|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.209.33.106
In Reply to: I read the links. How do ya think I knew about the monkeys? posted by jneutron on March 21, 2007 at 07:20:26:
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.
:)
Follow Ups:
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
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!
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)...
Second "I" = "ignored".First "I", noun, five letters... good luck.
Your behaviour is the poster child for sillyness.
.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
nt
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
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.
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...
.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
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.
nt
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: