Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

exterior doors, acoustics ?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 12:41:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Considering placing stereo speakers on a wall with an exterior door,
asymetrically placed.
The door is of dense construction, aluminum or steel over a composite core.
A double layer glass pane occupies 30% of the door area.
Wall is mahogany veneer.

Likely acoustic impact?
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 10:44:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Robert Morein wrote:
> Considering placing stereo speakers on a wall with an exterior door,
> asymetrically placed.
> The door is of dense construction, aluminum or steel over a composite
core.
> A double layer glass pane occupies 30% of the door area.
> Wall is mahogany veneer.
>
> Likely acoustic impact?

Depends on the details. What speakers? What room dimensions? Where are
the speakers specifically placed? What room treatment is being used?
Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 1:54:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Robert Morein" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:qdqdnY55devBcWPcRVn-3A@comcast.com
> Considering placing stereo speakers on a wall with an exterior door,
> asymmetrically placed.

> The door is of dense construction, aluminum or steel over a composite
> core. A double layer glass pane occupies 30% of the door area.
> Wall is mahogany veneer.

> Likely acoustic impact?

That door is petty much a broadband reflector. Of course, its apparently
behind the speaker. If the rest of the wall is plastered, you've got a
reflector with some diffusive edges wrapped around it, in a wall that is
also mostly a reflector. IOW, the door is probably a small influence
compared to the wall.

I'm trying to remember what speakers you are likely to use here, and how
their radiation pattern is.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 3:34:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny,

> I'm trying to remember what speakers you are likely to use here, and how
their radiation pattern is. <

Pardon me for hijacking the thread, but this reminds me of something I've
been trying to find for a while. I have searched the 'net high and low for
loudspeaker polar plots. Nobody seems to publish them! Maybe because they're
all so terrible? :->) The only two I've found are 1) for a huge PA horn, and
2) an estimate for a "typical" speaker shown as a crude drawing in a text
book.

Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for typical
bookshelf style speakers?

--Ethan
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 7:41:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:1ZidndzRzduiO2LcRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> "Robert Morein" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:qdqdnY55devBcWPcRVn-3A@comcast.com
> > Considering placing stereo speakers on a wall with an exterior door,
> > asymmetrically placed.
>
> > The door is of dense construction, aluminum or steel over a composite
> > core. A double layer glass pane occupies 30% of the door area.
> > Wall is mahogany veneer.
>
> > Likely acoustic impact?
>
> That door is petty much a broadband reflector. Of course, its apparently
> behind the speaker. If the rest of the wall is plastered, you've got a
> reflector with some diffusive edges wrapped around it, in a wall that is
> also mostly a reflector. IOW, the door is probably a small influence
> compared to the wall.
>
> I'm trying to remember what speakers you are likely to use here, and how
> their radiation pattern is.
>
Unipolar, front radiator, moderate directionality.
My impression is that the door is actually denser than the wall.
The glass is very rigid as well.
My guess is that the door is less of a problem than a typical hollow-core
interior door, which is light, flexible, and vents between the door and the
floor.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 11:37:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

hi guys
it never ceases to amaze me how much the sound changes in different rooms in
my house

ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and out can
help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound better!! #
and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the furniture and
need a cup of tea..heheh

ive found getting the wife and her friend round ...to hold the speakers
while you test the sound works well:) 

hope it all goes well
j7
www.audioorigami.co.uk
The home of tonearm repairs
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 3:41:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article _cSdnXlkt_wxIGLcRVn-jg@giganews.com, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com> wrote:

> Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for typical
> bookshelf style speakers?

Except for professional-type speakers, where this information is necessary
for system design, NO ONE publishes this information. It isn't particularly
useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer this information has little
to do with the perceived performance of a loudspeaker.

It's people like you searching for "good looking" polar plots that prove
this point is correct.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 3:41:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Michael Conzo" <mconz842NOSPAM@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:BE267B12.11AD1%mconz842NOSPAM@tpg.com.au...
> In article _cSdnXlkt_wxIGLcRVn-jg@giganews.com, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at
> ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
>
> > Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for
typical
> > bookshelf style speakers?
>
> Except for professional-type speakers, where this information is necessary
> for system design, NO ONE publishes this information. It isn't
particularly
> useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer this information has
little
> to do with the perceived performance of a loudspeaker.
>
> It's people like you searching for "good looking" polar plots that prove
> this point is correct.


