In article , "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is
accurate or realistic.

Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here, isn't it
important that people like the results provided by the equipment, perhaps
even more important than accuracy or realism?


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

In article , "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ -- not what is
accurate or realistic.

Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here, isn't it
important that people like the results provided by the equipment, perhaps
even more important than accuracy or realism?


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

Sanders wrote in message ...
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.

Please, let's not engage in self-pity.

But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly
according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical
equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to
fly, yet they do fly.

Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory"
and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly?

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

Those would be the religious experts, I suspect. Once again, we're
depending upon the wrong "experts."

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts.

So I bow out to the "experts".

The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion.

Sanders wrote in message ...
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.

Please, let's not engage in self-pity.

But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly
according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical
equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to
fly, yet they do fly.

Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory"
and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly?

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

Those would be the religious experts, I suspect. Once again, we're
depending upon the wrong "experts."

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts.

So I bow out to the "experts".

The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion.

Sanders wrote in message ...
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.

Please, let's not engage in self-pity.

But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly
according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical
equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to
fly, yet they do fly.

Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory"
and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly?

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

Those would be the religious experts, I suspect. Once again, we're
depending upon the wrong "experts."

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts.

So I bow out to the "experts".

The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion.

Sanders wrote in message ...
But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.

Please, let's not engage in self-pity.

But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly
according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical
equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to
fly, yet they do fly.

Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory"
and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly?

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

Those would be the religious experts, I suspect. Once again, we're
depending upon the wrong "experts."

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts.

So I bow out to the "experts".

The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion.

Harvey Gerst wrote in message . ..
Sanders wrote:

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.
Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the
theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last,
"experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the
earth.

I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only
did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time,
but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been
measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago.

It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who
stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization,
they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious
force of the time did not question at all that the earth was
round.

Harvey Gerst wrote in message . ..
Sanders wrote:

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.
Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the
theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last,
"experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the
earth.

I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only
did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time,
but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been
measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago.

It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who
stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization,
they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious
force of the time did not question at all that the earth was
round.

Harvey Gerst wrote in message . ..
Sanders wrote:

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.
Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the
theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last,
"experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the
earth.

I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only
did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time,
but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been
measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago.

It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who
stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization,
they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious
force of the time did not question at all that the earth was
round.

Harvey Gerst wrote in message . ..
Sanders wrote:

But, I would venture, that cutting and running is NOT the brightest
thing in the world to do, eh?

Not cutting and running as you put it, I have nothing knowledgeable to
offer the group as you have put it. My knowledge is useless and my ears
don't know what they are hearing.
Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth.

As a science progresses, the actual facts become more well known, and fit the
theorems a little better. When ships masts disappeared from the horizon last,
"experts" began coming to more accurate conclusions about the shape of the
earth.

I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only
did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time,
but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been
measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago.

It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who
stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization,
they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious
force of the time did not question at all that the earth was
round.

His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ --
not what is accurate or realistic.

Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here,
isn't it important that people like the results provided by the
equipment, perhaps even more important than accuracy or realism?

Sure, from a practical point of view. But people grovel in front of Dr. Toole as
if he were some great scientist who's made significant contributions to the art
of sound reproduction. And in my opinion, he's contributed nothing.

His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ --
not what is accurate or realistic.

Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here,
isn't it important that people like the results provided by the
equipment, perhaps even more important than accuracy or realism?

Sure, from a practical point of view. But people grovel in front of Dr. Toole as
if he were some great scientist who's made significant contributions to the art
of sound reproduction. And in my opinion, he's contributed nothing.

His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ --
not what is accurate or realistic.

Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here,
isn't it important that people like the results provided by the
equipment, perhaps even more important than accuracy or realism?

Sure, from a practical point of view. But people grovel in front of Dr. Toole as
if he were some great scientist who's made significant contributions to the art
of sound reproduction. And in my opinion, he's contributed nothing.

His work has been useful in determining what people _like_ --
not what is accurate or realistic.

Since we are talking about home entertainment equipment here,
isn't it important that people like the results provided by the
equipment, perhaps even more important than accuracy or realism?

Sure, from a practical point of view. But people grovel in front of Dr. Toole as
if he were some great scientist who's made significant contributions to the art
of sound reproduction. And in my opinion, he's contributed nothing.

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts.

So I bow out to the "experts".

The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion.


Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics...

They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this
understanding to others.

They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know.

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts.

So I bow out to the "experts".

The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion.


Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics...

They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this
understanding to others.

They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know.

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts.

So I bow out to the "experts".

The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion.


Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics...

They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this
understanding to others.

They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know.

All I am saying is that going on theories from "experts" does not always
prove something is right.

Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts.

So I bow out to the "experts".

