Andre Jute vs. a Warm Turd - peers or not?

[[email protected]]

The polls are open. Vote early and vote often!

[Bret Ludwig]

A fresh turd plowed under or buried in rich soil is good fertilizer,
from which living things grow. Jute is like a persistent noxious
pollutant.

[dizzy]

On 12 Dec 2005 13:57:35 -0800, wrote:

>The polls are open. Vote early and vote often!

Nah, I'd say he's more like a turd-eating maggot.

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On 12 Dec 2005 13:57:35 -0800, wrote:
>
>>The polls are open. Vote early and vote often!
>
> Nah, I'd say he's more like a turd-eating maggot.
>
What self respecting turd would let Joot anywhere near it?

[George M. Middius]

Mickey McCoprophage is jealous of Arnii.

> What self respecting turd would let Joot anywhere near it?

If the shoe fits...

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com...

> The polls are open. Vote early and vote often!


I'm sure we all have something better to do than stoke Jute's ego this way.
:-(

[surf]

> wrote...
>
> "dizzy" > wrote ...
>> On 12 Dec 2005 13:57:35 -0800, dickie wrote:
>>
>>>The polls are open. Vote early and vote often!
>>
>> Nah, I'd say he's more like a turd-eating maggot.
>>
> What self respecting turd would let Joot anywhere near it?


why don't you ask Arny?

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Mickey McCoprophage is jealous of Arnii.
>
>> What self respecting turd would let Joot anywhere near it?
>
> If the shoe fits...
>
>
Then eat it, George.

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote...
>>
>> "dizzy" > wrote ...
>>> On 12 Dec 2005 13:57:35 -0800, dickie wrote:
>>>
>>>>The polls are open. Vote early and vote often!
>>>
>>> Nah, I'd say he's more like a turd-eating maggot.
>>>
>> What self respecting turd would let Joot anywhere near it?
>
>
> why don't you ask Arny?
As if there were some moral equivalence.
Whatever problems you may have with Arny, he at least gets the electronics
right.
I can't recall him starting and crossposting any attack threads, can you?
Jute can't even produce a working model of an amp he claims to have
designed.

Try for one moment to get a clear thought about what is going on and who the
real villains are.
Arny isn't among them.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> The polls are open. Vote early and vote often!
>
>
> I'm sure we all have something better to do than stoke Jute's ego this
> way. :-(
Point taken.

[Andre Jute]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > The polls are open. Vote early and vote often!
>
>
> I'm sure we all have something better to do than stoke Jute's ego this way.
> :-(

Too late Arny. Your pal Joseph Welch's thoughless thread for the lowest
common denominator of the stupid ("the guy we hate is a turd" -- can
you get any lower?) has already permitted everyone to count all your
followers:

Welch (clumsy)
Ludwig (temporary fellow traveller, treacherous)
Dizzy (useless)
Mike McKelvey (slow)
Arny Krueger (himself, narcissist, accident-prone)

Four followers after all these years of assidiously trying to build a
network of bullyboys? Gee, even the travelling elipsoid, Michael
LaFevre did better than four hangers-on. Are you too broke to pay them,
Arnie?

Andre Jute
A whole sewerage works washing over you. In your mouth, Arny.

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> Whatever problems you may have with Arny...I can't recall him starting
> and crossposting any attack threads, can you?

We have been through this, Mr, McKelvy. I offered you examples of where
Arny had done precisely what you deny, yet at that time you said you
were
too busy to examine these examples. Yet here you are a year later still
making faith-based statements like this.

Similarly, I posted a response giving some evidential support to
demonstrate
that your faith-based comments on speakers stands were incorrect. Yet
you don't seem to have read that evidence. :-(

There is a word for someone who ignorees factual evidence in favor of
their
own beliefs.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> Whatever problems you may have with Arny...I can't recall him starting
>> and crossposting any attack threads, can you?
>
> We have been through this, Mr, McKelvy. I offered you examples of where
> Arny had done precisely what you deny, yet at that time you said you
> were too busy to examine these examples. Yet here you are a year later
> still
> making faith-based statements like this.

I'm sure that I've posted to threads that some of our local cross-post
enthusiasts started or changed.

[surf]

> wrote...
>
> "surf" > wrote...

>> > wrote...
>>>
>>> "dizzy" > wrote ...

>>>> On 12 Dec 2005 13:57:35 -0800, dickie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The polls are open. Vote early and vote often!
>>>>
>>>> Nah, I'd say he's more like a turd-eating maggot.
>>>>
>>> What self respecting turd would let Joot anywhere near it?
>>
>> why don't you ask Arny?

> As if there were some moral equivalence.

between Arny and a turd? well documented.

> Whatever problems you may have with Arny, he at least gets the electronics
> right.

Nope. Arny has been destroyed by real electronic engineers a hundred times.

> I can't recall him starting and crossposting any attack threads, can you?

I can't recall Arny behaving anything but pompous and hostile. can you?

> Jute can't even produce a working model of an amp he claims to have
> designed.

yeah - but he writes a lot.

> Try for one moment to get a clear thought about what is going on and who
> the real villains are.

Real villains? That would be a short list. McCarty. Malesweski(welch).
hmmmm....

> Arny isn't among them.

Arny's not a real villain. Just a Usenet asshole. Like many of us.
....well not like any of us, really........

