$ony Quality

[Thowllly]

Isn't it convenient that you found that post on the 15th of Mar right after Stereophile was mentioned here?

Yep, that it was

If you're implying that I went searching for somebody criticising Stereophile, then no, I did not, I read Slashdot every day.

Don't like Stereophile? Pick another audio review magazine, very simple really

I didn't really have any opinion of Stereophile, I've never heard of it before.

Keep trying.

No, I will not. I am not interested in the discussion; I just wanted to contribute with something I found interesting

BTW when was that post created? Hmmm....

Someone is really desparate to gain some credibility.

If you're implying that I’m Fmaxwell then you are wrong. Sorry. And I don't know him either. (Although I wouldn't mind being him, he got lots of karma on that post, and he has a much lower Slashdot ID than me too )

Edit: I just checked your question (“BTW when was that post created?â€￾), and it was created yesterday, long before Stereophile was mentioned in your post You are far too paranoid PC-Engine

 

[randycat99]

Just read this in a post on Slashdot:

Stereophile refuses to perform double-blind testing and have been taken in by hoax after hoax. They swore that coloring the edge of a CD green (with a product called "CD Stoplight") improved the sound. I used to subscribe but got sick of the $400 speaker cables, magic line cords, and other unscientific "tweaks."

If Stereophile never does double-blind tests, then their product tests are pretty much worthless.

I'm glad you picked that up! It gets much worse than that. If you ever search the Google Audio forums, you'll find they [Stereophile] get slagged mercilessly for their non- objectivity. You can even find where John Atkinson, himself, gets utterly pummeled as he posts there.

...but I don't want to give the impression that one should not read that magazine. If you want to read about the fancy, uber-expensive equipment and you find enjoyment in it, Stereophile would be your bag. Just don't take it word for word (unless you are PCEngine).

 

[MfA]

From the sound of it Id say they get payed not to do double blind tests by their advertisers.

 

[randycat99]

You're either really dense or make a living by dodging facts. The white paper says the listeners can readily hear the 30kHz 10dB peak that they were trying to cancel in the crossover. Selective memory? Not a suprise.

...when testing with a pseudo-random noise signal. Why they didn't associate this further with an actual music sample test or at the very least sinewave test tones, raises some questions? Perhaps they did and found that detection utterly disappeared? For all we know, the 10 dB resonance was affecting tweeter operation so forcefully as to cause modulations in the audible range? (BTW, there would be considerable phase issues with a 10 dB resonance, so why don't they show up in the "representative" phase responses they give? Clearly, 50 kHz extension alone is not a conclusive factor in determining "phase accuracy", as I had mentioned earlier.) So making such a statement would be very hard while keeping a straight face? ...but by your logic, if they can hear 30, why not 40, why not 80? Where does it end? If they can make a tweeter that goes to 120 kHz, then all of a sudden that will be "hearable", too, I imagine. Theories can be rearranged as convenient according to you, right?

Sure is better than what you have to offer so far.

So all I have to do is go to my computer and conjure up some filter curves that indicate the contrary, and that would be good enough for you? That is exactly what they have presented to you, yet you haven't the good sense to even question it a little?

No it's not automatically obsolete, however in this particular case it is unless you can prove otherwise

So basic physics needs to be revalidated every single time someone comes up with some crackpot theory that doesn't match-up? No. It's the crackpot theory that is scrutinized, questioned, and re-validated for truthfulness. That would be your side to work on.

Go to your local bookstore and pick up a copy of Stereophile or something similar. It's only $5

Why not just pick up Mad Magazine? You'll get about the same $'s worth as far as theory.

Um Stereophile is one among many other audio review magazines. Choose whichever magazine you prefer. The quality ones have graphs

BTW 99% of magazine have ads so I don't know what planet you live on.

Yes, they do. What you don't hear is how implicitly connected the ads are to the kinds of reviews they [Stereophile] put in the mag. There was a bit of controversy over this a while ago.

Again I'm glad you know more about my living space more than I do Oh I forgot you know everything since your theories work outside a vacuum too in every and all situations taking into account all factors.