"Michael Conzo" is actually Brian L. McCarty, noted pest on
rec.audio.marketplace.
I suggest we not respond to him.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 3:41:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Michael Conzo" <mconz842NOSPAM@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:BE267B12.11AD1%mconz842NOSPAM@tpg.com.au

> In article _cSdnXlkt_wxIGLcRVn-jg@giganews.com, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw
> at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:

>> Do you know where I can get a few *actual measured* polar plots for
>> typical bookshelf style speakers?

I went around turning over the usual rocks, and came up empty.

> Except for professional-type speakers, where this information is
> necessary for system design, NO ONE publishes this information.

So it seems. Plan B might be to build a system with professional type
speakers (e.g. EV ZX-5s) so at least the speakers wouldn't be mystery meat.
Some pro monitors actually sound pretty good. For example, I have heard some
speakers made by B&C that at first glance were stage monitors, but are also
sold with appropriately redesigned cabinetry, etc., as high end home
speakers. For those who are unfamiliar with B&C they are sort of like the
Italian JBL.

> It isn't particularly useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer
> this information has little to do with the perceived performance of a
> loudspeaker.

I've heard the difference that controlled directivity can make in a home
setting, and I often like it. As long as listening rooms are at least
somewhat reverberent off-axis response contributes to what the listener
hears at his "sweet spot". I can point to a number of papers from Toole etc,
that correlate poor subjective scores with poor off-axis response. Listeners
tend to put their sweet spots right around the critical distance, where
there is a balance between direct on-axis response from the speaker, and
room reverberent response that has signfiicant contributions from the
off-axis response of the speaker system.

> It's people like you searching for "good looking" polar plots that prove
> this point is correct.

There's some big glitches in the polar response of just about every speaker
but full-range waveguides. Loudspeakers are quite directional at high
frequencies, and nearly omnidirectional at low frequencies. This implies
that the off axis response is anything but uniform. I don't know off-hand
what the ideal off-axis response curve would be, but I suspect that it isn't
optimal unless there is a known goal that is sucessfully engineered into the
system design.

Lately, I've heard two examples of multi-driver approaches for controlling
directivity. One creates a cardioid speaker and the other creates a
hypercardioid speaker. There are also the bi-directional designs of
Linkwitz, a man whose thoughts should not be easily dismissed. I don't know
what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure we won't find it by means of osmosis
or letting the chips fall where they may.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 3:41:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:8KydnfKZD5EQeJ3fRVn-iw@comcast.com...
[snip]
>
> Lately, I've heard two examples of multi-driver approaches for controlling
> directivity. One creates a cardioid speaker and the other creates a
> hypercardioid speaker. There are also the bi-directional designs of
> Linkwitz, a man whose thoughts should not be easily dismissed. I don't
know
> what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure we won't find it by means of
osmosis
> or letting the chips fall where they may.
>
>
Anecdotally, I have found the Kef Uni-Q design to be the most tolerant of
wall placement and off-axis listening of the various speakers in my stable.
The Kefs have concentric tweeters and large mid drivers.

The least tolerant are a NEAR 50me, which have very small metal cone mids.

Both speakers subjectively perform well off-axis, but the NEARs seem to do
best with extremely wide spacing, around 120 degrees.

There is nothing in the design of these speakers that would make the
conclusion intuitive before listening. However, the large mid size of the
Kefs probably limits dispersion.

With multi-driver systems, it's obviously a complex problem, where the ear
is tolerant of defects in some bands, and intolerant in other bands.

I question whether bidirectional designs have a place in the modern world.
All geniuses explore the limits of reason, and I suspect this is Linkwitz's
example.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 3:47:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article 1107290220.24285.0@ersa.uk.clara.net, "audio_origami"
<johnnie7@REMOVESPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:

> ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and out can
> help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound better!! #
> and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the furniture and
> need a cup of tea..heheh

