"Filmophile" wrote in message
...
I've never been what you could describe as a fan of Bose equipment, I
don't like the way any their stuff sounds, normally speaking. My father
breifly had a set of "Professional" 802s on a very powerful 2 channel
amp and they sounded OK, but he had gotten them for free, so we weren't
being really picky, we just wanted to hear them. Last night though, I
was treated to what I thought was a surprisingly good performance from
a pair of 901s, a speaker which is similar in design to the 802 and
which I'm not particularly prone to liking.

These 901s had been laying out of use for over a year, but were in
perfect working shape. They were hooked up to a Denon AVR-5805, which
has a 170 watt per channel amp and "Audyssey MULTEqXT"
calibration/equalization which uses a Texas-Instruments chip to
determine speaker phase, position and freq. response as well as the
number of speakers present, room acoustics and listening position and
than EQs itself based on the data aquired, it also adjusts the
crossover point and calculates based on if a sub is present. A Denon
DVD-5910 was feeding the reciever and was connected using toslink
optical. The Denon equipment is going to be the basis for a
multi-channel system but is currently being used to power the 901s. The
room is fairly large although is of "normal" height and the speakers
were placed approx. 10 feet apart. The system was equalized using the
Denon hardware prior to being listened to. We fed the system at
different points with 3 CDs, the SACD version of "Every Breath You
Take: The Police Greatest Hits", "Dire Straits", the band's debut
self-titled album, and "Bridge Of Sighs" by Robin Trower (the
remastered disc made from 24-bit remastered tapes - we listened to the
SACD's 2-channel SACD layer. I'm not going to write up every last
detail but I can honestly say that listening through this setup when in
"Stereo" mode it was much better than I had expected, the Denon's EQ
system combined with the 901s outboard EQ seemed to work quite well,
the Denon's advanced electronics did quite an admirable job with a
not-so-great speaker. No, I'd not buy the 901s, but I was impressed
with the fact that given the right (expensive) hardware to work with,
they sounded pretty good.

I quite liked the 901s for their frequency response and perceived low
distortion, although with the 11% direct, 89% reflecting system, they
wouldn't image properly whatever you did. Nevertheless, they produced
pleasant sounds with a high-power amplifier behind them.

S

Serge Auckland wrote:

I quite liked the 901s for their frequency response and perceived low
distortion, although with the 11% direct, 89% reflecting system, they
wouldn't image properly whatever you did. Nevertheless, they produced
pleasant sounds with a high-power amplifier behind them.


The imaging part is wrong. Bose 901s are how I learned about imaging.

I was stationed in England, where the houses have bare plaster walls. I
had positioned the speakers in my normal, stupid way (near the walls and
wide apart, according to the manual, which is another story), and I
tried to hear this "imaging" thing that the blokes were describing in
their hi fi magazines. I had to admit, center soloists sounded 6 feet
wide, and I couldn't "place" anything. I was about to give up and go
listen to some Quads or something, when I decided to go wild and
experiment with placement. The British always talked about placing them
well away from the walls, and about 1/4 of the room width apart, so I
tried that, and... I was so floored it started a series of letters to
Bose on why the manual didn't identify this. I could now hear a pinpoint
center soloist floating midway between the speakers, and the rest of the
instruments were locatable, and the DEPTH! Holy ****! I realized
immediately what causes the depth impression in stereo - the reflected
sound from behind them! Only it was even more obvious with a reflecting
type speaker. In fact, everything about positioning them was
hyper-critical with this type of speaker, because what it is doing is
establishing a network of real and virtual speaker images that combine
to form the frontal soundstage, and when you got it right, it beat the
crap out of everything else, because the other speakers could not use
the reflected, or virtual speakers, as effectively, so you would get a
rather flat, compressed soundstage compared to the 901s.

The letters impressed Dr. Bose so much that he called me (in England)
from Massachussetts, just to explain a few things about acoustics and
speakers. We talked for an hour. I was, of course, very ignorant about
this stuff at that time, and I wished I could see him one more time,
which I did at the factory. I had lunch with him and had a couple
minutes in the office with him. The gist of the conversation was that I
was trying to convince him to build a new, kick-ass 901 type speaker
with a few modifications in the radiation pattern and a built-in
subwoofer - some sort of new all-out attack on the state of the art.
Then to take it around to the audio shows like they did with the 901 -
do you guys remember the slide show demonstrations they did? He said
that if I needed anything more than a 901, they had the professional
line, and he would have his secretary find me a catalogue of those. But
his decided bent was to make speakers for the masses, not for the
audiophiles, who make up less than 1% of the market.

