Hi folks,

I have a Velodyne F1000 subwoofer that I have had for around 9 years. It is
a 10" 80 watt servo model.

I was setting it up in a new, larger room today. I spent the better half of
an afternoon configuring the sub with a Radio Shack SPL meter and test
tones. I was able to find the spot where it was flat as it was going to get
(within +- 2 db) from 30 Hz to 100 Hz . The spot was directly behind my
listening postion. When the sub was in the corner, there was a nasty 12 db
room mode at 40-50 Hz that was activated.

This room is about 3600 cubic feet large. The common knowledge is that
larger rooms require a larger driver and more amperage. Would upgrading to
a sub with more power and a 12" or 15" driver offer any advantage? I know
that I would be able to get more SPL out of it. Would there be any other
audible difference with a larger driver if the subs are putting out the same
SPL at the same frequency?

I do most of my listening at 80 Hz, and my current little sub can produce
that easily done to 30 Hz. Is there any point upgrading?

Thanks,
Greg

Correction:

I do most of my listening at - 80 Db - , and my current little sub can
produce
80 Db easily done to 30 Hz. Is there any point upgrading?


"Greg Williams" wrote in message
...
Hi folks,

I have a Velodyne F1000 subwoofer that I have had for around 9 years. It
is
a 10" 80 watt servo model.

I was setting it up in a new, larger room today. I spent the better half
of
an afternoon configuring the sub with a Radio Shack SPL meter and test
tones. I was able to find the spot where it was flat as it was going to
get
(within +- 2 db) from 30 Hz to 100 Hz . The spot was directly behind my
listening postion. When the sub was in the corner, there was a nasty 12
db
room mode at 40-50 Hz that was activated.

This room is about 3600 cubic feet large. The common knowledge is that
larger rooms require a larger driver and more amperage. Would upgrading
to
a sub with more power and a 12" or 15" driver offer any advantage? I know
that I would be able to get more SPL out of it. Would there be any other
audible difference with a larger driver if the subs are putting out the
same
SPL at the same frequency?

I do most of my listening at 80 Hz, and my current little sub can produce
that easily done to 30 Hz. Is there any point upgrading?

Thanks,
Greg

I am very surprised that you could get it flat to 30 in a room that large,
at an 80 db listening level. Usually, it's attainable with a sub that size
only if it is positioned in a corner or a closet.
You will see substantial improvement with a larger sub, on certain
recordings, because 80 db average does not reflect the level of bass that
can be present, on some recordings. The Fletcher-Munson curves demonstrate
the loss in hearing sensitivity at frequency extremes. Thus, heavy bass can
easily exceed 90 db on some recordings, even if your average listening level
is 80 db.

Personally, I am of the opinion that corner placement is best for a sub. In
many or most cases, this results in room anomalies, but that can be
corrected for by subtractive use of an equalizer. By placing the sub in a
location other than a corner, there is loss of efficiency. For every rigid
surface the sub is adjacent to, add 6 dB of output. The floor adds 6, each
wall adds another 6 db, for a total possible improvement of efficiency of 18
dB. Because ALL but the most expensive subs are challenged to move enough
air, this is important.

In my particular, highly satisfactory experiment, I use an AudioControl
Richter Scale III, which is a combination crossover/equalizer, and a 150
watt Yamaha mono amp, driving the famous NHT woofer in a very small sealed
box. In a cheap imitation of the Bag End design, the woofer is driven below
resonance. The only reason this works in a 1600 cubic foot room is that the
sub is placed in the corner of a closet. It is flat as low as I have test
tones, which is 20 Hz, and there is no midbass hump.

My suggestion: put the sub in a corner, and pick up a used 31 band eq to get
rid of the hump. You may be able to get flat to 20.

"Greg Williams" wrote in message
...
Hi folks,

I have a Velodyne F1000 subwoofer that I have had for around 9 years. It
is
a 10" 80 watt servo model.

I was setting it up in a new, larger room today. I spent the better half
of
an afternoon configuring the sub with a Radio Shack SPL meter and test
tones. I was able to find the spot where it was flat as it was going to
get
(within +- 2 db) from 30 Hz to 100 Hz . The spot was directly behind my
listening postion. When the sub was in the corner, there was a nasty 12
db
room mode at 40-50 Hz that was activated.

This room is about 3600 cubic feet large. The common knowledge is that
larger rooms require a larger driver and more amperage. Would upgrading
to
a sub with more power and a 12" or 15" driver offer any advantage? I know
that I would be able to get more SPL out of it. Would there be any other
audible difference with a larger driver if the subs are putting out the
same
SPL at the same frequency?

I do most of my listening at 80 Hz, and my current little sub can produce
that easily done to 30 Hz. Is there any point upgrading?

Thanks,
Greg

Responses are inline:

I am very surprised that you could get it flat to 30 in a room that large,
at an 80 db listening level.

So was I. I was ready to go shopping for a new sub before I figured that I
should test it first. My room is 15 feet x 22 feet with an 18 foot
cathedral ceiling. I guess-timated that the air volume in the room was
3600. It may be closer to 3300 because the apex of the ceiling is not in
the center. There is a tall 3.5 foot x 12 foot opening to another room
which I'm sure doesn't help things.

You will see substantial improvement with a larger sub, on certain
recordings, because 80 db average does not reflect the level of bass that
can be present, on some recordings. The Fletcher-Munson curves demonstrate
the loss in hearing sensitivity at frequency extremes. Thus, heavy bass
can
easily exceed 90 db on some recordings, even if your average listening
level
is 80 db.