This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated professionals
understand the foolishness behind "high-end" electronics, cables, green
magic markers, etc. The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS
the room. That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely on
measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average" rooms.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 3:47:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Michael Conzo" <mconz842NOSPAM@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:BE267C5F.11AD4%mconz842NOSPAM@tpg.com.au...
> In article 1107290220.24285.0@ersa.uk.clara.net, "audio_origami"
> <johnnie7@REMOVESPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > ive found that moving the speakers up and down ...as well as in and out
can
> > help get the balance just right....although some rooms just sound
better!! #
> > and its hard to compare sounds once you have moved all the furniture and
> > need a cup of tea..heheh
>
> This is why most reasonable audiophiles and other educated professionals
> understand the foolishness behind "high-end" electronics, cables, green
> magic markers, etc. The most important and unpredictable factor is ALWAYS
> the room. That's why the most successful manufacturers don't rely solely
on
> measurements but use real listeners in real "acoustically average" rooms.
>
"Michael Conzo" is actually Brian L. McCarty, noted pest on
rec.audio.marketplace.
I suggest we not respond to him.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 4:40:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny,

> I can point to a number of papers from Toole etc, that correlate poor
subjective scores with poor off-axis response. <

Yes, and these days with home theaters, versus one person sitting listening,
there are three or more seats side by side that all need to receive the same
sound quality.

> This implies that the off axis response is anything but uniform. <

I'm sure! I'll explain more about my reasons for wanting this in my reply to
Michael/Brian.

--Ethan
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 4:52:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Michael,

> It isn't particularly useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer
this information has little to do with the perceived performance of a
loudspeaker. <

I would dispute that off-axis response is unimportant, and Arny gave some
good reasons. But here's my real motive for wanting to have a better idea of
what most speakers really do:

A lot of audiophiles treat their entire front wall with thin absorption,
like 1-inch 703 rigid fiberglass, because they are told that loudspeakers
radiate mids and highs out the rear so that's another point of first
reflections. I know intuitively, and by listening, that lows are much more
omnidirectional than mids and highs. But in order to determine how much
thickness is needed on the front wall - or if any absorption is even needed
there at all - I need to know at what frequency most speakers "cross over"
from sending out the front to radiating omnidirectionally. I don't even care
about the specific lobing patterns at higher frequencies, so much as the
frequency at which a basic change in directionality occurs.

I would test this myself but it's a huge pain in the butt to run a bunch of
really long wires outside, borrow a tall ladder to place a speaker on, put a
microphone on a long pole, and so forth. I mean, someone somewhere must have
already done this properly in an anechoic chamber!

--Ethan
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 5:11:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1107373494.909647.229910@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1107365185.701456.315880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
>
>
> >>> In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average
> >>> room.
>
> >> Delusions of omniscience noted.
>
> > I've heard your brand of speakers Arny.
>
> Which brand might that be, Scott?

If you don't know I suggest you check your speakers and then get to a
doctor to see about your memory problems. If they are not what you
claimed them to be in your posts I suggest you try telling the truth in
the future.


Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 5:36:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1107382319.802907.92760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1107373494.909647.229910@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >>>> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:1107365185.701456.315880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average
> >>>>> room.
> >>
> >>>> Delusions of omniscience noted.
> >>
> >>> I've heard your brand of speakers Arny.
> >>
> >> Which brand might that be, Scott?
> >
> > If you don't know I suggest you check your speakers and then get to
a
> > doctor to see about your memory problems. If they are not what you
> > claimed them to be in your posts I suggest you try telling the
truth
> > in the future.
>
> Scott, that seems to be a very round-about way of admitting that even
though
> you've claimed that you've heard my brand of speakers, you don't
actually
> know what brand of speakers I listen to.

No, it's a direct way of saying I have heard the speakers you claim to
own. I don't know that you are telling the truth.


>
> You've been despondent ever since I kicked your hinnie in California
> Superior Court and your libel suit against, right?


Your question makes no sense Arny. No such event ever took place in the
real world. Your delusions are a source of amusement for me not a
source of despondence. When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are
you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this tactic
of yours.



Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 6:05:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Lionel wrote:
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com a écrit :
>
> > When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are
> > you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this
tactic
> > of yours.
>
> Are you sure that it is part of Mr Atkinson's intentions ?

I suspect so. I think most people enter debates intending to kick some
butt.



> Aren't you afraid to already "pollute" the futur debate ?


No.



> Are interested in a debate or in a wrestling match ?


Depends on who is wrestling.



>
> Sounds like if you were waiting for a kind of revenge from the
meeting.


I'm in it for the laughs. I see it as a win /win situation. I think it
will be funny if he shows or if he doesn't. Do you think anything more
than that can come of a debate between Atkinson and Krueger? Do you
think anyone will come away with a different perspective on audio? I
don't.


Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 6:09:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

<Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107373494.909647.229910@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1107365185.701456.315880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com


>>> In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average
>>> room.

>> Delusions of omniscience noted.

> I've heard your brand of speakers Arny.

Which brand might that be, Scott?
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 6:29:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Lionel wrote:
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com a écrit :
> > Lionel wrote:
> >
> >>Theporkygeorge@aol.com a écrit :
> >>
> >>
> >>>When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are
> >>>you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this
> >
> > tactic
> >
> >>>of yours.
> >>
> >>Are you sure that it is part of Mr Atkinson's intentions ?
> >
> >
> > I suspect so. I think most people enter debates intending to kick
some
> > butt.
>
> Yes it's often the case but in this case I think it would be
interesting
> to let the things go naturally before to throw the baby out with the
> bath water.
>
>
>
> >>Aren't you afraid to already "pollute" the futur debate ?
> >
> >
> >
> > No.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Are interested in a debate or in a wrestling match ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Depends on who is wrestling.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Sounds like if you were waiting for a kind of revenge from the
> >
> > meeting.
> >
> >
> > I'm in it for the laughs. I see it as a win /win situation. I think
it
> > will be funny if he shows or if he doesn't.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > Do you think anything more
> > than that can come of a debate between Atkinson and Krueger? Do you
> > think anyone will come away with a different perspective on audio?
I
> > don't.
>
> Most of the time I am very nasty but sometime I'm naively idealist...
>
> ...But I am not waiting that this meeting change people perspective
> about audio but just that it contributes (at least for few of the
> attendees) to make the antagonisms a little bit less exacerbate and a

> little bit more human.

That is a very nice sentiment. I don't share your optimism but I am not
against pleasant surprises. I have seen nothing in Arny that makes me
think he can rise to this level. It is often the case that such
advisaries are polite in face to face meetings only to resort to the
uglyness when back on line. Now that would be boring and fruitless.
I'll settle for the entertainment.


Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 7:53:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1107385553.337630.291880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>
>
> > I think most people enter debates intending to kick some butt.
>
> > I see it as a win /win situation.
>
> How self-contradictory can Scott get in the same post?

Are you really this stupid or are you just bored and trolling? Really?
Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 8:16:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

<Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107382319.802907.92760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1107373494.909647.229910@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1107365185.701456.315880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>>>>> In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average
>>>>> room.
>>
>>>> Delusions of omniscience noted.
>>
>>> I've heard your brand of speakers Arny.
>>
>> Which brand might that be, Scott?
>
> If you don't know I suggest you check your speakers and then get to a
> doctor to see about your memory problems. If they are not what you
> claimed them to be in your posts I suggest you try telling the truth
> in the future.

Scott, that seems to be a very round-about way of admitting that even though
you've claimed that you've heard my brand of speakers, you don't actually
know what brand of speakers I listen to.

You've been despondent ever since I kicked your hinnie in California
Superior Court and your libel suit against, right?
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 9:54:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

<Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107383800.550299.297610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1107382319.802907.92760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1107373494.909647.229910@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1107365185.701456.315880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average
>>>>>>> room.
>>>>
>>>>>> Delusions of omniscience noted.
>>>>
>>>>> I've heard your brand of speakers Arny.
>>>>
>>>> Which brand might that be, Scott?

>>> If you don't know I suggest you check your speakers and then get to a
>>> doctor to see about your memory problems. If they are not what you
>>> claimed them to be in your posts I suggest you try telling the truth
>>> in the future.

>> Scott, that seems to be a very round-about way of admitting that
>> even though you've claimed that you've heard my brand of speakers,
>> you don't actually know what brand of speakers I listen to.

> No, it's a direct way of saying I have heard the speakers you claim to
> own. I don't know that you are telling the truth.

Well Scott, here's your second chance. If you've heard my brand of speakers,
tell the nice people what brand my speakers are.

>> You've been despondent ever since I kicked your hinnie in California
>> Superior Court and your libel suit against, right?

> Your question makes no sense Arny. No such event ever took place in
> the real world.

Oh Scott, so you're telling us that I lost that lawsuit that you filed
against me about a year ago?

Or, are you saying that no such lawsuit was never filed?

Because if it was filed, and you didn't win it, then I won.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 9:56:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

<Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107385553.337630.291880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com


> I think most people enter debates intending to kick some butt.

> I see it as a win /win situation.

How self-contradictory can Scott get in the same post?
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:00:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:R6mdnR6bBeDhf53fRVn-vQ@comcast.com...


: In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can measure the
: difference between a poor room and a good room, but sometimes its easier to
: just use our ears.
......................................................
substitute 1. amplifier for room:

"In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can measure the
difference between a poor amplifier and a good amplifier, but sometimes its
easier to
just use our ears."
......................................................
substitute 2. loudspeaker for room:

"In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can measure the
difference between a poor loudspeaker and a good loudspeaker, but sometimes its
easier to
just use our ears."

What was your case again, for level-matched, double blind testing, Arny ?

: How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like tubes
: and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is? Scott is
: firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was then, but this
: discussion is about now.

We know about your 2005 SOTA, eh, Arny ? It's the 44.1 KHz/16 bit CD format, no?

Cheeeeeers,
Rudy
: ooh, wake up it's feb 2005, mr. Krueger
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:00:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Ruud Broens" <broensr@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:420114a2$0$61117$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:R6mdnR6bBeDhf53fRVn-vQ@comcast.com...

>> In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
>> measure the difference between a poor room and a good room, but
>> sometimes its easier to just use our ears.

> substitute 1. amplifier for room:

> "In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
> measure the difference between a poor amplifier and a good amplifier,
> but sometimes its easier to just use our ears."

This of course ruins the truth of my statement, because as a rule rooms
sound different, but good amps don't.

> .....................................................
> substitute 2. loudspeaker for room:

> "In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
> measure the difference between a poor loudspeaker and a good
> loudspeaker, but sometimes its easier to
> just use our ears."

This is closer to the truth because as a rule, all speakers sound different.
It's takes a major effort to even make two supposedly identical speakers
sound close to each other. One reason for this is the fact that merely
relocating a speaker a few feet makes it sound different due to room
effects.

> What was your case again, for level-matched, double blind testing, Arny ?

That's pretty well known. In cases where the differences are likely to be
subtle, listening tests should be level-matched and double blind. However,
the audible differences between rooms and speakers are likely to be highly
non-subtle.

>> How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like
>> tubes and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is?
>> Scott is firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was
>> then, but this discussion is about now.

> We know about your 2005 SOTA, eh, Arny ? It's the 44.1 KHz/16 bit CD
> format, no?

44/16 is a fine distribution format. One can level-matched, double blind
compare it to so-called hi-rez formats all day long and find not one audible
difference.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:11:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:zZadnbAkJ7zwjZzfRVn-og@comcast.com...
:

: Just adressing your negative envious posturing about sucessful
: manufacturers. Scott.
:
: Derlusions of omniscience, noted.
:
: Inability to interpret a common figure os speech noted.
:
: Desire to create a straw man by splitting haris noted.
:
: Delusioins of omniscience noted.
:

No worries, Arny, we can still interpret - takes some heavy equipment, though
:-)
Rudy
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:58:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:sKqdnea0odfpi5zfRVn-3A@comcast.com...
: "Ruud Broens" <broensr@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
: news:420114a2$0$61117$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
:
: > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
: > news:R6mdnR6bBeDhf53fRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
:
: >> In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
: >> measure the difference between a poor room and a good room, but
: >> sometimes its easier to just use our ears.
:
: > substitute 1. amplifier for room:
:
: > "In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
: > measure the difference between a poor amplifier and a good amplifier,
: > but sometimes its easier to just use our ears."
:
: This of course ruins the truth of my statement, because as a rule rooms
: sound different, but good amps don't.
:
: > .....................................................
: > substitute 2. loudspeaker for room:
:
: > "In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
: > measure the difference between a poor loudspeaker and a good
: > loudspeaker, but sometimes its easier to
: > just use our ears."
:
: This is closer to the truth because as a rule, all speakers sound different.
: It's takes a major effort to even make two supposedly identical speakers
: sound close to each other. One reason for this is the fact that merely
: relocating a speaker a few feet makes it sound different due to room
: effects.
:
: > What was your case again, for level-matched, double blind testing, Arny ?
:
: That's pretty well known. In cases where the differences are likely to be
: subtle, listening tests should be level-matched and double blind. However,
: the audible differences between rooms and speakers are likely to be highly
: non-subtle.
:
: >> How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like
: >> tubes and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is?
: >> Scott is firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was
: >> then, but this discussion is about now.
:
: > We know about your 2005 SOTA, eh, Arny ? It's the 44.1 KHz/16 bit CD
: > format, no?
:
: 44/16 is a fine distribution format. One can level-matched, double blind
: compare it to so-called hi-rez formats all day long and find not one audible
: difference.

hmm, is that one of Randy's million buck challenges ? That could be
interesting...
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 1:59:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1107383800.550299.297610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1107382319.802907.92760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:1107373494.909647.229910@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
> >>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> <Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:1107365185.701456.315880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> In the meantime enjoy your lousy system in your average
> >>>>>>> room.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Delusions of omniscience noted.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I've heard your brand of speakers Arny.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which brand might that be, Scott?
>
> >>> If you don't know I suggest you check your speakers and then get
to a
> >>> doctor to see about your memory problems. If they are not what
you
> >>> claimed them to be in your posts I suggest you try telling the
truth
> >>> in the future.
>
> >> Scott, that seems to be a very round-about way of admitting that
> >> even though you've claimed that you've heard my brand of speakers,
> >> you don't actually know what brand of speakers I listen to.
>
> > No, it's a direct way of saying I have heard the speakers you claim
to
> > own. I don't know that you are telling the truth.
>
> Well Scott, here's your second chance. If you've heard my brand of
speakers,
> tell the nice people what brand my speakers are.




You really forgot what you posted?



>
> >> You've been despondent ever since I kicked your hinnie in
California
> >> Superior Court and your libel suit against, right?
>
> > Your question makes no sense Arny. No such event ever took place in
> > the real world.
>
> Oh Scott, so you're telling us that I lost that lawsuit that you
filed
> against me about a year ago?




No, I'm telling you that what you described never happened. I needed to
correct a technical mistake in the service of the lawsuit and chose not
to because I came to realize you were not worth the effort. No ruling
on the case was ever made. No "butt kicking" ever took place except in
your imagination.



>
> Or, are you saying that no such lawsuit was never filed?


Not very bright are you?



>
> Because if it was filed, and you didn't win it, then I won.


In your imagination perhaps. In court not at all. Feel free to cite any
ruling from the court on the merits of the case if you think otherwise.
They are a matter of public record.


Scott Wheeler
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 2:30:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message
news:N8udnSN5g4cNvJzfRVn-2g@giganews.com...
> Michael,
>
>> It isn't particularly useful to the consumer, and even for an engineer
> this information has little to do with the perceived performance of a
> loudspeaker. <
>
Your response is thoughtful.
But it is characteristic of Brian L. McCarty that he never responds to a
reply.
The way his brain works, all his posts must be unsolicited and
confrontational.
Anything else would smack of cooperativeness, but his subconcious mind is in
perpetual rebellion.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 2:58:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Theporkygeorge@aol.com a écrit :

> When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are
> you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this tactic
> of yours.

Are you sure that it is part of Mr Atkinson's intentions ?
Aren't you afraid to already "pollute" the futur debate ?
Are interested in a debate or in a wrestling match ?

Sounds like if you were waiting for a kind of revenge from the meeting.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 3:21:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Theporkygeorge@aol.com a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>>Theporkygeorge@aol.com a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are
>>>you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this
>
> tactic
>
>>>of yours.
>>
>>Are you sure that it is part of Mr Atkinson's intentions ?
>
>
> I suspect so. I think most people enter debates intending to kick some
> butt.

Yes it's often the case but in this case I think it would be interesting
to let the things go naturally before to throw the baby out with the
bath water.



>>Aren't you afraid to already "pollute" the futur debate ?
>
>
>
> No.
>
>
>
>
>>Are interested in a debate or in a wrestling match ?
>
>
>
> Depends on who is wrestling.
>
>
>
>
>>Sounds like if you were waiting for a kind of revenge from the
>
> meeting.
>
>
> I'm in it for the laughs. I see it as a win /win situation. I think it
> will be funny if he shows or if he doesn't.

Fair enough.

> Do you think anything more
> than that can come of a debate between Atkinson and Krueger? Do you
> think anyone will come away with a different perspective on audio? I
> don't.

Most of the time I am very nasty but sometime I'm naively idealist...

....But I am not waiting that this meeting change people perspective
about audio but just that it contributes (at least for few of the
attendees) to make the antagonisms a little bit less exacerbate and a
little bit more human.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 3:58:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Theporkygeorge@aol.com a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>>Theporkygeorge@aol.com a écrit :
>>
>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Theporkygeorge@aol.com a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When Atkinson kicks your butt in that debate are
>>>>>you going to call him a pedophile too? You seem so proud of this
>>>
>>>tactic
>>>
>>>
>>>>>of yours.
>>>>
>>>>Are you sure that it is part of Mr Atkinson's intentions ?
>>>
>>>
>>>I suspect so. I think most people enter debates intending to kick
>
> some
>
>>>butt.
>>
>>Yes it's often the case but in this case I think it would be
>
> interesting
>
>>to let the things go naturally before to throw the baby out with the
>>bath water.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Aren't you afraid to already "pollute" the futur debate ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are interested in a debate or in a wrestling match ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Depends on who is wrestling.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sounds like if you were waiting for a kind of revenge from the
>>>
>>>meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm in it for the laughs. I see it as a win /win situation. I think
>
> it
>
>>>will be funny if he shows or if he doesn't.
>>
>>Fair enough.
>>
>>
>>>Do you think anything more
>>>than that can come of a debate between Atkinson and Krueger? Do you
>>>think anyone will come away with a different perspective on audio?
>
> I
>
>>>don't.
>>
>>Most of the time I am very nasty but sometime I'm naively idealist...
>>
>>...But I am not waiting that this meeting change people perspective
>>about audio but just that it contributes (at least for few of the
>>attendees) to make the antagonisms a little bit less exacerbate and a
>
>
>>little bit more human.
>
>
> That is a very nice sentiment.

;-)

> I don't share your optimism but I am not
> against pleasant surprises.


I am not particulary optimist, it's not really my point.
Let's put the things like that : I think that it would be *polite* to
preserve for Mr Atkinson the *possibility* to reap the fruits (if any)
of his investment (not only in term of cost).
I agree that this bearing imply from us a certain reserve which is
antipodal to the nasty fun we are looking for here....


> I have seen nothing in Arny that makes me
> think he can rise to this level.

I disagree, seems to me that Krueger is improving his on-line behaviour.

> It is often the case that such
> advisaries are polite in face to face meetings only to resort to the
> uglyness when back on line.

True. Politely inhibited. ;-)

> Now that would be boring and fruitless.
> I'll settle for the entertainment.

Have fun.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 4:32:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Lionel" <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil> wrote in message
news:42016913$0$507$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
> Theporkygeorge@aol.com a écrit :
[snip]
>
> I disagree, seems to me that Krueger is improving his on-line behaviour.
>
I think he has. On several recent occasions, Arny has provided technical
input to some of my questions, which is remarkable, considering our previous
record.

FWIW, I've always had the feeling that if I had the opportunity to
blind-test equipment, I would use it. I don't believe it can be any worse
than sighted comparison, provided the comparator is made of very good stuff.

However, in the past, Arny has claimed that individuals who have not
performed ABX comparisons of equipment were not entitled to be taken
seriously. On some subjects, he has claimed that others are not entitled to
speak. This is psychological deviancy, particularly as Arny seemed
completely unaware that disenfranchisement of the audiophile community
doesn't help his cause.

Arny has also claimed that all "good amplifiers" are sonically
indistinguishable. This is utterly laughable to the many of us who have
experienced differences almost as significant as between speakers. His
strident claim is/was apparently based upon a very small number of
amplifiers, which he felt to be a sufficient sample of the universe of
amplifiers.

This kind of thing happens when the man becomes the cause. The search for
self-esteem takes many strange turns. I have always felt that if Arny held
his audio experiments at emotional arm's length, he would have much to
contribute. Psychological balance is everything.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 10:59:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Robert Morein said:

> FWIW, I've always had the feeling that if I had the opportunity to
> blind-test equipment, I would use it. I don't believe it can be any worse
> than sighted comparison

How bizarre. You think an exercise that's annoying, pointless, tedious,
and dehumanizing would be "no worse" than enjoying music in your
day-to-day life? I think it would be a lot worse.
!