| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Horn-Loaded Speakers» Aporia - Silbatone Acoustics speaker (108 posts, 6 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 6 (108 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 5 » ... Last »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Truth stretched out via Feastrex prism...  Goodbye Chris Witmer...  Audio Discussions  Forum     26  249001  01-21-2006
  »  New  Western Electric reproduces 0Hz + some literature…..  Re-set...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  46833  07-24-2006
  »  New  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage...  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     0  12778  03-07-2007
  »  New  Klangfilm: actual knowledge is better then fetish imagi..  Klangfilm Kl51...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     18  187490  03-15-2007
  »  New  The unintended consequences of binaural things in Hi-Fi..  Re: Binaural -- or what ever the case was......  Playback Listening  Forum     1  24708  08-04-2009
  »  New  Munich High End 2010..  The retarded open baffle...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     39  299626  05-16-2010
  »  New  The CES's 2011 horns..  Reviewers and table radios...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  146574  01-07-2011
  »  New  A Moscow setup with Horns/Lowther..  A new reiteration of the Moscow setup....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     33  285157  02-27-2011
  »  New  A new kid in the block: Sadurni Acoustics..  Axpona 2015...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  109862  08-22-2011
  »  New  Aries Cerat Contendo - the newest "fat" kid i..  It is very unfortunate then...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     5  37489  09-08-2011
01-20-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 21
Post ID: 9474
Reply to: 9437
Relativity, redux
fiogf49gjkf0d
I am in academics. In this world it is no challenge to find people who want to tell me that they are right and everybody else is wrong.

The problem with any scholar stuck in his/her theoretical bubble is that there is no room for that person to change and grow.   

I thought I was quite clear about my evaluation program: Put it on. Play some music. Does it present a compelling emotional experience of musical enjoyment for me? If yes...GOOD! If no, maybe somebody else will like it.

This for me is the CORE musical evaluation. All this other hogwash about bandwidth and whatnot is physics, not music. Sound, not music. Missing the main point of musical reproduction, musical enjoyment.

True that I have not yet figured out how to write this evaluation program in an outline form. Actually, I gave up trying because one sentence is enough. If you try to catch the butterfly, you kill it.

My main point is that if you have not heard "X," your long distance review of "X" is highly suspect. "You" here is not pointing to our feline host...doesn't matter who it is.

I have heard a lot of speakers. I used to experiment 24 hours a day. I had a 10x20 storage full of gear, parts, and tubes. I wasted my youth playing with audio gear when I could have been doing drugs and chasing women.

So what I found most interesting about the Silbatone speaker is that it sounds VERY DIFFERENT from any other speaker I have heard. It explodes the notion of "single-driver" speaker as sounding this way or that. It was a NEW experience.

The main point of this Silbatone design is to surprise people who think they know all about single-driver speakers, and it worked on me.

This surprise experience is one of the great thrills audio can provide. This was the thing that once drove me to write.

SE triodes, horns, and, yes, single-drivers and Western Electric--they are all surprising technological accomplishments. That is why I featured them in Sound Practices. The aspect of "forget what you thought you knew" and "stay open" is a more important lesson for life and audio than any topology. The other point I tried to hammer is "you have to listen to your system, so who cares what so-called experts think."

I could name names, but a lot of people who thought I was an idiot or some kind of criminal, and told me so, went on to spread the very message that pissed them off enough to get their attention. The point is not to be "right," or even
to get the "best sound," but to be happy and creative.

I looked around the site and I think there is some useful perspective here, but no final answers, nor should there be. Romy, good job for getting people to think...now, let them think and experiment. The goal of any teacher should be to have students who move far beyond them and leave the teacher in the dust.

As for a trip to Boston, it is cold enough in Virginia. I feel sorry for the Indians who lived here before central heating.

The notion of meeting up for a penis swinging competition is a dreadful thought. My tool is happy where it is, safe and warm in my shorts.  I would only accept if there were promises of good food and non-audio conversation involved. Otherwise, I am more happy retired where the chances of interesting non-audio conversation are much higher.

Thanks to Romy and the forum,

Joe

Ps: I did meet a few interesting folks thanks to this appearance. Happy about that.

Also, I'll be checking my Google stats religiously, but I think 6moons has goodsoundclub beat for linkage.
01-20-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,740
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 22
Post ID: 9476
Reply to: 9474
If grandma had testicles then she would be called grandpa
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I thought I was quite clear about my evaluation program: Put it on. Play some music. Does it present a compelling emotional experience of musical enjoyment for me? If yes...GOOD! If no, maybe somebody else will like it. This for me is the CORE musical evaluation. All this other hogwash about bandwidth and whatnot is physics, not music. Sound, not music. Missing the main point of musical reproduction, musical enjoyment.

This is absolutely not my view, in fact the I very much in opposition with this view.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
True that I have not yet figured out how to write this evaluation program in an outline form. Actually, I gave up trying because one sentence is enough. If you try to catch the butterfly, you kill it.

..and it come from a person who is in academics? Hm….

 Joe Roberts wrote:
My main point is that if you have not heard "X," your long distance review of "X" is highly suspect. "You" here is not pointing to our feline host...doesn't matter who it is.

Well, Joe, I do not think you have seen me to “write a review”. I usually very specific in my critiques but I also have good memory. According to my memory I do not criticized Silbatone speaker but rather expressed my disrespect to a full-driver speakers.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
So what I found most interesting about the Silbatone speaker is that it sounds VERY DIFFERENT from any other speaker I have heard. It explodes the notion of "single-driver" speaker as sounding this way or that. It was a NEW experience.

It is possibly, but at the same time I can copy and paste a number of the absolutely identical comments from other single-driver speakers’ manufacturers of marketing people who come up with absolutely indistinguishable assurances. Furthermore, some of them (among trios who it not deaf or Moron) while maintaining the public single-driver evangelist position in private conversation asked me to shut up saying: “Come on Romy, what else did you expected from a single-driver speaker?” So, I do not say anything bad about the Silbatone, I did not heard them, but I would point out that the only two questions that I proposed above you to ask yours about the Silbatone you left with answers.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
This surprise experience is one of the great thrills audio can provide. This was the thing that once drove me to write.