It can hit 90 db at 40 Hz easily, not sure about 30 Hz. Also, this is
measured at the listening position, it doesn't fill the entire room. I
don't listen to pipe organs or rap. What other kind of music goes lower
than ~35 Hz (this is a music only system)? Anyone, please comment on this.


Personally, I am of the opinion that corner placement is best for a sub.
In
many or most cases, this results in room anomalies, but that can be
corrected for by subtractive use of an equalizer. By placing the sub in a
location other than a corner, there is loss of efficiency. For every rigid
surface the sub is adjacent to, add 6 dB of output. The floor adds 6, each
wall adds another 6 db, for a total possible improvement of efficiency of
18
dB. Because ALL but the most expensive subs are challenged to move enough
air, this is important.

There is a three foot high divider (counter top) about 2/3's towards the
rear of the room. The sub sits between this and the listening couch.
Perhaps this is helping it load? I think my room is the exception and not
the rule. Corner placement was so boomy that it was unusable.

In my particular, highly satisfactory experiment, I use an AudioControl
Richter Scale III, which is a combination crossover/equalizer, and a 150
watt Yamaha mono amp, driving the famous NHT woofer in a very small sealed
box. In a cheap imitation of the Bag End design, the woofer is driven
below
resonance. The only reason this works in a 1600 cubic foot room is that
the
sub is placed in the corner of a closet. It is flat as low as I have test
tones, which is 20 Hz, and there is no midbass hump.
My suggestion: put the sub in a corner, and pick up a used 31 band eq to
get
rid of the hump. You may be able to get flat to 20.

Thanks for the recommendation. I used to use their stuff back when I still
cared about car audio. Will a half octave equalizer be enough for this
application if I were to put it back into the corner? When I was testing,
my SPL meter was showing around 82 Db at 30 Hz, ~95 Db at 40 Hz, ~92 Db at
50 Hz then back to ~83 Db at 63 Hz.

Thanks!

-Greg

"Greg Williams" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Thanks for the recommendation. I used to use their stuff back when I
still
cared about car audio. Will a half octave equalizer be enough for this
application if I were to put it back into the corner? When I was testing,
my SPL meter was showing around 82 Db at 30 Hz, ~95 Db at 40 Hz, ~92 Db at
50 Hz then back to ~83 Db at 63 Hz.

Thanks!

-Greg

The Richter-Scale III is a half octave eq, and it works for me.

"Greg Williams" wrote in message


I have a Velodyne F1000 subwoofer that I have had for around 9 years.
It is a 10" 80 watt servo model.

I was setting it up in a new, larger room today. I spent the better
half of an afternoon configuring the sub with a Radio Shack SPL meter
and test tones. I was able to find the spot where it was flat as it
was going to get (within +- 2 db) from 30 Hz to 100 Hz . The spot
was directly behind my listening postion. When the sub was in the
corner, there was a nasty 12 db room mode at 40-50 Hz that was
activated.

This room is about 3600 cubic feet large. The common knowledge is
that larger rooms require a larger driver and more amperage. Would
upgrading to a sub with more power and a 12" or 15" driver offer any
advantage?

Under ideal conditions, large subwoofers can be flat down to well below 5
Hz, and generate sound on the order of 120 dB with relatively low
distortion.

I know that I would be able to get more SPL out of it.

You can also get a lot deeper bass, which can lend a sense of ease and
spaciousness to the music you are playing. While not all musical works have
significant content below 30 Hz, some does. Furthermore, there are
incidental sounds that are parts of many recordings that give audible clues
to the size of the room the recording was made in. I've had an 18" subwoofer
since the middle 1970s, that was essentially flat down to below 20 Hz and
capable of well over 110 dB SPL.

Would there be any other audible difference with a larger driver if
the subs are putting out the same SPL at the same frequency?

There can be IME an audible difference between a subwoofer that is stressed
when it puts out 30 Hz, and one that can easily put out substatial volumes
of bass at far lower frequencies.

I do most of my listening at 80 Hz, and my current little sub can produce
that easily done to 30 Hz. Is there any point upgrading?

I don't know how you avoid listening at frequencies below 80 Hz with a
normal selection of recordings. Are you sure that you are saying what you
mean?

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Greg Williams" wrote in message


I have a Velodyne F1000 subwoofer that I have had for around 9 years.
It is a 10" 80 watt servo model.

I was setting it up in a new, larger room today. I spent the better
half of an afternoon configuring the sub with a Radio Shack SPL meter
and test tones. I was able to find the spot where it was flat as it
was going to get (within +- 2 db) from 30 Hz to 100 Hz . The spot
was directly behind my listening postion. When the sub was in the
corner, there was a nasty 12 db room mode at 40-50 Hz that was
activated.

This room is about 3600 cubic feet large. The common knowledge is
that larger rooms require a larger driver and more amperage. Would
upgrading to a sub with more power and a 12" or 15" driver offer any
advantage?

Under ideal conditions, large subwoofers can be flat down to well below 5
Hz, and generate sound on the order of 120 dB with relatively low
distortion.

I know that I would be able to get more SPL out of it.

You can also get a lot deeper bass, which can lend a sense of ease and
spaciousness to the music you are playing. While not all musical works have
significant content below 30 Hz, some does. Furthermore, there are
incidental sounds that are parts of many recordings that give audible clues
to the size of the room the recording was made in. I've had an 18" subwoofer
since the middle 1970s, that was essentially flat down to below 20 Hz and
capable of well over 110 dB SPL.

Would there be any other audible difference with a larger driver if
the subs are putting out the same SPL at the same frequency?

