For those lucky few NOT acquainted with JJ (aka - jj,
curmudgeon, Jim Johnston/AT&T paid NG hack).
A gem Steve Zipser once posted he


Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end

Howard Ferstler wrote:
I do not have a way to make a special recording that
incorporates both full-bandwidth stereo, including the very
low bass, and then another recording with full-bandwidth
stereo, but with the low bass mono.

Irrelevant. THE TEST INVOLVES 2 50Hz sine waves.

DO THE TEST.

However, I certainly
have compared real-world, commercially available recordings
that incorporate a wide range of bass recording techniques.

Irrelevant. DO THE WORK. Do the test. Do the originally
described, utterly relevant, absolutely telling test.

Stop trying to avoid doing the TEST THAT WAS DESCRIBED
TO YOU.

You have done tests, obviously, but did you do it this way
or did you simply listen to low-bass test tones, delayed as
you say?

DO THE TEST AS DESCRIBED. I demand now that you either
DO THE TEST or admit that you have no evidence whatsoever
and that you are arguing in defense of your last-century
advice.

While I am a strong believer in test tones for
determining certain aspects of performance, I believe that
if we are going to determine their relevance they have to
relate to real-world situations.

IF THE TONE CAN BE DONE IN HEADPHONES THEY ARE A REAL WORLD
TEST. That is a proof positive of the real world nature.

DO THE TEST.

I am not sure the rather
narrow-focussed test you outlined has much relevance when it
comes to what we hear with full-bandwidth stereo recordings.

You have admitted than you are neither an acoustician
nor an expert, how does this give you the ability to
evaluate ANYTHING, pray tell?

DO THE WORK.

DO THE TEST.

I am interested in what consumers have to deal with, not
specialized laboratory situations that do not mimic what
consumers have to deal with.

If I can do it in a lab, someone will have to deal with
it as a consumer.

Well, you go on and on about how I need to do the "tests,"
but I should point out that I have done listening tests with
today's available recordings (quite a few, as part of my
record-reviewing chores), and I have not heard the artifacts
you mentioned.

1) you haven't keyed on the necessary cues
2) you have mono bass material
3) you won't TRY the test.

YOU WILL NOT TRY THE TEST.

That's what this is about.

They may indeed be there, but they would only
be that way in isolation (which appears to be the way you
listened to them) and so I do not consider their influence
to be much of a big deal.

You now factually claim that this only occurs "in isolation".
That is an affirmation of a claim.

PROVIDE YOUR DATA. WHERE IS YOUR DATA?

If you have no data, you have no, repeat, ZERO reason
to make the proclaimation that you just made.

WHERE IS YOUR DATA, HOWARD?

I have done the "test" with musical program material that is
available today.

Translation:
HOWARD HAS NOT DONE THE TEST.

Other than the suckout null that is created
when two spaced woofer systems are employed (something that
I assume you do not consider important), I hear no
difference between spaced low bass and mono low bass.

Howard, IF there is stereo material in the low bass, all of your
maundering about "suckout nulls" is WRONG because the low bass
is not going to be completely correlated. Your entire argument
is circular. You argue that two woofers are bad because of
suckout nulls, which requires that there be mono'ed bass. Then
you claim that mono bass is better because you can use one
subwoofer.

Get real, Howard.

Get used to it, because most future home-theater and audio
systems will have a mono subwoofer. The future is mono subs.

Ah, yes, Howard Ferstler decrees:
I am the god of audio. I say what will happen and when.

Howard, it's time for you to DO THE WORK and see what
you find out.

NOW DO THE WORK.