Joe, I need to make here a remark that you will not like. If you would like to be treated by me with any grain of seriousness then you need to demand from yourself a higher level of honesty about yourself. You were driven to write not because the reported “orgasmtick experiences with Silbatone of yours” and you know it very well. Come on, let stop it. I am a feline, not a 12 years one human.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I looked around the site and I think there is some useful perspective here, but no final answers, nor should there be. Romy, good job for getting people to think...now, let them think and experiment. The goal of any teacher should be to have students who move far beyond them and leave the teacher in the dust.

Well, I have a very clear picture of what you looked around my site but it is not important. What is important is that I have absolutely deferent objectives to “write” then you have or then most of your colleges have. I do not writhe foe somebody but only for myself. I think if you think deeper to it then you will see where I am coming from…

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Otherwise, I am more happy retired where the chances of interesting non-audio conversation are much higher.

It is all deepens of what is the definition of “audio” for a person. I agree that if people understand audio as the plate currents, comparing the recipes for soaking of woofer’s cones and collection of the James Bullough Lansing’s wife pictures then the conversations about audio might be too boring. Fortunately audio might be by  different brew…


 Joe Roberts wrote:
Also, I'll be checking my Google stats religiously, but I think 6moons has goodsoundclub beat for linkage.

I am sure it is. If you post your comments at goodvibes.com, claiming that Silbatone would make a perfect elephant dildo, then your Korean friends would have even more traffic. Isn’t it what it was all about?

Rgs,
Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-21-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,740
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 23
Post ID: 9480
Reply to: 9474
I think I need to comment about it.
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
The notion of meeting up for a penis swinging competition is a dreadful thought. My tool is happy where it is, safe and warm in my shorts.

I kind of missed it in my initial reply but I think it is important. There was no conversation about any “completion” I thought it was clear in my posts. However, there is a benefit in penis evaluation. Not particularly in order to found out whose is bigger but in order to learn if a person whop love to talk about virility ever has a penis. What do I mean is that it is very important in case you do not know people are to understand what the person would like to hear in a playback. I am not talking what he is getting with his but what he would like to get. What you hear somebody custom inhalation you might get an idea what was the objectives and what a person was trying to accomplish sound-wise. THAT set certain reference points about person envelopment into understanding of Sound. They is why I always try to pay attention to what and how the people play their playbacks. If listing somebody else playback you recognize only as “penis swinging” then it only an indication of the primitivism of the people you, Joe, are accustomed to deal in audio. Knowing what you wrote I would not be too surprised, also if it so then what expectations one might have about your Silbatone speakers?

Pay attention I did not express a big enthusiasm of inviting you as I do not invite the people just because they do audio of know how to spell “Tetrode”.  The amount of your posts at diyAudio or in “Sound Practice” has also very little to do with me being “inspired” as I belie that the “Sound Practice” direction was a dead end of truly audio enthusiasms and created mode soldering idiots then qualified listeners.

Anyhow, a few more words about your alleged penis. It is kind of hypostatic to you to insist that your “tool is happy and safe in your shorts”. What you do with Silbatone is no less then taking your very penis very publicly and swinging it like lasso with a primitive desire to catch another Sound Practice’s legacy sufferer.   It is not about Silbatone of the sound that they can or can’t produce but about you cashing your publicity in exchange for people attention to Silbatone. Ironically, and it is a surprised to me that you do not get it yet, I o not question as much the Silbatone sound (I personally just have no interest in it) but I rather I question the lever of seriousness of your audio interests, and some of the things that you expressed in this thread have give me this reasoning. 

So, at least before you consider showing up you really need to think what you might impress me with. Otherwise I would prefer instead of playing music for another boring and immune for senses audio visitor to spend quality time on my couch watching my beloved “The Golden Girls”

Then Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-21-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 24
Post ID: 9484
Reply to: 9480
That Darn Cat
fiogf49gjkf0d
YAWN...wake me up when the war is over...

If you can't relate to individual personal enjoyment as an ultimate goal of audio, sorry Bud, I can't help ya.

I doubt you like what I like or listen to what I listen to. I'm a blues harmonica player.

Since my motto is " Who cares what I like, make your own evaluations," I can understand how that can upset dogmatic spewers of topological laws and sharply-chiseled evaluation programs.

In accordance with my deeply felt philosophy that one should do with audio whatever makes one happy, I certainly recognize and defend your right to think and do what you please. If you think inflexibility is cool, fine by me.

I was sort of dogmatic myself 25 years ago, before I became a public audio figure, but I grew out of it. Now I think anything that destroys dogma is far more valuable to the human race.

One problem you will face is what if you change your mind? You already said too much to be able to turn around.

Puhleeze, don't act like I'm ready to run to Boston to hear your system and you are still thinking about whether I should be permitted, because as I implied above, I wouldn't travel to the next trailer park over to hear 99% of audio systems. I already heard 99% percent of audio systems, if you know what I mean. Sometimes it feels like I heard 110% of all audio systems.

I think this site is an interesting spot on the map and it is what it is. I'm certain that some people get a lot out of poking around here. On that note, good job Mr. Cat.

Maybe I'm not serious enough, but at least I am very serious about not being overly serious.

I only wish you liked Sound Practices and sent me 20 bucks in 1998 so I could have stayed in business 15 minutes longer.

Just to show there are no hard feelings, I leave you with some original artwork.

Keep on keeping on, y'all.

Vaya con Dios,
Joe Roberts

01-21-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,740
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 25
Post ID: 9485
Reply to: 9484
‘Men have forgotten this truth,’ - said the fox
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
If you can't relate to individual personal enjoyment as an ultimate goal of audio, sorry Bud, I can't help ya.

Well, when you stick your finder, nose or whatever into a vise and someone will close the vise, coursing you pain and then someone will turn the vise’s se to the opposite direction opening the vise then you will experience the “personal enjoyment”. Sorry, my level of appreciation of the reselects that Audio is able to deliver is at a different level. I think it is different flor you as well but the “personal enjoyment” is the only one goal that you are tuned to sell.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I doubt you like what I like or listen to what I listen to. I'm a blues harmonica player.

I could guess something like this with very high certainty.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Since my motto is " Who cares what I like, make your own evaluations," I can understand how that can upset dogmatic spewers of topological laws and sharply-chiseled evaluation programs.

Ironically I seldom match the topological limitation with auditable result but rather I match the topological potencies with personal demands of listeners.  I have absolutely stunning absolutely accurate prediction.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
In accordance with my deeply felt philosophy that one should do with audio whatever makes one happy, I certainly recognize and defend your right to think and do what you please. If you think inflexibility is cool, fine by me.

Yes, I would stick with my position of single-driver speaker as a tool that is able to satisfy very limited demant of audio reproduction. I appreciate that you allow me to maintain this opinion.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I was sort of dogmatic myself 25 years ago, before I became a public audio figure, but I grew out of it. Now I think anything that destroys dogma is far more valuable to the human race.

Valid view. Unfortunately what I express is not dogma but my position that based upon experience, exposure and actually my interest to the subject.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Puhleeze, don't act like I'm ready to run to Boston to hear your system and you are still thinking about whether I should be permitted, because as I implied above, I wouldn't travel to the next trailer park over to hear 99% of audio systems. I already heard 99% percent of audio systems, if you know what I mean. Sometimes it feels like I heard 110% of all audio systems.

OK, Joe, I have something to replay but where we go with it?  All of it has no relevancy nether to your Korean speaker nit to your virginity about the single-speaker drivers. About your blues-searching 110% of all audio systems… Do you remember the Saint-Exupéry's “Le Petit Prince” who was bitching about the grade with 1000000 roses?

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I only wish you liked Sound Practices and sent me 20 bucks in 1998 so I could have stayed in business 15 minutes longer.

Do not get me wrong. I have bought a few years back from you the PDF file with all “Sound Practices” and it was OK read. Still, in the large scale it was as “important” as many other product-centric audio publications. You just had a different product and an ordinary audio Moron running dead Dynoaudio with 500W Krell read your “Sound Practices” and ended up with Altec and 2A3. However, Sound that person get is not a action of “tools” but a reflection of the listener's consciousness and from this perspective  the “Sound Practices” was no event in the processes of de-moranization of mostly idiotic audio public. So, as far as I concern the “Sound Practices” was a manual for "kinky soldering", nothing else.  I do admit you did have a very few interesting articles but you went nowhere with them, as you should…

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Just to show there are no hard feelings, …

Ok, now I feel officially insulted!

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-22-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 512
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 26
Post ID: 9486
Reply to: 9484
Good Sound Club
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Joe Roberts wrote:
In accordance with my deeply felt philosophy that one should do with audio whatever makes one happy, I certainly recognize and defend your right to think and do what you please.
So what is the difference between the two viewpoints if both are interested in a connection to the Sound on a higher level?

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I think this site is an interesting spot on the map and it is what it is. I'm certain that some people get a lot out of poking around here. On that note, good job Mr. Cat.
The very good things about this site are:

1. We have a group of people with similar alignment about audio.
2. There are plenty of very experienced people who contribute good ideas.
3. The flame wars that make up 99% of most other columns do not happen here too often.
4. Thin skinned people (who I think are taking it way too seriously) don't stick around.

Hooray!
Adrian
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,740
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 27
Post ID: 9495
Reply to: 9376
Some Silbatone images and about the deal with front filtration
fiogf49gjkf0d

Audio Federation have publish some images from the Silbatone room at CES, even it is in their new idiotic format of the “magazine” but they still visible.

http://spintricity.com/445/public/Vol1-3/page182

What attracted me in the images is to see what Silbatone did with this front filter on this driver. It looks like they wanted to cut some front response proportionally to the back response. In past I played a LOT with all imaginable methods to do it. It is quite complex as any front filtration never does what you what but the filtration does also what it wants/ This is kind of complicated ballet to play, balancing the cons and pros. In case of the light cones of compression drivers and front filters it is VERY tricky as any acoustic impedance front-damps the diaphragms. I never was able to found a good solution and then learn to resolve my needs without employing the front filtration.

Sp, here is what I am thinking. Let pretend that Silbatone folks wanted to kill 3dB from their Manger front radiation. They made up a front filter, sort of bandwidth matched acoustic divider, but what if they do not do it? (Let presume that the Manger’s front radiation do not need any front correction) What might be interesting to try is to put behind the driver, right before the horn throat, a chamber, using the back-loaded Manger as a compression driver. The compression chamber might add a few db of the horn gain and by playing with chamber resonances and compression ratio it is possible to do “some” frequency corrections that Silbatone front-filter I am sure doing.

I have to note that it is very tricky to play with but if the right configuration found then I think it “might” get rid the necessity to throw a white flag of the front filters…

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 28
Post ID: 9496
Reply to: 9495
Back is part of the front (the back part)
fiogf49gjkf0d
Interesting concept but let me point out a few considerations.

The diffusor does performs a mild "equalization" function if you want to call it that but it is also an aid to dispersion. It is light "EQ"...3dB might be about right.

Without any diffusor, the front radiation of the Manger gets up in your face a bit and stands out from the horn. I believe that this is independent of frequency response issues and more to do with radiation angle characteristics and the perceptible texture of front vs. Backhorn radiation.

I tried taking it off and forget it. Ruins the coherency of the speaker and you can then hear front radiation + horn radiation.  At the upper range of the horn, the speaker is fairly wide in directionality. At 150hz, the Manger unit beams. The illusion of a single source is lost.

Furthermore, the Manger driver is extremely fragile. There are small wires on the front and if these are disturbed, the $500 each (in large quantity) driver is finished. The diffusor protects the driver from mechanical damage.

A pic of naked driver is here:
http://spintricity.com/458/public/Vol1-3/page195


My Korean bud has the factory Manger system with 3 drivers per side in his bedroom. His wife likes their sound quite a bit and kidnapped these for her own listening pleasure (she is not a WE fan) while she is at the computer.  One day his housekeeper decided to dust the speakers and that was the end of SIX Mangers in a single attack.

And the most important thing...IT LOOKS COOL!! Cant make any hair dryer jokes about a naked Manger.

Finally, as mentioned above, there are a number of issues with the back wave radiation that require playing with filters in that back pipe already. How this would interact with the compression chamber notion, who knows?

All in all, the diffusor is a decent practical solution in a number of ways. I fear that no matter what is done behind the driver, there is the issue of beaming and getting up in your grill that the front radiation poses. A bit TOO immediate and direct without the diffusor.

With this appliance screwed on the transparency of the Manger is maintained and the effective coherency of the system is enhanced.

Much practical experimentation and listening testing went into this diffusor design and, as you can see, it is a bitch to make with around 40 precision machined parts per side, so it is hard to play around with. I agree that such an approach would be near impossible to model or predict by pure mathematics and rests in the domain of "cut and try" experimentation.

Silbatone was formerly in a marketing partnership with Loth X, whose advance in Lowther-type back horn design involved a realization that the back chamber behind the cone must be roomy for optimal front radiation. The front and back of a cone are rather intimately related, after all. Most Lowther backhorns had a small chamber behind the speaker, which raised the Q of peaks and messed up the subjective character of the front radiation, while constricting low end response.

I don't remember the details of this argument, but the point is that you mess with the back, you're also messing with the front. The Manger front radiation is so fine and well behaved that I'd be worried about interfering with what the Manger does best.
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,740
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 29
Post ID: 9498
Reply to: 9496
The West-Silba LochTone Ness Manga-Electric?
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Interesting concept but let me point out a few considerations.

The diffusor does performs a mild "equalization" function if you want to call it that but it is also an aid to dispersion. It is light "EQ"...3dB might be about right.

Without any diffusor, the front radiation of the Manger gets up in your face a bit and stands out from the horn. I believe that this is independent of frequency response issues and more to do with radiation angle characteristics and the perceptible texture of front vs. Backhorn radiation.

All my experiments with diffusers, screens, refractors whatever it might be called convinced me that it has absolutely nothing to do with radiation angles and widening of dispersion. It is ONLY about the specific attenuation at specific frequency. All those “in your face” feeling are cured not by widening of dispersion here and there and poetic take about acoustic lenses but juts running sound at fractions dB more or less at specific frequencies. What they do is matching the fixed character of Manger’s front radiation to the accidental and most likely very much not optimal sound Manger does from back. There is nothing wrong with it but it would be absolutely not necessary if the back horn would be loaded with own properly selected driver.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I tried taking it off and forget it. Ruins the coherency of the speaker and you can then hear front radiation + horn radiation.  At the upper range of the horn, the speaker is fairly wide in directionality. At 150hz, the Manger unit beams. The illusion of a single source is lost.

It nothing to do with “single source”. The “single source” is absolutely idiotic concept that was a pure verbal invents of Moron who sell single-drivers speakers in the past and who made week peoples to feel that the “single source” is a meaningful trim.  The “single source” neither is a fact a byproduct of a specific sound reproduction method but it has no existence in LIVE sound and there is not need for it pursue in sound reproduction.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
All in all, the diffusor is a decent practical solution in a number of ways. I fear that no matter what is done behind the driver, there is the issue of beaming and getting up in your grill that the front radiation poses. A bit TOO immediate and direct without the diffusor.

I think diffuser is a brutal solution. I would like to see more elegant solution, like an introduction of some kind of directional pressure beams that would act upon the Manger cone and to jolt or comforting it what it is necessary. The mind back chamber might (or might not) be one of the way to do it, it would also add some dB to the back loading the looks like needed in this design.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Silbatone was formerly in a marketing partnership with Loth X, whose advance in Lowther-type back horn design …

You probably better shall not mention it as Loth X were absolutely idiotic in design and in sound. Knowing that your Korean flaks are satisfied with their Manger single driver it was not hard to predict where their formers audio experiences came from. Ah, was it Western Loch X Ness Electric?

 Joe Roberts wrote:
I don't remember the details of this argument, but the point is that you mess with the back, you're also messing with the front.

If course you do but this was exactly the point: not to “mess” but to trey make the NECESSARY impact. I did not say that it is easy but it more noble and more elegant, not to mention that it might help to the bass horn that always a plus.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
The Manger front radiation is so fine and well behaved that I'd be worried about interfering with what the Manger does best. 

Apparently the Manger front radiation is NOT fine, particularly in context of the back horn. If it were fine the Silbatone would not create a federal case around the diffuser. It is so self-evident that it you need to deny it then you are self-delusional or too marketingly-academic.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 30
Post ID: 9499
Reply to: 9498
The age old problem of choosing the wrong evaluation system
fiogf49gjkf0d
I would like to see more elegant solution, like an introduction of some kind of directional pressure beams that would act upon the Manger cone and to jolt or comforting it what it is necessary.


THAT would be cool. If anybody knows how to introduce "comforting directional beams to act upon the Manger cone," please let me know.

We just punked out and settled for a diffusor.


The “single source” neither is a fact a byproduct of a specific sound reproduction method but it has no existence in LIVE sound and there is not need for it pursue in sound reproduction.


Hence, the qualifer "illusion" as noted above. The problem is two or three identifiable frequency-dependent sources has no reference in live music either and when you can hear this in reproduction, you are really losing the game.

The whole project of reproduction is, of course, about illusions.

And yes, delusions too.

We are working with reproduction, not live music. Nothing sounds like live music, except live music. Since this is obviously the case, any attempt to rank our failed attempts at perfect recreation as more or less "like" live music involves arbitrary judgments, taste, and an underlying delusion that reproduction is even possible.

A better term than "reproduction"  might be  "pale imitiation."

Trying to characterize everything in terms of frequency response is a dead end, having to do with physics and meters and whatnot, not music. I always wondered how all these Romy/Harry Pearson type "absolute sound" guys don't see the disjunct between dry technical evaluation and sensuous musical experience.

Oh yeah, I covered "delusion" already.

If we shift evaluation schemes to subjective emotional responses (which is the reason we listen to music),  then we are standing on common ground between live music and playback.

Emotional response takes into account factors such as taste, musical preferences, differences in individual hearing capabilities, and so on. The "human sound meter" delusion pretends that such factors do not intervene, when in fact they are the most relevant and vital aspects of the audio illusion. Why else have a stereo?

If you want to talk technical measurements, that's cool with me...just don't pretend that you are talking about musical bliss. There ain't no LCD readout bliss meter.

The real solution:  hire a band.
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,740
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 31
Post ID: 9500
Reply to: 9499
Where your interests and experiences lay.
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
The problem is two or three identifiable frequency-dependent sources has no reference in live music either …

 It is true, so the amount of the channels is not mandatory or necessary qualifier for sound reproduction and therefore the single point radiation is not better of worse then multiple points of radiation or cloud-point of radiation. The amount of channels is responsible for OTHER things but NOT for the geometry of radiation, at least as far as the single point of radiation concern… 

 Joe Roberts wrote:
…and when you can hear this in reproduction, you are really losing the game.
You can hear multiple radiation points only if the thing are done badly but it still would be very far from “losing the game”. In many instances you do not hear multiple radiation points but the badly made integration have “finished the game” – you just do not know it. So, the point is that the sonic identification of the independent channels is not too important factor as you are trying it to make. Sure, it is nice when the channels are not self-demonstrable but there is so much more to it… Anyhow, a properly implemented multi-channel installation has immense among of advantages against single-channel including the geometry of imaging.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
We are working with reproduction, not live music. Nothing sounds like live music, except live music. Since this is obviously the case, any attempt to rank our failed attempts at perfect recreation as more or less "like" live music involves arbitrary judgments, taste, and an underlying delusion that reproduction is even possible.

A better term than "reproduction"  might be  "pale imitiation."

And based upon this preamble I am sure that you feel that since your Korean lobbyee made a single-driver speaker then a proper audio delusion is possible only by the bogus single-point radiation? The importance of single-point radiation is as false as importance of speaker orientation toward the North Pole.  It makes good talking points for uninformed people and it is about it. BTW, I disagree with the whole concept of “perfect recreation” and “underlying delusion” that you trying to advocate. I know it is a convenient concept to sell toys for hoi-polloi public but it is not where my interests and my experiences lay.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Trying to characterize everything in terms of frequency response is a dead end, having to do with physics and meters and whatnot, not music. I always wondered how all these Romy/Harry Pearson type "absolute sound" guys don't see the disjunct between dry technical evaluation and sensuous musical experience.

I think you need to read my site bit to educate yourself about what you are asking. There is not Romy/Pearson association. BTW, I use frequency response in different way then you apparently understand it. Yes, my view of horns is very different than anybody’s else as I refuse to recognize horns as pressure transformation device. In my view horn are equalization devise: how and why I see it this way - you need to do some reading – I have written about it extensively. Also, with all do respect, I do not think that you need to lecture me about the meters of music in context of playback. Considering that you are uninformed about the inherited musical limitation of a single-driver topology it is very predictable what kind music you use for your audio appraisals. I do not what to go there but be advised that touching an elephant’s tail you might have a wrong impression what elephant is all about. 


 Joe Roberts wrote:
Emotional response takes into account factors such as taste, musical preferences, differences in individual hearing capabilities, and so on. The "human sound meter" delusion pretends that such factors do not intervene, when in fact they are the most relevant and vital aspects of the audio illusion. Why else have a stereo?

If Junior Wells is a reference point of what music is all about then you might be right but I would wonder THEN: why to have any more the table-radio audio objectives to begin with…

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
el`Ol
Posts 225
Joined on 10-13-2007

Post #: 32
Post ID: 9502
Reply to: 9500
Manger active plus horn
fiogf49gjkf0d
I once visited a Manger addict who had an active system with Mangers and corner horns (equipped with four eightinchers, not heavy pro stuff). I found the Mangers and the horns very well-matching, and one should be glad about every Watt that doesn´t need to be done by the Mangers themselves (they are fragile not only in the mechanical sense).
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 33
Post ID: 9503
Reply to: 9500
Snatch it back and hold it
fiogf49gjkf0d
Anyhow, a properly implemented multi-channel installation has immense among of advantages against single-channel including the geometry of imaging.


Imaging...another hi-fi delusion. I used to record the Philadelphia Orchestra. The orchestra does not image.

Imaging is a fun hi-fi special effect but very difficult to assess in a musical frame, except when the 3-D portrayal of a stereo is so whacked out (or overly foregrounded) that it interferes with the flow of musical enjoyment.


I am sure that you feel that since your Korean lobbyee made a single-driver speaker then a proper audio delusion is possible only by the bogus single-point radiation?


Not at all. Satisfying illusions can be achieved by various topologies. I do think that unnatural sound effects that are the artifacts of technology can interfere with the illusion. Which artifacts interfere is a matter of taste and preference and, perhaps, acquired listening habits. Some can listen through artifacts that bug other listeners to no end.

Remember that individual ears and brains are on the receiving end. This is a matter of perception and phenomenology.

I disagree with the whole concept of “perfect recreation” and “underlying delusion” that you trying to advocate [...]it is not where my interests and my experiences lay.


Precisely my point. If you are advocating perfect reproduction judged by standard of live music, this interest entails some serious logical difficulties, unless you believe that perfect reproduction is indeed possible.

The "live music" standard injects value judgments and taste into the evaluation procedure, even though it advocates an ostensibly "objective" standard. If all systems fail to achieve the standard, how can we choose among imperfect results?

Think about that dilemma.

Major failure of Aristotelian logic is illustrated here, basically the failure of essentialism: In short, summarizing experience in terms of logical categories, and believing that performing mathematical and logical manipulations on these invented notions is equivalent to living in the world of experience.

This is a deep cultural presumption in Western societies for the past 2000+ years, so there is plenty of company in this misguided mode of thought.

There is not Romy/Pearson association.


Lord, I hope not. But face the fact that both are dreamers and believers in technological perfection that can not be achieved. Idealists thinking they are objective scientists. Segmenters of the continuum. Confusers of two different domains of endeavor.

Until I hear a really solid objective way to choose among imperfect systems, this will be my assessment of the devotees of "the absolute sound."  Sadly, there is nothing inherent in the live music standard that contains hints on how to perform the task of choosing among our shitty imperfect attempts at reproduction. This will always be a value judgment, as it should be.

Considering that you are uninformed about the inherited musical limitation of a single-driver topology it is very predictable what kind music you use for your audio appraisals.


Should I chuck my Buddy Guy records and listen to only Cantate Domino? Last time I heard that record, I vomited on my shoe.

If Junior Wells is a reference point of what music is all about then you might be right but I would wonder THEN: why to have any more the table-radio audio objectives to begin with…


I thought you said you liked blues harp?

If you can't enjoy Junior Wells on a half-decent table radio, you must be lost in audio la la land.

Sure, I'd rather be listening on something that enhances the experience for me a little bit more, but a table radio or stock Volvo car radio will certainly do in a pinch.

The way I know that some systems are better than my radio is that the emotional impact of the master harp blower, Mr. Wells, is more powerful and engaging. Here I am working from musical experience, rather than the technical superiority of the more elaborate setup.

I know very well what a harmonica played through an amplifer sounds like in my room, even though I suck compared to a master blues player. NO stereo can do this. It is neither fair nor reasonable to expect it.

If  blues reproduction is a low standard, as you seem to imply,  larger scale or wider-range inputs or whatever it is that you are talking about are even more elusive targets of ideal reproduction.