There can be IME an audible difference between a subwoofer that is stressed
when it puts out 30 Hz, and one that can easily put out substatial volumes
of bass at far lower frequencies.

I do most of my listening at 80 Hz, and my current little sub can produce
that easily done to 30 Hz. Is there any point upgrading?

I don't know how you avoid listening at frequencies below 80 Hz with a
normal selection of recordings. Are you sure that you are saying what you
mean?

I have reviewed a lot of recordings for The Sensible Sound,
and have reviewed a number of good and not-so-good
subwoofers for the magazine, too.

A handful of recordings (very few containing musical values
worth considering, with more than a few being basically
sound effects or obnoxious noise recordings) will benefit
from the kind of performance excellence (if we can call it
that) we get from super subwoofers that are strong and
relatively flat to below 10 to 15 Hz. Indeed, the vast bulk
of musical (and home-theater) source material simply will
not be enhanced by employing super subwoofers that extend
flat to well below 20 Hz, even though having a sub reproduce
the sense of space in a large hall has the potential to
enhance the musical experience. It also has the potential to
be musically distracting, particularly if we are talking
about the noise of AC compressors and big heating systems in
big halls.

Response to 20 Hz "flat" ought to be more than good enough
for this kind of effect, however. Indeed, most music is
happily reproduced by subs that are clean to "only" 30 Hz.
Anyone who doubts this need only do some AB testing when
switching back and forth between full-range systems that are
flat to 30 Hz and subwoofer-augmented systems that are flat
to, say, 18 Hz. How a sub that is flat to 15 or 10 (or 5) Hz
would have any kind of advantage with 99.5% of the music out
there is beyond me. And, hey, I like subwoofers a lot and
employ them in all three of my systems. However, I am also a
realist when it comes to practical requirements in musical
(and home theater) reproduction systems.

I simply cannot see any benefit in buying or building a
subwoofer that can go flat and loud to 15 or 10 Hz - or 5
Hz, because the only way to "enjoy" such a device would be
to listen to the same handful of musically insipid or
mentally grating recordings over and over. Trust me:
Tchaikovsky rolls over in his grave every time the 1812
Overture is played or performed, and I am sure Beethoven
does the same thing regarding Wellington's Victory. As for
stuff like Jurassic Lunch and assorted sound effects
recordings, well, they are entertaining to listen to - but
only for one pass. That's not good enough to warrant
building a subwoofer that fills a basement or attic area.

At least it's not good enough for me.

Howard Ferstler

Greg Williams wrote:

Correction:

I do most of my listening at - 80 Db - , and my current little sub can
produce
80 Db easily done to 30 Hz. Is there any point upgrading?

"Greg Williams" wrote in message
...
Hi folks,

I have a Velodyne F1000 subwoofer that I have had for around 9 years. It
is
a 10" 80 watt servo model.

I was setting it up in a new, larger room today. I spent the better half
of
an afternoon configuring the sub with a Radio Shack SPL meter and test
tones. I was able to find the spot where it was flat as it was going to
get
(within +- 2 db) from 30 Hz to 100 Hz . The spot was directly behind my
listening postion. When the sub was in the corner, there was a nasty 12
db
room mode at 40-50 Hz that was activated.

This room is about 3600 cubic feet large. The common knowledge is that
larger rooms require a larger driver and more amperage. Would upgrading
to
a sub with more power and a 12" or 15" driver offer any advantage? I know
that I would be able to get more SPL out of it. Would there be any other
audible difference with a larger driver if the subs are putting out the
same
SPL at the same frequency?

I do most of my listening at 80 Hz, and my current little sub can produce
that easily done to 30 Hz. Is there any point upgrading?

Thanks,
Greg

Whew, 80 dB makes more sense in the context of bass
performance from musical recordings than 80 Hz. Lots of
recordings go lower than 80 Hz.

In any case, regarding your basic question, probably not. At
higher levels you might want a bigger Velodyne, or big
Paradigm, SVS, or Hsu model, and you probably would want
something like one of those brands if you got interested in
home theater. I have reviewed a number of models from these
companies for articles I have written for The Sensible Sound
and The Audiophile Voice.

The latter two companies I mentioned (SVS and Hsu) make
killer subs that do not cost an arm and a leg, and Paradigm
is close behind. The Velodyne servo models are superb, but
they do cost a bundle these days.

Howard Ferstler

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


Peekaboo Cheatsalot scrawled:

I have reviewed a lot of recordings for The Sensible Sound,
and have reviewed a number of good and not-so-good
subwoofers for the magazine, too.

Yes, but who really wrote the reviews?

We're on to you and your thieving ways, Clerkie. Nobody believes you
actually wrote any of "your" articles, at least not until six months or so
after publication. If they go unchallenged that long, even we on RAO will
give you the benefit of the doubt.

Once a cheat, always a cheat.

If I recall correctly, Howie believes that the optimum listening room is an
echo chamber.
Who could he have stolen that belief from?

Have you listened to the Adire Audio subs at all? I have been looking at
the Rava (based on the Shiva driver) and the Daeva (based on the Tempest
driver but temporarily unavailable).

I was thinking that a 15" sealed sub would be optimal, but I'm not sure it
would work with my monitors. I have to hi-pass them a little high at 100Hz
or else the midrange gets muddy. I'm not sure if a 15" driver will
integrate that well at that high of a frequency or not.

http://www.adireaudio.com/

Thanks,
Greg


In any case, regarding your basic question, probably not. At
higher levels you might want a bigger Velodyne, or big
Paradigm, SVS, or Hsu model, and you probably would want
something like one of those brands if you got interested in
home theater. I have reviewed a number of models from these
companies for articles I have written for The Sensible Sound
and The Audiophile Voice.

The latter two companies I mentioned (SVS and Hsu) make
killer subs that do not cost an arm and a leg, and Paradigm
is close behind. The Velodyne servo models are superb, but
they do cost a bundle these days.

Howard Ferstler

George M. Middius wrote in message . ..
The Lying Plagiarizer dares to be dissed.

for articles I have written for The Sensible Sound
and The Audiophile Voice.

Warning for Greg and anybody else: Clerkie is a known plagiarizer. It's
unlikely he actually wrote any of the articles that appear in print under
his name. Take his opinions for what they're worth.


Warning for Greg and anyone else: the person posting under the proven
alias "George M. Middius" is a known psychotic, probably afflicted
with paranoid personality disorder. Take his opinions for what they
are worth.

"Greg Williams" wrote in message

Have you listened to the Adire Audio subs at all? I have been
looking at the Rava (based on the Shiva driver) and the Daeva (based
on the Tempest driver but temporarily unavailable).

I was thinking that a 15" sealed sub would be optimal, but I'm not
sure it would work with my monitors. I have to hi-pass them a little
high at 100Hz or else the midrange gets muddy. I'm not sure if a 15"
driver will integrate that well at that high of a frequency or not.

http://www.adireaudio.com/

Only half a question - not a clue what the monitor speakers actually are.

I can share these experiences, both of which I consider to be sucessful.

(1) NHT 2.5i with 8 inch woofer crossed over to an 18" subwoofer at 58 Hz
(2) NHT Pro A10 with 6.5" woofer crossed over to a 12" subwoofer at 130 Hz.

In both cases I effected the crossover with 24 dB/octave active crossovers.
The 2.5i system was based on a Rane MX22, while the A10 system was based on
a DBX 123.

IME, the real problem relating to crossing over speakers at high frequencies
is a matter of bass imaging. Bass is definitely directional at 130 Hz,
which means that the subwoofer needs to be acoustically centered and
relatively close to the upper range speakers.

"George M. Middius" wrote

Peekaboo Cheatsalot scrawled:

I have reviewed a lot of recordings for The Sensible Sound,
and have reviewed a number of good and not-so-good
subwoofers for the magazine, too.

Yes, but who really wrote the reviews?

Once a cheat, always a cheat.

Speaking of intellectual integrity.

Hardscrabble® Ferstler wrote "I did not "flunk out." I had a
3.8 GPA in grad school, and the reason I left was that some
departmental backbiters managed to get my major
professor canned." Believe it or NOT )).

"Greg Williams" wrote in message
...
Hi folks,

I have a Velodyne F1000 subwoofer that I have had for around 9 years. It
is
a 10" 80 watt servo model.

I was setting it up in a new, larger room today. I spent the better half
of
an afternoon configuring the sub with a Radio Shack SPL meter and test
tones. I was able to find the spot where it was flat as it was going to
get
(within +- 2 db) from 30 Hz to 100 Hz . The spot was directly behind my
listening postion. When the sub was in the corner, there was a nasty 12
db
room mode at 40-50 Hz that was activated.


I had the same problem but solved it by plugging the ports on my main
speakers.

This room is about 3600 cubic feet large. The common knowledge is that
larger rooms require a larger driver and more amperage. Would upgrading
to
a sub with more power and a 12" or 15" driver offer any advantage? I know
that I would be able to get more SPL out of it.

Depends on how loud you need it. Remember 3 dB increase takes 50% more
power, assuming the drivers have the same sensitivty.

Would there be any other
audible difference with a larger driver if the subs are putting out the
same
SPL at the same frequency?

Depends on the driver. I would consider a 12" woofer to be the bare
minimum, a big room could use 3 of them to get proper bass.

I do most of my listening at 80 Hz, and my current little sub can produce
that easily done to 30 Hz. Is there any point upgrading?


There is if you want to make sure you get all the bass that's possible and
play it cleanly. For me that means using Adire Audio drivers.

Thanks,
Greg

Powell wrote:


"George M. Middius" wrote

Peekaboo Cheatsalot scrawled:

I have reviewed a lot of recordings for The Sensible Sound,
and have reviewed a number of good and not-so-good
subwoofers for the magazine, too.

Yes, but who really wrote the reviews?

Once a cheat, always a cheat.

Speaking of intellectual integrity.

Hardscrabble® Ferstler wrote "I did not "flunk out." I had a
3.8 GPA in grad school, and the reason I left was that some
departmental backbiters managed to get my major
professor canned." Believe it or NOT )).











It's probably more BS. Even if his major professor left, he no doubt could
have elected to continue his studies with another major professor UNLESS, OF
COURSE, he just couldn't cut it - either academically, or....... and this is
equally probable IMPO, psychologically (stress, panic, paranoid ideqtion all
possibilities at that point).

I'm speaking from experience in a sense. When I as in graduate school
(doctoral progarm - University of Texas at Austin), several of my classmates
"lost" their major professors but not for any exotic, hard-to-beleve reason
such as the one Howie is "claiming". Their professors simply got better job
offers from other universities and decided to move on. In NO CASE, did the
student affected have to leave school nor did they elect to drop out. No
doubt, it *did* inconvenience them and in some cases, might have taken them
longer to complete the program, but dropping out after investing 2, 3, 4 or
more years in a graduate program? - Not Likely.

LOL !!!!


Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


It's probably more BS. Even if his major professor left, he no doubt
could have elected to continue his studies with another major
professor UNLESS, OF COURSE, he just couldn't cut it - either
academically, or....... and this is equally probable IMPO,
psychologically (stress, panic, paranoid ideqtion all possibilities
at that point).


IME Ferstler's story could hold water. How easily a grad student can switch
advisors can be very dependent on the status that their current advisor has
in the department. Having your current advisor leave under a black cloud is
not a good thing for any of his PhD candidates.

In Ferstler's professional area, getting a PhD in his career area is
probably not the make-it-or break-it element that it is in other
professional areas. PhD chauvinists don't seem to want to admit it, but in
some professional areas, a Master's degree is a detriment, and having a PhD
can be almost a fatal career move. I clearly grappled with issues like these
when I wanted to hire a guy who happened to have a PhD, simply because he
was a talented guy who obviously wanted to work hard, and already had a good
reputation in the organization. BTW, I got my way,. he worked out great.

I'm not saying the potential negative value of a PhD applies to Ferstler's
area, but its quite possible that getting the PhD did not have the value to
him that it might have for people in other professional areas.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against advanced degrees. I have a son who has
a PhD and two children who are working on advanced degrees as I type. It's
just that the value of advanced degrees ranges all over the scale from
positive to negative.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


It's probably more BS. Even if his major professor left, he no doubt
could have elected to continue his studies with another major
professor UNLESS, OF COURSE, he just couldn't cut it - either
academically, or....... and this is equally probable IMPO,
psychologically (stress, panic, paranoid ideqtion all possibilities
at that point).


IME Ferstler's story could hold water. How easily a grad student can
switch
advisors can be very dependent on the status that their current advisor
has
in the department. Having your current advisor leave under a black cloud
is
not a good thing for any of his PhD candidates.

In Ferstler's professional area, getting a PhD in his career area is
probably not the make-it-or break-it element that it is in other
professional areas. PhD chauvinists don't seem to want to admit it, but in
some professional areas, a Master's degree is a detriment, and having a
PhD
can be almost a fatal career move. I clearly grappled with issues like
these
when I wanted to hire a guy who happened to have a PhD, simply because he
was a talented guy who obviously wanted to work hard, and already had a
good
reputation in the organization. BTW, I got my way,. he worked out great.

I'm not saying the potential negative value of a PhD applies to
Ferstler's
area, but its quite possible that getting the PhD did not have the value
to
him that it might have for people in other professional areas.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against advanced degrees. I have a son who
has
a PhD and two children who are working on advanced degrees as I type. It's
just that the value of advanced degrees ranges all over the scale from
positive to negative.



My recollection is that Howie's field of study was Philosophy. I would think
that
a PhD would almost be a necessity in that field. The only gainful employment
of
Philosophers is that of being a professor.

"Bad Penny" wrote in message


My recollection is that Howie's field of study was Philosophy. I
would think that a PhD would almost be a necessity in that field. The only
gainful
employment of Philosophers is that of being a professor.

Wrong again, Art.

Festler's PhD degree program was not Philosophy.

"Bad Penny" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message


My recollection is that Howie's field of study was Philosophy. I
would think that a PhD would almost be a necessity in that field.
The only gainful employment of Philosophers is that of being a
professor.

Wrong again, Art.

Festler's PhD degree program was not Philosophy.

I anticipated this:

Prove it!!

I've had this page up since I made the original post where I sucked Art in.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3D...0attglobal.net

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message


My recollection is that Howie's field of study was Philosophy. I
would think that a PhD would almost be a necessity in that field. The
only
gainful
employment of Philosophers is that of being a professor.

Wrong again, Art.

Festler's PhD degree program was not Philosophy.


Prove it!!

Art said:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


It's probably more BS. Even if his major professor left, he no doubt
could have elected to continue his studies with another major
professor UNLESS, OF COURSE, he just couldn't cut it - either
academically, or....... and this is equally probable IMPO,
psychologically (stress, panic, paranoid ideqtion all possibilities
at that point).


IME Ferstler's story could hold water. How easily a grad student can
switch
advisors can be very dependent on the status that their current advisor
has
in the department. Having your current advisor leave under a black cloud
is
not a good thing for any of his PhD candidates.

In Ferstler's professional area, getting a PhD in his career area is
probably not the make-it-or break-it element that it is in other
professional areas. PhD chauvinists don't seem to want to admit it, but in
some professional areas, a Master's degree is a detriment, and having a
PhD
can be almost a fatal career move. I clearly grappled with issues like
these
when I wanted to hire a guy who happened to have a PhD, simply because he
was a talented guy who obviously wanted to work hard, and already had a
good
reputation in the organization. BTW, I got my way,. he worked out great.

I'm not saying the potential negative value of a PhD applies to
Ferstler's
area, but its quite possible that getting the PhD did not have the value
to
him that it might have for people in other professional areas.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against advanced degrees. I have a son who
has
a PhD and two children who are working on advanced degrees as I type. It's
just that the value of advanced degrees ranges all over the scale from
positive to negative.



My recollection is that Howie's field of study was Philosophy. I would think
that
a PhD would almost be a necessity in that field. The only gainful employment
of
Philosophers is that of being a professor.










Agreed.

I can't help but recalling the old Woody Allen joke about the philosophy major
who got thrown out of school for cheating. He got caught looking into the soul
of the person sitting next to him.

It could be that Howie flunked the course in Introspection 101.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Art said:

My recollection is that Howie's field of study was Philosophy. I
would think that
a PhD would almost be a necessity in that field. The only gainful
employment of
Philosophers is that of being a professor.

Agreed.

You should pick your friends a little better, Bruce.

You just agreed with a false claim.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3D...0attglobal.net

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message


My recollection is that Howie's field of study was Philosophy. I
would think that a PhD would almost be a necessity in that field.
The only gainful employment of Philosophers is that of being a
professor.

Wrong again, Art.

Festler's PhD degree program was not Philosophy.

I anticipated this:

Prove it!!

I've had this page up since I made the original post where I sucked Art
in.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3D...0attglobal.net


You've picked your nit for tonight.
It was a program that was to combine an MA in Philosophy with a
PhD in Humanities. As it was, he dropped out after a year, which
coincides with the time frame inehrent with an MA (in Philosophy).

My statement that his field of study was Philosophy is as correct
as your statement that his PhD program was not Philosophy, though
generic Humanities studies would be well soaked with Philosophy.

"Bad Penny" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message


My recollection is that Howie's field of study was Philosophy. I
would think that a PhD would almost be a necessity in that field.
The only gainful employment of Philosophers is that of being a
professor.

Wrong again, Art.

Festler's PhD degree program was not Philosophy.

I anticipated this:

Prove it!!

I've had this page up since I made the original post where I sucked
Art in.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3D...0attglobal.net


You've picked your nit for tonight.

Yep Art, its a nit when you make a false claim but its a lie out of hell
when I make a tiny mistake.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Art said:

My recollection is that Howie's field of study was Philosophy. I
would think that
a PhD would almost be a necessity in that field. The only gainful
employment of
Philosophers is that of being a professor.

Agreed.

You should pick your friends a little better, Bruce.

You just agreed with a false claim.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3D...0attglobal.net









Actually, I didn't. I'm agreeing with Art's "opinion" (not necessarily a
claim) that "the only gainful employment of a philosopher is that of being a
professor".

The only difference is that I would probably have inserted the qualifier in
this sentnce "in the vast majority of cases".
One can always, I'm sure find exceptions, where people studying philosophy
without doctorates, *might* part of a infinitessimally small number that
*might* make a living writing books with a philosophical foundation - but this
is hardly unlikely.

And as far as doctorates in humanities are concerned - if that was Howie's
original goal - how many folks with doctorates in Humanities do anything OTHER
than teach - probably at the college level? Again, without a doctorate, most
major universities and colleges will simply not hire people for faculty
positions. Neither philosophy nor humanities have much application for those
with advanced degrees other than in teaching.

Howie has described his prior occupation as being ionvolved in a college
library - and by his own admission - not performing any chores requiring
advanced knowledge in either philosophy or the humanities.



Bruce J. Richman

Art Sackman wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message


My recollection is that Howie's field of study was Philosophy. I
would think that a PhD would almost be a necessity in that field.
The only gainful employment of Philosophers is that of being a
professor.

Wrong again, Art.

Festler's PhD degree program was not Philosophy.

I anticipated this:

Prove it!!

I've had this page up since I made the original post where I sucked Art
in.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3D...0attglobal.net


You've picked your nit for tonight.
It was a program that was to combine an MA in Philosophy with a
PhD in Humanities. As it was, he dropped out after a year, which
coincides with the time frame inehrent with an MA (in Philosophy).


"At Least". Some M.A. degrees (and I have one) require 2 years, especially if
an M.A. thesis that is research-oriented is required.



My statement that his field of study was Philosophy is as correct
as your statement that his PhD program was not Philosophy, though
generic Humanities studies would be well soaked with Philosophy.






Like many others I'm sure, I went to a Liberal Arts college where fields of
studies were loosely divided into "Humanities", "Social Sciences" and
"Biological Sciences". As I recall, "Humanities" included English, Romance
Languages, Philosophy, Music, etc. At any rate, a rather diverse mix.


Bruce J. Richman

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message


My recollection is that Howie's field of study was Philosophy. I
would think that a PhD would almost be a necessity in that field.
The only gainful employment of Philosophers is that of being a
professor.

Wrong again, Art.

Festler's PhD degree program was not Philosophy.

I anticipated this:

Prove it!!

I've had this page up since I made the original post where I sucked
Art in.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3D...0attglobal.net


You've picked your nit for tonight.

Yep Art, its a nit when you make a false claim but its a lie out of hell
when I make a tiny mistake.


Oh really? A false claim?

My statement was that I recollected that his fieldof study was Philosophy. I
didn't
state it as a hard, certain fact. As it was, it was one of his two fields of
study,
although his secondary one.

Is this what you are resuced to? To nitpick a small detail into a major
victory?
Is this the best you can do? Really, I don't blame
for crowing about this, it is probably the best thing that is going
to happen to you all year long. You are pathetic, truly pathetic.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Art Sackman wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message


My recollection is that Howie's field of study was Philosophy. I
would think that a PhD would almost be a necessity in that field.
The only gainful employment of Philosophers is that of being a
professor.

Wrong again, Art.

Festler's PhD degree program was not Philosophy.

I anticipated this:

Prove it!!

I've had this page up since I made the original post where I sucked Art
in.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3D...0attglobal.net


You've picked your nit for tonight.
It was a program that was to combine an MA in Philosophy with a
PhD in Humanities. As it was, he dropped out after a year, which
coincides with the time frame inehrent with an MA (in Philosophy).


"At Least". Some M.A. degrees (and I have one) require 2 years,
especially if
an M.A. thesis that is research-oriented is required.



My statement that his field of study was Philosophy is as correct
as your statement that his PhD program was not Philosophy, though
generic Humanities studies would be well soaked with Philosophy.






Like many others I'm sure, I went to a Liberal Arts college where fields
of
studies were loosely divided into "Humanities", "Social Sciences" and
"Biological Sciences". As I recall, "Humanities" included English,
Romance
Languages, Philosophy, Music, etc. At any rate, a rather diverse mix.


Bruce J. Richman

Uh Oh, I hate to ask which college. There aren't many like that.
I went to one also, almost exactly as you described.
Humanities, Social Sciences and Natural Sciences.

Art wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Art Sackman wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message


My recollection is that Howie's field of study was Philosophy. I
would think that a PhD would almost be a necessity in that field.
The only gainful employment of Philosophers is that of being a
professor.

Wrong again, Art.

Festler's PhD degree program was not Philosophy.

I anticipated this:

Prove it!!

I've had this page up since I made the original post where I sucked Art
in.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3D...0attglobal.net


You've picked your nit for tonight.
It was a program that was to combine an MA in Philosophy with a
PhD in Humanities. As it was, he dropped out after a year, which
coincides with the time frame inehrent with an MA (in Philosophy).


"At Least". Some M.A. degrees (and I have one) require 2 years,
especially if
an M.A. thesis that is research-oriented is required.



My statement that his field of study was Philosophy is as correct
as your statement that his PhD program was not Philosophy, though
generic Humanities studies would be well soaked with Philosophy.






Like many others I'm sure, I went to a Liberal Arts college where fields
of
studies were loosely divided into "Humanities", "Social Sciences" and
"Biological Sciences". As I recall, "Humanities" included English,
Romance
Languages, Philosophy, Music, etc. At any rate, a rather diverse mix.


Bruce J. Richman

Uh Oh, I hate to ask which college. There aren't many like that.
I went to one also, almost exactly as you described.
Humanities, Social Sciences and Natural Sciences.











That's OK. You can ask. And it *might* have been Natural Sciences rather than
Biological Sciences. (It was a while ago).

The college was Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. This is an old,
traditional Liberal Arts insitution (or it was when I was there), which
includes among its graduates Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.



Bruce J. Richman

The Adire Audio subs are already on my short list. Which driver are you
using? Do you like it? I'm thinking about getting a couple of Ravas or
waiting until their 15" offering is re-released.

Thanks!

There is if you want to make sure you get all the bass that's possible and
play it cleanly. For me that means using Adire Audio drivers.

"Bad Penny" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bad Penny" wrote in message


My recollection is that Howie's field of study was Philosophy. I
would think that a PhD would almost be a necessity in that
field. The only gainful employment of Philosophers is that of
being a professor.

Wrong again, Art.

Festler's PhD degree program was not Philosophy.

I anticipated this:

Prove it!!

I've had this page up since I made the original post where I sucked
Art in.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3D...0attglobal.net


You've picked your nit for tonight.

Yep Art, its a nit when you make a false claim but its a lie out of
hell when I make a tiny mistake.


Oh really? A false claim?

My statement was that I recollected that his fieldof study was
Philosophy. I didn't
state it as a hard, certain fact. As it was, it was one of his two
fields of study,
although his secondary one.

Hedge words don't save you from your sloppiness, Art.

It took me a few seconds to find out the true facts.

Is this what you are resuced to? To nitpick a small detail into a major
victory?

It's just an example of your intellectual laziness, Art.

It's the same intellectual laziness that has made you into one of the
Middius dupes.

Is this the best you can do?

Not hardly. I'm just toying with you, Art.

Really, I don't blame
for crowing about this, it is probably the best thing that is going
to happen to you all year long. You are pathetic, truly pathetic.

Not nearly as pathetic as you are Art.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:11:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Hedge words don't save you from your sloppiness, Art.

You do this ALL THE TIME, Arnold, so don't be making excuses for
yourself at this point. He CLEARLY said, "My recollection". Therefore,
according to your own standards, which you have used as an out in the
past, it can't be a "false claim".

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against advanced degrees.
It's just that the value of advanced degrees ranges all
over the scale from positive to negative.

Rubbish. There is no such think as wasted knowledge.
And in this economy there a plenty of highly qualified
people (having the right degrees) looking for work.
There are all kinds of worthwhile reasons for perusing
a college education. “Value” can only be determined by
the individual.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote

Speaking of intellectual integrity.

Hardscrabble® Ferstler wrote "I did not "flunk out." I had a
3.8 GPA in grad school, and the reason I left was that some
departmental backbiters managed to get my major
professor canned." Believe it or NOT )).

It's probably more BS.

The only thing in Howard's hands is a B.A.. A "BS"
(science) would give him more college credit
than he deserves, so to speak


Even if his major professor left, he no doubt could have
elected to continue his studies with another major
professor UNLESS, OF COURSE, he just couldn't cut it
- either academically, or....... and this is equally probable
IMPO, psychologically (stress, panic, paranoid ideqtion
all possibilities at that point).

In Michele Davis's book "Fire You Shrink!" she briefly
discusses this very topic. She quotes studies which
indicate that having expatiation of success (graduating)
is a far better indicator of academic success over
college entrance exams or pervious high school grade
point averages.


I'm speaking from experience in a sense. When I as
in graduate school (doctoral progarm - University of
Texas at Austin), several of my classmates "lost" their
major professors but not for any exotic, hard-to-beleve
reason such as the one Howie is "claiming". Their
professors simply got better job offers from other
universities and decided to move on.

Agreed. Howard wants us to believe that he took a
moral stand. That is not in keeping with the persona
depicted in this news group. Perhaps when the
program chair left the college canned (business
decision) the program... he did mention it was an
experimental program.


In NO CASE, did the student affected have to leave
school nor did they elect to drop out. No doubt, it *did*
inconvenience them and in some cases, might have
taken them longer to complete the program, but dropping
out after investing 2, 3, 4 or more years in a graduate
program? - Not Likely.

LOL !!!!

Well, things did work out for Howard. In the end he did
find his place in academia. But there is obviously pain
from that experience that he has carried forward for
many years. Perhaps the metaphor about regrets being
the greatest burden we all carry when we look back in
retrospect is true.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Festler's PhD degree program was not Philosophy.

I anticipated this:

Prove it!!

I've had this page up since I made the original post
where I sucked Art in.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3D...0attglobal.net

Back when I was in grad school acceptance into a
doctoral program required, unless given special
consideration, enrolment in a masters program
first if the applicant only had an undergraduate degree.
Something Robert could have benefitted from.

So yes, his 1st year of study was “Philosophy” if not
prerequisite classes.

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against advanced degrees.
It's just that the value of advanced degrees ranges all
over the scale from positive to negative.

Rubbish. There is no such think as wasted knowledge.

Agreed. I was speaking in the context of the job market.

And in this economy there a plenty of highly qualified
people (having the right degrees) looking for work.

So I hear.

There are all kinds of worthwhile reasons for perusing
a college education. "Value" can only be determined by
the individual.

Agreed. However, my days as a supervisor and manager taught me some things
about getting people hired in my area.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

There are all kinds of worthwhile reasons for perusing
a college education. "Value" can only be determined by
the individual.

Agreed. However, my days as a supervisor and
manager taught me some things about getting
people hired in my area.

Well isn’t this a landmark day, you’re actually giving
credence to empirical experiences. Good grief, I
have no comeback, Arny .

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

There are all kinds of worthwhile reasons for perusing
a college education. "Value" can only be determined by
the individual.

Agreed. However, my days as a supervisor and
manager taught me some things about getting
people hired in my area.

Well isn't this a landmark day, you're actually giving
credence to empirical experiences. Good grief, I
have no comeback, Arny .

Powell, you just don't know what you are talking about.

Powell wrote:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote

Speaking of intellectual integrity.

Hardscrabble® Ferstler wrote "I did not "flunk out." I had a
3.8 GPA in grad school, and the reason I left was that some
departmental backbiters managed to get my major
professor canned." Believe it or NOT )).

It's probably more BS.

The only thing in Howard's hands is a B.A.. A "BS"
(science) would give him more college credit
than he deserves, so to speak



I think he got a BA in BS ! LOL !!!

Seriously, though, a BA is traditionally awarded for some fields (e.g.
Languages, Music, Philosophy) and a BS for others (e.g. Chemistry, Physics,
Biology). In my own case, I got a BA in Psychology, but bercause I graduated
from a "Liberal Arts" college, *everybody* got BA degrees, irrespective of
their major - including those in the Natural Sciences. Had I gone to another
type of school, I might have received a BS in Psychology.

All that said, and in consideration of Howard's history on RAO, my original
opinion re. this "published" person stands.


(I'm also published - in peer-reviewed journals, but who cares? This
credential is not all that important to me or most others reading RAO, IMHO).



Even if his major professor left, he no doubt could have
elected to continue his studies with another major
professor UNLESS, OF COURSE, he just couldn't cut it
- either academically, or....... and this is equally probable
IMPO, psychologically (stress, panic, paranoid ideqtion
all possibilities at that point).

In Michele Davis's book "Fire You Shrink!" she briefly
discusses this very topic. She quotes studies which
indicate that having expatiation of success (graduating)
is a far better indicator of academic success over
college entrance exams or pervious high school grade
point averages.


No doubt true.



I'm speaking from experience in a sense. When I as
in graduate school (doctoral progarm - University of
Texas at Austin), several of my classmates "lost" their
major professors but not for any exotic, hard-to-beleve
reason such as the one Howie is "claiming". Their
professors simply got better job offers from other
universities and decided to move on.

Agreed. Howard wants us to believe that he took a
moral stand. That is not in keeping with the persona
depicted in this news group.

Agreed again.



Perhaps when the
program chair left the college canned (business
decision) the program... he did mention it was an
experimental program.


Too bad it wasn't submitted to DBT's



In NO CASE, did the student affected have to leave
school nor did they elect to drop out. No doubt, it *did*
inconvenience them and in some cases, might have
taken them longer to complete the program, but dropping
out after investing 2, 3, 4 or more years in a graduate
program? - Not Likely.

LOL !!!!

Well, things did work out for Howard. In the end he did
find his place in academia.

Reading the Dewey Decimal system and/or listening to CD's?


But there is obviously pain
from that experience that he has carried forward for
many years.

And unfortunately displaced in the past via arrogance, hostility, and
bitterness on to RAO - or so it seems. (Just an hypothesis, of course ).

Perhaps the metaphor about regrets being
the greatest burden we all carry when we look back in
retrospect is true.





They can, indeed, present a heavy load. Just like a house full of subwoofers.





Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


And unfortunately displaced in the past via arrogance, hostility, and
bitterness on to RAO - or so it seems. (Just an hypothesis, of
course ).

And the reprehensible behavior of the usual suspects on RAO has nothing to
do with this situation, should it really exist?

You know Richman, your congental blindness to the misbehavior of these folks
would make a pretty good case study in itself.

Speaking analytically Richman, do you think that your years of silence w/r/t
the behavior of say Middius, Sackman or Phillips, would be due to a
pathology of your mind, or just plain ordinary old hypocrisy?