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> Whatever problems you may have with Arny...I can't recall him starting
>> and crossposting any attack threads, can you?
>
> We have been through this, Mr, McKelvy. I offered you examples of where
> Arny had done precisely what you deny, yet at that time you said you
> were
> too busy to examine these examples. Yet here you are a year later still
> making faith-based statements like this.
>
> Similarly, I posted a response giving some evidential support to
> demonstrate
> that your faith-based comments on speakers stands were incorrect. Yet
> you don't seem to have read that evidence. :-(
>
> There is a word for someone who ignorees factual evidence in favor of
> their
> own beliefs.
>
And there is at least one other person I can think of who does the same
thing, hius name is listed below. He ignores all scientific evidence about
the uselessness of sighted evaluations of audio gear.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"surf" > wrote in message
. ..
> > wrote...
>>
>> "surf" > wrote...
>
>>> > wrote...
>>>>
>>>> "dizzy" > wrote ...
>
>>>>> On 12 Dec 2005 13:57:35 -0800, dickie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The polls are open. Vote early and vote often!
>>>>>
>>>>> Nah, I'd say he's more like a turd-eating maggot.
>>>>>
>>>> What self respecting turd would let Joot anywhere near it?
>>>
>>> why don't you ask Arny?
>
>> As if there were some moral equivalence.
>
> between Arny and a turd? well documented.
>
>> Whatever problems you may have with Arny, he at least gets the
>> electronics right.
>
> Nope. Arny has been destroyed by real electronic engineers a hundred
> times.
>
Richard Pierce? Stewart Pinkerton, Graham aka Pooh Bear? Not that I can
recall.

>> I can't recall him starting and crossposting any attack threads, can you?
>
> I can't recall Arny behaving anything but pompous and hostile. can you?
>
>> Jute can't even produce a working model of an amp he claims to have
>> designed.
>
> yeah - but he writes a lot.
>
Almost all of it vile, stupid and factually incorrect.


>> Try for one moment to get a clear thought about what is going on and who
>> the real villains are.
>
> Real villains? That would be a short list. McCarty. Malesweski(welch).
> hmmmm....
>
Middius, Derrida, Singh, etc.


>> Arny isn't among them.
>
> Arny's not a real villain. Just a Usenet asshole. Like many of us.
> ...well not like any of us, really........
Not since it's well known that he tends to be right about audio electronics,
and helpful even to people that have been complete assholes to him.

[surf]

> wrote...
>
> "surf" > wrote in message ...

>>
>> Nope. Arny has been destroyed by real electronic engineers a hundred
>> times.
>>
> Richard Pierce? Stewart Pinkerton, Graham aka Pooh Bear? Not that I can
> recall.
>

Bamborough, Zelniker, Johnston. Mikey - you were here. Don't ask me to
do your homework for you.

[surf]

> "John Atkinson" > wrote...
>>
>> wrote:

>>> Whatever problems you may have with Arny...I can't recall him starting
>>> and crossposting any attack threads, can you?
>>
>> We have been through this, Mr, McKelvy. I offered you examples of where
>> Arny had done precisely what you deny....


What about this Mikey? You ignored it. Instead of acknowlegeing, you
went on a counter attack.

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > wrote:
> >> Whatever problems you may have with Arny...I can't recall him starting
> >> and crossposting any attack threads, can you?
> >
> > We have been through this, Mr, McKelvy. I offered you examples of where
> > Arny had done precisely what you deny, yet at that time you said you
> > were too busy to examine these examples. Yet here you are a year later
> > still making faith-based statements like this.
> >
> > Similarly, I posted a response giving some evidential support to
> > demonstrate that your faith-based comments on speakers stands were
> > incorrect. Yet you don't seem to have read that evidence. :-(
> >
> > There is a word for someone who ignorees factual evidence in favor of
> > their own beliefs.
> >
> And there is at least one other person I can think of who does the same
> thing, his name is listed below. He ignores all scientific evidence about
> the uselessness of sighted evaluations of audio gear.

Because, when it comes to the "uselessness of sighted evaluations of
audio gear," the case is not proven. Sighted listening can be
extremely useful, when done with care, of course, under the
appropriatae circumstances.

And I note that you have ducked my commenst, instead merely
retorting with that weakest of responses, and IKWIABWAY, or
whatever it is called. Now, Mr. McKelvy, please address what I
said: you waste literal megabytes of Usenet bandwidth demanding
factual evidence from those you ridicule, crowing that you only go
by evidence, yet when the table is turned, you disappear from view.

Now, in the two examples I have instanced -- Arny Krueger's
unprovoked flame attacks and the effect of the support on the
behavior of a speaker -- you have been offered plentiful evidence
that your unsupported and repeated statements are just plain wrong.
Yet, without offering any support for your statements, you continue
to insist you are correct. Which, I suggest, is evidence that it is
_you_ who are the one who bases his opinions on faith rather than
on factual evidence, which is indeed an irony. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"surf" > wrote in message
. ..
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote...
>>>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> Whatever problems you may have with Arny...I can't recall him starting
>>>> and crossposting any attack threads, can you?
>>>
>>> We have been through this, Mr, McKelvy. I offered you examples of where
>>> Arny had done precisely what you deny....
>
>
> What about this Mikey? You ignored it. Instead of acknowlegeing, you
> went on a counter attack.
>
My recollection is that Arny has taken people to task after they have
attacked him. Had no such attacks occured, then there would have been no
responses from Arny.

