dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:29:14 -0400, "Powell"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote

Please consider the whole system. You got speakers
with frequency response starting at DC or a 1 Hz?

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6hz?

Nobody seems to have understood what I said about the 12 dB/octave rise in
response, BELOW a certain critical frequency.

It's interesting to note that some of the subwoofer
manufacture are designing down to this low level
like: Bag End 8 Hz, Definitive Tech. 11 Hz, Linn 2 Hz,
Paragon 11 Hz, Thiel 10 Hz, California Audio 9 Hz
and Audio Physic 10 Hz.

Experience subwoofer builders are probably laughing. No serious players in
the list, no not one.

You only list one manufacturer who goes "down to
this level".

True, but all are well below what is considered
to be ideal/theoretical limits (20 Hz) of audio
perception.

Has anyone really said that?

Yes, Powell did.

I think that there's probably something
to be said for the fact that sub 20hz is the foundation of music and
that, for a system that can reproduce those frequencies at
*meaningful* levels, it wouldn't be hard *at all* to tell between
music with and music without that content.

Well sub-20 Hz seems pretty tame. How about sub 6 Hz?

Hell, my old Cornwalls
could reproduce 20 hz pretty handily, even though it was only rated to
something like 36 hz. I know because I could hear a 20 hz test tone.

Probably mostly doubling and/or tripling. You heard *something*, but was it
20 Hz, or was it one or more harmonics? Tell us about your measurement
mics, Weil. Tell us about your analytical equipment.

Of course, you really had to struggle to hear it when it was on its
own (I don't remember how many dB it was down, but it was down
considerably - still it was audible).

Remember the Fletcher-Munson curves.

The point I'm trying to make with Arnold, and I suspect that he's
going to play some serious "debating trade" games as usual, is that he
has to prove that the removal of a 6 hz component would be reliably
detectable in a dbt of musical programming, and he hasn't shown any
evidence of that.

That would be posturing. As long as there is musical programming like the
1812, it's a slam dunk.

I'd also have to wonder if a system that could probably reproduce 6 hz
pretty handily, like Nousaine or the Devil's system could show such
reliability.

Devil's system is imaginary, Nousaine's is real. Nousaine's would take
Devil's imaginary system to the cleaners, no sweat. That the Devel even
brags about what he has shows how limited even his wildest imagings are.

Or maybe those guys are falling back on the ole
subjective "But I can hear the difference".

Wrong. The proper statement when it comes to infrasonics is: "I can perceive
the difference".

That would be cool with me - they just have to admit it.

Obviously Weil, you've never really been around when a large system does its
stuff.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:36:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

True, but all are well below what is considered
to be ideal/theoretical limits (20 Hz) of audio
perception.

Has anyone really said that?

Yes, Powell did.

Well yes, that's why I said what I did.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:36:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

snip

Hell, my old Cornwalls
could reproduce 20 hz pretty handily, even though it was only rated to
something like 36 hz. I know because I could hear a 20 hz test tone.

Probably mostly doubling and/or tripling. You heard *something*, but was it
20 Hz, or was it one or more harmonics? Tell us about your measurement
mics, Weil. Tell us about your analytical equipment.

Why do *I* suddenly have to provide details but you don't?

I'm guessing that maybe what *you're* hearing might very well be what
you're talking about here.

Of course, you really had to struggle to hear it when it was on its
own (I don't remember how many dB it was down, but it was down
considerably - still it was audible).

Remember the Fletcher-Munson curves.

Ahhhh, suddenly you're a fan of the F-M curves. That's funny!

The point I'm trying to make with Arnold, and I suspect that he's
going to play some serious "debating trade" games as usual, is that he
has to prove that the removal of a 6 hz component would be reliably
detectable in a dbt of musical programming, and he hasn't shown any
evidence of that.

That would be posturing. As long as there is musical programming like the
1812, it's a slam dunk.

Prove it. You need a dbt to prove it, right?

I'd also have to wonder if a system that could probably reproduce 6 hz
pretty handily, like Nousaine or the Devil's system could show such
reliability.

Devil's system is imaginary, Nousaine's is real.

It's not real to me.

You can claim that Graham's system is fake all you want. It's just
posturing on your part.

Nousaine's would take Devil's imaginary system to the cleaners, no sweat. That the Devel even
brags about what he has shows how limited even his wildest imagings are.

I don't know who "the Devel" is. Needless to say, you have no way of
proving what Tom's system will do vis a vis Graham's.

Or maybe those guys are falling back on the ole
subjective "But I can hear the difference".

Wrong. The proper statement when it comes to infrasonics is: "I can perceive
the difference".

Prove it by doing a verifiable dbt.

That would be cool with me - they just have to admit it.

Obviously Weil, you've never really been around when a large system does its
stuff.

Hmmmmm, I guess that 3rd row Grateful Dead show last year was just
like hearing a boombox, especially during the infrasonic-drenched
Mickey hart drum solo.

BTW, when was the last time you heard a loud concert? Mine was just
this last weekend...four sets worth...

dave weil wrote:

Hmmmmm, I guess that 3rd row Grateful Dead show last year was just
like hearing a boombox, especially during the infrasonic-drenched
Mickey hart drum solo.

Thanks Weil for admtting that you can't hear the difference between a high
end audio system and a rock-and-roll sound reinforcment system. You
subsequently admit how this sad situation came to pass.

I'll bet that year after year of up-front seating without proper ear
protection has taken its toll on your hearing. You've been doing this for
what, 30 years? How many megatimes have you violated OSHA sandard for
avoiding ear damage with your own ears (or what is left of them?).

BTW, when was the last time you heard a loud concert? Mine was just
this last weekend...four sets worth...

If one wears proper ear protection, there is no such thing as a loud
concert. Too bad that it's way too late for your ears, Weil. But this does
explain your love for tubes and vinyl - you've been deafened to the sonic
garbage that they add.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 05:41:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Hmmmmm, I guess that 3rd row Grateful Dead show last year was just
like hearing a boombox, especially during the infrasonic-drenched
Mickey hart drum solo.

Thanks Weil for admtting that you can't hear the difference between a high
end audio system and a rock-and-roll sound reinforcment system. You
subsequently admit how this sad situation came to pass.

Here's the part that Arnold deceptively snipped:

"Obviously Weil, you've never really been around when a large system
does its stuff".

Nothing about a "high end audio system". Apparently, he doesn't
consider a "rock-and-roll reinforcement system" a system, even though
he called it such.

Now *that's* a hoot!

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 05:41:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Hmmmmm, I guess that 3rd row Grateful Dead show last year was just
like hearing a boombox, especially during the infrasonic-drenched
Mickey hart drum solo.

Thanks Weil for admtting that you can't hear the difference between
a high end audio system and a rock-and-roll sound reinforcment
system. You subsequently admit how this sad situation came to pass.

Here's the part that Arnold deceptively snipped:

"Obviously Weil, you've never really been around when a large system
does its stuff".

Nothing about a "high end audio system".

Don't blame me for your missteps, Weil.

The context of this discussion should be obvious to anybody with a brain,
Weil. Sorry to apparently leave you out.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:33:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 05:41:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Hmmmmm, I guess that 3rd row Grateful Dead show last year was just
like hearing a boombox, especially during the infrasonic-drenched
Mickey hart drum solo.

Thanks Weil for admtting that you can't hear the difference between
a high end audio system and a rock-and-roll sound reinforcment
system. You subsequently admit how this sad situation came to pass.

Here's the part that Arnold deceptively snipped:

"Obviously Weil, you've never really been around when a large system
does its stuff".

Nothing about a "high end audio system".

Don't blame me for your missteps, Weil.

The context of this discussion should be obvious to anybody with a brain,
Weil. Sorry to apparently leave you out.

It wasn't *my* misstep. Actually it was *you* who introduced the idea
of subsonics in live music, not me. I can't help it if you are called
on something and don't have the sence to say what you actually mean.

I'll bet your brain is still in the cereal bowl.

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:33:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 05:41:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Hmmmmm, I guess that 3rd row Grateful Dead show last year was just
like hearing a boombox, especially during the infrasonic-drenched
Mickey hart drum solo.

Thanks Weil for admtting that you can't hear the difference between
a high end audio system and a rock-and-roll sound reinforcment
system. You subsequently admit how this sad situation came to pass.

Here's the part that Arnold deceptively snipped:

"Obviously Weil, you've never really been around when a large system
does its stuff".

Nothing about a "high end audio system".

Don't blame me for your missteps, Weil.

The context of this discussion should be obvious to anybody with a
brain, Weil. Sorry to apparently leave you out.

It wasn't *my* misstep. Actually it was *you* who introduced the idea
of subsonics in live music, not me.

Thanks Weil for admitting the fact that you can't tell the difference
between music created with acoustical instruments and music created
electronically.

I can't help it if you are called
on something and don't have the sence to say what you actually mean.

I've never had any sence.