Isolation Ward

Why don't you concentrate on you own unsubstantiated claims?

64.231.129.152

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email Next ] [ Isolation Ward ]

bjh

(A)

In Reply to: Two years further and still no explanation for the Intelligent Chip posted by KlausR. on March 21, 2007 at 02:54:39:

Remember the business about standing waves inside speaker enclosures?
Here this may help, your visit to Prop Head seeking guidance:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=17906&highlight=standing+waves+KlausR.&r=&session=
And if you need more here's a post from CC that provided a link back to the original thread (where you made you unsubstantiated claim):
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=critics&n=22061&highlight=standing+waves+KlausR.&r=&session=
Anyway if unsubstantiated claims bother you so much I would think that providing resolution on your very own, if only just an admission that you were firing blanks, would be a logical start for dissuading the practice.

No Guru, No Method, No Teacher

Follow Ups:

What unsubstantiated claim?? - jneutron 06:40:27 03/21/07 (16)
And why go off topic?
What up wit dat?? Dis a personal ting with Klause??
And MRI on monkeys under anesthesia?? What good is an MRI on brain function when the brain function is compromised by drugs???
If ya wanna get real results, you have to make the scanning coils track movement, and that's a b##ch..everything has to be made with G-10, and the super cannot be multiple strand due to self inductive effects which limit ramp rate..(I know, built one)..then, ya gotsta put targets on the heads, and link positional software to the scanning coils..a tangled web...

Hey there bjh...what happened with the wire I sent ya??
Cheers, John
- "What unsubstantiated claim??" Go study the - bjh 07:16:21 03/21/07 (15)
  thread links I provided.
  "And why go off topic?".
  I explained that in my post.
  "Hey there bjh...what happened with the wire I sent ya??"
  Been lazy I'm afaid ... but I will get to it.
  No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
  - I read the links. How do ya think I knew about the monkeys? - jneutron 07:20:26 03/21/07 (14)
    I couldn't figure out what you called the unsub...claim..
    Nonetheless, it was off topic..
    Lazy??get off yer arse and your keyboard, and go listen..:-)
    Hey, I'm not gettin any younger.
    Cheers, John
    "" Flew in by miami beach BOAC...didn't get to sleep last night.. ""
    - Wanna play stupid, eh? OK... - bjh 07:50:41 03/21/07 (13)
      In this (rather dramatically titled) post, Why are audio myths so difficult to eradicate? , KlausR. made a claim that he could not substantiate. Now you're supposed to be a bright fellow so I leave it to you go figure out the details but in any event KlausR. has acknowledged the lack of substantiation, for example when I asked him for an update he indicated he had contacted "... Blume and Peak Consult, but no answer yet", and also (as I have already said) he sought help over at Prop Head as well.
      "Nonetheless, it was off topic.."
      Again that was explained, in a nutshell KlausR. is on shaky ground if he wishes to start badgering people about unsubstantiated claims if he himself has a penchant for doing just that, get it? If the answer is no don't expect further comment from me since I have limited tolerance for entrertaining stupid people.
      "...get off yer arse and your keyboard, and go listen..:-)
      Hey, I'm not gettin any younger."
      Yeah, yeah... and I only hope that the last admission isn't the explanation for the woeful lack of comprehension you've exhibited in this exchange.
      :)
      
      No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
      - You provide the substantiation in your link, then ignore it?? - jneutron 08:41:52 03/21/07 (12)
        
        In Reply to: Wanna play stupid, eh? OK... posted by bjh on March 21, 2007 at 07:50:41:
        
        Do you mean to tell me, you did not read these, as provided by Klause..
        Noise control engineering 1979, Nov., p.112 : Van Nieuwland : Eigenmodes in non-rectangular reverberation rooms
        JASA 1989, vol.85, p.772 : Milner : An investigation of the modal characteristics on nonrectangular reverberation rooms ""
        Where there is sufficient, PEER REVIEWED substantiation?
        So:
        1. why do you consider these documents "unsubstantial"??
        2. Why do you ignore the substantiation..is it just because you have a hard-on for klause?
        I can easily understand the fact that english may not be your primary language, but civility also appears foreign to you.
        Cheers, John
        
        Listen up! - bjh 09:08:24 03/21/07 (11)
        
        In Reply to: You provide the substantiation in your link, then ignore it?? posted by jneutron on March 21, 2007 at 08:41:52:
        
        Examine the titles ...
        Noise control engineering 1979, Nov., p.112 : Van Nieuwland : Eigenmodes in non-rectangular reverberation rooms
        JASA 1989, vol.85, p.772 : Milner : An investigation of the modal characteristics on nonrectangular reverberation rooms
        The mistake KlausR. made was to generalize from in room observations to in speaker exclosure observations... and like I said he acknowledged as much.
        Now I had enought of you... consider yourself ignored!
        
        No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
        
        You've made absolutely no sense. - jneutron 09:16:44 03/21/07 (4)
        
        In Reply to: Listen up! posted by bjh on March 21, 2007 at 09:08:24:
        
        bjh" ""
        The mistake KlausR. made was to generalize from in room observations to in speaker exclosure observations... and like I said he acknowledged as much.""
        You need to understand scaling laws. Once you learn how they are used and applied, then you may be able to discuss this topic (note, I said you may be able to).
        Look up Reynolds number, Froud, similitude.. It's simple fluid dynamics. Airplane manu's use it, car manu's, even plumbers..(well, it's already done for them..but they use it).
        bjh" ""
        Now I had enought of you... consider yourself ignored!""
        I figured you could not discuss the topic..this is a typical reaction of yours when you are backed into a corner with no technical expertise to call upon.. my kids used to to that also..nah nah, can't hear you (covered ears)...
        Cheers, John
        
        II - bjh 09:22:06 03/21/07 (3)
        
        In Reply to: You've made absolutely no sense. posted by jneutron on March 21, 2007 at 09:16:44:
        
        Second "I" = "ignored".
        First "I", noun, five letters... good luck.
        
        No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
        
        See what I mean? you have nothing technical to add, so resort to this. - jneutron 09:30:45 03/21/07 (2)
        
        In Reply to: II posted by bjh on March 21, 2007 at 09:22:06:
        
        Your behaviour is the poster child for sillyness.
        Cheers, John
        
        II nt - bjh 09:45:12 03/21/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: See what I mean? you have nothing technical to add, so resort to this. posted by jneutron on March 21, 2007 at 09:30:45:
        
        .
        No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
        
        Excellent.. Now, you can actually put words in when you can discuss the topic.nt - jneutron 09:50:24 03/21/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: II nt posted by bjh on March 21, 2007 at 09:45:12:
        
        nt
        
        Once in a while is not a habit! - KlausR. 10:31:05 03/21/07 (5)
        
        In Reply to: Listen up! posted by bjh on March 21, 2007 at 09:08:24:
        
        I dunno if it's worth the effort but here goes:
        if one cannot transfer results obtained in non-rectangular rooms to non-rectangular speaker enclosures then, by the same logic, one cannot tranfer results from rectangular rooms to rectangular enclosures either. How then do you explain the fact that speaker designers are worried about standing waves in speaker enclosures?
        Or do sound waves in speaker enclosures and rooms follow different laws? If so, then indicate those laws which are valid for sound waves in speaker enclosures?
        Klaus
        
        I'm not interested in speculation... - bjh 11:03:29 03/21/07 (2)
        
        In Reply to: Once in a while is not a habit! posted by KlausR. on March 21, 2007 at 10:31:05:
        
        You made a claim that you couldn't backup. Now perhaps you can benefit from the hint provided by our friendly non-audiophile brainiac and see if applying scaling laws helps you with your problem, helps you to put substance behind your claim?
        
        I really don't know, but then I admit my motivation to find out is low since *I* never made the unsubstantiated claim, *I* didn't go shooting my mouth off about "... audio myths so difficult to eradicate" ... *you* did!
        So why don't you thank Johnny for the lead and go get busy, try looking up "... Reynolds number, Froud, similitude.." and see if they can offer you something the Prop Head boys couldn't.
        Speculation is cheap, substance is what you want ... especially if you're going to be badgering folks about their own unsubstantiated claims... off you go.
        
        No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
        
        bjh: ""I really don't know"".....bingo, that pretty much sums it. - jneutron 11:58:01 03/21/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: I'm not interested in speculation... posted by bjh on March 21, 2007 at 11:03:29:
        
        The words Reynolds, scaling, Froud, similitude were so that you could look up what is being discussed. That way, you can understand the "substantiating claims" Klaus provided.
        Can't get there till ya learn, bjh..you made the claim that it was unsubstantiated, but that's because you didn't understand the technical aspects of the links provided...
        Cheers, John
        
        Maybe you should do the work for KlausR., you do seem interested. Until then... II LOL nt - bjh 13:38:04 03/21/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: bjh: ""I really don't know"".....bingo, that pretty much sums it. posted by jneutron on March 21, 2007 at 11:58:01:
        
        .
        No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
        
        You were right, it's not worth the effort.. - jneutron 11:40:15 03/21/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Once in a while is not a habit! posted by KlausR. on March 21, 2007 at 10:31:05:
        
        You can tell him a cup of water weighs 8 ounces, but surely, you can't expect him to believe a pint weighs 16 ounces, now could ya..that would be an "unsubstantiated claim". After all, a pint is certainly not a cup.
        Cheers, John
        
        How come that I knew this when hitting the "send" button" ? (nt) - KlausR. 01:02:41 03/22/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: You were right, it's not worth the effort.. posted by jneutron on March 21, 2007 at 11:40:15:
        
        nt