Wilson Speakers Ripped Big Time!
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 193 Registered: Apr-05 | Anyone read this review from the Audioperfectionist's site on Wilson speakers? You might be schocked by what you read. I know many here hold Wilson in the highest regard. I'm not one of them. I pretty much agree with the entire review of Wilson speakers. Here's the link: http://www.audioperfectionist.com/PDF%20files/APJ_WD_21.pdf |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6370 Registered: May-04 | The problem here is simple; this is not a review of the Wilson speaker. It is a review of the review of the Wilson speaker. The author apparently used Stereophile's published measurements as the basis for his review and didn't care for what he saw in Stereophile. The author offers no substantive evidence he has listened to the speaker for any length of time in any setting that would let him evaluate the sound of the product. It seems quite obvious he has not had a pair of Wilson speakers to audition in a familiar setting; nor has he used music which he knows as reference material. Nor, has he made any claims that he made any measurements himself though he dislikes the measurements he saw in Stereophile. He really doesn't even discuss the sound of the speaker to any great extent. Anyone who is familiar with a variety of speakers realizes measurements are just a portion of what should be evaluated before making a decision on the quality of the product. I've stated before that my experience has indicated the exact same speaker placed in two different rooms will not sound the same in both locations. Sometimes the difference is so large as to be "jaw dropping". I'm not defending the Wilson product. The comments made in this article relating to the technical lay out of the Wilson speakers seems to be fair in its overall approach though I question comments such as "Two low bass drivers will play louder than one, with less definition and more overhang (ringing)." I would very much like to see the justification for that statement. It seems to me anyone reading the two reviews referenced and studying the measurements supplied in Stereophile would have a clear indication what they should expect when they audition the Maxx. More to the point, the Maxx was the speaker under review in Stereophile and The Absolute Sound; the other Wilson speakers have nothing to do with the review of the Maxx and should have nothing to do with the review of the review of the Maxx. To attack them in a review of a review of the Maxx would indicate a preference for gratuitous remarks more than journalistic integrity. That magazines have an inordinate amount of influence on buyers who have little desire to critically listen to a product before parting with their cash is a regrettable circumstance. However, the audio world is hardly the only place where a buyer lets someone else decide what is good. It does seem to be the one area where the most people get the most infuriated by the process. As the authors of all three articles have pointed out, you are purchasing more than a simple speaker when you decide to own a Wilson (or Theil, or Martin Logan, or Sonus Faber, or Wilson Benesch, or any "Class A") product. By not reviewing the speaker itself, the author of this article seems to desire even more power over the decision making process than Stereophile's Mr. Fremer would claim. Of the three articles I have read on the Wilson Maxx, this would appear to me to be the most biased in that it can only present opinion (even when dealing in fact) since it is not a review of the product under fire. In this manner, it is nothing more than red meat for the "measurements are all, magazines are bought off, I hate things that are expensive" crowd that wants to see exactly what this author provides. He comes across as nothing more than the Ann Coulter of audio. |
|
Anonymous | Ehh its nothing new. The Audio Critic has been fairly critical of Wilson in the past. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6374 Registered: May-04 | "Two drivers will "splash" more time smeared information off the side walls at the expense of definition. The spectrum of the reflected wave from two drivers will be substantially different from the direct wave." This seems to me to be a way to appear to be saying a lot while actually saying very little of any consequence. One driver will "splash" time smeared information off the side walls if it is placed in close proximity to the side walls. In most domestic settings this seems to be a common occurrence due to simple placement issues. The idea that two drivers will splash "more" information is saying what exactly? As long as the drivers are operating in phase with one another the information will be time and phase coherent when it "splashes" against the wall. Is the author merely implying a higher SPL since the two drivers mutually couple to produce more output from the same input? Is that a serious problem to address? The statement seems to argue that the Wilson has extremely wide dispersion characteristics which, after stating earlier in the article the 7" drivers lack the ability to have wide dispersion charcteristics, is exactly what the author has argued is a failing of the Wilson design. If the speaker's dispersion is limited, how then does it manage to "splash" the information off the side wall? "The spectrum of the reflected wave from two drivers will be substantially different from the direct wave." In my estimation, the second sentence of the quote means absolutely nothing. Again why two drivers and not just one driver? What is it about the second driver which makes the problem in the Maxx so egregious? The same situation exists no mater how many drivers are used. More importantly, how will the spectrum of the reflected wave be substantially different than the direct wave? Well, of course, we all know the answer to that question. What does it mean to the performance of the Wilson Maxx and is it a serious problem faced only by the Maxx that cannot be tamed by speaker/listener placement and room treatment? If all speakers face the same issues of secondary reflections being substantially different in their spectrum content than the direct signal, what does this say about the Wilson Maxx or, for that matter, the review of the Wilson Maxx? |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 195 Registered: Apr-05 | " As long as the drivers are operating in phase with one another the information will be time and phase coherent when it "splashes" against the wall" Note: All three Wilson models commented on in this article have midrange drivers wired out of phase with the input. Also, though we have been thru this before, only first order units can be time and phase coherant. I concur with Mr Hardesty that if the speaker, ANY speaker doesn't have flat frequency response and isn't time and phase accurate, it cannot possibly re-create musical playback as it was recorded. Think about that statement before you answer. What else is there to a musical waveform if we screw up the frequency, time, and phase characteristics of that waveform? And is it remotely possible to call whats left accurate musical reproduction? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6376 Registered: May-04 | You obviously did not understand what I wrote. From what I can make of the article, the statement by the author is in reference to the two midrange drivers employed in the Maxx. (It occurs in the bottom portion of the right hand column on page four.) There is no reference which I see to the two midrange drivers being wired out of phase with each other. If the two drivers covering the same frequencies are wired in phase, their response will be in phase with each other as the signal leaves the driver and the signal that strikes the wall will be in phase at the point it "splashes" against the wall and presumably as it leaves the wall assuming both drivers are a similar distance from the wall. In the case of the Wilson Maxx, that appears to be the case. The author's point, however, seems to be that two drivers create more problems than one driver. Even with the most generous reading of that statement, I find it difficult to accept as reality in a domestic setting. I find it to be a particularly broad statement when you consider anyone with the resources to buy the Maxx should have the resources to, at least, have someone treat the first reflection point in the listening room. (The author indicates he has laid out a rationale for this sort of problem, but I haven't been able to find it.) Most of the problems he associates with the Maxx through the midrange have to do with the fact it utilizes two 7" mid/woofers which he has previously claimed cannot have a broadly dispersed sound throughout their frequency response. How do drivers with limited dispersion then "splash" the "dispersed" frequencies on the side wall? I agree with the idea of dispersion narrowing as the wavelength gets closer to diameter of the driver, but that is hardly a problem unique to the Wilson speaker. And, if it is a problem, any speaker with two drivers of any dimension which share the same frequency range will have a similar problem. How many speakers have more than one driver handling the same frequency range through the Xo region? Most! It would seem logical to then claim all speakers with a Xo will share the same problem of "splashy" dispersion. I see no way around this. Also, though we've been through this before, it is you who feels only a first order Xo can be phase coherent. I never agreed to that concept nor did I agree there is only one way to build a speaker. If the signal passes through a Xo of any order, the inductance and/or capacitance of the circuit will still take the signal out of absolute phase accuracy. While a first order Xo might have less phase shift than a higher order design, there is still inherent phase shift in any passive Xo. Therefore, the questions, "What else is there to a musical waveform if we screw up the frequency, time, and phase characteristics of that waveform? And is it remotely possible to call whats left accurate musical reproduction?", can only be answered by the simple deduction that even a first order Xo has screwed up the time and phase relationship to some extent. If we find ourself in a nonbending opinion that only absolute phase can be considered accurate reproduction (an opinion I do not totally agree with), whenever a passive Xo of any type is employed, we either have to decide phase and time shift, in and of themself, are somewhat irrelevant or that all speakers other than full range designs with no Xo components are the only accurate way to reproduce music. If this is merely having another go at the first order Xo game, I can stop playing right now. I do not totally agree there is only one way to build a speaker. I do totally think anyone who makes such a statement is not seeing the whole picture and has fixated on one aspect of design without seeing the possible disadvantages of that design and without seeing the absolute nature of the statement simply negates itself. So, what is this, PB? Did you post this just to revive the first order rant? Or did you want to discuss how this can possibly be a review of any value when the author didn't actually listen to or measure the speaker in question with any level of professionalism? |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 692 Registered: Nov-04 | haha, owned again. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 196 Registered: Dec-04 | I would think that Wilson could eliminate the 'splash' effect(if it is truly that) internally with a passive rad(downfiring) to absorb the effects of on-axis, first order dispersion within the enclosure. Surely they know by now that prime number x-o's are difficult to manage. A secondary order x-o for the second driver may eliminate the effect, at 180 degrees, but I doubt the overall effect would be desireable. A second driver of different dimensions and response time would mask the offending charactristics which(may) be present. If the guy even heard them in his house. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6378 Registered: May-04 | PB - While we're on the subject of absolute fealty to phase and time relationships, would you please point me towards a playback source which exhibits no phase shift from input to output? I can't say that I know of any off hand. If the signal is damaged at the very front of the playback chain, where does that leave us in relation to absolute values in the last link in the playback - the speaker? Additionally, since you also make an issue of absolutely flat frequency response, have you come across a speaker which exhibits this quality in a typical room? Please explain how this is possible. |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 196 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan, I posted the link because people here seem to have an infatuation with Wilson speakers, probably due to the relative cost. Nothing more, nothing less. Cost is not indicitive of performance. You infer that 1st order crossovers induce phase shift. I provided you the math for this long ago. You also ask if I can point you to a playback source which inhibits no phase shift from input to output. I take it your point is that since a phono cartrige has some phase shift, or perhaps some infrasonic ringing or perhaps a touch of overshoot due to a cartidge/arm complaince mis-match, or a cdp has some phase shift, we should throw the baby out with the bath water, huh? At that point who cares about additional phase shifts from the speakers, right? Doesn't matter the speaker is the only component in the recording/playback chain that splits the phase shift and changes it as you move away from the crossover points, right? Jan, you have been around long enough to know there are recording studio's and engineer's that perform painstaking steps to insure absolute phase. They do so because it's audable. Ask Steve Hoffman if you can hear phase inversions in the recording chain. I did not make an issue of absolute flat response. I said "if a speaker doesn't have flat response, and isn't time or phase accurate, how can anyone call that speaker an accurate reproducer of music? Is it ok to LIKE that speaker? Of course. just don't try to tell me it's "the best" or it's "Accurate" it is neither. Even if it costs $150K "There is no reference which I see to the two midrange drivers being wired out of phase with each other" Look under the heading "Origin of species" I quote "All three have the drivers that cover midrange frequencies wired out of phase with the input signal" Now, check out the soundstage tests of a speaker that has been getting nothing but positive press and rave reviews. The Zu Druid. Look at these graphs and tell me how this product could be considered anything but defective? http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/zucable%5Fdruid/ |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 197 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan, using your analogy with the non perfect source, lets apply it to amplifiers, shall we? Lets use the typical Japanese reciever utilized by many of our users here. I'm talking JVC, Sansui, Pioneer, Technics, Panasonic, Kenwood, etc, and all home theatre in a box