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > wrote:
>> >> Whatever problems you may have with Arny...I can't recall him starting
>> >> and crossposting any attack threads, can you?
>> >
>> > We have been through this, Mr, McKelvy. I offered you examples of where
>> > Arny had done precisely what you deny, yet at that time you said you
>> > were too busy to examine these examples. Yet here you are a year later
>> > still making faith-based statements like this.
>> >
>> > Similarly, I posted a response giving some evidential support to
>> > demonstrate that your faith-based comments on speakers stands were
>> > incorrect. Yet you don't seem to have read that evidence. :-(
>> >
>> > There is a word for someone who ignorees factual evidence in favor of
>> > their own beliefs.
>> >
>> And there is at least one other person I can think of who does the same
>> thing, his name is listed below. He ignores all scientific evidence
>> about
>> the uselessness of sighted evaluations of audio gear.
>
> Because, when it comes to the "uselessness of sighted evaluations of
> audio gear," the case is not proven.

That is unmitigated bull****.

Sighted listening can be
> extremely useful, when done with care, of course, under the
> appropriatae circumstances.
>

Only when considering gross differences.

> And I note that you have ducked my commenst, instead merely
> retorting with that weakest of responses, and IKWIABWAY, or
> whatever it is called. Now, Mr. McKelvy, please address what I
> said: you waste literal megabytes of Usenet bandwidth demanding
> factual evidence from those you ridicule, crowing that you only go
> by evidence, yet when the table is turned, you disappear from view.
>
> Now, in the two examples I have instanced -- Arny Krueger's
> unprovoked flame attacks and the effect of the support on the
> behavior of a speaker -- you have been offered plentiful evidence
> that your unsupported and repeated statements are just plain wrong.

Unprovoked? Are you on crack?

> Yet, without offering any support for your statements, you continue
> to insist you are correct.

So we have that in common then. You continue to allow your reveiewers to
use the least relaible methods for evaluating audio gear, claiming the case
against sighted listening is not proven, even though the evidence is
massive.

Which, I suggest, is evidence that it is
> _you_ who are the one who bases his opinions on faith rather than
> on factual evidence, which is indeed an irony. :-)
>
>
You're entitled to beleive whatever you wish.

"surf" > wrote in message
. ..
> > wrote...
>>
>> "surf" > wrote in message ...
>
>>>
>>> Nope. Arny has been destroyed by real electronic engineers a hundred
>>> times.
>>>
>> Richard Pierce? Stewart Pinkerton, Graham aka Pooh Bear? Not that I can
>> recall.
>>
>
> Bamborough, Zelniker, Johnston. Mikey - you were here. Don't ask me to
> do your homework for you.
>
>
Only one of those would I even consider to reputable and that's JJ. As for
the other 2 I don't recall the details other than I beleive I contacted
Bamborough in private e-mail and it was clear that he was not interested in
anything other than a hate campaign.

I don't recall JJ disagreeing on any technical issues, but its been a long
time. I'm not saying it didn't happen, only that if it did, it was very
rare. Both Arny and JJ are generally unwilling to budge when they think
they are right.

Wanting to make it seem like all the problems here revolve around Arny just
doesn't fly.
He definitely is not perfect, but he's far less responsible for the tone of
RAO than many other people that seem to be opposed to the idea that there is
anything objective about audio ever.

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > I note that you have ducked my commenst, instead merely
> > retorting with that weakest of responses, and IKWIABWAY, or
> > whatever it is called. Now, Mr. McKelvy, please address what I
> > said: you waste literal megabytes of Usenet bandwidth demanding
> > factual evidence from those you ridicule, crowing that you only go
> > by evidence, yet when the table is turned, you disappear from view.
> >
> > Now, in the two examples I have instanced -- Arny Krueger's
> > unprovoked flame attacks and the effect of the support on the
> > behavior of a speaker -- you have been offered plentiful evidence
> > that your unsupported and repeated statements are just plain wrong.
>
> Unprovoked? Are you on crack?

No. And in the instances I gave you the last time you made this claim,
Arny Krueger was indeed _not_ provoked by anything I or anyone else
had said to him when he went into full flaming attack mode.

And again, I note that you refuse to address the fact that your
statements on speaker supports are both unsupported by your
own research and contra-indicated by the work of others. Surely,
as the facts of the matter don't supprt your opinions and as you
have repeatedly claimed that you only hold opinions that are
supported by facts, you should admit your error in this instance?
Either that or start -- belatedly -- offering some evidence for your
so-far unsupported but often-repeated claim that a speaker's
support cannot have any effect on sound quality.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Andre Jute]

John Atkinson wrote to Mickey McMickey:

> And again, I note that you refuse to address the fact that your
> statements on speaker supports are both unsupported by your
> own research and contra-indicated by the work of others. Surely,
> as the facts of the matter don't supprt your opinions and as you
> have repeatedly claimed that you only hold opinions that are
> supported by facts, you should admit your error in this instance?
> Either that or start -- belatedly -- offering some evidence for your
> so-far unsupported but often-repeated claim that a speaker's
> support cannot have any effect on sound quality.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Nyobe, Queen of Ignorance, you can very easily and cheaply conduct a
test to provide the information Mr Atkinson requests. You have
speakers, don't you? And you have a few bucks for a beach ball or a big
fat tractor tire, don't you? (If you don't, I'll send you a few bucks.)
Inflate the beach ball or the tire softly, put the speakers on top,
play music (you do have music, don't you?) with lots of bravura
passages, big pompous music. Watch the speakers move. You could even
try listening, though that might be a step too far to ask of you merely
in the interest of science. Report your findings here. Leave your
opinions at home.

