"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Bobo's anti-irony shielding is holding firm.

Mike, I'm sure your questions are sincere, but Trotsky can't answer
them,
because he did not follow any semblance of a design process.

Fact: The Bug Eater went through various M&M rituals when he
designed his speakers. Of course, an objective observer presumes
Mikey is as inept at those rituals as he is in self-expression,
rhetoric, logic, listening to music, and everything else.

Fact: The Bug Eater's speakers are crap. He can barely give them
away to victims of relation or acquaintance.

Inference: Simply arguing in favor of the plugged-ear approach to
"design" is as pointless as showing Kroo**** what a hypocrite he is.


And yet, Bobo, here you are, accepting duh-Mikey's ill-formed blobs
of rhetoric on the subject, as if the design-by-wire system were an
abecedarian exercise in musical fulfillment. Very foolish.

I didn't say that. And if I made a statement which is subject to that
interpretation, let me amend it now.
Ever since Thiele and Small's landmark work, every speaker worthy of the
name has been designed in three steps:
1. Do the math, to get it close.
2. Saw up a storm of sawdust, to get closer.
3. "Voice" the speakers, the final, subjective step.

Variations of this process exist. For example, the designer may
intentionally add the "presence notch", or hollow out the midrange; or he
may modify the on-axis treble response to get the room response he desires.
He may choose the characteristic of the bass by manipulating the "Q" of the
system. He uses the math to achieve these variations with ease.

All of these subjective steps are aided, not impeded, by the control which
the mathematical models give the designer.

George, that's the way they do it. You're acting too much like an Eloi, who
prefers ignorance to a comprehension of the dark, smoking bowels of our
industrial civilization. By the time you see the product, all the math,
sawdust, and sweat has been wiped away. Be be not under the illusion that
there are audio "geniuses" who design like Jackson Pollack painted --
throwing paint at the canvas in "free expression."

Science serves the audio art, and it does so with distinction. Science
doesn't prescribe what a speaker should sound like, but it is the sharpest
tool we have.

Confuse not this statement with utterances from primitives like Krueger.
Krueger is a bad scientist, a pseudo-scientist. Science is morally neutral.
As a design tool, it is not anti-subjective.