>
>> Again.
>>
>> PS, this post of yours is just as poorly constructed as ever. The
>> Seattle school system should be ashamed.
>
>Table three needs a setup.

We're not open for breakfast (or lunch, for that matter).

Sorry, you lose.

Again.

And what is it *you* do for a living again? It doesn't have anything
to do with the written word, does it?

[dave weil]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:24:35 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And be brutally honest.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
>>>>>
>>>>>Looks like cheaply made drivers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mickey, first of all that is simply not true, and second you need to
>>>>divorce the "look" of the drivers from the quality of the results.
>>>
>>
>>>Sorry, but when the drivers sell retail for 27.50 they are cheap drivers.
>>
>>
>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to be
>> spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce deep, clean bass.
>> It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver when 5.5 mm is more typical for a high
>> performance driver, and 7.6 mm is SOTA. Ironically some of these more
>> competent drivers retail for only a few dollars more.
>
>
>Ooh, Arny, you just committed the biggest sin a robot can make: your
>religion says everything sounds the same except speakers, which need to
>be listened to. You can't listen to them from the specs, meaning that
>you don't even believe your own bull****.

Well, he couldn't even get the specs right, so what's yer point?

<chuckle>

[Glenn Zelniker]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> His problem is that he's fighting economy of scale and labor.
> If Tannoy, for instance, makes a pair of speakers that costs them
> $250 per speaker and sells for $1500(Tannoy S8 L/R is about this
> ratio as near as I can tell), a consumer without their in-house
> cabinet fabrication facilities, purchasing power, and ability
> to buy parts directly from the manufacturer at fantastic prices
> because thye order millions of dollars worth at once - they would
> spend twice as much on the same quality components.
>
> That means a $500 per speaker cost to make a Tannoy S8 L/R
> as near as I can tell for the DIYer.
>
> Now, $500 profit is fine, but trying to reverse-engineer a
> price you should be selling them for as a DIYer based upon
> commercial business pofit models will price you right out
> of the market.
>
> Trotsky's speakers should sell for $750 a pair as a $750
> pair of commercial speakers will be virtually the same
> in components and sound. $1500 is too much.

Don't forget about the other associated costs like the occasional
consultant, packing, shipping, storage, health insurance,
work-stoppage insurance, liability insurance, web design, ISP,
state taxes, federal taxes, accountant fees, tools, rent, the
inevitable last-minute FedEx Priority 1 shipment of drivers or
screws or binding posts or duct tape, loss of revenue due to
damaged demo units, units "lost" or taken out of commission by
reviewers or deadbeat customers, credit-card fraud, banking
charges, credit-card processing fees, repairs to the inevitable
dead unit (with shipping both ways) caused by a cold solder joint
or by a driver that QC'd at the factory but was bad anyway,
prototyping costs, advertising costs, trade-show costs, time
spent holding customers' hands on the phone, long-distance
charges, and the list goes on and on and on and on...

Not that any of this has ever happened to me!

But seriously. It's certainly valid to say "that's too much money
to ask for this product" but until you've attempted manufacturing
as your *sole* source of income, don't even try to guess what a
fair markup might be. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the aforementioned
costs need to be built into the price of the product or the
manufacturer will go out of business quickly. And most new small
manufacturers probably don't even have any idea how much their
products actually cost to build -- and it's a virtual certainty
that whatever they think that number may be is *way* too low an
estimate.

Bear in mind that being a legit small manufacturer is hideously
expensive and that there are plenty of little guys still
struggling to get by with a (wholesale price)/(bill of materials)
ratio of ten-to-one. So watch those accusations of gouging.

Hats off to Greg for having the balls to make a go of it.

Glenn @ Z-Systems

[Lionel Chapuis]

trotsky a écrit :

> Ooh, Arny, you just committed the biggest sin a robot can make: your
> religion says everything sounds the same except speakers, which need to
> be listened to. You can't listen to them from the specs, meaning that
> you don't even believe your own bull****.
>
This is not the most important thing he told you...
You miss to much trains I think you're a loser.

[Lionel Chapuis]

Lionel Chapuis a écrit :

> trotsky a écrit :
>
>> Ooh, Arny, you just committed the biggest sin a robot can make: your
>> religion says everything sounds the same except speakers, which need
>> to be listened to. You can't listen to them from the specs, meaning
>> that you don't even believe your own bull****.
>>
> This is not the most important thing he told you...
> You miss to much trains I think you're a loser.
>
Sorry a *futur* loser... In fact I'm not sure anymore.

[JBorg]

> trotsky wrote



> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>
>
> And be brutally honest.



The website has a graceful layout, it will be interesting to
read the opinions of those who will have the chance to audition
Europa and/or Subterfuge here at RAO.


Why the name Jupiter ?

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to be
>> spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce deep,
>> clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver

> No it's not.

If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information or admitted
you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again for showing your
endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.

Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong. Jupiter seems
to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8" category SOTA Xmax would be
more like 19 mm. So the analysis is the same, we're talking mediocre
drivers, it's just that the details changed a tad.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:24:35 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And be brutally honest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like cheaply made drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mickey, first of all that is simply not true, and second you need
>>>>> to divorce the "look" of the drivers from the quality of the
>>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Sorry, but when the drivers sell retail for 27.50 they are cheap
>>>> drivers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to be
>>> spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce deep,
>>> clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver when 5.5 mm is more typical
>>> for a high performance driver, and 7.6 mm is SOTA. Ironically some
>>> of these more competent drivers retail for only a few dollars more.
>>
>>
>> Ooh, Arny, you just committed the biggest sin a robot can make: your
>> religion says everything sounds the same except speakers, which need
>> to be listened to. You can't listen to them from the specs, meaning
>> that you don't even believe your own bull****.
>
> Well, he couldn't even get the specs right, so what's yer point?

Neither could you get the specs right Weil, so what's your point?

You lose, again!

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 12:34:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to be
>>> spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce deep,
>>> clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
>
>> No it's not.
>
>If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information or admitted
>you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again for showing your
>endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.

The fact that I said that it was wrong indicates that I had the
correct information.

I don't have any need to do your homework for you.

>Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong.

*Some* details wrong. Right. The only thing you got correct was the
name of the vendor. Every *technical* detail that you took Trotsky to
task for was wrong.

> Jupiter seems

Why say "seems"?

>to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8" category SOTA Xmax would be
>more like 19 mm. So the analysis is the same, we're talking mediocre
>drivers, it's just that the details changed a tad.

More than just a tad.

You lose.

Again.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 12:35:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:24:35 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> link.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And be brutally honest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like cheaply made drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mickey, first of all that is simply not true, and second you need
>>>>>> to divorce the "look" of the drivers from the quality of the
>>>>>> results.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but when the drivers sell retail for 27.50 they are cheap
>>>>> drivers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to be
>>>> spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce deep,
>>>> clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver when 5.5 mm is more typical
>>>> for a high performance driver, and 7.6 mm is SOTA. Ironically some
>>>> of these more competent drivers retail for only a few dollars more.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ooh, Arny, you just committed the biggest sin a robot can make: your
>>> religion says everything sounds the same except speakers, which need
>>> to be listened to. You can't listen to them from the specs, meaning
>>> that you don't even believe your own bull****.
>>
>> Well, he couldn't even get the specs right, so what's yer point?
>
>Neither could you get the specs right Weil, so what's your point?

Oh, I had the specs all right. That's why I knew you were wrong.

>You lose, again!

Sorry, you lose.

Again.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 12:36:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"trotsky" > wrote in message

>
>> Ooh, Arny, you just committed the biggest sin a robot can make: your
>> religion says everything sounds the same except speakers, which need
>> to be listened to.
>
>Wrong.

Ahhh, speakers don't need to be listened to in the room in which
they're intended. OK. I'll remember that.

>> You can't listen to them from the specs, meaning
>> that you don't even believe your own bull****.
>
>Wrong.

Oh, you *do* believe your bull****. That I can believe.

[trotsky]

Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>>trotsky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Sorry, but when the drivers sell retail for 27.50 they are cheap
>>>>
> drivers.
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Right. Well there are all those other reasonably priced speakers with
>>>>ribbon tweeters to consider. Oh wait, there aren't any others. It's
>>>>called finding a niche, Mickey. Again, your comments can only be
>>>>interpreted as sour grapes.
>>>
>>>
>>>$27.50 drivers? Talk about a cheapass.
>>>
>>>Oh - but the $1500 price is plausable? Try putting in $100 drivers
>>>at least and then try to impress anybody.
>>>
>>>Each speaker should have a good $400-$500 in components and cabinet
>>>if you're selling them for that much profit as an individual or they
>>>just won't sell or compete against the big boys.
>>
>>
>>That's cool, Joe. Let us know when your speaker company gets off the
>>ground.
>>
>>
>
> Let us know when yours does.


I've got a real website, don't I? That's part of the sour grapes I
suppose. Hell, you probably can't even spell e-commerce.

[trotsky]

Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>

>>No, you're way off a) because if you knew how to make money you'd still
>>be in business,
>
> How much have you made?


Mickey, I haven't started advertising yet. Oh, that's right, you didn't
have an advertising budget. The reason for this was what, exactly?


> and b)
> you know you're a turd and your time isn't worth
>
>>anything.
>
>
> To you. Fortunately there are people with taste, good hearing and who
> appreciate people with integrity that still occaisionally pay for my time.


I'm not sure you understand what I'm talking about. How much time did
you spend on the speakers, and what hourly rate did you figure in for
the cost to build them? What multiplier did you use to arrive at the
retail price? If you are going to criticize my price you should be able
to answer these questions.