01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,740
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 34
Post ID: 9504
Reply to: 9503
Do your Korean guy pay traveling refund?
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Imaging...another hi-fi delusion. I used to record the Philadelphia Orchestra. The orchestra does not image.

Would it be in 80 sunder Riccardo Muti? No wonder that it did not image. To be more serious I have to say that denying orchestra imaging is a very sad thing to do. The dynamic of tone propagation between the individual instruments of sections and the artistry of tone delivering from one group of instruments to another is so much valuable that to deny it is demonstrate an absolute blindness in my view. Even a single well-trained first violin section with 16 pair of chairs can do some leading edge run across the whole section that if it properly used in context of music might be absolutely wonderful to experience. I do not know even what to start to argue this point. There is so much music specific written for space separated instruments and instrumental groups what wiping it all out…  is kind of strange… Are you sure that you recorded the Philadelphia Orchestra?

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Remember that individual ears and brains are on the receiving end. This is a matter of perception and phenomenology.

I would say that it is the mater not of individual ears and brains but rather the mater objectives and reference point. There are some people out there who feel that “100 year is solitude” is a book about incest and Inbreeding…

 Joe Roberts wrote:
  The "live music" standard injects value judgments and taste into the evaluation procedure, even though it advocates an ostensibly "objective" standard. If all systems fail to achieve the standard, how can we choose among imperfect results?

I disagree with the whole premises of this formulation. Read my site, I have written a lot about it, advocating both sides of the view BTW.

 Joe Roberts wrote:
  Until I hear a really solid objective way to choose among imperfect systems, this will be my assessment of the devotees of "the absolute sound."  Sadly, there is nothing inherent in the live music standard that contains hints on how to perform the task of choosing among our shitty imperfect attempts at reproduction. This will always be a value judgment, as it should be.

Actually do not substitute the topic. Initially it was not a debate about the “perfect” or “imperfect” systems. The single-driver topology is very far from the position where this debate might be even started. The “perfect” or “imperfect” view and the philosophy about perception my kick in where the elemental and kindergarten question of rudimental audio problems are more or less resolved at the level of low announce. The single-driver topology is actually fails at the level of the simplistic announces. Therefore I do not think there is any need to look at the dead rat and envision a giant unicorn… unless you get prepaind….

 Joe Roberts wrote:
  I thought you said you liked blues harp?

If you can't enjoy Junior Wells on a half-decent table radio, you must be lost in audio la la land.

Sure, I'd rather be listening on something that enhances the experience for me a little bit more, but a table radio or stock Volvo car radio will certainly do in a pinch.

The way I know that some systems are better than my radio is that the emotional impact of the master harp blower, Mr. Wells, is more powerful and engaging. Here I am working from musical experience, rather than the technical superiority of the more elaborate setup.

I know very well what a harmonica played through an amplifer sounds like in my room, even though I suck compared to a master blues player. NO stereo can do this. It is neither fair nor reasonable to expect it.

If  blues reproduction is a low standard, as you seem to imply,  larger scale or wider-range inputs or whatever it is that you are talking about are even more elusive targets of ideal reproduction.

Do not take me wrong. I have nothing against blues and I might even listen it from time to time. However, it has absolutely no relation to my audio objectives. It is very simple to make playback installation to play very convincingly and very presentable a simplistic music and 99% of audio systems out there are specially made for it.  (Not necessarily “specially-made” but they made to serve the primitive demands of their system designers). Here is what all that single-driver foolish idea comes from with the people who swear that they had multiple orgasms when they heard their “girl with banjo”. The Loth X association of your Korean friends is a powerful indicator to me what they were looking for before they were trying to make their new speaker. Anyhow, I never made a secret that I discard any audio accomplishments if they are not match with “Content –Loaded music” ™ and synchronized with person’s advancement in understanding of more evolve nature of musicality than “it does give me a pressure”.

If you do not understand it then you do not understand it, but you are not alone, unfortunately.

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 35
Post ID: 9505
Reply to: 9504
Darwin is still dead, last time I checked
fiogf49gjkf0d

Would it be in 80 sunder Riccardo Muti? No wonder that it did not image.


You guessed it....say no more. I was not a huge fan of Maestro Muti, but the society babes who had season tickets definitely liked the leather jackets and the faint whiff of Euro cologne.

Imaging as it is known to hi-fi does not apply. The orchestra in the Academy of Music was the biggest sound blossom imaginable. Perlman on violin creates a sound bigger than a house that can contract to a tiny sharp slice. The direction he points the violin shifts the whole harmonic register. Hifi is an entirely different experience. Yet, I feel that the lack of imaging precision and precise localization would keep the orchestra off the Editors Choice list.

If the 3-D portrayal of an orchestra in a good hall is the goal, ALL audio gear is a joke.

Like I said, hifi can't even do Joe Roberts on the Marine Band harmonica in the key of C.

I have often wondered what I would hear if I set a good system on that stage and fired it up, then went to the balcony and listened. I could have done it back when we had the Academy keys, but did not have the foresight. Now I would be arrested if I tried it.

Incidentally, many professional classical players I met still had their Radio Shack systems from when they were in college. Most couldn't care less about hifi and were more than happy with a pair of old Advents or KLH. They were music listeners not hifi freaks like us.


The “perfect” or “imperfect” view and the philosophy about perception my kick in where the elemental and kindergarten question of rudimental audio problems are more or less resolved at the level of low announce.


OK then, address the question when various systems that beat the obvious failures are compared. Is there any criterion outside of personal taste?



Anyhow, I never made a secret that I discard any audio accomplishments if they are not match with “Content –Loaded music” ™ and synchronized with person’s advancement in understanding of more evolve nature of musicality than “it does give me a pressure”


Actually you are still talking about your "woody" and it it seems some highly specific, personal notion based on tastes and objectives that not all of us share is what gets you off.

Cool with me as long as I don't have to watch.

In all sincerity, I think what you are doing...chasing your own special pornographic ideal, is what we all should be doing. It is just that tying it to some scientifically verifiable objective standard is part of the particular fetish in play, not a human universal.

The "objectivism fetish" is on the order of desiring ladies with shaved heads wearing black rubber SS uniforms, except that it is perhaps more widely shared (see comment above regarding unrefective tendencies of Western civilization).

If you really want the black rubber, go for the black rubber. I'm not gonna stop you. But if you ask me my opinion, I prefer cotton underwear with little Sesame Street characters on it.


more evolve nature of musicality than “it does give me a pressure”


Huh? That is the highest evolution of musicality. You're talking about music right?

