Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Article draft from Ferstler
I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some of you goofballs will be able to understand it. The rest of you will carp and rant and say that it is unreadable, boring, etc., because the topic it covers will be heading right over your heads. The draft: Speaker-Room Suckout and Other Tidbits. I've mentioned this before, but I will mention it again: in typical home-listening rooms, spaced-apart woofer (or subwoofer) systems will generate a cancellation notch at some bass frequency that is dependent upon both the distance between woofer (or subwoofer) driver centers and the frequency. Depending upon the spacing between the systems (between woofer or subwoofer driver centers), at some bass frequency the rarefaction wave from one woofer or subwoofer will reach the other woofer or subwoofer just as it is generating a pressure wave. (More on this up ahead.) The two cancel out and you get a power-response notch. There is no way to get away from this with spaced woofer/subwoofer systems generating identical or near-identical bass signals. A similar thing happens with single woofers and subwoofers interacting with stiff, large-area wall, floor, and ceiling surfaces. The large surface area will reflect back the signal to the radiating driver as if it were being radiated by a second woofer or subwoofer at twice the distance from the single driver's center to the boundary. The boundary creates a mirror-image situation that mimics a second woofer or subwoofer driver. For example, a situation where you have two spaced woofers or subwoofers 12 feet apart or another situation where you have one woofer or subwoofer 6 feet from a large boundary will each generate a suckout notch centered at 56.5 Hz. With one system you have a boundary and with two systems you have a faux boundary exactly between the two sound sources. Note that this phenomenon is unrelated to standing waves, which involve boundary/boundary interactions. The suckout effect is quite different and involves either woofer/boundary interactions or woofer/woofer interactions. There is a formula to calculate this notching as it relates to woofer/boundary interactions: 1130/d x 0.3 Here, "d" is the distance in feet from the woofer center (measured by the shortest route possible) to the closest part of the boundary, and 0.3 (three tenths) is the multiplier that calculates the frequency of the dip. Actually, the true quarter-wavelength multiplier should be 0.25 and not 0.3. However, because the boundary surface is not equidistant over its entire surface from the driver center, it has been found that 0.3 works better. When calculating the suckout notch between woofer (or subwoofer) centers you would use half the distance (1/2d) between them as d. You would still use the .3 multiplier, because the spaced woofers are generating a faux flat boundary between them. The big problem occurs when you have multiple boundary or inter-woofer interactions. For example, if the woofer (or subwoofer) centers are 10 feet apart and one or more of them are also 5 feet from a large room boundary the suckout notch will be augmented - in this case centered at 67.8 Hz. Note that the distances do not have to be exact. Woofers ten feet apart will still have additional attenuation applied if one or more of them are, say, 4 foot 10 or 5 feet 2 inches from a room boundary. The notching is not so abrupt that slightly different distances do not count. The suckout slope will be gradual enough for close fairly distances to still add to the effect. Obviously, it is a good idea to get as much asymmetry as possible when it comes to dealing with bass-range cancellations. Actually, at least with full-range systems placed in typical locations, this suckout phenomenon is more likely to be a problem in the middle bass, instead of in the low bass, because the woofers in such systems tend to be fairly close to room boundaries. "Fairly close" in this case means less than, say, three feet. However, when woofer/subwoofer systems are placed large distances apart (more than eight feet) or large distances from room boundaries (more than four feet) it can happen fairly far down in frequency, too. With single subwoofers placed in corners, the issue does not exist, because at such close distances any boundary-related notching would be generated well above the operating range of the system. Indeed, one of the advantages of subwoofer/satellite systems that use only one subwoofer (at least as it relates to suckout notches in the range below middle bass) is that one can position the satellites so that any potential suckout effects they would generate would be below their crossover-controlled operating range. And as noted, any that the corner-located subwoofer might generate would be above its crossover-controlled operating range. For example, if you have a sub/sat system with the sub located in the corner it is likely that any three-boundary suckout notches