>> Don't blame me for your shortcomings.
>
> I think your projuecting again, having seen the picture of you on your web
> site it seems clear you would have trouble seeing past the lard to get a
> glimpse of YOUR shortcomings. :-)) Note the double chin.


Yeah, it figures your argument would degenerate into this. Tell us
again how I made "life miserable for you" on the newsgroup--that was cute.

[trotsky]

Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...


>>That's vague, Mickey. Oh, and how come you didn't have any words of
>>wisdom on my subwoofer? Your critique was conspicuously absent, buddy.
>>
>>
>
> Dime a dozen. If you wanted a good sub you'd have used a beeter driver
> capable of delivering deep bass and stop with the bull**** about "musical"
> aterm that doesn't apply to the range of frequencies coming from a properly
> crossed over sub. Adire would probably have made a deal with you on their
> Shiva's wich will get you down to the 20 Hz range without EQ and with very
> low distortion.
>
> Of course you might have had to spend more than 25 bucks.


Now that's a little weird. At one point you said something about making
your own sub but now you're mentioning Adire. Can you explain this please?

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:41:21 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>>Should I send you a pair to evaluate, dave? I have the black pair
>>currently in California for a friend of mine to check out, and if I
>>can't get a review out right away I can have them sent to you to check
>>out. Then you can *really* be brutally honest.
>
>
> No, I'd save my money if I were you. I'm not really looking to buy any
> speakers at the moment and I wouldn't want you to spend the money
> unnecessarily. Perhaps later if I decide to replace my honkers. After
> all, they *do* take up a lot of room.
>
> Thanks for the offer though.


I wasn't really looking for you to buy them, just proffer an opinion if
you felt like it.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:24:35 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>
>>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Michael Mckelvy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And be brutally honest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where'd you find all the scrap gray paper?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Looks like cheaply made drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Mickey, first of all that is simply not true, and second you need to
>>>>>divorce the "look" of the drivers from the quality of the results.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but when the drivers sell retail for 27.50 they are cheap drivers.
>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to be
>>>spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce deep, clean bass.
>>>It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver when 5.5 mm is more typical for a high
>>>performance driver, and 7.6 mm is SOTA. Ironically some of these more
>>>competent drivers retail for only a few dollars more.
>>
>>
>>Ooh, Arny, you just committed the biggest sin a robot can make: your
>>religion says everything sounds the same except speakers, which need to
>>be listened to. You can't listen to them from the specs, meaning that
>>you don't even believe your own bull****.
>
>
> Well, he couldn't even get the specs right, so what's yer point?


I don't know, maybe his specs were correct after he gave them the
screwdriver treatment.

[trotsky]

JBorg wrote:
>>trotsky wrote
>
>
>
>
>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>
>>
>>And be brutally honest.
>
>
>
>
> The website has a graceful layout, it will be interesting to
> read the opinions of those who will have the chance to audition
> Europa and/or Subterfuge here at RAO.
>
>
> Why the name Jupiter ?


Because the sound is out of this world. I thought that was obvious.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>
>
>>On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to be
>>>spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce deep,
>>>clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
>>
>
>>No it's not.
>
>
> If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information or admitted
> you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again for showing your
> endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.
>
> Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong. Jupiter seems
> to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8" category SOTA Xmax would be
> more like 19 mm. So the analysis is the same, we're talking mediocre
> drivers, it's just that the details changed a tad.


Besides helping you stroke your male member, what does that Xmax do for
you, Krueger?

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>Ooh, Arny, you just committed the biggest sin a robot can make: your
>>religion says everything sounds the same except speakers, which need
>>to be listened to.
>
>
> Wrong.
>
>
>>You can't listen to them from the specs, meaning
>>that you don't even believe your own bull****.
>
>
> Wrong.


No, you are not correct.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:25:04 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:41:21 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>>>Should I send you a pair to evaluate, dave? I have the black pair
>>>currently in California for a friend of mine to check out, and if I
>>>can't get a review out right away I can have them sent to you to check
>>>out. Then you can *really* be brutally honest.
>>
>>
>> No, I'd save my money if I were you. I'm not really looking to buy any
>> speakers at the moment and I wouldn't want you to spend the money
>> unnecessarily. Perhaps later if I decide to replace my honkers. After
>> all, they *do* take up a lot of room.
>>
>> Thanks for the offer though.
>
>
>I wasn't really looking for you to buy them, just proffer an opinion if
>you felt like it.

Well, in that case, I'd be happy to weigh in, on your dime. Feel free
to contact me privately and I'll give you my address. Keep in mind
that my associated equipment might not be up to your standards. I'll
be using the Fisher X202 tube integrated, as well as the Denon 2802
receiver. I've got that ProJect One as an analog source (currently it
has a simple Grado Black on board, which sounds quite good to my
ears). Of course, I have various digital sources as well, including a
Theta ProGen 3 and an EAD T7000 transport. I have a Micromega Stage 5
CD player as well that I can use. I have a garden variety AR 10 in.
subwoofer that I can use in conjuction with them as well. It's not a
bad little unit.

I just didn't want to waste you to waste precious resources. So, if
you're interested in sending them along, I'll be glad to audition them
and comment with the caveat that the associated gear is of a certain
level. Of course, I've lived with this gear for a while so I know how
to listen and factor in the sound colorations vis a vis different
speakers, if that makes any sense.

I don't have any stands either (haven't had any need for them). I have
a set of cones, but that won't do any good <g>. So, I'll have to
improvise...

PS, I've got a nice recording of Al Stewart at the Bluebird Cafe from
a few months ago if you're interested. He was great, if a little
overamped for the tiny room.

[dave weil]

I wrote:

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:56:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"trotsky" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to be
>>>>> spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce deep,
>>>>> clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
>>>>
>>>
>>>> No it's not.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information or
>>> admitted you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again for
>>> showing your endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.
>>>
>>> Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong. Jupiter
>>> seems to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8" category SOTA
>>> Xmax would be more like 19 mm. So the analysis is the same, we're
>>> talking mediocre drivers, it's just that the details changed a tad.
>
>> Besides helping you stroke your male member, what does that Xmax do
>> for you, Krueger?
>
>
>Well folks, here's more proof of how poorly informed Singh, our budding
>speaker designer really is. Obviously, he has no clue as to the value of
>Xmax. Interesting how that with Singh, everything he doesn't understand
>(LOTS!!!) comes down to masturbation with him.

At least his site includes the data, which is more than you can say
for the Scan-Speak site...
----------------

Fortuantely, you can find it at the Madisound site. Funny how Mr.
McKelvy's Scan-Speaks apparently aren't even close to what Mr. Krueger
claims is state-of-the-art either. Maybe he should go after HIM as
well - mainly because it's probably worse to be screwing friends than
strangers.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 14:24:03 -0500, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

And looking further at the Madisoound site, apparently none of those
speakers are supposedly SOTA, like VIFA and SEAS and yes, even NHT,
even come close to what Mr. Krueger claims for SOTA systems. The NHT
is probably the closest at 13mm, along with Sonicraft at 15mm (but of
course, it's a 12 incher).

Maybe Mr. Krueger can supply the names of some of those 8 in. SOTA
woofers that have "around 18mm".

Funny how you can't get the xmax information for any of the NHT
speakers at their own site. Nor can you get Boston Acoustics (another
of Arnold's fave speakers) either.

Therefore, Trotsky is ahead of both of them...

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:56:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >"trotsky" > wrote in message
>
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to be
> >>>>> spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce deep,
> >>>>> clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> No it's not.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information or
> >>> admitted you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again for
> >>> showing your endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong. Jupiter
> >>> seems to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8" category SOTA
> >>> Xmax would be more like 19 mm. So the analysis is the same, we're
> >>> talking mediocre drivers, it's just that the details changed a tad.
> >
> >> Besides helping you stroke your male member, what does that Xmax do
> >> for you, Krueger?
> >
> >
> >Well folks, here's more proof of how poorly informed Singh, our budding
> >speaker designer really is. Obviously, he has no clue as to the value of
> >Xmax. Interesting how that with Singh, everything he doesn't understand
> >(LOTS!!!) comes down to masturbation with him.
>
> At least his site includes the data, which is more than you can say
> for the Scan-Speak site...

You can get their data from their vendors, like Madisound.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:48:04 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:56:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"trotsky" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to be
>> >>>>> spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce deep,
>> >>>>> clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> No it's not.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information or
>> >>> admitted you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again for
>> >>> showing your endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong. Jupiter
>> >>> seems to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8" category SOTA
>> >>> Xmax would be more like 19 mm. So the analysis is the same, we're
>> >>> talking mediocre drivers, it's just that the details changed a tad.
>> >
>> >> Besides helping you stroke your male member, what does that Xmax do
>> >> for you, Krueger?
>> >
>> >
>> >Well folks, here's more proof of how poorly informed Singh, our budding
>> >speaker designer really is. Obviously, he has no clue as to the value of
>> >Xmax. Interesting how that with Singh, everything he doesn't understand
>> >(LOTS!!!) comes down to masturbation with him.
>>
>> At least his site includes the data, which is more than you can say
>> for the Scan-Speak site...
>
>You can get their data from their vendors, like Madisound.

Already noted.

Too slow.

And apparently, their woofers aren't SOTA either, according to Mr.
krueger.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message

> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:56:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to
>>>>>>> be spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce
>>>>>>> deep, clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> No it's not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information or
>>>>> admitted you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again for
>>>>> showing your endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong.
>>>>> Jupiter seems to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8"
>>>>> category SOTA Xmax would be more like 19 mm. So the analysis is
>>>>> the same, we're talking mediocre drivers, it's just that the
>>>>> details changed a tad.
>>>
>>>> Besides helping you stroke your male member, what does that Xmax do
>>>> for you, Krueger?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well folks, here's more proof of how poorly informed Singh, our
>>> budding speaker designer really is. Obviously, he has no clue as to
>>> the value of Xmax. Interesting how that with Singh, everything he
>>> doesn't understand (LOTS!!!) comes down to masturbation with him.
>>
>> At least his site includes the data, which is more than you can say
>> for the Scan-Speak site...

Not really. I get this feeling Weil doesn't know what he's talking about
(again).

> You can get their data from their vendors, like Madisound.

More specifically:

http://www.d-s-t.com/scs/

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:33:59 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:56:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to
>>>>>>> be spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce
>>>>>>> deep, clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> No it's not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information or
>>>>> admitted you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again for
>>>>> showing your endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong.
>>>>> Jupiter seems to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8"
>>>>> category SOTA Xmax would be more like 19 mm. So the analysis is
>>>>> the same, we're talking mediocre drivers, it's just that the
>>>>> details changed a tad.
>>>
>>>> Besides helping you stroke your male member, what does that Xmax do
>>>> for you, Krueger?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well folks, here's more proof of how poorly informed Singh, our
>>> budding speaker designer really is. Obviously, he has no clue as to
>>> the value of Xmax. Interesting how that with Singh, everything he
>>> doesn't understand (LOTS!!!) comes down to masturbation with him.
>
>> At least his site includes the data,
>
>Say what? Where can one find Xmax & other T/S data at
>http://www.jupiter-audio.com/pages/europa.html ?

You're right. I was confusing his site with the Silver Flute site.

See how easy that is? No quibble words like "seem". A simple admission
that I was wrong.

>> which is more than you can say for the Scan-Speak site...
>
>What data is missing from the ScanSpeak site?
>
>Here's an example of what ScanSpeak provides:
>
>http://www.d-s-t.com/scs/data/21w_8554-00d.htm
>
>Looks a heck of lot more complete than the data at jupiter-audio.

And yet, nothing on the xmax data point that you mentioned. Of course,
you can find that on the Madisound site (as you can find the data
about Greg's drivers on the Madisound site as well).

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:33:59 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:56:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to
>>>>>>> be spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce
>>>>>>> deep, clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> No it's not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information or
>>>>> admitted you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again for
>>>>> showing your endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong.
>>>>> Jupiter seems to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8"
>>>>> category SOTA Xmax would be more like 19 mm. So the analysis is
>>>>> the same, we're talking mediocre drivers, it's just that the
>>>>> details changed a tad.
>>>
>>>> Besides helping you stroke your male member, what does that Xmax do
>>>> for you, Krueger?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well folks, here's more proof of how poorly informed Singh, our
>>> budding speaker designer really is. Obviously, he has no clue as to
>>> the value of Xmax. Interesting how that with Singh, everything he
>>> doesn't understand (LOTS!!!) comes down to masturbation with him.
>
>> At least his site includes the data,
>
>Say what? Where can one find Xmax & other T/S data at
>http://www.jupiter-audio.com/pages/europa.html ?
>
>> which is more than you can say for the Scan-Speak site...
>
>What data is missing from the ScanSpeak site?
>
>Here's an example of what ScanSpeak provides:
>
>http://www.d-s-t.com/scs/data/21w_8554-00d.htm
>
>Looks a heck of lot more complete than the data at jupiter-audio.

Still waiting on the specs for an 8 in. woofer with an "around 18mm"
xmax...

....waiting...

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> I wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:56:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >"trotsky" > wrote in message
>
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to be
> >>>>> spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce deep,
> >>>>> clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> No it's not.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information or
> >>> admitted you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again for
> >>> showing your endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong. Jupiter
> >>> seems to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8" category SOTA
> >>> Xmax would be more like 19 mm. So the analysis is the same, we're
> >>> talking mediocre drivers, it's just that the details changed a tad.
> >
> >> Besides helping you stroke your male member, what does that Xmax do
> >> for you, Krueger?
> >
> >
> >Well folks, here's more proof of how poorly informed Singh, our budding
> >speaker designer really is. Obviously, he has no clue as to the value of
> >Xmax. Interesting how that with Singh, everything he doesn't understand
> >(LOTS!!!) comes down to masturbation with him.
>
> At least his site includes the data, which is more than you can say
> for the Scan-Speak site...
> ----------------
>
> Fortuantely, you can find it at the Madisound site. Funny how Mr.
> McKelvy's Scan-Speaks apparently aren't even close to what Mr. Krueger
> claims is state-of-the-art either. Maybe he should go after HIM as
> well - mainly because it's probably worse to be screwing friends than
> strangers.
>

The Scan Speak motor is what makes them SOTA. You will notice they list Fs
at 29 Hz for a 7" driver.

I won't bother explaining it to you maybe Singh knows somebody that explain
it to both of you. Based on his previous and current rants he still doesn't
know **** form Shinola about audio. If he did he'd have spared the sand and
just had good cabinets with good bracing built.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:17:59 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> I wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:56:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"trotsky" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to be
>> >>>>> spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce deep,
>> >>>>> clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> No it's not.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information or
>> >>> admitted you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again for
>> >>> showing your endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong. Jupiter
>> >>> seems to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8" category SOTA
>> >>> Xmax would be more like 19 mm. So the analysis is the same, we're
>> >>> talking mediocre drivers, it's just that the details changed a tad.
>> >
>> >> Besides helping you stroke your male member, what does that Xmax do
>> >> for you, Krueger?
>> >
>> >
>> >Well folks, here's more proof of how poorly informed Singh, our budding
>> >speaker designer really is. Obviously, he has no clue as to the value of
>> >Xmax. Interesting how that with Singh, everything he doesn't understand
>> >(LOTS!!!) comes down to masturbation with him.
>>
>> At least his site includes the data, which is more than you can say
>> for the Scan-Speak site...
>> ----------------
>>
>> Fortuantely, you can find it at the Madisound site. Funny how Mr.
>> McKelvy's Scan-Speaks apparently aren't even close to what Mr. Krueger
>> claims is state-of-the-art either. Maybe he should go after HIM as
>> well - mainly because it's probably worse to be screwing friends than
>> strangers.
>>
>
>The Scan Speak motor is what makes them SOTA. You will notice they list Fs
>at 29 Hz for a 7" driver.

Oh, so xmax doesn't make something SOTA. You might explain that to Mr.
Krueger.

>I won't bother explaining it to you maybe Singh knows somebody that explain
>it to both of you.

Maybe Greg explain to me. Maybe you explain to group. Maybe you check
opposable thumb and see if you have one. Maybe you find that you have
opposable tail instead.

> Based on his previous and current rants he still doesn't
>know **** form Shinola about audio. If he did he'd have spared the sand and
>just had good cabinets with good bracing built.

You know that one of the leading speaker manufacturers builds speakers
with sand-loaded cabinets, right? Or maybe you think that Bobby
Palkovich is a pretender as well...

[JBorg]

> trotsky wrote:
>> JBorg wrote:
>>> trotsky wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>>
>>>
>>> And be brutally honest.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The website has a graceful layout, it will be interesting to
>> read the opinions of those who will have the chance to audition
>> Europa and/or Subterfuge here at RAO.
>>
>>
>> Why the name Jupiter ?
>
>
> Because the sound is out of this world. I thought that was obvious.


To be brutally honest, it was not obvious. No one has yet to claimed
auditioning Europa and/or Subterfuge to comment on sounds so far in the
thread except one.

Jupiter is out of this world-- that was obvious.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:52:49 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:41:21 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >dave weil wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 05:14:24 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>His problem is that he's fighting economy of scale and labor.
>> >>>If Tannoy, for instance, makes a pair of speakers that costs them
>> >>>$250 per speaker and sells for $1500(Tannoy S8 L/R is about this
>> >>>ratio as near as I can tell), a consumer without their in-house
>> >>>cabinet fabrication facilities, purchasing power, and ability
>> >>>to buy parts directly from the manufacturer at fantastic prices
>> >>>because thye order millions of dollars worth at once - they would
>> >>>spend twice as much on the same quality components.
>> >>>
>> >>>That means a $500 per speaker cost to make a Tannoy S8 L/R
>> >>>as near as I can tell for the DIYer.
>> >>>
>> >>>Now, $500 profit is fine, but trying to reverse-engineer a
>> >>>price you should be selling them for as a DIYer based upon
>> >>>commercial business pofit models will price you right out
>> >>>of the market.
>> >>>
>> >>>Trotsky's speakers should sell for $750 a pair as a $750
>> >>>pair of commercial speakers will be virtually the same
>> >>>in components and sound. $1500 is too much.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ummmm, it's quite possible that Greg's speakers have an actual cost of
>> >> close to the cost that you quote for Tannoy, depending on the cost of
>> >> the cabinets. Independent cabinet-makers charge quite a bit of money,
>> >> and even many of the Madisound cabinets cost around $150 ea. and
>> >> that's for "mass-produced" cabinets (I've never seen one so I can't
>> >> comment on the fit and finish as opposed to Greg's cabinets, which I
>> >> haven't seen either). It's not hard to see his cabinets costing more
>> >> than $150 each, which would put it right in line with your
>> >> calculations for what you seem to consider a "fair markup", even for a
>> >> company that has economies of scale on their side.
>> >
>> >
>> >Should I send you a pair to evaluate, dave? I have the black pair
>> >currently in California for a friend of mine to check out, and if I
>> >can't get a review out right away I can have them sent to you to check
>> >out. Then you can *really* be brutally honest.
>>
>> No, I'd save my money if I were you. I'm not really looking to buy any
>> speakers at the moment and I wouldn't want you to spend the money
>> unnecessarily. Perhaps later if I decide to replace my honkers. After
>> all, they *do* take up a lot of room.
>>
>> Thanks for the offer though.
>
>For that kind of money you'd be much better off spending it on the DIY kit
>from SEAS designed by Joe D'Appollitto, called the THOR. Also available
>through Madisound.

