High pass filtering is endemic in audio systems. It's no secret that if the
corner frequency of a high pass filter is set high enough, it will be
audible.

A quick analysis suggests that any practical playback system can be
characterized as being at least a third-order high pass filter, while a
complete record/play system can be characterized as being at least a fifth
or sixth-order high pass filter. Typical complete record-playback systems
may be of far higher orders, with the tenth or 15th orders being quite
likely.

Typical sound reinforcement systems can be characterized as high pass
filters with corner frequencies on the order of 50-85 Hz.

Typical well-engineered analog (vinyl) high-quality home audio systems can
be characterized as high pass filters with corner frequencies of no less
than 13 Hz.

Typical digitally-based high quality home audio systems can be characterized
as high pass filters with corner frequencies on the order of 1 Hz or more.

So, how low of a frequency can a high pass filter be set to, and still be
reliably audible?

I predict that many will be surprised how low they must go to avoid audible
effects from high pass filtering.

BTW, the audible effect of high pass filtering is something like a timbre
change.

Listen for yourself and reach your own conclusions!

Web site introduction:

http://www.pcabx.com/index.htm

High pass filter listening tests:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/high_pass/index.htm

It's all good and it's all free!

"Arny Krueger" wrote

High pass filtering is endemic in audio systems.

What??? ARC, Anthem, Ayre, Bel Canto, Gryphon, Headroom,
Klyne, Krell, Lamm, Mark Levinson, Rogue, VTL all have
pre-amps with frequency responses starting a DC or 1 Hz.


It's no secret that if the corner frequency of a high pass filter
is set high enough, it will be audible.

Define your notion of "corner frequency?"


I predict that many will be surprised how low they must go to
avoid audible effects from high pass filtering.

Quack, quack, quack...


BTW, the audible effect of high pass filtering is something like
a timbre change.

"something like"... your version of future wiggle room
factor as you begin re-trenching your thesis.


Listen for yourself and reach your own conclusions!

Web site introduction:

http://www.pcabx.com/index.htm

High pass filter listening tests:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/high_pass/index.htm

It's all good and it's all free!

Hehehe... yea, thanks!

Powell wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote

High pass filtering is endemic in audio systems.

What??? ARC, Anthem, Ayre, Bel Canto, Gryphon, Headroom,
Klyne, Krell, Lamm, Mark Levinson, Rogue, VTL all have
pre-amps with frequency responses starting a DC or 1 Hz.

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

BTW Powell, you can post the results of your lab tests of the ACTUAL
frequency response of these products at your earliest convenience. Either
that, or admit that you lack relevant empirical experience with the products
you cited. Anybody can read spec sheets and drop names.

It's no secret that if the corner frequency of a high pass filter
is set high enough, it will be audible.

Define your notion of "corner frequency?"

Read any book about electronics. If you have any questions, quote the book
definition it here.

I predict that many will be surprised how low they must go to
avoid audible effects from high pass filtering.

Quack, quack, quack...

That's what ducks do, Powell. Since you quack like a duck...

BTW, the audible effect of high pass filtering is something like
a timbre change.

"something like"... your version of future wiggle room
factor as you begin re-trenching your thesis.

And you re-write of this paragraph is???

Listen for yourself and reach your own conclusions!

Web site introduction:

http://www.pcabx.com/index.htm

High pass filter listening tests:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/high_pass/index.htm

It's all good and it's all free!

Hehehe... yea, thanks!

Clearly, its all way over your head, Powell.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

High pass filtering is endemic in audio systems.

What??? ARC, Anthem, Ayre, Bel Canto, Gryphon, Headroom,
Klyne, Krell, Lamm, Mark Levinson, Rogue, VTL all have
pre-amps with frequency responses starting a DC or 1 Hz.

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

I don't have speakers that reach 50,100 or 200 kHz
either, but some of the sited pre-amps can. The ideal
audio system will be transparent to the source content
(straight wire with gain).


BTW Powell, you can post the results of your lab tests
of the ACTUAL frequency response of these products
at your earliest convenience.

Gee Arny, spend $12 on a Stereophile subscription
if you need the validity of test specifications to validate
your poor hearing acuity.


Either that, or admit that you lack relevant empirical
experience with the products you cited. Anybody can
read spec sheets and drop names.

Quack, quack, quack...


It's no secret that if the corner frequency of a high
pass filter is set high enough, it will be audible.

Define your notion of "corner frequency?"

Read any book about electronics. If you have any
questions, quote the book definition it here.

It’s your thesis... stand and deliver.


Listen for yourself and reach your own conclusions!

Web site introduction:

http://www.pcabx.com/index.htm

High pass filter listening tests:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/high_pass/index.htm

It's all good and it's all free!

Hehehe... yea, thanks!

Clearly, its all way over your head, Powell.

That’s why I ask questions... to be edified by my
superiors .

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/20/2004 8:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Powell wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote

High pass filtering is endemic in audio systems.

What??? ARC, Anthem, Ayre, Bel Canto, Gryphon, Headroom,
Klyne, Krell, Lamm, Mark Levinson, Rogue, VTL all have
pre-amps with frequency responses starting a DC or 1 Hz.

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

You got speakers with a frequency response starting at 1 hz?

BTW Powell, you can post the results of your lab tests of the ACTUAL
frequency response of these products at your earliest convenience.

You can do the same.

Either
that, or admit that you lack relevant empirical experience with the products
you cited. Anybody can read spec sheets and drop names.

You can do the same here as well.



It's no secret that if the corner frequency of a high pass filter
is set high enough, it will be audible.

Define your notion of "corner frequency?"

Read any book about electronics. If you have any questions, quote the book
definition it here.

Why don't you just answer the question?

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:34:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6hz?

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:34:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


BTW Powell, you can post the results of your lab tests of the ACTUAL
frequency response of these products at your earliest convenience.

BTW Arnold, you can post results of your lab tasts that show that the
removal of 6hz can be reliably be detected in musical programming. and
talking about kick drums doesn't count.

"dave weil" wrote

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6hz?

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

Also there are physical traducers that attach to
chairs/couches which take advantage of DVD's
synthetically produced low level sound effects
which have nothing to do with music but does/can
represent naturally occurring sounds of the
environment like earth quakes.

I'm also doubtful that only the ear can
hear/interpolate sound waves. Sight, as we
know it, can be demonstrated to occur
without the aid of the eye.

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:34:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6 Hz?

In the room yes, and that hardly makes me unique.

I have a friend that has a system that has somewhat rising response at 6 Hz
and within a few dB down to 3 Hz.. You can bet that speaker systems like
this aren't based on tiny stuff like 6 inch or 8 inch woofers.

I have a hard time with even conceiving of something like a 6 or 8 inch
woofer as begin a subwoofer. Do you know of anybody with a 6 or 8"
"subwoofer", Weil?

6 Hz is within a mere 2 octaves of 20 Hz.

Lionel wrote:
Arny Krueger - - mercredi 21
Avril 2004 18:37 wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:34:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6 Hz?

In the room yes, and that hardly makes me unique.

I have a friend that has a system that has somewhat rising response
at 6 Hz and within a few dB down to 3 Hz.. You can bet that speaker
systems like this aren't based on tiny stuff like 6 inch or 8 inch
woofers.

I have a hard time with even conceiving of something like a 6 or 8
inch woofer as begin a subwoofer. Do you know of anybody with a 6 or
8" "subwoofer", Weil?

6 Hz is within a mere 2 octaves of 20 Hz.

Perhaps it is important to say that we can generate infrasound by
opening suddenly a door for example. This generate low frequencies
which are infrasound. )

Agreed, no joke. Slamming a door seems to be at least as effective.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:37:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:34:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6 Hz?

In the room yes, and that hardly makes me unique.

I don't believe you.

I'd like to see a graph of the FR of said speakers.

Also, I'm still waiting for your dbt results of testing your
hypothesis that removing a 6hz component is audible in musical
content.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:54:07 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Lionel wrote:
Arny Krueger - - mercredi 21
Avril 2004 18:37 wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:34:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6 Hz?

In the room yes, and that hardly makes me unique.

I have a friend that has a system that has somewhat rising response
at 6 Hz and within a few dB down to 3 Hz.. You can bet that speaker
systems like this aren't based on tiny stuff like 6 inch or 8 inch
woofers.

I have a hard time with even conceiving of something like a 6 or 8
inch woofer as begin a subwoofer. Do you know of anybody with a 6 or
8" "subwoofer", Weil?

6 Hz is within a mere 2 octaves of 20 Hz.

Perhaps it is important to say that we can generate infrasound by
opening suddenly a door for example. This generate low frequencies
which are infrasound. )

Agreed, no joke. Slamming a door seems to be at least as effective.

The question though is if you recorded the event and took out the 6 hz
component, would you be able to reliably pick out the "substandard"
version in a dbt? And please, no more kick drum examples to muddy the
water.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:09:36 -0400, "Powell"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6hz?

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

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

"dave weil" wrote

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6hz?

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

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

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

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:09:36 -0400, "Powell"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6hz?

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

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



And it's *Linn*!

