Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless,
worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or
the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its
always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand
what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its
limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been
brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about
music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain
shall meet).
Ah, thanks for clearing that whole thing up for us, at long last.
(Personally, I've never seen that particular conclusion until now.)
Since you're not an audiophile and wouldn't know how to set up an
audiophile turntable if I put a gun to your head, do you think I should
be surprised?
So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"
by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps
it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars.
Why don't you just list all your preconceived yet dubious conclusions,
like the one above LPs and CDs. Save us lots of time.
Okay, here it is:
I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the
advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to
establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question
my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make.
He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver
materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper
drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that
paper is a natural material, as are the materials of many musical
instruments, which are made of wood or even brass, etc. He talked about
rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and
determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will
make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material. His
reasoning was that plastic materials are used in driver design because
they -measure- well, particularly figures of distortion. But that the
paper cones (I assume if properly designed), while they may produce
more distortion than plastic or measure more poorly, also produce sound
that more resembles real music. Which is something you can't measure.
You know, this sort of theory of correspondences had some traction in
the age of alchemy...but not so much nowadays, except in New Age/homepathic
circles.
Your vigorous assertions have no currency here. What experiments, Mr.
Scientist, have you done with cone materials that prove contrary to the
article?
One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?
No, but I'll bet your refrring to Enid Lumley. I only heard about her
recently in my research into alternative audio, as I was not a regular
reader of The Absolute Sound. She seems to be very well regarded, and
sorely missed (after having dropped out of the audio scene altogether,
because as I understand, of always having to deal with ignorant pigs
like yourself). I read that she was many years ahead of her time, and
that many of her practices that were largely ridiculed in the 80's (by
ignorant pigs like yourself), are now standard practice in the
audiophile world. I read that TAS should be congratulated, as having
been one of the few audio magazines to have the courage to support
unpopular principles and ideas, such as what Enid Lumley advocated,
that may have helped to advance the state of the audio hobby. I have no
reason to doubt anything I just mentioned.
One reason being, I find that what you mentioned about Enid Lumley's
findings on the effects of metal parallel my own work. I believe that
metal is NOT good for audio. One experience comes from my DIY IC and
speaker wire experiments. Conventional audiophile "wisdom" tells us
that the thicker the wire (ie. the more metal), the better. So
audiophiles cables tend to look like snakes with gold heads. Yet I've
managed to make IC and speaker cables out of hair-thin 30g magnet wire,
that can sound superior to the "snakes". Eichmann showed us with his
popular "bullet plugs", that all metals are not beneficial to the
signal, after reducing them to a bare minimum. He was probably drawing
on principles developed by Dennis Moorecroft, who fabricates amplifiers
containing little or no metals, based on his advanced findings.
Apparently, they sound out of this world good. Do you think your friend
Arny Krueger has done anything to help improve our understanding of how
to achieve higher qualities of music reproduction? Hardly. If it
weren't for pioneers like Lumley, Moorecroft, Eichmann, and alumni, our
hobby would never advance. People like you and Krueger who sit on your
arse all day doing absolutely nothing to advance the state of audio,
but rag on people who are a lot brighter than you and are trying to
move audio ahead, don't do anything good for our hobby.
My research has also shown me that magnets are not good for audio
either (except under certain applications). Any extraneous magnets
should be removed from the listening room. This includes any items
containing magnetic particles. So, a simple way that people can improve
the quality of their sound is by removing videotapes and audio tapes
from their listening room. However, from what people have described to
me in response to my other tweaks, I don't expect most people on this
group to be able to figure out how to do this either. They'd probably
manage to set themselves on fire, in an attempt to remove the
videotapes.
So tell me, what personal experiments have YOU done that prove Lumley
wrong, Mr. Gabalot? Have you ever considered that fact that YOU'RE the
"kook", for not realizing what an ignorant pig you are, in criticizing
people and ideas simply because you're ignorant about them? Ideas you
know nothing about, and have never researched on your own? It's true,
you know. The most frightening thing about all of this (read: your
willful ignorance), is that you call yourself a "scientist". Even more
frightening is the fact that you admitted you don't have the attention
span to read my posts, you get confused when you have to read posts
that are longer than a few lines (which begs the question: why are you
still reading my messages?). You've got my vote for the dumbest
"scientist" I've ever met.