My recommendation for speaker placement, any speaker, but especially
these, is 1/4 of the room width from the side walls and an equal
distance OUT from the front wall. This establishes a lattice of real and
virtual speakers that are all equidistant from each other, forming the
most solid, evenly spaced, deepest, and widest imaging possible.
Reflecting type speakers enhance this effect, and direct firing speakers
benefit from it as well, in that it will extract whatever depth and
spaciousness they are capable of - but notice, the reflected images of
this type of speaker will not have a flat frequency response, so their
contribution will be muted by the amount of directionality. That is why
Floyd Toole's project on speaker preference showed preference for wider
radiation patterns with more even response at the edges. Also why
Mirages, Quads, MBLs, etc have much better imaging than most.

So I am in hog heaven with my 901 setup in my 21 x 31 ft room, with
subs, and surround sound, but it is right next to impossible to
communicate all this to the world at large, because regular people
couldn't care less, and audiophiles don't like 901s.

Gary Eickmeier

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:

I quite liked the 901s for their frequency response and perceived low
distortion, although with the 11% direct, 89% reflecting system, they
wouldn't image properly whatever you did. Nevertheless, they produced
pleasant sounds with a high-power amplifier behind them.


The imaging part is wrong. Bose 901s are how I learned about imaging.

I was stationed in England, where the houses have bare plaster walls. I
had positioned the speakers in my normal, stupid way (near the walls and
wide apart, according to the manual, which is another story), and I tried
to hear this "imaging" thing that the blokes were describing in their hi
fi magazines. I had to admit, center soloists sounded 6 feet wide, and I
couldn't "place" anything. I was about to give up and go listen to some
Quads or something, when I decided to go wild and experiment with
placement. The British always talked about placing them well away from the
walls, and about 1/4 of the room width apart, so I tried that, and... I
was so floored it started a series of letters to Bose on why the manual
didn't identify this. I could now hear a pinpoint center soloist floating
midway between the speakers, and the rest of the instruments were
locatable, and the DEPTH! Holy ****! I realized immediately what causes
the depth impression in stereo - the reflected sound from behind them!
Only it was even more obvious with a reflecting type speaker. In fact,
everything about positioning them was hyper-critical with this type of
speaker, because what it is doing is establishing a network of real and
virtual speaker images that combine to form the frontal soundstage, and
when you got it right, it beat the crap out of everything else, because
the other speakers could not use the reflected, or virtual speakers, as
effectively, so you would get a rather flat, compressed soundstage
compared to the 901s.

The letters impressed Dr. Bose so much that he called me (in England) from
Massachussetts, just to explain a few things about acoustics and speakers.
We talked for an hour. I was, of course, very ignorant about this stuff at
that time, and I wished I could see him one more time, which I did at the
factory. I had lunch with him and had a couple minutes in the office with
him. The gist of the conversation was that I was trying to convince him to
build a new, kick-ass 901 type speaker with a few modifications in the
radiation pattern and a built-in subwoofer - some sort of new all-out
attack on the state of the art. Then to take it around to the audio shows
like they did with the 901 - do you guys remember the slide show
demonstrations they did? He said that if I needed anything more than a
901, they had the professional line, and he would have his secretary find
me a catalogue of those. But his decided bent was to make speakers for the
masses, not for the audiophiles, who make up less than 1% of the market.

My recommendation for speaker placement, any speaker, but especially
these, is 1/4 of the room width from the side walls and an equal distance
OUT from the front wall. This establishes a lattice of real and virtual
speakers that are all equidistant from each other, forming the most solid,
evenly spaced, deepest, and widest imaging possible. Reflecting type
speakers enhance this effect, and direct firing speakers benefit from it
as well, in that it will extract whatever depth and spaciousness they are
capable of - but notice, the reflected images of this type of speaker will
not have a flat frequency response, so their contribution will be muted by
the amount of directionality. That is why Floyd Toole's project on speaker
preference showed preference for wider radiation patterns with more even
response at the edges. Also why Mirages, Quads, MBLs, etc have much better
imaging than most.

So I am in hog heaven with my 901 setup in my 21 x 31 ft room, with subs,
and surround sound, but it is right next to impossible to communicate all
this to the world at large, because regular people couldn't care less, and
audiophiles don't like 901s.

Gary Eickmeier

Actually, Gary, I bought a pair in 1970 and had an excellent setup, with
mahogany wood paneling behind them, set up about the way yours were, and
with equally convinging imaging. Then I went and added a Dynaco Quadapter
and a pair of little ADC bookshelves for the rear...and was in simulated
Quad heaven for a short period. But a divorce and a move to an apartment
ended all that, and in that apartment stacked Advents fit and sounded
better.

I have been able to build convicing 3D soundstaging by playing with
positioning and reflective room characteristics with almost any speakers I
have had...but I have also learned that really good speakers (from a
dispersion standpoint) do it better than others....that's one of the
reason's I like the Thiels. And now, with five full range Thiels in 5.0
configuration, I can get rock solid and deep-as-hell soundtaging with
virtually no reflectivity (take a look at my speaker setup on Audio Asylum
under "theaudiohiffle" to see what I am referring to, if you so desire). So
what was very important for stereo is much less so for surround, IME.

On 14 Feb 2006 00:28:52 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

My recommendation for speaker placement, any speaker, but especially
these, is 1/4 of the room width from the side walls and an equal
distance OUT from the front wall. This establishes a lattice of real and
virtual speakers that are all equidistant from each other, forming the
most solid, evenly spaced, deepest, and widest imaging possible.

Bad, bad advice. That placement will pretty much guarantee
overexcitement of room resonances. The correct placement is one-third
or one-fifth of the room dimension away from the front and side walls.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 14 Feb 2006 00:28:52 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
wrote:


My recommendation for speaker placement, any speaker, but especially
these, is 1/4 of the room width from the side walls and an equal
distance OUT from the front wall. This establishes a lattice of real and
virtual speakers that are all equidistant from each other, forming the
most solid, evenly spaced, deepest, and widest imaging possible.


Bad, bad advice. That placement will pretty much guarantee
overexcitement of room resonances. The correct placement is one-third
or one-fifth of the room dimension away from the front and side walls.

I know that is the classic advice, Stewart, but I am an iconoclast. It
just doesn't seem to be a problem. There's 10 feet between each sound
image. Think of it as an array of eight speakers in front of you instead
of two. I have made many drawings of the horizontal situation of this
arrangement, and all of the virtual images - of each speaker - are a
different distance from the listener. Having a larger room helps, too.

Gary Eickmeier

"Gary Eickmeier"

writes....

My recommendation for speaker placement, any speaker, but especially
these, is 1/4 of the room width from the side walls and an equal
distance OUT from the front wall.


Gary, you aren't married, are you?....:-)

Sherm

Sherman Kaplan wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier"

writes....

My recommendation for speaker placement, any speaker, but especially
these, is 1/4 of the room width from the side walls and an equal
distance OUT from the front wall.


Gary, you aren't married, are you?....:-)

Yes, but I built my listening/viewing room before I got remarried, and
she knows it is a major part of my life. I actually built the house
around this room. I moved from California to Florida so that I could
afford to custom build a new home, one that was big enough to do the
sound room and more. All of the electronics are in the next room over,
and everything is operated by remote control. Video screen is 17 feet
wide. Got 4 20-amp lines feeding the electronics. The house I grew up in
was not much larger than my sound room.

Gary Eickmeier

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:

I quite liked the 901s for their frequency response and perceived low
distortion, although with the 11% direct, 89% reflecting system, they
wouldn't image properly whatever you did. Nevertheless, they produced
pleasant sounds with a high-power amplifier behind them.


The imaging part is wrong. Bose 901s are how I learned about imaging.

I was stationed in England, where the houses have bare plaster walls. I
had positioned the speakers in my normal, stupid way (near the walls and
wide apart, according to the manual, which is another story), and I
tried to hear this "imaging" thing that the blokes were describing in
their hi fi magazines. I had to admit, center soloists sounded 6 feet

snip

My recommendation for speaker placement, any speaker, but especially
these, is 1/4 of the room width from the side walls and an equal
distance OUT from the front wall. This establishes a lattice of real and
virtual speakers that are all equidistant from each other, forming the
most solid, evenly spaced, deepest, and widest imaging possible.
Reflecting type speakers enhance this effect, and direct firing speakers
benefit from it as well, in that it will extract whatever depth and
spaciousness they are capable of - but notice, the reflected images of
this type of speaker will not have a flat frequency response, so their
contribution will be muted by the amount of directionality. That is why
Floyd Toole's project on speaker preference showed preference for wider
radiation patterns with more even response at the edges. Also why
Mirages, Quads, MBLs, etc have much better imaging than most.

So I am in hog heaven with my 901 setup in my 21 x 31 ft room, with
subs, and surround sound, but it is right next to impossible to
communicate all this to the world at large, because regular people
couldn't care less, and audiophiles don't like 901s.

Gary Eickmeier


Gary,

I am a bit surprised by your positioning... although I rather agree
about the imaging thing to some extent. But Led Zep was *really gooood*
sounding about 8 feet tall!! ;_)

My recollection of it is that the bass response rather depended on
positioning at some distance from the wall, that being on the order of
3ft. otherwise the low end would rather go away quite a bit.

Did you find that the bass kinda went a bit "thin" when they were 1/4way
into the room??

Vis-a-vis the "all out" version. One of the first projects I did in
audio - after the moderately hot rodded Dyna Stereo 120 (gasp!) was to
build a "vertical" version of the direct reflecting idea, but with
Goodman's Maximus drivers, and a dual column in the rear, and two
drivers to the front... iirc, I made a version with 2 x 6 high and a
version with 2 x 5 high. The result was a speaker that required less EQ
on the bottom and had much much better imaging.

Shades of that ESL with the 180 dispersion lens... arrgh! CRS strikes
again!! Starts with a "B"... But anyhow, they also sounded very
interesting with the "pointy part" facing at each other... partially
reflecting, partially direct...

_-_-bear

I am using speakers with a similar conception. They are an old (20
years?) pair of DBX Soundfield One speakers. They image very well in my
large (22' X 30') room. I have them spaced quite far apart but there is
no hole in the middle. I have the bass slider on the control unit set
at minimum and the bass is filled in with sub woofers.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

BEAR wrote:

Gary,

I am a bit surprised by your positioning... although I rather agree
about the imaging thing to some extent. But Led Zep was *really gooood*
sounding about 8 feet tall!! ;_)

My recollection of it is that the bass response rather depended on
positioning at some distance from the wall, that being on the order of
3ft. otherwise the low end would rather go away quite a bit.

Should be the opposite. Closer to the wall would reinforce the bass.

Did you find that the bass kinda went a bit "thin" when they were 1/4way
into the room??

Not that much. Now, of course, I use subs and tune to preference.

Vis-a-vis the "all out" version. One of the first projects I did in
audio - after the moderately hot rodded Dyna Stereo 120 (gasp!) was to
build a "vertical" version of the direct reflecting idea, but with
Goodman's Maximus drivers, and a dual column in the rear, and two
drivers to the front... iirc, I made a version with 2 x 6 high and a
version with 2 x 5 high. The result was a speaker that required less EQ
on the bottom and had much much better imaging.

Possibly good, but I would have to see the speaker designs. Easiest way
to visualize the result of driver positioning is to make an image model
drawing. This is just a plan view of the speakers and their reflected
images in the walls. You can then sort of see the strengths of the
various real and virtual speakers contributions to the model, based on
their radiation patterns.

Shades of that ESL with the 180 dispersion lens... arrgh! CRS strikes
again!! Starts with a "B"... But anyhow, they also sounded very
interesting with the "pointy part" facing at each other... partially
reflecting, partially direct...

Sounds like the DBX Soundfield One. Very good speaker.

Gary Eickmeier

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
BEAR wrote:

Gary,

I am a bit surprised by your positioning... although I rather agree
about the imaging thing to some extent. But Led Zep was *really
gooood* sounding about 8 feet tall!! ;_)

My recollection of it is that the bass response rather depended on
positioning at some distance from the wall, that being on the order of
3ft. otherwise the low end would rather go away quite a bit.


