As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a
discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single
thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After
only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my
honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one).

True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what
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). 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.

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.

As I become more and more aware of the affect of materials in our
environment from my other audio experiments, I find no affection for
plastic, and I admit a bias towards natural materials. So I think there
may be some merit in his argument, but I'm not a speaker designer, and
don't have enough expertise to say what the "sound" of a cone may be,
without the motor. If anyone has any reasonable and thoughtful opinions
on the issue, I'd be interested to hear. If you just want to line up to
attack me, please note that I now have a thread specifically for that
purpose: "An open invitation to critique Soundhaspriority's audio
expertise". Again, thanks to Westface for helping this newsgroup to
better focus their attacks on the "real" enemies of RAO.

wrote in message
ups.com...

As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a
discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single
thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After
only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my
honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one).

True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what
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). So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"

You seriously that preface will help "class things up"?


by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps
it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars.

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,

Really? Where exactly would find this source of paper in nature?
Have you ever seen a paper mill? Do you realize
that paper mills were at one time one of the worst sources of
water pollution?

Plastic comes from oil which is a product of nature..
it is as natural as any modern paper.
Perhaps you think a parchment cone is a good idea?

I appreciate your expressed desire to create an audio
thread....but you can't just base one of any seriousness
on such a silly premise. Sorry.

ScottW

wrote in message
ups.com...

[snip]

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.

I have one listening room in which I have three sets of floorstanding
speakers:
Kef Reference III (plastic mid/paper woofers)
NEAR 50me (all metal)
Polk LSi15 (plastic woofer/mids), doped fabric ring tweeter.

Two of these speakers have "character" :
The KEFs are lush, forgiving, with a tonal balance that subjectively seems
"balanced", although, of course, it is not. It was carefully designed to
give the subjective impression that it is "balanced." The NEARs have
exquisite detail, with a tonal balance frequently described as "laid back".
The venue seems larger, the performers arrayed in distant depth.

It appears that Matthew Polk specified objective accuracy as the primary
design goal of the Polk. These speakers are possibly the most detailed of
the bunch; not harsh, but strictly neutral. The presentation is neither
clinical nor romantic.

The impromptu test suggested in the article is a simple measurement of the
damping characteristics. Cellulose based materials found in nature have
significant damping, because they are complex composites. Raw synthetic
materials, be they polymer or metal, are not, in general, highly damped
materials, because they are not composites. But pure plastic is not used in
good speaker drivers. You might find it in a polycarbonate tweeter, but
these have been abandoned for hifi.

Plastics used in speakers are invariably composites, containing mineral
additives such as talc to obtain the necessary damping. Metal drivers are a
much more complex question. Metal is not a well damped material. The virtues
of metal lie elsewhere. In every case where metal is used, the resonant
structure of the driver must be considered and addressed. But in the case of
both plastic and metal, synthetics give the designer more choices. Some
designers have not chosen wisely.

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.)


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.


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.


As I become more and more aware of the affect of materials in our
environment from my other audio experiments, I find no affection for
plastic, and I admit a bias towards natural materials. So I think there
may be some merit in his argument, but I'm not a speaker designer, and
don't have enough expertise to say what the "sound" of a cone may be,
without the motor. If anyone has any reasonable and thoughtful opinions
on the issue, I'd be interested to hear. If you just want to line up to
attack me, please note that I now have a thread specifically for that
purpose: "An open invitation to critique Soundhaspriority's audio
expertise". Again, thanks to Westface for helping this newsgroup to
better focus their attacks on the "real" enemies of RAO.


One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?

Stupey Sillybot turns red in the metallic faceplate.

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 ...

Ah, thanks for clearing that whole thing up for us, at long last.
(Personally, I've never seen that particular conclusion until now.)

Agreed, Silly. You weren't "brainwashed", you were programmed.

