Bob Morein wrote:

On 10/2/03 5:49, in article ,
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote:


This suggests that while a time aligned
speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
percussive noises or other transients."


You can suggest all you want, there is no evidence that time alignment is
anything but audio voodoo. You understand the concept of "scientific
evidence", don't you?

On 10/2/03 5:49, in article ,
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote:

This suggests that while a time aligned
speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
percussive noises or other transients."

You can suggest all you want, there is no evidence that time alignment is
anything but audio voodoo. You understand the concept of "scientific
evidence", don't you?


--


http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm

Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
By L. STUART DITZEN
Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.

They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.

"It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.

But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.

Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.


In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.


Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.

That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.

Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
state Superior Court.

The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
affairs was reasserted.

The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
litigation, that would have been the end of it.

But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
compensation.

"Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.


Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."

"I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
"We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.

His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
and electronic systems.

The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.


Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
through a university lawyer, declined to comment.

At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
related to estimation theory.

Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
industrial processes.

Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
problem Kalata had presented.

Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.

K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.

Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
became alienated from Kalata.

As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.

Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!


Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.


Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
about 100 of them.

Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
Pennsylvania courts.

Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been
chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on
anything.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.


"I had to seek closure," he said.

Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

Doomed to another miserable 10 years or so as a failed member of what
is mostly a productive human race. Most of us have successes and
failures, but the tough get up and succeed again. And again. And
again.

But a twisted few are forever failures.


Thanks for the kind summary of Robert Morein's failed existence from
the Philadelphia Inquirer.

A Real Brian McCarty
Successful

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Bob Morein wrote:

On 10/2/03 5:49, in article ,
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote:


This suggests that while a time aligned
speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
percussive noises or other transients."


You can suggest all you want, there is no evidence that time alignment
is
anything but audio voodoo. You understand the concept of "scientific
evidence", don't you?



Thanks for your sympathy, Lionel.

I wonder if there is anyone reading this who might bring this to the
attention of the Far North Queensland Film and Television Association, of
which Brian L. McCarty is secretary.

Bob Morein wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Bob Morein wrote:


On 10/2/03 5:49, in article ,
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote:



This suggests that while a time aligned
speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
percussive noises or other transients."


You can suggest all you want, there is no evidence that time alignment

is

anything but audio voodoo. You understand the concept of "scientific
evidence", don't you?



Thanks for your sympathy, Lionel.

I wonder if there is anyone reading this who might bring this to the
attention of the Far North Queensland Film and Television Association, of
which Brian L. McCarty is secretary.




Still a long time I use to detest any kind of McCartism. ;-)

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Bob Morein wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Bob Morein wrote:


On 10/2/03 5:49, in article ,
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote:



This suggests that while a time aligned
speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
percussive noises or other transients."


You can suggest all you want, there is no evidence that time alignment

is

anything but audio voodoo. You understand the concept of "scientific
evidence", don't you?



Thanks for your sympathy, Lionel.

I wonder if there is anyone reading this who might bring this to the
attention of the Far North Queensland Film and Television Association,
of
which Brian L. McCarty is secretary.




Still a long time I use to detest any kind of McCartism. ;-)

There is a similarity.
But I think McCarty has more kangaroos for his court .

Bob Morein wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Bob Morein wrote:


On 10/2/03 5:49, in article ,
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote:



This suggests that while a time aligned
speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
percussive noises or other transients."


You can suggest all you want, there is no evidence that time alignment

is

anything but audio voodoo. You understand the concept of "scientific
evidence", don't you?



Thanks for your sympathy, Lionel.

I wonder if there is anyone reading this who might bring this to the
attention of the Far North Queensland Film and Television Association, of
which Brian L. McCarty is secretary.




Bob,
I got an answer from sonic-news support requesting that you also submit
the complaint.
Lionel

"Sam" wrote in message
om...
Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in
their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? Can
people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
frequencies and low frequencies?

Why do you make it sound so simple? Let's say there's a tweeter and
midrange. Each plays a frequency very close to the crossover frequency
between them. In fact, there is overlap since the dropoff slopes aren't
immediate (they "roll").

When you listen to a live orchestra
do you hear the bass drum before you hear a high from a flute?

No, you're missing the point. In addition to the fact that we're not
talking about frequencies necessarily that far apart, the fact is that in a
concert hall the frequencies arive when they arrive. The microphone picks
it up at one source. It is this signal that must be played back verbatim.
It should be played back as one single complex sound wave, just like when it
was played. If it's broken up into segments (frequency "chunks") that
aren't played at exactly the same time, it could be a real mess.

"Brian l. McCarty" wrote in message
ws.com...
On 29/9/03 14:27, in article
, "Sam"

wrote:

Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in
their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary?

Nope. For the theory to be accurate, you'd have to sit in one very
precisely measure location, and never move your head even a millimeter.
It
makes good marketing copy, however.

Bull****. Things like this are SO easy to hear. Just take them to the
extreme to understand the concept. Move the tweeter 50 yards back, adjust
for level, and then see how it sounds. The only question that remains is
not IF it makes a difference - only how much of a difference, and if the
rest of your system is so much worse anyway it doesn't matter.

"Bob Morein" wrote in message
ws.com...
On 29/9/03 19:36, in article , "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the
flute
in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the players are
usually so far apart

I think it's YOU that needs to think this through. The bass drum and
flute
are perfectly synchronized because the players are professionals that are
trained to follow not just audio cues but a conductor.

That's false, not to mention beside the point. They're not even an order of
magnitude worse than how synchronized the drivers need to be. It's a moot
point and a red herring. The point is that even when a single instrument is
involved (forget multiple instruments in different locations), time
alignment is still important. Part of an instruments sound is coming from
one driver, and part from another. In this case, you have a single point
source instrument in real life being played back in 2 discrete "sections" on
reproduction. If the time misalignment is bad enough, it will sound
HORRIBLE. UNLISTENABLE. You're not going to get that kind of misalignment
with a normal speaker, so the question is: how bad is it, and can you detect
it? Either way, it is most definitely a flaw in the playback system.

"Sam" wrote in message
om...
So you are saying that loudspeaker timing has to do with the audio
signal going to the loudspeakers and not the actual speed of the
sounds coming from the drivers.

No. It's the sounds coming from separate drivers.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...

It is not just a case of dumbing down the wording for the confused
reader. I fail to see a simple relationship between mass and time
delay.

Is it not obvious that a light, fast driver, like an electrostatic panel, is
going to respond (play the sound) slighly more quickly than the heavy, slow
woofer cone driver?

jeffc wrote:


"Bob Morein" wrote in message
ews.com...
On 29/9/03 19:36, in article , "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the
flute
in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the players are
usually so far apart

I think it's YOU that needs to think this through. The bass drum and
flute
are perfectly synchronized because the players are professionals that are
trained to follow not just audio cues but a conductor.

That's false, not to mention beside the point. They're not even an order of
magnitude worse than how synchronized the drivers need to be. It's a moot
point and a red herring. The point is that even when a single instrument is
involved (forget multiple instruments in different locations), time
alignment is still important. Part of an instruments sound is coming from
one driver, and part from another. In this case, you have a single point
source instrument in real life being played back in 2 discrete "sections" on
reproduction. If the time misalignment is bad enough, it will sound
HORRIBLE. UNLISTENABLE. You're not going to get that kind of misalignment
with a normal speaker, so the question is: how bad is it, and can you detect
it? Either way, it is most definitely a flaw in the playback system.









Technically speaking, the claim that 2 or more drivers are reproducing the
frequencies of one instrument will depend on which instrument, or voice for
that matter you are talking about. It will also depend on the frequency range
each driver is designed to reproduce. In other words, in some cases, you may
well be right, but in other cases, it may require only one driver to reproduce
a particular instrument.

All that said, time alignment is a claim made by some speaker manufacturers -
e.g. Thiel, Dunlavy (prior to its demise), etc., but not too many. Whether
there is an audible advantage for these few brands is, I would guess, in the
"ears of the beholder". My speakers consist of only one driver (Martin Logan
CLS IIs) so their coherence is superb. And I've heard similar claims made for
other planar speakers such as some of the Magneplanars, even though they are
usually 2- or 3-way systems.





Bruce J. Richman

On 10/3/03 14:01, in article ,
"jeffc" wrote:

Move the tweeter 50 yards back, adjust
for level, and then see how it sounds. The only question that remains is
not IF it makes a difference - only how much of a difference, and if the
rest of your system is so much worse anyway it doesn't matter.


Hey, you're quite a scientist now aren't you "jeff"?

That how science works down below the Mason-Dixon line?


--


http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm

Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
By L. STUART DITZEN
Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.

They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.

"It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.

But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.

Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.


In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.


Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.

That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.

Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
state Superior Court.