Should be the opposite. Closer to the wall would reinforce the bass.

The terms "order of 3ft." means less than 3 feet.
That's what I said, closer to the wall.


snip

Vis-a-vis the "all out" version. One of the first projects I did in
audio - after the moderately hot rodded Dyna Stereo 120 (gasp!) was to
build a "vertical" version of the direct reflecting idea, but with
Goodman's Maximus drivers, and a dual column in the rear, and two
drivers to the front... iirc, I made a version with 2 x 6 high and a
version with 2 x 5 high. The result was a speaker that required less
EQ on the bottom and had much much better imaging.


Possibly good, but I would have to see the speaker designs. Easiest way
to visualize the result of driver positioning is to make an image model
drawing. This is just a plan view of the speakers and their reflected
images in the walls. You can then sort of see the strengths of the
various real and virtual speakers contributions to the model, based on
their radiation patterns.

Ummm... that was like 1973...

In 1975-6 I did this: http://www.bearlabs.com/NEXT/CVSR.html

Got rid of the reflecting variable... ;_)



Shades of that ESL with the 180 dispersion lens... arrgh! CRS strikes
again!! Starts with a "B"... But anyhow, they also sounded very
interesting with the "pointy part" facing at each other... partially
reflecting, partially direct...


Sounds like the DBX Soundfield One. Very good speaker.

No, not DBX stuff. Not an ESL.

Beveridge - couldn't recall it the other day.

_-_-bear


Gary Eickmeier

BEAR wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Possibly good, but I would have to see the speaker designs. Easiest
way to visualize the result of driver positioning is to make an image
model drawing. This is just a plan view of the speakers and their
reflected images in the walls. You can then sort of see the strengths
of the various real and virtual speakers contributions to the model,
based on their radiation patterns.


Ummm... that was like 1973...

In 1975-6 I did this: http://www.bearlabs.com/NEXT/CVSR.html

Got rid of the reflecting variable... ;_)

Bear,

That would be very bad sound, placing any speaker all the way into the
corner. Yes, you got "rid" of the reflecting variable, but that is just
the problem. Image Model Theory says that the reproduction is a MODEL of
the real thing, not a portal into another acoustic. By placing the
speakers out into the room, you are modeling the deep, wide, huge
original soundstage and sound patterns. By placing speakers in the
corners, ALL of the recorded sound is made to come from just two ****
holes in the snow. The space that is in the recording is compressed and
flattened. Can you not hear those effects???

Gary Eickmeier

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
BEAR wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:


Possibly good, but I would have to see the speaker designs. Easiest
way to visualize the result of driver positioning is to make an image
model drawing. This is just a plan view of the speakers and their
reflected images in the walls. You can then sort of see the strengths
of the various real and virtual speakers contributions to the model,
based on their radiation patterns.



Ummm... that was like 1973...

In 1975-6 I did this: http://www.bearlabs.com/NEXT/CVSR.html

Got rid of the reflecting variable... ;_)


Bear,

That would be very bad sound, placing any speaker all the way into the
corner. Yes, you got "rid" of the reflecting variable, but that is just
the problem. Image Model Theory says that the reproduction is a MODEL of
the real thing, not a portal into another acoustic. By placing the
speakers out into the room, you are modeling the deep, wide, huge
original soundstage and sound patterns. By placing speakers in the
corners, ALL of the recorded sound is made to come from just two ****
holes in the snow. The space that is in the recording is compressed and
flattened. Can you not hear those effects???

Gary Eickmeier


Gary,

You seem to be having some difficulty with this! That picture was shot
in 1976. I repeat 1976. THREE decades ago. Archival, not modern. The
speaker was NOT in the corner, fwiw, the room was smallish and the
speaker was turned and moved to make a 'more pleasing photograph.' Not
that it matters.

Furthermore, these are not reflecting speakers. So, your comments about
the placement in the room - other than room mode effects and room
surface reflections - makes no sense as far as the imaging. But since in
the real world there are interactions with the room surfaces, I would
agree that a larger room, and with speakers away from surfaces is
usually superior in terms of listening perception.

Are you still using Bose 901s today? Just curious.

I don't know what this "Image Model Theory" is. But, since stereo is a
rather poor sample (best case two point samples) of the original
acoustic environment it's difficult for me to understand what exactly
one would be precisely 'modeling' per se...

I'd prefer to not get into a contentious discussion about this topic
( "**** holes in the snow" - are those point sources?) at this time.

_-_-bear

BEAR wrote:

Gary,

You seem to be having some difficulty with this! That picture was shot
in 1976. I repeat 1976. THREE decades ago. Archival, not modern. The
speaker was NOT in the corner, fwiw, the room was smallish and the
speaker was turned and moved to make a 'more pleasing photograph.' Not
that it matters.

You said you were getting rid of the reflecting variable. That means
speakers in the corners.

Furthermore, these are not reflecting speakers. So, your comments about
the placement in the room - other than room mode effects and room
surface reflections - makes no sense as far as the imaging. But since in
the real world there are interactions with the room surfaces, I would
agree that a larger room, and with speakers away from surfaces is
usually superior in terms of listening perception.

Are you still using Bose 901s today? Just curious.

Yes. http://www.pbase.com/eickmeier/image/712281

I don't know what this "Image Model Theory" is. But, since stereo is a
rather poor sample (best case two point samples) of the original
acoustic environment it's difficult for me to understand what exactly
one would be precisely 'modeling' per se...

I'd prefer to not get into a contentious discussion about this topic
( "**** holes in the snow" - are those point sources?) at this time.

Well, you asked...

What you are modeling is the characteristics of the original sound
field. That is the "thing" that we are reproducing. The original is
composed of a large model of direct (the instruments themselves), early
reflected (front and side wall reflections from the concert hall or
studio), and reverberant sounds. To reproduce that, you do NOT cast all
of the recorded sounds as a direct field from two point sources. You
place two or more speakers with a shaped radiation pattern out from the
reflecting surfaces so as to create a model of the original. This is the
most difficult to understand aspect of stereo theory, but it agrees with
majority audiophile practice.

You're right, we don't want to go into an entire discussion of this
here. Been there, done that, heard all of the arguments.

Read all about it at http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5825

Gary Eickmeier

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

BEAR wrote:

Gary,

You seem to be having some difficulty with this! That picture was shot
in 1976. I repeat 1976. THREE decades ago. Archival, not modern. The
speaker was NOT in the corner, fwiw, the room was smallish and the
speaker was turned and moved to make a 'more pleasing photograph.' Not
that it matters.


You said you were getting rid of the reflecting variable. That means
speakers in the corners.

That's pretty funny.

When I say "getting rid of the reflecting variable" I would expect that
you would know that I am referring to the *intentional* energy radiated
*at* the wall by a speaker such as the Bose 901.



Furthermore, these are not reflecting speakers. So, your comments
about the placement in the room - other than room mode effects and
room surface reflections - makes no sense as far as the imaging. But
since in the real world there are interactions with the room surfaces,
I would agree that a larger room, and with speakers away from surfaces
is usually superior in terms of listening perception.

Are you still using Bose 901s today? Just curious.


Yes. http://www.pbase.com/eickmeier/image/712281

Hmmm... nice room. Nice set up for home theater.

Explains a whole lot about your views on "high-end audio" in general.


I'd prefer to not get into a contentious discussion about this topic
( "**** holes in the snow" - are those point sources?) at this time.


Well, you asked...

What you are modeling is the characteristics of the original sound
field.
snip
create a model of the original. This is the
most difficult to understand aspect of stereo theory, but it agrees with
majority audiophile practice.

You're right, we don't want to go into an entire discussion of this
here. Been there, done that, heard all of the arguments.

Read all about it at http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5825

Well, Gary it's nice that you quote yourself as support for your own
argument(s)!

Not being an AES member, I don't want to spend $20 and even if I were,
I'd prefer to not spend $5 to see what you said back in 1989. I'd
presume that your paper is 'in support' of Dr. Bose's ideas anyway?

But since you are the author, and you own your original work feel free
to send me a copy if you would like. I'd be happy to read it and comment
privately, publicly, or not at all as you wish.

I'm not so sure I agree with your basic premise as you've described it
here nor in the abstract - but I'm open as far as being willing to read
more...

_-_-bear

Gary Eickmeier