Why don't you explain how you managed to get your room to 30 dB ambient noise, then? ...or is this yet another fabrication of yours? 40 is an exceptional number for a typical residence (and would have been believable at face value), so please do share with us how you pulled a 30.

How utterly convenient. No suprise really...doesn't help your case does it? And to make this console related...GAME OVER!

It's been GAME OVER for you a few pages ago, but you keep inserting quarters hoping you'll get lucky.

 

[randycat99]

From the sound of it Id say they get payed not to do double blind tests by their advertisers.

A very astute observation, indeed! A while ago there was an Audio magazine, that started doing "real" tests that started giving indications that more stuff sounded the same (since they are about as technically "transparent" as transparent can be) than a lot of claims where alluding to. This had a detrimental effect to the participation of their advertisers, and before you know it, the magazine folds out of nowhere. I was sorry to see it go. Reader popularity sure wasn't the factor here. I read them quite often, and they kept up, if not exceeded, what you could find with Stereo Review. It is a shame Audio magazine is no more, but little things called "advertisers" and "business" had a little problem with them following their true charter.

 

[PC-Engine]

I just checked your question (“BTW when was that post created?â€￾), and it was created yesterday, long before Stereophile was mentioned in your post You are far too paranoid PC-Engine

Um..no, the post mentioning Stereophile not the original thread starter regarding ATRAC

Mar 15 10p.m.

when testing with a pseudo-random noise signal. Why they didn't associate this further with an actual music sample test or at the very least sinewave test tones, raises some questions? Perhaps they did and found that detection utterly disappeared? For all we know, the 10 dB resonance was affecting tweeter operation so forcefully as to cause modulations in the audible range? (BTW, there would be considerable phase issues with a 10 dB resonance, so why don't they show up in the "representative" phase responses they give? Clearly, 50 kHz extension alone is not a conclusive factor in determining "phase accuracy", as I had mentioned earlier.) So making such a statement would be very hard while keeping a straight face? ...but by your logic, if they can hear 30, why not 40, why not 80? Where does it end? If they can make a tweeter that goes to 120 kHz, then all of a sudden that will be "hearable", too, I imagine. Theories can be rearranged as convenient according to you, right?

Do you have any ammo other than speculation? No.

So all I have to do is go to my computer and conjure up some filter curves that indicate the contrary, and that would be good enough for you? That is exactly what they have presented to you, yet you haven't the good sense to even question it a little?

Um every speaker manufacturer who makes an extended definition high frequency speaker are saying the same thing better transients and phase accuracy. Tannoy, Mission, Yamaha, etc. etc. That's enough evidence for me. However since you have a great deal of doubt why don't you email the company and ask them?

So basic physics needs to be revalidated every single time someone comes up with some crackpot theory that doesn't match-up? No. It's the crackpot theory that is scrutinized, questioned, and re-validated for truthfulness. That would be your side to work on.

Just because you can't figure out how they've achieved what they have doesn't mean is bogus

Yes, they do. What you don't hear is how implicitly connected the ads are to the kinds of reviews they [Stereophile] put in the mag. There was a bit of controversy over this a while ago.

I mentioned Stereophile because that was the first magazine that came to mind. Like I said before pick another to your liking and examine those graphs instead. It's not the end of the world.

It's been GAME OVER for you a few pages ago, but you keep inserting quarters hoping you'll get lucky.

Hehe at least I have quarters to back up my argument

BTW you mention a centuries worth of information from the technical journals. I'm not asking you to sift through all that information. The relevant information pertaining to the issue at hand from that publication is probably out of date anyway. So I'll make it very easy for you. Sift through the last couple of years back to 2000 and cite something that says the claims from these speaker manufacturers are dubious. If you can do that then you have something to support your argument. So far everything from the speaker manufacturers support my argument so it's basically you against everyone else.

 

[CosmoKramer]

randycat999: There is just no way you're going to convince this "PC-Engine" fellow. Just ignore him.

I can assure you that anybody who has ever managed to at least unintentionally trip over a clue in Clueville can see that you have your facts straight.

 

[randycat99]

Do you have any ammo other than speculation? No.

Given that they seem to have done nothing to exclude those possibilities, instead opting for a "BTW, this one fluke appeared in our testing activities...", then the claim is really far from conclusive- just "interesting".

So all I have to do is go to my computer and conjure up some filter curves that indicate the contrary, and that would be good enough for you? That is exactly what they have presented to you, yet you haven't the good sense to even question it a little?

Um every speaker manufacturer who makes an extended definition high frequency speaker are saying the same thing better transients and phase accuracy. Tannoy, Mission, Yamaha, etc. etc. That's enough evidence for me. However since you have a great deal of doubt why don't you email the company and ask them?

Just answer the original question, no? Don't resort to, "well all these other manufacturers are toting the same line". What do you expect them to say, "Well, uh, we've really reached the end of what we can do, so we've stopped trying." It's marketing! You do it to stay in business, remember? So if I conjure up some filter responses to refute your claim, is that going to be sufficient? Of course not. They are "conjured up". The ones in your whitepaper are "conjured up", as well. So it is inconclusive, either way. Like I said, too bad they didn't seize the opportunity to show real responses to lock in some credibility.

So basic physics needs to be revalidated every single time someone comes up with some crackpot theory that doesn't match-up? No. It's the crackpot theory that is scrutinized, questioned, and re-validated for truthfulness. That would be your side to work on.

Just because you can't figure out how they've achieved what they have doesn't mean is bogus

Actually, I did "figure" how they "achieved" it. The explanation was just too bitter a pill for you to withstand, unfortunately.

Yes, they do. What you don't hear is how implicitly connected the ads are to the kinds of reviews they [Stereophile] put in the mag. There was a bit of controversy over this a while ago.

I mentioned Stereophile because that was the first magazine that came to mind. Like I said before pick another to your liking and examine those graphs instead. It's not the end of the world.

Unfortunate for you then. You were completely oblivious that mentioning Stereophile would be shooting your own foot. What does that say of your sense of oblivity in other areas you speak so confidently on? Just admit already that Stereophile spoon feeds you your "theory" on the topic, and you swallow it willingly and utterly trustingly.

It's been GAME OVER for you a few pages ago, but you keep inserting quarters hoping you'll get lucky.

Hehe at least I have quarters to back up my argument

Like "off"-whitepapers and "summaries" by "professional" speaker reviewers devoid of proper measurement equipment? You might as well construct flakey testimonials for late-night infomericals, if that is what you consider "backing up your argument".

BTW you mention a centuries worth of information from the technical journals. I'm not asking you to sift through all that information. The relevant information pertaining to the issue at hand from that publication is probably out of date anyway. So I'll make it very easy for you. Sift through the last couple of years back to 2000 and cite something that says the claims from these speaker manufacturers are dubious. If you can do that then you have something to support your argument.

I've got basic physics to support my argument. Evidently, that is not good enough for you. So what is the point of me spending time to placate you, when you aren't going to listen to reason anyway? You asked where you could get better "theory" than a magazine review, and I told you. Go look into the JAES's. These people aren't trying to sell you a product (except perhaps a subscription). They represent the smartest collection of minds and credentials in the industry. It's all there for you to climb out of the BS.

So far everything from the speaker manufacturers support my argument so it's basically you against everyone else.

It's no surprise you feel that way. The car salesman tells you something kewl, and you believe it. How do you know what the speaker manufacturers "really" think? Are you personal friends with engineers and such? No, all you got so far is an "off"-whitepaper and some marketing tag lines. If you really "knew" the topic, you would be able to defend the articles better, but logic and reason shines through them not so different as through a thin veil. There's more to it than digging up and linking articles that resemble your own opinions. You should at least have an understanding of what they really say, really mean, and be weary of what is being omitted (i.e., have enough sense to detect BS).

 

[randycat99]

randycat999: There is just no way you're going to convince this "PC-Engine" fellow. Just ignore him.

I can assure you that anybody who has ever managed to at least unintentionally trip over a clue in Clueville can see that you have your facts straight.

Why thank you! I appreciate your vote of confidence. I was beginning to think that since no one else was participating in the discussion, there wasn't any consensus at all over who could possibly be right here (aside from the possibility that probably no one here really cares to read this much disputing of audio in a CG-oriented forum ).

I realize that PC-Engine is the type to never be convinced, even in part. It was just entertaining to bat'em around a bit on stuff he actually might not have the slightest clue about. I do agree that ignoring him will be the only outcome, though. Thank you for posting in, just the same!

 

[PC-Engine]

Given that they seem to have done nothing to exclude those possibilities, instead opting for a "BTW, this one fluke appeared in our testing activities...", then the claim is really far from conclusive- just "interesting".

It's still more info than you can provide to support your argument.

Just answer the original question, no? Don't resort to, "well all these other manufacturers are toting the same line". What do you expect them to say, "Well, uh, we've really reached the end of what we can do, so we've stopped trying." It's marketing! You do it to stay in business, remember? So if I conjure up some filter responses to refute your claim, is that going to be sufficient? Of course not. They are "conjured up". The ones in your whitepaper are "conjured up", as well. So it is inconclusive, either way. Like I said, too bad they didn't seize the opportunity to show real responses to lock in some credibility.

Why don't you email Tannoy and ask them? Afraid they'll give you an answer that you haven't even thought of? You seem to think you know the reasons for everything they do. You even think you know what it's like to listen to my music through my stereo in my house. You think you know a lot but you STILL can't cite ANYTHING from your technical journals to support your argument. You're TRYING to discredit these speaker manufacturers claims by SPECULATING why they didn't do this or that

Actually, I did "figure" how they "achieved" it. The explanation was just too bitter a pill for you to withstand, unfortunately.

Don't flatter yourself. You haven't figured anything out. The only thing you figured is how to use specalution to try and discredit the manufacturers claims.

Unfortunate for you then. You were completely oblivious that mentioning Stereophile would be shooting your own foot. What does that say of your sense of oblivity in other areas you speak so confidently on? Just admit already that Stereophile spoon feeds you your "theory" on the topic, and you swallow it willingly and utterly trustingly.

Actually it's not unfortunate at all. It doesn't make any of the other audio magazines less credible so I don't know why you're celibrating so prematurely

Like "off"-whitepapers and "summaries" by "professional" speaker reviewers devoid of proper measurement equipment? You might as well construct flakey testimonials for late-night infomericals, if that is what you consider "backing up your argument".

Call it what you like but you still haven't proven anything have you? No. All talk and no evidence...nice.

I've got basic physics to support my argument. Evidently, that is not good enough for you. So what is the point of me spending time to placate you, when you aren't going to listen to reason anyway? You asked where you could get better "theory" than a magazine review, and I told you. Go look into the JAES's. These people aren't trying to sell you a product (except perhaps a subscription). They represent the smartest collection of minds and credentials in the industry. It's all there for you to climb out of the BS.

Haha that's rich man. What physics are you talking about? The Randycat 25kHz imaginary frequency boundary theory? Don't beat around the bush man. Just cite SOMETHING.

It's no surprise you feel that way. The car salesman tells you something kewl, and you believe it. How do you know what the speaker manufacturers "really" think? Are you personal friends with engineers and such? No, all you got so far is an "off"-whitepaper and some marketing tag lines. If you really "knew" the topic, you would be able to defend the articles better, but logic and reason shines through them not so different as through a thin veil. There's more to it than digging up and linking articles that resemble your own opinions. You should at least have an understanding of what they really say, really mean, and be weary of what is being omitted (i.e., have enough sense to detect BS).

You and your flawed analogies that you like to slap onto every sitution thinking it applies everytime under all conditions. Automotive engineers don't sell cars. They design them. I don't really need to defend the article. It's written by an individual with a PhD. The question is can you disprove it? It should be very easy since you have all these technical journals to fall back on right?

Why thank you! I appreciate your vote of confidence. I was beginning to think that since no one else was participating in the discussion, there wasn't any consensus at all over who could possibly be right here (aside from the possibility that probably no one here really cares to read this much disputing of audio in a CG-oriented forum ).

I realize that PC-Engine is the type to never be convinced, even in part. It was just entertaining to bat'em around a bit on stuff he actually might not have the slightest clue about. I do agree that ignoring him will be the only outcome, though. Thank you for posting in, just the same!

Woohoo! You got someone to believe your still unsubstantiated theoretical BS. Way to go man!

He seems to know what he's talking about even though he can't cite anything from a technical journal to support his argument and even though he has never done it for a living ie practice so I guess I'll just go ahead and agree with him. No one needs a pat on the back in this argument man so take your ass kissing somewhere else would you? Wanna join a cheering section? GA forums

 

[randycat99]

Given that they seem to have done nothing to exclude those possibilities, instead opting for a "BTW, this one fluke appeared in our testing activities...", then the claim is really far from conclusive- just "interesting".

It's still more info than you can provide to support your argument.

If that is what you will presume regardless, what is the point? You believe anything the marketing folks present to you. That's not my problem.

Why don't you email Tannoy and ask them? Afraid they'll give you an answer that you haven't even thought of?

Why would I bother doing your footwork??? If you want to defend them, that is what you should be doing. Evidently, anything put in a graph is sufficient enough for you to "believe". They could take a pencil and draw a squiggly line on a graph, and you would buy it. None of this concerns you of your impending gullibility? Seriously, if I alluded that it is strange that they passed over printing a real response plot of their tweeter, that doesn't compel you in the slightest to find out for yourself what the real response plot is? Is it safe to say that you don't want to find out due to a vested interest? If you aren't emailing them right now, I don't know too many other ways to interepret that.

You seem to think you know the reasons for everything they do.

I gave a suggestion. I don't feel the content was that farfetched, at all. You, OTOH, seem to be utterly reluctant to consider that their foremost goal could be to sell you a tweeter, and if something they say could lead to that outcome, why not say it? Do you trust them like they are your Mother or something? It's a business- plain and simple. Try returning your tweeters saying you can't seem to tell any differences...do you think they will comply with your request as if you are buddies?

You even think you know what it's like to listen to my music through my stereo in my house.

I can tell you that gravity is 9.81 m/s^2 at your house, too. Surprise, surprise! Still haven't heard from you how you achieved and verified how you get 30 dB of ambient noise at your home, either. Was this another empty claim? ...or did you extrapolate what you think you should be at based on that little "card" from your headphones?

You think you know a lot but you STILL can't cite ANYTHING from your technical journals to support your argument.

All you can determine is that I won't. "Can't" is simply your own assertion that you slip in hoping it might stick with others reading here. I already explained to you that I won't because such effort would be utterly wasted as you will disregard it anyway. At any rate, the specific points you are expecting probably wouldn't be found in there anyway. They deal with advancements in the science, not well-established, commonly-accepted basic physics.

You're TRYING to discredit these speaker manufacturers claims by SPECULATING why they didn't do this or that

Where did this plural coming from? We have only discussed only one manufacturer's claims. The claims had holes even when considering their very own whitepaper. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, I did "figure" how they "achieved" it. The explanation was just too bitter a pill for you to withstand, unfortunately.

Don't flatter yourself. You haven't figured anything out. The only thing you figured is how to use specalution to try and discredit the manufacturers claims.

I imagine you are the only one here who still believes that my "speculations" are completely implausible. The lengths one goes through to avoid revelation... You seem pretty confident in what you know- why don't you give some speculations to counter my points? Are you afraid they won't wash so well, as you truly don't know the mechanics involved to formulate a discussion?

Unfortunate for you then. You were completely oblivious that mentioning Stereophile would be shooting your own foot. What does that say of your sense of oblivity in other areas you speak so confidently on? Just admit already that Stereophile spoon feeds you your "theory" on the topic, and you swallow it willingly and utterly trustingly.

Actually it's not unfortunate at all. It doesn't make any of the other audio magazines less credible so I don't know why you're celibrating so prematurely

Yes, naturally you meant to trip on that bump in the ground. You keep forgetting that it is your assertion that the real response graph for your 50 kHz Supertweeter exists in some other magazine. Therefore it is your duty to track one down to support your assertion, not mine. Don't feel like doing it? Fine...but then you have to concede that the true nature of this tweeter is unsubstantiated, as your whitepaper has been debunked.

Like "off"-whitepapers and "summaries" by "professional" speaker reviewers devoid of proper measurement equipment? You might as well construct flakey testimonials for late-night infomericals, if that is what you consider "backing up your argument".

Call it what you like but you still haven't proven anything have you? No. All talk and no evidence...nice.

I responded to the evidence you supplied. Logically, if you are to cite something, that something is up for scrutiny as to relevance. You don't get to drop a link and then shut your eyes and ears to any criticism over your link.

I've got basic physics to support my argument. Evidently, that is not good enough for you. So what is the point of me spending time to placate you, when you aren't going to listen to reason anyway? You asked where you could get better "theory" than a magazine review, and I told you. Go look into the JAES's. These people aren't trying to sell you a product (except perhaps a subscription). They represent the smartest collection of minds and credentials in the industry. It's all there for you to climb out of the BS.

Haha that's rich man. What physics are you talking about? The Randycat 25kHz imaginary frequency boundary theory? Don't beat around the bush man. Just cite SOMETHING.

You still don't get it. It's not a unbreachable wall. It is simply an acknowledgement that metal domes will typically top out right about there due to a primary break-up mode. Other materials will typically break-up at even lower frequencies, but the quality of damping will determine how much further extension actually occurs. Aside from all of that, something that reaches all the way out to 50 kHz is certainly impressive, but since phase will be so fubarred by various break-up modes occuring prior to 50 kHz, transient performance benefits are no longer a given. If there actually was a material that could facilitate 50 kHz extension w/o a single break-up mode prior to 50 kHz, they would surely be making airplanes out of it as it would be the ultimate wonder material for rigidity with low weight.

Your and your flawed analogies that you like to slap onto every sitution thinking it applies everytime under all conditions. BTW I don't really need to defend an article. The question is can you disprove it?

Do you feel gravity doesn't apply sometimes? If you have an inkling why my analogies would not apply in your situation, why don't you articulate them? Discuss the mechanics of the situation and why basic physics wouldn't apply in that instance.

Woohoo! You got someone to believe your still unsubstantiated theoretical BS. Way to go man!

I imagine that is exactly what the creator of that whitepaper is thinking of you.

No one needs a pat on the back in this argument man so take your ass kissing somewhere else would you?

There's no law against weighing in with an opinion or an assessment after reviewing the discussion. I don't doubt there may be a few posters here who are smitten with what I have said here. By all means, let yourself be heard.

 

[PC-Engine]

If that is what you will presume regardless, what is the point? You believe anything the marketing folks present to you. That's not my problem.

You say it's marketing so that makes it so? What one considers marketing is up for debate and so far you haven't proven a thing.

Why would I bother doing your footwork??? If you want to defend them, that is what you should be doing. Evidently, anything put in a graph is sufficient enough for you to "believe". They could take a pencil and draw a squiggly line on a graph, and you would buy it. None of this concerns you of your impending gullibility? Seriously, if I alluded that it is strange that they passed over printing a real response plot of their tweeter, that doesn't compel you in the slightest to find out for yourself what the real response plot is? Is it safe to say that you don't want to find out due to a vested interest? If you aren't emailing them right now, I don't know too many other ways to interepret that.

Even ignoring the phase curve graph, there's still more info left than what you've brought to the table.

I gave a suggestion. I don't feel the content was that farfetched, at all. You, OTOH, seem to be utterly reluctant to consider that their foremost goal could be to sell you a tweeter, and if something they say could lead to that outcome, why not say it? Do you trust them like they are your Mother or something? It's a business- plain and simple. Try returning your tweeters saying you can't seem to tell any differences...do you think they will comply with your request as if you are buddies?

Following that logic every company out there not just speaker manufacturers are selling their products using bogus specs and graphs.

I can tell you that gravity is 9.81 m/s^2 at your house, too. Surprise, surprise! Still haven't heard from you how you achieved and verified how you get 30 dB of ambient noise at your home, either. Was this another empty claim? ...or did you extrapolate what you think you should be at based on that little "card" from your headphones?