You've listened to both speakers then, I assume.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:00:29 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:33:59 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>>
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:56:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>> >>>
>> >>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> >>>>>> > wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to
>> >>>>>>> be spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce
>> >>>>>>> deep, clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> No it's not.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information or
>> >>>>> admitted you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again for
>> >>>>> showing your endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong.
>> >>>>> Jupiter seems to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8"
>> >>>>> category SOTA Xmax would be more like 19 mm. So the analysis is
>> >>>>> the same, we're talking mediocre drivers, it's just that the
>> >>>>> details changed a tad.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Besides helping you stroke your male member, what does that Xmax do
>> >>>> for you, Krueger?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Well folks, here's more proof of how poorly informed Singh, our
>> >>> budding speaker designer really is. Obviously, he has no clue as to
>> >>> the value of Xmax. Interesting how that with Singh, everything he
>> >>> doesn't understand (LOTS!!!) comes down to masturbation with him.
>> >
>> >> At least his site includes the data,
>> >
>> >Say what? Where can one find Xmax & other T/S data at
>> >http://www.jupiter-audio.com/pages/europa.html ?
>> >
>> >> which is more than you can say for the Scan-Speak site...
>> >
>> >What data is missing from the ScanSpeak site?
>> >
>> >Here's an example of what ScanSpeak provides:
>> >
>> >http://www.d-s-t.com/scs/data/21w_8554-00d.htm
>> >
>> >Looks a heck of lot more complete than the data at jupiter-audio.
>>
>> Still waiting on the specs for an 8 in. woofer with an "around 18mm"
>> xmax...
>>
>> ...waiting...
>
>If you knew what Xmax was maybe you wouldn't come off as such a moron. It's
>also known as linear excursion. The example that Arny pointed you to has a
>10 mm peak xmax or 20mm peak to peak! Combine that with the possibly the
>most advanced motor made and you have the most linear drivers of their type.
>Also note how smooth and steep the rolloff is at the higher frequency range,
>thereby allowing xovers that are 4th order in in rolloff with 2nd order
>topology.

From the above example:

http://www.d-s-t.com/scs/data/21w_8554-00d.htm

"Excursion, lin./max. : ±6.5 / ±10 mm"

Sorry, you lose.

Again.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:00:29 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:33:59 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
> >>
> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:56:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> >>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> >> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks to
> >> >>>>>>> be spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to produce
> >> >>>>>>> deep, clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> No it's not.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information or
> >> >>>>> admitted you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again for
> >> >>>>> showing your endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong.
> >> >>>>> Jupiter seems to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8"
> >> >>>>> category SOTA Xmax would be more like 19 mm. So the analysis is
> >> >>>>> the same, we're talking mediocre drivers, it's just that the
> >> >>>>> details changed a tad.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Besides helping you stroke your male member, what does that Xmax
do
> >> >>>> for you, Krueger?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Well folks, here's more proof of how poorly informed Singh, our
> >> >>> budding speaker designer really is. Obviously, he has no clue as to
> >> >>> the value of Xmax. Interesting how that with Singh, everything he
> >> >>> doesn't understand (LOTS!!!) comes down to masturbation with him.
> >> >
> >> >> At least his site includes the data,
> >> >
> >> >Say what? Where can one find Xmax & other T/S data at
> >> >http://www.jupiter-audio.com/pages/europa.html ?
> >> >
> >> >> which is more than you can say for the Scan-Speak site...
> >> >
> >> >What data is missing from the ScanSpeak site?
> >> >
> >> >Here's an example of what ScanSpeak provides:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.d-s-t.com/scs/data/21w_8554-00d.htm
> >> >
> >> >Looks a heck of lot more complete than the data at jupiter-audio.
> >>
> >> Still waiting on the specs for an 8 in. woofer with an "around 18mm"
> >> xmax...
> >>
> >> ...waiting...
> >
> >If you knew what Xmax was maybe you wouldn't come off as such a moron.
It's
> >also known as linear excursion. The example that Arny pointed you to has
a
> >10 mm peak xmax or 20mm peak to peak! Combine that with the possibly the
> >most advanced motor made and you have the most linear drivers of their
type.
> >Also note how smooth and steep the rolloff is at the higher frequency
range,
> >thereby allowing xovers that are 4th order in in rolloff with 2nd order
> >topology.
>
> From the above example:
>
> http://www.d-s-t.com/scs/data/21w_8554-00d.htm
>
> "Excursion, lin./max. : ±6.5 / ±10 mm"
>
I stand corrected. The motor assembly is still one of the major factors
that makes Scan Speak drivers world class.

[trotsky]

Michael Mckelvy wrote:

>
>
> If you knew what Xmax was maybe you wouldn't come off as such a moron.
> It's
> also known as linear excursion. The example that Arny pointed you to
> has a
> 10 mm peak xmax or 20mm peak to peak! Combine that with the possibly the
> most advanced motor made and you have the most linear drivers of their
> type.
> Also note how smooth and steep the rolloff is at the higher frequency
> range,
> thereby allowing xovers that are 4th order in in rolloff with 2nd order
> topology.
>
>


That's excellent info., Mickey. Can you describe to us in detail the
sonic differences one will hear?

[trotsky]

JBorg wrote:

> >trotsky wrote:
> >
> >>JBorg wrote:
> >>
> >>>trotsky wrote
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And be brutally honest.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>The website has a graceful layout, it will be interesting to
> >>read the opinions of those who will have the chance to audition
> >>Europa and/or Subterfuge here at RAO.
> >>
> >>
> >>Why the name Jupiter ?
> >
> >
> >Because the sound is out of this world. I thought that was obvious.
>
>
>
> To be brutally honest, it was not obvious. No one has yet to claimed
> auditioning Europa and/or Subterfuge to comment on sounds so far in the
> thread except one.
>
> Jupiter is out of this world-- that was obvious.


I'm sorry, I thought everyone read the site. The catch phrase I use is
"Sound that's out of this world."

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 18:29:24 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>> "Excursion, lin./max. : ±6.5 / ±10 mm"
>>
>I stand corrected. The motor assembly is still one of the major factors
>that makes Scan Speak drivers world class.

Thank you. That was much better than Mr. Krueger was able to muster.

Note that I haven't run down or made fun of Scan-Speak.

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:
>
>> Ellis Audio - he's making as near as I can tell, about $200 per
>> speaker if you figure that 15 or so hours per cabinet is only
>> worth the markup in price over the parts/kit he sells.
>
> That's not a business model, that's a hobby. Do you think B&W does
> business that way?

Not my concern as a consumer. Two small firms making speakers.
One has a better cabinet, sound, and is the same price.

That's unfortunately your closest competitor, like it or not,
business model or not.
For all of his work and anal finishing and grain selection
>> and assembly and... Gheez. NO other manufacturer at that price
>> makes cabinets like that or even tries to. He's eating tons of
>> profit making them like that.
>
> And why would anyone want to "eat tons of profit", other than perhaps
> having sniffed too many wood finishing products?

Because he's not interested in making ANY profit on the cabinets.
Well, to be honest, he's charging about $600 for ther cabinets,
which is at least $100 in supplies plus 10+ hours of labor, so
he's making a decent wage off of them - maybe $20 an hour.

I couldn't get someone to make simmilar cabinets for that little
per hour. At least not that quality.

>> Sorry, Trotsky - his drivers cost more, his parts do as well,
>> and his cabinets are real woodworking and not assembled in
>> a shop by someone else who is charging you full price for
>> their work.
>
> And yet you don't own a pair. Sell some of those telescopes and buy them.

No need. I have simmilar speakers from JBL. Nice bass, clean sound,
and don't cost me a dime to upgrade. But if I was looking for new
speakers, his would get my money way before yours based upon cost
of the components, cabinet quality, and the extensive site he has
that lets me know everything about the speakers from start to finish.

>> His business model stinks. His profit margins are insanely low
>> by choice. No sane person would run a business like that.
>
> Yes, of course, then why bother discussing it over the course of ten
> Usenet postings?

He's going to be your biggest competitor unless you find a chain
to carry your speakers.

> Consumer don't exist if they don't know about the product. If he
> advertised he would be losing money on every pair that he sold. Please
> explain this to Mickey McKelvy for me.

And how much are you spending? Lol.


>> That means to compete, you wither must make a better speaker or
>> lower your profit margins.
>
> I've already done both. And I intend to market them successfully.

Um... Based upon the components and the bass driver, he's a vast
chasm ahead of you in sound quality. Let's face it - you can't
soup up a Civic to the point where it will be a 911. Your
cheap drivers hinder anything you can do with crossovers and
cabinets.

Don='t believe me? Go talk to him and take your speakers over
to his house. I'm sure he'll enjoy talking and examining them.
Who knows? Yours might be better. Either way, you get that
side-by-side comparison and also someobody ends up changing their
deisgn or making improvements - a win-win situation for the consumer.

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:
>
>
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>> trotsky wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, but when the drivers sell retail for 27.50 they are cheap
>>>> drivers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Right. Well there are all those other reasonably priced speakers
>>> with ribbon tweeters to consider. Oh wait, there aren't any others.
>>> It's called finding a niche, Mickey. Again, your comments can only
>>> be interpreted as sour grapes.
>>
>>
>>
>> $27.50 drivers? Talk about a cheapass.
>>
>> Oh - but the $1500 price is plausable? Try putting in $100 drivers
>> at least and then try to impress anybody.
>>
>> Each speaker should have a good $400-$500 in components and cabinet
>> if you're selling them for that much profit as an individual or they
>> just won't sell or compete against the big boys.
>
>
>
> That's cool, Joe. Let us know when your speaker company gets off the
> ground.