The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
affairs was reasserted.

The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
litigation, that would have been the end of it.

But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
compensation.

"Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.


Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."

"I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
"We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.

His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
and electronic systems.

The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.


Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
through a university lawyer, declined to comment.

At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
related to estimation theory.

Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
industrial processes.

Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
problem Kalata had presented.

Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.

K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.

Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
became alienated from Kalata.

As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.

Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!


Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.


Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
about 100 of them.

Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
Pennsylvania courts.

Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been
chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on
anything.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.


"I had to seek closure," he said.

Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

Doomed to another miserable 10 years or so as a failed member of what
is mostly a productive human race. Most of us have successes and
failures, but the tough get up and succeed again. And again. And
again.

But a twisted few are forever failures.


Thanks for the kind summary of Robert Morein's failed existence from
the Philadelphia Inquirer.

A Real Brian McCarty
Successful

On 10/3/03 14:10, in article ,
"jeffc" wrote:

Is it not obvious that a light, fast driver, like an electrostatic panel, is
going to respond (play the sound) slighly more quickly than the heavy, slow
woofer cone driver?

What's yer point?


--
Bob Morein.
Failed student.
Failed Temple University
Ejected from Grad program after seven years
Ejected from Drexel University after dissertation judged "bull**** nonsense"
Sued Drexel and Lost
Filed appeal and Lost.
Appealed to US Supreme Court, and they laughed their asses off!
But I get even with studentsandthelaw.org my harassment site.
My poor jewish mother Jane Morein died with a broken heart, watching this
poor twisted loser fail at everything I've ever done.
Daddy Sylvan Morein, who studied hard and became a fair to middlin' dentist,
is now stuck at home with his loser son; unwanted by life.
But I've discovered at last my calling: INTERNET WACKO!



Man, am I a Loser!
Keywords: studentsandthelaw.org

"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...

It is not just a case of dumbing down the wording for the confused
reader. I fail to see a simple relationship between mass and time
delay.

Is it not obvious that a light, fast driver, like an electrostatic panel,
is
going to respond (play the sound) slighly more quickly than the heavy,
slow
woofer cone driver?

Goofball is putting it on the correct mathematical footing.
At first intuition, it might appear that mass slows the driver down.
But mathematically dissected, mass is not the key variable to look at.
Resonance is.

If the cone happens to be a clay flower pot, the driver won't be able to
move it very far.
However, if the system is not resonant, then the following argument applies:

s = (1/2) a*t^2

t ~ 1/f , where the tilde means proportionality.

So s ~ 1*a/f

The acceleration is inversely proportional to m=mass, so

s ~ 1*/(f*m).

This means that where resonance can be neglected, the mass has the same
proportional effect on all frequencies.
In other words, a heavy driver does not, by dint of weight alone, delay the
high frequencies with respect to the lower ones.

In my response to Sam's original question, I chose the case where driver
resonance has an effect. If a woofer has, say, a resonant frequency in the
box of 30 Hz, then some range above the resonant frequency, for example, 40
to 200 Hz, there will be a delay of response in that range in comparison to
above 200 Hz.

The reason we consider the electrostatic system to be fast is not because
it's light, but because it is fundamentally, if not in practice, a
nonresonant system. But cone drivers mounted in free air also approximate
this.

BTW, I have a pair of Acoustat 2+2's. Love 'em.

"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"Sam" wrote in message
om...
Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in
their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? Can
people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
frequencies and low frequencies?

Why do you make it sound so simple? Let's say there's a tweeter and
midrange. Each plays a frequency very close to the crossover frequency
between them. In fact, there is overlap since the dropoff slopes aren't
immediate (they "roll").

When you listen to a live orchestra
do you hear the bass drum before you hear a high from a flute?

No, you're missing the point. In addition to the fact that we're not
talking about frequencies necessarily that far apart, the fact is that in
a
concert hall the frequencies arive when they arrive. The microphone picks
it up at one source. It is this signal that must be played back verbatim.
It should be played back as one single complex sound wave, just like when
it
was played. If it's broken up into segments (frequency "chunks") that
aren't played at exactly the same time, it could be a real mess.

And that is the intutive viewpoint I used to share. But as an owner of Spica
TC-60's and Acoustat 2+2's, it really doesn't jump out at me.

"jeffc" wrote in message


"Bob Morein" wrote in message
ws.com...

On 29/9/03 19:36, in article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I think you really need to think this through. The bass drum and the
flute
in an orchestra aren't that well synchronized because the players
are usually so far apart

I think it's YOU that needs to think this through. The bass drum and
flute
are perfectly synchronized because the players are professionals
that are trained to follow not just audio cues but a conductor.

That's false, not to mention beside the point.

So far so good.

They're not even an
order of magnitude worse than how synchronized the drivers need to
be.

The time delays between musicians in an orchestra easily several order of
magnitude worse than those in a typical speaker.

Take a flat baffle and put a typical 6-8" woofer and dome tweeter on it. The
acoustic center of the woofer is typically less than 4 inches behind the
baffle and that of the done tweeter is pretty much right on the baffle.

Now let's fictionally presume that all the musicians in a symphony orchestra
play with perfect timing so that the conductor hears every instrument in
perfect synchronization. Now consider the path length difference between two
instruments at the far left and far right of the orchestra, from the
standpoint of a person sitting along one of the walls of the concert hall.
The path length difference for that listener could be 60 feet! Now consider
the fact that listeners everywhere in the room hear music reflected off of
all the walls, the floor and the ceiling.

It's a moot point and a red herring.

You've seemingly forgotten what my point was, which is that we don't
typically time-synchronize the drivers in a speaker to equalize delays for
musical instruments, we time-synchronize the drivers in a speaker to get
flat response when the sound from two drivers in the speaker mix.

The point is that even
when a single instrument is involved (forget multiple instruments in
different locations), time alignment is still important.

That was my point, before my post was butchered by a few generations of
quoting by people who were addressing other points.

For example, My post said:

"The idea of time-aligning speakers traces back to sound stages in Hollywood
in the 1930s. The monitor speakers of the day were based on horns, and there
were path differences between woofers and tweeters, sometimes of many feet.
These were due to the differences in the design of the woofers and tweeters.
Timing could vary by 3-10 milliseconds or more. Sharp sounds like tap
dancing were observed to be undesirably changed and highly colored by those
time differences. Because the differences were so gross, they were important
concerns."

I used an example where time alignment in the speaker was required to
reproduce a single sound source (a shoe tapping on the floor) with
reasonable fidelity.

Part of an
instruments sound is coming from one driver, and part from another.
In this case, you have a single point source instrument in real life
being played back in 2 discrete "sections" on reproduction.

Of course!

If the time misalignment is bad enough, it will sound HORRIBLE.
UNLISTENABLE.

Of course!

You're not going to get that kind of misalignment with
a normal speaker, so the question is: how bad is it, and can you
detect it? Either way, it is most definitely a flaw in the playback
system.

Anticipated when I said:

"Yes, differences in time alignment can be heard,
but at higher frequencies they are mostly heard due to frequency response
variations that they cause. If equal-sized signals from the woofer and
tweeter aren't time-aligned around the usual crossover point of say, 3 KHz,
they won't add up properly to give flat response."

Here's a concept you might want to consider Jeff - read the whole post
before you criticize it!

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...

Technically speaking, the claim that 2 or more drivers are reproducing the
frequencies of one instrument will depend on which instrument, or voice
for
that matter you are talking about. It will also depend on the frequency
range
each driver is designed to reproduce. In other words, in some cases, you
may
well be right, but in other cases, it may require only one driver to
reproduce
a particular instrument.

Possible, but when you take harmonics into account, it's almost always true,
with most typical speaker designs, at least to a small extent.

All that said, time alignment is a claim made by some speaker
manufacturers -
e.g. Thiel, Dunlavy (prior to its demise), etc., but not too many.
Whether
there is an audible advantage for these few brands is, I would guess, in
the
"ears of the beholder".

I would say that time alignment is not a "claim", but simply a term meaning
an attribute. Time alignment problems definitely exist. The question is
can you hear them with various designs? As far as "ears of the beholder", I
agree.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

The time delays between musicians in an orchestra easily several order of
magnitude worse than those in a typical speaker.

There aren't any "time delays" in real music. You're totally missing the
point. Real music is real music. The point is to reproduce it as it
sounds. In real music, it's not the case that part of the saxophone sound
gets to you at one point, and part of it a split second later. THAT is time
delay.

Take a flat baffle and put a typical 6-8" woofer and dome tweeter on it.
The
acoustic center of the woofer is typically less than 4 inches behind the
baffle and that of the done tweeter is pretty much right on the baffle.

Now let's fictionally presume that all the musicians in a symphony
orchestra
play with perfect timing so that the conductor hears every instrument in
perfect synchronization.

Moot point. Completely off the subject. Unrelated.

You've seemingly forgotten what my point was, which is that we don't
typically time-synchronize the drivers in a speaker to equalize delays for
musical instruments, we time-synchronize the drivers in a speaker to get
flat response when the sound from two drivers in the speaker mix.

I never said it's for "instruments" - plural. That's not the issue. At
all.

"The idea of time-aligning speakers traces back to sound stages in
Hollywood
in the 1930s. The monitor speakers of the day were based on horns, and
there
were path differences between woofers and tweeters, sometimes of many
feet.
These were due to the differences in the design of the woofers and
tweeters.
Timing could vary by 3-10 milliseconds or more. Sharp sounds like tap
dancing were observed to be undesirably changed and highly colored by
those
time differences. Because the differences were so gross, they were
important
concerns."

Well, flat response is ANOTHER issue then (which I was not aware of before.)
If time delay messes with that, then I just learned something.

"Yes, differences in time alignment can be heard,
but at higher frequencies they are mostly heard due to frequency response
variations that they cause. If equal-sized signals from the woofer and
tweeter aren't time-aligned around the usual crossover point of say, 3
KHz,
they won't add up properly to give flat response."

I don't totally understand why, but I'll chew on it for awhile.

Here's a concept you might want to consider Jeff - read the whole post
before you criticize it!

Likewise. Or just reread the parts you didn't get!

"Bob Morein" wrote in message
...


No, you're missing the point. In addition to the fact that we're not
talking about frequencies necessarily that far apart, the fact is that
in
a
concert hall the frequencies arive when they arrive. The microphone
picks
it up at one source. It is this signal that must be played back
verbatim.
It should be played back as one single complex sound wave, just like
when
it
was played. If it's broken up into segments (frequency "chunks") that
aren't played at exactly the same time, it could be a real mess.

And that is the intutive viewpoint I used to share. But as an owner of
Spica
TC-60's and Acoustat 2+2's, it really doesn't jump out at me.

My brother has the Spicas, and if I recall with the grilles off, they are
time-aligned, no? Anyway, my point was it *could be* a real mess. I really
have no idea at what point the difference actually becomes audible, I just
know it is audible at certain distances.

"jeffc" wrote in message
m
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

The time delays between musicians in an orchestra easily several
order of magnitude worse than those in a typical speaker.

There aren't any "time delays" in real music. You're totally missing
the point. Real music is real music.

So far so good.

The point is to reproduce it as it sounds.

My example points out a relevant fact: There isn't just one sound to a
musical performance.

In real music, it's not the case that part of the
saxophone sound gets to you at one point, and part of it a split
second later. THAT is time delay.

Ironically what does happen is that you get a large number of sightly
different versions of it over a perceptible period of time.

Take a flat baffle and put a typical 6-8" woofer and dome tweeter on
it. The acoustic center of the woofer is typically less than 4
inches behind the baffle and that of the done tweeter is pretty much
right on the baffle.

Now let's fictionally presume that all the musicians in a symphony
orchestra play with perfect timing so that the conductor hears every
instrument in perfect synchronization.

Moot point. Completely off the subject. Unrelated.

Efforts to dismiss relevant facts noted.

You've seemingly forgotten what my point was, which is that we don't
typically time-synchronize the drivers in a speaker to equalize
delays for musical instruments, we time-synchronize the drivers in a
speaker to get flat response when the sound from two drivers in the
speaker mix.

I never said it's for "instruments" - plural. That's not the issue.
At all.

See the origional post.

"The idea of time-aligning speakers traces back to sound stages in
Hollywood in the 1930s. The monitor speakers of the day were based
on horns, and there were path differences between woofers and
tweeters, sometimes of many feet. These were due to the differences
in the design of the woofers and tweeters. Timing could vary by 3-10
milliseconds or more. Sharp sounds like tap dancing were observed to
be undesirably changed and highly colored by those
time differences. Because the differences were so gross, they were
important concerns."

Well, flat response is ANOTHER issue then (which I was not aware of
before.) If time delay messes with that, then I just learned
something.

Time delay among drivers in a speaker system is one well-known source of
frequency response variations.

"Yes, differences in time alignment can be heard,
but at higher frequencies they are mostly heard due to frequency
response variations that they cause. If equal-sized signals from the
woofer and tweeter aren't time-aligned around the usual crossover
point of say, 3 KHz,
they won't add up properly to give flat response."

I don't totally understand why, but I'll chew on it for awhile.

Here's a little light reading:

http://www.google.com/search?&q=time+alignment+speakers

"trotsky" wrote in message
ink.net...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty"
wrote:


Can
people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
frequencies and low frequencies?

Nope.

Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large hall.


Lovely. Weil re-writes the laws of physics to read that the speed of
sound
is significantly and perceptibly dependent on frequency.

Singh lets Weil pretend to review one of his POS speakers, and now Weil
is
rewriting physics books!

LOL!



I'm laughing too, at your supposed religious beliefs!

That's OK, we're all laughing at your claim that YOU designed a speaker
system.

"normanstrong" wrote in message
. net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty"
wrote:

Can
people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
frequencies and low frequencies?

Nope.

Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large
hall.

I don't believe that the speed of sound is frequency dependent. If it
was, an octave would only be in tune at a specific distance, which we
know is not the case.

Norm Strong


IIRC it's 1130 ft/sec no matter the frequency.

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:01:43 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"normanstrong" wrote in message
.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, "Brian l. McCarty"
wrote:

Can
people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
frequencies and low frequencies?

Nope.

Obviously Brian has never attended a live music event in a large
hall.

I don't believe that the speed of sound is frequency dependent. If it
was, an octave would only be in tune at a specific distance, which we
know is not the case.

Norm Strong


IIRC it's 1130 ft/sec no matter the frequency.

It might be, and then again, it might not be.

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 04:10:54 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...

It is not just a case of dumbing down the wording for the confused
reader. I fail to see a simple relationship between mass and time
delay.

Is it not obvious that a light, fast driver, like an electrostatic panel, is
going to respond (play the sound) slighly more quickly than the heavy, slow
woofer cone driver?


No, If something is obvious in audio it is probably wrong. See for
example:
http://www.google.com/groups?safe=im...um=100 &hl=en

Audiophile terms like "fast driver" and "more quickly" are not
precise enough to reach any firm conclusion. Accleration and speed
have precise meanings.It may not be obvious but it is true that the
greatest linear speeds of speaker cones occur at low rather than high
frequencies (for the same ouput level).

There are some good reasons that tweeters end up small but they might
not be obvious. A small radiating surface is not as directional as a
large one. If you compare a driver with a ten cm. diameter cone to one
with a 1cm diameter cone then with simple scaling, keeping the
geometry the same, ie. 10 times the height, ten times the width and
ten times the depth you get the following:

The ratio of the areas of the cones is 100
The ratio of volumes and masses is 1000

For the 1cm. cone to produce the same output as the 10cm. cone at the
same frequency it has to move the same volume of air (needed for a
flat frequency response with a two driver speaker with crossover).
Since it is only 1/100 of the area it has to move 100 times as far and
therefore accelerate 100 times faster. Luckily it is only 1000th of
the mass so it would only need a tenth of the driving force of the
bigger cone. One the other hand it only has room for 1000th of the
amount of copper in the voice coil but you probably want it to end up
with about the same resistance as the larger driver. And so the
juggling goes on and on. It is not that obvious, in fact it makes my
head hurt. . .

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:09:11 -0400, "Bob Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:47:46 -0400, "Bob Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:23:45 -0400, "Bob Morein"
wrote:

1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds slower
to
the
driving electrical signal.

One might take some notice if one wanted to throw them. This must be
one of the worst cases of a feral physicist technobabble.

You are loosing(tm) it Bob, IMO.

The wording is an attempt to avoid confusing the reader with moving mass,
resonant frequency, and Q.
Why don't you give it a shot? It could be better.


It is not just a case of dumbing down the wording for the confused
reader. I fail to see a simple relationship between mass and time
delay. If you were to increase just the mass of the moving parts of
an ideal driver, for a frequency well above resonance, the amplitude
of acceleration, velocity and displacement would all be reduced in
proportion to mass but the phase/time relationship between air
pressure and applied voltage would be the same. If you scale down a
driver in proportion to wavelength, a lot more than just the mass is
changed including the applied force, but again, well above resonance,
the applied force and therefore acceleration, is proportional to the
applied current ( or voltage for constant impedance) and the velocity
and displacement just follow along in proportion, ninety degrees
apart. (assuming a ideal rigid structure). I can see no increased
delay due to increased moving mass of drivers. Scaling can be a tricky
thing, you will note but the motion of "ideal" drivers is not. Maybe
you are thinking of something tricky but it came out dumb - "heavy
equals slow/late"

All correct, above. I was trying to give Sam, who was not aware that the
speed of sound in free space is independent of frequency, something to grab
on to. Doing that, while exhibiting the level of erudition we expect, is
for me an unsolved problem. So I decided to focus on the relationship
between resonant frequency and group delay, and resonant frequency, I
decided, was best represented by one constant in the equation, mass.

If you can think of a way to present more information to Sam, who has just
learned that c is a constant, it would be useful to all of us.
Give it another shot. I'd certainly add it to my repertoire of answers, as
the question will inevitably occur again.


There is also something dumb here too, we noted. . .

"Auditory research suggests that complex noises are not localized by
time delay. However, the ear can distinguish intra-aural time delays
as small as 6 microseconds. This suggests that while a time aligned
speaker may not help one better distinguish the position of a
violinist, it may help the listener distinguish the positions of
percussive noises or other transients."

How can you change "intra-aural time delays" by any identical change
to two identical speakers?

That's a good question. It's intuitively appealing to me that the ear would
better be able to localize an impulse if it actually looks like an impulse,
as opposed to what you and I both know comes out of a non time-aligned
system. And that's all there is. I have no testing, blind or otherwise, to
back it up. I do know I enjoy the hell out of a set of Spicas when they're
set up right.




Most likely you have been temporaily befuddled by The Evil High End.
Eat Marmite.



Vote Carolynne!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
The point is to reproduce it as it sounds.

My example points out a relevant fact: There isn't just one sound to a
musical performance.

Yes, for the purposes of this discussion, there is! There is a single sound
wave that reaches the listener's ear. This sound wave keeps it's integrity.
When that EXACT SAME SOUND WAVE is played back through TWO drivers, it can
lose it's integrity. (The fact that it IS a single sound is easily seen by
the fact that the recording is one signal wave, at least per channel).

"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Morein" wrote in message
...


No, you're missing the point. In addition to the fact that we're not
talking about frequencies necessarily that far apart, the fact is that
in
a
concert hall the frequencies arive when they arrive. The microphone
picks
it up at one source. It is this signal that must be played back
verbatim.
It should be played back as one single complex sound wave, just like
when
it
was played. If it's broken up into segments (frequency "chunks") that
aren't played at exactly the same time, it could be a real mess.

And that is the intutive viewpoint I used to share. But as an owner of
Spica
TC-60's and Acoustat 2+2's, it really doesn't jump out at me.

My brother has the Spicas, and if I recall with the grilles off, they are
time-aligned, no? Anyway, my point was it *could be* a real mess. I
really
have no idea at what point the difference actually becomes audible, I just
know it is audible at certain distances.

The Spicas are one of the purest time-aligned designs out there, regardless
of whether the grills are on or off.

There is an established threshold time, something like six milliseconds, at
which a reflection becomes audible as an echo, rather an an increase in
ambience. This amount of delay is far greater than occurs between any set of
drivers mounted on the same baffle. It's an issue only for sound
reinforcement.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:09:11 -0400, "Bob Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:47:46 -0400, "Bob Morein"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:23:45 -0400, "Bob Morein"

wrote:

1. The woofer weighs more than the tweeter. Hence it responds
slower
to
the
driving electrical signal.

[snip]

Most likely you have been temporaily befuddled by The Evil High End.
Eat Marmite.

From what I understand, merely opening a jar of the stuff deprives one of
all powers of reason. I fail to see how that would rescue me from their
clutches.

Bob Morein wrote:

"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Morein" wrote in message
...

No, you're missing the point. In addition to the fact that we're not
talking about frequencies necessarily that far apart, the fact is that

in

a

concert hall the frequencies arive when they arrive. The microphone

picks

it up at one source. It is this signal that must be played back

verbatim.

It should be played back as one single complex sound wave, just like

when

it

was played. If it's broken up into segments (frequency "chunks") that
aren't played at exactly the same time, it could be a real mess.


And that is the intutive viewpoint I used to share. But as an owner of

Spica

TC-60's and Acoustat 2+2's, it really doesn't jump out at me.

My brother has the Spicas, and if I recall with the grilles off, they are
time-aligned, no? Anyway, my point was it *could be* a real mess. I

really

have no idea at what point the difference actually becomes audible, I
just
know it is audible at certain distances.


The Spicas are one of the purest time-aligned designs out there,
regardless
of whether the grills are on or off.