recievers. Those amplifiers, when driving a real speaker with real music produce perhaps one tenth their rated power at up to 1000 times their rated distortion. So, instead of 500 watts at .05% thd they probably do more like 5 watts at 50% thd. With that in mind, why would we want to minimize distortion from the speakers when the reciever is producing tons of it already? And, if that's the case, and it is if we use your example, we now have distortion, frequency response, phase and time of no importance whatsoever in loudspeaker design. To quote you " If the signal is damaged at the very front of the playback chain, where does that leave us in relation to absolute values in the last link in the playback - the speaker?" |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6383 Registered: May-04 | PB - You lost me a bit on your open loop logic. Let me go through a few things to clarify my position which is often at odds with what you have posted. Absolute phase and phase shift are not the same animal. While some recording studios make an effort to maintain absolute phase, most do not. Therefore the signal is most often corrupted before we ever put it through our system. Those studios that do make an effort to maintain absolute phase still recognize that each piece of electronics, and most especially those components which utilize negative feedback, will have some phase shift at their outputs. But, I repeat, phase shift is not the same as absolute phase. I am a bit surprised that you either A) didn't know that, or B) tried to slip that passed me. And, I am not willing to listen to music produced only by the studios which maintain absolute phase. There is more to life than audiophile recordings. Phase shift, however, is phase shift no matter where it occurs or how it is introduced. Your insistence that the Xo is the only component in the system which "splits the phase shift" is, I assume, sloppy language. The Xo doesn't "split" the phase shift; it introduces phase shift. There may be phase shift introduced by inductors and capacitors at each leg of a Xo's output, but it has not "split the phse shift". But, still, what exactly is your point? Phase shift occurs. The signal no longer replicates the input signal. I don't understand what difference it makes where this occurs. Either the signal is the same or the signal is not the same. I hate to sound like George Bush on this, but it is a black and white affair. Either/or. And, you really don't mean to indicate you feel a first order Xo has 0° phase shift even after the signal has passed through an inductor or a capacitor; do you? The drivers have their polarity reversed (which is not that uncommon in loudspeakers) in relation to the input but not to each other. That is where I have a problem with what the author wrote. Obviously it would take a very poor speaker designer to wire two identical drivers out of phase with each other. That is not what the author is implying and I cannot imagine that is how the Maxx is wired. We'll never know since the author didn't take any measurements of the speaker. The only thing the author did, in my opinion, is to comment on what offended him on paper about the Maxx. This ability to look at a piece of paper and condemn a product based on it not meeting your criteria for how you want a piece of equipment built is absurd! I would appreciate your help in understanding the arguments the author made and not in further obfuscating the issues. Why am I suddenly supposed to comment on the Zu Druid Loudspeaker? How many speakers that no one has listened to is this going to cover? PB, have you listened to the Wilson Maxx or are you just ranting again? What is your point of all this if you haven't heard the speaker either? How many people need not listen to a speaker to declare it offensive to their tastes? I think everyone but you understood my question about frequency response. Though I will not promote the quality of most mass market receivers, I find it a bit difficult to believe any amplifier in good working order will be producing 50% THD. I also find it difficult to imagine a mass market receiver which operates at 500 watts @ 0.05% THD. Stating the numbers in that fashion indicates at least one channel capable of 500 watts of output. I would like to see a link to any article which supports either of your contentions. I think that there is no such article and the fact you want to discuss Japanese receivers in the context of the Wilson Maxx is all I need to say here. Stop grasping for straws, PB. Stay on topic or there is no need to continue. I'm not going to discuss how Bush's foreign policy makes us weaker when the Arorrio rice fields in the Po Valley didn't get enough rain fall this year. If you are so well conversant with distortion specs, you should know that the distortion from most woofers operating below 100Hz can easily reach 10% THD and will often go higher than that figure. Once again I'm surprised at your lack of knowledge or your desire to put one passed me. If you consider that amount of distortion product to be less of a problem that the phase shift introduced by an even order Xo, you need to go back to reading the rant and rant some more internet sites. Get real, PB, anything more than a first order Xo is not evil and the world will not come to an end if a driver has its polarity reversed in relation to the input polarity. There are larger issues in audio than first order Xo's. Finally, we seem to have drifted far afield of a review of a review of a speaker you do not like. Where is this headed? I really don't see the point of what you post. You appear smart enough to know something about audio other than you don't like high order Xo's. We all get the picture that you have specific likes and dislikes. We all have the same ability to decide what we like and do not like; but we don't keep beating everyone over the head with them. Most of us make our decisions based on hearing a product and not just looking at a piece of paper. Move on! You posted a review of a review; not a review of a product. That is something that, in my opinion, is stupid to write and I'm not so sure isn't more stupid to take seriously enough to draw to our attention. Did you think it would sway someone on this forum from buying the Wilson's? What was your purpose if not to revive the first order rant? |
|
Anonymous | shall it be brought up that Wilson Audio speakers ARE in fact used as studio monitors. Paul seems to forget this fact! WATT-Puppy combos are used in Skywalker studios (ever heard of it?) and Pixar Studios, as well as some sony and epic music studios. Here is a list of movies that have been mastered on Wilson Audio speakers: 2005 Lilo & Stitch 2, Star Wars Episode III, The Pacifier, The Interloper 2004 Robots, Chicken Little, Pooh's Heffalumps Movie, Christmas with the Kranks,Princess Diaries 2, Collateral, The Village, The Terminal, Mr. 3000, We Don't Live Here Anymore, Whole 10 Yards, Harry Potter 3, Forbidden Warrior, Passion of the Christ 2003 Paycheck, Peter Pan, Raising Helen, Elf, Gigli, Hidalgo, Bruce Almighty, Mystic River, Destino, Dreamcatchers, Holes 2002 Star Wars Episode II, Minority Report, Scorpion King, Treasure Planet, Signs, Tuxedo, Catch Me If You Can, Jungle Book II, Jeepers Creepers II, Holes 2001 Dragonfly, The Palace Thief, Snow Dogs, Princess Diaries, Cats & Dogs, A.I., Heartbreakers, Jeepers Creepers 2000 Unbreakable, Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis, The Replacements, The Patriot, Remember The Titans, Vertical Limit 1999 Star Wars Episode 1, Toy Story 2, Sleepy Hollow, The Runaway Bride, Inspector Gadget, The Sixth Sense, Toy Story 2 1998 6 Days 7 Nights, A Civil Action, A Perfect Murder, A Simple Plan, Dance With Me, Godzilla, Instinct, Paulie the Parrot, Psycho Saving Private Ryan, Snow Falling On Cedars, Soldier, Stepmom, The Avengers, Virus 1997 Titanic, Men In Black, Lost World, Liar Liar, Seven Years In Tibet, Amistad, The Devil's Advocate, Flubber 1996 Courage Under Fire, Devil's Own, Flipper, Extreme Measures, Jillean, Mars Attacks, Metro, Mission Impossible, Mother Night, One Fine Day, Ransom, Sleepers, Space Jam, Toy Story, Trigger Effect, Twister, Warrior of Waverly St., Wild America 1995 Amelia, Apollo 13, Balto, Braveheart, Casper, Cry, The Beloved Country, Dolores Claiborne, Eye for an Eye, Jade, Jumanji, Mulholland Falls, Nixon, Outbreak, Pie in the Sky, Primal Fear, Sabrina, Spitfire, Grill, The Juror, Things to do in Denver, To Die For, Waterworld 1994 Clear And Present Danger, The River Wild, Legends of the Fall, Wyatt Earp, Just Cause, Little Women, The Specialist, City Slickers II, Junior, Terminal Velocity, Braveheart 1993 Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, Indecent Proposal, Dave, Nightmare Before Christmas, The Man Without a Face 1992 Patriot Games, Batman Returns, Far and Away, Home Alone II, Alive, Dracula, Unlawful Entry, Sneakers, Captain Ron, Falling Down 1991 Hook, Cape Fear, Prince of Tides, Dying Young, Rocketeer, Only the Lonely, Kindergarten Cop 1990 Dances with Wolves, Ghost, Pretty Woman, Dick Tracy, Edward Scissorhands, Awakenings, 48 Hours II, Flatliners, Jacob's Ladder 1989 Always, American Tale, Batman, Dad, Field of Dreams, Glory, Honey,I Shrunk the Kids, In Country, Mountains of the Moon, Night Breed, Parenthood, Prancer 1988 Cocoon II, Everybody's All American, Land Before Time, Red Hot, Willow, Winter People, Young Guns FYI: Don't tell me that the Titanic soundtrack doesnt sound outstanding. It was mastered on a WATT-Puppy system |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1124 Registered: Jun-05 | Hell a whole lot of those movies sounded outstanding and were blockbuster hits.Well I guess case closed,I dont see any of Green Mountains speakers doing any of these movies. |
|
Silver Member Username: GavincummPost Number: 274 Registered: Feb-05 | Tawaun!!! I should call Ripley's Beleive it or not!!! We actually agreed on this!!! LMAO |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 199 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan, I am talking phase SHIFT. Not much you or I can do about the recording process, other than buy recordings that sound good and avoid ones that don't. In your previous post you questioned how two drivers could create more splash off side walls than one driver does. Two drivers change the dispersion pattern drastically when operating in the same bandwith. It's like dropping a pebble into a pond. Perfect waves come out of that, right? Drop a second pebble into that pond an inch apart....now what happens? Yes, the negative feedback loop will add a very slight amount of phase shift. Most decent amp's have less than 20db of negative feedback though, hardly anything remotely close to the phase shift you get with the Wilson speakers. What your trying to push here is the idea that, if your cdp or pre-amp or phono cartridge has a very slight amount of phase shift, why worry about phase shift at the end of the chain. Thats what I got out of your post anyway. I don't agree with that logic. I want a speaker that is faithfull to the input. Apparently I am in the minority there. How odd???? "Those studios that do make an effort to maintain absolute phase still recognize that each piece of electronics, and most especially those components which utilize negative feedback, will have some phase shift at their outputs" Jan, a high order crossover speaker will have magnitudes more phase shift than any negative feedback loop would add. "And, you really don't mean to indicate you feel a first order Xo has 0° phase shift even after the signal has passed through an inductor or a capacitor; do you?" Of course I do. A first-order crossover has a CONSTANT PHASE DIFFERENCE at every frequency above, at, and below the crossver point. That means there is Zero change in phase between them, so the signals out of the high- and low-pass sections are "in Phase", always, on every frequency. Seems your the one dragging the first order crossover arguments out again. I merely posted one persons opinion of Wilson speakers. I do happen to agree with it, but nowhere in my post did I mention first order crossovers. You and Tawaun did that. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6394 Registered: May-04 | Sorry, PB, You are wrong. Go back and read my comments up to your post at Friday, October 28, 2005 - 04:54 pm. I never mentioned first order Xo's until you did. You seemed to make it the point of why you posted the article. The term "crossover" doesn't appear in any thread until you make the first reference specifically to first order Xo's. While you're there reading what each of us posted, look at my very first sentence in this thread. You led us to a review of a review. That you and the author seem willing to decry a speaker based on what you see on paper is a bit too much for me. Since you've not said you have listened to the Maxx (or any Wilson for that matter), I can only assume you have not. I have to agree with Tawaun on this one. Throwing a holy fit over a product you've not heard and that you are willing to judge by a piece of paper that you didn't create is the most ridiculous thing I've come across in quite awhile. As I said I am not defending the Wilson product, but you obviously started this thread not to draw attention to a review (because there is none to be had here); I think you started the thread to rub a bad write up of Wilson speakers in someone's face. Who, I don't know. But that would appear to be your intent. You don't like the speaker line and, like even order Xo's, you have a problem with anyone who disagrees. There seems to be no other explanation for this thread other than what I just stated or that you once again wanted to start on first order Xo's. PB, what causes the phase shift in a high order Xo? I believe we can agree it is the signal passing through inductors and capacitors; can't we? And a first order Xo probably has at least one each inductor and capacitor the signal will pass through. How then can any passive Xo not have some degree of phase shift? Whether we have the problem developing at the front or the back of the system, there is phase shift in every system. If you are so obssessed with eliminating phase shift at the speakers, why are you not interested in a full range design with no Xo? If it is because you will trade one problem for another, then what is your point? I don't need an explanation that devolves into how good the drivers are and how full range has this or that problem. If you want to eliminate phase shift in a speaker, you have to use a full range design without a passive Xo. Or, better yet, why are you not jumping up and down over active Xo's? I have to ask again; where is this going? Neither of us will change the mind of the other. And we've been down this road before. Personally, I'm getting very tired of discussing first order Xo's. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6396 Registered: May-04 | http://sound.westhost.com/project09.htm "The (24dB/octave) Linkwitz-Riley filter featured here has (almost) perfect phase-coherency, with no peaks or dips at the crossover frequency." http://sound.westhost.com/project78.htm "Using a 4th order filter (assuming it to be a cascade of two 2nd order butterworth types) in place of the ones shown will not have the phase-reversal at x'over problem ... " http://sound.westhost.com/patd.htm "The problem with real loudspeakers is that they refuse to act like nice, well behaved resistors, and the impedance changes from being resistive, inductive and capacitive, depending on the frequency." "Although it may seem impossible (or at least highly unlikely), the voltage and current into anything other than a resistive load will not be in phase. Capacitive loads have a 'leading' phase, where the current waveform occurs first, followed by the voltage. Inductive loads have a 'lagging' phase shift, meaning that the current lags (is behind) the voltage." "In all cases, a passive crossover network will also present additional phase shift." http://sound.westhost.com/pcmm.htm "First order (6dB/octave) crossovers are likely to benefit the least, because the time delay created by a phase shift is too narrow, and is completely incapable of creating an offset that is broad enough to be useful." http://sound.westhost.com/ptd.htm "In short, time alignment is a good goal, but does not necessarily guarantee that the sound will be any better than a "conventional" flat baffle, with the phase of the drivers appropriately switched to ensure that the signal is in phase at the crossover frequency. It must be understood that with any flat baffle, an octave each side of the crossover frequency will see the phase out of alignment again, so it is essential that a high order crossover is used to prevent unwanted cancellations and reinforcements at different frequencies.' "With a flat baffle and a "time displacement", above or below the crossover frequency the signals are in and out of phase - the exact amount can be calculated, and this can be very important in the greater scheme of things." "Analysis of a 6 dB/ octave crossover shows that the high and low pass signals are in fact 90° out of phase at all frequencies ("Yes but ... isn't the 1st order crossover supposed to be phase coherent?"). Yes and no. It is phase coherent in that all signals at all frequencies are 90° out of phase. I know that you have seen web sites that say that there is no phase shift through a 1st order crossover, but this is simply untrue! At crossover, the high pass section is leading - the signal appears to emerge from the filter 45° before the input, not possible it would seem. This sort of behaviour is standard with all filters with a "steady state" signal - you don't have to really understand it, so I suggest that you just live with it.' "The low pass filter has a lagging response, so the signal emerges 45° after the input. This is easier to comprehend, but may still seem a little strange (which I suppose it is for a filter that many claim has no delays)." A cowboy rode into town and stopped at a saloon for a drink. Unfortunately, the locals always had a habit of picking on strangers. When he finished his drink, he found his horse had been stolen. He goes back into the bar, handily flips his gun into the air, catches it above his head without even looking and fires a shot into the ceiling. "WHICH ONE OF YOU SIDEWINDERS STOLE MY HOSS?" he yelled with surprising forcefulness. No one answered. "ALRIGHT, I'M GONNA HAVE ANOTHER BEER, AND IF MY HOSS AIN'T BACK OUTSIDE BY THE TIME I FINISH, I'M GONNA DO WHAT I DONE IN TEXAS! AND I DON'T LIKE TO HAVE TO DO WHAT I DONE IN TEXAS!" Some of the locals shifted restlessly. He had another beer, walked outside, and his horse is back! He saddles-up and starts to ride out of town. The bartender wanders out of the bar and asks, "Say partner, before you go... what happened in Texas?" The cowboy turned back and said, "I had to walk home." |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 203 Registered: Apr-05 | "PB, what causes the phase shift in a high order Xo? I believe we can agree it is the signal passing through inductors and capacitors; can't we" No, Jan it's the slope of the filters used. I'll answer your other questions as time permits. It's like the original cdp's with the brick wall 22.05khz filters. remember what THOSE sounded like compared to the over-sampled models? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2118 Registered: Feb-05 | I've heard MANY flagship speakers from MANY manufacturers and the the Wilson Maxx 2 (which is not their flagship) is the best sounding speaker I have heard, PERIOD. |
|
Silver Member Username: GavincummPost Number: 290 Registered: Feb-05 | Art, I know you arent a planar person, but have you ever heard the MartinLogan Statement E2? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2119 Registered: Feb-05 | I'm not fond of Martin Logan speakers. BTW ML's are electtostats, Maggies are planar speakers. I actually like Maggies especially the 3.6 I just don't feel that they are as accurate as some others on the Market. Martin Logan's are a good enough speaker but something seems to be missing and I am at a loss to explain what. My second favorite speaker to date is the Vandersteen Model 5A. I also like the Dali Megaline. Lots of great speakers that I can't afford..lol. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6406 Registered: May-04 | PB - What determines the slope? It is the signal passing through inductors and capacitors and the fact that, as Elloitt's articles state, speakers are not willing to behave as a purely resistive load. Any inductor and any capacitor will alter the phase of the signal from input to output. That seems to be the problem with your understanding of what happens in a -6dB Xo. Either you are looking at the problem as it exists only on a piece of paper - nah! that couldn't be your problem, eh, PB? Or you are simply reading the product brochures which want to to believe the product with the glossy pictures is the best thing since sliced bread. I believe brick wall filters are an excellent example of my argument for all sources having phase shift. In some cases, some very dramtatic phase shift. But oversampling as a remedy is not the same as a brick wall filter in a CD player. Where over sampling tries to fool the player into thinking it has response beyond 20kHz, we can't do that with a Xo. With a 8X filter on a CD player, the aim is to minimize aliasing artifacts within the audible bandwidth. There are no aliasing artifacts in a Xo, so the analogy is not equivalent. However, the very idea you accept filters as a source of phase shift, should indicate you can see the common sense of any filter producing phase shift. 8X oversampling filters and upsampling have not eliminated phase shift in digital players. The desired effect has been to move the problems further away from the audible bandwidth. We can't do that with a Xo. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6407 Registered: May-04 | I know you've jumped up and down about this before; but why are you so obssessed with Xo's? Are they really the biggest problem you see in audio? Also, I think you've mentioned it before and I missed it. What speakers do you own? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6411 Registered: May-04 | And - Since you want to carry on this discussion, let's consider another area where you have made a mistake. From: Paul Bayless Posted on Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 09:24 pm: "In your previous post you questioned how two drivers could create more splash off side walls than one driver does. Two drivers change the dispersion pattern drastically when operating in the same bandwith. It's like dropping a pebble into a pond. Perfect waves come out of that, right? Drop a second pebble into that pond an inch apart....now what happens?" You have the issue partially correct, PB. But you have literally turned the concept on its ear. What you want us to do is look vertically down from above at two pebbles dropped into a bucket of water and consider the resultant waves across the horizontal surface of the water to be a representation of what we would see if we looked across the horizontal surface of the water. This is preferable because it is the moment of impact that seems to be of interest to the author in his statement. The two perspectives of viewing the horizontal action vs. the vertical result are not the same. To see the effect you want to observe we would have to move two pebbles horizontally in the bucket and observe how they strike the side of the bucket. In which case, assuming they were the same size pebbles, traveling at the same speed over the same distance, they would bounce off the side of the bucket at the same time and reflect at the same speed over the same distance back away from the surface. How about we try this idea instead. Take two spheres representing the surface of the drivers (We'll make the drivers omnidirectional for this example, since the effect is the same once we dissect the sphere's surface in order for us to understand the path the signal will take.) Instead of looking at the entire surface of the spheres and radiation patterns traveling along multiple paths, let's dissect each sphere until we end up with a small spot on both spheres from which the signal will radiate. The departure point from each sphere will be equidistant horizontally along a path of travel to the reflecting surface. Leaving the surface of the spheres, a similar signal is now traveling horizontally at the same speed from both spheres along a straight line toward a shared reflecting surface an equal distance from each departure point. The signal from both spheres will strike the reflecting surface at the same time. We can continue to divide the sphere into segments across its surface and assuming the distance is always an equal distance horizontally from the reflecting surface the two signals will always strike the surface at the same time. To use your idea of ripples in a bucket of water, you have to imagine the bucket of water standing on its side. Let's turn the bucket right side up so the water stays in the bucket and try again. Let's turn our view to the side and see what happens at the surface of the water (representing the wall) with the pebbles representing the signals traveling from the spots of radiation. Place the two pebbles an equal distance from the the surface of the water and drop both pebbles at the same time. What happens? Both pebbles travel the same distance at the same speed and strike the water surface at the same time. This is the effect we want to concern ourself with. As long as the same size sine wave (pebble) travels at an identical speed along the same path and an equal distance to the surface, the two signals will strike the surface at the same time. Now compare what we've just "witnessed" to what the author of the article wrote. "Two drivers will "splash" more time smeared information off the side walls at the expense of definition. The spectrum of the reflected wave from two drivers will be substantially different from the direct wave." I still don't understand how two drivers placed equidistant from the surface of the wall "splash more information" off the surface of the wall than one driver. "Time smeared"? I think we're stretching a disagreement to make a statement that is overly broad. Taking a single driver and considering each point of radiation represents a longer distance to the reflecting surface than another point, any single driver "splashes time smeared" information against the side wall. And, in general, we can understand that the "spectrum" of the signal leaving the surface will be different than the direct wave whether there are one, two or a dozen drivers. None of this accounts for the discrepancy of the author complaining about the dispersion of the two drivers when he has earlier stated the two drivers are incapable of adequate dispersion characteristics. In the case of the Maxx, we also have to consider the baffle on which both drivers sit is angled against the other. This is going to be beyond my capability to fully understand what happens with two signals but doesn't seem in anyway to be a rationale for the author no matter what the implications are. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6412 Registered: May-04 | Now, I thought you might accept the articles I supplied earlier; but you seem stuck in your ideas so ... Understand that a Xo is an analog EQ filter when we discuss passive Xo's in loudspeakers. http://www.ethanwiner.com/EQPhase.html "In the beginning all equalizers were analog electronic circuits using capacitors and inductors. These components shift the phase of AC signals passing through them. If you combine a signal with a phase shifted version of itself (after passing through the capacitor or inductor), the frequency response is altered. As one cycle of the wave is rising, the shifted version is falling, or perhaps it hasn't yet risen as high. So when the two are combined they partially cancel at some frequencies only thus creating a non-flat frequency response. Therefore analog equalizers work by intentionally shifting phase, and then combining the original signal with the shifted version. In fact, without phase shift they would not work at all! "With an analog EQ the delays (phase shift) are created with capacitors and inductors. In a digital EQ the delays are created with a tapped shift register. But the key point is that all EQ shifts phase, unless it uses special trickery." "Some people claim they can hear phase shift in equalizers because when they boost the treble they hear a "phasey" sound. So they wrongly assume what they hear is the damaging phase shift everyone talks about. In truth, what they are hearing is comb filtering that was already present, but subdued. When a microphone is near a room boundary like a wall or ceiling, or when placed near the open lid of a grand piano, the delay between the direct and reflected sound creates a comb filter acoustically in the air. When the treble is boosted by EQ the comb filtering becomes more apparent. But the EQ did not add the phasey sound, it merely brought it out." "The same thing can happen when mixing tracks recorded with multiple microphones in a room. For example, a mike near the snare drum picks up the snare sound as well as sound from the nearby kick drum. So when the snare and kick mikes are mixed it's possible for the low end to be reduced - or boosted - because of acoustic interference caused by the arrival time difference between mikes. So while phase shift is indeed the cause of the response change, it's the response change that you hear, not the phase shift itself." [Added April 11, 2004]: For even more compelling proof that phase shift alone is inaudible, see this gem I recently discovered: Some Experiments With Time" http://www.ethanwiner.com/phase.html "Three experiments were performed which confirm the audibility of time offset in loudspeaker drivers but indicate that this audibility is due only to the frequency response aberrations resulting from the time offset. Implications of these results are discussed." "Other than the obvious implication of the Haas effect for extreme settings, no one spoke of sensing "time smear" or any quality except the swooshing which could be considered to be either a time or frequency response effect. Since a time offset would obviously cause comb filtering over a wide range due to the 6 dB / octave crossover, I was curious to know if it was time or frequency response that was responsible for the listeners' ability to align the speakers in the experiment." Please pay attention to the concept of "comb filtering" when using a -6dB filter. "In summary, frequency response effects alone could account for the remarkable ability to match acoustic centers." "We can see with equal ease the energy-time response or the energy-frequency response. It would be all too possible to sacrifice first arrival frequency response to get an aligned first arrival time response. From my experiments, if a compromise were necessary, I would make any reasonable sacrifice in timing to get a flat frequency response." http://fourier.eng.hmc.edu/e84/lectures/ch3/node4.html As a resistor introduces no phase shift between the voltage and current, its impedance, same as resistance, is real. Capacitor: The phase shift introduced by a capacitor, i.e., the current leads the voltage by 90°. Inductor: The phase shift introduced by a inductor , i.e., the voltage leads the current by 90]°. One way to remember the phase between the voltage "E" and current "I" associated with capacitor "C" and inductor "L" is ``ELI the ICE man'' What more do you want me to say? Inductors and capacitors, no matter how many the signal passes through, cause phase shift. We either accept none or some. If we accept some, then your argument seems to be invalid. |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 204 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan, I think you need to do some reading on loudspeaker filter theory, vector math, time and phase in loudspeakers, time domain pysics and speaker design properties for a better understanding. Much of what we know about speakers has come from the high order community. There is no school for designers. For the most part it's trial and error. Very few designers have degrees in physics, most are E.E.'s. Computer programs can aid getting a designer closer as can mlssa data, but there is no substitute for good old hard work, listening and knowledge. Step response should be included in all speaker brochures, but almost no one so much as mentions it. Wonder why? As in most area's of our society, the majority rules. Higher order speakers are easier to build. They can use cheaper drivers. They don't need to learn time domain math. People ask why there are so few 1st order speakers. There's your answer. Does this mean the majority is somehow better? I don't see that. Your leaving out cone flex, cone breakup, cabinet resonances, splash off the face of the cabinet, natural phase shift of the drivers, etc from your turn the speaker on it's side reply. Thats not even mentioning what the x-over does. I keep telling you a first order crossover has a constant phase difference, which stays the same over the entire bandwith. It doesn't shift the phase, there is a constant 90 degrees of phase difference. Again, you have one vector at +45 degree's and the other vector ar -45 degrees. They therefore cancel each other out, the only crossover that does that, by the way. They sum to unity zero. A piece of wire basically. The capacitor and inductor do degrade the signal somewhat, but do so by hampering low level signals from passing thru, not by adding massive phase shifts, yet another reason not to buy higher order filters as they utilize more caps and more inductors. Companies like Von Schweikart, Wilson and Merlin thrive becasue most of the audio community has never heard a truly low distortion, well damped speaker system. They do a good job of smoothing out the frequency abberations caused by 4th order crossovers. People are shocked by how good they sound. Until they hear a time and phase coherant design with those same properties. When you lower the distortions in a speaker, your able to hear the differences wires make more clearly. When you minimize the phase shift in that speaker, those differences become very apparent. The same thing applies to the music your listening to. Jan, perhaps you should send an e-mail to a company that does a good first order speaker like Hamonic Precision, GMA or Audio Machina and let them explain it to you better. These are all customer friendly companies that enjoy their work, and eagerly answer questions as time permits. Art Kyle, if you liked the Wilson's good for you. It's ok to like them. But to say they are accurate is a stretch. |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 205 Registered: Apr-05 | Art Kyle, Go to the Scan Speak web site and look at the parameter data on the woofer Wilson uses as a mid. Then ask yourself what would it take to smooth this driver out so it could be used as a mid. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2123 Registered: Feb-05 | Paul, I couldn't care less what the Scan Speak web site says. My ears say that the Maxx 2's are an unbelievable speaker. I listen to what my ears tell me. Sorry, tech talk doesn't interest me listening to music on great playback systems...now that interests me. "Art Kyle, if you liked the Wilson's good for you. It's ok to like them. But to say they are accurate is a stretch." How do you know? What is your reference? I see that you can talk tech but I don't see you talking about music. Where does music fit into your world. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6415 Registered: May-04 | Paul, how can you accuse me of not understanding "loudspeaker filter theory, vector math, time and phase in loudspeakers, time domain pysics and speaker design properties" when you want me to look at pebbles dropped in a bucket of water from the wrong perspective while observing the wrong action? And then you want me to draw an inaccurate conclusion from the experiment based on that skewed perspective. Tell me, PB, where did you learn "loudspeaker filter theory, vector math, time and phase in loudspeakers, time domain pysics and speaker design properties" and why you aren't designing speakers if you have all this under your belt. I do think for what we are discussing my example trumps yours. You have not proven it wrong just by telling me I should know more. Show me something that proves me wrong and I'll concede. Tell me I need to know more and I'll concede that fact, but not my example in this case. Honestly, if you think I should know these things, give them to me. I've supplied you with articles and quotations to support my contention. All you've done is tell me I don't understand and you do. Come on, PB, either prove me wrong or stop trying to go around the back door to get in. First order Xo's have 90° of phase shift. "Much of what we know about speakers has come from the high order community." Really?! And that's because -6db Xo's weren't around? Weren't used due to their inherent problems? The math is the math, PB. We may understand it more fully today, but the math has not changed. Actually, it's remarkable what those fellows at Bell Labs understood back in the 1930's. "Step response should be included in all speaker brochures, but almost no one so much as mentions it." PB, I know you know superior step response is considered the reason for using a -12dB Xo instead of a -6dB design. I agree with you that the information would be nice to have but this doesn't prove your contention. There are plenty of "schools" for speaker designers. Check the Winter schedule at MIT. I have no concept of what you want a speaker designer to know if you think they can't learn the theory somewhere. There is, of course, listening and tweaking that goes into any design, but, PB, the theory is there. Even more so today than ever before. (Read the speaker designers' forum in the current Absolute Sound.) An inductor works as an inductor has always worked. New filters are designed but Ohm's Law is still kicking. And what is this stuff about degrees in physics? True, many designers are EE's and some have other degrees and some have no degress but understand what they want and how to get there. If they all had degrees in physics, I'm certain you would complain about no one having a degree in electrical engineering. Now you've got me trying to imagine what a degree in physics will teach someone about -6dB Xo's and Ohm's Law that a degree as an EE wouldn't. Please don't tell me you will only listen to speakers designed by physics majors! " Higher order speakers are easier to build. They can use cheaper drivers. They don't need to learn time domain math." PB!!! Come on, man! Now everyone but your accepted group of designers are a bunch of dummies?! And they all use cheap drivers?! Amazing! Truly amazing!!! And the Xo with the higher number of parts and therefore more chances for error is the easier to build?! And are four way speakers easier to build than two ways? "Your leaving out cone flex, cone breakup, cabinet resonances, splash off the face of the cabinet, natural phase shift of the drivers, etc from your turn the speaker on it's side reply. Thats not even mentioning what the x-over does." Yes, and so did you when you brought up the example of the two pebbles! Leaving all that out was OK for you but not for me. Is that it? Why don't we agree it can be left out because it has nothing to do with the basic argument. (I mean, "What the crossover does?! To two drivers wired in parallel?! What sort of stretch are we going for with that?) The items you now want me to include will change with each driver, each Xo and each cabinet. There is no way to for me to now make a sweeping, aggregate conclusion about any one or all of the "conditions" you now want me to include when the author of the "review of the review" is making the generalized statement, "Two drivers will "splash" more time smeared information off the side walls at the expense of definition." If the author's statement involves the issues of "cone flex, cone breakup, cabinet resonances, splash off the face of the cabinet, natural phase shift of the drivers, etc.", please link me to the article which explains how the author made that grand generalization. Until then, PB, you are trying to feed me more BS - again. Remember my question about affording room treatment at the first reflection point? That is what we were discussing; isn't it? "They don't need to learn time domain math. People ask why there are so few 1st order speakers. There's your answer." Once again, come on!!! A -6db Xo is the simplest there can be short of no Xo. How in the world can you say the time domain math is too complicated for what you concede are at least EE's? Really, is there no limit to the exageration you will employ? "I keep telling you a first order crossover has a constant phase difference, which stays the same over the entire bandwith. It doesn't shift the phase, there is a constant 90 degrees of phase difference. Again, you have one vector at +45 degree's and the other vector ar -45 degrees." But, PB, the phase shift from the capacitor in the HP and the inductor in the LP are not affecting the same driver. One leg is leading and the other leg is lagging. That does cancel out some things; but not what you want it to. Once again your idea of how the filters work is based on what happens on a piece of paper with a purely resistive load. As Elliott said, speakers have a nasty habit of not remaining "resistive loads" as we would like them to. And that does not address the comb filter effect of two drivers operating in the same bandwidth at polar opposites concerning vectors of phase shift. Nor does it address the increased IM distortion as the drivers approach their frequency limits. As I said, we either accept no phase shift/"difference" or we accept some. If we accept some, your argument for -6db Xo's is invalid. http://www.unf.edu/coas/chemphys/phys/physics2/lab/manual/lab8-0508.pdf#search='phase%20difference%20inductors' I can only assume when you see a comment such as, "The (24dB/octave) Linkwitz-Riley filter featured here has (almost) perfect phase-coherency, with no peaks or dips at the crossover frequency", or, "Using a 4th order filter (assuming it to be a cascade of two 2nd order butterworth types) in place of the ones shown will not have the phase-reversal at x'over problem ... ", you do not believe what has been stated. You do not accept that the problem of phase shift/difference can be worked around. You've never heard of an all pass filter to bring the phase back to 0\ch[deg}. You do not care that phase shift is likely occur in the natural function of the driver when used with -6dB Xo's. \i}"Companies like Von Schweikart, Wilson and Merlin thrive becasue most of the audio community has never heard a truly low distortion, well damped speaker system. They do a good job of smoothing out the frequency abberations caused by 4th order crossovers. People are shocked by how good they sound."} Sorry, it's my lack of knowledge concerning "loudspeaker filter theory, vector math, time and phase in loudspeakers, time domain pysics and speaker design properties" that is keeping me from understanding what "frequency abberations" you are referring to in a -24dB Xo. Please give me a link or something which explains or displays this "abberation". Additionally, I'm at a loss as to what the problem actually is if these speakers sound good. Is that not the point? Help me out here, PB. Your desire for "accuracy" above all else is lost in every other aspect of the system where THD, IM, TIM or phase shift do occur. I see this once again as an either none or some situation. You really think "most" of the audio community has never heard a first order XO? Is this like you think that 500 watt receiver is producing 50% THD? " They do a good job of smoothing out the frequency abberations caused by 4th order crossovers. People are shocked by how good they sound. Until they hear a time and phase coherant design with those same properties." What "properties'? That the speaker sounds good? I'll take a good sounding speaker over a bad sounding speaker every time. It's just that people have such a difficult time agreeing what is a good sounding loudspeaker. Except for you, of course. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6416 Registered: May-04 | I know you've jumped up and down about this before; but why are you so obssessed with Xo's? Are they really the biggest problem you see in audio? Also, I think you've mentioned it before and I missed it. What speakers do you own? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6417 Registered: May-04 | Art - Didn't you read the post? It's OK to like the Wilsons. Yeah, really it is. You have PB's permission. That should be a comfort to you. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6418 Registered: May-04 | http://www.vonschweikert.com/about.html "FIRST ORDER VERSUS FOURTH ORDER NETWORKS" \b}"Experiments validated the concept of consistent (not the same as coherent) phase vs. frequency linearity in a 180-degree arc around the speaker system, and appeared to work far better than phase coherency limited to the axial tweeter response. As is commonly known, first order crossovers have severe problems with driver overlap, which lead to an effect called lobbing. This problem is related to the fact that the drivers can sum perfectly only on one very narrow axis, since the path length from the drivers to all other axes cannot sum to unity, in either frequency, phase, or transient response! This not-surprising effect is due to the mathematics governing wave transmission and is easily verified by simple experiments or "doing the math."