Stephen

dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:54:07 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Lionel wrote:

Arny Krueger - - mercredi 21
Avril 2004 18:37 wrote:


dave weil wrote:


On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:34:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6 Hz?

In the room yes, and that hardly makes me unique.

I have a friend that has a system that has somewhat rising response
at 6 Hz and within a few dB down to 3 Hz.. You can bet that speaker
systems like this aren't based on tiny stuff like 6 inch or 8 inch
woofers.

I have a hard time with even conceiving of something like a 6 or 8
inch woofer as begin a subwoofer. Do you know of anybody with a 6 or
8" "subwoofer", Weil?

6 Hz is within a mere 2 octaves of 20 Hz.

Perhaps it is important to say that we can generate infrasound by
opening suddenly a door for example. This generate low frequencies
which are infrasound. )

Agreed, no joke. Slamming a door seems to be at least as effective.


The question though is if you recorded the event and took out the 6 hz
component, would you be able to reliably pick out the "substandard"
version in a dbt? And please, no more kick drum examples to muddy the
water.

You are wrong Dave, the original question was :
"Are infrasounds important for HiFi reproduction of a live experience ?"

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


"dave weil" wrote

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6hz?

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

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

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

Has anyone really said that? I think that there's probably something
to be said for the fact that sub 20hz is the foundation of music and
that, for a system that can reproduce those frequencies at
*meaningful* levels, it wouldn't be hard *at all* to tell between
music with and music without that content. Hell, my old Cornwalls
could reproduce 20 hz pretty handily, even though it was only rated to
something like 36 hz. I know because I could hear a 20 hz test tone.
Of course, you really had to struggle to hear it when it was on its
own (I don't remember how many dB it was down, but it was down
considerably - still it was audible).

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

I'd also have to wonder if a system that could probably reproduce 6 hz
pretty handily, like Nousaine or the Devil's system could show such
reliability. Or maybe those guys are falling back on the ole
subjective "But I can hear the difference". That would be cool with me
- they just have to admit it.

dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:37:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:34:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6 Hz?

In the room yes, and that hardly makes me unique.

I don't believe you.

Then there is no reason for me to provide you with any kind of supporting
evidence Weil, because you can and probably will dismiss it on the same
grounds.

Powell wrote:
"dave weil" wrote

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6hz?

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

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

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

Which theory would that be?

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:43:46 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

The question though is if you recorded the event and took out the 6 hz
component, would you be able to reliably pick out the "substandard"
version in a dbt? And please, no more kick drum examples to muddy the
water.

You are wrong Dave, the original question was :
"Are infrasounds important for HiFi reproduction of a live experience ?"

Actually, *this* is what triggered this off-shoot thread:

" The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the
pervasiveness of low frequency content in real-world listening
experiences. From past experience, he's also impossible to educate
because he thinks he knows it all.

What are you trying to recreate at that point?

Reality.

If some CDs have information at 6hz
chances are there was something wrong that put it there.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the
pervasiveness of low frequency content in real-world listening
experiences. He's a vinyl bigot and tube bigot as well. Three
strikes. Real-world IQ test failed".

Arnold dragged this argument from RAHE into RAO.

My point is that he's claimed all sorts of "audibbility" and yet he
hasn't produced any evidence of the sort that he usually demands of
others.

Do *you* really think that if you recorded a live musical selection
and you filtered out everything under, say 7 hz (assuming of course
such content existed),, that you would reliably be able to tell the
difference in a dbt?

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:47:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:37:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:34:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6 Hz?

In the room yes, and that hardly makes me unique.

I don't believe you.

Then there is no reason for me to provide you with any kind of supporting
evidence Weil, because you can and probably will dismiss it on the same
grounds.

Well then, we can dismiss your comments. I might as well say that *my*
speakers can hit 6 hz in a meaningful way as well.

"Arny Krueger" said:

Agreed, no joke. Slamming a door seems to be at least as effective.

Don't let it hit you on your way out.

;-)


--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

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


"dave weil" wrote

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6hz?

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

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

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

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

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

Has anyone really said that?

Yes, Powell did.

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

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

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

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

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

Remember the Fletcher-Munson curves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has anyone really said that?

Yes, Powell did.

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

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

snip

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

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

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

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

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

Remember the Fletcher-Munson curves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not real to me.

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

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

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

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

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

Prove it by doing a verifiable dbt.

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

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

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

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

dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:47:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:37:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:34:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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

You got speakers with a FR that includes 6 Hz?

In the room yes, and that hardly makes me unique.

I don't believe you.

Then there is no reason for me to provide you with any kind of
supporting evidence Weil, because you can and probably will dismiss
it on the same grounds.