This seems an opportune moment to relate the story of how Sillybot made
his Big Audio Purchase of 2005. He clanked through the spec sheets and
feature lists of various midpriced receivers in order to identify several
models that would "get the job done". He then browsed mail order sources
to pinpoint the one deal offered at the greatest percentage discount off
list price. Then he smashed his piggy bank to borrow his daddy's credit
card and made his highly siciccncnetiittifc purchase. What was it again --
a Pioneer? A Sherwood? Marantz? I forget. Doesn't much matter though,
since you weren't brainwashed ;-) and anyway, you're an audiophobe down to
your rusty bolts and misfiring neural pathways.

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.

Why don't you admit that the real reason you prefer CDs to vinyl is that
you're too klutzy to take care of possessions that can deteriorate. In
fact, weren't you the one who prescribed making cockrings out of CDs in
order to show your love? ;-)

As I become more and more aware of the affect of materials in our
environment from my other audio experiments, I find no affection for
plastic, and I admit a bias towards natural materials.

One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?

What a kook! ... said the metal-encased robot.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:



One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?



I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove
the metal snaps on her bra.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:



One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?



I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove
the metal snaps on her bra.

I heard you drew blood with a metal stay .

ScottW

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:

One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?



I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove
the metal snaps on her bra.

That's a very sexist, disrespectful and offensive comment. It has no
place on an audio group.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:

One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?



I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove
the metal snaps on her bra.

That's a very sexist, disrespectful and offensive comment. It has no
place on an audio group.

I agree.
BTW, notice that I did try to respond in an audio related way further up in
this group. Why not carry on as if the pests aren't here? I'd be happy to
continue in that manner.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:

One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?



I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove
the metal snaps on her bra.

That's a very sexist, disrespectful and offensive comment. It has no
place on an audio group.

I agree.
BTW, notice that I did try to respond in an audio related way further up
in this group. Why not carry on as if the pests aren't here? I'd be happy
to continue in that manner.

Across the board with everybody? or just this hypocrite who spews
as many or more disrespectful comments than anyone?

ScottW

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:

One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?



I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove
the metal snaps on her bra.

That's a very sexist, disrespectful and offensive comment. It has no
place on an audio group.




Ask Arny to accuse you of sending him kiddie porn. I'm
sure he will be glad to add you to the list.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

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.

wrote:

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?

Hmm.. is the ability to set up an audiophile turntable *the* defining
talent of an audiophile?


FWIW, I do have one of those cartridge aligning and balancing tools,
as well as the Shure test record, but it's been ages since I've used either,
though. My V15TypeV MR and Systemdek IIX remain ever-ready, though,
should I decide to haul them out of the storage they went into circa 1987.



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:


At a loss for words, are we? Well, there's a first time for everything.


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?

That's not how it works. First, the article write has to do some good experiments
to establish his claim. I can wait.


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).


What I especially admire about you, is the bounty of class you're
bringing to RAO.


And the way your outer kook conceals an even nuttier center.


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.


You really should be subcribed to TAS. You *ARE* their target audience.



One reason being, I find that what you mentioned about Enid Lumley'
findings on the effects of metal parallel my own work.


I'm not surprised in the least.


Anyway. That's enough fun with you for today. Ramble on, dude.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Steven Sullivan said:

FWIW, I do have one of those cartridge aligning and balancing tools,
as well as the Shure test record, but it's been ages since I've used either,
though. My V15TypeV MR and Systemdek IIX remain ever-ready, though,
should I decide to haul them out of the storage they went into circa 1987.


There's a good chance that your cartridge is shot after all those
years.
Dried out cantilever suspension.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Sander deWaal wrote:
Steven Sullivan said:

FWIW, I do have one of those cartridge aligning and balancing tools,
as well as the Shure test record, but it's been ages since I've used either,
though. My V15TypeV MR and Systemdek IIX remain ever-ready, though,
should I decide to haul them out of the storage they went into circa 1987.


There's a good chance that your cartridge is shot after all those
years.
Dried out cantilever suspension.

FWIW, the stylus is much newer than the cart. I have to confess I
*do* break out the table occasionally, to transfer an LP to CDR.
I think I replaced the stylus less than ten years ago and must have used
it once every year or two since then. The last time I checked
it still tracked the Shure test record very well, after setup.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

wrote in message
ups.com...

As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a
discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single
thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After
only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my
honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one).

True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what
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

Complete nonsense.

,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).

More nonsense. I thought you wanted discussions about audio and that sound
has priority. If that's the case then CD is the priority since it is the
most accurate way to listen to music. LP is not now, nor has it ever been
more accurate at anything compared to CD.

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.

Hmm, it looks like your idea of classing things up, is to immediately show
that you don;t know what you are talking about.

Perhaps
it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars.


Like the one you just invited to be started?

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.


So, you're on a roll, 2 idiot statements in a row.
Being able to measure whether or not something sounds more like real music
is of course something that is possible and some materials are better at it
than others and they all have different limitations. The nonosense about
paper vs. plastic is just another bit of idiocy from somebody that
apparently has no clue about speaker design.

Speaker design is all about compromises, especially in driver materials.
Paper has a long history and does somethings well, but if you look around at
virtually all the most highly regarded speakeer systems in the world, you
will notice there are virtually none of them using paper in any of the
drivers.

Dynaudio uses silk dome tweeters and other materials for their mid and low
frequency drivers.
B&W uses Kevlar as does Scan Speak in their OEM drivers, altough they have
some paper mixtureswith other materials.


As I become more and more aware of the affect of materials in our
environment from my other audio experiments, I find no affection for
plastic, and I admit a bias towards natural materials. So I think there
may be some merit in his argument, but I'm not a speaker designer, and
don't have enough expertise to say what the "sound" of a cone may be,
without the motor.

Given that you have been wrong about everything else, this comes as no
surprise.

If anyone has any reasonable and thoughtful opinions
on the issue, I'd be interested to hear.

The best hing for you to do would be to actually investigate the various
high rated speakers that are available and find out how many use paper for
anything, then come bac and admit you were wrong.

If you just want to line up to
attack me, please note that I now have a thread specifically for that
purpose: "An open invitation to critique Soundhaspriority's audio
expertise". Again, thanks to Westface for helping this newsgroup to
better focus their attacks on the "real" enemies of RAO.

If you don't want to be attacked, then you shold try and be smarter about
what you say.
So far you have shown no evidence that you have a clue about audio at all.

In article et,
wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a
discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single
thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After
only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my
honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one).

True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what
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

Complete nonsense.

,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).

More nonsense. I thought you wanted discussions about audio and that sound
has priority. If that's the case then CD is the priority since it is the
most accurate way to listen to music. LP is not now, nor has it ever been
more accurate at anything compared to CD.

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.

Hmm, it looks like your idea of classing things up, is to immediately show
that you don;t know what you are talking about.

Perhaps
it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars.


Like the one you just invited to be started?

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.


So, you're on a roll, 2 idiot statements in a row.
Being able to measure whether or not something sounds more like real music
is of course something that is possible and some materials are better at it
than others and they all have different limitations. The nonosense about
paper vs. plastic is just another bit of idiocy from somebody that
apparently has no clue about speaker design.

Speaker design is all about compromises, especially in driver materials.
Paper has a long history and does somethings well, but if you look around at
virtually all the most highly regarded speakeer systems in the world, you
will notice there are virtually none of them using paper in any of the
drivers.

Dynaudio uses silk dome tweeters and other materials for their mid and low
frequency drivers.
B&W uses Kevlar as does Scan Speak in their OEM drivers, altough they have
some paper mixtureswith other materials.


As I become more and more aware of the affect of materials in our
environment from my other audio experiments, I find no affection for
plastic, and I admit a bias towards natural materials. So I think there
may be some merit in his argument, but I'm not a speaker designer, and
don't have enough expertise to say what the "sound" of a cone may be,
without the motor.

Given that you have been wrong about everything else, this comes as no
surprise.

If anyone has any reasonable and thoughtful opinions
on the issue, I'd be interested to hear.

The best hing for you to do would be to actually investigate the various
high rated speakers that are available and find out how many use paper for
anything, then come bac and admit you were wrong.

If you just want to line up to
attack me, please note that I now have a thread specifically for that
purpose: "An open invitation to critique Soundhaspriority's audio
expertise". Again, thanks to Westface for helping this newsgroup to
better focus their attacks on the "real" enemies of RAO.

If you don't want to be attacked, then you shold try and be smarter about
what you say.

It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or
even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot.
Not here, however.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or
even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot.
Not here, however.

I've noticed your skin is thickening already .

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:FroOf.135029$0G.75246@dukeread10...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or
even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot.
Not here, however.

I've noticed your skin is thickening already .

ScottW

I've noticed too how thick your skin is. Only the skin on your head,
though. But it explains a lot when one wonders where you come up with
these inane responses of yours.

"Jenn" wrote in message


It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express
an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something,
and not be called an idiot. Not here, however.

Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word
idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most
prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express
an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something,
and not be called an idiot. Not here, however.

Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word
idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most
prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius.

I agree with you that it comes from both "sides". It's all "idiotic" if
you ask me. All part of the "talk radio culture", IMO.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express
an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something,
and not be called an idiot. Not here, however.

Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word
idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most
prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius.

I agree with you that it comes from both "sides". It's all "idiotic" if
you ask me. All part of the "talk radio culture", IMO.

I don't see the link to talk radio... which, minimally has to be
considered moderated. I think it's simply the internet culture
where one doesn't have to reveal their identity (many actually
think its foolish to do so) and have little chance of ever
meeting their adversaries face to face, so the usual motivations
for civility... simply aren't there.

ScottW

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message


It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express
an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something,
and not be called an idiot. Not here, however.

Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word
idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most
prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius.

It all depends on one's literary preferences. Not being adept in
the
use of "load of crap" "asshole" and "****bag" language of your camp-
followers. (want names? Just ask) I'd say "idiocy" when responding.
One of your few endearing traits is that you manage without
gutter
language. Don't use phony statistics ( "seem" more prone)
when you try to stand up for your pals.
Ludovic Mirabel

In article . com,
wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message


It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express
an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something,
and not be called an idiot. Not here, however.

Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word
idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most
prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius.

It all depends on one's literary preferences. Not being adept in
the
use of "load of crap" "asshole" and "****bag" language of your camp-
followers. (want names? Just ask) I'd say "idiocy" when responding.
One of your few endearing traits is that you manage without
gutter
language. Don't use phony statistics ( "seem" more prone)
when you try to stand up for your pals.
Ludovic Mirabel

You may remember his accusing me of using "weasel words" once.

wrote in message
ups.com...

. 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.

You can go back to tin cans tied with strings, for all I care.
Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of
a sound is made, and using that result to make
universal determination on material efficacy is quite stupid.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:14:30 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...

. 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.

You can go back to tin cans tied with strings, for all I care.
Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of
a sound is made, and using that result to make
universal determination on material efficacy is quite stupid.

Not if if you have a picture of an asprin and lick a dog's arse, Sick.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:14:30 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

. 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.

You can go back to tin cans tied with strings, for all I care.
Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of
a sound is made, and using that result to make
universal determination on material efficacy is quite stupid.

Not if if you have a picture of an asprin and lick a dog's arse, Sick.


Whatever floats your speaker cones.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Goofy said:

Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of
a sound is made, and using that result to make
universal determination on material efficacy is quite stupid.

Not if if you have a picture of an asprin and lick a dog's arse, Sick.

Complete lack of bias-controlled, level-matched, serially implemented,
statistically significant, bias-free, snot-encased, electrically grounded,
morally superior DBT result's, noted. As if someone with your credential's
or, should I say "lack of" credentails would even know how to reliably
subjectivationalize a listening test, LOt"S! ;-) LOl! ;-(