} "Thus the measured polar vertical off-axis response, for instance +/- 180 degrees, of speakers using first order crossovers will typically exhibit amplitude dips and peaks of up to 18dB caused by the lobbing effects caused by uneven path lengths and will have severe phase distortion as well. The ear/brain hearing mechanism can easily hear this effect, due to reflected response from the room boundaries even though the listener may be seated on the perfect axis. Not amazingly, the ear is far more critical than any type of test equipment yet devised, so these effects cannot be ignored on a psychoacoustic level, especially in a normally reverberant living rooms where the off-axis response dominates the perceived frequency and phase response." |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2127 Registered: Feb-05 | Thanks Jan I feel better now...lol! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6419 Registered: May-04 | "In most cases a single inductor in series with a woofer will not be able to attenuate the response much more that 10 dB total over the operating range of the driver and does nothing more than merely shape the response." "With other higher order crossovers the use of a Zobel will not move the crossover point like it does with a first order, but instead it will effect the crossover's Q, or response at the knee, and reduce the ripple that will be created by the voice coil's rising impedance." Even order electrical circuits offer excellent impedance damping at resonance as long as the shunt inductors used are fairly small. "Let's take a look at the worst possible combination: A first order crossover (single capacitor in series with the tweeter) and a non-ferrofluid, non-cavity tweeter. When the capacitor "sees" the high impedance peak it will not be able to attenuate the signal as much at this frequency as it does at other frequencies. The result will be a peak in the response as it rolls off centered at the tweeter's resonance frequency. If the impedance at resonance has a very high magnitude, say more than double the operating impedance of the tweeter, then the peak at resonance may be high enough that there is actually little or no attenuation of the signal at the tweeter's resonance. This is a recipe for distortion in the tweeter, and since the tweeter may receive almost full power at resonance it could spell an early death for the tweeter as well." PB - I have decided to discontinue this conversation as long as you maintain a first order -6db Xo is the only way to design an "accurate" loudspeaker. You've managed to draw the discussion back to that single point. Again! I've given what in my opinion are more than enough rationales to discount your contention,which you have met not with facts but with the suggestion I require more knowledge to come to understand the situation as you have. Obfuscation and exageration have become your friend in this debate. I really don't care whether your opinion has been moved one millimeter since I can safely assume it will never be moved at all. You can believe what you believe and I can own and like whatever I prefer. I'm quite weary of talking about Xo's with someone who sees only their opinion with blinders on. My only request is what I believe everyone on the forum would ask of you. Shut up! You have made your position quite clear and there really is no need to mention it again. If someone likes a speaker such as the Wilson Maxx and you disagree with the value of the product, I think everyone would agree it is in very bad taste for you to point out the speaker's shortcomings in your opinion just for the purpose of pointing out what you disagree with. As I said, the only reason I can see for your posting this thread is to either feel superior in some small way to someone on the forum or to begin your rant about Xo's once again. In the end, I believe you were hoping to achieve both effects. PB, join the forum in a discussion of things other than -6db XO's. No one else is interested and I'm done discussing them. |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 206 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan, my last post said "much of what we know about speakers comes from high order companies" What do you do? Post comments from Von Schweikart, a 4th(or high) order manufacturer. Good job. Buy or support high order speakers if you wish. it IS, after all, YOUR money. Seems odd though that someone as seasoned as yourself wouldn't at very least be moved to LISTEN to a decent 1st order design, but hey, whatever. The whole issue of coherent or non coherent speakers comes down to this: Do you want to reproduce the waveform? Yes or no? if no is your answer, pay me no mind. I will certianly pay YOU no mind. If the answer is yes, and you believe the whole idea of home audio is to reproduce the sound heard by the microphone at the original recording as closely as possible, then there's really not much more to think about. A comment or two about Von Schweikarts remarks ""Let's take a look at the worst possible combination: A first order crossover (single capacitor in series with the tweeter" STOP!!!!!!! NO DESIGNER IN HIS/HER RIGHT MIND WOULD DO A SERIES CROSSOVER, OK? Lobing? Come on, Jan. Off-axis lobing is audible only on selected sine waves. You must realize, of course, that cancellation arguments depend on "relative distance to the drivers is now different when you are standing up". And thus to get a cancellation of a particular sinewave, you must be exactly a half-wavelength farther away/closer to the tweeter compared to the mid. Which is 180 degrees. Which is 4.5" closer/farther at 1.5kHz, and 2.25" at 3kHz, and 1.5" at 4.5kHz. So pick your frequency for cancellation. If you are standing up, remaining motionless at one spot, there is only one distance difference, say 1.5", which would then put a null on sine waves at 4.5kHz, 2.25kHz, and 9kHz. And also create partial nulls beginning within +/- 20% of that primary 4.5kHz frequency (as the distance difference reaches less/more than that 180 degrees). Which means a general dip from 3600Hz to 5400Hz. Which is less than a half octave- a few notes on the piano- only its harmonics go that high. A dip which could be "covered up" (usually is) by tweeter "splash" off a flat cabinet face. Lets be clear about whats happening in the audio chain, Jan beginning with the performer that created the sound that arrives at the diaphram of the mic in the same form as it reaches your ears: as a two dimensional function consisting of pressure and time, where it is transduced into a simple voltage/time function for storage and later reproduction. Both your turntable and cdp do an excellent job of producing the waveform that was pressed into them. It is then amplified....a process that merely increases the magnitude of the voltage in our time/voltage example, after which the signal is sent to real problem: the speakers, where in the vast majority of cases, our time portion of our simple two dimensional signal is badly damaged. Why does this happen? The first aspect is really just an artifact of mounting drivers on a vertical baffle, causing the tweeters output to reach your ears before the woofers output does. The second aspect is the filters used to send low frequencies to woofers and highs to tweeters. They destroy the timing. This is WELL understood and descends from the basic laws of physics. Think about the relationship between velocity and acceleration. Any change in velocity causes a very predictable change in acceleration. Accelleration is the dirivative of velocity. Filter circuits are used in speakers to attenuate frequency, either ascending or descending. When this occurs, we change velocity quickly, and when we do this we inescapably cause big timing errors, because they are tied to attenuation and acceleration. Time moves in one direction. We cannot go back in time. Once a timing error occurs, we cannot "fix" it. The problem comes as phase shifts, or the amount of time that changes with wavelength. And because the time/pressure thing naturally swings between compression and rarefaction,phase applied to compression can turn it indside out to rarefaction. So now you have not only a timing thing, but some bits of the waveform are actually inverted with respect to others. Doesn't take a speaker designer to see that a musical signal passed thru this circuit would bear little to no resemblance to the original wave. So, back to my earlier statement: Do you want to reproduce the original waveform? |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 207 Registered: Apr-05 | "I can only assume when you see a comment such as, "The (24dB/octave) Linkwitz-Riley filter featured here has (almost) perfect phase-coherency, with no peaks or dips at the crossover frequency", or, "Using a 4th order filter (assuming it to be a cascade of two 2nd order butterworth types) in place of the ones shown will not have the phase-reversal at x'over problem ... ", you do not believe what has been stated" No, Jan, I believe it. Your just not seeing the big picture. YES the drivers in a 4th order unit are IN PHASE with each other. But they are ONE FULL CYCLE APART! A simple sine wave generator proves this easily. The drivers START at the same time but STOP one full cycle apart. And this is acceptable in your audio world, huh? Not mine. Again, wanna reproduce the original waveform or is it "we really don't give a sh*t" As for your request, shove it! |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 208 Registered: Apr-05 | Art Kyle......."Paul, I couldn't care less what the Scan Speak web site says." Looks like your the perfect Wilson customer then, cause thats certianly the client base they need. David Wilson will be amused, i'm sure. As am I. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2129 Registered: Feb-05 | Seeing you write about anything except what counts is amusing to me. As soon as you send me 40k I'll be the perfect Wilson customer, until then I'll be the perfect Paradigm or ProAc customer. "My only request is what I believe everyone on this forum would ask of you. Shut up!" Please. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Fps_deanPost Number: 15 Registered: Oct-05 | I've never heard Wilson speakers but now I am interested in making sure I do! |
|
Bronze Member Username: Fps_deanPost Number: 16 Registered: Oct-05 | I've never heard Wilson speakers but now I am interested in making sure I do... just to see if they're that bad!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 597 Registered: Dec-03 | "STOP!!!!!!! NO DESIGNER IN HIS/HER RIGHT MIND WOULD DO A SERIES CROSSOVER, OK?" Like Dr. Karl E. Schuemann? |
|
Anonymous | looks like paul needs to go m a s t u r b a t e to go release some tension instead of b i t c h at all of us on the board. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6422 Registered: May-04 | PB - Everything (almost) you have finally posted would seem terrific in a chapter of a textbook. Nowhere else. So we appear to have a dichotomy between this, "There is no school for designers. For the most part it's trial and error", and your last post. Obviously there are some things we can learn and predict. The problem, as you have so predictably stated, is when only the textbook knowledge is applied and the real world situation is ignored. PB, really, the attempt to belittle my choice of Von Schweikart (a 4th order manufacturer) merely on the basis that you disagree with how he makes a very successful speaker line is beneath most people. But, as you say, good job! You've shown once again why your myopia concerning anything outside your prescribed ideas should be dismissed entirely. Read again the words that suggest the example is a "worst" case. An example meant as much for textbooks as anything you have presented to date. Question, PB; is myopia the result of constant obfuscation and exageration or the other way around? Is there a textbook answer for that querry? Regarding just who is not seeing the "big picture, PB; I understand your tunnel vision does limit the ability to see beyond how one wants things to be. Your opinion of source products which do an "excellent" job while 500 watt per channel receivers operating at 50% THD run into problems only when they get to the Xo in the speaker suggests to me someone who needs to get out more. Anyone concerned with cone break up and baffle "splash" while ignoring the many problems of -6dB Xo's is not living in the world of real speakers operating into a real room where the pyschoacoustics of the hearing process are involved. Anyone who rejects all reasonable discussion to the contrary, looks down upon those many poor souls who have not heard a first order design and who doesn't care to discuss the disadvantages of his believes can only be called an egocentric zealout of the first order! I have heard many first order designs, PB. I actually own(ed) several. I find all the speakers I have owned to be interesting designs. I find none of what I have owned nor heard to be the last word in accuracy. And, I have generally found there is no one item which makes a speaker accurate since everything I can think of in audio down to the size of the stylus tip on my excellent turntable is a trade off of good and bad. That is what is so disturbing about your approach to this matter, PB; you see no faults other than in the other person's thinking. PB, if you truly believe, " ... the filters used ... destroy the timing", I would still like to know how you can accept the idea that any filter is acceptable. Full range, no Xo designs are the only choice if we are to carry your argument to the only logical conclusion. PB, surprise me. Give me a discussion of the relative merits of such a design given today's technology which allows the "better" drivers you love so dearly in your -6dB designs. Tell me about a filter that isn't a first order design that you find acceptable in a real world situation and not a textbook. Show me you can step outside of your circumscribed viewpoint and justify something other than a first order design. If you are unable to see the argument from any other side than your own, my time here is done. There is no point in talking to a brick. |
|
Anonymous | Think quick Paul, whats the integral of : e^x^2 Lets see you flex those math muscles of yours. |
|
Anonymous | I can almost guarentee paul has never done calculus. My gf, a chem major, has taken up to calc 3. I myself have taken calc 1. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6426 Registered: May-04 | I'm sorry; once again my lack of book learning is impeding my grasp of why this is important. |
|
Silver Member Username: GavincummPost Number: 300 Registered: Feb-05 | it was two different anon posters would be my guess. No clue what the importance of this would be. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6427 Registered: May-04 | I just don't want this to mean I can only listen to speakers designed by a calculus major. |
|
Silver Member Username: GavincummPost Number: 303 Registered: Feb-05 | I agree! Just because a speaker may measure well does NOT mean that it is a guarentee that it will sound good. |
|
Anonymous | Since Paul claims to have knowledge of time domain physics, vector math, etc, this question should be a piece of cake for him. I would just like to analyze whether Paul actually has knowledge on the subject or whether he is spouting information learned from a brochure. |