There is an established threshold time, something like six
milliseconds, at
which a reflection becomes audible as an echo, rather an an increase in
ambience. This amount of delay is far greater than occurs between any
set of
drivers mounted on the same baffle. It's an issue only for sound
reinforcement.



That's interesting: what's the unit of measurement for the "purity" of
the Spicas, and will you admit to talking trash when you read this?

"Bob Morein" wrote in message
...


And that is the intutive viewpoint I used to share. But as an owner of
Spica
TC-60's and Acoustat 2+2's, it really doesn't jump out at me.

My brother has the Spicas, and if I recall with the grilles off, they
are
time-aligned, no? Anyway, my point was it *could be* a real mess. I
really
have no idea at what point the difference actually becomes audible, I
just
know it is audible at certain distances.

The Spicas are one of the purest time-aligned designs out there,
regardless
of whether the grills are on or off.

You misunderstood my meaning. I'm not saying I could tell if they were time
aligned by listening depending on whether the grilles were on or off. I
meant if the grilles were off, I could what I think think is a speaker
designed to be time aligned (right or wrong.)

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:12:06 GMT, ow
(Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote:

Vote Carolynne!

No! Vote Alex! I want to wrap her up in cotton wool and keep her in my
pocket, note.

--
td

"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Morein" wrote in message
...


And that is the intutive viewpoint I used to share. But as an owner
of
Spica
TC-60's and Acoustat 2+2's, it really doesn't jump out at me.

My brother has the Spicas, and if I recall with the grilles off, they
are
time-aligned, no? Anyway, my point was it *could be* a real mess. I
really
have no idea at what point the difference actually becomes audible, I
just
know it is audible at certain distances.

The Spicas are one of the purest time-aligned designs out there,
regardless
of whether the grills are on or off.

You misunderstood my meaning. I'm not saying I could tell if they were
time
aligned by listening depending on whether the grilles were on or off. I
meant if the grilles were off, I could what I think think is a speaker
designed to be time aligned (right or wrong.)

The grills don't make any significant change in time alignment.
Just a little attenuation of the treble.

Bobo, barbeque season has ended.

The grills don't make any significant change in time alignment.

Doesn't it depend whether they're charcoal or gas, indoor or
outdoor?

(Sam) wrote in message . com...
Many loudspeakers incorporate some type of time alighnment scheme in
their design such as a sloping baffle. Is this truly necessary? Can
people actually perceive the difference in speed between high
frequencies and low frequencies? When you listen to a live orchestra
do you hear the bass drum before you hear a high from a flute? Can
someone explain to me the significance of pace, rhythm, and timing in
our audio playback systems

Sam

The woofer, mid-range, and tweeters all have cones of differing
depths. If you mount them flush with the front surface of the driver,
the voice coils are a varying distances from you. If you slope the
baffle, you can get the voice-coils all about the same distance from
you.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Bobo, barbeque season has ended.

The grills don't make any significant change in time alignment.

Doesn't it depend whether they're charcoal or gas, indoor or
outdoor?

You are at your best when you satirize personalities, rather than word usage
for material items.

Actually, I have a gas grill in my backyard, and I cook on it every clear
evening in the fall.

Bobo is miffed.

The grills don't make any significant change in time alignment.

Doesn't it depend whether they're charcoal or gas, indoor or
outdoor?

You are at your best when you satirize personalities, rather than word usage
for material items.

Most kind. However, the personality aspect of RAO has run to the
drab of late. Scottieborg is spitting fire, the Krooborg is cornered
and extra-vicious, and Stynchie is a prisoner of Dubya's deceits. So
yes, I am, for the moment, reduced to making shallow wordplays.

Actually, I have a gas grill in my backyard, and I cook on it every clear
evening in the fall.

It's not exactly *your* backyard, though, is it?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Bobo, barbeque season has ended.

The grills don't make any significant change in time alignment.

Doesn't it depend whether they're charcoal or gas, indoor or
outdoor?

I have this pinhead killfiled, so it would be nice if no one even quoted
him.

jeffc said:

I have this pinhead killfiled, so it would be nice if no one even quoted
him.

If wishes were horses, Krooger would have killed himself long ago.

jeffc wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
. ..


Bobo, barbeque season has ended.


The grills don't make any significant change in time alignment.

Doesn't it depend whether they're charcoal or gas, indoor or
outdoor?


I have this pinhead killfiled, so it would be nice if no one even quoted
him.



Which of the two pinheads are you referring to?