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?

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”

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!

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.

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.

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…

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.

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 “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:

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.

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…

Anyhow, a properly implemented multi-channel installation has immense among of advantages against single-channel including the geometry of imaging.

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?

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.

There is not Romy/Pearson association.

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.

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…

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.

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

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.

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”

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

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…

Joe Roberts wrote:

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

BTW, I have a incredibly accurate record of sniffing those thoughts.

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?

Harry Pearson and Peter Aczel