On that notion, props are due to old Gizmo Rosenberg. He nailed the ultimate goal: Musical Ecstasy.

Otherwise, why bother?

If you look at notions of human evolution, all of them end with the creatures who came up with the notions. Evolutionary theories are ways of convincing ourselves that we are the coolest, not that most of use need the theoretical and historical justification to arrive at those beliefs.

01-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,740
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 36
Post ID: 9506
Reply to: 9505
The Silbatone Acoustics Review.
fiogf49gjkf0d

Well, I see where this dialog is going and what the essence of the dialog is all about. I think it is the point where the sings are comprehensible -enough, at least on the subject of the Silbatone Acoustics new speakers. I told or implyed everything that I thing needed to be said on the subject and I presume Joe Robbers from another side have expressed what he would like to. With all said, and from all that from my point of view Joe did not understand about the said, I think the 35 posts of this thread turned out to be a very good review of Aporia speakers. At least it did work out for me and I feel it perfectly set the level of my expectations from the Silbatone new speaker. Well, I had my judged premonitions but Joe brought so sensory in this subject material and tangible evidences.  Something suggests me that Aporia might not even have such a profound “review” in future. It might be more empty adjectives  expressed about them in future by the industry cheerleaders but I think it might be not as much public discussion about this  speaker that would such indicatively demonstrate what the foundation of Aporia might be all about. I would certainly wish them better than that but knowing how the audio products born, live and die I think all the rest about Aporia will be the typical single-driver chitchat of the Loth X magnitude and single-driver eyes-rolling intelligence.

I do not know if in Korea exists the presumption of innocence but how valuable the presumption of innocence would be if Aporia listeners absolutely voluntary, even without understanding it, admit the guilt? The human evolution in context of a girl with banjo, the scientifically verifiable objective standard and accused objectivism fetish, the Western civilization and racism, the “long time no see” and lightly vaselined Musical Ecstasy, the swinging the lasso of subjective justifications of what a kilogram is… I do not think I even seen it all before together, or didn’t I? Well, I thought that Silbatone’s Aporia might be a “new” speaker as Joe promised. But it turning out that it is just another Botox of the damn single-driver idea. The circus has moved to another town…

Rgs, Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 37
Post ID: 9507
Reply to: 9506
My sentiments exactly...
fiogf49gjkf0d

Another reviewer who can write the review without hearing the product. Now THAT is something new.

Don't expect anything new from me because I have been saying the same thing for 20 years. That's why you don't see me around much because I said what I have to say 100 times.

"Listen then decide for yourself"   That's about all I have to say. That's all I said here.

"Decide for your self then you don't have to listen" is one of the traps audio geeks often lay for themselves, then fall right in. It is a deep hole.

I was not expecting much novelty in this discussion either and I was not disappointed. I keep hearing the ghost of Harry Pearson and a bit of Peter Aczel echoing back to my statements, just like 1987.

It is too easy to lose sight of musical enjoyment when the discussion is about non-musical factors that pollute audio dialogues. This is especially when non-musical concepts masquerade as profound musical insights. Music is sound, but sound is not music.

Musical ENJOYMENT is not a bad thing. I don't get it. What is the problem?

How familiar is this: "But you're not talking about MUSIC" ...when all the while I'm the one talking about music..."Yes I am." "No that's not music, only CLASSICAL MUSIC is music worth of high fidelity reproduction." "But I like Blues." "HAH! No wonder you have such low standards in high fidelity reproduction. You are not SERIOUS about reproduction"

Is the goal to come up with a dogmatic program of technical evaluation and system design, tangentially rooted in some arbitrary, objectified notion of perfect reproduction,  then use it as a saber to joust with the less sophisticated (basically everybody else on the planet, except butt-smooching acolytes)?

The appeal to the highest level of evolution is particularly odious and perfectly typical. It is implied in the notion "well if you don't like it, then you have bad taste" but some just come out and state it plainly.

Dude, this is one corny worn out 1980s act. Go find some foreclosed property in Sea Cliff and get yourself some first pressing Mercury SRs. I think they suck myself but they go with the routine.

At least good horns have more credibility than the Infinity IRS. That is one reason that I think there is some value here...the reference gear is probably better than average.

Anyway, Romy, everybody...do what you wanna do, while it's still legal.

I'll be here chilling out listening to the sound bar on My DELL monitor, listening to WWOZ New Orleans on live stream--and enjoying it pretty well too.

And where did YOU hear Loth-X backhorn speakers? Nowhere probably. I'll bet you reviewed them off of a photo too.

Keepin it real,

Joe Robbers
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,740
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 38
Post ID: 9508
Reply to: 9507
We Cats have different means to get the things…
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Joe Roberts wrote:
Another reviewer who can write the review without hearing the product. Now THAT is something new.

There is nothing new in it. There are thousands reviewers and audio users who even after spending 40 years with a audio elements are still do not know what they were listening and still clueless about the aptitude of the given audio tool. Also, I did not write the review, you did. I just listened you not the speaker and listening you, along with correlating with what I know, it did help me to put the things in a perspective.  BTW, I have a incredibly accurate record of sniffing those thoughts. I am not trying to sell my record for others, but my record is good enough evidence for me.  Good luck with Harry Pearson and Peter Aczel, that made me really to laugh, Joe.

Anyhow, if you have Ku Klux Klan members who very enthusiastically encourage you about their new candidate in Congress, claiming that the candidate has a “new view on racism”, then how serious would you consider to pay attention to this candidate? 

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Joe Roberts
Posts 48
Joined on 01-12-2009

Post #: 39
Post ID: 9509
Reply to: 9508
Don't sniff my thoughts, sniff my speaker
fiogf49gjkf0d
BTW, I have a incredibly accurate record of sniffing those thoughts.


Thought sniffing is precisely the problem. Too much thought sniffing.

You have not heard Mangers, Aporia, or Loth-X speakers yet you thought sniffed yourself into an incredibly accurate picture of what they sound like. Great trick!

I admit I do this about, say, plastic cone mini towers. But while at CES I went and heard about ten plastic cone mini towers. They BLEW. But, at least I gave them a listen. Who knows, maybe somebody finally came out with a one that I liked. They didn't.

I point to your discussion about the Aporia diffusor. You denied that it affected the directionality of the speaker, yet I actually heard it with and without, moved across the room while listening to each configuration, and I HEARD the reduction in beaminess with the diffusor.