|
Silver Member Username: GavincummPost Number: 305 Registered: Feb-05 | I myself have knowledge of vector math... but it was a couple of years ago. I am a little rusty. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 38 Registered: Oct-05 | I am in Calc III right now. Maybe I will start making speakers and call them Bose and everyone will buy them because they were designed by a Calc major who has no idea what the hell he' doing... or has that already been done? And yeah you can make a speaker designed perfectly that is going to suck. Or you can make a speaker that fits in a rubix cube and make it sound decent (limited only by size!). Anonymous - the answer to your question is 2xe^x^2 |
|
Anonymous | fps_dean: nope. Let me clarify that what I am asking is the integral of e to the x squared power. |
|
Anonymous | add dx on the end to be proper too I suppose. |
|
Anonymous | one other thing, if it was designed perfectly, how would it suck? |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 210 Registered: Dec-04 | It would suck if it were designed by a hard of hearing electro-mechanical genius. Like Wile E Coyote, type of thing. Ever read "it worked on paper"? |
|
Anonymous | Then it wouldn't be designed "perfectly" would it? |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 211 Registered: Dec-04 | It would, but would be electrostatically shielded with an iron mass suspended above the listener in the shape of an anvil. Is it perfect now? Suuuuuuper geeeeeenius. |
|
Anonymous | Interesting Nuck. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1142 Registered: Jun-05 | Well Jan,Art now you understand my position with Bayless,hey its just like a marry-go-round round and round in the same way.Many questions Jan and Art have asked Bayless,I have asked him to,but I think the one we wanted to hear,like what speakers do you own Bayless have purposely not been answerd.Why is that?Bayless you supposedly have so much knowlege in speaker building but you cant even tell us what you own.Whats a matter you afraid of critism,because you know you have gotten on everyones nerves on this forum,dont worry Bayless we love speakers if we like them we arent gonna shoot them down because a one tracked minded egomaniac like you ownes them.SO CAN YOU LET US KNOW WHAT YOU OWN A QUIT BEING A COWARD AND AND TELL US!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 216 Registered: Dec-04 | I see an anvil over PB's head on a long string held by WEC |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 209 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan, the question I presented you with was "Do you want to reproduce the original waveform the microphone heard as closely as possible" I get a bunch of gibberish about how phase shift is not audable because of some test done with massively phase shifted speakers. Why didn't they do the test with headphones? At least they have little phase shift. I'm going to assume your answer to my question is "No" Jan. And for the record, the 50% thd spec was an error. It should have read 5% thd. Sorry to burst your bubble as you were sooooooo enjoying that misprint. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 264 Registered: Dec-04 | C'mon PB, how the heck would you get an Anvil into headphones? Geez Laweez |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6477 Registered: May-04 | I was enjoying that since it went so well with the other gibberish you had posted. PB, I've asked you several questions that you've totally ignored. Now you want to make an issue of my not saying yes or no to the only question you have?! Geez Laweez!!! Once again, I think everyone except you knows what my answer is. What is your problem, PB, that you can only find fault in others? What is your problem that I have to repeat my questions into infinity and all I get back from you is gobbledygook? PB, it started off that you were just a repetitve pain in the butt. Now you've truly become a repetitve pain in the butt who feels themself superior to everyone else who doesn't share the same evangelic furvor regarding one small issue in audio. Where I come from, that makes you a kook! You're the smelly guy at the end of the bar who keeps muttering to himself. You are the person who writes into the newspaper about the voices he hears in his teeth! Please read this post again; Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 10:17 am. That is my reply to any question you have. I have no need to waste my time with you until you can see the issue from another point of view. That doesn't mean I don't see the advantages in what you say. It merely means you refuse to see any alternatives; and I find that bordering on obssession. You began this thread to embarrass someone. Since you've not denied that, I can only assume that is the truth. You've since turned this thread into yet another bantering session about your beloved Xo. That no one can deny. I have no further interest in being part of either adventure. PB, I've asked you to get off the Xo thing on several ocassions. You've ignored the request. I find that inherently rude. I find this thread inherently rude! No one is interested in a "discussion" with a zealot. More importantly no one is interested in you constantly berating their choice in speakers due to the Xo used in their speakers. You don't seem to get that idea. Here it is again in case you missed it. Give it up on the first order Xo! No one is interested. They might have been if you hadn't been such a nutcase about this. But, like all zealots, you've done more damage than benefit. You can either turn this thread into something more productive than your rant about first order designs or we can stop here. You have on very infrequent ocassion given a response that didn't involve Xo's. Get back to that, PB. Otherwise you and I have nothing more to discuss. It's been done and whether or not you post that I am a befuddled fool for not wanting to "reproduce the waveform", you will be talking to yourself. Join the forum on a contributing basis or be left on the sidelines. As far as I'm concerned, unless you change the direction of this thread, there is nothing more to discuss. Join the rest of us, PB; or goodbye. No hard feelings on my part; I'm just not interested in your game. Who will you have to talk to now? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 72 Registered: Jul-05 | Well I tried to read through this thread but couldn't quite make it. I did however read the article. For those interested, Mr Fremer's response is over at audiogon.com( he is one of the reviewers who got slammed). My take on the article about the reviewers review is that it had a very hostile tone but pointed out that technically speaking, the positive reviews of the Wilson's contain very little objective information regarding sound reproduction. And that would appear to be true. Mr Fremers response was that all speakers are colored ( as far as the sound) so that people like different types of sound and he likes the Wilsons just as others like the Vandersteen sound. Also true. My opinion is that a like to read a review that has both objective abd subjective comments. I also firmly believe that advertising dollars affect a written interview not so much that reviewers lie but that important negatives get downplayed while esoteric positives get upplayed. I got no personal beef with Wilson and I'll look forward to hearing them ( again) at CES in January. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1165 Registered: Jun-05 | Im interrested in what kind of speakers Bayless has,I,ve asked you several times.OK I'll start this for you,I have the Epos 12.2,Wharfedale Diamond 8.1&9.5,Jan has the Legendary Rogers,Art has the Paradigm Refference Studio 20s,Frank has the Totem Mani-2s,John A. has the legendary Quads,Eddie and David has the Ascends,Gavin has the Martin Logans and Magnapans,and we know Tim has the Alegria Audios and various other speakers,we even know the real Paul who was never afraid to say what he owned of all speakers he owned Bose and CVs for his technical and personal faults he stood behind what he owned no matter what we said about his gear,right now From the way you are being,having something negative to say about what everyonelse owns or likes Id rather see him on here at least he was honest.So Bayless one more time what speaker do you own?and if you cant give us an answer and have the guts to tell what you have then I declare you and imsure I wont be alone a bag of egotistical bag of hot air,that only quotes what he reads and thinks he better than everyone on this forum,but in no has he proven this yet.And dont take this as a invitation for another fued,because I can have a debate with a rock,so join the forum with the rest of us,we've all had differences,but in general we have all been honest with each other and most os all ourselves. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 267 Registered: Dec-04 | I've tossed in a little(?) levity to lighten up the thread, to little avail, as PB seems immune to both poor humour and direct questioning. Add my PSB's to the list and my agreement as well. When, if ever will you answer a direct simple question, PB? Or when will you go away? Just say when. Please. Or do either. Ranting on questions which put your knowledge, and or experience to a test(at your behest) would seem to be the time to demonstrate your innate knowledge and thorough understanding of all matters technical. Fish or cut bait! I am a moron on audio specific matters, that's why I come here. Free knowledge and a laugh or two. You provide neither. At least I can try to contribute something. Are you the same way in real life? Cliff Claven? |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1169 Registered: Jun-05 | I meant cant fued with a rock,mispelled words,mispelled words,err!But im sure you understand what im saying and what everyone else is saying,so stop ignoring our questions. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6482 Registered: May-04 | If anyone can turn this thread into something interesting, please go ahead. I would much prefer to discuss something other than what speakers from Best Buy should be used with what reciever from Circuit City. I'm just over discussing Xo's at this point. Anyone have anything useful? |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1179 Registered: Jun-05 | Well Jan start it off. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6483 Registered: May-04 | 'Fraid not me. I'm a little "discussed" out at the moment. I guess mostly due to the circumstances that the thread was started in the first place. I don't have a clue how to get this away from being another rant about something. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 268 Registered: Dec-04 | electrostatically shielded tweeter heeter? Same as every night, Pinky. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 269 Registered: Dec-04 | Just let it all go away |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1180 Registered: Jun-05 | Well I'll start a new thread in the next hour or so,and I'll make sure its interresting,because this thread is polluted anyway if we stay on since Bayless started it he will undoubtedly come back and reclaim it with the same merry-go-round bullsh1t he has been ranting since he has been on this forum |
|
Bronze Member Username: PbdrPost Number: 64 Registered: Apr-05 | The thing I notice is this review seems to be in the same tone as most "audiophile" reviews of bose speakers. Very cutting and negative, but not alot of substance. Yes I know that there is evidence backing many of the claims against bose, but you don't see much in most of the lit. This is basically just a bash piece; the kind of tyhing you write when you get a bad hamburger and Mcd's won't own up. I'm sure if the guy asked nicely he could have gotten his money back. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6491 Registered: May-04 | That's probably right, PR. But, as I pointed out, apparently in this case the guy doing the bitchan'moan didn't spend any money. He just watched as another guy ate the Super-Jumbo Fries with a Diet Coke. Then claimed he found a roach in the fries. |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 211 Registered: Apr-05 | What I find interesting about this subject is the fact that only one of the reviewers ripped in the Hardesty article has popped up trying, and failing to defend himself, effusing four letter tyrants that would make rap artists jealous and that no one from Wilson has come forth to do so, except to offer Mr. Hardesty a tour of the plant. Not any of the designers. Not David Wilson. No one period has refutted the statements made by Hardesty as being false. Funny no? No one in the Wilson camp. Why? Because they can't, thats why. Facts are facts. Tawaun, I have no speakers currently. I sold the pair I had a while back and i'm looking to replace them. They were a custom DIY project I had built for me years ago. I told you on another thread it looks like GMA Calisto's will be my new speakers unless I can muster some more cash in the next couple months. My house payment prevents me from purchasing $50K speakers. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1192 Registered: Jun-05 | Hey most peoples bills stop them from buying 50k speakers hell I would love to have some one day.The Caliisto is very impressive for the money and then some,they are not better than any of the Wilsons though.But I know a whole lot of speakers they are better than,thats if you like that upfront sound,I must admit they are one of the most engaging speakers I've ever heard,yeah you'll love them atleast for a while. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6508 Registered: May-04 | Wait a minute! That's what you find most interesting?! Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Oh, Iago! Oh, PB! What do you want Wilson to say regarding a review of a review they were not involved in. The review was not about their speaker. It was about things the folks at Audioperfectionist don't like. Who cares about that?! What should Wilson say? "MY, oh my! You folks have a lot you don't like! Oh, by the way; have you listened to our speakers?" I know what I find most interesting about all this. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6509 Registered: May-04 | PB - I don't think you've ever answered the question regarding whether or not you have listened to the Wilson Maxx and in what setting if you did. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1195 Registered: Jun-05 | One thing I can say is I dont give damn about a review of a review,the Wilson Maxx is one of the best speakers ever made,period bar none.The review of the review,the reviewer is trying to pull the whool over peoples eyes,he would twist off his wrist to have a pair of Maxxs just like anybodyesle would he is nothing more than your typical hyporcrite next door to your house. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6513 Registered: May-04 | I've never heard of this review source. Is there anyone who has read this on a regular basis who knows whether they ever listen to anything? Do they ever take their own measurements? Or do they just criticize what someone else has done? Seriously, I'd like to know. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2171 Registered: Feb-05 | "My house payment prevents me from purchasing $50K speakers" My house payment keeps me from buying $5k speakers but it doesn't stop me from listening to them. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1211 Registered: Jun-05 | So now,we have unveiled that Bayless doesent even own any speakers,well I guess that takes care of him being critical of what anyone owns.Its kind of hard for someone who doesent even own some speakers to have such bad things to say about a $40k speaker,my guess is that Bayless actually wants some Maxxs,hell I do anyone into home audio would,well Bayless you have to crawl before you walk,man your not even crawling.How can live without your music?See where are measurements now,my advice to you is go get you some Epos els 3s and join us and start listening to music its a emotional thing not a numbers thing. |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 212 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan, what do I want Wilson to say? Dude, if your companies $40K speaker just got ripped a new a**hole, and the findings were incorrect, what would YOU DO? NOTHING? HARDLY!!! Reason Wilson has not and cannot do or say anything is because the findings are fact based. I have NOT heard the Wilson Maxx...I HAVE heard the Watt Puppies, version unknown. Not impressed. Tawaun, if you GAVE me a pair of Wilson Maxx, i'd sell them to the highest bidder (Probably yourself or Art Kyle) Who said I'm living w/o music Tawaun? Certianly not me. I have more music in my day to day life than most posters here....by a LONG shot. I'm just in between a permanent pair of speakers for the living room. I have lots to listen to. Monitors... and cans. You act like i'm musically deprived. FAR from it. Got a good chuckle out of that post Tawaun. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2194 Registered: Feb-05 | Thanks Paul, I'm glad you'd keep me in mind. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6552 Registered: May-04 | What I would not expect Wilson to do when their product has been "ripped" by a magazine that apparently did not listen to their speaker and did not take any of their own measurements, is to say anything except, "All publicity is good publicity as long as you spell the name right." Then what I would expect them to do is continue to sell a $40k speaker that has received nothing but good reviews from those people who have listened to the speaker and respond to those reviewers' request for more information regarding measurements. If those requests come. Here's a shocker, PB. Some people actually listen to speakers before they make a comment. Odd behavior, but true none the less. PB, your world view just gets stranger and stranger with every new stance you take. And, really, what's with your current weird obsession with the Wilson's? Do you live your life going from one rant to the next and then just try to tie them all together somehow? If you want to "rip" Wilson, why not write to the magazines that did the reviews? Why go on and on about this on this forum? On second thought, PB, make those last questions just a few more in the series of questions I asked and you've ignored. "I have NOT heard the Wilson Maxx." There really should be nothing left to say. I know that won't stop you though, PB. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 293 Registered: Dec-04 | But wait! Theres more! PB loves the interior space of the new BMW. It has supportive seats and excellent handling, although he's never been in one. Gino's is the BEST anchovi pizza ever, not too salty and just the right cheese, he can't wait to try one. |
|
Anonymous | this thread really has gotten amusing. I can't believe this! I bet PB sits at home every night with his c*ck in the reflex port of his speakers. Want to know why? It's the only BJ he can get! |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 215 Registered: Apr-05 | Nuck, if Wilson made cars they would have 9 wheels, 6 of them would steer and cost a cool million bucks. Of course Art Kyle would still purchase one. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2209 Registered: Feb-05 | Makes about as much sense as the rest of your idiotic rants. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1229 Registered: Jun-05 | Bayless you just continue to make enemies dont you?So Bayless when are you gonna get the Callisto?Bayless what do mean i would be one of the highest bidders for a pair of Wilsons?I would only buy Wilsons or any other speaker only if i liked how they sounded,Martin Logans for instance Santa Clause couldnt sneak some down my chimney on Christmas eve at 3am.I only buy speakers if I like how they sound,regardless of what they cost. |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 746 Registered: Nov-04 | Paul B = ecoustics troll |
|
Silver Member Username: GavincummPost Number: 347 Registered: Feb-05 | agreed! |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2210 Registered: Feb-05 | Ditto! |
|
Silver Member Username: GavincummPost Number: 348 Registered: Feb-05 | agreed! |
|
Silver Member Username: GavincummPost Number: 349 Registered: Feb-05 | sh!t! how did I do that? |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 216 Registered: Apr-05 | And Jan Vigne would profess that because we never actually DROVE the Wilson car, we could not make a truthfull statement that this car would suck to drive, simply because it had 9 wheels and six would steer. Tawaun would only buy it if he liked the way it drove, or if Santa slid one down his chimney. And Art Kyle can't make sense of any of it. Heck of a group we got here. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6583 Registered: May-04 | If you don't like the company, don't stay in the room. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1230 Registered: Jun-05 | Bayless I have even made a step to try to get along with you,but you still continue to allienate everyone on this forum.Your last statement proves what kind of guy you are,you were right about the Callisto being a very good speaker,and it is now among my favorite speakers.So what gives, you were right you contributed some useful imformation to this forum.So what the f(uck is your problem?And your right it is a heck of a group we got here,and you dont want to part of it,then step the STEP THE HELL OFF AND GO SOMEWHERELSE,BECAUSE IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO BE ONE OF US,YOU WOULD BE HELPING PEOPLE WITH YOUR VAST KNOWLEGE AND YOU WOULD HAVE MORE THAN 216 POSTS.Bayless get lost you have tons of talent,but your more trouble than your worth,so we are T.Oan you so go somewherelse just away from here and quit corupting our organazation,we are infact deativating you!YOUR CUT!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 747 Registered: Nov-04 | wish we had something that described troll-like behavior. anybody have a pic of a troll we can post each time paul b decides to write something? haha, i think we should just ignore him. he is far more stubborn than richard was. |
|
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 742 Registered: Oct-04 | Here's the commonly agreed upon definition: "What is a Troll? An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people. Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish. Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility. Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words. Why Does it Matter? Some people -- particularly those who have been online for years -- are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, "You can't have a picnic without ants." It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved. Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users. Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash. The Internet is a wonderful resource which is breaking down barriers and stripping away prejudice. Trolls threaten our continued enjoyment of this beautiful forum for ideas. What Can be Done about Trolls? When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down. However, if the person persists in being beastly, and seems to enjoy being unpleasant, the only effective position is summed up as follows: The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls. When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored. What Not to Do As already stated, it is futile to try to "cure" a troll of his obsession. But perhaps you simply cannot bear the hostile environment that the troll is creating and want to go away for a while. If you do that, then for the sake of the others on the system, please do not post a dramatic "Goodbye!" message. This convinces the troll that he is winning the battle. There is, perhaps, no message you can write on a message system that is as damaging as an announcement that you are leaving because of the hostility that the troll has kindled. If you feel you must say something, a discreet message to the system operator (and some of the others users, if you have their email addresses) is the best course of action. Incidentally, if you are writing the letter in an agitated state, it is a good idea to wait an hour and then give it one last review before you actually send it. That might spare you the pain of saying things that you don't really mean to people you like. Impersonation One technique used by trolls to generate chaos is to pretend to be a well-liked person. On some systems there is nothing to prevent somebody from signing your name to a distasteful message. On other systems the troll may have to be a bit more wiley, perhaps by replacing one character with another. Here are some examples of various spoofing gimmicks that could be used against a person named Brenda Q. O'Really: Brenda Q. O"Really Brenda Q. 0'Really Brenda Q O'Really Brenda Q. O'Rea11y Bredna Q. O'Really 8renda Q. O'Really Note: "Brenda Q. O'Really" is a made-up name used to illustrate spoofing and is not intended to refer to a particular person. If you react with anger, the troll wins. So if you see a message impersonating you on a message board, simply write a follow-up reply entitled "That Wasn't Me" and type only this: I did not write that message; it is a fake. Of course, sometimes you will find that people who know you well have already identified the message as a fake and have tagged it as such. After all, one of the troll's goals is to make you look bad. If you have a good reputation, people will be tipped off if a message that you apparently wrote is completely out of character. Trolls have been known to become so irritated at having their spoofs identified that they have learned to write in another person's style. They may end up writing an intelligent message that is indistinguishable from your own golden words. If that happens, you can always just let the post stand and take credit for it! Trolls will also sometimes write a "That Wasn't Me" message after a genuine one, attempting to elicit a denial. There really is no reason to give him what he wants, since a "That Wasn't Me" warning merely reminds people to be skeptical. That is to say, it is of no real consequence if somebody isn't sure that you wrote a normal message, since in the long run it is the ideas that are important. The Webmaster's Challenge When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed -- more on this later. The moderator of a message board may not be able to delete a troll's messages right away, but their job is made much harder if they also have to read numerous replies to trolls. They are also forced to decide whether or not to delete posts from well-meaning folks which have the unintended effect of encouraging the troll. Some webmasters have to endure conscientious users telling them that they are "acting like dictators" and should never delete a single message. These people may be misinformed: they may have arrived at their opinion about a troll based on the messages they see, never realizing that the webmaster has already deleted his most horrific material. Please remember that a troll does have an alternative if he has something of value to say: there are services on the net that provide messaging systems free of charge. So the troll can set up his own message board, where he can make his own decisions about the kind of content he will tolerate. Just how much can we expect of a webmaster when it comes to preserving the principles of free speech? Some trolls find sport in determining what the breaking point is for a particular message board operator. They might post a dozen messages, each of which contains 400 lines of the letter "J". That is a form of expression, to be sure, but would you consider it your duty to play host to such a person? Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a webmaster is deciding whether to take steps against a troll that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the webmaster has to decide if the troll actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one -- himself. What about Free Speech? When trolls find that their efforts are being successfully resisted, they often complain that their right to free speech is being infringed. Let us examine that claim. While most people on the Internet are ardent defenders of free speech, it is not an absolute right; there are practical limitations. For example, you may not scream out "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you may not make jokes about bombs while waiting to board an airplane. We accept these limitations because we recognize that they serve a greater good. Another useful example is the control of the radio frequency spectrum. You might wish to set up a powerful radio station to broadcast your ideas, but you cannot do so without applying for a license. Again, this is a practical limitation: if everybody broadcasted without restriction, the repercussions would be annoying at best and life-threatening at worst. The radio example is helpful for another reason: with countless people having a legitimate need to use radio communications, it is important to ensure that nobody is 'monopolizing the channel'. There are only so many clear channels available in each frequency band and these must be shared. When a troll attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel. The ultimate response to the 'free speech' argument is this: while we may have the right to say more or less whatever we want, we do not have the right to say it wherever we want. You may feel strongly about the fact that your neighbour has not mowed his lawn for two months, but you do not have the right to berate him in his own living room. Similarly, if a webmaster tells a troll that he is not welcome, the troll has no "right" to remain. This is particularly true on the numerous free communications services offered on the net. (On pay systems, the troll might be justified in asking for a refund.) Why Do They Do It? Affirmation. Regular net users know how delightful it is when somebody responds to something they have written. It is a meeting of the minds, which is an intellectual thrill, but it is also an acknowledgement of one's value -- and that can be a very satisfying emotional reward. Trolls crave attention, and they care not whether it is positive or negative. They see the Internet as a mirror into which they can gaze in narcissistic rapture. If you want a deeper analysis than that, perhaps a psychologist can shed some additional light on the matter. Conclusion Next time you are on a message board and you see a post by somebody whom you think is a troll, and you feel you must reply, simply write a follow-up message entitled "Troll Alert" and type only this: The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls. By posting such a message, you let the troll know that you know what he is, and that you are not going to get dragged into his twisted little hobby. The Internet is a splendidly haphazard collection of both serious and silly material. Because it is so free, there are bound to be problems. I think that we can best enjoy it if we deal with everything that happens online with a wry grin and a ready shrug." |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 748 Registered: Nov-04 | haha, thanks for that kano. i read that already, what i meant was a word or phrase that could be used to for instance describe a troll walking around distrubing everyone. wonder if paul b will have any reaction if we all ignored him. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6588 Registered: May-04 | Ignored who? |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 4237 Registered: Dec-03 | Well said Kano |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 217 Registered: Apr-05 | I'm a troll allright. A troll for quality audio products that reproduce the original waveform as closely as possible. THAT, Kano, is the commonly agreed definition of "The Absolute Sound" Never in my WILDEST DREAMS could I conjur up a forum so dead set against the "faithfull reproduction of the musical waveform". I have to say i'm suprised by many of you here. If you want to continue to patronize companies that are seeling you drastically overpriced product that cannot do the one thing audio gear is SUPPOSED TO DO, again TO "FAITHFULLY REPRODUCE THE ORIGINAL MUSICAL WAVEFORM", feel free. It's obvious many of you have been manipulated by those companies, some more than others. Many of you have bought into the theory that maintaining the time and phase of the original waveform is not important, passed on to us by speaker manufacturers that do not have the knowledge to build one that does keep time and phase correct. Some have bought into the idea that digital audio is superior to analog, even though almost every veteran recording engineer and many many recording artists feel the opposite. Some of you have bought into the falicy that the quality of the source doesn't matter as long as you have expensive speakers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wilson tried and failed to spread this little lie as they played a pair of their big dollar speakers thru an IPOD. The IPOD is capable of VERY high resolution digital audio, equal to or superior to many high end cdp's, hardly the "walkman" image Wilson tried to present it in. I will not fall victim to these industry lies. Now, you can go back to bashing me for my beliefs in faithfull audio reproduction. |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 218 Registered: Apr-05 | Kano, so what your saying then, is since my views are drastically different than yours or even perhaps even whats generally accepted, I should be regarded as a troll? I've been involved in audio and the music business in different capacities probably for more years than many here have been alive. Of course that lifetime of musical involvment in live and recorded music means nothing as,certianly YOU know more about music/recording/playback/audio than do I, which is why you felt so free to define what a "Troll" is rather than rebutting any/all of my statements. Gotcha. |
|
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 745 Registered: Oct-04 | Actually I'm not saying anything - someone asked for the troll definition, so I cut and pasted it off the internet. I don't have an opinion on this thread, since I haven't actually had the opportunity to hear Wilson speakers... although that didn't seem to stop you. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2218 Registered: Feb-05 | "And Art Kyle can't make sense of any of it." I worked in high tech for several years and received training as a technician in the electronics field. I don't talk tech not because I don't understand it but because I find it irrelevant. Audio is about perception and preference not crossovers and driver material. Others may disagree with that and I respect that. Jan for instance is well versed in both the technical end and how it affects our perception and preferences. I for one respect that level of knowledge. Paul it is obvious that you have good information to contribute but you don't know how to deliver it in a way that you are heard. It's ok to believe that your way is the only way, but to communicate that sabotages your attempt at having others understand you. We can't hear you if all you ever do is tell us that we're wrong. I personally don't agree with much of what you say but I'm willing to listen and keep my mind open if you are willing to communicate respectfully. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 334 Registered: Dec-04 | Troll Alert-Paul Bayless! It even feels good! |
|
Bronze Member Username: PbdrPost Number: 66 Registered: Apr-05 | You do realize that several posters here could be considered "trolls" right? |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1259 Registered: Jun-05 | Well Peter Ranslow,with 66 posts,if you are gonna post that than,dont bight your tongue about your statement,dont try to sugarcoat it.So who are the people that are trolls? |
|
Bronze Member Username: PbdrPost Number: 67 Registered: Apr-05 | Oh, no! I have only 66 posts! Relax, don't get all bent out of shape; I'm just pointing out that this thread has basically become the Paul bayless shooting gallery when many others have been much more beligerent than him in the past. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1272 Registered: Jun-05 | Do you actually really think that Peter?I cant recall it ,what Paul he didnt Know sqwaut,but Bayless is a knowlegable person when it comes to audio,even if he did just read all the imformation from magazines,but it still took studying.Some of us on here have speakers with first order crossovers,and we still dont agree with him.I dont see Bayless loudspeakers anywhere in the marketplace.this is what makes it all the more unbarable.He doesent come here to offer advice to people who need it,just to boast his onesided affair with first order crossovers,and to let us know,that every other design is incorrect even if its from muti million dollar companies,who has garnered awards and been part of many movie productions,or recording studio monitors.I'll say it again do you see a Bayless Loudspeakers in Stereophile magazine,or a reptable online reviewer site like Soundtage,Enjoy the Music,TNT,or Absolute Sound.No!!!.....No!!! You Dont. |
|
Anonymous | Yeah cheeba |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6638 Registered: May-04 | Talk about your trolls! That guy/gal, however many of them there are, "Anonymous" has become the forum's major troll. "Anonymous" says this! "Anonymous" says that! How many times have you had a conversation with three of four "Anonymous's" and you don't know which one is which? And that small "a" anonymous is just as bad!!! I'm sure all the posts made by those two would far exceed anyone else's number. Sheesh!!! At least they don't go on about crossovers. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 433 Registered: Dec-04 | May I suggest that all anon's log in with at least Vooldemort? I mean, if you are not going to be named, that's a place to start. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6639 Registered: May-04 | I would go with "Bumberry". You can't go wrong with Oscar Wilde as your spiritual leader. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6644 Registered: May-04 | Oh, yes, for those who can't remember HS English class; Bumberry (or Bunbury, in some versions) is laid to rest at the end of the play. Oh, that such a fate should come to our own "A/anonymous" Bumberry's. At least they don't go on about crossovers. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 452 Registered: Dec-04 | LOL Jan, ROFL I'd forgotten somehow... |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1273 Registered: Jun-05 | Their are plenty of anoying anonymous,but I know when its Anon and most members thats been here a while does to, and often he is a useful contributor and big joker to and mean sometimes,the rest of them I just ignore.Since you seem to be the only useful anonymous,Anon I wish you would just post,im sure other people do to,it would make it alot easier to sort out the trash. |
|
new_guy_on_the_block Unregistered guest | Great write up on sixmoons about speaker measurements. Look here: http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/royjohnson/royjohnson.html Maybe Bayless knows more than it seems, huh? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6705 Registered: May-04 | OK. I read the article. You're going to have to explain how that proves PB to be a genius. Or, makes him any less annoying in his constant "only one way to build a speaker" rants. Or, suggests that pointing to the Wilson "I won't listen and you can't make me listen" non-review of a review was not just an excuse for having another go at anyone who wishes to disagree with his idea. (In case you haven't figured it out, no one is disagreeeing about what 1st order Xo's do; we are simply not taking kindly to the idea PB sees none of the downsides to using this design and prefers to beat people over the head with his constant "one way to build mantra" and perpetually wishes to berate other people for their believes and has nothing else of value he wishes to contribute to the forum except first order passing wind. He is the besotted uncle you ran into over Thanksgiving who only wants to criticize the rest of the family he belongs to.) Or, a way to have a go at anyone who has heard the Wilson speaker and likes the Wilson speaker. This is the one that is very peculiar and suggests a definite personality disorder on PB's part. Or, a purely stupid (sorry, no other way to put it) way to argue a point when PB has not heard, and doesn't want to listen to, the speaker he wants to bash (and neither has the reviewer who published the review of another reviewer's review, that's what's really, really, really, weird about the whole thing). PB has heard another Wilson speaker (somewhere at sometime)and the non-reviewer has assured him they are all defective. Reading that has made PB agree with everything the non-reviewer stated. Or, that PB feels he can judge the quality of any speaker based on what is on a piece of paper. No! Wait! That is what the article you pointed out says you can't do! If I understand the article you pointed to, Mr. Johnson suggests actually listening to a speaker before you make any comments. So ..... Maybe PB is just as stupid as we have long thought he is. Yeah, I'd say PB is still a genuine horses's petoot and doesn't know enough to simply have a clue when to be gracious to other people! Stick around, you're new here. You'll come to appreciate PB just as all the rest of us do. And, improve your reading skills while you're at it. Improve your reading skills?! ..... Hey, wait a minute ...... You're PB and you're just trying to prove you're smarter than we think; aren't you? Jeeeeeeeeeeze! I wasted my time explaining stuff again! |
|
New member Username: RoadwarriorPost Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 | Well, I had a channce to listen to a couple of Wilson speakers today, does anybody care? |
|
Bronze Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 17 Registered: Nov-05 | It's all I've been thinking about. |
|
New member Username: RoadwarriorPost Number: 3 Registered: Nov-05 | k |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6717 Registered: May-04 | &? |
|
New member Username: RoadwarriorPost Number: 5 Registered: Nov-05 | answer new thread for review and q&a |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6718 Registered: May-04 | What a tease! |
|
New member Username: RoadwarriorPost Number: 8 Registered: Nov-05 | I don't give a rat's patootie if you don't care, i just offered it up because I thought you might care about high $$$ stuff! |
|
Bronze Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 18 Registered: Nov-05 | I'll see your rat's patootie and raise you the south end of a north bound camel. I mean seriously - what a ridiculous question. Now if you said you listened to a pair of Wilson speakers and offered your appraisal or some comments about your experience then someone may have responded appropriately. Well, I had a chance to listen to a couple of Wilson speakers today, does anybody care? You want an answer? Here it is: Nup! |
|
Anonymous | I was always told Tom stuck his thumb in a pie! Must have been a sweet patootie pie. Jan's absolutely correct, no one is going to beg you to submit your subjective review, but if that upsets you, oh well. |
|
New member Username: RoadwarriorPost Number: 10 Registered: Nov-05 | FU anon |
|
Bronze Member Username: RoadwarriorPost Number: 13 Registered: Nov-05 | All I asked is 'does anybody care?' Thats all, and all this grief? i posted it anyhow, if ANY audio listener cares about it. It was a fair offer before posting a long review, looking to see if anyone cared, EXCUSE ME! Thanks a bunch, thats what I get for looking for interest before i put up something of no interest. |
|
Bronze Member Username: RoadwarriorPost Number: 14 Registered: Nov-05 | There is stuff of no interest here all the time, and it seems to annoy some people. I was trying to cut the crud and offer something of interest to everybody. Sorry if it didnt look that way. Now..anybody wanna look at the new post? Im going back on Monday And still fu anon |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6722 Registered: May-04 | TT - I believe you need to sharpen your sense of humor a bit. There was no need to get upset over anyone's response. We'll see you over at the other thread. |
|
Bronze Member Username: RoadwarriorPost Number: 16 Registered: Nov-05 | Thanks, Jan Vigne |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1307 Registered: Jun-05 | This is just down right pathetic,this anger sounds a bit familiar when someone doesent want to hear your Wilson crap.Bayless I know its you and so does everyonelse,what the hell are you ashamed of not to post your real name? You are a sad little man,just buy your Green Mountain Callistos and enjoy the music,good grief is it that hard? |
|
Anonymous | I really think that THIS means that PB has too much time on his hands. We all know what it leads up to!!! Him bouncing on his buttplug singing the weeble commercial jingle |
|
Bronze Member Username: 2morexExmore, Virginia USA Post Number: 25 Registered: Nov-05 | weebles wobble but they don't fall down! He'll be back.... |
|
Bayless is gone Unregistered guest | Check with the admin. I un-registered here weeks ago. Toooooooo funny. Paul Bayless |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6835 Registered: May-04 | "Check with the admin." I'm kinda busy right now; can it wait? |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics