Loudspeaker timing [Archive]

Arny Krueger

September 29th 03, 10:36 AM

"Sam" > wrote in message
om

> Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alignment scheme in
> their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary?

No, because the same goal, which is time-alignment of the drivers at the
crossover points, can also be accomplished by means design of the of the
crossovers.

>Can people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
> frequencies and low frequencies?

I don't think you are saying what you intended to say. There's no difference
in speed between high and low frequencies, but there can be a difference in
relative timing of signals. Yes, differences in time alignment can be heard,
but at higher frequencies they are mostly heard due to frequency response
variations that they cause. If equal-sized signals from the woofer and
tweeter aren't time-aligned around the usual crossover point of say, 3 KHz,
they won't add up properly to give flat response.

>When you listen to a live orchestra
> do you hear the bass drum before you hear a high from a flute?

Only if he bass drum plays first! But that's not the problem that stepped or
sloped baffles are trying to address.

I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the flute
in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the players are
usually so far apart. The players are humans and they synchronize to each
other based on their hearing, which includes significant delays as sound
travels across the stage and as their reflexes take finite amounts of time.

The bass drum is usually someplace near the center or left back, while the
flute player is closer to the center-right front. The flute player is closer
to the listener if the listener is in the center of the room, but if the
listener is to the far left, the bass drum player might be closer or at a
similar difference. Bottom line, the differences in distance in the concert
hall are usually measured in feet, while the differences in distance due to
the design of speaker enclosures is probably a foot or less. The speed of
sound is basically constant, so the differences in timings due to locations
of musicians in the concert hall and the differences in timings due to
locations of speaker drivers in enclosures are vastly different.

From the standpoint of the microphones that are used to record, there are
timing differences measured in many milliseconds among the various
instruments in an orchestra. If you look at speaker drivers on a flat baffle
board, the timing differences due to mounting the speakers (all within one
foot) are probably less than a millisecond. Not to be compared!

> Can someone explain to me the significance of pace, rhythm, and timing in
> our audio playback systems

Wrong criteria, all of them. See my former comments about smooth, flat
frequency response. Ironically sloped and stepped baffles can also add
frequency response variations due to effects like diffraction.

The idea of time-aligning speakers traces back to sound stages in Hollywood
in the 1930s. The monitor speakers of the day were based on horns, and there
were path differences between woofers and tweeters, sometimes of many feet.
These were due to the differences in the design of the woofers and tweeters.
Timing could vary by 3-10 milliseconds or more. Sharp sounds like tap
dancing were observed to be undesirably changed and highly colored by those
time differences. Because the differences were so gross, they were important
concerns.

In contrast, consider a modern 2-way speaker with a 8" or smaller woofer and
a dome tweeter. The path difference might be 6 inches or less. Timing due to
path length differences are less than a millisecond. This is an entirely
different kind of perception than those due to timing differences or 5 or 10
milliseconds.

Arny Krueger

September 29th 03, 11:20 AM

"Bob Morein" > wrote in message
ws.com \

This would be a forged post from Brian McCartey.

Headers:

X-Abuse-Report:
Message-ID: m>
Path:
news5.aus1.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nn tp.aus1.giganews.com!borde
r1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!in.100 proofnews.com!in.100proofn
ews.com!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!chi1.webusenet.com!news. webusenet.com!newsfeed-eas
t.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.sonicnews.com !not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:22:00 GMT
Lines: 254
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418
Subject: Re: Loudspeaker timing
From: Bob Morein >
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
References: >
>
Mime-version: 1.0
Organization: Comcast Pennsylvania
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com rec.audio.opinion:683216

Headers from a *real* Bob Morien post:

Path:
news5.aus1.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nn tp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.
giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POS TED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:58:55 -0500
Reply-To: "Bob Morein" >
From: "Bob Morein" >
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
References: >
m>
Subject: Re: Loudspeaker timing
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 02:58:54 -0400
Organization: nowhere.com
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: >
Lines: 33
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.83.128.158
X-Trace:
sv3-dTjC+IUQdKzyFqfXdtq3RwYkLUHKNKRzPYbH/jcpZMCqNsbSaxuCT3WfIMiICyiAsCFljGAh
Lk+9ovo!oXQ2oZsE73h8Id8T1xT+Wu5ptqkVlnYjaZOLc1l5+t 80FGhWd9UFyjhd3P5VkQ==
X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Complaints-To:

action: forward to the australian ISP.

> On 29/9/03 19:36, in article , "Arny
> Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the
>> flute in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the
>> players are usually so far apart
>
> I think it's YOU that needs to think this through. The bass drum and
> flute are perfectly synchronized because the players are
> professionals that are trained to follow not just audio cues but a
> conductor.
>
> Please don't offer opinions in areas you have no competence.
> Whatever that might be.
>
>
> Bob Morein
> --
>
>
> http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/4853918.htm
>
>> Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
>> By L. STUART DITZEN
>> Philadelphia Inquirer
>>
>> PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral
>> program at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was
>> uncommonly smart.
>>
>> They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too -
>> so much so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S.
>> Supreme Court to challenge his dismissal.
>
> The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.
>>
>> "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said
>> Morein, a pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an
>> inventive genius. "And we do come to a larger issue here."
>
> An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
> "pleasantly" eccentric.
>
>> A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
>> Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely
>> unnoticed by the media and the public.
>
> Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.
>>
>> But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.
>>
>> Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after
>> eight years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in
>> electrical and computer engineering.
>
> Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
> BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>>
>> Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only
>> after his thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein
>> had developed in a rarefied area of thought called "estimation
>> theory" and arranged to have it patented.
>
> A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
> done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.
>
>>
>> In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R.
>> Sylvester ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.
>
> An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
> Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.
>
>>
>> Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she
>> ordered Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.
>
> Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
> offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
> money to cover up his lack of productivity.
>>
>> That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a
>> long tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in
>> academic decisions.
>>
>> Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
>> representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed
>> to the state Superior Court.
>>
>> The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001
>> and restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel.
>> And the time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out
>> of academic affairs was reasserted.
>>
>> The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an
>> ordinary litigation, that would have been the end of it.
>>
>> But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the
>> odds, has asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.
>
> Daddy throws more money down the crapper.
>
>> His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is
>> important even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a
>> university has a right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or
>> intellectual property - without compensation.
>>
>> "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a
>> slave," said Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He
>> feels that what happened to him is pretty common."
>
> It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
> the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.
>
>
>> Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his
>> claim that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."
>>
>> "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared
>> Hamburg. "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant
>> guy, but his intelligence should be used for the advancement of
>> society rather than pursuing self-destructive litigation."
>
> No **** sherlock.
>
>> The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
>> committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty
>> adviser, Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.
>>
>> His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
>> minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial
>> processes and electronic systems.
>>
>> The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt
>> to calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside
>> workings of a nuclear plant or a computer.
>
> My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
> Robert Morein, only sawdust.
>
>>
>> Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint
>> against Kalata and concluded that the associate professor had done
>> nothing wrong. Kalata, through a university lawyer, declined to
>> comment.
>>
>> At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that
>> Kalata in 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for
>> his thesis. It related to estimation theory.
>>
>> Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition
>> that a Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
>> International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation
>> method for it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and
>> conveyors used in industrial processes.
>>
>> Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
>> inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to
>> address the problem Kalata had presented.
>>
>> Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with
>> K-Tron.
>>
>> K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as
>> co-inventors.
>>
>> Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt
>> "locked into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he
>> testified, he became alienated from Kalata.
>>
>> As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to
>> K-Tron. The company never capitalized on the technology and
>> eventually allowed the patent to lapse. No one made any money from
>> it.
>
> Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
> of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.
>
>> In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
>> department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual
>> property, and asked for a new faculty adviser.
>
> The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.
>
>> He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
>> Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.
>>
>> Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed
>> to complete his thesis.
>
> So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
> (a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!
>
>>
>> Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.
>
> Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
> usenet proves it.
>
>>
>> Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this
>> court's opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and
>> ill will."
>
> So much for political machine judges.
>>
>> The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to
>> hear only about 100 of them.
>>
>> Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject
>> Morein's appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a
>> student's right to intellectual property - was not central to the
>> litigation in the Pennsylvania courts.
>
>> Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must
>> pursue it.
>
> Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been
> chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on
> anything.
>
> Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
> Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.
>
>>
>> "I had to seek closure," he said.
>>
>> Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career
>> he had hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.
>
> Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
> BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>>
>> As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest
>> income from stock investments. He has written a film script that he
>> is trying to make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's
>> home he is working on an invention, an industrial pump so powerful
>> it could cut steel with a bulletlike stream of water.
>
>
> FAILED STUDENT
> FAILED MOVIE MAKER
> FAILED SCREENWRITER
> FAILED INVESTOR
> FAILED DRIVER
> FAILED SON
> FAILED PARENTS
> FAILED INVENTOR
> FAILED PLAINTIFF
> FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
> FAILED HUMAN
> FAILED
> FAILED
>
>> But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.
>>
>> "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
>> gnawing thing."

Bob Morein

September 29th 03, 11:22 AM

On 29/9/03 19:36, in article , "Arny
Krueger" > wrote:

> I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the flute
> in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the players are
> usually so far apart

I think it's YOU that needs to think this through. The bass drum and flute
are perfectly synchronized because the players are professionals that are
trained to follow not just audio cues but a conductor.

Please don't offer opinions in areas you have no competence. Whatever that
might be.

Bob Morein
--

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/4853918.htm

> Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
> By L. STUART DITZEN
> Philadelphia Inquirer
>
> PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
> at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.
>
> They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
> so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
> to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.
>
> "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
> pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
> do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

> A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
> Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
> by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.
>
> But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.
>
> Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
> years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
> computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
> thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
> rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
> patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.

>
> In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
> ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.

>
> Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
> Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.
>
> That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
> tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.
>
> Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
> representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
> state Superior Court.
>
> The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
> restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
> time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
> affairs was reasserted.
>
> The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
> litigation, that would have been the end of it.
>
> But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
> asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

> His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
> even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
> right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
> compensation.
>
> "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
> Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
> happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.

> Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
> that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."
>
> "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
> "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
> intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
> pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

> The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
> committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
> Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.
>
> His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
> minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
> and electronic systems.
>
> The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
> calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
> nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.

>
> Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
> and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
> through a university lawyer, declined to comment.
>
> At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
> 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
> related to estimation theory.
>
> Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
> Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
> International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
> it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
> industrial processes.
>
> Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
> inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
> problem Kalata had presented.
>
> Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.
>
> K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.
>
> Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
> into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
> became alienated from Kalata.
>
> As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
> The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
> patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

> In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
> department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
> asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

> He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
> Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.
>
> Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
> complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!

>
> Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.

>
> Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
> opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
> about 100 of them.
>
> Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
> appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
> intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
> Pennsylvania courts.

> Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been
chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on
anything.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

>
> "I had to seek closure," he said.
>
> Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
> hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
> from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
> make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
> an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
> bulletlike stream of water.

FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

> But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.
>
> "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
> gnawing thing."

Bob Morein

September 29th 03, 11:22 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
> ws.com \
>
> This would be a forged post from Brian McCartey.
>
Yes, it would be forged.
And you have my rare compliment on a good exposition.

Bob Morein

September 29th 03, 11:22 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Morein wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Brian l. McCarty wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 29/9/03 14:27, in article
> , "Sam"
> >
> > >
> >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in
> >>>>their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nope. For the theory to be accurate, you'd have to sit in one very
> >>>precisely measure location, and never move your head even a millimeter.
> >
> > It
> >
> >>>makes good marketing copy, however.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Can
> >>>>people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
> >>>>frequencies and low frequencies?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nope.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I think you have the answer. Time alignment has long been repudiated
as
> >>>speaker designer snake oil.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Sir, I just want to say that you are a *jerk*. ;-)
> >>
> >>Lionel
> >>
> >
> > It's a rare opportunity to address Brian personally.
> > I second Lionel's opinion.
> > You are a *jerk*.
> >
> >
> >
> I know it's really mesquin and vain but sometime vengeance is as good as
> a fresh beer. ;-)
>
You know it, bud!

Arny Krueger

September 29th 03, 11:45 AM

"Bob Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
>> ws.com \
>>
>> This would be a forged post from Brian McCartey.
>>
> Yes, it would be forged.
> And you have my rare compliment on a good exposition.

I would recommend that as many people as possible complain to Brian's ISP by
forwarding the forged post, including a copy of the headers,
.

This is not a futile action if enough people get on board.

If anybody needs help obtaining the headers, here's they are:

Headers for Brian McCartey's forged post:

X-Abuse-Report:
Message-ID: m>
Path:
news5.aus1.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nn tp.aus1.giganews.com!borde
r1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!in.100 proofnews.com!in.100proofn
ews.com!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!chi1.webusenet.com!news. webusenet.com!newsfeed-eas
t.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.sonicnews.com !not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:22:00 GMT
Lines: 254
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418
Subject: Re: Loudspeaker timing
From: Bob Morein >
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
References: >
>
Mime-version: 1.0
Organization: Comcast Pennsylvania
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com rec.audio.opinion:683216

dave weil

September 29th 03, 02:48 PM

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty"
> wrote:

>> Can
>> people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
>> frequencies and low frequencies?
>
>Nope.

Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall.

Arny Krueger

September 29th 03, 02:59 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Can
>>> people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
>>> frequencies and low frequencies?
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall.

Lovely. Weil re-writes the laws of physics to read that the speed of sound
is significantly and perceptibly dependent on frequency.

Singh lets Weil pretend to review one of his POS speakers, and now Weil is
rewriting physics books!

LOL!

dave weil

September 29th 03, 03:18 PM

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:59:59 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Can
>>>> people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
>>>> frequencies and low frequencies?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall.
>
>Lovely. Weil re-writes the laws of physics to read that the speed of sound
>is significantly and perceptibly dependent on frequency.
>
>Singh lets Weil pretend to review one of his POS speakers, and now Weil is
>rewriting physics books!
>
>LOL!

Obviously, *you* haven't been paying attention in church.

normanstrong

September 29th 03, 04:43 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty"
> > wrote:
>
> >> Can
> >> people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
> >> frequencies and low frequencies?
> >
> >Nope.
>
> Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large
hall.

I don't believe that the speed of sound is frequency dependent. If it
was, an octave would only be in tune at a specific distance, which we
know is not the case.

Norm Strong

The Devil

September 29th 03, 04:56 PM

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:59:59 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Singh lets Weil pretend to review one of his POS speakers, and now Weil is
>rewriting physics books!

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but why exactly do you think
dave would fake a review of Greg's speakers?

>LOL!

Lies Oh Lies.

--
td

Bob Morein

September 29th 03, 04:59 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty"
> > wrote:
>
> >> Can
> >> people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
> >> frequencies and low frequencies?
> >
> >Nope.
>
> Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall.

He probably has.
He plays or played multiple musical instruments.
Although he is currently insane, he may have been fairly normal earlier in
life.

Bob Morein

September 29th 03, 05:06 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty"
> > wrote:
>
> >> Can
> >> people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
> >> frequencies and low frequencies?
> >
> >Nope.
>
> Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall.

You may be confused by the fact that reverberation is frequency dependent.
However, the speed of propagation of sound is not:
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~marj/wwwphotonics/LinPP.html

trotsky

September 29th 03, 05:58 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "dave weil" wrote in message
>
>
> >On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty"
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Can
> >>>people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
> >>>frequencies and low frequencies?
> >>
> >>Nope.
> >
> >Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall.
>
>
> Lovely. Weil re-writes the laws of physics to read that the speed of sound
> is significantly and perceptibly dependent on frequency.
>
> Singh lets Weil pretend to review one of his POS speakers, and now Weil is
> rewriting physics books!
>
> LOL!

I'm laughing too, at your supposed religious beliefs!

Arny Krueger

September 29th 03, 06:16 PM

"Bob Morein" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> On 29/9/03 23:59, in article , "Arny
> Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > Lovely. Weil re-writes the laws of physics to read that the speed of
sound
> > is significantly and perceptibly dependent on frequency.
> >
> > Singh lets Weil pretend to review one of his POS speakers, and now Weil
is
> > rewriting physics books!

> You'd be surprised how much "accepted" physics is just plain wrong.
> Especially when it comes to audio.

Yet another forgery!

X-Abuse-Report:
Message-ID: m>
Path:
news5.aus1.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nn tp.aus1.giganews.com!borde
r1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclon e-sf.pbi.net!216.218.192.2
42!news.he.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com !easynews!newsfeed-east.nn
tpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.sonicnews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:32:43 GMT
Lines: 13
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418
Subject: Re: Loudspeaker timing
From: Bob Morein >
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
References: >
m>
>
>
Mime-version: 1.0
Organization: Comcast Pennsylvania
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com rec.audio.opinion:683319

Bob Morein

September 29th 03, 06:24 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
> ws.com...
> > On 29/9/03 23:59, in article , "Arny
> > Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > Lovely. Weil re-writes the laws of physics to read that the speed of
> sound
> > > is significantly and perceptibly dependent on frequency.
> > >
> > > Singh lets Weil pretend to review one of his POS speakers, and now
Weil
> is
> > > rewriting physics books!
>
> > You'd be surprised how much "accepted" physics is just plain wrong.
> > Especially when it comes to audio.
>
> Yet another forgery!

I can tell without even looking at the headers :).

Bob Morein

September 29th 03, 06:32 PM

On 29/9/03 23:59, in article , "Arny
Krueger" > wrote:

> Lovely. Weil re-writes the laws of physics to read that the speed of sound
> is significantly and perceptibly dependent on frequency.
>
> Singh lets Weil pretend to review one of his POS speakers, and now Weil is
> rewriting physics books!

You'd be surprised how much "accepted" physics is just plain wrong.
Especially when it comes to audio.

Sam

September 29th 03, 08:59 PM

So you are saying that loudspeaker timing has to do with the audio
signal going to the loudspeakers and not the actual speed of the
sounds coming from the drivers. I made the false assumption that
different frequencies of sound traveled at different speeds. Why are
the signals going to the woofer and tweeter not aligned with one
another? Does the crossover network cause a phase shift in the
signals that pass through them? Speakers and their design really
fascinate me but there is much I need to learn. Do you know of a good
website that explains the whole timing issue?

Sam

Bob Morein

September 29th 03, 09:23 PM

"Sam" > wrote in message
om...
> So you are saying that loudspeaker timing has to do with the audio
> signal going to the loudspeakers and not the actual speed of the
> sounds coming from the drivers. I made the false assumption that
> different frequencies of sound traveled at different speeds. Why are
> the signals going to the woofer and tweeter not aligned with one
> another? Does the crossover network cause a phase shift in the
> signals that pass through them? Speakers and their design really
> fascinate me but there is much I need to learn. Do you know of a good
> website that explains the whole timing issue?
>
> Sam

I don't know of a website, but here's a brief rundown:

1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds slower to the
driving electrical signal. The part of the problem caused by driver delay
can be corrected by sloping the baffle, so as to place the tweeter further
away from the listener than the woofer.

2. A typical crossover makes time alignment impossible. At best, a phase
alignment at the crossover point can be accomplished. Time alignment is
possible only with a "first order crossover", which allows considerable
leakage of low frequency input to the tweeter. This stresses the tweeter,
with a tendency to promote thermal burnout. Tweeters put into systems with
first order crossovers must be specially constructed or used lightly.

3. You may hear the terms "phase alignment" and "time alignment". These are
two different criteria. In principle, time alignment is a tighter, more
difficult design criteria. For continuous wave signals, the result is the
same. For signals which contain non continuous wave components, ie., music,
they are different.

Auditory research suggests that complex noises are not localized by time
delay. However, the ear can distinguish intra-aural time delays as small as
6 microseconds. This suggests that while a time aligned speaker may not help
one better distinguish the position of a violinist, it may help the listener
distinguish the positions of percussive noises or other transients.

The Devil

September 29th 03, 11:45 PM

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:45:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>I often engage in adolescentilism.

That's very honest of you.

--
td

Arny Krueger

September 30th 03, 02:51 AM

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:ledhnv4unltuletcnna9t19jmtcd8qhndv@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:45:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
never wrote:

> >I often engage in adolescentilism.

> I lie and drink a lot because reality is way to bitter for me.

Thanks for sharing, Graham.

Arny Krueger

September 30th 03, 02:59 AM

"Sam" > wrote in message
om...

> So you are saying that loudspeaker timing has to do with the audio
> signal going to the loudspeakers

No, it has to do with the sound coming out of the speakers. The timing of
the sound coming out of a speakers is partially determined by the signal
going into the speakers.

> and not the actual speed of the sounds coming from the drivers.

The speed of sound is essentially the same from all of the speakers in the
system.

> I made the false assumption that
> different frequencies of sound traveled at different speeds.

Yes, you did, and thank you for seeing your error.

> Why are
> the signals going to the woofer and tweeter not aligned with one
> another?

They may or may not be aligned with each other, depending on the crossover
system design.

One effect you haven't mentioned is the fact that the time delay between the
electrical signal going into the speaker, and the acoustic signal (sound)
coming out of the speaker also varies with the speaker type and frequency.

> Does the crossover network cause a phase shift in the
> signals that pass through them?

Yes.

>Speakers and their design really fascinate me but there is much I need to
learn.

>Do you know of a good website that explains the whole timing issue?

Introduction:

http://www.libinst.com/tpfd.htm

Very theoretical:

http://www.whise.com.au/time_delay.htm

More practical:

http://www.mlssa.com/mlssa/BROCHUREp2.htm

A book on the topic and others:

http://www.trueaudio.com/ild_rev1.htm

The Devil

September 30th 03, 04:43 AM

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:51:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> >I often engage in adolescentilism.
>
>> Tha
t
>>doesn't surprise me at all.
>
>I forgot to mention that I'm a repulsive pervert who should be
>strung up by his balls.

I totally agree.

--
td

Goofball_star_dot_etal

September 30th 03, 06:50 PM

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:23:45 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
wrote:

>1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds slower to the
>driving electrical signal.

One might take some notice if one wanted to throw them. This must be
one of the worst cases of a feral physicist technobabble.

You are loosing(tm) it Bob, IMO.

Ask Dick to clean your clock.

This group is in danger of going to the dogs. . .

Bob Morein

September 30th 03, 11:47 PM

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:23:45 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
> wrote:
>
> >1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds slower to
the
> >driving electrical signal.
>
> One might take some notice if one wanted to throw them. This must be
> one of the worst cases of a feral physicist technobabble.
>
> You are loosing(tm) it Bob, IMO.
>
The wording is an attempt to avoid confusing the reader with moving mass,
resonant frequency, and Q.
Why don't you give it a shot? It could be better.

Lionel

September 30th 03, 11:56 PM

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:23:45 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds slower to the
>>driving electrical signal.
>
>
> One might take some notice if one wanted to throw them. This must be
> one of the worst cases of a feral physicist technobabble.
>
> You are loosing(tm) it Bob, IMO.
>
> Ask Dick to clean your clock.
>
> This group is in danger of going to the dogs. . .

Only "in danger" ?

normanstrong

October 1st 03, 05:14 PM

My loudspeaker had great timing. It showed up on the market exactly
when I needed a new speaker.

Norm Strong

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 1st 03, 07:10 PM

On 01 Oct 2003 18:16:29 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

>"normanstrong" wrote:
>
>>My loudspeaker had great timing. It showed up on the market exactly
>>when I needed a new speaker.
>>
>>Norm Strong
>
>My experience is that speakers may often have unfortunate or really bad timing.
>For example I have a woofer that arrived last week but my deadline isn't for
>another month. OTOH I often receive speakers today for a deadline of yesterday.
>

The trucks don't have the right weight.

Nousaine

October 1st 03, 07:16 PM

"normanstrong" wrote:

>My loudspeaker had great timing. It showed up on the market exactly
>when I needed a new speaker.
>
>Norm Strong

My experience is that speakers may often have unfortunate or really bad timing.
For example I have a woofer that arrived last week but my deadline isn't for
another month. OTOH I often receive speakers today for a deadline of yesterday.

George M. Middius

October 1st 03, 07:47 PM

Goofy said:

> The trucks don't have the right weight.

That's what you get for hauling too many willies.

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 1st 03, 08:49 PM

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:47:46 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:23:45 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds slower to
>the
>> >driving electrical signal.
>>
>> One might take some notice if one wanted to throw them. This must be
>> one of the worst cases of a feral physicist technobabble.
>>
>> You are loosing(tm) it Bob, IMO.
>>
>The wording is an attempt to avoid confusing the reader with moving mass,
>resonant frequency, and Q.
>Why don't you give it a shot? It could be better.
>
>
It is not just a case of dumbing down the wording for the confused
reader. I fail to see a simple relationship between mass and time
delay. If you were to increase just the mass of the moving parts of
an ideal driver, for a frequency well above resonance, the amplitude
of acceleration, velocity and displacement would all be reduced in
proportion to mass but the phase/time relationship between air
pressure and applied voltage would be the same. If you scale down a
driver in proportion to wavelength, a lot more than just the mass is
changed including the applied force, but again, well above resonance,
the applied force and therefore acceleration, is proportional to the
applied current ( or voltage for constant impedance) and the velocity
and displacement just follow along in proportion, ninety degrees
apart. (assuming a ideal rigid structure). I can see no increased
delay due to increased moving mass of drivers. Scaling can be a tricky
thing, you will note but the motion of "ideal" drivers is not. Maybe
you are thinking of something tricky but it came out dumb - "heavy
equals slow/late"

There is also something dumb here too, we noted. . .

"Auditory research suggests that complex noises are not localized by
time delay. However, the ear can distinguish intra-aural time delays
as small as 6 microseconds. This suggests that while a time aligned
speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
percussive noises or other transients."

How can you change "intra-aural time delays" by any identical change
to two identical speakers?

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 1st 03, 09:49 PM

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:47:20 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Goofy said:
>
>> The trucks don't have the right weight.
>
>That's what you get for hauling too many willies.
>
>

Just say NO to goofy audio.

Bob Morein

October 1st 03, 10:09 PM

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:47:46 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:23:45 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds slower
to
> >the
> >> >driving electrical signal.
> >>
> >> One might take some notice if one wanted to throw them. This must be
> >> one of the worst cases of a feral physicist technobabble.
> >>
> >> You are loosing(tm) it Bob, IMO.
> >>
> >The wording is an attempt to avoid confusing the reader with moving mass,
> >resonant frequency, and Q.
> >Why don't you give it a shot? It could be better.
> >
> >
> It is not just a case of dumbing down the wording for the confused
> reader. I fail to see a simple relationship between mass and time
> delay. If you were to increase just the mass of the moving parts of
> an ideal driver, for a frequency well above resonance, the amplitude
> of acceleration, velocity and displacement would all be reduced in
> proportion to mass but the phase/time relationship between air
> pressure and applied voltage would be the same. If you scale down a
> driver in proportion to wavelength, a lot more than just the mass is
> changed including the applied force, but again, well above resonance,
> the applied force and therefore acceleration, is proportional to the
> applied current ( or voltage for constant impedance) and the velocity
> and displacement just follow along in proportion, ninety degrees
> apart. (assuming a ideal rigid structure). I can see no increased
> delay due to increased moving mass of drivers. Scaling can be a tricky
> thing, you will note but the motion of "ideal" drivers is not. Maybe
> you are thinking of something tricky but it came out dumb - "heavy
> equals slow/late"

All correct, above. I was trying to give Sam, who was not aware that the
speed of sound in free space is independent of frequency, something to grab
on to. Doing that, while exhibiting the level of erudition we expect, is
for me an unsolved problem. So I decided to focus on the relationship
between resonant frequency and group delay, and resonant frequency, I
decided, was best represented by one constant in the equation, mass.

If you can think of a way to present more information to Sam, who has just
learned that c is a constant, it would be useful to all of us.
Give it another shot. I'd certainly add it to my repertoire of answers, as
the question will inevitably occur again.

>
> There is also something dumb here too, we noted. . .
>
> "Auditory research suggests that complex noises are not localized by
> time delay. However, the ear can distinguish intra-aural time delays
> as small as 6 microseconds. This suggests that while a time aligned
> speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
> violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
> percussive noises or other transients."
>
> How can you change "intra-aural time delays" by any identical change
> to two identical speakers?

That's a good question. It's intuitively appealing to me that the ear would
better be able to localize an impulse if it actually looks like an impulse,
as opposed to what you and I both know comes out of a non time-aligned
system. And that's all there is. I have no testing, blind or otherwise, to
back it up. I do know I enjoy the hell out of a set of Spicas when they're
set up right.

Lionel

October 2nd 03, 07:39 AM

Bob Morein wrote:

> On 10/2/03 5:49, in article ,
> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote:
>
>
>>This suggests that while a time aligned
>>speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
>>violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
>>percussive noises or other transients."
>
>
> You can suggest all you want, there is no evidence that time alignment is
> anything but audio voodoo. You understand the concept of "scientific
> evidence", don't you?
>
>

Bob Morein

October 2nd 03, 07:50 AM

On 10/2/03 5:49, in article ,
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote:

> This suggests that while a time aligned
> speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
> violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
> percussive noises or other transients."

You can suggest all you want, there is no evidence that time alignment is
anything but audio voodoo. You understand the concept of "scientific
evidence", don't you?

--

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/4853918.htm

> Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
> By L. STUART DITZEN
> Philadelphia Inquirer
>
> PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
> at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.
>
> They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
> so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
> to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.
>
> "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
> pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
> do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

> A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
> Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
> by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.
>
> But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.
>
> Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
> years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
> computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
> thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
> rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
> patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.

>
> In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
> ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.

>
> Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
> Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.
>
> That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
> tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.
>
> Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
> representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
> state Superior Court.
>
> The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
> restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
> time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
> affairs was reasserted.
>
> The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
> litigation, that would have been the end of it.
>
> But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
> asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

> His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
> even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
> right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
> compensation.
>
> "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
> Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
> happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.

> Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
> that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."
>
> "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
> "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
> intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
> pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

> The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
> committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
> Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.
>
> His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
> minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
> and electronic systems.
>
> The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
> calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
> nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.

>
> Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
> and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
> through a university lawyer, declined to comment.
>
> At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
> 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
> related to estimation theory.
>
> Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
> Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
> International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
> it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
> industrial processes.
>
> Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
> inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
> problem Kalata had presented.
>
> Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.
>
> K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.
>
> Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
> into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
> became alienated from Kalata.
>
> As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
> The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
> patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

> In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
> department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
> asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

> He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
> Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.
>
> Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
> complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!

>
> Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.

>
> Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
> opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
> about 100 of them.
>
> Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
> appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
> intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
> Pennsylvania courts.

> Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been
chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on
anything.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

>
> "I had to seek closure," he said.
>
> Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
> hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
> from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
> make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
> an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
> bulletlike stream of water.

FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

> But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.
>
> "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
> gnawing thing."

Doomed to another miserable 10 years or so as a failed member of what
is mostly a productive human race. Most of us have successes and
failures, but the tough get up and succeed again. And again. And
again.

But a twisted few are forever failures.

Thanks for the kind summary of Robert Morein's failed existence from
the Philadelphia Inquirer.

A Real Brian McCarty
Successful

Bob Morein

October 2nd 03, 07:59 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Morein wrote:
>
> > On 10/2/03 5:49, in article ,
> > "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This suggests that while a time aligned
> >>speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
> >>violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
> >>percussive noises or other transients."
> >
> >
> > You can suggest all you want, there is no evidence that time alignment
is
> > anything but audio voodoo. You understand the concept of "scientific
> > evidence", don't you?
> >
> >
>
Thanks for your sympathy, Lionel.

I wonder if there is anyone reading this who might bring this to the
attention of the Far North Queensland Film and Television Association, of
which Brian L. McCarty is secretary.

Lionel

October 2nd 03, 10:15 AM

Bob Morein wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bob Morein wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 10/2/03 5:49, in article ,
>>>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This suggests that while a time aligned
>>>>speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
>>>>violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
>>>>percussive noises or other transients."
>>>
>>>
>>>You can suggest all you want, there is no evidence that time alignment
>
> is
>
>>>anything but audio voodoo. You understand the concept of "scientific
>>>evidence", don't you?
>>>
>>>
>>
> Thanks for your sympathy, Lionel.
>
> I wonder if there is anyone reading this who might bring this to the
> attention of the Far North Queensland Film and Television Association, of
> which Brian L. McCarty is secretary.
>
>
>
>
Still a long time I use to detest any kind of McCartism. ;-)

Bob Morein

October 2nd 03, 11:10 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Morein wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Bob Morein wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 10/2/03 5:49, in article ,
> >>>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>This suggests that while a time aligned
> >>>>speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
> >>>>violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
> >>>>percussive noises or other transients."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You can suggest all you want, there is no evidence that time alignment
> >
> > is
> >
> >>>anything but audio voodoo. You understand the concept of "scientific
> >>>evidence", don't you?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> > Thanks for your sympathy, Lionel.
> >
> > I wonder if there is anyone reading this who might bring this to the
> > attention of the Far North Queensland Film and Television Association,
of
> > which Brian L. McCarty is secretary.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Still a long time I use to detest any kind of McCartism. ;-)

There is a similarity.
But I think McCarty has more kangaroos for his court :).
>

Lionel

October 2nd 03, 06:24 PM

Bob Morein wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bob Morein wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 10/2/03 5:49, in article ,
>>>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This suggests that while a time aligned
>>>>speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
>>>>violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
>>>>percussive noises or other transients."
>>>
>>>
>>>You can suggest all you want, there is no evidence that time alignment
>
> is
>
>>>anything but audio voodoo. You understand the concept of "scientific
>>>evidence", don't you?
>>>
>>>
>>
> Thanks for your sympathy, Lionel.
>
> I wonder if there is anyone reading this who might bring this to the
> attention of the Far North Queensland Film and Television Association, of
> which Brian L. McCarty is secretary.
>
>
>
>
Bob,
I got an answer from sonic-news support requesting that you also submit
the complaint.
Lionel

jeffc

October 3rd 03, 04:47 AM

"Sam" > wrote in message
om...
> Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in
> their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? Can
> people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
> frequencies and low frequencies?

Why do you make it sound so simple? Let's say there's a tweeter and
midrange. Each plays a frequency very close to the crossover frequency
between them. In fact, there is overlap since the dropoff slopes aren't
immediate (they "roll").

> When you listen to a live orchestra
> do you hear the bass drum before you hear a high from a flute?

No, you're missing the point. In addition to the fact that we're not
talking about frequencies necessarily that far apart, the fact is that in a
concert hall the frequencies arive when they arrive. The microphone picks
it up at one source. It is this signal that must be played back verbatim.
It should be played back as one single complex sound wave, just like when it
was played. If it's broken up into segments (frequency "chunks") that
aren't played at exactly the same time, it could be a real mess.

jeffc

October 3rd 03, 05:01 AM

"Brian l. McCarty" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> On 29/9/03 14:27, in article
> , "Sam"
>
> wrote:
>
> > Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in
> > their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary?
>
> Nope. For the theory to be accurate, you'd have to sit in one very
> precisely measure location, and never move your head even a millimeter.
It
> makes good marketing copy, however.

Bull****. Things like this are SO easy to hear. Just take them to the
extreme to understand the concept. Move the tweeter 50 yards back, adjust
for level, and then see how it sounds. The only question that remains is
not IF it makes a difference - only how much of a difference, and if the
rest of your system is so much worse anyway it doesn't matter.

jeffc

October 3rd 03, 05:06 AM

"Bob Morein" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> On 29/9/03 19:36, in article , "Arny
> Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the
flute
> > in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the players are
> > usually so far apart
>
> I think it's YOU that needs to think this through. The bass drum and
flute
> are perfectly synchronized because the players are professionals that are
> trained to follow not just audio cues but a conductor.

That's false, not to mention beside the point. They're not even an order of
magnitude worse than how synchronized the drivers need to be. It's a moot
point and a red herring. The point is that even when a single instrument is
involved (forget multiple instruments in different locations), time
alignment is still important. Part of an instruments sound is coming from
one driver, and part from another. In this case, you have a single point
source instrument in real life being played back in 2 discrete "sections" on
reproduction. If the time misalignment is bad enough, it will sound
HORRIBLE. UNLISTENABLE. You're not going to get that kind of misalignment
with a normal speaker, so the question is: how bad is it, and can you detect
it? Either way, it is most definitely a flaw in the playback system.

jeffc

October 3rd 03, 05:08 AM

jeffc

October 3rd 03, 05:10 AM

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> >
> It is not just a case of dumbing down the wording for the confused
> reader. I fail to see a simple relationship between mass and time
> delay.

Is it not obvious that a light, fast driver, like an electrostatic panel, is
going to respond (play the sound) slighly more quickly than the heavy, slow
woofer cone driver?

Bruce J. Richman

October 3rd 03, 06:33 AM

jeffc wrote:

>"Bob Morein" > wrote in message
ws.com...
>> On 29/9/03 19:36, in article , "Arny
>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>> > I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the
>flute
>> > in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the players are
>> > usually so far apart
>>
>> I think it's YOU that needs to think this through. The bass drum and
>flute
>> are perfectly synchronized because the players are professionals that are
>> trained to follow not just audio cues but a conductor.
>
>That's false, not to mention beside the point. They're not even an order of
>magnitude worse than how synchronized the drivers need to be. It's a moot
>point and a red herring. The point is that even when a single instrument is
>involved (forget multiple instruments in different locations), time
>alignment is still important. Part of an instruments sound is coming from
>one driver, and part from another. In this case, you have a single point
>source instrument in real life being played back in 2 discrete "sections" on
>reproduction. If the time misalignment is bad enough, it will sound
>HORRIBLE. UNLISTENABLE. You're not going to get that kind of misalignment
>with a normal speaker, so the question is: how bad is it, and can you detect
>it? Either way, it is most definitely a flaw in the playback system.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Technically speaking, the claim that 2 or more drivers are reproducing the
frequencies of one instrument will depend on which instrument, or voice for
that matter you are talking about. It will also depend on the frequency range
each driver is designed to reproduce. In other words, in some cases, you may
well be right, but in other cases, it may require only one driver to reproduce
a particular instrument.

All that said, time alignment is a claim made by some speaker manufacturers -
e.g. Thiel, Dunlavy (prior to its demise), etc., but not too many. Whether
there is an audible advantage for these few brands is, I would guess, in the
"ears of the beholder". My speakers consist of only one driver (Martin Logan
CLS IIs) so their coherence is superb. And I've heard similar claims made for
other planar speakers such as some of the Magneplanars, even though they are
usually 2- or 3-way systems.

Bruce J. Richman

Sylvan Morein when I croak Bob gets all my dough!

October 3rd 03, 06:57 AM

On 10/3/03 14:01, in article ,
"jeffc" > wrote:

> Move the tweeter 50 yards back, adjust
> for level, and then see how it sounds. The only question that remains is
> not IF it makes a difference - only how much of a difference, and if the
> rest of your system is so much worse anyway it doesn't matter.

Hey, you're quite a scientist now aren't you "jeff"?

That how science works down below the Mason-Dixon line?

--

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/4853918.htm

> Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
> By L. STUART DITZEN
> Philadelphia Inquirer
>
> PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
> at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.
>
> They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
> so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
> to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.
>
> "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
> pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
> do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

> A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
> Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
> by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.
>
> But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.
>
> Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
> years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
> computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
> thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
> rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
> patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.

>
> In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
> ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.

>
> Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
> Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.
>
> That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
> tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.
>
> Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
> representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
> state Superior Court.
>
> The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
> restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
> time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
> affairs was reasserted.
>
> The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
> litigation, that would have been the end of it.
>
> But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
> asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

> His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
> even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
> right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
> compensation.
>
> "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
> Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
> happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.

> Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
> that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."
>
> "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
> "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
> intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
> pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

> The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
> committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
> Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.
>
> His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
> minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
> and electronic systems.
>
> The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
> calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
> nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.

>
> Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
> and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
> through a university lawyer, declined to comment.
>
> At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
> 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
> related to estimation theory.
>
> Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
> Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
> International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
> it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
> industrial processes.
>
> Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
> inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
> problem Kalata had presented.
>
> Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.
>
> K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.
>
> Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
> into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
> became alienated from Kalata.
>
> As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
> The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
> patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

> In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
> department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
> asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

> He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
> Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.
>
> Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
> complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!

>
> Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.

>
> Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
> opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
> about 100 of them.
>
> Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
> appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
> intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
> Pennsylvania courts.

> Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been
chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on
anything.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

>
> "I had to seek closure," he said.
>
> Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
> hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
> from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
> make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
> an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
> bulletlike stream of water.

FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

> But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.
>
> "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
> gnawing thing."

Doomed to another miserable 10 years or so as a failed member of what
is mostly a productive human race. Most of us have successes and
failures, but the tough get up and succeed again. And again. And
again.

But a twisted few are forever failures.

Thanks for the kind summary of Robert Morein's failed existence from
the Philadelphia Inquirer.

A Real Brian McCarty
Successful

Sylvan Morein when I croak Bob gets all my dough!

October 3rd 03, 06:58 AM

On 10/3/03 14:10, in article ,
"jeffc" > wrote:

> Is it not obvious that a light, fast driver, like an electrostatic panel, is
> going to respond (play the sound) slighly more quickly than the heavy, slow
> woofer cone driver?

What's yer point?

--
Bob Morein.
Failed student.
Failed Temple University
Ejected from Grad program after seven years
Ejected from Drexel University after dissertation judged "bull**** nonsense"
Sued Drexel and Lost
Filed appeal and Lost.
Appealed to US Supreme Court, and they laughed their asses off!
But I get even with studentsandthelaw.org my harassment site.
My poor jewish mother Jane Morein died with a broken heart, watching this
poor twisted loser fail at everything I've ever done.
Daddy Sylvan Morein, who studied hard and became a fair to middlin' dentist,
is now stuck at home with his loser son; unwanted by life.
But I've discovered at last my calling: INTERNET WACKO!

Man, am I a Loser!
Keywords: studentsandthelaw.org

Bob Morein

October 3rd 03, 07:47 AM

"jeffc" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > It is not just a case of dumbing down the wording for the confused
> > reader. I fail to see a simple relationship between mass and time
> > delay.
>
> Is it not obvious that a light, fast driver, like an electrostatic panel,
is
> going to respond (play the sound) slighly more quickly than the heavy,
slow
> woofer cone driver?
>
Goofball is putting it on the correct mathematical footing.
At first intuition, it might appear that mass slows the driver down.
But mathematically dissected, mass is not the key variable to look at.
Resonance is.

If the cone happens to be a clay flower pot, the driver won't be able to
move it very far.
However, if the system is not resonant, then the following argument applies:

s = (1/2) a*t^2

t ~ 1/f , where the tilde means proportionality.

So s ~ 1*a/f

The acceleration is inversely proportional to m=mass, so

s ~ 1*/(f*m).

This means that where resonance can be neglected, the mass has the same
proportional effect on all frequencies.
In other words, a heavy driver does not, by dint of weight alone, delay the
high frequencies with respect to the lower ones.

In my response to Sam's original question, I chose the case where driver
resonance has an effect. If a woofer has, say, a resonant frequency in the
box of 30 Hz, then some range above the resonant frequency, for example, 40
to 200 Hz, there will be a delay of response in that range in comparison to
above 200 Hz.

The reason we consider the electrostatic system to be fast is not because
it's light, but because it is fundamentally, if not in practice, a
nonresonant system. But cone drivers mounted in free air also approximate
this.

BTW, I have a pair of Acoustat 2+2's. Love 'em.

Bob Morein

October 3rd 03, 07:49 AM

"jeffc" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Sam" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in
> > their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? Can
> > people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
> > frequencies and low frequencies?
>
> Why do you make it sound so simple? Let's say there's a tweeter and
> midrange. Each plays a frequency very close to the crossover frequency
> between them. In fact, there is overlap since the dropoff slopes aren't
> immediate (they "roll").
>
> > When you listen to a live orchestra
> > do you hear the bass drum before you hear a high from a flute?
>
> No, you're missing the point. In addition to the fact that we're not
> talking about frequencies necessarily that far apart, the fact is that in
a
> concert hall the frequencies arive when they arrive. The microphone picks
> it up at one source. It is this signal that must be played back verbatim.
> It should be played back as one single complex sound wave, just like when
it
> was played. If it's broken up into segments (frequency "chunks") that
> aren't played at exactly the same time, it could be a real mess.
>
And that is the intutive viewpoint I used to share. But as an owner of Spica
TC-60's and Acoustat 2+2's, it really doesn't jump out at me.

Arny Krueger

October 3rd 03, 08:04 AM

"jeffc" > wrote in message

> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
> ws.com...

>> On 29/9/03 19:36, in article ,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>>> I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the
flute
>>> in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the players
>>> are usually so far apart

>> I think it's YOU that needs to think this through. The bass drum and
flute
>> are perfectly synchronized because the players are professionals
>> that are trained to follow not just audio cues but a conductor.

> That's false, not to mention beside the point.

So far so good.

> They're not even an
> order of magnitude worse than how synchronized the drivers need to
> be.

The time delays between musicians in an orchestra easily several order of
magnitude worse than those in a typical speaker.

Take a flat baffle and put a typical 6-8" woofer and dome tweeter on it. The
acoustic center of the woofer is typically less than 4 inches behind the
baffle and that of the done tweeter is pretty much right on the baffle.

Now let's fictionally presume that all the musicians in a symphony orchestra
play with perfect timing so that the conductor hears every instrument in
perfect synchronization. Now consider the path length difference between two
instruments at the far left and far right of the orchestra, from the
standpoint of a person sitting along one of the walls of the concert hall.
The path length difference for that listener could be 60 feet! Now consider
the fact that listeners everywhere in the room hear music reflected off of
all the walls, the floor and the ceiling.

> It's a moot point and a red herring.

You've seemingly forgotten what my point was, which is that we don't
typically time-synchronize the drivers in a speaker to equalize delays for
musical instruments, we time-synchronize the drivers in a speaker to get
flat response when the sound from two drivers in the speaker mix.

> The point is that even
> when a single instrument is involved (forget multiple instruments in
> different locations), time alignment is still important.

That was my point, before my post was butchered by a few generations of
quoting by people who were addressing other points.

For example, My post said:

"The idea of time-aligning speakers traces back to sound stages in Hollywood
in the 1930s. The monitor speakers of the day were based on horns, and there
were path differences between woofers and tweeters, sometimes of many feet.
These were due to the differences in the design of the woofers and tweeters.
Timing could vary by 3-10 milliseconds or more. Sharp sounds like tap
dancing were observed to be undesirably changed and highly colored by those
time differences. Because the differences were so gross, they were important
concerns."

I used an example where time alignment in the speaker was required to
reproduce a single sound source (a shoe tapping on the floor) with
reasonable fidelity.

> Part of an
> instruments sound is coming from one driver, and part from another.
> In this case, you have a single point source instrument in real life
> being played back in 2 discrete "sections" on reproduction.

Of course!

> If the time misalignment is bad enough, it will sound HORRIBLE.
> UNLISTENABLE.

Of course!

>You're not going to get that kind of misalignment with
> a normal speaker, so the question is: how bad is it, and can you
> detect it? Either way, it is most definitely a flaw in the playback
> system.

Anticipated when I said:

"Yes, differences in time alignment can be heard,
but at higher frequencies they are mostly heard due to frequency response
variations that they cause. If equal-sized signals from the woofer and
tweeter aren't time-aligned around the usual crossover point of say, 3 KHz,
they won't add up properly to give flat response."

Here's a concept you might want to consider Jeff - read the whole post
before you criticize it!

jeffc

October 3rd 03, 02:28 PM

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Technically speaking, the claim that 2 or more drivers are reproducing the
> frequencies of one instrument will depend on which instrument, or voice
for
> that matter you are talking about. It will also depend on the frequency
range
> each driver is designed to reproduce. In other words, in some cases, you
may
> well be right, but in other cases, it may require only one driver to
reproduce
> a particular instrument.

Possible, but when you take harmonics into account, it's almost always true,
with most typical speaker designs, at least to a small extent.

> All that said, time alignment is a claim made by some speaker
manufacturers -
> e.g. Thiel, Dunlavy (prior to its demise), etc., but not too many.
Whether
> there is an audible advantage for these few brands is, I would guess, in
the
> "ears of the beholder".

I would say that time alignment is not a "claim", but simply a term meaning
an attribute. Time alignment problems definitely exist. The question is
can you hear them with various designs? As far as "ears of the beholder", I
agree.

jeffc

October 3rd 03, 02:35 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> The time delays between musicians in an orchestra easily several order of
> magnitude worse than those in a typical speaker.

There aren't any "time delays" in real music. You're totally missing the
point. Real music is real music. The point is to reproduce it as it
sounds. In real music, it's not the case that part of the saxophone sound
gets to you at one point, and part of it a split second later. THAT is time
delay.

> Take a flat baffle and put a typical 6-8" woofer and dome tweeter on it.
The
> acoustic center of the woofer is typically less than 4 inches behind the
> baffle and that of the done tweeter is pretty much right on the baffle.
>
> Now let's fictionally presume that all the musicians in a symphony
orchestra
> play with perfect timing so that the conductor hears every instrument in
> perfect synchronization.

Moot point. Completely off the subject. Unrelated.

> You've seemingly forgotten what my point was, which is that we don't
> typically time-synchronize the drivers in a speaker to equalize delays for
> musical instruments, we time-synchronize the drivers in a speaker to get
> flat response when the sound from two drivers in the speaker mix.

I never said it's for "instruments" - plural. That's not the issue. At
all.

> "The idea of time-aligning speakers traces back to sound stages in
Hollywood
> in the 1930s. The monitor speakers of the day were based on horns, and
there
> were path differences between woofers and tweeters, sometimes of many
feet.
> These were due to the differences in the design of the woofers and
tweeters.
> Timing could vary by 3-10 milliseconds or more. Sharp sounds like tap
> dancing were observed to be undesirably changed and highly colored by
those
> time differences. Because the differences were so gross, they were
important
> concerns."

Well, flat response is ANOTHER issue then (which I was not aware of before.)
If time delay messes with that, then I just learned something.

> "Yes, differences in time alignment can be heard,
> but at higher frequencies they are mostly heard due to frequency response
> variations that they cause. If equal-sized signals from the woofer and
> tweeter aren't time-aligned around the usual crossover point of say, 3
KHz,
> they won't add up properly to give flat response."

I don't totally understand why, but I'll chew on it for awhile.

> Here's a concept you might want to consider Jeff - read the whole post
> before you criticize it!

Likewise. Or just reread the parts you didn't get!

jeffc

October 3rd 03, 02:38 PM

"Bob Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > No, you're missing the point. In addition to the fact that we're not
> > talking about frequencies necessarily that far apart, the fact is that
in
> a
> > concert hall the frequencies arive when they arrive. The microphone
picks
> > it up at one source. It is this signal that must be played back
verbatim.
> > It should be played back as one single complex sound wave, just like
when
> it
> > was played. If it's broken up into segments (frequency "chunks") that
> > aren't played at exactly the same time, it could be a real mess.
> >
> And that is the intutive viewpoint I used to share. But as an owner of
Spica
> TC-60's and Acoustat 2+2's, it really doesn't jump out at me.

My brother has the Spicas, and if I recall with the grilles off, they are
time-aligned, no? Anyway, my point was it *could be* a real mess. I really
have no idea at what point the difference actually becomes audible, I just
know it is audible at certain distances.

Arny Krueger

October 3rd 03, 02:47 PM

"jeffc" > wrote in message
m
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The time delays between musicians in an orchestra easily several
>> order of magnitude worse than those in a typical speaker.
>
> There aren't any "time delays" in real music. You're totally missing
> the point. Real music is real music.

So far so good.

>The point is to reproduce it as it sounds.

My example points out a relevant fact: There isn't just one sound to a
musical performance.

> In real music, it's not the case that part of the
> saxophone sound gets to you at one point, and part of it a split
> second later. THAT is time delay.

Ironically what does happen is that you get a large number of sightly
different versions of it over a perceptible period of time.

>> Take a flat baffle and put a typical 6-8" woofer and dome tweeter on
>> it. The acoustic center of the woofer is typically less than 4
>> inches behind the baffle and that of the done tweeter is pretty much
>> right on the baffle.

>> Now let's fictionally presume that all the musicians in a symphony
>> orchestra play with perfect timing so that the conductor hears every
>> instrument in perfect synchronization.

> Moot point. Completely off the subject. Unrelated.

Efforts to dismiss relevant facts noted.

>> You've seemingly forgotten what my point was, which is that we don't
>> typically time-synchronize the drivers in a speaker to equalize
>> delays for musical instruments, we time-synchronize the drivers in a
>> speaker to get flat response when the sound from two drivers in the
>> speaker mix.

> I never said it's for "instruments" - plural. That's not the issue.
> At all.

See the origional post.

>> "The idea of time-aligning speakers traces back to sound stages in
>> Hollywood in the 1930s. The monitor speakers of the day were based
>> on horns, and there were path differences between woofers and
>> tweeters, sometimes of many feet. These were due to the differences
>> in the design of the woofers and tweeters. Timing could vary by 3-10
>> milliseconds or more. Sharp sounds like tap dancing were observed to
>> be undesirably changed and highly colored by those
>> time differences. Because the differences were so gross, they were
>> important concerns."

> Well, flat response is ANOTHER issue then (which I was not aware of
> before.) If time delay messes with that, then I just learned
> something.

Time delay among drivers in a speaker system is one well-known source of
frequency response variations.

>> "Yes, differences in time alignment can be heard,
>> but at higher frequencies they are mostly heard due to frequency
>> response variations that they cause. If equal-sized signals from the
>> woofer and tweeter aren't time-aligned around the usual crossover
>> point of say, 3 KHz,
>> they won't add up properly to give flat response."

> I don't totally understand why, but I'll chew on it for awhile.

Here's a little light reading:

http://www.google.com/search?&q=time+alignment+speakers

Michael Mckelvy

October 3rd 03, 07:59 PM

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > "dave weil" wrote in message
> >
> >
> > >On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>Can
> > >>>people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
> > >>>frequencies and low frequencies?
> > >>
> > >>Nope.
> > >
> > >Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall.
> >
> >
> > Lovely. Weil re-writes the laws of physics to read that the speed of
sound
> > is significantly and perceptibly dependent on frequency.
> >
> > Singh lets Weil pretend to review one of his POS speakers, and now Weil
is
> > rewriting physics books!
> >
> > LOL!
>
>
>
> I'm laughing too, at your supposed religious beliefs!
>
That's OK, we're all laughing at your claim that YOU designed a speaker
system.

Michael Mckelvy

October 3rd 03, 08:01 PM

"normanstrong" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >> Can
> > >> people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
> > >> frequencies and low frequencies?
> > >
> > >Nope.
> >
> > Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large
> hall.
>
> I don't believe that the speed of sound is frequency dependent. If it
> was, an octave would only be in tune at a specific distance, which we
> know is not the case.
>
> Norm Strong
>
>
IIRC it's 1130 ft/sec no matter the frequency.

dave weil

October 3rd 03, 08:23 PM

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:01:43 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"normanstrong" > wrote in message
. net...
>>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >> Can
>> > >> people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
>> > >> frequencies and low frequencies?
>> > >
>> > >Nope.
>> >
>> > Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large
>> hall.
>>
>> I don't believe that the speed of sound is frequency dependent. If it
>> was, an octave would only be in tune at a specific distance, which we
>> know is not the case.
>>
>> Norm Strong
>>
>>
>IIRC it's 1130 ft/sec no matter the frequency.

It might be, and then again, it might not be.

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 3rd 03, 09:46 PM

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 04:10:54 GMT, "jeffc" > wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> It is not just a case of dumbing down the wording for the confused
>> reader. I fail to see a simple relationship between mass and time
>> delay.
>
>Is it not obvious that a light, fast driver, like an electrostatic panel, is
>going to respond (play the sound) slighly more quickly than the heavy, slow
>woofer cone driver?
>
>
No, If something is obvious in audio it is probably wrong. See for
example:
%3E&lr=&num=100&hl=en

Audiophile terms like "fast driver" and "more quickly" are not
precise enough to reach any firm conclusion. Accleration and speed
have precise meanings.It may not be obvious but it is true that the
greatest linear speeds of speaker cones occur at low rather than high
frequencies (for the same ouput level).

There are some good reasons that tweeters end up small but they might
not be obvious. A small radiating surface is not as directional as a
large one. If you compare a driver with a ten cm. diameter cone to one
with a 1cm diameter cone then with simple scaling, keeping the
geometry the same, ie. 10 times the height, ten times the width and
ten times the depth you get the following:

The ratio of the areas of the cones is 100
The ratio of volumes and masses is 1000

For the 1cm. cone to produce the same output as the 10cm. cone at the
same frequency it has to move the same volume of air (needed for a
flat frequency response with a two driver speaker with crossover).
Since it is only 1/100 of the area it has to move 100 times as far and
therefore accelerate 100 times faster. Luckily it is only 1000th of
the mass so it would only need a tenth of the driving force of the
bigger cone. One the other hand it only has room for 1000th of the
amount of copper in the voice coil but you probably want it to end up
with about the same resistance as the larger driver. And so the
juggling goes on and on. It is not that obvious, in fact it makes my
head hurt. . .

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 3rd 03, 10:12 PM

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:09:11 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:47:46 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:23:45 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds slower
>to
>> >the
>> >> >driving electrical signal.
>> >>
>> >> One might take some notice if one wanted to throw them. This must be
>> >> one of the worst cases of a feral physicist technobabble.
>> >>
>> >> You are loosing(tm) it Bob, IMO.
>> >>
>> >The wording is an attempt to avoid confusing the reader with moving mass,
>> >resonant frequency, and Q.
>> >Why don't you give it a shot? It could be better.
>> >
>> >
>> It is not just a case of dumbing down the wording for the confused
>> reader. I fail to see a simple relationship between mass and time
>> delay. If you were to increase just the mass of the moving parts of
>> an ideal driver, for a frequency well above resonance, the amplitude
>> of acceleration, velocity and displacement would all be reduced in
>> proportion to mass but the phase/time relationship between air
>> pressure and applied voltage would be the same. If you scale down a
>> driver in proportion to wavelength, a lot more than just the mass is
>> changed including the applied force, but again, well above resonance,
>> the applied force and therefore acceleration, is proportional to the
>> applied current ( or voltage for constant impedance) and the velocity
>> and displacement just follow along in proportion, ninety degrees
>> apart. (assuming a ideal rigid structure). I can see no increased
>> delay due to increased moving mass of drivers. Scaling can be a tricky
>> thing, you will note but the motion of "ideal" drivers is not. Maybe
>> you are thinking of something tricky but it came out dumb - "heavy
>> equals slow/late"
>
>All correct, above. I was trying to give Sam, who was not aware that the
>speed of sound in free space is independent of frequency, something to grab
>on to. Doing that, while exhibiting the level of erudition we expect, is
>for me an unsolved problem. So I decided to focus on the relationship
>between resonant frequency and group delay, and resonant frequency, I
>decided, was best represented by one constant in the equation, mass.
>
>If you can think of a way to present more information to Sam, who has just
>learned that c is a constant, it would be useful to all of us.
>Give it another shot. I'd certainly add it to my repertoire of answers, as
>the question will inevitably occur again.
>
>>
>> There is also something dumb here too, we noted. . .
>>
>> "Auditory research suggests that complex noises are not localized by
>> time delay. However, the ear can distinguish intra-aural time delays
>> as small as 6 microseconds. This suggests that while a time aligned
>> speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
>> violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
>> percussive noises or other transients."
>>
>> How can you change "intra-aural time delays" by any identical change
>> to two identical speakers?
>
>That's a good question. It's intuitively appealing to me that the ear would
>better be able to localize an impulse if it actually looks like an impulse,
>as opposed to what you and I both know comes out of a non time-aligned
>system. And that's all there is. I have no testing, blind or otherwise, to
>back it up. I do know I enjoy the hell out of a set of Spicas when they're
>set up right.
>
>
>

Most likely you have been temporaily befuddled by The Evil High End.
Eat Marmite.

Vote Carolynne!

jeffc

October 4th 03, 12:18 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> >The point is to reproduce it as it sounds.
>
> My example points out a relevant fact: There isn't just one sound to a
> musical performance.

Yes, for the purposes of this discussion, there is! There is a single sound
wave that reaches the listener's ear. This sound wave keeps it's integrity.
When that EXACT SAME SOUND WAVE is played back through TWO drivers, it can
lose it's integrity. (The fact that it IS a single sound is easily seen by
the fact that the recording is one signal wave, at least per channel).

Bob Morein

October 4th 03, 01:05 AM

"jeffc" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >
> > > No, you're missing the point. In addition to the fact that we're not
> > > talking about frequencies necessarily that far apart, the fact is that
> in
> > a
> > > concert hall the frequencies arive when they arrive. The microphone
> picks
> > > it up at one source. It is this signal that must be played back
> verbatim.
> > > It should be played back as one single complex sound wave, just like
> when
> > it
> > > was played. If it's broken up into segments (frequency "chunks") that
> > > aren't played at exactly the same time, it could be a real mess.
> > >
> > And that is the intutive viewpoint I used to share. But as an owner of
> Spica
> > TC-60's and Acoustat 2+2's, it really doesn't jump out at me.
>
> My brother has the Spicas, and if I recall with the grilles off, they are
> time-aligned, no? Anyway, my point was it *could be* a real mess. I
really
> have no idea at what point the difference actually becomes audible, I just
> know it is audible at certain distances.
>
The Spicas are one of the purest time-aligned designs out there, regardless
of whether the grills are on or off.

There is an established threshold time, something like six milliseconds, at
which a reflection becomes audible as an echo, rather an an increase in
ambience. This amount of delay is far greater than occurs between any set of
drivers mounted on the same baffle. It's an issue only for sound
reinforcement.

Bob Morein

October 4th 03, 01:39 AM

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:09:11 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:47:46 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:23:45 -0400, "Bob Morein"
>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds
slower
> >to
> >> >the
> >> >> >driving electrical signal.
> >> >>
[snip]

> Most likely you have been temporaily befuddled by The Evil High End.
> Eat Marmite.
>
From what I understand, merely opening a jar of the stuff deprives one of
all powers of reason. I fail to see how that would rescue me from their
clutches.

trotsky

October 4th 03, 01:36 PM

Bob Morein wrote:

> "jeffc" wrote in message
> m...
>
> >"Bob Morein" wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >>>No, you're missing the point. In addition to the fact that we're not
> >>>talking about frequencies necessarily that far apart, the fact is that
> >
> >in
> >
> >>a
> >>
> >>>concert hall the frequencies arive when they arrive. The microphone
> >
> >picks
> >
> >>>it up at one source. It is this signal that must be played back
> >
> >verbatim.
> >
> >>>It should be played back as one single complex sound wave, just like
> >
> >when
> >
> >>it
> >>
> >>>was played. If it's broken up into segments (frequency "chunks") that
> >>>aren't played at exactly the same time, it could be a real mess.
> >>>
> >>
> >>And that is the intutive viewpoint I used to share. But as an owner of
> >
> >Spica
> >
> >>TC-60's and Acoustat 2+2's, it really doesn't jump out at me.
> >
> >My brother has the Spicas, and if I recall with the grilles off, they are
> >time-aligned, no? Anyway, my point was it *could be* a real mess. I
>
> really
>
> >have no idea at what point the difference actually becomes audible, I
> just
> >know it is audible at certain distances.
> >
>
> The Spicas are one of the purest time-aligned designs out there,
> regardless
> of whether the grills are on or off.
>
> There is an established threshold time, something like six
> milliseconds, at
> which a reflection becomes audible as an echo, rather an an increase in
> ambience. This amount of delay is far greater than occurs between any
> set of
> drivers mounted on the same baffle. It's an issue only for sound
> reinforcement.

That's interesting: what's the unit of measurement for the "purity" of
the Spicas, and will you admit to talking trash when you read this?

jeffc

October 4th 03, 02:46 PM

"Bob Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > > >
> > > And that is the intutive viewpoint I used to share. But as an owner of
> > Spica
> > > TC-60's and Acoustat 2+2's, it really doesn't jump out at me.
> >
> > My brother has the Spicas, and if I recall with the grilles off, they
are
> > time-aligned, no? Anyway, my point was it *could be* a real mess. I
> really
> > have no idea at what point the difference actually becomes audible, I
just
> > know it is audible at certain distances.
> >
> The Spicas are one of the purest time-aligned designs out there,
regardless
> of whether the grills are on or off.

You misunderstood my meaning. I'm not saying I could tell if they were time
aligned by listening depending on whether the grilles were on or off. I
meant if the grilles were off, I could what I think think is a speaker
designed to be time aligned (right or wrong.)

The Devil

October 4th 03, 06:14 PM

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:12:06 GMT,
(Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote:

>Vote Carolynne!

No! Vote Alex! I want to wrap her up in cotton wool and keep her in my
pocket, note.

--
td

Bob Morein

October 4th 03, 09:54 PM

"jeffc" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > > >
> > > > And that is the intutive viewpoint I used to share. But as an owner
of
> > > Spica
> > > > TC-60's and Acoustat 2+2's, it really doesn't jump out at me.
> > >
> > > My brother has the Spicas, and if I recall with the grilles off, they
> are
> > > time-aligned, no? Anyway, my point was it *could be* a real mess. I
> > really
> > > have no idea at what point the difference actually becomes audible, I
> just
> > > know it is audible at certain distances.
> > >
> > The Spicas are one of the purest time-aligned designs out there,
> regardless
> > of whether the grills are on or off.
>
> You misunderstood my meaning. I'm not saying I could tell if they were
time
> aligned by listening depending on whether the grilles were on or off. I
> meant if the grilles were off, I could what I think think is a speaker
> designed to be time aligned (right or wrong.)
>
The grills don't make any significant change in time alignment.
Just a little attenuation of the treble.

George M. Middius

October 4th 03, 10:10 PM

Bobo, barbeque season has ended.

> The grills don't make any significant change in time alignment.

Doesn't it depend whether they're charcoal or gas, indoor or
outdoor?

Michael Scarpitti

October 4th 03, 11:31 PM

(Sam) wrote in message >...
> Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in
> their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? Can
> people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
> frequencies and low frequencies? When you listen to a live orchestra
> do you hear the bass drum before you hear a high from a flute? Can
> someone explain to me the significance of pace, rhythm, and timing in
> our audio playback systems
>
> Sam

The woofer, mid-range, and tweeters all have cones of differing
depths. If you mount them flush with the front surface of the driver,
the voice coils are a varying distances from you. If you slope the
baffle, you can get the voice-coils all about the same distance from
you.

Robert Morein

October 5th 03, 03:05 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bobo, barbeque season has ended.
>
> > The grills don't make any significant change in time alignment.
>
> Doesn't it depend whether they're charcoal or gas, indoor or
> outdoor?
>
You are at your best when you satirize personalities, rather than word usage
for material items.

Actually, I have a gas grill in my backyard, and I cook on it every clear
evening in the fall.

George M. Middius

October 5th 03, 03:16 AM

Bobo is miffed.

> > > The grills don't make any significant change in time alignment.
> >
> > Doesn't it depend whether they're charcoal or gas, indoor or
> > outdoor?

> You are at your best when you satirize personalities, rather than word usage
> for material items.

Most kind. However, the personality aspect of RAO has run to the
drab of late. Scottieborg is spitting fire, the Krooborg is cornered
and extra-vicious, and Stynchie is a prisoner of Dubya's deceits. So
yes, I am, for the moment, reduced to making shallow wordplays.

> Actually, I have a gas grill in my backyard, and I cook on it every clear
> evening in the fall.

It's not exactly *your* backyard, though, is it?

jeffc

October 5th 03, 03:49 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Bobo, barbeque season has ended.
> >
> > > The grills don't make any significant change in time alignment.
> >
> > Doesn't it depend whether they're charcoal or gas, indoor or
> > outdoor?

I have this pinhead killfiled, so it would be nice if no one even quoted
him.

George M. Middius

October 5th 03, 03:52 AM

jeffc said:

> I have this pinhead killfiled, so it would be nice if no one even quoted
> him.

If wishes were horses, Krooger would have killed himself long ago.

trotsky

October 5th 03, 01:08 PM

jeffc wrote:
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>
>>>Bobo, barbeque season has ended.
>>>
>>>
>>>>The grills don't make any significant change in time alignment.
>>>
>>>Doesn't it depend whether they're charcoal or gas, indoor or
>>>outdoor?
>>
>
> I have this pinhead killfiled, so it would be nice if no one even quoted
> him.

Which of the two pinheads are you referring to?

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 5th 03, 05:40 PM

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:14:54 +0100, The Devil > wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:12:06 GMT,
>(Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote:
>
>>Vote Carolynne!
>
>No! Vote Alex! I want to wrap her up in cotton wool and keep her in my
>pocket, note.
>
>--
>td

Well, I did in the end but I am kind of in love with Carolynne.

I suppose I should post a link for the poor Yanks. . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fameacademy/

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 5th 03, 05:47 PM

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:39:30 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:09:11 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:47:46 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:23:45 -0400, "Bob Morein"
>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds
>slower
>> >to
>> >> >the
>> >> >> >driving electrical signal.
>> >> >>
>[snip]
>
>> Most likely you have been temporaily byedddled by The Evil High End.
>> Eat Marmite.
>>
>From what I understand, merely opening a jar of the stuff deprives one of
>all powers of reason. I fail to see how that would rescue me from their
>clutches.
>
>

Most likely I am clutching at straws and you are a dyed in the wool
tweako-freako, whereas I am a pinhead.

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 5th 03, 06:43 PM

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 19:03:31 +0100, Langis > wrote:

(Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote:
>
>>>>Vote Carolynne!
>>>
>>>No! Vote Alex! I want to wrap her up in cotton wool and keep her in my
>>>pocket, note.
>>>
>>>--
>>>td
>>
>>Well, I did in the end but I am kind of in love with Carolynne.
>>
>>I suppose I should post a link for the poor Yanks. . .
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/fameacademy/
>
>I don't know how you can stomach it, Fame Academy is sooo contrived.

Yeah, but love is blind and I kind of like Alex's voice and the bit
above the nose too.

>Pop Idol isn't a zillion times better, but at least you get to see
>self-important ****s being taken down a peg or two.

Who needs ITV when one has Auntie.

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 5th 03, 06:53 PM

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 19:03:31 +0100, Langis > wrote:

>I don't know how you can stomach it, Fame Academy is sooo contrived.
>Pop Idol isn't a zillion times better, but at least you get to see
>self-important ****s being taken down a peg or two.

Heck, most likely you are deaf and a eunuch, we will note. Yeah. that
must be it.

MiNE 109

October 5th 03, 08:27 PM

In article >,
(Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:14:54 +0100, The Devil > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:12:06 GMT,
> >(Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote:
> >
> >>Vote Carolynne!
> >
> >No! Vote Alex! I want to wrap her up in cotton wool and keep her in my
> >pocket, note.
> >
> >--
> >td
>
> Well, I did in the end but I am kind of in love with Carolynne.
>
> I suppose I should post a link for the poor Yanks. . .
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/fameacademy/

Big Brother meets Pop Idol! Seeing baby singers in practice rooms is too
much like my real life...

Stephen

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 5th 03, 09:47 PM

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:18:36 +0100, Langis > wrote:

(Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote:
>
>>>I don't know how you can stomach it, Fame Academy is sooo contrived.
>>>Pop Idol isn't a zillion times better, but at least you get to see
>>>self-important ****s being taken down a peg or two.
>>
>>
>>Heck, most likely you are deaf and a eunuch, we will note. Yeah. that
>>must be it.
>
>Sorry Goof, such fruits are forbidden for a man of your years...
>

Heck, I am not as wrinkly as you think, whippersnapper..

The Devil

October 5th 03, 09:51 PM

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 16:40:57 GMT,
(Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote:

>Well, I did in the end but I am kind of in love with Carolynne.
>
>I suppose I should post a link for the poor Yanks. . .
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/fameacademy/

I thought Carolynne had a pretty good voice at times, you will note.
The Fleetwood Mac song she did a few weeks back was extraordinary.

Alex has something. Her voice needs work, but I really think she has a
future. I found her second performance, in which she sang her own
composition, rather moving, I will note. Plus I want to keep her in my
pocket, I will also note, here, there, everywhere.

Back to renovating Telly Savalas Towers.

--
td

The Devil

October 5th 03, 09:51 PM

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:06:27 +0100, Langis > wrote:

>>Yeah, but love is blind and I kind of like Alex's voice and the bit
>>above the nose too.
>
>I'm not that familiar with her facial features, my overall impression
>is that at a glance she looks like a young boy. In drag.

That's rather nasty. I could get quite upset about that comment. Alex
is lovely. I won't hear another nasty thing said about her / him / it.
Cuteness has no sexual parts anyway.

--
td

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 5th 03, 10:14 PM

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:06:27 +0100, Langis > wrote:

>I realise you live in a quarry surrounded by sheep,

You've been stalking me again?

>note that more
>technically advanced areas of the United Kingdom now have cable, note,
>note.

At least I got out of Manchester. I have a fancy wireless ADSL router
at home and not two cans and a piece of string, you will be pleased to
note. Not so much as a "ping" has got as far as ZoneAlarm since. Heck,
they probably have cable at Guantanamo Bay but I don'twant to go
there.

Goofball_star_dot_etal

October 5th 03, 10:22 PM

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 21:51:20 +0100, The Devil > wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 16:40:57 GMT,
>(Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote:
>
>>Well, I did in the end but I am kind of in love with Carolynne.
>>
>>I suppose I should post a link for the poor Yanks. . .
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/fameacademy/
>
>I thought Carolynne had a pretty good voice at times, you will note.
>The Fleetwood Mac song she did a few weeks back was extraordinary.
>
>Alex has something. Her voice needs work, but I really think she has a
>future. I found her second performance, in which she sang her own
>composition, rather moving, I will note. Plus I want to keep her in my
>pocket, I will also note, here, there, everywhere.
>

Let us hope the sausage machine does not ruin her.

>Back to renovating Telly Savalas Towers.
>

We don't have those in Wales.

>--
>td

Have you moved to Ireland as threatened?

The Devil

October 6th 03, 12:00 AM

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 21:22:24 GMT,
(Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote:

>>Alex has something. Her voice needs work, but I really think she has a
>>future. I found her second performance, in which she sang her own
>>composition, rather moving, I will note. Plus I want to keep her in my
>>pocket, I will also note, here, there, everywhere.

>Let us hope the sausage machine does not ruin her.

I don't think she likes sausage, note. I think she would prefer
Carolynne's banana split.

>>Back to renovating Telly Savalas Towers.
>>
>
>We don't have those in Wales.
>
>>--
>>td
>
>Have you moved to Ireland as threatened?

Next year. I haven't finished selling fish and chips to England, pal.

The Devil

October 6th 03, 12:02 AM

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 00:00:08 +0100, The Devil > wrote:

>I don't think she likes sausage, note. I think she would prefer
>Carolynne's banana split.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fameacademy/photo/photo1079.shtml

--
td

The Devil

October 6th 03, 12:11 AM

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 23:26:32 +0100, Langis > wrote:

>[Troll /on]

Disgraceful.

I can't bring myself to quote it.

Shame on you.

<SMACK!>

--
td

jeffc

October 6th 03, 02:00 AM

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> jeffc wrote:
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Bobo, barbeque season has ended.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The grills don't make any significant change in time alignment.
> >>>
> >>>Doesn't it depend whether they're charcoal or gas, indoor or
> >>>outdoor?
> >>
> >
> > I have this pinhead killfiled, so it would be nice if no one even quoted
> > him.
>
> Which of the two pinheads are you referring to?

I was referring to Middius. I can't recall a single post of his that was
remotely interesting or useful.

George M. Middius

October 6th 03, 02:27 AM

jcrud said:

> I was referring to Middius. I can't recall a single post of his that was
> remotely interesting or useful.

I think it would be interesting to introduce you to Arnii Kroofeces.
Would you like to do that? Most people would rather shovel ****
barehanded, but then you are not most people.

trotsky

October 6th 03, 02:57 AM

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:14:54 +0100, The Devil > wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:12:06 GMT,
>>(Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Vote Carolynne!
>>
>>No! Vote Alex! I want to wrap her up in cotton wool and keep her in my
>>pocket, note.
>>
>>--
>>td
>
>
> Well, I did in the end but I am kind of in love with Carolynne.
>
> I suppose I should post a link for the poor Yanks. . .

What do you mean "the poor Yanks"--they just trounced the Twins!

trotsky

October 6th 03, 03:46 AM

jeffc wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>jeffc wrote:
>>
>>>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bobo, barbeque season has ended.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The grills don't make any significant change in time alignment.
>>>>>
>>>>>Doesn't it depend whether they're charcoal or gas, indoor or
>>>>>outdoor?
>>>>
>>>I have this pinhead killfiled, so it would be nice if no one even quoted
>>>him.
>>
>>Which of the two pinheads are you referring to?
>
>
> I was referring to Middius. I can't recall a single post of his that was
> remotely interesting or useful.

I see, and you can from the mind of Bob Morion? I doubt you're serious.

George M. Middius

October 6th 03, 03:48 AM

trotsky said:

> > I was referring to Middius.

> I see, and you can from the mind of Bob Morion? I doubt you're serious.

Oh no! Are you more afraid of Bobo now? That distress me, Mommy****er.

George M. Middius

October 6th 03, 04:02 AM

trotsky said:

> > I was referring to Middius.

> I see, and you can from the mind of Bob Morion? I doubt you're serious.

Oh no! Are you more afraid of Bobo now? That distresses me,
Mommy****er.

jeffc

October 6th 03, 05:45 AM

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
> >>
> >>Which of the two pinheads are you referring to?
> >
> > I was referring to Middius. I can't recall a single post of his that
was
> > remotely interesting or useful.
>
> I see, and you can from the mind of Bob Morion? I doubt you're serious.

I can what? Middius is killfiled. What's so hard to believe about that?
It's hard to believe all the bull**** in this group. The same people have
been doing nothing but call each other names for years. I look in on the
group every year or so and it's no different. Zipser is dead. Some people
will be doing the same old stupid **** untily they're dead. It's really
pathetic.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 6th 03, 06:10 AM

"jeffc" > wrote in message
...
>
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >>
> > >>Which of the two pinheads are you referring to?
> > >
> > > I was referring to Middius. I can't recall a single post of his that
> was
> > > remotely interesting or useful.
> >
> > I see, and you can from the mind of Bob Morion? I doubt you're serious.
>
> I can what? Middius is killfiled. What's so hard to believe about that?
> It's hard to believe all the bull**** in this group. The same people have
> been doing nothing but call each other names for years. I look in on the
> group every year or so and it's no different. Zipser is dead. Some
people
> will be doing the same old stupid **** untily they're dead. It's really
> pathetic.
>
>

And you'll still be doing the same thing till you're dead.
Lurking, killfiling, and occasionally whining.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sylvan Morein DDS, sad father of Bob

October 6th 03, 06:32 AM

On 6/10/03 14:45, in article ,
"jeffc" > wrote:

> I look in on the
> group every year or so and it's no different. Zipser is dead. Some people
> will be doing the same old stupid **** untily they're dead. It's really
> pathetic.

Well I'm sorry my pathetic son has become the major instigator here.

Sylvan Morein, DDS

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/4853918.htm

> Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
> By L. STUART DITZEN
> Philadelphia Inquirer
>
> PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
> at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.
>
> They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
> so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
> to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.
>
> "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
> pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
> do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

> A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
> Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
> by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.
>
> But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.
>
> Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
> years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
> computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
> thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
> rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
> patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.

>
> In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
> ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.

>
> Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
> Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.
>
> That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
> tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.
>
> Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
> representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
> state Superior Court.
>
> The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
> restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
> time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
> affairs was reasserted.
>
> The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
> litigation, that would have been the end of it.
>
> But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
> asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

> His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
> even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
> right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
> compensation.
>
> "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
> Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
> happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.

> Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
> that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."
>
> "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
> "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
> intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
> pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

> The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
> committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
> Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.
>
> His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
> minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
> and electronic systems.
>
> The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
> calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
> nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.

>
> Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
> and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
> through a university lawyer, declined to comment.
>
> At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
> 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
> related to estimation theory.
>
> Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
> Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
> International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
> it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
> industrial processes.
>
> Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
> inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
> problem Kalata had presented.
>
> Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.
>
> K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.
>
> Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
> into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
> became alienated from Kalata.
>
> As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
> The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
> patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

> In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
> department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
> asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

> He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
> Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.
>
> Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
> complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!

>
> Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.

>
> Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
> opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
> about 100 of them.
>
> Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
> appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
> intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
> Pennsylvania courts.

> Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been
chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on
anything.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

>
> "I had to seek closure," he said.
>
> Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
> hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
> from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
> make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
> an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
> bulletlike stream of water.

FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

> But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.
>
> "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
> gnawing thing."