The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion.


Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics...

They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this
understanding to others.

They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics...

They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this
understanding to others.

They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know.

Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself?

Jeff

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics...

They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this
understanding to others.

They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know.

Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself?

Jeff

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics...

They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this
understanding to others.

They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know.

Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself?

Jeff

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics...

They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can convey this
understanding to others.

They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what they do know.

Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself?

Jeff

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"

Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics...

They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can
convey this understanding to others.

They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what
they do know.

Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself?


With respect to #1, yes. I'm rather impatient when it comes to explaining
things.

Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics...

They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can
convey this understanding to others.

They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what
they do know.

Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself?


With respect to #1, yes. I'm rather impatient when it comes to explaining
things.

Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics...

They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can
convey this understanding to others.

They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what
they do know.

Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself?


With respect to #1, yes. I'm rather impatient when it comes to explaining
things.

Good point! I've also noticed that real experts have two important
characteristics...

They _understand_ what they're talking about, and they can
convey this understanding to others.

They are as much aware of what they _don't_ know as what
they do know.

Heh, do you realize what you've just said about yourself?


With respect to #1, yes. I'm rather impatient when it comes to explaining
things.

Dick Pierce wrote:


Please, let's not engage in self-pity.

Not self pity, but I do have a much better understanding of the phrase
"Throwing your pearls before the swine" means now.

Discussions with you involved are a waste of valuable time! You spend
all of your discussion time putting down others who disagree with you.

You think it's better to be a self proclaimed righteousness expert about
sound because you can quote a formula from a book you didn't write.


But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly
according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical
equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to
fly, yet they do fly.


Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory"
and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly?

For starters check below if you know how to use a browser.

If you look, you will find they are just now starting to understand the
physics behind what was once thought impossible by the experts of the time.

http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/4_clas...bees.html#act2


You're the urban legend of this group and enough people believe it, so
your lies perpetrate freely to those who are afraid to think for
themselves or use their creativity.

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth. Those would be the religious experts, I suspect.

Once again, we're
depending upon the wrong "experts."

No, the scientific community experts at that time believed what they
could about reality, considering the data they could use to evaluate to
make their decisions by.

Your use of words to misdirect others from the fact you don't have any
idea about what you are talking about is amazing.

Thinking of politics Dick, you'd be a great one to run for office!!!!
Dick for President in 2008!!!

Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts.

Yup, that's wright - DUH !!!!

Yes, and you are the wrong person to quote as being an expert. There
are three ways to spell the word - wright, write, and right. - DUh once
again

It is quite evident your teachers never bothered to teach you the
elementary use of the English language, but boy, how you do know you can
quote from a book is a great skill of yours........

Read the definition of "Wright" in a dictionary, that is if you can read
other than do nothing but quote a bunch of specs some else who did do
the trial and error work on to come up with their theories.

As usual, it is not your knowledge of a subject but your negative
persuasion so that others won't stand up to you about, that has put you
on your throne of undisputed knowledge.

You have no concept of what the spiders purpose is in a loudspeaker,
among other misconceptions you are spreading.

The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion.

Discussions are when the experts admit they might be wrong and maybe why
they are wrong. There is no discussion to be had here other than Dick
is God and he will throw lighting bolts of negativism at someone who
sins against HIS perfect beliefs.

So as before, I'm done with someone/group who doesn't even know how to
spell and use the right words in a sentence properly. It just shows me
stupidity abounds in this group if you are the guru!!!

How can you be so literate about any subject when you don't even know
how to spell right is way beyond me!

What college passed you to get a degree?

Online diploma from Kmart no doubt!

Have fun your highness, even Hitler had his foolish followers who
thought his word was God. Fools follow experts.

Real truth seekers question what others say the truth is and find the
"truth" for themselves. But that is hard work and it is easier to
believe someone else's truth than think for yourself.

Enjoy your reign with your great misdirection ability you use to get
others to stroke your insecure ego.

I have seen the light from your posts and you don't have anything nice
or useful to say to anyone, Just quote memorized formulas, A six year
old can do that.

I tried to be civil with you, but you consider my opinions that I have
gained through the assimilation of personal knowledge useless because it
contradicts your 35 year old theory.

Build the sealed box and build the ported box and listen to what your
ears hear, not what some book says about theory based specs.

If BOSE 901 were so great, why did the 4" speakers need an active eq
bass/trebble boost added to approximate a better sounding speaker.

So as before, I'm leaving any post when the author does nothing but try
to make other people look stupid because he can use a memorized formula
to back his lies about how much he really knows.

Good Bye And Have A Pleasant Reign Over Your Loyal Subjects!

Dick Pierce wrote:


Please, let's not engage in self-pity.

Not self pity, but I do have a much better understanding of the phrase
"Throwing your pearls before the swine" means now.