I have had round Edgarhorns and Lowthers so I understand what narrowing radiation as a function of frequency is about. Even in midbass there was a reduction in response at 50 degrees off axis. With the diffusor this was mostly gone. Yes, this does involve frequency response (EQ) but there is another factor (angle).

You yourself intially said it is impossible to predict what such obstructions will do, yet in the next post you turned around and thought sniffed it.

In my view, experimental evidence, even casual experiential evidence, trounces thought sniffing.

I say that as a highly practiced thought sniffer myself.

I look at your manifesto and gear choices and I really can't know if this stuff sounds great or you are just another experimenter with mediocre sound who thinks he found heaven. HOW COULD I KNOW? It could be good, so I give you the benefit of the doubt, but your saying so don't make it so.

My thought sniff tells me Romy's rig is good enough that even if there is some component of self-delusion, as is usually the case, at least it is not embarrasingly delusional. Otherwise, I'll not be impressed without hearing it and feeling impressed at the time.

I could say that I had similar setups in the late 80s and early 90s so I KNOW what it sounds like, but that would be stupid.

I see you have a REL tuner. I had three and they were all totally different. Two were accurately aligned by the same tech. One was stunningly great, the others were good-very good.  Do I know what yours sounds like? No idea.


Anyhow, if you have Ku Klux Klan members who very enthusiastically encourage you about their new candidate in Congress, claiming that the candidate has a “new view on racism”, then how serious would you consider to pay attention to this candidate?



I would pay attention. Actually, I have a strong interest in racist and nationalist movements and rhetoric used in such political programs. I fear that this (or any) country can head that way in the coming hard times, as history demonstrates. This is one of my personal concerns and something that I study a lot.

As for the relation of this metaphor to the ongoing dialogue here, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. Enlighten me.


Harry Pearson and Peter Aczel


Were you here in the States in the 80s? The points above were not a random stab.

Much in your rhetoric dovetails with themes in 1980s audio criticism. The "absolute sound of unamplified live music (i.e. classical)" as the only valid reference, the transference of objective criteria of musical sound to listening evaluation of musical performance, the notion that the "objective" nature of the evaluation program yields an unassailable platform.

And worst, the idea that if somebody disagrees or has different preferences they are WRONG, not serious, and somehow less evolved. This is total ethnocentricism and outlandish snobbery.

This is corny and discredited stuff to me, but perhaps you missed it the first time around. This kind of rhetoric can be very evil in the way it sets up fake authority and an us vs. them mentality. I saw this first-hand in the 80s. I worked in a high-end store at the peak of this stupidity. You claim to be against the morons, yet practice the very techniques of the shepherds of audio morons.

Laugh all you want, but I see a quasi HP in cat suit.

At least you insist that it is only for you, but I wonder since you have a website and all.

To your credit, you are way funnier then these 80s jokers and appear to have better taste in gear, but your thought sniffing patterns are remarkably consistent with the 80s ideologies. At least you don't get into elaborate photographic metaphors to describe imaging like 80s TAS writers did. That would be going too far.

I like independent perspective and I appreciate this site on that level. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. I now have more posts here than on all audio forums since the web started combined and I have been online since 300 baud modems.

Hovever, I do not get responses to the questions I posed about gaps in your evaluative logic and the lack of direct experience, but only a thinly veiled personal attack and a self-fulfilling thought sniff that takes you back to where you started. If your mind is already made up, why bother going through the exercises?

If you think you are telling me something new that triode, horn, and single driver guys can be totally mindless too, you're not. Some of them do give me hope for the human race though...mainly they ones who experiment, listen, and progress.

Take my advice: Don't listen to what I say, listen for yourself.

Or... Don't sniff my thoughts, sniff my speaker.


Joe Rob
01-24-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
tuga


Posts 174
Joined on 12-26-2007

Post #: 40
Post ID: 9510
Reply to: 9507
Not-so-wide-range single-driver
fiogf49gjkf0d
Joe,

Since this topic is about a particular single driver speaker, but still a monodrive, let me ask you a question.

One of the fundamental shortcomings of the not-so-wide-range single-driver class is, as you know, a not so wide frequency range. You say that it doesn't matter, that you can enjoy music without f.e. low frequencies, but my question is: would you accept a photograph from a camera if it didn't do "blacks" and "extreme darks"? I'm sure you wouldn't, and although more difficult than with sound reproduction I am sure it would be possible to make a few uneducated (or just plain) souls believe it's magical properties...

I could enumerate a few other, but I will add just two more: inability to play loud and intermodulation distortion.
Why these two?
You mentioned that you enjoyed "backwater" music and this simple (as opposed to complex) music, with only a few instruments, is easy to reproduce. This makes it inappropriate for evaluating a system or a component from a technical point of view when compared to jazz band or, even better, to a symphonic orchestra which are far richer in diversity, scale or any other parameter that you can think of.

And then there's what Romy calls Content...

My only doubt now is whether you don't recognize these facts because you want to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth or because it would hurt your marketing goal.

Cheers,
Tuga


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira Pascoaes
Page 2 of 6 (108 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 5 » ... Last »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Truth stretched out via Feastrex prism...  Goodbye Chris Witmer...  Audio Discussions  Forum     26  249001  01-21-2006
  »  New  Western Electric reproduces 0Hz + some literature…..  Re-set...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     2  46833  07-24-2006
  »  New  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage...  Learn to differentiate between Imaging and Soundstage....  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     0  12778  03-07-2007
  »  New  Klangfilm: actual knowledge is better then fetish imagi..  Klangfilm Kl51...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     18  187490  03-15-2007
  »  New  The unintended consequences of binaural things in Hi-Fi..  Re: Binaural -- or what ever the case was......  Playback Listening  Forum     1  24708  08-04-2009
  »  New  Munich High End 2010..  The retarded open baffle...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     39  299626  05-16-2010
  »  New  The CES's 2011 horns..  Reviewers and table radios...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  146574  01-07-2011
  »  New  A Moscow setup with Horns/Lowther..  A new reiteration of the Moscow setup....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     33  285157  02-27-2011
  »  New  A new kid in the block: Sadurni Acoustics..  Axpona 2015...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     21  109862  08-22-2011
  »  New  Aries Cerat Contendo - the newest "fat" kid i..  It is very unfortunate then...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     5  37489  09-08-2011
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts