Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

Propeller Head Plaza

An Honest Question.

68.210.45.119

thetubeguy1954

When discussing whether or not audio components and wires have a unique sound of their own, opponents of this issue will state once the SPLs & frequency variations are matched, the audio components and wires will be sonically the same, or the differnces so slight as to be undetectable. Then they'll often state in their next breath that ONLY speakers actually sound sonically different.

This caused me to wonder, wouldn't speakers ---{of the same type, because I realise monopoles, bipoles & dipoles would all interact differently with the room, due to their different dispersion characteristics}--- also sound the same once their SPLs & frequency variations are matched? So I curious if we took 2 different monopoles or 2 different bipoles or even 2 different dipoles and placed them one at a time in the same location in the room, wouldn't they also sound the same once we matched their SPLs and frequency variations? This is a sincere question as this is an area in which I'm not very knowledgeable.

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

Follow Ups:

RE: An Honest Question. - tomservo 14:15:39 05/04/09 (17)
So here is the flip side of your question.

Have you ever heard two different types of speaker that sounded the same, either in a room or even outdoors (quasi anechoic)?
My guess is no, even though you feed the exact same signal to each right?.
So at least anechoically, one can focus on what the speaker does relative to the sound reaching your ears or more accurately what the speaker does to the sound in addition to the original signal, because if it didn’t add or subtract, the two would be identical.

The issue takes an ugly turn once you start looking at what a speaker does relative to what it is told to do. It screws up in so many ways It is hard to know where to start.

The most important thing to keep in mind is your dealing with several dimensions in an unseen space.
For example, what good is flat response?
It means the speaker produces all notes within that range at the proportional loudness as on the recording. On a graph this is loudness vs frequency

Flat is obviously ideal but less obviously, if one has home speakers which actually measure flat, they tend to sound “bright” and or sibilant in a living room.
Most home speakers have a deliberately rolled off high frequency response for that reason. At the low end, you ears are progressively less sensitive as the frequency falls, at 20Hz, a signal has to be about 80dB just to be detectable, a hundred million times more acoustic pressure than what you can detect around 3KHz.
Flat to DC is the ideal but the acceptable cost and size prohibit actual reality.

What if you had “flat” speakers when measured at a low level but found that the response changed as you changed level? This is normal power compression response (change in response due to heating of the voice coils and crossover parts, the only solution is headroom.

What about distortion?
So what if the speaker is flat, but in addition to producing any tone you fed in, the speaker generated a quieter set of tones that were 2,3,4,5 etc times the original tone.
With music, these “free sounds” can either sound bad if they are mostly odd or sound nice if mostly even (being a musical chord interval away), or to the passer by sound “loud”.
Keep in mind this effect as well as some other problems speakers have is related to loudness and the problems get louder faster than the intended signal, the only solution is headroom.

What about time?
So what if a speaker is flat but when you put in an instantaneous impulse which represents a wide frequency span, the sound that comes out occupies a span of time 10 or 100 times large, in effect spreading the impulse out by frequency?
How much and at what frequency is acceptable is a matter of debate.

What about space?

Obviously where the sound goes in a room makes a large difference.
While modes are usually not that audible close reflections, especially to the sides can absolutely kill imaging. To extend the direct field as far as possible, directivity is your friend, unfortunately meaningful directivity is only possible via physical size, a horn or large panel etc.

I can tell you this, that all the speakers we make I use a “flat (with a small hf roll off)” target for all the alignments, I set the time target to be what is appropriate for the target response curve.
As much as that is so, the different models do not all sound exactly the same. For example, an sh-95 and sh-50 sound very similar until you reached loudness where the sh-95 ran out of gas first and the sh-95 has a higher low cutoff etc.
The sh96 and sh64 sound similar but not as much like the 50 or 95.
I do think that, as you get closer to producing only the actual signal, in time with the actual signal and as little else as possible, that it is inevitable that systems sound more and more similar.
Best,
Tom
- Has anyone ever documented the effects of... - mkuller 14:21:16 05/04/09 (16)
  ...time, air, dynamics, image/soundstage or revelation of inner detail on an audio component DBT?
  They only seem to be able to differentiate SPL, gross frequency response (loudspeakers) and added noise/distortion.
  
  Edits: 05/04/09
  - RE: Has anyone ever documented the effects of... - gymwear5@hotmail.com 08:36:03 05/06/09 (14)
    "time, air, dynamics, image/soundstage or revelation of inner detail on an audio component DBT?"
    
    A voltage signal passing through an electrical component offers non-of these parameters or characteristics either, so when we measure the components voltage response - gozinta vs. gozouta is not any different than measuring the pressure response of a loudspeaker at some (or many) position. The characteristics of what we measure relate to the your expectations and interpretations of this signals - that, when reaching your ears, in your system, are translated by your brain into the characteristics of time, air, dynamics, image/soundstage, or resolution of detail or...
    
    This is why a great system or component - in your opinion may not product the same "magic" in someone else's observation - even in the same room with the same system. Engineers know this and can manipulate the sound of their components - if they like - to have more detail, dynamics, air etc.
    - RE: Has anyone ever documented the effects of... - tomservo 08:58:27 05/07/09 (0)
      Did you get my PM?
    - No measured...heard....(nt) - mkuller 10:14:20 05/06/09 (0)
      (nt)
    - And I believe they do like! - Don Till 09:57:01 05/06/09 (11)
      "This is why a great system or component - in your opinion may not product the same "magic" in someone else's observation - even in the same room with the same system. Engineers know this and can manipulate the sound of their components - if they like - to have more detail, dynamics, air etc."
      
      Agree.
      
      It's my opinion that if someone is just interested in reproducting the waveforms 1 meter in front of a loudspeaker good mid fi equipment with an active eq might be as good as one needs. If one wants super loud and super deep then more costly equipment is appropriate.
      
      I think it should be pretty obvious that most (or at least lots of it) more expensive audio equipment sounds different because it represents the designers take, ie. choice of compromises and preferential colorations.
      
      Given the varied nature of the world of recorded works this seems only a natural response on the part of designers. It's not like there's a universally accepted reference input that determines equipment performance in such a way that the results will lead to a globally preferential product. Sure there's minimalist live recordings and sound effects and test waveforms but these don't really represent the normal recording. In fact the normal recording is something that really can't be universally defined either as it itself becomes somewhat particular to each listener.
      - RE: And I believe they do like! - tomservo 08:57:21 05/07/09 (10)
        
        In Reply to: RE: And I believe they do like! posted by Don Till on May 06, 2009 at 09:57:01
        
        "It's my opinion that if someone is just interested in reproducting the waveforms 1 meter in front of a loudspeaker good mid fi equipment with an active eq might be as good as one needs."
        
        You will find it ironic that as simple as it may seem, i am not aware of any loudspeaker at any cost which can do anything like exactly reproduce what it is told.
        It is the fact that essentially none can do this, that it makes an ideal target for refinement as opposed to chasing subjectively pleasant coloration which nearly always will also sound worse with other choices of program material.
        
        RE: And I believe they do like! - Don Till 12:20:03 05/07/09 (9)
        
        In Reply to: RE: And I believe they do like! posted by tomservo on May 07, 2009 at 08:57:21
        
        :"You will find it ironic that as simple as it may seem, i am not aware of any loudspeaker at any cost which can do anything like exactly reproduce what it is told. "
        I agree. However that being said, reasonable priced loudspeakers meet the same frequency specifications as more esoteric and much more costly loudspeakers.
        "You will find it ironic that as simple as it may seem, i am not aware of any loudspeaker at any cost which can do anything like exactly reproduce what it is told. "
        I agree. The irony is that expensive gear in general meets the same specifications as moderately priced gear. What this means to me is that we are paying a premium for subjective take and I accept this without any problems.
        "It is the fact that essentially none can do this, that it makes an ideal target for refinement as opposed to chasing subjectively pleasant coloration which nearly always will also sound worse with other choices of program material."
        I agree to a degree but let me try to split a hair to show my disagreement -
        I hate to hear "subjective pleasant" denigrated in the way you have done in your comment. Given that general speaking spec's don't improve with more costly gear, and my belief we are paying for subjective take, I find such denigration somewhat senseless and in fact most convenient for justifying bad sounding more costly audio systems. In my experiences some degree of coloration does not guarantee alienation program material and some degree of coloration may actually be desireable given the nature of real world recordings.
        
        Edits: 05/07/09
        
        RE: And I believe they do like! - Sostenuto 05:50:20 05/08/09 (7)
        
        In Reply to: RE: And I believe they do like! posted by Don Till on May 07, 2009 at 12:20:03
        
        " In my experiences some degree of coloration does not guarantee alienation program material and some degree of coloration may actually be desireable given the nature of real world recordings."
        
        Well, no. What you're saying is that you prefer tone controls that you can't turn off.
        
        Coloration in speakers may produce pleasant (to you) sounds on some recordings, but will almost certainly make other recordings sound worse.
        
        A far better approach is to seek the lowest amount of coloration and distortion.
        
        Agree, but... - E-Stat 14:18:50 05/08/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: And I believe they do like! posted by Sostenuto on May 08, 2009 at 05:50:20
        
        A far better approach is to seek the lowest amount of coloration and distortion.
        
        do understand there are other viewpoints that are equally valid in a world of imperfection. Especially depending upon the type of preferred music. My electrostats are incredibly neutral and pure sounding. On acoustical music, they render a most natural presentation. On the other hand, they are large, possess low WAF, inefficient, highly demanding of amplifiers, as dipoles they are demanding of positioning, require bias adjustments whenever there are changes in humidity, are expensive and cannot play at rock concert levels. Clearly, they are not for everyone.
        
        On the other hand, there are many horn speaker afficianados who demand high efficiency and high SPL output capability and are forgiving of the colorations (midrange hollowness or honkiness) and bandwidth limitations associated with quite a few, if not all of them. After all, that's the way rock music is heard in the live environment!
        
        To each his own.
        
        rw
        
        RE: And I believe they do like! - Don Till 12:43:52 05/08/09 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: And I believe they do like! posted by Sostenuto on May 08, 2009 at 05:50:20
        
        I'm going to respond to your comments in reverse order.
        
        " A far better approach is to seek the lowest amount of coloration and distortion. "
        
        Of course. Again expensive audio components usually don't measure better than good midfi equipment. At what point does selective compromise become distortion or coloration? It's not like any designer isn't forced to make choices. Designers have to make choices - their designs will deviate from the ideal one way or the other no matter what they do. Understanding and selecting these compromises is what differentiates good audio equipment designers from circuit designers and expensive hifi from good midfi audio equipment.
        
        "Coloration in speakers may produce pleasant (to you) sounds on some recordings, but will almost certainly make other recordings sound worse."
        
        Exactly as you say. Colorations that produce pleasant or desirable results will certainly favor recording quality's exactly like you specify. However other colorations, not those producing pleasant or desirable results, and carefully selected by the designer may effect all recordings equally and may over all benefit the majority of recordings of interests to some/many or even a majority of listeners.
        
        "Well, no. What you're saying is that you prefer tone controls that you can't turn off."
        
        Regardless if we say it or not it's reality for all of us. Most of us chose equipment that sounds best to our ears - period. Where I may differ from some other audiophiles is that I can easily ignore an obvious coloration if it doesn't impede my enjoyment of the recordings I am interested in listening. I listen to all genres of music and wide diversity of recording qualities.
        
        The obviousness of colorations or distortions present is not, in my opinion, a key indicator to system quality. What's important is how well the system convey's the essence of the music of interest. Sure colorations that favor genre or recording quality are undesireable - but not all colorations or distortions are like this and I think some of them may allow the listener to enjoy the music on a greater range of recordings than some systems with less obvious colorations.
        
        RE: The obviousness of colorations or distortions. - rick_m 13:10:01 05/08/09 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: And I believe they do like! posted by Don Till on May 08, 2009 at 12:43:52
        
        Very good point. How I would put it is the annoyance associated with the coloration or distortion is the main thing, and that's an individual call. I've heard systems that make me want to run from the room that other folks think sounds swell. And vise-versa I'm sure.
        
        All the world is a compromise and we are just the compromised...
        
        Rick
        
        RE: The obviousness of colorations or distortions. - Don Till 18:11:58 05/08/09 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: The obviousness of colorations or distortions. posted by rick_m on May 08, 2009 at 13:10:01
        
        "How I would put it is the annoyance associated with the coloration or distortion is the main thing, and that's an individual call. I've heard systems that make me want to run from the room that other folks think sounds swell."
        
        I agree. I know some say, but I disagree for a variety of reasons, that there's some point where the focus of the reproduction gets so great that the characteristics of the recording become an annoyance or a distraction. It doesn't make sense to me that if accurate reproduction of music is the purpose that there's some reason why some recordings would be better served by less than accurate reproduction. I think I've heard all the arguments, some of them sound smart and reasonable, but my experiences and individual call is they are just excuses for stereos that aren't really working that well.
        
        Sound so pure you can't stand to listen... - rick_m 22:00:57 05/08/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: The obviousness of colorations or distortions. posted by Don Till on May 08, 2009 at 18:11:58
        
        ... Doesn't seem like a great recommendation to me. I'm with you, it indicates a stereo with problems. Push comes to shove if you are aware of your stereo system it isn't doing it's job very well. The idea is to listen through them, not to them.
        
        Accuracy isn't a scalar. In the real audio world there are usually so many tradeoffs that the question devolves into accuracy in what parameter at what cost to which others. Fortunately we are adaptive and can adjust to many shortcomings of our systems, but not to all, and those are the ones that become annoyances or dictate what sort of music it's good for.
        
        I sometimes wonder why binaural recordings and headphone listening aren't standard fare for AA folks. I'd venture to say that it's the most 'accurate' recording/reproduction system available for real sounds, and one that's affordable and practical.
        
        Rick
        
        RE: Sound so pure you can't stand to listen... - Don Till 10:26:07 05/09/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Sound so pure you can't stand to listen... posted by rick_m on May 08, 2009 at 22:00:57
        
        "I sometimes wonder why binaural recordings and headphone listening aren't standard fare for AA folks. I'd venture to say that it's the most 'accurate' recording/reproduction system available for real sounds, and one that's affordable and practical."
        
        Or active equalizers for those who claim accurate reproduction of the recorded waveform is all important.
        
        "I'm with you, it indicates a stereo with problems. "
        
        Or one that's colored to favor the owners preferences.
        
        I like to think my systems are about getting the most music out of the most recordings. Not everyone will share my purpose. Where ever there is a claim of "most" or "best", except for measureable accuracy, there are going to be colorations involved. Whether it's most live, most real, most music, most recordings, etc. I think there will be a degree of colorations involved leading us to our conclusion.
        
        If someone wants to minimize colorations there's plenty of test equipment and tools available for such endeavors but I'm confident in the end they will end up with a system that sounds pretty average but one that measures the best.
        
        RE: Sound so pure you can't stand to listen... - bjh 04:21:35 05/09/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Sound so pure you can't stand to listen... posted by rick_m on May 08, 2009 at 22:00:57
        
        While I'm not a big tube power amp fan (pre-amp is a different story) designs that take various types of output tubes provide, I think, a clear example of coloration tradeoffs.
        In particular in designs that can accept either EL34 or KT88 (common) I find the KT88 provide a more "linear" sound, accurate, transparent... then swap in EL34 and its (in my experience anyway) pleasant colorations of the "euphonic" sort, easy on the ears, etc.
        I can appreciate the EL34 "sound" but I would opt for KT88 for most material. However I acknowledge that's just me, my preference and priorities... nothing more.
        Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
        
        Edits: 05/09/09
        
        RE: And I believe they do like! - tomservo 13:28:50 05/07/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: And I believe they do like! posted by Don Till on May 07, 2009 at 12:20:03
        
        "However that being said, reasonable priced loudspeakers meet the same frequency specifications as more esoteric and much more costly loudspeakers."
        
        The problem is the frequency response does as much to tell you how two cars are alike as saying they were the same shade of red.
        Seriously, from an engineering point of view,you simply don't find speakers that measure or sound the same one model to the next, one mfr to another. The only possible differences are departures from a faithful reproducer and room effects (related to directivity)
        
        "The irony is that expensive gear in general meets the same specifications as moderately priced gear."
        
        It may or may not but in general the glitz factor has little bearing on actual performance and when you hear a difference but don't see one in the measurements, your measuring the wrong thing.
        
        So far as coloration, i have to take a different view.
        I have no idea who will use the stuff i design,have no idea what they will play etc.
        When i depended mostly on my ears, i found i could refine a speaker to a point but then was left wondering what direction to go.
        With the drivers i was building, any change you made caused the sound and measurements to change, often i found some alteration made some things sound good but others sound not as good as before.
        At that point i decided i would go with which ever one seemed to be moving in the direction of a faithful reproducer, according to the various measurements.
        In the case of a multi-way speaker, that also involves making it act like it were one driver in time and space.
        Best,
        Tom
  - RE: Has anyone ever documented the effects of... - tomservo 18:29:07 05/04/09 (0)
    > > documented the effects of time, air, dynamics, image/soundstage or revelation of inner detail on an audio component DBT? They only seem to be able to differentiate SPL, gross frequency response (loudspeakers) and added noise/distortion.
    
    Hi
    From the standpoint of being able to measure, one is limited to measuring an alteration or an addition or delay of the original signal in the various domains available. None of those things directly connect to how one hears such an aberration or what it reminds one of, or what the lack of something sounds like and so on.
    There are a few less obvious connections though;
    When the systems hf response has a lot of grass in a high resolution measurement (a lot of fast up and down “noise” in the response) up high, it will sound brighter than if it’s response were smooth. Multiway speakers with non-single source in time radiation, are easier to tell how far away they are with your eyes closed and image less well in a pair due to the speaker shouting its location all the time. Once you extend a systems frequency response to flat to about 20Hz or below, on music, it doesn’t sound like more bass, it sounds bigger. With music, even harmonic distortion sounds good, a second harmonic can be acceptable up to a high level, odd harmonics sound bad dissonant icky. With natural sounds which tend to be non-harmonic, both even and odd harmonics sound out of place when added at audible levels..
    Anyway, my point is that describing qualities of the recording as played back through the transmogrifying speaker usually does not have a direct connection to measured properties. For example, measuring the sum of the various harmonic components into a total makes sense for a measurement yet hardly touches on what distortion sounds like or how much is too much because your ears don’t treat all frequencies equally, they don’t hear with a flat response and so on.
    Part of the problem with recordings too is your judging what sounds most like what you think the original must have sounded like and not what the original even or instrument sounded like. You are unavoidably hearing the producer and mix engineers skill or not as well. This is where measurements are great, you have the original signal to compare to.
    Best,
    Tom
An honest answer - LarryB 12:50:44 05/04/09 (0)
In general, dynamic speakers suffer from far more dynamic compression than do horn-type speakers. Eq'ing both speakers for equivalent frequency response and (time averaged) SPLs would not eliminate this difference. IMO.

Larry
An honest answer - Richard BassNut Greene 09:26:37 05/04/09 (78)
Try not to misrepresent the objectivist point of view too often in each post.

We do not say all components sound alike.

We merely say that all speakers sound different, but electronics, and especially wires, often can't be differentiated with brand names hidden and no SPL differences allowed.

It would be an odd experiment to use an EQ to further reduce the already small audible differences among electronics ... but if an audiophile's current solid state amplifier, when used with an EQ, happened to sound the same as an expensive tube amp that audiophile was thinking of buying, then buying only the EQ would be a much less expensive alternative upgrade then buying the tube amp, leaving lots of cash left over to buy new records and CDs.

I once placed carefully equalized Rat Shack Minimus 7 (tiny) speakers on top of huge 2 cubic foot+ JBL L100t speakers.

Both were for sale.

I had been fooling around trying to EQ the Rat Shack speakers with an inexpensive 10-band EQ to make them sound like the 50 times larger JBL's. With a small hidden subwoofer I could get them close enough so you couldn't be sure which speaker was playing with some songs.

In fact, when someone came over to audition the JBL speakers, I accidentally played the Rat Shack speakers/subwoofers, and when he walked over to the JBL speakers and put his ears near the grilles, he commented that the JBL's were not turned on!

Then he said it was amazing how good the Rat Shacks sounded with an EQ and an added subwoofer.

I resisted saying that I didn't care for either speaker.

He didn't buy any speakers, but enjoyed the Rat Shack demo and bought my 10-band EQ which had spent most of it's life in the closet! Many EQ's are in the closet, except maybe in San Francisco.

30-band EQ can make speakers sound more alike, but is best used to eliminate a small fault on speakers that you otherwise like and can't afford expensive new speakers.

The more you do with EQ (beyond a few -1 to -3dB cuts of a few bands), the more likely the result will not sound good, in spite of the fact that the results "look good" on a spectrum analyzer.

The main reason I assume: The tools used to measure the sound can't discriminate between the direct sound from the speaker (which may be pretty good) and the later reflected sound from the room (which may be pretty bad).

Fortunately, for subwoofer frequencies our ears can't hear the difference between direct and reflected bass (most bass we hear is reflected sound), so adjusting the direct bass sound from a subwoofer with an EQ, can be used to compensate for problems really caused by the later room reflections (which would require a lot of bass traps to eliminate)!
.
.
.

Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
- I enjoyed your story about the Minimi - E-Stat 15:46:42 05/04/09 (16)
  I use a pair as rears in the HT. And agree entirely regarding the value of using a third octave EQ on subs.
  
  I just ignore your wire manifesto. :)
  
  rw
  - "agree entirely regarding the value of using a third octave EQ on subs." = wrong again E-Stat - Richard BassNut Greene 09:09:22 05/05/09 (15)
    A 1/3 octave equalizer has very little value for subwoofers.
    
    The probability of a fixed 1/3 octave band providing a mirror-image match of a bass peak is slim.
    
    I currently use a 1/3 octave EQ for my satellite speakers, mainly for baffle step compensation, and a parametric EQ for my subwoofer.
    
    Parametric EQ's are very useful for subwoofers.
    
    I've mentioned that about 943 times here.
    
    Not that you were listening!
    .
    .
    .
    
    Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
    The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
    and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
    - I listen a fair amount - E-Stat 09:28:45 05/05/09 (14)
      since I don't get the funny papers any more. :)
      
      so adjusting the direct bass sound from a subwoofer with an EQ
      
      Feel free to backpeddle all you wish. It simply adds to the enjoyment.
      
      rw
      - That particular sentence didn't specify the type of EQ, but only a parametric EQ is useful for subwoofers - Richard BassNut Greene 09:43:31 05/05/09 (13)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I listen a fair amount posted by E-Stat on May 05, 2009 at 09:28:45
        
        you merely assumed 1/3 octave EQ
        
        you were wrong,
        once again
        
        I probably have over 500 posts here that
        mention the use of parametric EQ to eliminate
        bassline peaks.
        
        Perhaps one more post, #501, and you would finally
        have gotten my message.
        
        People claim I repeat myself,
        but that's only my extra effort
        to help the slow listeners,
        like you.
        .
        .
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
        
        Thanks for clarifying - E-Stat 11:03:20 05/05/09 (12)
        
        In Reply to: RE: That particular sentence didn't specify the type of EQ, but only a parametric EQ is useful for subwoofers posted by Richard BassNut Greene on May 05, 2009 at 09:43:31
        
        your unqualified comments. Feel free to correct them whenever necessary.
        
        A third octave EQ is good enough for mid-fi systems.
        
        rw
        
        "A third octave EQ is good enough for mid-fi systems." = wrong again - Richard BassNut Greene 07:21:51 05/06/09 (11)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Thanks for clarifying posted by E-Stat on May 05, 2009 at 11:03:20
        
        In my experience, which dates back to 1980,
        at least 9 out of 10 bass peaks under 100Hz.
        are narrower than 1/3 octave wide. In fact,
        1/4 octave wide is rare. Most are about 1/6 octave
        wide in a conventional plasterboard room,
        and narrower (higher Q) if walls are stiffer
        and better bass reflectors.
        I'm sure there are many subjects you know more
        about then me, but this is not one of them,
        so please listen for a change!
        it!
        .
        .
        .
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
        
        Edits: 05/06/09
        
        I'll say it again - E-Stat 07:35:49 05/06/09 (10)
        
        In Reply to: RE: "A third octave EQ is good enough for mid-fi systems." = wrong again posted by Richard BassNut Greene on May 06, 2009 at 07:21:51
        
        IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR MID-FI SYSTEMS. Correcting the room via design and/or traps (as I do with the music system) is the best way to go. Equalizing the sub(s) *however* precisely works only for one part of the room. Duh.
        Comprendre El Nutto?
        rw
        
        Edits: 05/06/09
        
        And you're wrong again, but I'll be positive and teach you about equalization whether you listen or not : - Richard BassNut Greene 14:28:16 05/06/09 (9)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I'll say it again posted by E-Stat on May 06, 2009 at 07:35:49
        
        "IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR MID-FI SYSTEMS".
        RG
        Most people here would call my $2000 stereo mid-fi,
        based on how much I spent, not the subjective sound quality,
        and I know 1/3 octave EQ is far from adequate.
        
        Only once in the past 28 years have I been able to fix a bass peak with a 1/3 octave control -- the peak happened to be at 40Hz., and the 1/3 octave control was fixed at 40Hz, although the Q was too low, it was much better than no EQ.
        
        Unfortunately, no other bass peaks at that seat matched 1/3 octave fixed-center frequency controls, so I bought an analog parametric EQ to do the job right.
        
        Since that time, I have observed the bass peak center frequencies every time I've measured a listening seat (over 100 times), compared them with the standard 1/3 octave spacing, and estimate a 10% chance that a 1/3 octave EQ control would match, or be close to, the center frequency of a measured room mode bass peak.
        
        Mutiply that 10% estimated probability by a total of 2 to 4 bass peaks under 80Hz. in a typical room ... and maybe the result is good enough for your standards, but not for mine.
        .
        .
        .
        "Correcting the room via design and/or traps (as I do with the music system) is the best way to go. Equalizing the sub(s) *however* precisely works only for one part of the room. Duh."
        -- RG replies:
        The usual two bass traps do almost nothing.
        
        The need for enough tubular bass traps so that the combined interior volume is equal to 2% to 3% of the interior volume of the listening room means very few audiophiles will use enough bass traps to damp the room modes.
        
        That's where the parametric EQ band-aid comes in handy.
        
        It can supplement a few bass traps and eliminate every bass peak under 80Hz. at one listening seat AND significantly improve the bassline at most nearby seats.
        
        On a listening couch that seats three listeners,
        and is located half way between the side walls of a room:
        
        (1) The EQ setting to eliminate a a front wall to back wall room mode bass peak, would be the SAME for all three listeners across the couch.
        
        (2)The EQ setting to eliminate a floor to ceiling room mode bass peak,
        would be SIMILAR for all listeners of a similar height
        (and exactly the SAME EQ setting if their ears
        were the same distance from the floor)
        
        (3) The EQ setting for a side wall to side wall room mode bass peak,
        would be the SAME for the left side of couch listener, and the right side of couch listener.
        The center of the couch listener, however, would need a DIFFERENT EQ setting, possibly very different.
        
        In reality two 5' 10" listeners on the left side and right side of a listening room couch located half way between the side walls (typical two-channel position) would need the SAME EQ settings to eliminate all bass peaks under 80Hz.
        