will be between 200 and 600 Hz. Obviously, if you have the sub/sat crossover set at 80 Hz. these artifacts will not be reproduced by the subwoofer. At the same time, the potential inter-woofer and some (but not all) of the woofer/boundary artifacts that would be generated by the satellites will be in the 50 to 70 Hz range, which is below the 80-Hz crossover point. This situation still does not solve any middle-bass, closer-boundary suckout problems with the satellites, but it does eliminate any for them that would involve longer-distance inter-woofer or woofer/boundary artifacts. A lot of people are still confused about just what the suckout effect (often called the Allison Effect, after Roy Allison who documented its existence years ago) is all about. Many people will mention "floor bounce" when discussing cancellation effects and speaker measurements, but the phenomenon happens with all large room boundaries and not just the floor. This cancellation artifact impacts the power response of the system, whereas your typical floor-bounce artifact (where a second, reflected signal arrives later than the original after hitting the floor between the listener and the speaker) involves first-arrival signals. While the frequency of a floor-bounce notch will be effected somewhat by the listener's location, the much more important power-response suckout will be the same anywhere in the listening room. Below is an explanation of why the effect happens at all with woofer/boundary interactions, with my example primarily dealing with the effect in the middle-bass region. As noted above, at greater distances the suckout will happen at lower frequencies. Let's look at a typical box loudspeaker system positioned in a room so that its woofer cone center is about two feet from each of the three nearest room surfaces (floor and two intersecting walls). When the speaker is radiating a very low frequency the cone moves relatively slowly and over a relatively long distance. If the radiated frequency is 40 Hz, for example, it takes 1/40 second (25 milliseconds) for the cone to execute one complete forward-backward cycle. Each half cycle takes 12.5 milliseconds (ms). As the cone begins a forward movement it generates the start of a compression wave. This impulse travels at the speed of sound (approximately 1130 feet per second at sea level) to those nearby room boundaries and is reflected back toward the woofer cone, arriving there some 3.5 ms after it left, while the woofer is still generating the compression half of the sound cycle. The reflected waves increase the instantaneous pressure seen by the woofer and enable it to radiate more power than it could in free space. This is why placing woofers (or subwoofers) close to boundaries augments their outputs. However, as the woofer tries to radiate at higher, middle-bass frequencies, it must reverse its motion more quickly. For example, at 140 Hz. (the middle bass, for sure), the cone reverses direction every 3.5 ms. It begins its half-cycle of motion (attempting to create a rarefaction) just as the compression-wave reflections from those two-foot distant room boundaries begin to arrive back at the woofer. In this case, the reflected signal is out of phase with the cone motion, decreasing its radiation efficiency. The result is a suckout notch in what would otherwise be a flat woofer-output signal. As I indicated before, this phenomenon will exist in all parts of the room, since it deals with the actual power input of the speaker to the room. That sets it apart from a standing-wave artifact, as well as from your standard floor-bounce anomaly. It is also much more influential than the latter, because power response is a much larger percentage of the total output than the direct response. Howard Ferstler |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some of you goofballs will be able to understand it. The rest of you will carp and rant and say that it is unreadable, boring, etc., because the topic it covers will be heading right over your heads. The draft: Speaker-Room Suckout and Other Tidbits. I've mentioned this before, but I will mention it again: in typical home-listening rooms, spaced-apart woofer (or subwoofer) systems will generate a cancellation notch at some bass frequency that is dependent upon both the distance between woofer (or subwoofer) driver centers and the frequency. Depending upon the spacing between the systems (between woofer or subwoofer driver centers), at some bass frequency the rarefaction wave from one woofer or subwoofer will reach the other woofer or subwoofer just as it is generating a pressure wave. (More on this up ahead.) The two cancel out and you get a power-response notch. There is no way to get away from this with spaced woofer/subwoofer systems generating identical or near-identical bass signals. A similar thing happens with single woofers and subwoofers interacting with stiff, large-area wall, floor, and ceiling surfaces. The large surface area will reflect back the signal to the radiating driver as if it were being radiated by a second woofer or subwoofer at twice the distance from the single driver's center to the boundary. The boundary creates a mirror-image situation that mimics a second woofer or subwoofer driver. For example, a situation where you have two spaced woofers or subwoofers 12 feet apart or another situation where you have one woofer or subwoofer 6 feet from a large boundary will each generate a suckout notch centered at 56.5 Hz. With one system you have a boundary and with two systems you have a faux boundary exactly between the two sound sources. Note that this phenomenon is unrelated to standing waves, which involve boundary/boundary interactions. The suckout effect is quite different and involves either woofer/boundary interactions or woofer/woofer interactions. There is a formula to calculate this notching as it relates to woofer/boundary interactions: 1130/d x 0.3 Here, "d" is the distance in feet from the woofer center (measured by the shortest route possible) to the closest part of the boundary, and 0.3 (three tenths) is the multiplier that calculates the frequency of the dip. Actually, the true quarter-wavelength multiplier should be 0.25 and not 0.3. However, because the boundary surface is not equidistant over its entire surface from the driver center, it has been found that 0.3 works better. When calculating the suckout notch between woofer (or subwoofer) centers you would use half the distance (1/2d) between them as d. You would still use the .3 multiplier, because the spaced woofers are generating a faux flat boundary between them. The big problem occurs when you have multiple boundary or inter-woofer interactions. For example, if the woofer (or subwoofer) centers are 10 feet apart and one or more of them are also 5 feet from a large room boundary the suckout notch will be augmented - in this case centered at 67.8 Hz. Note that the distances do not have to be exact. Woofers ten feet apart will still have additional attenuation applied if one or more of them are, say, 4 foot 10 or 5 feet 2 inches from a room boundary. The notching is not so abrupt that slightly different distances do not count. The suckout slope will be gradual enough for close fairly distances to still add to the effect. Obviously, it is a good idea to get as much asymmetry as possible when it comes to dealing with bass-range cancellations. Actually, at least with full-range systems placed in typical locations, this suckout phenomenon is more likely to be a problem in the middle bass, instead of in the low bass, because the woofers in such systems tend to be fairly close to room boundaries. "Fairly close" in this case means less than, say, three feet. However, when woofer/subwoofer systems are placed large distances apart (more than eight feet) or large distances from room boundaries (more than four feet) it can happen fairly far down in frequency, too. With single subwoofers placed in corners, the issue does not exist, because at such close distances any boundary-related notching would be generated well above the operating range of the system. Indeed, one of the advantages of subwoofer/satellite systems that use only one subwoofer (at least as it relates to suckout notches in the range below middle bass) is that one can position the satellites so that any potential suckout effects they would generate would be below their crossover-controlled operating range. And as noted, any that the corner-located subwoofer might generate would be above its crossover-controlled operating range. For example, if you have a sub/sat system with the sub located in the corner it is likely that any three-boundary suckout notches will be between 200 and 600 Hz. Obviously, if you have the sub/sat crossover set at 80 Hz. these artifacts will not be reproduced by the subwoofer. At the same time, the potential inter-woofer and some (but not all) of the woofer/boundary artifacts that would be generated by the satellites will be in the 50 to 70 Hz range, which is below the 80-Hz crossover point. This situation still does not solve any middle-bass, closer-boundary suckout problems with the satellites, but it does eliminate any for them that would involve longer-distance inter-woofer or woofer/boundary artifacts. A lot of people are still confused about just what the suckout effect (often called the Allison Effect, after Roy Allison who documented its existence years ago) is all about. Many people will mention "floor bounce" when discussing cancellation effects and speaker measurements, but the phenomenon happens with all large room boundaries and not just the floor. This cancellation artifact impacts the power response of the system, whereas your typical floor-bounce artifact (where a second, reflected signal arrives later than the original after hitting the floor between the listener and the speaker) involves first-arrival signals. While the frequency of a floor-bounce notch will be effected somewhat by the listener's location, the much more important power-response suckout will be the same anywhere in the listening room. Below is an explanation of why the effect happens at all with woofer/boundary interactions, with my example primarily dealing with the effect in the middle-bass region. As noted above, at greater distances the suckout will happen at lower frequencies. Let's look at a typical box loudspeaker system positioned in a room so that its woofer cone center is about two feet from each of the three nearest room surfaces (floor and two intersecting walls). When the speaker is radiating a very low frequency the cone moves relatively slowly and over a relatively long distance. If the radiated frequency is 40 Hz, for example, it takes 1/40 second (25 milliseconds) for the cone to execute one complete forward-backward cycle. Each half cycle takes 12.5 milliseconds (ms). As the cone begins a forward movement it generates the start of a compression wave. This impulse travels at the speed of sound (approximately 1130 feet per second at sea level) to those nearby room boundaries and is reflected back toward the woofer cone, arriving there some 3.5 ms after it left, while the woofer is still generating the compression half of the sound cycle. The reflected waves increase the instantaneous pressure seen by the woofer and enable it to radiate more power than it could in free space. This is why placing woofers (or subwoofers) close to boundaries augments their outputs. However, as the woofer tries to radiate at higher, middle-bass frequencies, it must reverse its motion more quickly. For example, at 140 Hz. (the middle bass, for sure), the cone reverses direction every 3.5 ms. It begins its half-cycle of motion (attempting to create a rarefaction) just as the compression-wave reflections from those two-foot distant room boundaries begin to arrive back at the woofer. In this case, the reflected signal is out of phase with the cone motion, decreasing its radiation efficiency. The result is a suckout notch in what would otherwise be a flat woofer-output signal. As I indicated before, this phenomenon will exist in all parts of the room, since it deals with the actual power input of the speaker to the room. That sets it apart from a standing-wave artifact, as well as from your standard floor-bounce anomaly. It is also much more influential than the latter, because power response is a much larger percentage of the total output than the direct response. Howard Ferstler "At least' you only had one "at least". |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I decided garbage deleted Back to the drawing board. Cheers, Margaret |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" reproduced all that waffle . . . "At least' you only had one "at least". If only you'd snipped it . . . As it is I can now see why nobody takes this guy seriously as an 'expert'. I've seen better explainations by 'O' level students (that used to be at age 17, here in the UK). _________ Geoff B |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler said:
I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review. What amp is that and how does it sound? -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some of you goofballs will be able to understand it. The rest of you will carp and rant and say that it is unreadable, boring, etc., because the topic it covers will be heading right over your heads. [snip] Actually, it's rather lowbrow. Howard has chosen to enlighten the reader on the consequences of the least favorable placement of a loudspeaker, equidistant from three room boundaries, an exemplar of bad,bad,bad luck. As is customary for Howard, he provides no citation of the quoted facts, giving it a plagiaristic flavor. Since Howard is a librarian and not an acoustician, he must be paraphrasing some written source. I wonder what it is? The style of writing is the simplistic take one usually finds in My Weekly Reader, but without the elan of that publication. And Howard even gets the speed of sound wrong. From http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...re/q0126.shtml, the ASTM speed of sound is defined as 1,116.4 feet/second, not 1130. My **** tickets make better reading. Who could I submit them to? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message news Howard Ferstler said: I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review. What amp is that and how does it sound? It sounds the same. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Howard said:
I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some of you goofballs What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you mentally retarded? Autistic? What? Boon |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
Howard said: I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some of you goofballs What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you mentally retarded? Autistic? What? From the Marc Phillips school of *charm*.... LOL! |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Marc Phillips" wrote in message Howard said: I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some of you goofballs What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you mentally retarded? Autistic? What? From the Marc Phillips school of *charm*.... A person who: 1. shamelessly uses his own son's death to launch personal attacks on the internet 2. shamelessly uses his own son's death to troll for sympathy on the internet 3. loves to brag how he "outlives his opponents" in response to obituaries and 4. whose name has become synonymous to child pornographer and pedophile through several incidents some of which (by his own admission) have led to a police investigation should perhaps not make comments about *charm* in a public forum. LOL! I bet your family and relatives aren't. MvBB |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Morein" said:
And Howard even gets the speed of sound wrong. From http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...re/q0126.shtml, the ASTM speed of sound is defined as 1,116.4 feet/second, not 1130. Not with his "humidity control". -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
New Geoff wrote:
"Clyde Slick" reproduced all that waffle . . . "At least' you only had one "at least". If only you'd snipped it . . . As it is I can now see why nobody takes this guy seriously as an 'expert'. I've seen better explainations by 'O' level students (that used to be at age 17, here in the UK). _________ Geoff B Right over your head. Howard Ferstler |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I decided garbage deleted Back to the drawing board. Cheers, Margaret Right over your head. Howard Ferstler |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sander deWaal wrote:
Howard Ferstler said: I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review. What amp is that and how does it sound? -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound. Good amp, though. Howard Ferstler |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message news Howard Ferstler said: I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review. What amp is that and how does it sound? It sounds the same. After carefully matching levels in each channel, you are absolutely correct. Howard Ferstler |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Morein wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some of you goofballs will be able to understand it. The rest of you will carp and rant and say that it is unreadable, boring, etc., because the topic it covers will be heading right over your heads. [snip] Actually, it's rather lowbrow. Howard has chosen to enlighten the reader on the consequences of the least favorable placement of a loudspeaker, equidistant from three room boundaries, an exemplar of bad,bad,bad luck. As is customary for Howard, he provides no citation of the quoted facts, giving it a plagiaristic flavor. Since Howard is a librarian and not an acoustician, he must be paraphrasing some written source. I wonder what it is? The style of writing is the simplistic take one usually finds in My Weekly Reader, but without the elan of that publication. And Howard even gets the speed of sound wrong. From http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...re/q0126.shtml, the ASTM speed of sound is defined as 1,116.4 feet/second, not 1130. Depends upon altitude. Close enough for audio. My **** tickets make better reading. Who could I submit them to? Right over your head. Howard Ferstler |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Marc Phillips wrote:
Howard said: I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some of you goofballs What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you mentally retarded? Autistic? What? Boon Yep, it went right over your head. Howard Ferstler |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"George M. Middius" wrote:
Marc Phillips said: I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some of you goofballs What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you mentally retarded? Autistic? What? Harold's bloviations on Usenet are rehearsals. He's rehearsing the spiel he uses on certain low-end magazine editors. Not the ones who have already been co-opted into Hivethink. It's for the other ones, the ones who are Normal -- who appreciate having choices in the marketplace. Harold has to keep rehearsing his "it's over your head" shinola, and the simple rulebook approach he yaps about, and the wrecking ball and other tortured analogies. He has to keep rehearsing because, you know, sometimes he forgets his lines when he's performing, so to speak. Went over your head, too. Not surprising. Howard Ferstler |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I decided garbage deleted Back to the drawing board. Cheers, Margaret Right over your head. Howard Ferstler Dear Mr. Numbnuts, It does not take a proctologist to identify *feces* and *the rectum* that spews it. Much to *your* detriment. Cheers, MvBB |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Sander deWaal" wrote in message news Howard Ferstler said: I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review. What amp is that and how does it sound? It sounds the same. After carefully matching levels in each channel, you are absolutely correct. AMAZING! you don't even have to compare it to anything else for you to say it sounds the same! What a 'rigorous' analysis! Sounds the same as WHAT, dunderhead? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Howard said:
Marc Phillips wrote: Howard said: I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some of you goofballs What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you mentally retarded? Autistic? What? Boon Yep, it went right over your head. Thanks for admitting to your autism. Now we can treat you appropriately. Boon |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Sander said:
Howard Ferstler said: I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp that was sent to me to review. What amp is that and how does it sound? You know, this is a perfectly valid question, one that I hoped Howard would answer. He chose instead to write "it went over your head" repeatedly and autistically to everyone who criticized him. It's one thing that Howard doesn't seem to grasp the idea that no one wants to pander to his obsessive need to be recognized as an expert in audio. It's quite another that he ignores his one chance to actually engage in an actual discussion of what he wrote. Howard Ferstler is, and always will be, a fraud. Boon |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler said:
What amp is that and how does it sound? Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound. Good amp, though. This magazine isn't sold locally here. Oh well, sooner or later you'll quote yourself here. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" offered the balanced critical response of... Right over your head. Uhm, no - it passed somewhere between ankle and knee height . . . I'm quite aware of the supposed points you were trying to make, but they were poorly presented with no suporting references or evidence. Certainly in my degree (never mind Masters) work, such an article would have been returned with a "Resubmit" notice. I see from other posters that I am not alone in feeling that perhaps you are batting out of your league and should consider toning down your self-important "I know better than you" attitude. Perhaps we might actually find something of note in your frequent postings. _______ Geoff B |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: [snip] And Howard even gets the speed of sound wrong. From http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...re/q0126.shtml, the ASTM speed of sound is defined as 1,116.4 feet/second, not 1130. Depends upon altitude. Close enough for audio. Then why did you quote the wrong figure? My **** tickets make better reading. Who could I submit them to? Right over your head. Howard Ferstler May I have a list of editors who have accepted material from you? OTOH, I could simply send them to you in a baggie, and you could plagiarize. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
George M. Middius said:
Sander deWaal said: Perhaps we might actually find something of note in your frequent postings. "Note" is actually one of his most used words, note. Mr. De,will its like you, can go to Goggle for some evidents -- NOt! ;-) And when was the last time one of you goofballs took a proper DBT, slick? At least the $3000 dollar amp that was dumped on my doorstep, gets a thorough review, note. Read all about it in the new issue of The Thenthible Thound, Clyde. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
George M. Middius said:
Sander deWaal said: Perhaps we might actually find something of note in your frequent postings. "Note" is actually one of his most used words, note. Mr. De,will its like you, can go to Goggle for some evidents -- NOt! ;-) And when was the last time one of you goofballs took a proper DBT, slick? Can you not see something so OBVIOUS? Are you calling me a LIAR, sir? Your extraordinary claims are ANTI-SCIENCE. Rubbish! Music is art, audio is engineering..................... At least the $3000 dollar amp that was dumped on my doorstep, gets a thorough review, note. Your 'claims' are BIZARRE, sir. In the REAL world, the ear is most certainly probabilistic, and a very basic level, due to the fact that the CNS has to determine detectable changes in a pseudo-poisson distribution of neural firings. Can you DISPUTE that with FACTS or are you GOING TO LIE SOME MORE? Absolute nonsense. Why do you think vinyl is obsolete? I master my own CDs, and I have a Nagra to prove it.................. Read all about it in the new issue of The Thenthible Thound, Clyde. Stand and deliver! My Krell sounds the same as any Yamaha, I just happen to like the thick faceplate.................... -- Stewart Drinkalot -Sometimes I fart, Audio is boring. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Sander deWaal said: Perhaps we might actually find something of note in your frequent postings. "Note" is actually one of his most used words, note. Mr. De,will its like you, can go to Goggle for some evidents -- NOt! ;-) And when was the last time one of you goofballs took a proper DBT, slick? Can you not see something so OBVIOUS? Are you calling me a LIAR, sir? Your extraordinary claims are ANTI-SCIENCE. At least the $3000 dollar amp that was dumped on my doorstep, gets a thorough review, note. Your 'claims' are BIZARRE, sir. In the REAL world, the ear is most certainly probabilistic, and a very basic level, due to the fact that the CNS has to determine detectable changes in a pseudo-poisson distribution of neural firings. Can you DISPUTE that with FACTS or are you GOING TO LIE SOME MORE? Unfortunately in the REAL world AES white papers are often used as toilet paper by people tricked by a Yamaha integrated amp that then become brown papers. I know, I made the trip to Florida. Have amp, will travel. In my professional capacity and due to my standing in the professional audio community, standing in the professional audio community I can state on behalf of the entire professional audio community that an entire basement converted to a one giant subwoofer and a Corvette (0-60 in 3.5 seconds, 220 mph, 55 mpg, 1.7 G's, 47 Hsu subwoofers in the trunk, 155dB @ 6Hz) in the garage will yield maximum return for your audio investment. Any incremental performance will be judged against a Yamaha integrated amp and will be proven to be an overkill with no audible benefits like happened in Florida in the 90's. Unfortunately people often buy midranges and tweeters without realizing that subwoofers have to be corner loaded or else you are wasting your investment unless of course you fill the entire room with subwoofers in which case not every subwoofer can be corner loaded but that's okay because the other subwoofers will form artificial corners for the remaining subwoofers and everything is OK and you can then start thinking about adding a midrange and a tweeter to your system. Of course you you can always stick a few *top-rated* Hsu TN subwoofers in the refrigerator first if you really like bass. I reviewed them and they really are brilliantly designed. If you are hard to convince, just drop me a note and I'll pack the Yamaha integrated amp and proove that you need to learn to be critical of your white papers before you wipe. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
George M. Middius said:
Absolute nonsense. Why do you think vinyl is obsolete? I master my own CDs, and I have a Nagra to prove it.................. I've conducted bias controlled listening tests where a system using a 133-foot pair of networked high-end speaker cables in a room with pronounced 20 Hz "resonances" that would have to have at least one dimension on the order of 28 feet for a 1st mode excitation. Humans are not responsive to my own tests of pshychoacoustics. I am NOT a journalist. I am NOT a reporter. I am NOT on staff at any magazine. I have NEVER been on staff at any magazine. Hah! My ****in' valve amps will destroy your frilly nylons in a naosecond, you will note. My Krell sounds the same as any Yamaha, I just happen to like the thick faceplate.................... I am interested in fiund what changes sound and what doesn't. It doesn't matter to me if it embarasses you. Oh Stu thtis is just ane xcuse. You know that you said prior that anuhting Isaid woulf be considered null and void but your enthisusumm for cars is unnevering. I'n not. Never was. Never will be. My valve dealer left 23.000 boxes of KT88s in my dungeons, with which me and Dr. Kernith will have a good time while smoking for 3000 quid marihuana away. Nurse! No ****in' lie, you clod. -- td |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Sanding the Wall rote:
George M. Middius said: Absolute nonsense. Why do you think vinyl is obsolete? I master my own CDs, and I have a Nagra to prove it.................. I've conducted bias controlled listening tests where a system using a 133-foot pair of networked high-end speaker cables in a room with pronounced 20 Hz "resonances" that would have to have at least one dimension on the order of 28 feet for a 1st mode excitation. Humans are not responsive to my own tests of pshychoacoustics. I am NOT a journalist. I am NOT a reporter. I am NOT on staff at any magazine. I have NEVER been on staff at any magazine. Hah! My ****in' valve amps will destroy your frilly nylons in a naosecond, you will note. My Krell sounds the same as any Yamaha, I just happen to like the thick faceplate.................... I am interested in fiund what changes sound and what doesn't. It doesn't matter to me if it embarasses you. Oh Stu thtis is just ane xcuse. You know that you said prior that anuhting Isaid woulf be considered null and void but your enthisusumm for cars is unnevering. I'n not. Never was. Never will be. My valve dealer left 23.000 boxes of KT88s in my dungeons, with which me and Dr. Kernith will have a good time while smoking for 3000 quid marihuana away. Nurse! No ****in' lie, you clod. -- td Bruce J. Richman |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Sanding the Wall rote:
George M. Middius said: Absolute nonsense. Why do you think vinyl is obsolete? I master my own CDs, and I have a Nagra to prove it.................. I've conducted bias controlled listening tests where a system using a 133-foot pair of networked high-end speaker cables in a room with pronounced 20 Hz "resonances" that would have to have at least one dimension on the order of 28 feet for a 1st mode excitation. Humans are not responsive to my own tests of pshychoacoustics. I am NOT a journalist. I am NOT a reporter. I am NOT on staff at any magazine. I have NEVER been on staff at any magazine. Hah! My ****in' valve amps will destroy your frilly nylons in a naosecond, you will note. My Krell sounds the same as any Yamaha, I just happen to like the thick faceplate.................... I am interested in fiund what changes sound and what doesn't. It doesn't matter to me if it embarasses you. Oh Stu thtis is just ane xcuse. You know that you said prior that anuhting Isaid woulf be considered null and void but your enthisusumm for cars is unnevering. I'n not. Never was. Never will be. My valve dealer left 23.000 boxes of KT88s in my dungeons, with which me and Dr. Kernith will have a good time while smoking for 3000 quid marihuana away. Nurse! No ****in' lie, you clod. -- td Irrelevance and grammatical errors noted. If iron knees killed! I knew that stuff decades ago. LOT'S ! I'll soon be expanding my trailer complex to the tune of 100 Large! (and still have plenty left over with which to wipe). Prove it ! Nathan Detroit |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
New Geoff wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" offered the balanced critical response of... Right over your head. Uhm, no - it passed somewhere between ankle and knee height . . I'm quite aware of the supposed points you were trying to make, but they were poorly presented with no suporting references or evidence. It is typical for the goofball segment to critique my writing style instead of the content. It is all they have to work with. However, my editors feel that my style is just fine, and so the opinions of the more dysfunctional types who hang around here do not really mean much to me. Certainly in my degree (never mind Masters) work, such an article would have been returned with a "Resubmit" notice. It was published in an audio "hobby" magazine, and was not designed to hit the bulls eye at the JAES. I suppose that your idea of a proper technical article would be something one would find in Stereophile or The Absolute Sound. I see from other posters that I am not alone in feeling that perhaps you are batting out of your league and should consider toning down your self-important "I know better than you" attitude. Perhaps we might actually find something of note in your frequent postings. I am sure that if there is something there "of note" you will spot it in spite of any "I know better than you" attitude I might have. The problem the tweakos have is that they have been babied by the mainstream for so long that they actually think they have a leg to stand on. However, they do not, and it is high time that someone came along and called the idiots just what they a idiots. I'll leave it to guys like you to handle the nitwits with kid gloves. Howard Ferstler |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
Dear Mr. Numbnuts, It does not take a proctologist to identify *feces* and *the rectum* that spews it. Much to *your* detriment. Cheers, MvBB It is interesting how you nitwits are compelled to behave as you do. You are either childish jerks who have to worship your often overpriced and usually esoteric audio systems as if they were attached to church alters, or else you are con-artist sales clerks, tweako journalists, or slick marketing people who have a vested interest in keeping tweako audio buffs fully tweaked. Howard Ferstler |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Howard Ferstler Date: 9/30/2004 5:50 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound. Good amp, though. How is it good if it costs 3,000 dollars and sounds no better than an amp at 10th it's price? Well, contrary to the beliefs entertained by a few, it is possible for an expensive amp made by a small company to still be good. Howard Ferstler |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ferstler Readies and Article | Audio Opinions | |||
[Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines | High End Audio | |||
[Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines | High End Audio | |||
[Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines | High End Audio | |||
[Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines | High End Audio |