Haha you're getting really desperate. So you're now equating YOUR THEORIES which you still haven't provided any proof of to that of LAWS of physics? Very comedic. Oh and the question is can you prove that my home DOESN'T have 30dB of ambient noise? That should be very easy according to your universal theory of household acoustics.

Oh no my home could never have 30dB of ambient noise..never.
Oh no no human can hear above 20kHz..impossible.
Oh no a relatively cheap equalizer could not have over 110dB of S/N ratio.
Oh no a 20kHz slider cannot just boost 20kHz even if it's a constant-Q design.
Oh no a 50kHz roll off can never improve transient response and/or phase accuracy.
Oh no it can't be according my theories, it just can't, it's impossible.

Experimentation and practice is 50% of the equation my friend.

All you can determine is that I won't. "Can't" is simply your own assertion that you slip in hoping it might stick with others reading here. I already explained to you that I won't because such effort would be utterly wasted as you will disregard it anyway. At any rate, the specific points you are expecting probably wouldn't be found in there anyway. They deal with advancements in the science, not well-established, commonly-accepted basic physics.

A convenient exit or dodging? Your choice.

Where did this plural coming from? We have only discussed only one manufacturer's claims. The claims had holes even when considering their very own whitepaper. Nothing more, nothing less.

Didn't I quote the Mission Pilastro claim initially? Why would the speaker manufacturer claim different when they're striving for the same goal? Mission and Tannoy are not the only companies designing extended definition speakers...think SACD/DVD Audio.

I imagine you are the only one here who still believes that my "speculations" are completely implausible. The lengths one goes through to avoid revelation... You seem pretty confident in what you know- why don't you give some speculations to counter my points? Are you afraid they won't wash so well, as you truly don't know the mechanics involved to formulate a discussion?

No I think your speculations do have some merit, however they're just that speculations nothing more nothing less. Also I don't have a problem admitting my knowledge isn't as deep as the engineers who design speakers for a living, that's why I cited the paper written by an engineer with a PhD. I don't pretend to think I know either. My ears is what really matters in the end.

Yes, naturally you meant to trip on that bump in the ground. You keep forgetting that it is your assertion that the real response graph for your 50 kHz Supertweeter exists in some other magazine. Therefore it is your duty to track one down to support your assertion, not mine. Don't feel like doing it? Fine...but then you have to concede that the true nature of this tweeter is unsubstantiated, as your whitepaper has been debunked.

The graph was one piece of evidence. The research done were the others. Where's yours?

I responded to the evidence you supplied. Logically, if you are to cite something, that something is up for scrutiny as to relevance. You don't get to drop a link and then shut your eyes and ears to any criticism over your link.

Yes you responded with speculation nothing more nothing less which didn't make your argument anymore valid.

You still don't get it. It's not a unbreachable wall. It is simply an acknowledgement that metal domes will typically top out right about there due to a primary break-up mode. Other materials will typically break-up at even lower frequencies, but the quality of damping will determine how much further extension actually occurs. Aside from all of that, something that reaches all the way out to 50 kHz is certainly impressive, but since phase will be so fubarred by various break-up modes occuring prior to 50 kHz, transient performance benefits are no longer a given. If there actually was a material that could facilitate 50 kHz extension w/o a single break-up mode prior to 50 kHz, they would surely be making airplanes out of it as it would be the ultimate wonder material for rigidity with low weight.

That's "a" theory and we all know that some theories can be disproven with current advances in technology.

Do you feel gravity doesn't apply sometimes? If you have an inkling why my analogies would not apply in your situation, why don't you articulate them? Discuss the mechanics of the situation and why basic physics wouldn't apply in that instance.

Automotive engineers don't sell cars they design them. Your analogy is fubar at best.

I imagine that is exactly what the creator of that whitepaper is thinking of you.

You mean the engineer with the PhD? BTW what kind of degree do you have? An AS? What do you do for a living? Sit at home and speculate on why engineers designed such extended definition speakers?