You fail to understand that because of pricign and economy of
scale, the big boys can make your exact speaker for half the cost.

That means you MUST price them the same as the big boys would.

That means you need to adjust from a 3-4 times markup to a 50-75%
markup to remain competetive. Simple math, folks.

[Joseph Oberlander]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 05:14:24 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> > wrote:
>
>
>>His problem is that he's fighting economy of scale and labor.
>>If Tannoy, for instance, makes a pair of speakers that costs them
>>$250 per speaker and sells for $1500(Tannoy S8 L/R is about this
>>ratio as near as I can tell), a consumer without their in-house
>>cabinet fabrication facilities, purchasing power, and ability
>>to buy parts directly from the manufacturer at fantastic prices
>>because thye order millions of dollars worth at once - they would
>>spend twice as much on the same quality components.
>>
>>That means a $500 per speaker cost to make a Tannoy S8 L/R
>>as near as I can tell for the DIYer.
>>
>>Now, $500 profit is fine, but trying to reverse-engineer a
>>price you should be selling them for as a DIYer based upon
>>commercial business pofit models will price you right out
>>of the market.
>>
>>Trotsky's speakers should sell for $750 a pair as a $750
>>pair of commercial speakers will be virtually the same
>>in components and sound. $1500 is too much.
>
>
> Ummmm, it's quite possible that Greg's speakers have an actual cost of
> close to the cost that you quote for Tannoy, depending on the cost of
> the cabinets. Independent cabinet-makers charge quite a bit of money,
> and even many of the Madisound cabinets cost around $150 ea. and
> that's for "mass-produced" cabinets (I've never seen one so I can't
> comment on the fit and finish as opposed to Greg's cabinets, which I
> haven't seen either). It's not hard to see his cabinets costing more
> than $150 each, which would put it right in line with your
> calculations for what you seem to consider a "fair markup", even for a
> company that has economies of scale on their side.
>
> You seem almost as confused as Mr. McKelvy at this point. Or maybe you
> just weren't expressing yourself properly.

Ellis on his site said he could get his speakers built at a local
shop for about $350-$400 a pair, and they're better cabinets(though
the finish would be not as good as the hand-done ones).

So, it can't be costing him any more than that unless he's a doofus
and is being robbed. Shoot, I can get a solid Oak dining room table
at retail rprices from the dealer down the street for $350. It has
more parts and more wood.

Add in $200 for parts. Hell, let;s be generous. $50 for the driver
and $50 for the tweeter and $50 for the crossover. Even at $300
for the pair, that's $700 in materials cost using the largest reasonable
numbers that I can plug into the equation.

If he's smart, he can get it done for $500 and sel them for $750 or so.

Otherwise, Tannoy and Kef will eat him for lunch.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Glenn Zelniker wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>
>>His problem is that he's fighting economy of scale and labor.
>>If Tannoy, for instance, makes a pair of speakers that costs them
>>$250 per speaker and sells for $1500(Tannoy S8 L/R is about this
>>ratio as near as I can tell), a consumer without their in-house
>>cabinet fabrication facilities, purchasing power, and ability
>>to buy parts directly from the manufacturer at fantastic prices
>>because thye order millions of dollars worth at once - they would
>>spend twice as much on the same quality components.
>>
>>That means a $500 per speaker cost to make a Tannoy S8 L/R
>>as near as I can tell for the DIYer.
>>
>>Now, $500 profit is fine, but trying to reverse-engineer a
>>price you should be selling them for as a DIYer based upon
>>commercial business pofit models will price you right out
>>of the market.
>>
>>Trotsky's speakers should sell for $750 a pair as a $750
>>pair of commercial speakers will be virtually the same
>>in components and sound. $1500 is too much.
>
>
> Don't forget about the other associated costs like the occasional
> consultant, packing, shipping, storage, health insurance,
> work-stoppage insurance, liability insurance, web design, ISP,
> state taxes, federal taxes, accountant fees, tools, rent, the
> inevitable last-minute FedEx Priority 1 shipment of drivers or
> screws or binding posts or duct tape, loss of revenue due to
> damaged demo units, units "lost" or taken out of commission by
> reviewers or deadbeat customers, credit-card fraud, banking
> charges, credit-card processing fees, repairs to the inevitable
> dead unit (with shipping both ways) caused by a cold solder joint
> or by a driver that QC'd at the factory but was bad anyway,
> prototyping costs, advertising costs, trade-show costs, time
> spent holding customers' hands on the phone, long-distance
> charges, and the list goes on and on and on and on...
>
> Not that any of this has ever happened to me!
>
> But seriously. It's certainly valid to say "that's too much money
> to ask for this product" but until you've attempted manufacturing
> as your *sole* source of income, don't even try to guess what a
> fair markup might be. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the aforementioned
> costs need to be built into the price of the product or the
> manufacturer will go out of business quickly.

Right. But the rubber-hits-the-road part of the equation
is that he still can't price them for more than his competition.
In fact, he has to sel them for LESS because he's a small company
and doesn't have the dealer network, repair facilities, and
long-term reliability(I don't think Tannoy or JBL or B&W are
going bye-bye in the next - oh - 30 years even)

[Joseph Oberlander]

JBorg wrote:
>>trotsky wrote
>
>
>
>
>>http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>
>>
>>And be brutally honest.
>
>
>
>
> The website has a graceful layout, it will be interesting to
> read the opinions of those who will have the chance to audition
> Europa and/or Subterfuge here at RAO.
>
>
> Why the name Jupiter ?

It was better than Uranus.

(oh - come on - SOMEBODY had to say it ;) )

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>Ooh, Arny, you just committed the biggest sin a robot can make: your
>>religion says everything sounds the same except speakers, which need
>>to be listened to.
>
>
> Wrong.
>
>
>>You can't listen to them from the specs, meaning
>>that you don't even believe your own bull****.
>
>
> Wrong.

It really doesn't take very much to figure out that a Mercedes
is built better than a Hyundai just from the specs on paper.

When the disparity is that great, it's simple to determine
which is better.

Too bad Trotsky can't figure it out.(more like doesn't want
to as it would lower his profit to a couple hundred per pair)

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:

>> Of course you might have had to spend more than 25 bucks.
>
>
>
> Now that's a little weird. At one point you said something about making
> your own sub but now you're mentioning Adire. Can you explain this please?

Cause they'd probably sell you their drivers seperately. Duh.

[George M. Middius]

Obie-wan Big Boys said:

> You fail to understand that because of pricign and economy of
> scale, the big boys can make your exact speaker for half the cost.
>
> That means you MUST price them the same as the big boys would.

How foolish you sound when you wax Krooborgic.

Are you, personally, going to mount an anti-trotsky marketing campaign
to inform the world that if a big, well-organized company were to
build speakers of equivalent quality and performance, said speakers
would only cost $800? Cause if not, then how is the word going to get
out? And how are you going to prove it to people who simply want to
buy his speakers?

[Joseph Oberlander]

dave weil wrote:

> From the above example:
>
> http://www.d-s-t.com/scs/data/21w_8554-00d.htm
>
> "Excursion, lin./max. : ±6.5 / ±10 mm"

Um - 10mm*2= (peak to peak)

You do the math.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:19:36 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote:

>
>Right. But the rubber-hits-the-road part of the equation
>is that he still can't price them for more than his competition.
>In fact, he has to sel them for LESS because he's a small company
>and doesn't have the dealer network, repair facilities, and
>long-term reliability(I don't think Tannoy or JBL or B&W are
>going bye-bye in the next - oh - 30 years even)

You still don't get the fact that he's doing something different than
those guys. So there's no real comparison. He might be able to do well
enough to make a decent living. Remember the buzz that Linneum had for
a while? Now downsize that into a one-man (or small) operation. He
might be able to do quite well with minimum overhead.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:26:52 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote:

> Duh.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:33:50 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>> From the above example:
>>
>> http://www.d-s-t.com/scs/data/21w_8554-00d.htm
>>
>> "Excursion, lin./max. : ±6.5 / ±10 mm"
>
>Um - 10mm*2= (peak to peak)
>
>You do the math.

Where do you get *2? Am I missing something when I assume that 10mm
refers to peak excursion?

Are you talking about stereo? <chuckle>

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:19:36 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Right. But the rubber-hits-the-road part of the equation
>> is that he still can't price them for more than his competition.
>> In fact, he has to sel them for LESS because he's a small company
>> and doesn't have the dealer network, repair facilities, and
>> long-term reliability(I don't think Tannoy or JBL or B&W are
>> going bye-bye in the next - oh - 30 years even)
>
> You still don't get the fact that he's doing something different than
> those guys. So there's no real comparison. He might be able to do well
> enough to make a decent living. Remember the buzz that Linneum had for
> a while? Now downsize that into a one-man (or small) operation. He
> might be able to do quite well with minimum overhead.

Too bad Weil you didn't *get it* back in the days when Ken Kantor was
dirtying his shoes in the RAO kitty box. In the production volumes he was
familiar with, Madisound prices are high by a factor of 2-3 plus. In volumes
common in Detroit, make that 4 or 5.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:35:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:56:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks
>>>>>>>>> to be spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to
>>>>>>>>> produce deep, clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No it's not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information
>>>>>>> or admitted you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again
>>>>>>> for showing your endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong.
>>>>>>> Jupiter seems to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8"
>>>>>>> category SOTA Xmax would be more like 19 mm. So the analysis is
>>>>>>> the same, we're talking mediocre drivers, it's just that the
>>>>>>> details changed a tad.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides helping you stroke your male member, what does that Xmax
>>>>>> do for you, Krueger?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well folks, here's more proof of how poorly informed Singh, our
>>>>> budding speaker designer really is. Obviously, he has no clue as
>>>>> to the value of Xmax. Interesting how that with Singh, everything
>>>>> he doesn't understand (LOTS!!!) comes down to masturbation with
>>>>> him.
>>>>
>>>> At least his site includes the data, which is more than you can say
>>>> for the Scan-Speak site...
>>
>> Not really. I get this feeling Weil doesn't know what he's talking
>> about (again).
>
> Yes, I misspoke regarding the xmax data point on Greg's site. I *did*
> not misspeak regarding the availability of that same data point on the
> Scan-Speak site.
>
>>> You can get their data from their vendors, like Madisound.
>>
>> More specifically:
>>
>> http://www.d-s-t.com/scs/
>
> Please show me the page on that site that has the xmax data point.

It doesn't exist at that site. I'm not going to teach you how to be an
engineer, Weil. Mission Impossible isn't my game.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message


> I stand corrected. The motor assembly is still one of the major
> factors that makes Scan Speak drivers world class.

Pale shadows of product from the true SOTA producer of long-stroke woofers.
If so many of my posts here didn't shoot so far over Weil's head, he'd know
who I consider to be the true SOTA producer of subwoofers, and he'd find the
high-Xmax 8-incher I mentioned.

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net

> Yes, of course--don't break any new ground and spend the rest of your
> life building speakers for "friends". Makes sense to me, Mickey.

Is there going to be an announcement on RAO when Jupiter Audio sells its
first pair of speakers?

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ooh, Arny, you just committed the biggest sin a robot can make: your
>>> religion says everything sounds the same except speakers, which need
>>> to be listened to.

>> Wrong.

>>> You can't listen to them from the specs, meaning
>>> that you don't even believe your own bull****.

>> Wrong.

> It really doesn't take very much to figure out that a Mercedes
> is built better than a Hyundai just from the specs on paper.

Right.

> When the disparity is that great, it's simple to determine
> which is better.

As I was trying to explain to Weil and Singh, you can't really know for sure
from the numbers that a speaker is going to sound great, but you can figure
out when it is going to be mediocre or worse.

> Too bad Trotsky can't figure it out.(more like doesn't want
> to as it would lower his profit to a couple hundred per pair)

One of his big problems is that he's competing people who don't buy their
drivers through Madisound. Another problem Singh has is that some of his
competitors are trained, smart and experienced.

[Joseph Oberlander]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:00:06 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>
>>Ellis on his site said he could get his speakers built at a local
>>shop for about $350-$400 a pair, and they're better cabinets(though
>>the finish would be not as good as the hand-done ones).
>>
>>So, it can't be costing him any more than that unless he's a doofus
>>and is being robbed. Shoot, I can get a solid Oak dining room table
>>at retail rprices from the dealer down the street for $350. It has
>>more parts and more wood.
>>
>>Add in $200 for parts. Hell, let;s be generous. $50 for the driver
>>and $50 for the tweeter and $50 for the crossover. Even at $300
>>for the pair, that's $700 in materials cost using the largest reasonable
>>numbers that I can plug into the equation.
>>
>>If he's smart, he can get it done for $500 and sel them for $750 or so.
>>
>>Otherwise, Tannoy and Kef will eat him for lunch.
>
>
> You're soooo wrong. A business will go out of business trying for only
> a 25% markup from raw materials. Tannoy would never consider that.
> neither would Ellis, *if* he wasn't in the Air Force.

The problem is - Tannoy, KEF, and B&W can buy and build the exact
same speaker if they wanted for 1/2 to 1/3 Trotsky's cost. That
was my point. Somewhere, some big company will be making a simmilar
speaker to his for less money because their cost per speaker is like
$100. $200 per pair - marked up to $600-$800.

He has to sell his for less, reguardless of HIS profit margins or
he will not compete.

> And still, if you want an Ellis speaker, you'll wait a year. Might as
> well do it yourself, eh? Every town has a nice cabinetmaker, if the
> cabinets are the issue.

That IS the issue, acutally.

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Obie-wan Big Boys said:
>
>
>>You fail to understand that because of pricign and economy of
>>scale, the big boys can make your exact speaker for half the cost.
>>
>>That means you MUST price them the same as the big boys would.
>
>
> How foolish you sound when you wax Krooborgic.
>
> Are you, personally, going to mount an anti-trotsky marketing campaign
> to inform the world that if a big, well-organized company were to
> build speakers of equivalent quality and performance, said speakers
> would only cost $800? Cause if not, then how is the word going to get
> out? And how are you going to prove it to people who simply want to
> buy his speakers?

I guess you can't stop them from being morons anymore than you
can stop people from buying Bose.

For the rest of us, though, the facts are:

Since he has less stability, support, dealers, and testing facilities
than the big players, he has to give the customer something - either
miracle sound or better prices than they do.

The rub is that as a small business, he can't compete with their
costs. They can take his exact speaker and build it for 1/2 to 1/3
the cost. Then they apply normal markups. This speaker would sell
for maybe $800.

He has to beat that price-point reguardless of his own cost, or
the first dozen reviews will pummel him for making overpriced junk
in comparison to B&W or Paradigm or whatever speaker sounds closest
to his but doesn't cost nearly $1350.

[Joseph Oberlander]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:19:36 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Right. But the rubber-hits-the-road part of the equation
>>is that he still can't price them for more than his competition.
>>In fact, he has to sel them for LESS because he's a small company
>>and doesn't have the dealer network, repair facilities, and
>>long-term reliability(I don't think Tannoy or JBL or B&W are
>>going bye-bye in the next - oh - 30 years even)
>
>
> You still don't get the fact that he's doing something different than
> those guys.

Like what? Normal looking ported cabinet. Normal 8 inch bass driver.
Ribbon tweeter(as if I've not seen hundreds of them over the years).

Define different.

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> trotsky wrote:
>
> >
> >> Ellis Audio - he's making as near as I can tell, about $200 per
> >> speaker if you figure that 15 or so hours per cabinet is only
> >> worth the markup in price over the parts/kit he sells.
> >
> >
> > That's not a business model, that's a hobby. Do you think B&W does
> > business that way?
>
>
> Not my concern as a consumer. Two small firms making speakers.
> One has a better cabinet, sound, and is the same price.
>
> That's unfortunately your closest competitor, like it or not,
> business model or not.



That's blatantly false, but what the heck. Good thing to know you can
comment on sound without any listening.

>
> For all of his work and anal finishing and grain selection
>
> >> and assembly and... Gheez. NO other manufacturer at that price
> >> makes cabinets like that or even tries to. He's eating tons of
> >> profit making them like that.
> >
> >
> > And why would anyone want to "eat tons of profit", other than perhaps
> > having sniffed too many wood finishing products?
>
>
> Because he's not interested in making ANY profit on the cabinets.
> Well, to be honest, he's charging about $600 for ther cabinets,
> which is at least $100 in supplies plus 10+ hours of labor, so
> he's making a decent wage off of them - maybe $20 an hour.
>
> I couldn't get someone to make simmilar cabinets for that little
> per hour. At least not that quality.


And yet you haven't bought a pair. Do you know *anybody* that owns
Ellis speakers?

>
>
> >> Sorry, Trotsky - his drivers cost more, his parts do as well,
> >> and his cabinets are real woodworking and not assembled in
> >> a shop by someone else who is charging you full price for
> >> their work.
> >
> >
> > And yet you don't own a pair. Sell some of those telescopes and buy
> them.
>
>
> No need. I have simmilar speakers from JBL. Nice bass, clean sound,
> and don't cost me a dime to upgrade. But if I was looking for new
> speakers, his would get my money way before yours based upon cost
> of the components, cabinet quality, and the extensive site he has
> that lets me know everything about the speakers from start to finish.


And you are representitive of the rest of the world how, exactly?

>
>
> >> His business model stinks. His profit margins are insanely low
> >> by choice. No sane person would run a business like that.
> >
> >
> > Yes, of course, then why bother discussing it over the course of ten
> > Usenet postings?
>
>
> He's going to be your biggest competitor unless you find a chain
> to carry your speakers.


Joey, the guy isn't anyone's competitor. He probably sells about 10
pairs a year. You're living in your own private Idaho.

>
>
> > Consumer don't exist if they don't know about the product. If he
> > advertised he would be losing money on every pair that he sold.
> > Please explain this to Mickey McKelvy for me.
>
>
> And how much are you spending? Lol.


Being a showcase dealer on Audiogon will cost me $400 a month. And
that's just one site. Did you not understand the statement?

>
>
>
> >> That means to compete, you wither must make a better speaker or
> >> lower your profit margins.
> >
> >
> > I've already done both. And I intend to market them successfully.
>
>
> Um... Based upon the components and the bass driver, he's a vast
> chasm ahead of you in sound quality.


You're talking out of your ass. If you can determine how a speaker
sounds by looking at a picture you aren't bright.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:00:06 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>
> >Ellis on his site said he could get his speakers built at a local
> >shop for about $350-$400 a pair, and they're better cabinets(though
> >the finish would be not as good as the hand-done ones).
> >
> >So, it can't be costing him any more than that unless he's a doofus
> >and is being robbed. Shoot, I can get a solid Oak dining room table
> >at retail rprices from the dealer down the street for $350. It has
> >more parts and more wood.
> >
> >Add in $200 for parts. Hell, let;s be generous. $50 for the driver
> >and $50 for the tweeter and $50 for the crossover. Even at $300
> >for the pair, that's $700 in materials cost using the largest reasonable
> >numbers that I can plug into the equation.
> >
> >If he's smart, he can get it done for $500 and sel them for $750 or so.
> >
> >Otherwise, Tannoy and Kef will eat him for lunch.
>
>
> You're soooo wrong. A business will go out of business trying for only
> a 25% markup from raw materials. Tannoy would never consider that.
> neither would Ellis, *if* he wasn't in the Air Force.
>
> And still, if you want an Ellis speaker, you'll wait a year. Might as
> well do it yourself, eh? Every town has a nice cabinetmaker, if the
> cabinets are the issue.
>

It might be more than a year, now that he has to unpack the boxes.

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> dave weil wrote:
>
> > From the above example:
> >
> > http://www.d-s-t.com/scs/data/21w_8554-00d.htm
> >
> > "Excursion, lin./max. : ±6.5 / ±10 mm"
>
>
> Um - 10mm*2= (peak to peak)
>
> You do the math.
>

Which math, Joe?

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> ink.net
>
>
> >Yes, of course--don't break any new ground and spend the rest of your
> >life building speakers for "friends". Makes sense to me, Mickey.
>
>
> Is there going to be an announcement on RAO when Jupiter Audio sells its
> first pair of speakers?




I'm already working on a deal for a 7.1 home theater system. I doubt
it's really necessary to chart my sales progress, though. You can go
first if you'd like.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:37:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:19:36 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Right. But the rubber-hits-the-road part of the equation
>>> is that he still can't price them for more than his competition.
>>> In fact, he has to sel them for LESS because he's a small company
>>> and doesn't have the dealer network, repair facilities, and
>>> long-term reliability(I don't think Tannoy or JBL or B&W are
>>> going bye-bye in the next - oh - 30 years even)
>>
>> You still don't get the fact that he's doing something different than
>> those guys. So there's no real comparison. He might be able to do well
>> enough to make a decent living. Remember the buzz that Linneum had for
>> a while? Now downsize that into a one-man (or small) operation. He
>> might be able to do quite well with minimum overhead.
>
>Too bad Weil you didn't *get it* back in the days when Ken Kantor was
>dirtying his shoes in the RAO kitty box. In the production volumes he was
>familiar with, Madisound prices are high by a factor of 2-3 plus. In volumes
>common in Detroit, make that 4 or 5.

Prove it.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:38:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:35:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:56:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks
>>>>>>>>>> to be spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to
>>>>>>>>>> produce deep, clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No it's not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information
>>>>>>>> or admitted you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again
>>>>>>>> for showing your endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong.
>>>>>>>> Jupiter seems to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8"
>>>>>>>> category SOTA Xmax would be more like 19 mm. So the analysis is
>>>>>>>> the same, we're talking mediocre drivers, it's just that the
>>>>>>>> details changed a tad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Besides helping you stroke your male member, what does that Xmax
>>>>>>> do for you, Krueger?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well folks, here's more proof of how poorly informed Singh, our
>>>>>> budding speaker designer really is. Obviously, he has no clue as
>>>>>> to the value of Xmax. Interesting how that with Singh, everything
>>>>>> he doesn't understand (LOTS!!!) comes down to masturbation with
>>>>>> him.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least his site includes the data, which is more than you can say
>>>>> for the Scan-Speak site...
>>>
>>> Not really. I get this feeling Weil doesn't know what he's talking
>>> about (again).
>>
>> Yes, I misspoke regarding the xmax data point on Greg's site. I *did*
>> not misspeak regarding the availability of that same data point on the
>> Scan-Speak site.
>>
>>>> You can get their data from their vendors, like Madisound.
>>>
>>> More specifically:
>>>
>>> http://www.d-s-t.com/scs/
>>
>> Please show me the page on that site that has the xmax data point.
>
>It doesn't exist at that site.

As it turns out, it does.

<guffaw!>

>I'm not going to teach you how to be an engineer, Weil. Mission Impossible isn't my game.

I guess even engineers don't know their stuff sometimes...

[dave weil]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:42:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message

>
>> I stand corrected. The motor assembly is still one of the major
>> factors that makes Scan Speak drivers world class.
>
>Pale shadows of product from the true SOTA producer of long-stroke woofers.
>If so many of my posts here didn't shoot so far over Weil's head, he'd know
>who I consider to be the true SOTA producer of subwoofers, and he'd find the
>high-Xmax 8-incher I mentioned.

Prove that it has an xmax of about 18mm.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 05:21:15 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:00:06 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ellis on his site said he could get his speakers built at a local
>>>shop for about $350-$400 a pair, and they're better cabinets(though
>>>the finish would be not as good as the hand-done ones).
>>>
>>>So, it can't be costing him any more than that unless he's a doofus
>>>and is being robbed. Shoot, I can get a solid Oak dining room table
>>>at retail rprices from the dealer down the street for $350. It has
>>>more parts and more wood.
>>>
>>>Add in $200 for parts. Hell, let;s be generous. $50 for the driver
>>>and $50 for the tweeter and $50 for the crossover. Even at $300
>>>for the pair, that's $700 in materials cost using the largest reasonable
>>>numbers that I can plug into the equation.
>>>
>>>If he's smart, he can get it done for $500 and sel them for $750 or so.
>>>
>>>Otherwise, Tannoy and Kef will eat him for lunch.
>>
>>
>> You're soooo wrong. A business will go out of business trying for only
>> a 25% markup from raw materials. Tannoy would never consider that.
>> neither would Ellis, *if* he wasn't in the Air Force.
>
>The problem is - Tannoy, KEF, and B&W can buy and build the exact
>same speaker if they wanted for 1/2 to 1/3 Trotsky's cost. That
>was my point. Somewhere, some big company will be making a simmilar
>speaker to his for less money because their cost per speaker is like
>$100. $200 per pair - marked up to $600-$800.

But they don't. so it's irrelevant. My point is that you outlined
EXACTLY the same sort of markup by Tannoy and yet, it's cool for them
but not for Trotsky.

>He has to sell his for less, reguardless of HIS profit margins or
>he will not compete.

If he were selling the exact same speaker, maybe. But his is quite
different. And very few people that might be in the market for
speakers is even aware of where he sources his raw materials, or have
even heard of Madisound. Or, they probably aren't interested in how
much kits are because the reason that they're shopping for speakers is
because they don't want to build their own.

>> And still, if you want an Ellis speaker, you'll wait a year. Might as
>> well do it yourself, eh? Every town has a nice cabinetmaker, if the
>> cabinets are the issue.
>
>That IS the issue, acutally.

Well, the issue then is, do I want to build it myself or do I want to
buy it built by someone else? The vast majority of speaker buyers
choose the last option.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 05:30:16 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:19:36 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Right. But the rubber-hits-the-road part of the equation
>>>is that he still can't price them for more than his competition.
>>>In fact, he has to sel them for LESS because he's a small company
>>>and doesn't have the dealer network, repair facilities, and
>>>long-term reliability(I don't think Tannoy or JBL or B&W are
>>>going bye-bye in the next - oh - 30 years even)
>>
>>
>> You still don't get the fact that he's doing something different than
>> those guys.
>
>Like what? Normal looking ported cabinet. Normal 8 inch bass driver.
>Ribbon tweeter(as if I've not seen hundreds of them over the years).

Name those hundreds of different models on the market.

>Define different.

Look at what's being sold and marketed and tell me how many ribbon
tweeters in boxes you currently see on the market.

[Lionel Chapuis]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:38:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>>
>>>On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:35:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message

>>>>
>>>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:56:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 07:23:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Agreed. I don't know about the tweeter, but the woofer looks
>>>>>>>>>>>to be spectacularly mediocre in terms of its ability to
>>>>>>>>>>>produce deep, clean bass. It's a 3 mm Xmax 6" driver
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No it's not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If you had a brain Weil, you'd provided corrected information
>>>>>>>>>or admitted you didn't know the correct facts. Thanks for again
>>>>>>>>>for showing your endlessly bad faith and lack of knowledge.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes, my first post on this topic was had some details wrong.
>>>>>>>>>Jupiter seems to be using an 8" with 5 mm Xmax. In the 8"
>>>>>>>>>category SOTA Xmax would be more like 19 mm. So the analysis is
>>>>>>>>>the same, we're talking mediocre drivers, it's just that the
>>>>>>>>>details changed a tad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Besides helping you stroke your male member, what does that Xmax
>>>>>>>>do for you, Krueger?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well folks, here's more proof of how poorly informed Singh, our
>>>>>>>budding speaker designer really is. Obviously, he has no clue as
>>>>>>>to the value of Xmax. Interesting how that with Singh, everything
>>>>>>>he doesn't understand (LOTS!!!) comes down to masturbation with
>>>>>>>him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At least his site includes the data, which is more than you can say
>>>>>>for the Scan-Speak site...
>>>>
>>>>Not really. I get this feeling Weil doesn't know what he's talking
>>>>about (again).
>>>
>>>Yes, I misspoke regarding the xmax data point on Greg's site. I *did*
>>>not misspeak regarding the availability of that same data point on the
>>>Scan-Speak site.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You can get their data from their vendors, like Madisound.
>>>>
>>>>More specifically:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.d-s-t.com/scs/
>>>
>>>Please show me the page on that site that has the xmax data point.
>>
>>It doesn't exist at that site.
>
>
> As it turns out, it does.
>
> <guffaw!>
>
>>I'm not going to teach you how to be an engineer, Weil. Mission Impossible isn't my game.
>
>
> I guess even engineers don't know their stuff sometimes...

Glad to see you awaked and powerful.
Except acetylsalicylic acid what is your secret ?

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>> trotsky wrote:
>>
>>>> Of course you might have had to spend more than 25 bucks.