Andre Jute
PS John, why do you flatter this scum by a reply?

[[email protected]]

>From the king of the ****s:
John Atkinson wrote:
>
blather snipped

[Arny Krueger]

"surf" > wrote in message
. ..
> > wrote...
>>
>> "surf" > wrote in message ...
>
>>>
>>> Nope. Arny has been destroyed by real electronic engineers a hundred
>>> times.
>>>
>> Richard Pierce? Stewart Pinkerton, Graham aka Pooh Bear? Not that I can
>> recall.
>>
>
> Bamborough, Zelniker, Johnston. Mikey - you were here. Don't ask me to
> do your homework for you.

JJ and I were mostly allies - but don't try to talk truth to this troll.

Bamborough had the corner on lies, and Zelniker could easily inundate me
with profanity and insults. NGs are clearly a case of "Last Man Standing",
and that man is I.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Now, in the two examples I have instanced -- Arny Krueger's
> unprovoked flame attacks

As compared to say Zelniker's unprovoked flame attacks, or George Middius'
unprovoked flame attacks or Bamborough's unprovoked flame attacks or Shain's
unprovoked flame attacks or...

Atkinson, you having mini-strokes again or is this just an example of your
convenient memory and hypocrisy?

[John Atkinson]

Andre Jute wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote to Mickey McMickey:
> > And again, I note that you refuse to address the fact that your
> > statements on speaker supports are both unsupported by your
> > own research and contra-indicated by the work of others. Surely,
> > as the facts of the matter don't supprt your opinions and as you
> > have repeatedly claimed that you only hold opinions that are
> > supported by facts, you should admit your error in this instance?
> > Either that or start -- belatedly -- offering some evidence for your
> > so-far unsupported but often-repeated claim that a speaker's
> > support cannot have any effect on sound quality.
>
> Nyobe, Queen of Ignorance, you can very easily and cheaply conduct a
> test to provide the information Mr Atkinson requests.

Mr. McKelvy is strong on opinion but has not actually performed _any_
experiments of hs own. His is a faith-based philosophy of unblemished
purity.

> John, why do you flatter this scum by a reply?

Because I find it intellectually satisfying to expose the logical and
scientific fallacies in the arguments of someone who has a declared
absolute faith in "Science."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[surf]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote...
>
> "John Atkinson" > wrote...
>
>> Now, in the two examples I have instanced -- Arny Krueger's
>> unprovoked flame attacks
>
> As compared to say Zelniker's unprovoked flame attacks, or George Middius'
> unprovoked flame attacks or Bamborough's unprovoked flame attacks or
> Shain's unprovoked flame attacks or...


That's not the point, Arnold. Mike said YOU never made an
unprovoked attack on anyone. Will you tell him he's wrong please.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> Because I find it intellectually satisfying to expose the logical and
> scientific fallacies in the arguments of someone who has a declared
> absolute faith in "Science."

If you had a modicum of self-awareness Atkinson, you would realize that all
you do here is expose yourself to ridicule because of your logical and
scientific fallacies, and that big logical and scientific fallacy of a
ragazine you dabble in.

[Arny Krueger]

"surf" > wrote in message
...

> That's not the point, Arnold. Mike said YOU never made an
> unprovoked attack on anyone. Will you tell him he's wrong please.

Given all the attacks I've received over the years, is it even possible for
me to make an unprovoked attack?

I think not.

After all people show up here all the time that I've never seen or heard of
before and spew dozens of personal attacks on me, even before I've had time
to make one post about them.

[surf]

"Arny Krueger" completely avoids the question...
>
> "surf" > wrote ...
>
>> That's not the point, Arnold. Mike said YOU never made an
>> unprovoked attack on anyone. Will you tell him he's wrong please.
>
> Given all the attacks I've received over the years, is it even possible
> for me to make an unprovoked attack?
>
> I think not.
>
> After all people show up here all the time that I've never seen or heard
> of before and spew dozens of personal attacks on me, even before I've had
> time to make one post about them.


You're bull****ting, Arn. You know you've attacked (been hostile to,
abusive
to, nasty to, etc) people because they've merely disagreed with you. Please
be
honest.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
:
: "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
: ups.com...
:
: > Because I find it intellectually satisfying to expose the logical and
: > scientific fallacies in the arguments of someone who has a declared
: > absolute faith in "Science."
:
: If you had a modicum of self-awareness Atkinson, you would realize that all
: you do here is expose yourself to ridicule because of your logical and
: scientific fallacies, and that big logical and scientific fallacy of a
: ragazine you dabble in.
:
Yeess, do tell us , Darth Krueger,
about those cd's being around and round
in the 50's, eh ?

dare not you speaketh for Science,
lest lightning will a strike yu :-)

R.