        Your statement "Equalizing the sub(s) *however* precisely works only for one part of the room. Duh" ... has just been contradicted.
        
        The "duh" is on you now!
        
        Hope you enjoyed the lesson.
        There will be a test tomorrow.
        Should I expect the usual "F" from you,
        Mr. "The dog ate my paper" Stat?
        
        Comprendre, Mr Misquito-Zapper Speaker?
        .
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
        
        Actually - E-Stat 15:31:10 05/06/09 (8)
        
        In Reply to: RE: And you're wrong again, but I'll be positive and teach you about equalization whether you listen or not : posted by Richard BassNut Greene on May 06, 2009 at 14:28:16
        
        Most people here would call my $2000 stereo mid-fi...
        
        I was talking about my HT system where I use the subs. But, now that you bring it up...
        
        The EQ setting to eliminate a a front wall to back wall room mode bass peak, would be the SAME for all three listeners across the couch...
        
        Like I said, one point in the room. Hopefully, Mrs. Nut won't move the furniture around as did Dr. E-Stat.
        
        Your statement "Equalizing the sub(s) *however* precisely works only for one part of the room. Duh" ... has just been contradicted.
        
        No it hasn't. Once you move your butt off the couch, the settings will no longer be valid for other parts of the room. :)
        
        rw
        
        I answered the question for a two-channel audio system -- the primary interest here - Richard BassNut Greene 16:07:16 05/06/09 (7)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Actually posted by E-Stat on May 06, 2009 at 15:31:10
        
        The answers still apply to a listening couch used in a home theater.
        The analysis gets more complex if there are multiple rows of seats,
        but the fact remains that two similar height listeners on the left side and right side of a centered-between-the-side-walls listening couch would require the nearly identical bass EQ settings.
        The settings for those two seating positions would still be nearly identical if the couch was moved closer, or further, from the front speakers.
        One EQ setting will eliminate almost all of a floor to ceiling room mode bass peak for ALL seated listeners whose ears are similar heights from the floor, at all seating locations ANYWHERE in the room.
        Bet you didn't know that.
        .
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
        
        Edits: 05/07/09
        
        Despite all your posturing - E-Stat 16:15:01 05/06/09 (6)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I answered the question for a two-channel audio system -- the primary interest here posted by Richard BassNut Greene on May 06, 2009 at 16:07:16
        
        my original comments:
        
        Correcting the room via design and/or traps (as I do with the music system) is the best way to go. Equalizing the sub(s) *however* precisely works only for one part of the room.
        
        remain valid. Move around and the approach I use for the HT and you use for music is no longer correct. Period. One must find new optimum EQ settings for different positions in the room. Duhhhh.
        
        rw
        
        I clearly contradicted your claim and you remain humming loudly with both ears plugged with your fingers - Richard BassNut Greene 09:46:08 05/07/09 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Despite all your posturing posted by E-Stat on May 06, 2009 at 16:15:01
        
        I slowly typed that a listener on the left side of couch, and a listener on a right side of a centered-between-the-side-walls couch, would require nearly identical EQ settings.
        I slowly typed that all listeners of a similar height would benefit from the same EQ setting for a floor to ceiling room mode bass peak.
        I may have even explained that bass traps are very inefficient, so a lot of them are required (typically one dozen or more, resulting in a terrible WAF ... and some commercial models have near zero efficiency under 50-60Hz. no matter how many are used!)
        Correcting a room "by design" is nearly imopossible in an ordinary home --an unusually large room with golden ratio dimensions would be helpful, but would usually not make a parametric EQ worthless.
        There are no shapes that elimninate standing waves, although using unusually flexible walls (much more flexible than the typical 1/2" plasterboard on 2" by 4"'s) would significantly reduce the Q of standing waves.
        .
        .
        .
        .
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
        
        Edits: 05/07/09 05/07/09
        
        Test questions - E-Stat 10:08:59 05/07/09 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I clearly contradicted your claim and you remain humming loudly with both ears plugged with your fingers posted by Richard BassNut Greene on May 07, 2009 at 09:46:08
        
        What is the response five feet further back from your listening position?
        What is the response two feet closer as your listening position?
        What is the response when standing up?
        Correcting a room "by design" is nearly imopossible in an ordinary home...
        Yet folks like Rives Audio do it every day.
        Typing slowly hasn't improved your level of understanding. Doh! I will now leave you in possession with your rationalizations about the *ordinary*. :)
        rw
        
        Edits: 05/07/09
        
        Test Answers - Richard BassNut Greene 14:24:16 05/08/09 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Test questions posted by E-Stat on May 07, 2009 at 10:08:59
        
        "What is the response five feet further back from your listening position?"
        
        RG replies:
        If you moved one listening couch five feet further away from the speakers, or you moved it two feet closer to the speakers, from the original EQ'd position, the EQ required for the left side of couch listener and right side of couch listener would STILL remain nearly identical.
        
        If there were three rows of couches:
        
        (1) All listeners of similar heights in the entire room
        would need similar EQ settings for floor-to-ceiling
        room modes,
        
        (2) All left side of couch and right side of couch listeners
        in all three rows would need identical EQ settings for
        side-wall-to-side-wall room modes
        
        (3) While it would be impossible for one setting to correct
        all three rows of couches for the front-wall-to-back-wall
        room modes, if you placed the front row couch 1/4 of the way
        into the room from the front wall, and the rear row couch 3/4
        of the way from the front wall, then one EQ setting would work
        for four seats in the room (left side and right side of the front row
        couch, and left side and right side of the rear row couch.
        
        All of this analysis shows that EQ can be useful for some
        room booms even in a three-row nine-seat home theater
        configuration, although EQ works best to optimize a single
        sweet-spot seat in front of a two-channel audio system.
        
        Standing waves can only be damped by ultra-flexible bass-
        absorbing walls, that are very rare in homes, or a lot of
        bass traps.
        
        If a listener stands up, the EQ setting for the floor-to-ceiling
        room mode would no longer be correct. The other EQ settings,
        addressing other room modes, would not change.
        
        I hope this wasn't too complicated for you.
        .
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
        
        Dumb as dirt - E-Stat 14:47:45 05/08/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Test Answers posted by Richard BassNut Greene on May 08, 2009 at 14:24:16
        
        Take two. Your negativity can be contagious. Sorry about that.
        While it would be impossible for one setting to correct all three rows of couches for the front-wall-to-back-wall room modes
        ...although EQ works best to optimize a single sweet-spot seat in front of a two-channel audio system
        ...If a listener stands up, the EQ setting for the floor-to-ceiling room mode would no longer be correct.
        
        These are the reasons I said what I said. Sure looks like we agree.
        rw
        
        Edits: 05/09/09 05/10/09
        
        I challenge others to read our posts in this thread and make that decision themselves - Richard BassNut Greene 13:57:37 05/10/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Dumb as dirt posted by E-Stat on May 08, 2009 at 14:47:45
        
        I have patiently and carefully explained that Parametric equalizers can be useful at more than one seat in a room, although they work best for a single seat and are most useful for nearby seats:
        
        Even for the worst possible case,
        with many rows of seats in a home theater:
        -- A single EQ setting would be useful in fighting a bass boom caused by the first-order axial floor-to-ceiling room mode,
        for ALL listeners whose ears were located similar heights from the floor.
        
        That means, in plain English that even you can understand (hopefully), listeners from roughly 5' to 6' tall would hear a significantly reduced bass boom from an EQ setting optimized for a listener who was 5'6" tall (that listener would no longer hear the bass boom at all) .
        
        So in summary, even though parametric EQ of bass frequencies works best at one seating position, I have explained that even in the worst case of a multi-row home theater, one important floor-to-ceiling standing wave, that usually causes a bass boom MORE FREQUENTLY excited by music content (71Hz. in an eight foot tall room) then most other room modes, would be improved with a SINGLE EQ setting optimized for the average distance of listener's ears from the floor (the average height listener).
        
        Now, why not ask other readers to compare our posts in this thread,
        and let them decide who's "Dumb as Dirt".
        
        Good luck.
        
        I recommend you go back and delete all your character attacks to make this a fair contest. I know not much else will be left.
        
        My posts contain useful audio advice based on 28 years of experience with in-room bass equalization, one of the least expensive and highest WAF methods to improve the frequency response heard at listening seat(s).
        
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
        
        I really don't understand the difference here - E-Stat 14:27:16 05/10/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I challenge others to read our posts in this thread and make that decision themselves posted by Richard BassNut Greene on May 10, 2009 at 13:57:37
        
        We find ourselves in agreement. I say EQ only works for one part of the room. Call that a row, a couch - whatever. Move the row longitudinally by a considerable amount, however, and you seem to agree that one must change the EQ settings. That is my observation. Which is what happened to me when Dr. E-Stat moved around our furniture in the den where the HT lives. I had to go back and change the settings for the new distance to speakers in the room.
        On the other hand, one does NOT have to move anything in a well treated room because it is the room that was treated - not a particular stripe of space in the room. And I am in full agreement that using two traps to solve these issues is insufficient - I use a dozen in the music room.
        Your often stated 28 years of experience is quite a bit. I have 36.
        rw
        
        Edits: 05/10/09 05/10/09 05/10/09
- Yes RBNG Give An Honest Answer! - thetubeguy1954 12:03:38 05/04/09 (43)
  Richard,
  Have you finally gotten to the point where even YOU don't understand what you've written in your own posts? You start with a dishonest attempt to discredit my post with your false claim that I should Try not to misrepresent the objectivist point of view too often in each post.
  Then you make two contradicting statements:
  1) We do not say all components sound alike
  2) We merely say that all speakers sound different, but electronics, and especially wires, often can't be differentiated with brand names hidden and no SPL differences allowed.
  So Richard I'd like to ask you why "if" electronics, and especially wires, can't be differentiated with brand names hidden and no SPL differences allowed, why would that be unless they sounded the same? Afterall if they sounded different they would be able to be differentiated even with their brand names hidden and SPLs matched! So yes Richard you are saying via implication, all components sound alike and no, I am NOT misrepresenting the objectivist point of view.
  The problem is when you & your fellow LFOs see in writing just how assinine your POV on audio really is, you try to sugar coat it. Now your POV changes from " all components sound alike " to " no one can differentiate components with brand names hidden & SPLs matched ". The funny thing is everyone besides you & your fellow LFOs realise these two statements are saying the same thing!
  Thetubeguy1954
  ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
  
  Edits: 05/04/09
  - I'm sick and tired of your posts so I have whited them out on the computer screen, and so .. - Richard BassNut Greene 09:56:31 05/05/09 (2)
    ... I appeal to Asylum readers not to make any more posts at this forum because then the white-out will be in the wrong place to cover up Tubular's posts
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
    The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
    and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
    - Great idea I'm going to do the same - Don Till 10:02:34 05/05/09 (1)
      Oppth thorry!
      - How dare you !!! - Richard BassNut Greene 14:33:43 05/06/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Great idea I'm going to do the same posted by Don Till on May 05, 2009 at 10:02:34
        
        Make a joke funnier than mine.
        
        Don't you realize I work for many hours,
        sometime days, just to come up with one
        lame joke, that only 38.9% of the readers
        even recognize as a joke, even after I TELL
        THEM it was a joke, and 20.8% of the readers
        are still so offended by the misunderstood joke,
        that they post vicious junkyard dog character attacks
        here, and mail packages to my address,
        that are ticking?
        .
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
  - RE: Yes RBNG Give An Honest Answer! - Don Till 12:25:13 05/04/09 (37)
    "So Richard I'd like to ask you why "if" electronics, and especially wires, can't be differentiated with brand names hidden and no SPL differences allowed, why would that be unless they sounded the same? Afterall if they sounded different they would be able to be differentiated even with their brand names hidden and SPLs matched! So yes Richard you are saying via implication, all components sound alike and no, I am NOT misrepresenting the objectivist point of view.""
    
    I don't know about the objectivist view but you are clearly misrepresenting RBNG's comment.
    
    He said "often can't be differentiated" not "can't be differentiated".
    
    If someone knows they can be fooled it makes sense they try to minimize it. If someone doesn't care or deny's they can be fooled well that's ok too.
    - RBNG Now Gives Contradicting Answers On Wires! - thetubeguy1954 08:20:05 05/05/09 (2)
      Don,
      
      As I'm not sure how long you've been following RBNG's rants I'll explain further. It's only now that RBNG is getting trapped in all the BS he posts here on A.A. that his verbiage has changed from " no audiophile ever tested over three decades could demonstrate similar skills under controlled listening conditions " to "(wires) often can't be differentiated "!
      
      Here are just a few of RBNG's past claims on wires:
      
      1) Wires = components no audiophiles can prove to witnesses they hear A-B differences when brand names are hidden and SPL's are matched.
      http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=24460&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
      
      2) No one has ever demonstrated to witnesses his ability to hear wire differences ...
      http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=24864&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
      
      3) Golden ears have silly beliefs about how well they can hear ( no one can ever demonstrate similar abilities to witnesses)
      http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=26573&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
      
      4) All wires sound alike except for SPL and many electronics sound alike (excluding SPL differences)
      http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=52577&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
      
      RBNG cannot have it both ways, Don! Either Richard believes no audiophile can detect differences in wires because as RBNG states in #4 All wires sound alike or else some audiophiles can detect differences in wires because all wires don't sound alike! Which one is it? As RBNG is now contradicting himself I don't know what he really believe...
      
      Thetubeguy1954
      
      ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
      - "I'm not sure how long you've been following RBNG's rants " -- "RantReaders vs. AntEaters -- - Richard BassNut Greene 09:18:55 05/05/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: RBNG Now Gives Contradicting Answers On Wires! posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 05, 2009 at 08:20:05
        
        Why would anyone follow the posts of a person whose posts they believed were "rants"?
        
        If someone followed my posts, it would be because they prefer to learn something about audio and get away from the "I have Golden Ears" boasts.
        
        Now you (incorrectly) think my posts are "rants", yet you frequently reply to my posts, implying that you like to read "rants"?
        
        That would make you a "RantReader", which can only exist when the reader has Tubular Logic.
        
        I hereby declare, that for your own good, you MUST publicly admit to being a Tubular Logic RantReader,
        not that there's anything wrong with that!
        .
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
        
        No one can hear the difference between "RantReaders" and "AntEaters" - kerr 10:03:58 05/05/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: "I'm not sure how long you've been following RBNG's rants " -- "RantReaders vs. AntEaters -- posted by Richard BassNut Greene on May 05, 2009 at 09:18:55
        
        When spoken by Scooby Doo or Astro.
        
        > ...implying that you like to read "rants"? <
        
        Some people read rants... I mean, eat ants, if they're chocolate covered. They can't tell the difference between ants and grasshoppers in a DBT. Therefore, all ants are grasshoppers and all grasshoppers, ants... er.. rants.
    - Logic is not one of Tom's strong points. - Pat D 17:26:19 05/04/09 (33)
      Well, Tom often makes simple logical errors. He doesn't really distinguish between "some" and "every" or "all" very well. Often can't" is clearly part of a 'some' proposition, whereas "can't" is part of a universal negative. Accordingly, he sees contradictions where none exist. I've pointed this out to him a number of times but he hasn't learned the difference yet.
      
      "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
      - All speakers sound different, all wires sound the same, nyah nyah nyah - Richard BassNut Greene 09:03:36 05/05/09 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Logic is not one of Tom's strong points. posted by Pat D on May 04, 2009 at 17:26:19
        
        Until there is objective evidence with witnesses to prove that even one person can hear wire differences, it's possible audio wires, of the lengths we typically use, will sound the same to all audiophiles.
        
        Tests require 16 or more trials.
        
        Yet only 12 of 16 trials (75%) must be correct to have a "positive result".
        
        A self-proclaimed Golden Ear who could not hear differences 75% of the time would be SO humiliated by fellow Golden Ears, that he would consider suicide rather than face a lifetime of taunting and name-calling. That's why Golden Ears refuse to demonstrate their hearing abilities to witnesses!
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
        
        RBNG Now Says It's ONLY Possible All Speakers Sound Different & All Wires Sound The Same! - thetubeguy1954 12:25:15 05/07/09 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: All speakers sound different, all wires sound the same, nyah nyah nyah posted by Richard BassNut Greene on May 05, 2009 at 09:03:36
        
        RBNG has learned Teflon Pat D's lessons on the being evasive & equivocal while talking out of both sides of your mouth at once very, very well! For now Richard's past posts about no one and all wires as witnessed here:
        
        1) Wires = components no audiophiles can prove to witnesses they hear A-B differences when brand names are hidden and SPL's are matched.
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=24460&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
        
        2) No one has ever demonstrated to witnesses his ability to hear wire differences ...
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=24864&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
        
        3) Golden ears have silly beliefs about how well they can hear ( no one can ever demonstrate similar abilities to witnesses)
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=26573&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
        
        4) All wires sound alike except for SPL and many electronics sound alike (excluding SPL differences)
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=52577&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
        
        Has changed to the obscure & equivocal "Until there is objective evidence with witnesses to prove that even one person can hear wire differences, it's possible audio wires, of the lengths we typically use, will sound the same to all audiophiles."
        
        Funny part is RBNG doesn't realise that when switching from the universal negative of "no one" & "all" to the "possible" proposition he is also admitting that it's equally possible until there is objective evidence with witnesses to prove that not even one person can hear wire differences, it's possible audio wires, of the lengths we typically use, will not sound the same to all audiophiles. Thanks for finally coming around to reality Richard!
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        It took you over two days to come up with this? - Richard BassNut Greene 13:51:59 05/08/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: RBNG Now Says It's ONLY Possible All Speakers Sound Different & All Wires Sound The Same! posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 07, 2009 at 12:25:15
        
        When demonstrated in public to witnesses, using a methodology that prevents cheating, or mistaking small SPL differences for meaningful sound quality differences, audiophiles who wanted to demonstrate superior hearing abilities to fellow audiophile witnesses, ACTING INDEPENDENTLY over three decades, have provided strong evidence that:
        
        - All speakers sound different
        
        - Most electronics sound the same (no amp clipping allowed)
        
        - All wires sound the same
        
        Anyone who claims all components sound different to his ears,
        is making a claim that his hearing ability is far better than
        any other audiophile in the world (who was noT afraid to demonstrate
        his hearing ability to witnesses).
        
        That would be an extraordinary self-serving claim,
        that's simply not believable without A PUBLIC demonstration
        of such extraordinary claimed skills to witnesses.
        
        In simple English, that even you might be able to understand
        ... and I'll type slowly to help you:
        
        You brag:
        All components sound different to MY ears
        
        I say:
        Your unproven claim may impress some people,
        but I know BS when I've heard it
        .
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
        
        RBNG Contradicting Himself A Second Time! - thetubeguy1954 08:26:11 05/13/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: It took you over two days to come up with this? posted by Richard BassNut Greene on May 08, 2009 at 13:51:59
        
        RBNG,
        
        First he claims:
        
        1) Wires = components no audiophiles can prove to witnesses they hear A-B differences when brand names are hidden and SPL's are matched.
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=24460&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
        
        2) No one has ever demonstrated to witnesses his ability to hear wire differences ...
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=24864&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
        
        3) Golden ears have silly beliefs about how well they can hear ( no one can ever demonstrate similar abilities to witnesses)
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=26573&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
        
        4) All wires sound alike except for SPL and many electronics sound alike (excluding SPL differences)
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=52577&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
        
        Then RBNG changed to the obscure & equivocal "Until there is objective evidence with witnesses to prove that even one person can hear wire differences, it's possible audio wires, of the lengths we typically use, will sound the same to all audiophiles."
        http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/5/53180.html
        
        Now RBNG has returned back to ALL WIRES SOUND THE SAME! in his post above. RBNG is now challenging Teflon Pat D for being the king of being evasive & equivocal while talking out of both sides of his mouth at once. The reality is it's either possible all wires sound the same, all wires sound the same, it's possible all wires don't sound the same or all wires don't sound the same. It's shame these two clowns don't realise how foolish they look!
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        Doesn't a second contradiction get you back to where you started? - Richard BassNut Greene 09:53:09 05/15/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: RBNG Contradicting Himself A Second Time! posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 13, 2009 at 08:26:11
        
        A contradiction is like a 180 degree turn
        
        A second contradiction would be another 180 degree turn
        
        180 plus 180 = 360 degrees = back to the starting point
        
        Well it may seem like this reply has nothing to do with your post.
        
        One possible reason: I didn't bother reading your post, because doing so would be about as much fun
        as accidentally stepping in pile of doggy doo doo, slipping, and falling right on top of it.
        
        .
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
      - Yeah Pat RBNG Contradicts Himself & You Agree With Him! - thetubeguy1954 08:26:15 05/05/09 (22)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Logic is not one of Tom's strong points. posted by Pat D on May 04, 2009 at 17:26:19
        
        Patty,
        How can I be logical with a man who contradicts himself? Before now RBNG always used all & no one, which are universal negatives. Sadly it you who needs to lie to defend Richard. I'm sorry Patty but you & RBNG cannot have it both ways! Either RBNG believes no audiophile can detect differences in wires because as he states in #4 (below) All wires sound alike or else RBNG believes some audiophiles can detect differences in wires because all wires don't sound alike! Which one is it Pat? As RBNG is now contradicting himself I don't know what he really believes, nor can I argue logically against his illogical contradicting statements.
        Some of RBNG's past universal negatives. There are many, many more...
        1) Wires = components no audiophiles can prove to witnesses they hear A-B differences when brand names are hidden and SPL's are matched.
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=24460&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
        2) No one has ever demonstrated to witnesses his ability to hear wire differences ...
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=24864&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
        3) Golden ears have silly beliefs about how well they can hear ( no one can ever demonstrate similar abilities to witnesses)
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=26573&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
        4) All wires sound alike except for SPL and many electronics sound alike (excluding SPL differences)
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=52577&highlight=witnesses+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=
        Thetubeguy1954
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        Edits: 05/05/09
        
        Don and I just showed that the two propositions you cited were not contradictory, and I see you must agree! - Pat D 14:21:45 05/05/09 (21)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Yeah Pat RBNG Contradicts Himself & You Agree With Him! posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 05, 2009 at 08:26:15
        
        If you did not agree that we had shown those two propositions did not contradict each other, there would have been no need for you to search for other posts to show you still don't understand what a contradiction is.
        
        Well, let's see. At some time in the past, no one had been able to prove there were any planets in our solar system farther out than Saturn. But that did not mean that there were no other planets, and subsequently others were discovered.
        
        Again, until fairly recently, no one had been able to establish empirically that there were any planets outside of our solar system, planets associated with other suns. But now apparently some planets have been found outside our solar system.
        
        What we're waiting for is for you to establish that you or anyone else can hear differences in wires in suitable configurations for high fidelity use. Trying to nitpick at what Richard said somewhere and give some old posts an unfriendly interpretation does not help you establish what you can hear, something you avoid doing.
        
        I should point out that those interested in honest debate will try to state opposing positions in the best way possible, and then see if they can provide effective arguments against them. You have shown no interest in that.
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
        
        Patty You Get More Idiotic Everyday! - thetubeguy1954 09:09:28 05/06/09 (20)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Don and I just showed that the two propositions you cited were not contradictory, and I see you must agree! posted by Pat D on May 05, 2009 at 14:21:45
        
        Patty,
        
        If this is you response to my post called " Yeah Pat RBNG Contradicts Himself & You Agree With Him! " then you're more of an idiot than I realized.
        
        You have 0 integrity, 0 character and 0 honesty, hence attempting to communicate with you intelligently is a waste of my time so I'll stop now and go listen to my stereo. You can go listen to your all wires and components sound the same, only speakers matter stereo if you can bear to.
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        Of course this should be taken as a complement - Richard BassNut Greene 14:57:08 05/06/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Patty You Get More Idiotic Everyday! posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 06, 2009 at 09:09:28
        
        Tubular is an expert
        on idiots.
        .
        .
        .
        .
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
        
        For Once You're Actually Correct! - thetubeguy1954 08:41:31 05/07/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Of course this should be taken as a complement posted by Richard BassNut Greene on May 06, 2009 at 14:57:08
        
        Richard,
        
        Since I joined AA on January 7, 2001 and first attempted to communicate intelligently with Lunatic Fringe Objectivist's like yourself, Pat D, Sostenuto & a few others of your kind, I have indeed become an expert
        on idiots.
        
        I hope you don't attempt to respond with the idiotic it takes one to know one defense! Any thinking person would realise I'm not a cat but, know one when I see one. That arguement just doesn't worl locically. It's the same way with idiots, Richard. I'm not one but, I know one when I see or communicate with one.
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        You make up some imaginary allegation about me and I'm supposed to answer it? GUAB - Pat D 11:56:37 05/06/09 (17)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Patty You Get More Idiotic Everyday! posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 06, 2009 at 09:09:28
        
        If you think RBNG contradicts himself, then you should tell him that.
        
        Has someone been picking on your system lately?
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
        
        RE: You make up some imaginary allegation about me and I'm supposed to answer it? GUAB - thetubeguy1954 10:18:35 05/07/09 (16)
        
        In Reply to: RE: You make up some imaginary allegation about me and I'm supposed to answer it? GUAB posted by Pat D on May 06, 2009 at 11:56:37
        
        Patty,
        
        You said I don't understand the differences between the words "some" from "every" or "all" so showed you that RBNG had contradicted himself! Yet you decided to attacked me for not understanding what he's saying, GMAB! Trust me what I said about you was neither imaginary nor was I alleging. I was positively asserting, though!
        
        Now as far as whether or not someone has been picking on my audio system lately, I'll let you decide. Here's a review on my system a listener posted after attending a listening session at my home...
        =========================================================================
        This is my first post to the SET group, though I've been lurking for a while. I've been a tube-o-holic for twenty-five years, and a SET-head for the last fifteen, aside from an ill-fated foray into solid state a few years ago. There's little question in my mind that there's more music to be had from high-efficiency speakers coupled with an amp with fewer, high-quality watts than with the opposite paradigm. I was fortunate to be invited by Tom to hear his system at a listening session he hosted last Saturday (4/25/09 --TG1954); what follows are some notes I jotted down yesterday as I was grappling with putting into context what
        I heard at his house.
        ____
        
        I was looking forward to reading the thoughts of the other people Tom hosted at his listening session last Saturday, especially as they have all heard his system before his last set of tweaks, hence could describe how the sound has been subsequently altered. I try my best to avoid "audio cowboy" syndrome, too quickly leaping to conclusions based on a short audition of a system for the first time. Now that a few days have passed, I decided to write some initial impressions anyway, because, well, that's what we `philes do, isn't it?
        
        Visually, the system is dominated by the Stibbert CD player, sited on a mini-altar of a stand; in the prime listening spot, the large chassis of the Mastersound integrated amplifier down below is virtually out of sight. The CarderSound Madisons? For all their size, just shy of my own 6'4", they do not take over even a relatively small room. (12.5' x 15.5' with an 8' to 10' sloped ceiling --TG1954) Perhaps it's the beautiful wood finish, perhaps their proportionate slim-ness compared to their height, but they proved to be surprisingly easy to ignore. The sound was coming from everywhere but these wooden towers; perhaps they were simply modern sculptures, and Tom has the real speakers hidden away?
        
        Arriving late, I took a seat outside the sweet spot, and settled in for some music. The first CD I heard was a cut from "Breaking Silence" by Janis Ian. It sounded good; make that, very good. Faint praise? Nope -- let me explain. I'm not a fan of CD sound. In its earliest days, I could walk into a record store and instantly tell if a CD was playing over the house system, because within seconds I'd get a headache, and hastily leave the store. CD sound has gotten better…but not that much better, to these ears, at least. I can now listen without cringing or fleeing, but not for long -- there's still a high degree of fatigue factor that simply does not exist with analogue, whether LP or tape.
        
        Back to Janis, and Tom's system. Although I was out of the sweet spot, the sound filling the room was enough to convince me, from the opening bars, that I was hearing something very special. There was a tonal richness, and sheer reality, to her voice, that was captivating. I love Janis, and can enjoy her even over an AM radio…but hearing her voice like this was akin to being aurally caressed. Tom noted, sotto voce, that I was not hearing the full impact of the recording because I was not able to experience the solidity, the immersive effect, that sitting in the sweet spot would yield (okay, Tom didn't say `solidity' or `immersive,' but that's my interpretation of his words!). Using the term "tonal richness" often conjures the adjectives slow, thick, and colored, but the sound I was hearing was anything but; instead, I believe I was hearing the natural richness of Janis's voice, a tone I'd heard from her very first recordings, played over antediluvian AM radio in the `60s.
        
        Since I was the latest comer to the listening circle, next it was my turn to hear one of the CDs I had brought. I chose an old chestnut, Reiner and the CSO performing the second movement of "Scheherazade," a piece with which I was very familiar in its analogue incarnations, and settled into the sweet spot. Tom's room must have some sort of ambiance switch (maybe in the back, along with the hidden speakers?), because when `play' was pressed his room was transformed from Ian's recording studio to Chicago's Orchestra Hall.
        
        Before the first note, it was clear that we were in a very large space, full of the sound of silence one hears just before the conductor's downbeat. Sidney Harth's violin bloomed and billowed, while the harp, behind and to the left, breathed its own notes. Perhaps there was a time machine secreted in Tom's room, along with the hidden speakers and ambiance switch, because I could hear each note as it started, swelled, and died away, in slow motion, as it were. Not to say that the sound was slow, far from it; but hearing the level of natural detail allowed me to perceive each individual note as a thing in itself, even during complex passages with the orchestra in full cry.
        
        Tom has already shared my comment about the goosebump factor. I've felt chills and goosebumps many times, but the quality of the sound is a necessary part of that experience; it happens frequently in my system when listening to analogue, but never with CDs (note that since I don't really enjoy CDs, I never spent the bucks on a top-flight player like the Stibbert). I don't often feel goosebumps with CD sources; in fact, it's something I've only experienced once before, listening to a Forsell/Jadis system some years ago. So I was quite astounded to feel those goosebumps rising during a CD for the second time in my life. If I were in my own house, alone, I would have been on my feet, conducting; at Tom's, I contented myself with foot tapping and minor finger movements -- minimalist conducting.
        
        Being in the sweet spot, I could hear a very solid presentation, from the basses all the way up to the triangle. The soundstage was ear-level, looking neither down nor up at the orchestra. Instruments close to the front of the stage sounded full-sized (especially the cello); those in the rear, though, sounded a little smaller than life, and smaller than I have heard on other systems. Individual instruments in sections were easily discerned -- violins, basses, violas, and so on, were played by flesh and blood musicians with slightly differing techniques, all picked up by the microphones.
        
        It was supremely easy to hear everything that was going on during the recording session, whether one or a hundred instruments were playing, and at all volume levels. If you know that some sound, faint in level, exists, you can focus your mental ears to make out the sound, not unlike squinting to see small print. An amazing aspect of Tom's system is that such aural squinting in not necessary (or greatly reduced) -- no effort need be made to hear into the music, to hear a flute playing a motif ppp while the orchestra is flexing its fff muscles. If it's on the recording, it's in your room.
        
        I felt no need for bass reinforcement, though I could imagine that for some music that places greater demands on bass output the Madisons might need a bit of help in this region. I'm not, however, a bass freak; I think that many subwoofered systems have a very unnatural bass presentation that I never hear in the concert hall. The highs also were very natural, sweet, and sufficiently extended; were I a bat, I could perhaps conclude that some very high frequencies were missing in action, but I did not hear anything of musical significance that was notably lacking. What was lacking was old-fashioned horn sound, though many of the virtues of horns -- including warp-speed dynamics and the ease that comes from high efficiency -- was plain to hear. As well as the speakers can focus on the tiniest detail, it does so in the context of, if the recording warrants it, a huge soundstage. The instruments can be heard to be playing well beyond the boundaries of the speakers (the basses on "Scheherazade" were well outside the side wall of Tom's room, and many feet beyond the front wall), but more, the silent soundstage, that part of the space beyond the limn of the instruments, goes on, seemingly, forever.
        
        "Scheherazade" was my CD reference because I knew how sublimely lovely the performance can be on an analogue system. However, how did I know that Tom's system wasn't the equivalent of the filters used when filming Doris Day, making everything look beautiful? The next CD I chose showed that if the sound on the CD wasn't lovely, the sound would not be improved on Tom's "jukebox". "So," by Peter Gabriel, is a good car CD -- fun for listening when sound quality isn't critical. I played "Don't Give Up" because my favorite singer on this or any other planet, Kate Bush, shares the vocals with Peter. Tom's system showed, with ruthless justice, that this is a very poor sounding CD; the LP is no more than decent, but the CD was barely tolerable. I flipped o "Sledgehammer" from the same CD. After no more than 20 seconds, I stopped playback, so bad was the assault on my ears.
        
        We heard more music in the course of the afternoon, of course, but nothing altered my initial impression that this is a very special system. I'd like to hear the component parts -- Stibbert, Mastersound, and CarderSound -- perform individually in my own system, to try and hear the contribution each makes to the overall sound. Perhaps these things -- not to slight the wires, as well as the various tweaks - happen to work synergistically together to produce a sound whose sum total is more than what would ordinarily be coaxed from each individual component.
        
        Complaints? Surely there must be a few. I hesitate, however, to focus on things I may have perceived, when the entire system is one with which I'm not intimately familiar, and much of the music was new to me. I do tend to be prejudiced against speakers with a narrow sweet spot; my ProAcs, for example, can still provide much of their image stability and soundstaging even when well off axis, making them more-than-one-person speakers. The Madisons were not the worst in this regard -- I could still move my head from side to side, forward and backward, without losing the magic, so they're not `head in a vise' speakers - but if you're more than a couple of feet off-center, you'll lose much of their wonderful way with a soundstage, but, thankfully, not the tonality. I'd have to listen much more (and hear the individual pieces in the context of other systems) to conclude anything about the evenness of the frequency response. I think I may have been hearing a slight emphasis in the 650-750(?) Hz range, that gave a little added presence to female vocals, brass, and woodwinds. By the same token, there may have been s slight (less than a couple of dB at most) deviation in the lower midrange, say 200-250 Hz, and again near 400 Hz -- just minor differences from what my aural memory says might be the ideal. Was I really hearing these? If so, was it one or another component, the speakers, a room node, or an anomaly of my own ears? Wider experience could help answer these questions.
        
        I know, though, that if you have the opportunity to hear the Madisons (or their brethren from Cain&Cain as well as other manufacturers), go, now, do not tarry. If nothing else, you may come away with new perspectives on reproduced sound; at most, you may find, as did Tom, a system that brings Nirvana to your home.
        ========================================================================
        Guess I'll just go and listen to some more music, as attempting to engage you in an intelligent converstaion, is more often than not, just a waste of my good time.
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        RE: You make up some imaginary allegation about me and I'm supposed to answer it? GUAB - Pat D 08:34:15 05/09/09 (15)
        
        In Reply to: RE: You make up some imaginary allegation about me and I'm supposed to answer it? GUAB posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 07, 2009 at 10:18:35
        
        TG54
        "You can go listen to your all wires and components sound the same, only speakers matter stereo if you can bear to."
        
        Well, you see, Tom, you have taken yet another chance to take a swipe at my system, though as you should have seen in the past, it makes absolutely no difference to me what you think of my system. I was just wondering why you did so, and it seemed to me most likely that someone said something about your system that hurt you, and therefore you lashed out at me.
        
        It is nice that you and others enjoy listening to music over your system. Nice testimonial, very revealing.
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
        
        A Promise To You Pat ---- A Truth Is Told - thetubeguy1954 12:01:15 05/15/09 (14)
        
        In Reply to: RE: You make up some imaginary allegation about me and I'm supposed to answer it? GUAB posted by Pat D on May 09, 2009 at 08:34:15
        
        Pat,
        
        Truth be told I don't enjoy engaging in pissing contests with you or anyone else on any topic, be it dogs, gardening audio etc. Back when I first joined Audio Asylum in January of 2001, I didn't engage in name-calling or pissing contests, Instead I attempted to discuss my POV civilly and respectively with anyone I spoke with. Unfortunately I quickly discovered this type of intelligent form of communication wasn't & isn't appreciated here at A.A. What became all too apparent, all too quickly was the typical Modus operandi of A.A. members is to first discover whether the new member is a subjectivist or an objectivist. That more than anything else, appears to be of primary importance concerning a new member's post. Once that's determined those of the opposing POV usually just start attacking anything this new member posts.
        
        It doesn't matter if the new member's post was civil or not! What matters is this person's POV is that of the enemy's and as such it's addressed as if it was written by anyone from that camp. Thus almost immediately the new member is subjected to the name-calling and the pissing contests start. This is my opinion and I'm not asking you to agree with it. Rather I'm stating it as an explanation of how I've come to behave like I presently do here on A.A. If you went to DIY.com or SETriodes @ yahoo you'd see my manner of expressing myself is very different than it is here on A.A.
        
        This post of yours is considerably more civil than how you've communicated with me in the past so I'll extend you the same courtesy of civility and respect. Furthermore in an effort to make amends and build a bridge of better communications with you in the future, instead of building a fence between us. I'll make you this promise: I will not be the one who first calls the other a name or starts a pissing contest. I do this with no conditions or strings attached, I would however, like to ask a favor of you ---{ you're free to grant this favor or not and I'll still keep my promise to you }--- the favor is this; if you're not sure what I'm saying ask me to clarify my postion before assuming you know what I mean & then responding to assumption of what I meant, ok? You can ask me either within this forum or via private email (thetubeguy1954@yahoo.com).
        
        Whether you believe this or not Pat, when I first joined A.A. I liked you. While admittedly I vehemently disagreed with most of what you posted or believed, I liked you. I know I've extended you olive branches in the past but, regardless of that here's another one. Let us allow bygones to be bygones. Let us consider anything uncivil or unrespectful said in the past to be water under the bridge. From this day forth let us communicate civilly & respectfully with each other. Let us have integrity & character as we communicate intelligently with each other.
        Finally let us stick to the topic we're discussing & not revert to attacking the other person's posts or the other person but, rather let us just point out what the other stated & we diagree with & why we disagreed with it!
        
        The ball is now in your court...
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        RE: A Promise To You Pat ---- A Truth Is Told - Pat D 19:39:48 05/18/09 (12)
        
        In Reply to: RE: A Promise To You Pat ---- A Truth Is Told posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 15, 2009 at 12:01:15
        
        If you wonder why I have taken so long to reply, it is because I have had to ponder the motivation. I know that two days before your post, The Bored gave you a warning about your behavior toward another Inmate.
        
        http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/5/53299.html
        
        Oh well. I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.
        
        When I first came across you years ago, I was somewhat taken aback by the vehemence of your reactions. I have never been able to figure out what set you off.
        
        I usually respond to some of the things people say here. If I have misunderstood anything really relevant, all you have to do is point it out.
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
        
        RE: A Promise To You Pat ---- A Truth Is Told - thetubeguy1954 11:06:00 05/19/09 (11)
        
        In Reply to: RE: A Promise To You Pat ---- A Truth Is Told posted by Pat D on May 18, 2009 at 19:39:48
        
        Pat,
        
        I'm confused. You'll take the time to ponder my motivation before responding to this post, yet you don't ever ask me what I meant before responding to my other posts ---{ often incorrectly concerning what I actually meant }-- even when I've asked you to.
        
        When I first came across you years ago, I was also somewhat taken aback by the vehemence of your reactions. Maybe I'm mistaken but, IIRC it all really started when I told you about an upgrade coming out for your Paradigm speakers. Your response to me felt to me as agressive as if you believed I was attacking your speakers, when I actually meant it as a possible way for you to upgrade what you already owned and loved "if" you wanted to. Nothing more nothing less. Amongst my audio friends we always mention possible upgrades to each other as a means to further improve what we already own. Who knows maybe one of us read a post from another person and accidentially attributed as coming from one of us? I don't honestly know anymore.
        
        In any event, my motivation is sincere. If you want to have intelligent civil discussions let's bury the hatchet. I'm just getting sick of everyone attacking each other, their equipment etc. As I said before the ball's in your court!
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        RE: A Promise To You Pat ---- A Truth Is Told - Pat D 20:38:47 05/19/09 (10)
        
        In Reply to: RE: A Promise To You Pat ---- A Truth Is Told posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 19, 2009 at 11:06:00
        
        TG54
        "I'm confused. You'll take the time to ponder my motivation before responding to this post, yet you don't ever ask me what I meant before responding to my other posts ---{often incorrectly concerning what I actually meant}-- even when I've asked you to."
        
        As far as I was concerned, you gave a reason for wanting to bury your hatchet. It seemed clear enough. I saw no reason to ask a question about it and you really haven't added anything now.
        
        The fact is that no matter what you said or say in the future about it, there is the objective fact that two days after getting a warning from The Bored about name calling, you put in your post about making up with me. So I ponder your motivations. It doesn't mean you are not sincere, but only you know that. I'll wait and see.
        
        TG54
        "Maybe I'm mistaken but, IIRC it all really started when I told you about an upgrade coming out for your Paradigm speakers. Your response to me felt to me as agressive as if you believed I was attacking your speakers, when I actually meant it as a possible way for you to upgrade what you already owned and loved "if" you wanted to. Nothing more nothing less."
        
        After all this time, are you still under the impression that Paradigm offers upgrades to existing speakers? In particular, an upgrade to the Paradigm Signature S2 to the Paradigm Signature S2, v. 2? I indicated that this was not available, but you didn't accept that. You apparently still don't.
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
        
        RE: A Promise To You Pat ---- A Truth Is Told - thetubeguy1954 07:34:10 05/20/09 (9)
        
        In Reply to: RE: A Promise To You Pat ---- A Truth Is Told posted by Pat D on May 19, 2009 at 20:38:47
        
        Pat,
        
        As I promised I'm going to do everything I can to remain civil & respectful to you. Pat how many times have I asked you if you're not sure what I'm saying ask me to clarify what I meant? Yet you've never asked me to clarify anything I say.
        
        Here I am attempting to bury the hatchet. Yet we're immediately back once again to where you're responding to your incorrect interpretation of what you believe I've said. If you'll re-read my post you'll see that I said IIRC it all really started when I told you about an upgrade coming out for your Paradigm speakers. I didn't say I was correct about the upgrade being offered seperately did I? I only repeated what I originally said and what I believed started all this tension. Yet instead of taking that statement at face value, you mistakenly assume:
        
        1) After you indicated that this was not available, I didn't accept that answer and 2) I apparently still don't.
        
        Truth be told all I know is some speaker companies will allow a person to send in an older model they've just upgraded to be upgraded to their new upgraded model. Von Schweikert used to do that and perhaps still does. You said that upgrade wasn't available to you, ok. I assumed you checked if you were interested and didn't if you weren't. Did I disagree with you back then and claim the upgrade was offered seperately? If so, please show me. If not what makes you assume I didn't believe you then and still don't now?
        
        I just hope you'll stop assuming negative things about me and take what I say on it's face value. If not it will probably lead us back down the same path as before. As I previously told you I'm sick of everyone attacking each other, their equipment etc. Besides Pat you know me well enough by now to know "if" I'm attacking, denigrating or belittling something, you'll know I'm doing it. I'm pretty much the the type of person who says what he means.
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        RE: A Promise To You Pat ---- A Truth Is Told - Pat D 12:24:23 05/20/09 (8)
        
        In Reply to: RE: A Promise To You Pat ---- A Truth Is Told posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 20, 2009 at 07:34:10
        
        Well, Tom, you were wrong, weren't you? What I did was indicate that you should have found out whether the upgrade was available before offering advice. Once that was pointed out, that should have been the end of the discussion on that matter. It should be now. But you seem to need to interpret. I didn't want to be so blunt as to say straight out that I didn't need your advice about something you knew nothing about: believe it or not, I try to be reasonably gentle with you.
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
        
        Sorry I Don't Believe You Try To Be Reasonably Gentle... - thetubeguy1954 10:52:07 05/22/09 (7)
        
        In Reply to: RE: A Promise To You Pat ---- A Truth Is Told posted by Pat D on May 20, 2009 at 12:24:23
        
        Pat,
        
        Over this past couple of days I went back and re-read quite a few of our past posts and in doing so I've come to understand why I struggle to remain civil with you. What you've done from the beginning you're doing even now in this thread.
        
        When I recently offered you a chance for a fresh start, forgetting our past differences, and communicating civilly once again you could have either accepted it or rejected it. That would have been the civil, respectful and polite way to handle this matter. However instead of acting civil and responding with a simple and polite yes or no, from the very beginning you subtly started creating strife and friction between us.
        
        Pat one of the things you keep doing is contradicting yourself while attempting to justify your actions. An example is in this post: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/5/53447.html You said As far as I was concerned, you gave a reason for wanting to bury your hatchet. It seemed clear enough. I saw no reason to ask a question about it and you really haven't added anything now. Pat you're clearing stating, not implying, my reason for wanting to bury the (not my) hatchet, seemed clear enough and you saw no reason to ask a question about it. Yet the fact is you presented a question from the beginning! You questioned my motives, suggesting the possibility that my offer to you was made because of The Bored's earlier warning to me. You're supposed to be a logical thinker Pat. Logically all I had to do was stop calling people names like The Bored asked. I didn't have to suggest a fresh start between us to satisfy The Bored's requirements, did I? Logically thinking "if" I had the alterior motives, you suggested I might have, I would have suggested a fresh start between the person I had a problem with, Don T and not you!
        
        Another example of what strains civility between us is in that same post. Despite the fact that I've asked numerous times not to do, you assumed you knew what I meant and responded to your incorrect interpretations of what you thought I meant without asking me to clarify! You posted 1) After you indicated that this (Paradigm upgrade) was not available, I didn't accept that answer and 2) I apparently still don't. Now rather than being civil and simply admit you misunderstood what I meant, you'll revert back to justifing what you do by starting point out possible mistakes I've made. Then you have the nerve to say things like If I have misunderstood anything really relevant, all you have to do is point it out. Like you just said here; http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/5/53361.html
        I believe responding to your misinterpretations of what I've actually or meant said is something really relevant but, no matter how many times I point it out to you, you continue doing it!
        
        Finally as I previously told you I believed this all really started when I told you about an upgrade coming out for your Paradigm speakers. I found the original post and here's exactly what I said then: On another note I read something that might be of interest to you. Paradigm has upgraded their Signature series! The new models are getting beryllium-dome tweeters and cobalt infused aluminium mid/bass drivers. The cost increase is quite modest on the S8 the price changed only $200pr from $6500 to $6700. This might be an upgrade worth looking into "if" you're interested.
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=25678&highlight=Paradigm+has+upgraded+their+Signature+series!
        
        But for some reason you don't want to admit you made a mistake when you incorrectly assumed after you indicated that this (Paradigm upgrade) was not available, I didn't accept your answer and I apparently still don't. Now you want to attempt to justify your actions again. Funny thing Pat is when I first informed you about the upgrade you weren't nasty like you are now. Back then you initailly said Manufacturers are likely to come out with new versions of their speakers from time to time. I'm still quite pleased with my Paradigm Signature S2 speakers (which I notice have attained Class A Restricted LF status in Stereophile's Recommended Components) and we are not currently in the market for new main speakers.
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=25680&highlight=Paradigm+has+upgraded+their+Signature+series!
        
        I responded back nicely by telling you Just thought this might be an upgrade worth looking into ( I know I'd look into if Aliante made such an upgrade available for only $200 ) Believe it or not I was trying to help you not hurt you...
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=25688&highlight=Paradigm+has+upgraded+their+Signature+series!
        
        Here's the really funny part. Now 2.5 years later when you have all the facts you're saying I didn't want to be so blunt as to say straight out that I didn't need your advice about something you knew nothing about: believe it or not, I try to be reasonably gentle with you. However back then you sang a completely different tune. Back then it wasn't I didn't need your advice about something you knew nothing about oh no back then Pat you weren't sure about the upgrade so you asked me Are they in fact offering retroactive upgrades? You have not supplied any link. Back then you were interested in the possibility! Granted you also said I am not aware that Paradigm has offered retroactive upgrades to their products in the past. It would probably be rather more involved than merely changing the drivers but, you were interested in knowing if an upgrade was available seperately!
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=25691&highlight=Paradigm+has+upgraded+their+Signature+series!
        
        So Pat I'll end this by informing you I'll keep my promise I will not be the one who first calls the other a name or starts a pissing contest. However I do not believe you try to be reasonably gentle with me. Quite the contrary I believe you try and irritate, annoy and provoke me to anger. If you want to be civil you will be. You'll stop refusing to admit you've made a mistake when it concerns me, you'll stop justifying why you do what you do and you stop contradicting yourself like when you say If I have misunderstood anything really relevant, all you have to do is point it out and then ignore me when I point it out how you've responded to your misinterpretations of what I've actually or meant as you have for at least 2.5 - 3 years now.
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        Well, it's hard to make any point with you, directly or indirectly. - Pat D 21:39:33 05/22/09 (6)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Sorry I Don't Believe You Try To Be Reasonably Gentle... posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 22, 2009 at 10:52:07
        
        Yeah, you did everything but actually determine whether Paradigm offered such upgrades to the Signature S2 and others in that series.
        
        Now, if you can get your head around it, I already knew. I had already heard about the newer model and I already knew that no such upgrade was available. The only way to get Paradigm Signature S2, v. 2, speakers is to buy them--I even told you we weren't in the market for new main speakers! But I figured this could be an educational opportunity for you, so instead of contradicting you directly (you don't seem to like that), I pointed out that you had supplied no evidence. But you didn't take the hint.
        
        The reason you *said* you want to bury the hatchet seemed clear enough. What am I supposed to do? Ask if you're sincere? Ask you whether you can actually do it? The answers would really add nothing. So, I am sceptical as to your motivation and as to whether you can do what you say.
        
        I must say that if you really wish to bury the hatchet, trying to rediscuss old threads doesn't seem to be a good way to do it. You bury your hatchet, Tom I don't have one.
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
        
        Yes It Is With You Too Pat - thetubeguy1954 09:59:53 05/23/09 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Well, it's hard to make any point with you, directly or indirectly. posted by Pat D on May 22, 2009 at 21:39:33
        
        Pat,
        
        I now fully realize you're totally incapable of being civil with me. I don't know whether this is by deliberate choice or due to your inability to even recognize when you're behaving uncivilly. For whatever reason you're still refusing to admit when you make mistakes with me, you continue to justify all your actions as being acceptable ---{ it takes two to argue Pat so the hatchet is as much yours as mine, regardless of your claiming differently }--- you continue pointing out what you consider to be my personal faults and the errors I make. This behavior on your part is what led us down the road we now travel and your refusal to change will keep us forever on this path.
        
        As I told you before my extension of an olive branch required a simple YES or NO response. It was you, who decided to take it further, not I. It was you who needed to interpret ---{ as in what my motives were }--- not I and finally it was you and has been from the very beginning that caused this animosity between us, not I! At least I tried. However having gone back and re-read many of our past posts I saw that in the beginning I was very nice and polite with you ---{ even when I disagreed with your POV }--- but, you behaved as you continue to do now. You'd read my post, misunderstand what I meant and then comment defensively and rudely on your misinterpretation of what you assumed I meant!
        
        I now realize what a fool I was to expect any change from you. No hatchet can be buried and no change of paths can be made. Why? Because you refuse to admit you have any part to play in this mess. Just like it takes two to argue, it takes two to make real change.
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        RE: Yes It Is With You Too Pat - Pat D 13:33:38 05/23/09 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Yes It Is With You Too Pat posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 23, 2009 at 09:59:53
        
        I have been civil to you.
        
        Now, I can easily show where you have not been civil with me and quite a number of other people.
        
        TG54
        "For whatever reason you're still refusing to admit when you make mistakes with me, you continue to justify all your actions as being acceptable--"
        
        I have never been able to figure out what sets you off.
        
        TG54
        "you continue pointing out what you consider to be my personal faults and the errors I make."
        
        Well, why shouldn't people point out errors made on AA? I have never noticed you to be reticent about that. What personal faults have I attributed to you?
        
        TG54
        "Let us consider anything uncivil or unrespectful said in the past to be water under the bridge."
        
        Fine, so stop bringing up old threads where you made a fool of yourself.
        
        TG54
        "Finally let us stick to the topic we're discussing & not revert to attacking the other person's posts or the other person but, rather let us just point out what the other stated & we diagree with & why we disagreed with it!"
        
        Well, discussing other people's posts is one of the things this site is designed for, whether attacking, agreeing, or otherwise commenting on them. I have no idea how that is supposed to differ discussing what someone else said and agreeing or disagreeing with it. So, no, I 'm not going to stop doing that. I leave personal attacks to others.
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
        
        RE: Yes It Is With You Too Pat - thetubeguy1954 08:24:08 05/24/09 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Yes It Is With You Too Pat posted by Pat D on May 23, 2009 at 13:33:38
        
        Pat,
        
        As I said before you're incapable of admitting you're equally at fault and that's why the animosity exists between us. You want to pretend that this "problem" is solely my fault, yet nothing could be further from the truth! When we first started communicating I was very civil to you Pat. Unfortunately you misinterpreted what I'd say many times, assume I meant something negative and then respond is a defensive and often time rude way.
        
        Pat I can just as easily show where you have not been civil with me quite a number of times at that. From this last paragraph in your last post I now believe you either don't realize or don't care when you're attacking someone else. Afterall you just stated in so many words that 1) I (Pat D) have no idea how attacking, agreeing, or otherwise commenting on someone is supposed to differ discussing what someone else said and agreeing or disagreeing and 2) So, no, I 'm not going to stop doing that! yet in the next breath you contradict yourself and say I leave personal attacks to others.
        
        You like to have the appearance of one who enjoys intelligent, civil communications, debates and/or arguements but, your actions belie your words. You like creating contention, strife and arguing and you like to then blame it's creation on others. That's your true modus operandi Pat. I believe to remain civil with you I'll have to do my best to keep all further communications to a minimum.
        
        Now go on have the last word, justify everything you done and claim the problem is entirely my fault. That's about all you've said and done since I've first asked you if you want to allow bygones to be bygones a start fresh. YES or NO would have sufficed as a civil answer but, you couldn't or wouldn't do that. Instead of a simple civil YES or NO you had to comment about my possible motives ---{ I still wonder what your motives were and are Pat }--- and start jabbing at me as soon as you possibly could. That action on your part alone reveals you as being the person who enjoys creating contention, strife and arguing. I tried to end all the unpleasantness between us and you, as much as you might claim differently, by your actions proved you didn't want to allow that to happen.
        
        With that said, my part in what you've now turned into a fiasco ends...
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        More creative citations, Tom? - Pat D 18:06:57 05/24/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Yes It Is With You Too Pat posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 24, 2009 at 08:24:08
        
        Tom's false statement:
        "Afterall you just stated in so many words that 1) I (Pat D) have no idea how attacking, agreeing, or otherwise commenting on someone is supposed to differ discussing what someone else said and agreeing or disagreeing and 2) So, no, I 'm not going to stop doing that! yet in the next breath you contradict yourself and say I leave personal attacks to others."
        
        No, Tom, this is what I said:
        
        "Well, discussing other people's posts is one of the things this site is designed for, whether attacking, agreeing, or otherwise commenting on them. I have no idea how that is supposed to differ discussing what someone else said and agreeing or disagreeing with it. So, no, I 'm not going to stop doing that. I leave personal attacks to others."
        
        Do you consider totally misrepresenting what I have said to be civil, Tom? Do I have no right to point out what I actually said? Or are you going to say that is not civil, too?
        
        Note carefully that I said nothing at all about attacking, agreeing or commenting on "someone", but on "other people's posts." Do you see the difference, Tom?
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
        
        RE: More creative citations, Tom? - thetubeguy1954 15:20:35 05/25/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: More creative citations, Tom? posted by Pat D on May 24, 2009 at 18:06:57
        
        Pat,
        
        You're continuing to behave like a recalcitrant child! I wasn't totally misrepresenting what you have said Pat and yes I consider what I did to be quite civil.
        
        I did what you ALWAYS do when you read my posts! 1) I read what you said and 2) I responded on what I believed you said. But if it makes you any happier I'll change my statement to read as: "Afterall you just stated in so many words that 1) I (Pat D) have no idea how attacking, agreeing, or otherwise commenting on (other people's posts) is supposed to differ discussing what someone else said and agreeing or disagreeing and 2) So, no, I 'm not going to stop doing that! yet in the next breath you contradict yourself and say I leave personal attacks to others." The trouble is you don't understand when you're (Pat D)commenting on (other people's posts)you sometimes do it via personal attacks to others!
        
        I just read in another thread where you (Pat D) stated Well, if bjh doesn't yet know who jj is, it's his fault. Even after bjh told you "if" you'd start here( http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/5/53639.html ) and work your way down. You'll propably realize you made a mistake (which everyone else picked up on) and hopefully you'll have the good sense to just shut up...
        
        Instead of displaying any character and admitting you made a mistake you kept insisting your belief was correct and replied I simply find it hard to believe you did not know who jj was. bjh finally asked you Please demonstrate where I stated I did not know who JJ is, which everyone realized you couldn't do because bjh never said he didn't know who jj was! However in a typical Pat D justification that your actions are always correct ---{ even when they're blatantly wrong }--- you replied It's too late to try to argue that now, bjh.
        
        I now realize you act this way with most everyone who disagrees with your POV or whose POV you disagree with. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with a person, like yourself, who won't own up to their mistakes! I now sincerely regret my action of attempting to let bygones be bygones with you. It was a waste of my time to attempt that with you. With that I'll cease commenting in this thread, regardless of how absurd your reply to this post is. I assume you'll most likely claim a winning some sort of victory, ha ha ha ha...
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        Do you see the difference between attacking persons and attacking posts/what is said? - Pat D 16:43:52 05/25/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: More creative citations, Tom? posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 25, 2009 at 15:20:35
        
        Well, let's go back a bit. Here's something I commented on.
        
        TG54
        "Finally let us stick to the topic we're discussing & not revert to attacking the other person's posts or the other person but, rather let us just point out what the other stated & we diagree with & why we disagreed with it!"
        
        -Now, that itself is confused but you evidently still don't realize it. I pointed out that "attacking the other person's posts" is perfectly legitimate, it's something we do here, and "let us just point out what the other stated & we diagree with & why we disagreed with it!" is legitimate, as well. There is no reason to stop doing those things. Anyway, as an answer to the preceding text, my reply is quite intelligible.
        
        Me
        "Well, discussing other people's posts is one of the things this site is designed for, whether attacking, agreeing, or otherwise commenting on them. I have no idea how that is supposed to differ discussing what someone else said and agreeing or disagreeing with it. So, no, I 'm not going to stop doing that. I leave personal attacks to others."
        
        Now, you will also notice that the last sentence, which seems to bother you, addresses what you said about not "attacking . . . the other person." Do you see the difference between attacking posts or attacking what someone has said or did and attacking persons?
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
        
        "From this day forth let us communicate civilly & respectfully with each other." - Richard BassNut Greene 08:54:24 05/16/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: A Promise To You Pat ---- A Truth Is Told posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 15, 2009 at 12:01:15
        
        You sound like a weenie, and this place will be as boring as a Quilting Forum, if you follow your own advice, so don't.
        .
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
      - And honesty - not one of yours. - carcass93 07:36:22 05/05/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Logic is not one of Tom's strong points. posted by Pat D on May 04, 2009 at 17:26:19
        
        Although word "often" is included in one particular phrase in RBNG's post, the spirit of it, and thousands before that, is that of "always".
        
        You can pretend to not notice or understand that (although it's kind of strange for a logic aficionado you position yourself as) - doesn't change any damn thing, besides your credibility.
        
        Now mind-reader carcass93 is divining the "spirit" of the posts! - Pat D 09:50:03 05/05/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: And honesty - not one of yours. posted by carcass93 on May 05, 2009 at 07:36:22
        
        So no matter what is said, carcass93 will pretend to know what is *really* meant.
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
        
        I wouldn't mention "mind" in connection with that post,... - carcass93 10:09:02 05/05/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Now mind-reader carcass93 is divining the "spirit" of the posts! posted by Pat D on May 05, 2009 at 09:50:03
        
        or in connection with yours.
        
        Why would mind be involved in endless regurgitating of old tired BS?
      - You should expect.... - Don Till 07:24:10 05/05/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Logic is not one of Tom's strong points. posted by Pat D on May 04, 2009 at 17:26:19
        
        "Accordingly, he sees contradictions where none exist. I've pointed this out to him a number of times but he hasn't learned the difference yet."
        
        You should expect a five paragraph response full of personal attacks, misquotes, and outright obfuscated convolution "revealling" your sinister character and "proving" your comment as an outright lie.
        
        Yes, indeed! - Pat D 09:44:00 05/05/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: You should expect.... posted by Don Till on May 05, 2009 at 07:24:10
        
        I have learned to expect that!
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
  - If he has to say it's honest, it probably isn't... - mkuller 12:13:10 05/04/09 (1)
    ...just like Honest Richard, the used car salesman.
    - Does that apply to Tom's question, too? (nt) - Pat D 12:47:53 05/04/09 (0)
      .
      
      "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
- Your honesty is refreshing!...wait...it's not... and it's not really honesty. - carcass93 11:08:05 05/04/09 (0)
  It's the same "everything sounds the same" BS anti-audiophile mantra, with appellations to irrelevant idiosyncratic experiences.
  Forget about "refreshing" - it stinks, actually.
  
  Edits: 05/04/09
- A vague answer... - mkuller 10:36:01 05/04/09 (15)
  > We merely say that all speakers sound different, but electronics, and especially wires, often can't be differentiated with brand names hidden and no SPL differences allowed.>
  
  So you are either saying:
  
  1. All electronics and wires sound the same, or
  
  2. Blind tests mask small differences, making electronics and wires sound the same.
  
  How do you know it isn't #2?
  
  Any scientific validation or proof?
  - Blind tests overstate actual differences - Richard BassNut Greene 10:53:58 05/04/09 (14)
    Small SPL differences can be audible, that would not be noticed with a delay for wire swaps.
    
    Subtle sound quality differences that could ONLY be heard with instant switching from A to B, and would NOT be noticed with the delay required for wire swaps, are possible.
    
    Hiding brand names and making sure two components are playing music at the same volumes are exactly what an intelligent audiophile would want to do for a fair comparison.
    
    You, on the other hand, prefer to brag about having golden ears where every component sound different, although you have never demonstrated such skills to any witnesses, and attack every test that could reveal the truth about how well you can really hear, because you're livin' a lie.
    .
    .
    .
    
    Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
    The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
    and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
    - "...what intelligent audiophile would want to do" - how would you know? - carcass93 12:47:45 05/04/09 (1)
      Everyone's aware that you're not an audiophile. Your intelligence, as shown in your numerous audio-related posts, is suspect at best.
      So, how would you know? Did you read about it in some (anti)audiophile publication?
      
      Edits: 05/04/09
      - You mean since he doesn't base his audiophile concepts on... - Don Till 18:00:03 05/04/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: "...what intelligent audiophile would want to do" - how would you know? posted by carcass93 on May 04, 2009 at 12:47:45
        
        magazine reviews, recommended components lists and brand name recognition you consider him unintelligent?
        
        You my friend are the epitome of why I despise audiophile magazines. Did you ever see the movie The Cable Guy? That's you and hundreds of others like you living life vicariously through advertising and marketing influences.
        
        Long on thinking but short on doing.
    - I can't believe it but I guess so! - Don Till 12:11:34 05/04/09 (0)
      "Hiding brand names and making sure two components are playing music at the same volumes are exactly what an intelligent audiophile would want to do for a fair comparison."
      This seems like a perfectly reasonable concept and one I try to consider whenever comparing components. I find your comments very reasonable in this thread and don't understand why anyone would object to them at all. I don't have the facilities or the personel to hide the components but if I do long term listening it's not unusual for me to not know which component is actually playing. When this happens I consider there is no difference. If I can't tell or I guess wrong why should I upgrade?
      And yea this has happened with CDPs as well as interconnects. I've had more than 2 dozen of each here for audition. No it's not the usual result but for sure it's not unusual. I haven't had nearly as many amps or speakers in my home and it's never happened that I was "fooled".
      Another good thing about long term evaluations is that though a component might be better all around, as in the case of a couple of CDPs I had home early on in my CDP evaluations, one might decide that the improved performance just doesn't justify the money.
      Just because something is better, even all around better, doesn't mean I am going to like it more or have to have it.
      
      Edits: 05/04/09
    - No evidence? No credibility... - mkuller 10:56:19 05/04/09 (10)
      ...repeating your religious rants over and over doesn't make them true.
      
      Forget about SPL because we match it to compare equipment.
      
      How about real audible differences?
      - SPL Matching Is Really A Non-Issue - thetubeguy1954 12:17:32 05/04/09 (9)
        
        In Reply to: RE: No evidence? No credibility... posted by mkuller on May 04, 2009 at 10:56:19
        
        As I've told Richard numerous times now, matching SPLs becomes a non-issue provided:
        
        1) the volume level is reduced to zero.
        2) components or wires are switched.
        3) the volume level is slowly raised back to a comfortable level.
        4) the listener is allowed to raise or lower the volume as desired while listening.
        
        In addition, doing a test like this more closely follows the procedure we actually practice when we're listening for differences bewteen two different wires or audio components in our own systems at home.
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        Well, that's an 'honest' admission you don't level match! - Pat D 12:57:26 05/04/09 (8)
        
        In Reply to: RE: SPL Matching Is Really A Non-Issue posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 04, 2009 at 12:17:32
        
        Even mkuller disagrees with you.
        
        And you wonder why no one thinks any blind tests you might do are worth the paper they're not written on!
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
        
        Remind us why you care what somebody does or doesn't do. - carcass93 13:02:36 05/04/09 (7)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Well, that's an 'honest' admission you don't level match! posted by Pat D on May 04, 2009 at 12:57:26
        
        Nobody seems to give you any grief about your double-deaf non-listening, so why would you care about somebody's non-level-matching?
        
        It just means his 'test' results are not credible. - Pat D 13:45:08 05/04/09 (6)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Remind us why you care what somebody does or doesn't do. posted by carcass93 on May 04, 2009 at 13:02:36
        
        I am concerned about some things he says, hearing claims he has made. If he want to do his testing in an invalid way, that's his business. However, when he says his methods are valid, that may affect other people who might think he knows what he is talking about.
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
        
        Please Explain Why These Test Results Are Not Credible! - thetubeguy1954 08:31:22 05/08/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: It just means his 'test' results are not credible. posted by Pat D on May 04, 2009 at 13:45:08
        
        Pat,
        
        Are you claiming you ALWAYS listen to music at the exact same SPL level? I know I don't! I listen to music ---{ I'll wager you do as well }--- at various SPLs
        
        The ONLY time matched SPLs matter when comparing ICs or audio components is when doing instantaneous switching from one IC or audio component to another via a switching box ---like an ABX, in that case louder will sound "better"! This is well known to virtually everyone and can be proven by using the Fletcher-Munson Equal Loudness Curve. For an explanation of why this is true see photo above, while reading this....
        
        Consider an arbitrary waveform coming out of a speaker. That waveform has the frequency response shown in red on the diagram to the right. The blue line is the same waveform amplified by 20dB, and the orange line is amplified by 80dB. Notice that the louder signal aligns better with the flatter Fletcher-Munson curves at the top. There is less variation in sound at different frequencies, and the result is that the louder signal has a richer, fuller sound.
        
        However when one uses the same IC & listens to different music at various SPLs ---{ like we do when we listen to music }--- then all one has to do when comparing various ICs or audio components is:
        
        1) turn the volume level to zero.
        2) shut off the components.
        3) switch the components or wires to be tested.
        4) turn the components on.
        5) set the volume level to a comfortable level.
        6) allow the listener to listen to the IC or audio component at various SPLs with different music.
        
        Now matched SPLs become a non-issue! That's why when I compare or test ICs or audio components I listen to them at various SPLs as well! So Pat please regale us all with your explanation of why the method I use is not credible ---{ this should be a hoot because it is credible }--- and I don't want to hear because mkuller said so, I want to hear YOUR explanation of why my method is not a credible test! I await your response with bated breath...
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
        
        RE: Please Explain Why These Test Results Are Not Credible! - Tony Lauck 10:39:28 05/08/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Please Explain Why These Test Results Are Not Credible! posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 08, 2009 at 08:31:22
        
        There are several issues that need to be considered with the procedure of turning the volume down and back up between test runs:
        First, there is the possibility that the volumes can never be actually matched. This could happen with one of my preamps, which has a relatively small number of volume settings, often as much as 2 db apart. With such equipment there would be no hope of a fair comparison. (I believe this issue was discussed several months ago. I mention it for the benefit of those who haven't followed these discussions. The issue should be obvious to all those participating in this discussion, but those who have never had a discrete volume control may not have thought of this point.)
        Second, an extra variable has been added, namely the actual playback volume used in each listening selection. If one "flicks" the wrist and always favors certain settings, then this could add a consistent bias to the volume settings used with one component, potentially leading to false conclusions. A subject might get poor results because of his wrist, rather than his ears.
        Third, even if there were no component level differences at all, the fact that the volume control is tweaked will add random variation to the results. Unless the number of sessions is large enough to average out these effects this random variation will add "noise" into the conclusions. I don't believe this will be a problem with long term testing, but this is not practical if many subjects are used, as needed for a repeatable study that has any hope of being peer reviewed. (That assumes, of course, that one trusts the peer-review process. Scientific integrity is somewhat questionable these days, at least in some fields.)
        Fourth, if there is significant difference in gain between the components, then it may become possible to identify them by following a procedure of subjective level matching and then noting the amount of "twist" applied to the volume control. This would effectively unblind any test. Even if this is not done deliberately, the fact that it might be occurring subconsciously would make the "blind" nature of the procedure questionable.
        While I wouldn't argue that your procedure is invalid, I think it is less than optimum. Of course, the alternatives may require using physical devices whose transparency is suspect, and hence these alternatives may well be invalid, unless they have somehow been calibrated as to their transparency. Given the choice, I would prefer a sub optimum procedure over an invalid one.
        
        Tony Lauck
        "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
        http://www.livescience.com/culture/090309-obama-science.html (Open in New Window)
        
        Edits: 05/09/09
        
        It shouldn't matter though he insists on attacking those who value credible tests - Don Till 15:43:35 05/04/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: It just means his 'test' results are not credible. posted by Pat D on May 04, 2009 at 13:45:08
        
        It's not like many of us audiophiles actually do universally credible testing in our homes. Our results our unique to our experiences. Sure we are Fing off, building systems we love (at least some of us) and having fun doing it but once we think we've done more than that that we begin to look very ugly.
        
        Whether or not we actually care if our own processes and methods are credible is up to us as individuals. Understanding that many audio professionals employ credible procedures is a part of understanding the hobby we are involved in. Understanding the procedures is another. If we care we can implement some processes or methods into our own approach - if not at least we can understand what others are doing.
        
        I don't understand this battleground at all.
        
        RE: It shouldn't matter though he insists on attacking those who value credible tests - Pat D 08:19:50 05/09/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: It shouldn't matter though he insists on attacking those who value credible tests posted by Don Till on May 04, 2009 at 15:43:35
        
        I agree with you. I don't tell people how to choose their equipment.
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
        
        You guys are just posting here to protect the innocent? (nt) - mkuller 14:06:47 05/04/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: It just means his 'test' results are not credible. posted by Pat D on May 04, 2009 at 13:45:08
        
        (nt)
        
        So who's going to protect the innocent from them?? (nt) - kerr 12:44:56 05/05/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: You guys are just posting here to protect the innocent? (nt) posted by mkuller on May 04, 2009 at 14:06:47
        
        nt
Specify your measurements! - Don Till 18:14:42 05/03/09 (0)
Usually these measurements are taken in such a way to remove any effect of the playback environment. The measuring microphone is placed according to the dimensions of the loudspeaker.
Chances most likely even if two speakers measure the same they will sound different in the listening room. Two speakers with similar box sizes and driver locations that measure the same, over all performance tests, will sound the same (or very close to the same).
I thinks that it's possible two quite different boxes could measure differently but in a particular room their physical dimensions and driver locations may be such that they do in fact end up sounding the same. In fact this might be more likely than very different box sizes and driver configurations that measure the same.
To reference your other point if one does level match and ensure a somewhat reasonable methodology when comparing cables and interconnects they just may find that the in cases differences previously noted will not be as great as originally thought. Of course I'm not of the "everything sounds the same" group but I do know there have been times when I noted great differences that in the long run turned out to be very small ones.

Edits: 05/03/09
I see troubles innumerable - Atexanathome 13:24:51 05/03/09 (4)
A pretty tall order. Harman does blind comparisons with a hidden turntable. The goal typically isn't to determine if there are differences, because they know there are differences, it's to rank the speakers by listener preference. Among other things, Harman could figure out what kind of frequency response people like and produce them with what ka7niq calls "the curve". Deliberately not flat,in other words. He supposedly spoke at length with Sean Olive about their testing. You might ask him. Before Floyd Toole retired, ka7niq said that you could call up and actually get him on the phone.

I don't know if they have ever tried to tune one of their designs to sound like a competitor's. Don Keele said the Intermezzo 4.1 sounded very close to his B&W 801 Matrix III until you pushed it hard around 100 Hz.

It would be tough getting rid of differences in frquency response, much less radiation patterns( directivity) and variable distortion spectra at different SPL, differences in cabinet resonances,etc. I've seen white van speakers that are laid out exactly like Joseph RM33's with matching cosmetics, but I would bet $1000 I could tell the difference in a blind test compared with the real thing.

Just the bass response with organ music would wring out the pretenders. The Joseph boxes are tuned to 20 Hz and the woofers have tremendous excursion capability; I'm betting the White Vans won't match up no matter how you equalize. Well, maybe at 65 dB :)

To do this matching at all frequencies,you'd have to equalize like crazy. Can you find a completely transparent equalizer, digital or otherwise? If you think ABX boxes aren't transparent, then try finding an equalizer that satisfies. Digitizing brings in the whole digital/analog thing, but I'm not sure you could find an analog box that could do it (maybe pro equipment?)

If you boost the bass on the woofer of one speaker to match the other, odds are high it will distort sooner when pushed a little. One of my gripes about Stereophile is a lack of distortion versus frequency graphs at a couple of SPL levels, like Don Keele used to provide.

What about a time-coherent design versus one that isn't? Frequency response matching won't change that difference. I don't think this can be done to give a really good match until the speakers become so similar that they are clones:the same model drivers, similar cabinet design and crossover design. In summation, a speaker company will find it a lot easier to make two speakers sound alike than a guy off the street armed with a fancy equalizer.

Why not ask Danny Ritchie over at the GR Research forum at Audiocircle? He's a "crossover guru" and he's tweaked many speakers.
- That's interesting... - bjh 17:36:26 05/03/09 (1)
  but I have to wonder if the "the curve" wouldn't be program material dependent?
  
  Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
  - I think so - Atexanathome 17:51:13 05/03/09 (0)
    I compared Polk RT speakers with the IL-40. ka7niq has indicated that Olive told him those speakers have the curve. The Polks definitely sounded brighter and more forward. They reminded me of JBL's back in the old days. I hung around and watched a couple of demos. People seemed to like the Polks better, but they were playing rock. Rock fans probably found the Infinities to be dull.
    
    I demoed with classical and baroque. I think for my musical tastes, I made the right decision. It was over 10 years ago and I still have the IL-40's in my #2 system.
    
    If you check the Audiocontrol site, they recommend a "house curve" for HT based on pro practice in theaters . This is bass shelved up, a flat midrange and a smooth treble rolloff.
- RE: I see troubles innumerable - thetubeguy1954 15:16:20 05/03/09 (1)
  Hello Atexanathome.
  
  Many, many years ago ---{ late 70's very early 80's }--- when I still lived in East Hartford CT, my friend Rick and I drove down to New Haven ---{ about 45 mins away }--- and one of the audio salons, IIRC it was Take 5 had a new device they wanted us to listen to. It was called the DBX 10/20! The DBX 10/20 was a computerized equalizer/real time analyzer. I remember the salesman explaining to us how this new device would almost completely remove the speaker/room interaction wherever we chose to sit in the room.
  
  The salesman asked us to pick a spot where we'd want to listen from and once we did he told us to listen to one of the songs we were familair with. When the song was done the salesman hung a microphone at ear level in the chair I/we sat in. He then touched a button (IIRC) and the computer in the DBX 10/20 played a series of tones (white or pink noise?) at various frequencies and adjusted the EQ as needed to compensate for any problems in speaker/room interactions it detected! After the DBX 10/20 was finished with it's process we listened again and sure enough the music subjectively sounded more realistic. It was actually a fairly impressive demonstartion.
  
  Next the salesman said what he and the other sales personal realised after using the DBX 10/20 for awhile was it was a valuable tool for helping them to discern which of two ---{ or more }--- speakers was the most accurate. What they did was they'd play one speaker sans DBX 10/20. Then they'd mark where the original pair of speakers were and bring in another speaker to compare it against. Then they'd play the second speaker and allow the DBX to do it's correction for that speaker. Finally after they'd listened they'd decide how much the second speaker, once corrected by the DBX sounded like the first speaker sans any correction for the speaker/room interaction. Whichever second pair of DBX corrected speakers sounded more like the first pair of speakers sans DBX was the least accurate to begin with.
  
  For Example: The salesman asked us to pick two different speakers from his demo models. My friend Rick and I chose a pair of Infinity RS-2.5 & Klipsch La Scalas. I'm sure everyone here realizes we are talking about two radically different speaker topologies with the Infinity's & the Klipsch.
  
  The Infinity RS-2.5's were dipole from approx 300Hx & up where their midrange & ribbon tweeters took over. The woofers/subwoofers were the Watkins design, which used two different impedances, for the two different coils . The Watkins principle of operation was essentially this; as the music signals reached the fundemental resonant frequency of the first voice coil, the second voice coil gradually takes over.
  http://www.bobbyshred.com/infinity/RS25.html
  
  Whereas the Klipsch La Scala's are a straight forward 3 way, all horn loaded design. The type of speaker Paul Klipsch championed.
  http://www.klipsch.com/products/details/la-scala.aspx
  
  When we were done it was shocking how much closer the DBX corrected Klipsch La Scala's sounded to the Infinity RS-2.5s sans any DBX correct, than the Infinity RS-2.5's corrected by the DBX 10/20 sounded when compared to the Klipsch La Scala's sans any DBX correction. Even corrected the Infinity's sounded very different from the La Scalas! It was very interesting demo and it would have made RBNG happy as SPL were matched in all tests, but, it certainly was not scientifically done in any way.
  
  Atexanathome I don't think ABX boxes or equalizers are transparent. I only brought up this question about speakers because so many objectivists "assume" if we match SPLs & frequency variations in audio components & wires they'll all sound the same. Personally I believe if one accepts that premise as being true than it's also equally true for speakers of the same topology, i.e., monopoles, bipoles or dipoles! I don't see why ---{ however I readily admit I'm not knowledgeable in this area }--- it would be any more difficult to match SPLs and frequency variations in the same-type speakers, as it would be to do so in same-type audio components and/or wires!
  
  Thetubeguy1954
  
  ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
  - I tried to explain in my post why it would be more difficult with speakers - Atexanathome 17:28:44 05/03/09 (0)
    Wires and SS amps are measurably a lot closer to perfect to start with than a room/speaker system. There are plenty of room/speaker variables that have effects,not subtle effects like the 0.1 dB loss at 20 kHz produced by a long length of zip cable, but huge effects like the 24 dB peak at 52 Hz in my new listening room. Should I be worrying about cable inductance when I've got a room/speaker problem like that?
    
    As I said, post this in Danny's GR Research Forum at Audiocircle. He knows speaker design, especially crossovers, he knows driver characteristics and has done equalizer tweaking.
    
    I haven't checked the site lately, but Harman had some good white papers. You do have to watch what they are optimizing for. Some papers are mainly concerned with HT.
    
    You remember the DBX demo? Note that everything done at one position in the room. On top of all the speaker differences, you have to consider the room interactions. The equalization is only going to give flat response at the spot where you measured. Move 2' away and the response is probably blown to bits.
    
    I had a bass null at my listening spot in the old house. If I equalized flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz (I actually did it), the bass was OK at the sweet spot, but if you moved 18" from that spot the bass was overpowering. The overdriven subs couldn't handle the boost and I blew several plate amps. Equalization isn't the whole answer. IT COULD NOT TURN MY HGS-10's INTO HGS-18's.I'm a little worried that these new cheaper computer auto-EQ units will be perceived as the panacea for room problems.
    
    Equalizing and getting everything flat may make the speaker sound worse in some cases. Check out the Lynn Olson page below concerning mods to a Klipsch Chorus. He got the time domain just right and the frequency domain was better, but it sounded worse than stock!
    
    http://www.nutshellhifi.com/MLS/MLS3.html
RE: An Honest Question. - rick_m 11:21:38 05/03/09 (0)
I bet that they'd be close enough that folks who think that everything else sounds the same would find that they do also.

For the rest of us I'd suppose that the transient response and general distortion characteristics would also have to be similar. And probably just using the same topology would not sufficiently define the dispersion characteristics to insure that differences wouldn't be recognized even if they were all deemed acceptable.

It's my recollection that blind tests done decades ago showed that speakers were often indistinguishable. They used techniques like big rotary stages hidden behind a curtain to insure a fair test.

Rick

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.