Discussions with you involved are a waste of valuable time! You spend
all of your discussion time putting down others who disagree with you.

You think it's better to be a self proclaimed righteousness expert about
sound because you can quote a formula from a book you didn't write.


But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly
according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical
equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to
fly, yet they do fly.


Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory"
and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly?

For starters check below if you know how to use a browser.

If you look, you will find they are just now starting to understand the
physics behind what was once thought impossible by the experts of the time.

http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/4_clas...bees.html#act2


You're the urban legend of this group and enough people believe it, so
your lies perpetrate freely to those who are afraid to think for
themselves or use their creativity.

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth. Those would be the religious experts, I suspect.

Once again, we're
depending upon the wrong "experts."

No, the scientific community experts at that time believed what they
could about reality, considering the data they could use to evaluate to
make their decisions by.

Your use of words to misdirect others from the fact you don't have any
idea about what you are talking about is amazing.

Thinking of politics Dick, you'd be a great one to run for office!!!!
Dick for President in 2008!!!

Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts.

Yup, that's wright - DUH !!!!

Yes, and you are the wrong person to quote as being an expert. There
are three ways to spell the word - wright, write, and right. - DUh once
again

It is quite evident your teachers never bothered to teach you the
elementary use of the English language, but boy, how you do know you can
quote from a book is a great skill of yours........

Read the definition of "Wright" in a dictionary, that is if you can read
other than do nothing but quote a bunch of specs some else who did do
the trial and error work on to come up with their theories.

As usual, it is not your knowledge of a subject but your negative
persuasion so that others won't stand up to you about, that has put you
on your throne of undisputed knowledge.

You have no concept of what the spiders purpose is in a loudspeaker,
among other misconceptions you are spreading.

The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion.

Discussions are when the experts admit they might be wrong and maybe why
they are wrong. There is no discussion to be had here other than Dick
is God and he will throw lighting bolts of negativism at someone who
sins against HIS perfect beliefs.

So as before, I'm done with someone/group who doesn't even know how to
spell and use the right words in a sentence properly. It just shows me
stupidity abounds in this group if you are the guru!!!

How can you be so literate about any subject when you don't even know
how to spell right is way beyond me!

What college passed you to get a degree?

Online diploma from Kmart no doubt!

Have fun your highness, even Hitler had his foolish followers who
thought his word was God. Fools follow experts.

Real truth seekers question what others say the truth is and find the
"truth" for themselves. But that is hard work and it is easier to
believe someone else's truth than think for yourself.

Enjoy your reign with your great misdirection ability you use to get
others to stroke your insecure ego.

I have seen the light from your posts and you don't have anything nice
or useful to say to anyone, Just quote memorized formulas, A six year
old can do that.

I tried to be civil with you, but you consider my opinions that I have
gained through the assimilation of personal knowledge useless because it
contradicts your 35 year old theory.

Build the sealed box and build the ported box and listen to what your
ears hear, not what some book says about theory based specs.

If BOSE 901 were so great, why did the 4" speakers need an active eq
bass/trebble boost added to approximate a better sounding speaker.

So as before, I'm leaving any post when the author does nothing but try
to make other people look stupid because he can use a memorized formula
to back his lies about how much he really knows.

Good Bye And Have A Pleasant Reign Over Your Loyal Subjects!

Dick Pierce wrote:


Please, let's not engage in self-pity.

Not self pity, but I do have a much better understanding of the phrase
"Throwing your pearls before the swine" means now.

Discussions with you involved are a waste of valuable time! You spend
all of your discussion time putting down others who disagree with you.

You think it's better to be a self proclaimed righteousness expert about
sound because you can quote a formula from a book you didn't write.


But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly
according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical
equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to
fly, yet they do fly.


Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory"
and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly?

For starters check below if you know how to use a browser.

If you look, you will find they are just now starting to understand the
physics behind what was once thought impossible by the experts of the time.

http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/4_clas...bees.html#act2


You're the urban legend of this group and enough people believe it, so
your lies perpetrate freely to those who are afraid to think for
themselves or use their creativity.

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth. Those would be the religious experts, I suspect.

Once again, we're
depending upon the wrong "experts."

No, the scientific community experts at that time believed what they
could about reality, considering the data they could use to evaluate to
make their decisions by.

Your use of words to misdirect others from the fact you don't have any
idea about what you are talking about is amazing.

Thinking of politics Dick, you'd be a great one to run for office!!!!
Dick for President in 2008!!!

Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts.

Yup, that's wright - DUH !!!!

Yes, and you are the wrong person to quote as being an expert. There
are three ways to spell the word - wright, write, and right. - DUh once
again

It is quite evident your teachers never bothered to teach you the
elementary use of the English language, but boy, how you do know you can
quote from a book is a great skill of yours........

Read the definition of "Wright" in a dictionary, that is if you can read
other than do nothing but quote a bunch of specs some else who did do
the trial and error work on to come up with their theories.

As usual, it is not your knowledge of a subject but your negative
persuasion so that others won't stand up to you about, that has put you
on your throne of undisputed knowledge.

You have no concept of what the spiders purpose is in a loudspeaker,
among other misconceptions you are spreading.

The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion.

Discussions are when the experts admit they might be wrong and maybe why
they are wrong. There is no discussion to be had here other than Dick
is God and he will throw lighting bolts of negativism at someone who
sins against HIS perfect beliefs.

So as before, I'm done with someone/group who doesn't even know how to
spell and use the right words in a sentence properly. It just shows me
stupidity abounds in this group if you are the guru!!!

How can you be so literate about any subject when you don't even know
how to spell right is way beyond me!

What college passed you to get a degree?

Online diploma from Kmart no doubt!

Have fun your highness, even Hitler had his foolish followers who
thought his word was God. Fools follow experts.

Real truth seekers question what others say the truth is and find the
"truth" for themselves. But that is hard work and it is easier to
believe someone else's truth than think for yourself.

Enjoy your reign with your great misdirection ability you use to get
others to stroke your insecure ego.

I have seen the light from your posts and you don't have anything nice
or useful to say to anyone, Just quote memorized formulas, A six year
old can do that.

I tried to be civil with you, but you consider my opinions that I have
gained through the assimilation of personal knowledge useless because it
contradicts your 35 year old theory.

Build the sealed box and build the ported box and listen to what your
ears hear, not what some book says about theory based specs.

If BOSE 901 were so great, why did the 4" speakers need an active eq
bass/trebble boost added to approximate a better sounding speaker.

So as before, I'm leaving any post when the author does nothing but try
to make other people look stupid because he can use a memorized formula
to back his lies about how much he really knows.

Good Bye And Have A Pleasant Reign Over Your Loyal Subjects!

Dick Pierce wrote:


Please, let's not engage in self-pity.

Not self pity, but I do have a much better understanding of the phrase
"Throwing your pearls before the swine" means now.

Discussions with you involved are a waste of valuable time! You spend
all of your discussion time putting down others who disagree with you.

You think it's better to be a self proclaimed righteousness expert about
sound because you can quote a formula from a book you didn't write.


But then again bees and hummingbirds are not supposed to be able to fly
according to aerodynamic theory and the "experts" can give mathematical
equations why this is the "truth" as to why they should not be able to
fly, yet they do fly.


Urban legend. Can you point out which section of "aerodynamic theory"
and which "experts" declared that bees and hummingbirds cannot fly?

For starters check below if you know how to use a browser.

If you look, you will find they are just now starting to understand the
physics behind what was once thought impossible by the experts of the time.

http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/4_clas...bees.html#act2


You're the urban legend of this group and enough people believe it, so
your lies perpetrate freely to those who are afraid to think for
themselves or use their creativity.

Once the "experts" thought the world was flat and the sun circled around
the earth. Those would be the religious experts, I suspect.

Once again, we're
depending upon the wrong "experts."

No, the scientific community experts at that time believed what they
could about reality, considering the data they could use to evaluate to
make their decisions by.

Your use of words to misdirect others from the fact you don't have any
idea about what you are talking about is amazing.

Thinking of politics Dick, you'd be a great one to run for office!!!!
Dick for President in 2008!!!

Yup. that's wright, as long as one keeps hangin around the wrong experts.

Yup, that's wright - DUH !!!!

Yes, and you are the wrong person to quote as being an expert. There
are three ways to spell the word - wright, write, and right. - DUh once
again

It is quite evident your teachers never bothered to teach you the
elementary use of the English language, but boy, how you do know you can
quote from a book is a great skill of yours........

Read the definition of "Wright" in a dictionary, that is if you can read
other than do nothing but quote a bunch of specs some else who did do
the trial and error work on to come up with their theories.

As usual, it is not your knowledge of a subject but your negative
persuasion so that others won't stand up to you about, that has put you
on your throne of undisputed knowledge.

You have no concept of what the spiders purpose is in a loudspeaker,
among other misconceptions you are spreading.

The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion.

Discussions are when the experts admit they might be wrong and maybe why
they are wrong. There is no discussion to be had here other than Dick
is God and he will throw lighting bolts of negativism at someone who
sins against HIS perfect beliefs.

So as before, I'm done with someone/group who doesn't even know how to
spell and use the right words in a sentence properly. It just shows me
stupidity abounds in this group if you are the guru!!!

How can you be so literate about any subject when you don't even know
how to spell right is way beyond me!

What college passed you to get a degree?

Online diploma from Kmart no doubt!

Have fun your highness, even Hitler had his foolish followers who
thought his word was God. Fools follow experts.

Real truth seekers question what others say the truth is and find the
"truth" for themselves. But that is hard work and it is easier to
believe someone else's truth than think for yourself.

Enjoy your reign with your great misdirection ability you use to get
others to stroke your insecure ego.

I have seen the light from your posts and you don't have anything nice
or useful to say to anyone, Just quote memorized formulas, A six year
old can do that.

I tried to be civil with you, but you consider my opinions that I have
gained through the assimilation of personal knowledge useless because it
contradicts your 35 year old theory.

Build the sealed box and build the ported box and listen to what your
ears hear, not what some book says about theory based specs.

If BOSE 901 were so great, why did the 4" speakers need an active eq
bass/trebble boost added to approximate a better sounding speaker.

So as before, I'm leaving any post when the author does nothing but try
to make other people look stupid because he can use a memorized formula
to back his lies about how much he really knows.

Good Bye And Have A Pleasant Reign Over Your Loyal Subjects!

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I'm a degreed EE, and I reviewed audio equipment for over a decade. You're
trying to apply "common sense" to an issue where math and physics provide
a
more-accurate explanation of what's going on.

So you have an EE degree too, and you feel the need to tell us rather than
let the facts speak.
I've certainly read plenty of uneducated reviews in audio mags too
unfortunately.

To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_
resonant than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero"
more quickly.

The system Q is dependent on the box design. not the box type. The driver
should return to zero when the signal does, period.
Just where is the math and physics you speak of?

To the best of my knowledge, a driver cannot "return to rest" before the
signal.

Of course it can, that's when the voice coil burns out :-)

Sorry, but science _is_ on my side. A sealed box is superior to ported.

Sorry but opinions are NOT science. In scientific terms you MUST state under
what conditions you believe it is superior.
Obviously efficiency/bandwidth product is NOT one of the conditions!

Why? Because (given a maximally flat design) a sealed box rolls off at
12db/8ve,
while a ported box falls at 24dB/8ve. The tradeoff is that the ported box
gains
efficiency in exchange for the more-abrupt rolloff. Which appears to be
the
reason that most companies have switched to ported designs -- even AR.

Exactly, which proves neither is superior in all cases.

All other things being equal (including the corner frequency), would you
rather
listen to a speaker with a two-pole rolloff, or a four-pole rolloff? Well,
which
has less phase shift? Lower group delay? Rings less?

The one which is more accurate regardless of design.

In "High-Performance Loudspeakers" (a book which, oddly, pays almost no
attention to electrostatic and orthodynamic/ribbon systems) the author
claims
that listeners prefer overdamped bass, even when the corner frequency is
higher
than that of a sealed or ported box. This isn't at all surprising, because
an
overdamped design, thought it "lingers," does not ring, and it has _more_
output
below the corner frequency than a sealed or ported design.

Such blanket statements are utterly devoid of any meaning. If I put a 5"
speaker in an overdamped cabinet, will it have more output at 30Hz than a
15" woofer in a suitably ported enclosure with an Fc of 33 Hz? Of course
not. Why not evaluate each design on it's merits. Is that too hard for you
to do?

People who try to reduce everything to black and white, do no-one a service.

TonyP.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I'm a degreed EE, and I reviewed audio equipment for over a decade. You're
trying to apply "common sense" to an issue where math and physics provide
a
more-accurate explanation of what's going on.

So you have an EE degree too, and you feel the need to tell us rather than
let the facts speak.
I've certainly read plenty of uneducated reviews in audio mags too
unfortunately.

To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_
resonant than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero"
more quickly.

The system Q is dependent on the box design. not the box type. The driver
should return to zero when the signal does, period.
Just where is the math and physics you speak of?

To the best of my knowledge, a driver cannot "return to rest" before the
signal.

Of course it can, that's when the voice coil burns out :-)

Sorry, but science _is_ on my side. A sealed box is superior to ported.

Sorry but opinions are NOT science. In scientific terms you MUST state under
what conditions you believe it is superior.
Obviously efficiency/bandwidth product is NOT one of the conditions!

Why? Because (given a maximally flat design) a sealed box rolls off at
12db/8ve,
while a ported box falls at 24dB/8ve. The tradeoff is that the ported box
gains
efficiency in exchange for the more-abrupt rolloff. Which appears to be
the
reason that most companies have switched to ported designs -- even AR.

Exactly, which proves neither is superior in all cases.

All other things being equal (including the corner frequency), would you
rather
listen to a speaker with a two-pole rolloff, or a four-pole rolloff? Well,
which
has less phase shift? Lower group delay? Rings less?

The one which is more accurate regardless of design.

In "High-Performance Loudspeakers" (a book which, oddly, pays almost no
attention to electrostatic and orthodynamic/ribbon systems) the author
claims
that listeners prefer overdamped bass, even when the corner frequency is
higher
than that of a sealed or ported box. This isn't at all surprising, because
an
overdamped design, thought it "lingers," does not ring, and it has _more_
output
below the corner frequency than a sealed or ported design.

Such blanket statements are utterly devoid of any meaning. If I put a 5"
speaker in an overdamped cabinet, will it have more output at 30Hz than a
15" woofer in a suitably ported enclosure with an Fc of 33 Hz? Of course
not. Why not evaluate each design on it's merits. Is that too hard for you
to do?

People who try to reduce everything to black and white, do no-one a service.

TonyP.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I'm a degreed EE, and I reviewed audio equipment for over a decade. You're
trying to apply "common sense" to an issue where math and physics provide
a
more-accurate explanation of what's going on.

So you have an EE degree too, and you feel the need to tell us rather than
let the facts speak.
I've certainly read plenty of uneducated reviews in audio mags too
unfortunately.

To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_
resonant than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero"
more quickly.

The system Q is dependent on the box design. not the box type. The driver
should return to zero when the signal does, period.
Just where is the math and physics you speak of?

To the best of my knowledge, a driver cannot "return to rest" before the
signal.

Of course it can, that's when the voice coil burns out :-)

Sorry, but science _is_ on my side. A sealed box is superior to ported.

Sorry but opinions are NOT science. In scientific terms you MUST state under
what conditions you believe it is superior.
Obviously efficiency/bandwidth product is NOT one of the conditions!

Why? Because (given a maximally flat design) a sealed box rolls off at
12db/8ve,
while a ported box falls at 24dB/8ve. The tradeoff is that the ported box
gains
efficiency in exchange for the more-abrupt rolloff. Which appears to be
the
reason that most companies have switched to ported designs -- even AR.

Exactly, which proves neither is superior in all cases.

All other things being equal (including the corner frequency), would you
rather
listen to a speaker with a two-pole rolloff, or a four-pole rolloff? Well,
which
has less phase shift? Lower group delay? Rings less?

The one which is more accurate regardless of design.

In "High-Performance Loudspeakers" (a book which, oddly, pays almost no
attention to electrostatic and orthodynamic/ribbon systems) the author
claims
that listeners prefer overdamped bass, even when the corner frequency is
higher
than that of a sealed or ported box. This isn't at all surprising, because
an
overdamped design, thought it "lingers," does not ring, and it has _more_
output
below the corner frequency than a sealed or ported design.

Such blanket statements are utterly devoid of any meaning. If I put a 5"
speaker in an overdamped cabinet, will it have more output at 30Hz than a
15" woofer in a suitably ported enclosure with an Fc of 33 Hz? Of course
not. Why not evaluate each design on it's merits. Is that too hard for you
to do?

People who try to reduce everything to black and white, do no-one a service.

TonyP.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I'm a degreed EE, and I reviewed audio equipment for over a decade. You're
trying to apply "common sense" to an issue where math and physics provide
a
more-accurate explanation of what's going on.

So you have an EE degree too, and you feel the need to tell us rather than
let the facts speak.
I've certainly read plenty of uneducated reviews in audio mags too
unfortunately.

To over-simplify it, a properly designed sealed-box woofer is _less_
resonant than a bass-reflex design, and the driver "returns to zero"
more quickly.

The system Q is dependent on the box design. not the box type. The driver
should return to zero when the signal does, period.
Just where is the math and physics you speak of?

To the best of my knowledge, a driver cannot "return to rest" before the
signal.

Of course it can, that's when the voice coil burns out :-)

Sorry, but science _is_ on my side. A sealed box is superior to ported.

Sorry but opinions are NOT science. In scientific terms you MUST state under
what conditions you believe it is superior.
Obviously efficiency/bandwidth product is NOT one of the conditions!

Why? Because (given a maximally flat design) a sealed box rolls off at
12db/8ve,
while a ported box falls at 24dB/8ve. The tradeoff is that the ported box
gains
efficiency in exchange for the more-abrupt rolloff. Which appears to be
the
reason that most companies have switched to ported designs -- even AR.

Exactly, which proves neither is superior in all cases.

All other things being equal (including the corner frequency), would you
rather
listen to a speaker with a two-pole rolloff, or a four-pole rolloff? Well,
which
has less phase shift? Lower group delay? Rings less?

The one which is more accurate regardless of design.

In "High-Performance Loudspeakers" (a book which, oddly, pays almost no
attention to electrostatic and orthodynamic/ribbon systems) the author
claims
that listeners prefer overdamped bass, even when the corner frequency is
higher
than that of a sealed or ported box. This isn't at all surprising, because
an
overdamped design, thought it "lingers," does not ring, and it has _more_
output
below the corner frequency than a sealed or ported design.

Such blanket statements are utterly devoid of any meaning. If I put a 5"
speaker in an overdamped cabinet, will it have more output at 30Hz than a
15" woofer in a suitably ported enclosure with an Fc of 33 Hz? Of course
not. Why not evaluate each design on it's merits. Is that too hard for you
to do?

People who try to reduce everything to black and white, do no-one a service.

TonyP.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only
did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time,
but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been
measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago.
It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who
stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization,
they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious
force of the time did not question at all that the earth was
round.

Unfortunately there are always people who reject science. Despite the Greeks
knowing FAR more about physics 2000 years ago, there were many people in the
middle ages who did believe the earth was flat, and the centre of the
universe. Even today there are those who would ban all scientific knowledge,
usually because they have none.

TonyP.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only
did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time,
but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been
measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago.
It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who
stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization,
they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious
force of the time did not question at all that the earth was
round.

Unfortunately there are always people who reject science. Despite the Greeks
knowing FAR more about physics 2000 years ago, there were many people in the
middle ages who did believe the earth was flat, and the centre of the
universe. Even today there are those who would ban all scientific knowledge,
usually because they have none.

TonyP.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only
did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time,
but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been
measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago.
It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who
stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization,
they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious
force of the time did not question at all that the earth was
round.

Unfortunately there are always people who reject science. Despite the Greeks
knowing FAR more about physics 2000 years ago, there were many people in the
middle ages who did believe the earth was flat, and the centre of the
universe. Even today there are those who would ban all scientific knowledge,
usually because they have none.

TonyP.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
I am sure that Mr. Sanders is aware of the fact that not only
did the "experts" know the world was round for quite some time,
but in fact, knew fairly accurately it's diameter, having been
measured with a fair accuracy 2,000 years ago.
It was those people who were NOT the experts in the field who
stillm thought the world was flat, and, in western civilization,
they were in the minority. Indeed, even the dominant religious
force of the time did not question at all that the earth was
round.

Unfortunately there are always people who reject science. Despite the Greeks
knowing FAR more about physics 2000 years ago, there were many people in the
middle ages who did believe the earth was flat, and the centre of the
universe. Even today there are those who would ban all scientific knowledge,
usually because they have none.

TonyP.

"Sanders" wrote in message
...
You think it's better to be a self proclaimed righteousness expert about
sound because you can quote a formula from a book you didn't write.

Fortunately most people here are greatful of Dick's ability to quote
supportable facts and be able to back them up.

You're the urban legend of this group and enough people believe it, so
your lies perpetrate freely to those who are afraid to think for
themselves or use their creativity.

It's exactly the idea of "creative" facts that many are trying to overcome.

Once again, we're
depending upon the wrong "experts."

No, the scientific community experts at that time believed what they
could about reality, considering the data they could use to evaluate to
make their decisions by.

Which ones did you speak to exactly?

Your use of words to misdirect others from the fact you don't have any
idea about what you are talking about is amazing.

If anyone doesn't know what he's talking about, it certainly ISN'T Dick
Pierce!

Thinking of politics Dick, you'd be a great one to run for office!!!!
Dick for President in 2008!!!

It would certainly be a huge improvement on George.

Yes, and you are the wrong person to quote as being an expert. There
are three ways to spell the word - wright, write, and right. - DUh once
again

Proving once again you have NO idea which fields of study correspond to
which experts.

It is quite evident your teachers never bothered to teach you the
elementary use of the English language, but boy, how you do know you can
quote from a book is a great skill of yours........
Read the definition of "Wright" in a dictionary, that is if you can read
other than do nothing but quote a bunch of specs some else who did do
the trial and error work on to come up with their theories.

Just how fragile is your ego that you need to denigrate Dick for trying to
enlighten you on a subject where your knowledge is sadly lacking.

You have no concept of what the spiders purpose is in a loudspeaker,
among other misconceptions you are spreading.

You haven't been here long have you :-)

The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion.
Discussions are when the experts admit they might be wrong and maybe why
they are wrong. There is no discussion to be had here other than Dick
is God and he will throw lighting bolts of negativism at someone who
sins against HIS perfect beliefs.

Prove him wrong and I'm sure Dick will thank you for adding to his
knowledge. Until you can, best shut up.

How can you be so literate about any subject when you don't even know
how to spell right is way beyond me!

And many others things are too it seems.

What college passed you to get a degree?

Was English your major? I guess it wasn't science anyway.

Online diploma from Kmart no doubt!

I guess you failed in your application for one.

Fools follow experts.

Bigger fools ignore them without any justification.

Real truth seekers question what others say the truth is and find the
"truth" for themselves. But that is hard work and it is easier to
believe someone else's truth than think for yourself.

So what "Truth" have you found for yourself that proves Dick wrong? I'm sure
were all interested to know.

Enjoy your reign with your great misdirection ability you use to get
others to stroke your insecure ego.

That would be the one writing all this crap because someone proved him
wrong.

I have seen the light from your posts and you don't have anything nice
or useful to say to anyone, Just quote memorized formulas, A six year
old can do that.

How old do you have to be to accept when you are wrong?

Build the sealed box and build the ported box and listen to what your
ears hear, not what some book says about theory based specs.

I'll bet Dick has built or overseen the building of *FAR* more boxes and
conducted ***FAR*** more tests that you are likely to do in your lifetime.

If BOSE 901 were so great, why did the 4" speakers need an active eq
bass/trebble boost added to approximate a better sounding speaker.

I don't believe anyone said they were great, but active EQ alone, is not the
problem.

So as before, I'm leaving any post when the author does nothing but try
to make other people look stupid because he can use a memorized formula
to back his lies about how much he really knows.

Better than calling someone a liar with ***NO*** proof whatsoever.
In fact your whole post is free from any technical facts at all. I guess
memorising formulae is beyond your capabilities :-)

TonyP.

"Sanders" wrote in message
...
You think it's better to be a self proclaimed righteousness expert about
sound because you can quote a formula from a book you didn't write.

Fortunately most people here are greatful of Dick's ability to quote
supportable facts and be able to back them up.

You're the urban legend of this group and enough people believe it, so
your lies perpetrate freely to those who are afraid to think for
themselves or use their creativity.

It's exactly the idea of "creative" facts that many are trying to overcome.

Once again, we're
depending upon the wrong "experts."

No, the scientific community experts at that time believed what they
could about reality, considering the data they could use to evaluate to
make their decisions by.

Which ones did you speak to exactly?

Your use of words to misdirect others from the fact you don't have any
idea about what you are talking about is amazing.

If anyone doesn't know what he's talking about, it certainly ISN'T Dick
Pierce!

Thinking of politics Dick, you'd be a great one to run for office!!!!
Dick for President in 2008!!!

It would certainly be a huge improvement on George.

Yes, and you are the wrong person to quote as being an expert. There
are three ways to spell the word - wright, write, and right. - DUh once
again

Proving once again you have NO idea which fields of study correspond to
which experts.

It is quite evident your teachers never bothered to teach you the
elementary use of the English language, but boy, how you do know you can
quote from a book is a great skill of yours........
Read the definition of "Wright" in a dictionary, that is if you can read
other than do nothing but quote a bunch of specs some else who did do
the trial and error work on to come up with their theories.

Just how fragile is your ego that you need to denigrate Dick for trying to
enlighten you on a subject where your knowledge is sadly lacking.

You have no concept of what the spiders purpose is in a loudspeaker,
among other misconceptions you are spreading.

You haven't been here long have you :-)

The real experts don't need bows. They welcome discussion.
Discussions are when the experts admit they might be wrong and maybe why
they are wrong. There is no discussion to be had here other than Dick
is God and he will throw lighting bolts of negativism at someone who
sins against HIS perfect beliefs.

Prove him wrong and I'm sure Dick will thank you for adding to his
knowledge. Until you can, best shut up.

How can you be so literate about any subject when you don't even know
how to spell right is way beyond me!

And many others things are too it seems.

What college passed you to get a degree?

Was English your major? I guess it wasn't science anyway.

Online diploma from Kmart no doubt!

I guess you failed in your application for one.

Fools follow experts.

Bigger fools ignore them without any justification.

Real truth seekers question what others say the truth is and find the
"truth" for themselves. But that is hard work and it is easier to
believe someone else's truth than think for yourself.

So what "Truth" have you found for yourself that proves Dick wrong? I'm sure
were all interested to know.

Enjoy your reign with your great misdirection ability you use to get
others to stroke your insecure ego.

That would be the one writing all this crap because someone proved him
wrong.

I have seen the light from your posts and you don't have anything nice
or useful to say to anyone, Just quote memorized formulas, A six year
old can do that.

How old do you have to be to accept when you are wrong?

Build the sealed box and build the ported box and listen to what your
ears hear, not what some book says about theory based specs.

I'll bet Dick has built or overseen the building of *FAR* more boxes and
conducted ***FAR*** more tests that you are likely to do in your lifetime.

If BOSE 901 were so great, why did the 4" speakers need an active eq
bass/trebble boost added to approximate a better sounding speaker.

I don't believe anyone said they were great, but active EQ alone, is not the
problem.

So as before, I'm leaving any post when the author does nothing but try
to make other people look stupid because he can use a memorized formula
to back his lies about how much he really knows.

Better than calling someone a liar with ***NO*** proof whatsoever.
In fact your whole post is free from any technical facts at all. I guess
memorising formulae is beyond your capabilities :-)

TonyP.