[ScottW]

John Atkinson wrote:
> wrote:
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > I note that you have ducked my commenst, instead merely
> > > retorting with that weakest of responses, and IKWIABWAY, or
> > > whatever it is called. Now, Mr. McKelvy, please address what I
> > > said: you waste literal megabytes of Usenet bandwidth demanding
> > > factual evidence from those you ridicule, crowing that you only go
> > > by evidence, yet when the table is turned, you disappear from view.
> > >
> > > Now, in the two examples I have instanced -- Arny Krueger's
> > > unprovoked flame attacks and the effect of the support on the
> > > behavior of a speaker -- you have been offered plentiful evidence
> > > that your unsupported and repeated statements are just plain wrong.
> >
> > Unprovoked? Are you on crack?
>
> No. And in the instances I gave you the last time you made this claim,
> Arny Krueger was indeed _not_ provoked by anything I or anyone else
> had said to him when he went into full flaming attack mode.
>
> And again, I note that you refuse to address the fact that your
> statements on speaker supports are both unsupported by your
> own research and contra-indicated by the work of others. Surely,
> as the facts of the matter don't supprt your opinions and as you
> have repeatedly claimed that you only hold opinions that are
> supported by facts, you should admit your error in this instance?
> Either that or start -- belatedly -- offering some evidence for your
> so-far unsupported but often-repeated claim that a speaker's
> support cannot have any effect on sound quality.
>

Why not address this question... Should a speaker support have any
significant effect on sound quality?

I suggest that it should not beyond its impact on location or height.
If the support does dramatically impact the sound by altering cabinet
response... then the cabinet design and/or fabrication is IMO grossly
deficient. I would also point out that a cabinet response will not
likely be smooth in frequency nor uniform in dispersion but will have
severe resonance modes that are often producing significant distortion
which would prevent a speaker in such a cabinet from having any
reasonable measure of performance.

Powells plots are not a speaker system worthy of note..note.

ScottW

[John Atkinson]

ScottW wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > again, I note that you refuse to address the fact that your
> > statements on speaker supports are both unsupported by your
> > own research and contra-indicated by the work of others. Surely,
> > as the facts of the matter don't supprt your opinions and as you
> > have repeatedly claimed that you only hold opinions that are
> > supported by facts, you should admit your error in this instance?
> > Either that or start -- belatedly -- offering some evidence for your
> > so-far unsupported but often-repeated claim that a speaker's
> > support cannot have any effect on sound quality.
>
> Why not address this question... Should a speaker support have any
> significant effect on sound quality?

I am sorry, I don't comprehend the question. "Should they?" The fact is
that they do.

> I suggest that it should not beyond its impact on location or height.
> If the support does dramatically impact the sound by altering cabinet
> response... then the cabinet design and/or fabrication is IMO grossly
> deficient.

Of the almost 600 loudspeakers I have measured over the past 15
years, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number that have
_not_ suffered from panel resonances in their enclosures to a
measurable and often audible extent. You may regard these designs
as "grossly deficient"; i am merely observing how things actually
are in the real world where the designer is limited by his budget
regarding what he can achieve in this area.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" completely avoids the question...
>>
>> "surf" > wrote ...
>>
>>> That's not the point, Arnold. Mike said YOU never made an
>>> unprovoked attack on anyone. Will you tell him he's wrong please.
>>
>> Given all the attacks I've received over the years, is it even possible
>> for me to make an unprovoked attack?
>>
>> I think not.
>>
>> After all people show up here all the time that I've never seen or heard
>> of before and spew dozens of personal attacks on me, even before I've had
>> time to make one post about them.
>
>
> You're bull****ting, Arn.

Prove it. <safe bet because proving *anything* is beyond surf's
capabilities>

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 15 Dec 2005 13:00:07 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> wrote:

>
>ScottW wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>> > again, I note that you refuse to address the fact that your
>> > statements on speaker supports are both unsupported by your
>> > own research and contra-indicated by the work of others. Surely,
>> > as the facts of the matter don't supprt your opinions and as you
>> > have repeatedly claimed that you only hold opinions that are
>> > supported by facts, you should admit your error in this instance?
>> > Either that or start -- belatedly -- offering some evidence for your
>> > so-far unsupported but often-repeated claim that a speaker's
>> > support cannot have any effect on sound quality.
>>
>> Why not address this question... Should a speaker support have any
>> significant effect on sound quality?
>
>I am sorry, I don't comprehend the question. "Should they?" The fact is
>that they do.
>

So.. Are Powell's measurements typical? :-)
http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2

>> I suggest that it should not beyond its impact on location or height.
>> If the support does dramatically impact the sound by altering cabinet
>> response... then the cabinet design and/or fabrication is IMO grossly
>> deficient.
>
>Of the almost 600 loudspeakers I have measured over the past 15
>years, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number that have
>_not_ suffered from panel resonances in their enclosures to a
>measurable and often audible extent. You may regard these designs
>as "grossly deficient"; i am merely observing how things actually
>are in the real world where the designer is limited by his budget
>regarding what he can achieve in this area.

So.. Do fancy stands cure the pesky vibrations or just make them
different? If the latter case, this is good because ................
.................................................. ..........................

>
>John Atkinson
>Editor, Stereophile

Goofball.

[ScottW]

John Atkinson wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > again, I note that you refuse to address the fact that your
> > > statements on speaker supports are both unsupported by your
> > > own research and contra-indicated by the work of others. Surely,
> > > as the facts of the matter don't supprt your opinions and as you
> > > have repeatedly claimed that you only hold opinions that are
> > > supported by facts, you should admit your error in this instance?
> > > Either that or start -- belatedly -- offering some evidence for your
> > > so-far unsupported but often-repeated claim that a speaker's
> > > support cannot have any effect on sound quality.
> >
> > Why not address this question... Should a speaker support have any
> > significant effect on sound quality?
>
> I am sorry, I don't comprehend the question. "Should they?"

Yes... should they? I suggest that a complicated and expensive
stand to address cabinet deficiencies is not likely to be effective.
Put the money into the cabinet and properly address the problem.

>The fact is
> that they do.
>
> > I suggest that it should not beyond its impact on location or height.
> > If the support does dramatically impact the sound by altering cabinet
> > response... then the cabinet design and/or fabrication is IMO grossly
> > deficient.
>
> Of the almost 600 loudspeakers I have measured over the past 15
> years, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number that have
> _not_ suffered from panel resonances in their enclosures to a
> measurable

Of course there are measurable resonances. It would be ridiculously
expensive and non-productive to reduce them to those levels.

> and often audible extent.

There's the crux. What percentage were audible? What benefit could
a stand have on these speakers?

>You may regard these designs
> as "grossly deficient"; i am merely observing how things actually
> are in the real world where the designer is limited by his budget
> regarding what he can achieve in this area.
>
Consider the problem from the consumer point of view. IMO its kind of
silly for a consumer to go with a low budget speaker with a poorly
performing cabinet and then, futilely try to compensate with an
expensive stand.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

surf said:

> You're bull****ting, Arn. You know you've attacked (been hostile to,
> abusive to, nasty to, etc) people because they've merely disagreed with
> you. Please be honest.

I'd like to see that, too. Also, it would be nice if Mickey smartened up,
and the lesser 'borgs admitted their hypocrisy for flogging aBxism when
they've never, ever partaken, even a single time.

After all that, the ayatollahs in Iran will convert to Judaism, and the
Mexican government will suddenly develop a collective conscience and go
after the kidnapper gangs. I can hardly wait!

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> John Atkinson wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> > > I note that you have ducked my commenst, instead merely
>> > > retorting with that weakest of responses, and IKWIABWAY, or
>> > > whatever it is called. Now, Mr. McKelvy, please address what I
>> > > said: you waste literal megabytes of Usenet bandwidth demanding
>> > > factual evidence from those you ridicule, crowing that you only go
>> > > by evidence, yet when the table is turned, you disappear from view.
>> > >
>> > > Now, in the two examples I have instanced -- Arny Krueger's
>> > > unprovoked flame attacks and the effect of the support on the
>> > > behavior of a speaker -- you have been offered plentiful evidence
>> > > that your unsupported and repeated statements are just plain wrong.
>> >
>> > Unprovoked? Are you on crack?
>>
>> No. And in the instances I gave you the last time you made this claim,
>> Arny Krueger was indeed _not_ provoked by anything I or anyone else
>> had said to him when he went into full flaming attack mode.
>>
>> And again, I note that you refuse to address the fact that your
>> statements on speaker supports are both unsupported by your
>> own research and contra-indicated by the work of others. Surely,
>> as the facts of the matter don't supprt your opinions and as you
>> have repeatedly claimed that you only hold opinions that are
>> supported by facts, you should admit your error in this instance?
>> Either that or start -- belatedly -- offering some evidence for your
>> so-far unsupported but often-repeated claim that a speaker's
>> support cannot have any effect on sound quality.
>>
>
> Why not address this question... Should a speaker support have any
> significant effect on sound quality?
>
> I suggest that it should not beyond its impact on location or height.
> If the support does dramatically impact the sound by altering cabinet
> response... then the cabinet design and/or fabrication is IMO grossly
> deficient.

Which is what I said. Any stand that is absorbing audible cabinet
resonances is a piece of ****.

I would also point out that a cabinet response will not
> likely be smooth in frequency nor uniform in dispersion but will have
> severe resonance modes that are often producing significant distortion
> which would prevent a speaker in such a cabinet from having any
> reasonable measure of performance.
>
> Powells plots are not a speaker system worthy of note..note.
>
> ScottW
>
The major resonances would be from the speakers projection of sound into the
room and coming back, not from vibration from the cabinet.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> surf said:
>
>> You're bull****ting, Arn. You know you've attacked (been hostile to,
>> abusive to, nasty to, etc) people because they've merely disagreed with
>> you. Please be honest.
>
> I'd like to see that, too. Also, it would be nice if Mickey smartened up,
> and the lesser 'borgs admitted their hypocrisy for flogging aBxism when
> they've never, ever partaken, even a single time.
>
Which has nothing to do with understanding the fact that ABX is valid for
what it is used for.


We're all smart enough to know what dickhead you are.

> After all that, the ayatollahs in Iran will convert to Judaism, and the
> Mexican government will suddenly develop a collective conscience and go
> after the kidnapper gangs. I can hardly wait!
>
When will you start talking about audio?

[John Atkinson]

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2005 13:00:07 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> > wrote:
> >ScottW wrote:
> >> Why not address this question... Should a speaker support have any
> >> significant effect on sound quality?
> >
> >I am sorry, I don't comprehend the question. "Should they?" The fact is
> >that they do.
>
> So.. Are Powell's measurements typical? :-)
> http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2

I doubt it. His graph is showing very large farfield differences that
cover
octave-wide and greater frequency regions, that are several orders of
magnitude greater than anything I have encountered. I suspect that
either the speaker or the microphone were inadvertently moved between
the two measurement conditions.

> >> I suggest that it should not beyond its impact on location or height.
> >> If the support does dramatically impact the sound by altering cabinet
> >> response... then the cabinet design and/or fabrication is IMO grossly
> >> deficient.
> >
> >Of the almost 600 loudspeakers I have measured over the past 15
> >years, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number that have
> >_not_ suffered from panel resonances in their enclosures to a
> >measurable and often audible extent. You may regard these designs
> >as "grossly deficient"; i am merely observing how things actually
> >are in the real world where the designer is limited by his budget
> >regarding what he can achieve in this area.
>
> So.. Do fancy stands cure the pesky vibrations or just make them
> different?