Well then, we can dismiss your comments.

Be my guest.

I might as well say that *my* speakers can hit 6 hz in a meaningful way
as well.

Be my guest.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 01:06:02 +0100, The Devil wrote:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:45:54 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

I'd also have to wonder if a system that could probably reproduce 6 hz
pretty handily, like Nousaine or the Devil's system could show such
reliability. Or maybe those guys are falling back on the ole
subjective "But I can hear the difference". That would be cool with me
- they just have to admit it.

I honestly have no idea. As you know, my sub situation is different in
that there's a 15in driver in each corner of the room. I recently had
them taken out from the ceiling and fixed in reinforced frames mounted
between the joists and rafters in the attic. They're now mounted
vertically and exit into the listening room through vents. I can't say
they sound any different, but they don't distress the room quite as
much as when they were fixed directly into the MDF ceiling.

By the way, due to a breakdown in my proper use of English, you were
inadvertantly included in "those guys". I really meant the guys who
demand dbts until they feel to make a claim about something just to
take the **** out of someone, like Arnold did when he started
yammering about 6 hz being so important to musical reproduction. I
really didn't even mean to include Tom N. because I don't know if he
would claim the same thing that Arnold is claiming. I should have
simply said "Arnold", who is making claims without backing them up
with dbts and who suddenly shifts the conversation to a higher
frequency range, as he did when he indroduced kick drums.

Sorry about that...

dave weil wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

dave weil wrote:

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

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

Here's the part that Arnold deceptively snipped:

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

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

Now *that's* a hoot!

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

dave weil wrote:

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

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

Here's the part that Arnold deceptively snipped:

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

Nothing about a "high end audio system".

Don't blame me for your missteps, Weil.

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

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


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

dave weil wrote:

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

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

Here's the part that Arnold deceptively snipped:

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

Nothing about a "high end audio system".

Don't blame me for your missteps, Weil.

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

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

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

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


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

dave weil wrote:

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

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

Here's the part that Arnold deceptively snipped:

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

Nothing about a "high end audio system".

Don't blame me for your missteps, Weil.

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

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

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

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

I've never had any sence.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:53:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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


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

dave weil wrote:

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

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

Here's the part that Arnold deceptively snipped:

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

Nothing about a "high end audio system".

Don't blame me for your missteps, Weil.

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

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

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

Since all music reproduced in a home system is "created
electronically", I'm not sure what your point is.

And since there are only two practical "acoustical instruments" in the
world that can get within 1 hz of the "important" 6 hz point (and none
of the recordings that you cited have recordings of said "acoustic
instruments"), your point is even further afield.

Of course, since you're apparently now considering a cannon or a
synthesizer an "acoustical instrument", you've just struck out.

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

I've never had any sence.

I guess that it was just "A figment of Atkinson's imaginataion".

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:53:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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


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

dave weil wrote:

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

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

Here's the part that Arnold deceptively snipped:

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

Nothing about a "high end audio system".

Don't blame me for your missteps, Weil.

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

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

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

Since all music reproduced in a home system is "created
electronically", I'm not sure what your point is.

Weil, I'm quite sure now that you don't see my point at all.

And since there are only two practical "acoustical instruments" in the
world that can get within 1 hz of the "important" 6 hz point (and none
of the recordings that you cited have recordings of said "acoustic
instruments"), your point is even further afield.

Weil, I'm quite sure now that you don't see my point at all.

Of course, since you're apparently now considering a cannon or a
synthesizer an "acoustical instrument", you've just struck out.

Weil, I'm quite sure now that you don't see my point at all.


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

I've never had any sence.

I guess that it was just "A figment of Atkinson's imaginataion".

I'm quite sure that Atkinson has no imaginataion at all.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:21:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I guess that it was just "A figment of Atkinson's imaginataion".

I'm quite sure that Atkinson has no imaginataion at all.

Yes I know. But you said it first.

guffaw!!!!!!!

Hoisted by your own petard!

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:21:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I guess that it was just "A figment of Atkinson's imaginataion".

I'm quite sure that Atkinson has no imaginataion at all.

Yes I know. But you said it first.

I now that. So what?

Thanks Weil, for once again demonstrating your school-yard mentality.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:55:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:21:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I guess that it was just "A figment of Atkinson's imaginataion".

I'm quite sure that Atkinson has no imaginataion at all.

Yes I know. But you said it first.

I now that. So what?

You "now" that? Are you sure you didn't "then" that?

Thanks Weil, for once again demonstrating your school-yard mentality.

Ahhh, so now you admit that this tactic that I borrowed to screw you
up is just "school-yard mentality".

Cool.