>>> Now that's a little weird. At one point you said something about
>>> making your own sub but now you're mentioning Adire. Can you
>>> explain this please?

>> Cause they'd probably sell you their drivers separately. Duh.

> There's nothing magical about Adire products, Joe.

....except they sell a lot of really pretty good Xmax for the dollar. Unh,
sorry to blow your mind with that engineering lingo Singh, but you did brag
about being an engineer on your web site. I thought I'd give you a new
experience and treat you like you actually were an engineer and knew squat
about loudspeaker technology.

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net

> You're talking out of your ass. If you can determine how a speaker
> sounds by looking at a picture you aren't bright.

Like I keep telling you Singh, you can't tell that a speaker sounds good by
looking at driver specs, but you can weed out a lot that have a high
probability of being mediocre or worse. How is life out there in the weeds?

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:37:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:19:36 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right. But the rubber-hits-the-road part of the equation
>>>> is that he still can't price them for more than his competition.
>>>> In fact, he has to sel them for LESS because he's a small company
>>>> and doesn't have the dealer network, repair facilities, and
>>>> long-term reliability(I don't think Tannoy or JBL or B&W are
>>>> going bye-bye in the next - oh - 30 years even)
>>>
>>> You still don't get the fact that he's doing something different
>>> than those guys. So there's no real comparison. He might be able to
>>> do well enough to make a decent living. Remember the buzz that
>>> Linneum had for a while? Now downsize that into a one-man (or
>>> small) operation. He might be able to do quite well with minimum
>>> overhead.
>>
>> Too bad Weil you didn't *get it* back in the days when Ken Kantor was
>> dirtying his shoes in the RAO kitty box. In the production volumes
>> he was familiar with, Madisound prices are high by a factor of 2-3
>> plus. In volumes common in Detroit, make that 4 or 5.
>
> Prove it.

Growing you a brain is not my job, Weil.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:42:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> I stand corrected. The motor assembly is still one of the major
>>> factors that makes Scan Speak drivers world class.
>>
>> Pale shadows of product from the true SOTA producer of long-stroke
>> woofers. If so many of my posts here didn't shoot so far over Weil's
>> head, he'd know who I consider to be the true SOTA producer of
>> subwoofers, and he'd find the high-Xmax 8-incher I mentioned.
>
> Prove that it has an xmax of about 18mm.

Anybody who wants to know can send me private email. Queries from Singh and
his clique won't be responded to.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 10:20:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:37:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:19:36 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. But the rubber-hits-the-road part of the equation
>>>>> is that he still can't price them for more than his competition.
>>>>> In fact, he has to sel them for LESS because he's a small company
>>>>> and doesn't have the dealer network, repair facilities, and
>>>>> long-term reliability(I don't think Tannoy or JBL or B&W are
>>>>> going bye-bye in the next - oh - 30 years even)
>>>>
>>>> You still don't get the fact that he's doing something different
>>>> than those guys. So there's no real comparison. He might be able to
>>>> do well enough to make a decent living. Remember the buzz that
>>>> Linneum had for a while? Now downsize that into a one-man (or
>>>> small) operation. He might be able to do quite well with minimum
>>>> overhead.
>>>
>>> Too bad Weil you didn't *get it* back in the days when Ken Kantor was
>>> dirtying his shoes in the RAO kitty box. In the production volumes
>>> he was familiar with, Madisound prices are high by a factor of 2-3
>>> plus. In volumes common in Detroit, make that 4 or 5.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>Growing you a brain is not my job, Weil.

Thanks for acknowledging that you can't prove your false claim.

You're dismissed now.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 10:22:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:42:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> I stand corrected. The motor assembly is still one of the major
>>>> factors that makes Scan Speak drivers world class.
>>>
>>> Pale shadows of product from the true SOTA producer of long-stroke
>>> woofers. If so many of my posts here didn't shoot so far over Weil's
>>> head, he'd know who I consider to be the true SOTA producer of
>>> subwoofers, and he'd find the high-Xmax 8-incher I mentioned.
>>
>> Prove that it has an xmax of about 18mm.
>
>Anybody who wants to know can send me private email. Queries from Singh and
>his clique won't be responded to.

Meaning that you don't have the guts to post the info on this public
forum because you know it will be disproven. Maybe you're multiplying
by two like Joseph did.

I can hardly believe that you'd surrender so easily.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:33:50 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>> From the above example:
>>
>> http://www.d-s-t.com/scs/data/21w_8554-00d.htm
>>
>> "Excursion, lin./max. : ±6.5 / ±10 mm"
>
>Um - 10mm*2= (peak to peak)
>
>You do the math.

And here's the *normal* definition of xmax (in German):

Xmax: mm Maximale lineare Auslenkung in eine Richtung (bevor der
Speaker verzerrt)

You do the translation.

Hint, look for "in eine Richtung".

[JBorg]

> trotsky wrote:
>> JBorg wrote:
>>> trotsky wrote:
>>>> JBorg wrote:
>>>>> trotsky wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.jupiter-audio.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And be brutally honest.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The website has a graceful layout, it will be interesting to
>>>> read the opinions of those who will have the chance to audition
>>>> Europa and/or Subterfuge here at RAO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why the name Jupiter ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Because the sound is out of this world. I thought that was obvious.
>>
>>
>> To be brutally honest, it was not obvious. No one has yet to claimed
>> auditioning Europa and/or Subterfuge to comment on sounds so far in the
>> thread except one.
>>
>> Jupiter is out of this world-- that was obvious.
>
>
> I'm sorry, I thought everyone read the site.

Although it was not specifically requested or required to read the contents,
from other's pov, some will forego the literary prose that mfr. employ to
desrcibe their product lines. So I focused on the site's visual presentation.
It is unwarranted to have to say sorry, simply 'cause I decided to focused
on the site's descriptive visual appeal.

I can also read.

> The catch phrase I use is "Sound that's out of this world."

A metaphor. Since these products are the "initial" offerings from
JupiterAudio, why do you think that this is an effective catch phrase to
enchant audiophiles at large?

[George M. Middius]

JBorg said:

> > The catch phrase I use is "Sound that's out of this world."
>
> A metaphor. Since these products are the "initial" offerings from
> JupiterAudio, why do you think that this is an effective catch phrase to
> enchant audiophiles at large?

Now ask him why "sound that's out of this world" is supposed to be
alluring in light of the known fact that poor Greg's own orbit is
distinctly nonterrestrial.

[Lionel Chapuis]

Lionel Chapuis a écrit :
> George M. Middius a écrit :
>
>>
>> JBorg said:
>>
>>
>>>> The catch phrase I use is "Sound that's out of this world."
>>>
>>>
>>> A metaphor. Since these products are the "initial" offerings from
>>> JupiterAudio, why do you think that this is an effective catch phrase to
>>> enchant audiophiles at large?
>>
>>
>>
>> Now ask him why "sound that's out of this world" is supposed to be
>> alluring in light of the known fact that poor Greg's own orbit is
>> distinctly nonterrestrial.
>>
>>
> Anyway it's far better than to be subterrestrian !
> LOL
>
Sorry, I totaly forget what will be starting from now your daily
*"**** OFF !"*

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> ink.net
>
> >Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> >
> >
> >>trotsky wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Of course you might have had to spend more than 25 bucks.
>
>
> >>>Now that's a little weird. At one point you said something about
> >>>making your own sub but now you're mentioning Adire. Can you
> >>>explain this please?
>
>
> >>Cause they'd probably sell you their drivers separately. Duh.
>
>
> >There's nothing magical about Adire products, Joe.
>
>
> ...except they sell a lot of really pretty good Xmax for the dollar. Unh,
> sorry to blow your mind with that engineering lingo Singh, but you did
> brag
> about being an engineer on your web site. I thought I'd give you a new
> experience and treat you like you actually were an engineer and knew squat
> about loudspeaker technology.



Arny, you are behaving irrationally, as ever. Xmax is just one factor
in driver design, it doesn't really tell you how the finished product
will sound. Most of these drivers designed for big Xmaxs tend to sound
rubbery and unmusical. But don't take my word for it--if you can outdo
me on any level than go for it. I already have a far better looking
website than you, which is what's really getting your panties in a bunch.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> ink.net
>
>
> >You're talking out of your ass. If you can determine how a speaker
> >sounds by looking at a picture you aren't bright.
>
>
> Like I keep telling you Singh, you can't tell that a speaker sounds
> good by
> looking at driver specs, but you can weed out a lot that have a high
> probability of being mediocre or worse. How is life out there in the
> weeds?


Right, so what you're "telling me" is that Oberlander is full of crap,
but you lack the necessary apparatus to do so. It must save you a ton
of money on Viagra, anyway.

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:

> Being a showcase dealer on Audiogon will cost me $400 a month. And
> that's just one site. Did you not understand the statement?

You **** and moan about your marketing costs as if it were
justification for your huge markups. The reality is... $400
a month.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said to ****-for-Brains:

> I already have a far better looking
> website than you, which is what's really getting your panties in a bunch.

Yes indeed. I really wish you the best, Greg, despite the razzing
about your customary irrationality earlier in the week. I do
appreciate the irony of Kroo**** instructing you (but not duh-Mikey)
on how to run your fledgling business. After all, Arnii's stellar
accomplishments are truly a beacon to fledgling entrepreneurs
everywhere.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >> Being a showcase dealer on Audiogon will cost me $400 a month. And
> >> that's just one site. Did you not understand the statement?
> >
> >You **** and moan about your marketing costs as if it were
> >justification for your huge markups. The reality is... $400
> >a month.
>
> And you seem to think that marketing costs shouldn't be involved in
> calculating a markup.

He's also conveniently forgotten the long list of contingencies
enumerated by Dr. Z that can swallow a profit margin in no time.