"Fancy" stands? A good stand need not be expensive or
complicated. It needs merely to be rigid and non-resonant (and
the right height). Ideally, it should have high internal damping
without compromising the rigidity. I use single-pillar metal designs
with that pillar filled with a mixture of sand and lead shot. The
amount of vibration in the pillar induced by a problematic speaker
coupled to the stand's top plate with spikes (measured with an
accelerometer) was considerable before I added the filling. After,
it was pretty much inert.

As to curing or changing, this is what I addressed in the article I
referenced in an earlier post, as well in another post. And my opinion
is
that the material used to couple the speaker to the stand is of
primary importance.

Whether, with a specific speaker, you want to let the panel resonances
ring
maximally or try to damp them out of existence is going to depend on
the radiating area affected and the amplitude, frequency, and Q of the
resonance and how much the Q and amplitude can be reduced. As
Floyd Toole has pointed out, low-Q small-amplitude resonances are
more easily detected sonically annoying than high-amplitude resonances
of very high Q. There is also the rule of thumb to consider that a
resonance
needs to be stimulated with a number of cycles equal to its Q to be
maximally stimulated.

All I can advise audiophiles is that if they suspect something is
causing
problems -- in the worst case I have heard music sound out of tune in a
narrow midrange band due to the "pulling" effect of an undamped
panel resonance -- they should experiment with stands and interfacing.

And I fail to grasp what is so controversial about anything I have said
on this subject.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson]

ScottW wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > Should a speaker support have any significant effect on sound
> > > quality?
> >
> > I am sorry, I don't comprehend the question. "Should they?"
>
> Yes...should they? I suggest that a complicated and expensive
> stand to address cabinet deficiencies is not likely to be effective.
> Put the money into the cabinet and properly address the problem.

I don't disagree but this is not an option for the audiophile unless
he builds his own speakers. Experimenting with stands and
interfacing is cheap, easy, and can be very effective with
speakers that have audible problems with cabinet panel
resonances, as too many do, in my not inconsiderable
experience.

Another strategy is to try adding mass to the speaker, by, say,
placing a plastic bag full of sand or shot on top of it. Doesn't look
very nice, but in some cases it can shift the frequency of the
problematic resonance by just enough that it will not be as
excited as often with moden-tuned Western music. This is
what I meant in an earlier posting by "falling between the gaps."
A resonance needs to be stimulated by a number of cycles of
ist center frequency equal to its Q to be maximally stimulated;
you can reduce the efficency of that stimulation by moving
the frequency of the resonance even slightly.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 16 Dec 2005 07:01:28 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> wrote:

>
>Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
>> On 15 Dec 2005 13:00:07 -0800, "John Atkinson"
>> > wrote:
>> >ScottW wrote:
>> >> Why not address this question... Should a speaker support have any
>> >> significant effect on sound quality?
>> >
>> >I am sorry, I don't comprehend the question. "Should they?" The fact is
>> >that they do.
>>
>> So.. Are Powell's measurements typical? :-)
>> http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2
>
>I doubt it. His graph is showing very large farfield differences that
>cover
>octave-wide and greater frequency regions, that are several orders of
>magnitude greater than anything I have encountered. I suspect that
>either the speaker or the microphone were inadvertently moved between
>the two measurement conditions.

I think the crux of the problem is that arty-farties, footballer's
wives, solicitors, bankers and even successful business men or wannabe
theoretical physicists should not be attempting to measure speakers.


>
>> >> I suggest that it should not beyond its impact on location or height.
>> >> If the support does dramatically impact the sound by altering cabinet
>> >> response... then the cabinet design and/or fabrication is IMO grossly
>> >> deficient.
>> >
>> >Of the almost 600 loudspeakers I have measured over the past 15
>> >years, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number that have
>> >_not_ suffered from panel resonances in their enclosures to a
>> >measurable and often audible extent. You may regard these designs
>> >as "grossly deficient"; i am merely observing how things actually
>> >are in the real world where the designer is limited by his budget
>> >regarding what he can achieve in this area.
>>
>> So.. Do fancy stands cure the pesky vibrations or just make them
>> different?
>
>"Fancy" stands? A good stand need not be expensive or
>complicated.

I'll keep a lookout for Lidl special offers.

>It needs merely to be rigid

Ah. Perhaps..

>and non-resonant

Ah. Tricky if it is stiff and heavy. With or without a speaker hanging
off it? Hitting it with a hammer does not count.

>(and the right height).

Good point!

>Ideally, it should have high internal damping
>without compromising the rigidity. I use single-pillar metal designs
>with that pillar filled with a mixture of sand and lead shot.

I suppose that if I can assume that a violin bridge on a chip does not
change the sound, I can not complain if people assume that sand and
lead damps stands.

>The
>amount of vibration in the pillar induced by a problematic speaker
>coupled to the stand's top plate with spikes (measured with an
>accelerometer) was considerable before I added the filling. After,
>it was pretty much inert.

Perhaps it got heavier.

>
>As to curing or changing, this is what I addressed in the article I
>referenced in an earlier post, as well in another post. And my opinion
>is
>that the material used to couple the speaker to the stand is of
>primary importance.

You might be on to something.. put the damping stuff where the movment
is.

>
>Whether, with a specific speaker, you want to let the panel resonances
>ring
>maximally or try to damp them out of existence is going to depend on
>the radiating area affected and the amplitude, frequency, and Q of the
>resonance and how much the Q and amplitude can be reduced. As
>Floyd Toole has pointed out, low-Q small-amplitude resonances are
>more easily detected sonically annoying than high-amplitude resonances
>of very high Q.

Peaks or troughs?

>There is also the rule of thumb to consider that a
>resonance
>needs to be stimulated with a number of cycles equal to its Q to be
>maximally stimulated.
>
>All I can advise audiophiles is that if they suspect something is
>causing
>problems -- in the worst case I have heard music sound out of tune in a
>narrow midrange band due to the "pulling" effect of an undamped
>panel resonance -- they should experiment with stands and interfacing.
>

That could mean a lot of trips to the shop for nothing..

>And I fail to grasp what is so controversial about anything I have said
>on this subject.

Don't look at me.. I never suggested that stands could not affect the
sound, it is just that it is a very poor place to start from if you
want damp panels. For instance if the stand has a single stiff
vertical tube then there is no signifcant movement between the ends,
so no damping along the vertical axis of the stand but it could make
the floor flap. If your speaker has symmetry left/right and the side
panels are flapping like a tuning fork then you are also out of luck
(no force on stand- no effect). etc.

[Lionel]

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote :


>>"Fancy" stands? A good stand need not be expensive or
>>complicated.
>
> I'll keep a lookout for Lidl special offers.

LOL !

[Powell]

"John Atkinson" wrote

>> >> Why not address this question... Should
>> >> a speaker support have any significant
>> >> effect on sound quality?
>> >
>> >I am sorry, I don't comprehend the question.
>> >"Should they?" The fact is
>> >that they do.
>>
>> So.. Are Powell's measurements typical? :-)
>> http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-105449L&y=2005&m=12&t=jpg&rand=2301&srv=img2
>
> I doubt it. His graph is showing very large farfield
> differences...
>
"farfield differences"... no, near-field, 1 meter.


> that cover octave-wide and greater frequency
> regions, that are several orders of magnitude
> greater than anything I have encountered.
>
That’s because your experience is limited to
low end designs.


> I suspect that either the speaker or the
> microphone were inadvertently moved between
> the two measurement conditions.
>
To quote you "One would be wrong to do so."

"I suspect" your methodology is deficient
in respect to empirical findings.


>> So.. Do fancy stands cure the pesky vibrations
>> or just make them different?
>
> "Fancy" stands? A good stand need not be
> expensive or complicated.
>
OSAF.


> It needs merely to be rigid and non-resonant
> (and the right height).
>
Yes at Stereophile you have make an art
form out of counting angles dancing on the
head of a pin. :)


> Ideally, it should have high internal damping
> without compromising the rigidity. I use
> single-pillar metal designs with that pillar filled
> with a mixture of sand and lead shot. The
> amount of vibration in the pillar induced by a
> problematic speaker coupled to the stand's
> top plate with spikes (measured with an
> accelerometer) was considerable before I
> added the filling. After, it was pretty much
> inert.
>
True, this is the low-tech approach.

Your methodology in the use of an
accelerometer is problematic.

> As to curing or changing, this is what I
> addressed in the article I referenced in an
> earlier post, as well in another post. And
> my opinion is that the material used to
> couple the speaker to the stand is of
> primary importance.
>
Agreed, however your methodology
in applying Blu-tack is also problematic,
IME.

<snip theory>

> All I can advise audiophiles is that if they
> suspect something is causing problems...
> they should experiment with stands and
> interfacing.
>
Really, how does that work? Couldn’t stands
improve an already good sounding speaker?
Your lack of empirical stand experience has
made you short sighted.


> And I fail to grasp what is so controversial about
> anything I have said on this subject.
>
Hypocrisy Noted: you find it difficult for other
not to suspend their disbeliefs while you are
unable to do the same.

[Powell]

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote

> I think the crux of the problem is that
> arty-farties, footballer's wives, solicitors,
> bankers and even successful business men
> or wannabe theoretical physicists should not
> be attempting to measure speakers.
>
Hehehe... where would you place in your
intellectual hierarchy? Ditch digger perhaps.


> For instance if the stand has a single stiff
> vertical tube then there is no signifcant
> movement between the ends, so no damping
> along the vertical axis of the stand but it could
> make the floor flap. If your speaker has
> symmetry left/right and the side panels are
> flapping like a tuning fork then you are also
> out of luck (no force on stand- no effect). etc.
>
Please take your own advice then, mr.
"wannabe theoretical physicists."

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:44:43 -0500, "Powell" >
wrote:

>
>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote
>
>> I think the crux of the problem is that
>> arty-farties, footballer's wives, solicitors,
>> bankers and even successful business men
>> or wannabe theoretical physicists should not
>> be attempting to measure speakers.
>>
>Hehehe... where would you place in your
>intellectual hierarchy? Ditch digger perhaps.
>
Close.
>
>> For instance if the stand has a single stiff
>> vertical tube then there is no signifcant
>> movement between the ends, so no damping
>> along the vertical axis of the stand but it could
>> make the floor flap. If your speaker has
>> symmetry left/right and the side panels are
>> flapping like a tuning fork then you are also
>> out of luck (no force on stand- no effect). etc.
>>
>Please take your own advice then, mr.
>"wannabe theoretical physicists."
>
>
I suppose you are a bit miffed.