 

[randycat99]

Why would I bother doing your footwork??? If you want to defend them, that is what you should be doing. Evidently, anything put in a graph is sufficient enough for you to "believe". They could take a pencil and draw a squiggly line on a graph, and you would buy it. None of this concerns you of your impending gullibility? Seriously, if I alluded that it is strange that they passed over printing a real response plot of their tweeter, that doesn't compel you in the slightest to find out for yourself what the real response plot is? Is it safe to say that you don't want to find out due to a vested interest? If you aren't emailing them right now, I don't know too many other ways to interepret that.

Even ignoring the phase curve graph, there's still more info left than what you've brought to the table.

It's the cruxt of the claim you are trying to sell. W/o that piece of information, the rest falls apart. You can present that instruments have ultrasonic bandwidth. You can present mechanics on time alignment. You can show how a "typical" tweeter phase response looks like. However, if you seemingly punt when it comes to showing what your uber tweeter really measures like, that really makes the point of the whitepaper moot. Having a target phase response is at the heart of the claim of supposed transient performance. The "moneyshot" seems to have been edited.

I gave a suggestion. I don't feel the content was that farfetched, at all. You, OTOH, seem to be utterly reluctant to consider that their foremost goal could be to sell you a tweeter, and if something they say could lead to that outcome, why not say it? Do you trust them like they are your Mother or something? It's a business- plain and simple. Try returning your tweeters saying you can't seem to tell any differences...do you think they will comply with your request as if you are buddies?

Following that logic every company out there not just speaker manufacturers are selling their products using bogus specs and graphs.

Maybe your logic. Some companies actually put useful graphs into their literature. They are to be lauded. It opens up to further scrutiny, but at least it is honest. The ones that do rely on bogus specs and graphs, they do so at their own peril, unless they are dealing with the "PC-Engines" of the world that take anything at face value because it looks scientific.

I can tell you that gravity is 9.81 m/s^2 at your house, too. Surprise, surprise! Still haven't heard from you how you achieved and verified how you get 30 dB of ambient noise at your home, either. Was this another empty claim? ...or did you extrapolate what you think you should be at based on that little "card" from your headphones?

Haha you're getting really desperate. So you're now equating YOUR THEORIES which you still haven't provided any proof of to that of LAWS of physics? Very comedic. Oh and the question is can you prove that my home DOESN'T have 30dB of ambient noise? That should be very easy according to your universal theory of household acoustics.

They aren't my theories. They are basic physics...but at least you are now halfway getting it if you think I am equating them.

It was your claim that your home was 30 dB, and I called you on it. So either you have an explanation or not. No sign of one, yet. My thinking is that once you put living people and have various large appliances operating in your home, it is can get very difficult to maintain even 50 dB of ambiant noise even if you do live out in the rural in perpetual night (as it seems).

All you can determine is that I won't. "Can't" is simply your own assertion that you slip in hoping it might stick with others reading here. I already explained to you that I won't because such effort would be utterly wasted as you will disregard it anyway. At any rate, the specific points you are expecting probably wouldn't be found in there anyway. They deal with advancements in the science, not well-established, commonly-accepted basic physics.

A convenient exit or dodging? Your choice.

A smart use of my time.

Where did this plural coming from? We have only discussed only one manufacturer's claims. The claims had holes even when considering their very own whitepaper. Nothing more, nothing less.

Didn't I quote the Mission Pilastro claim initially? Why would the speaker manufacturer claim different when they're striving for the same goal? Mission and Tannoy are not the only companies designing extended definition speakers...think SACD/DVD Audio.

The initial claim was shot down under basic physics. You didn't supply any further specs or a whitepaper, so there doesn't seem much else to discuss there other than, "...but they told me so..." The Tannoy whitepaper you supplied was shot down on account of "money shot" MIA. However, the same basic physics limitations apply, anyway. So what else you got? Mind you, no one is arguing if they have the ultrasonic extension they claim or not. It is the phase response that is unclear and thus the transient performance claim remains in question. They would have been just fine to say, "We have 50 kHz extension, so we RAWK!" When they made transient performance claims, that is when they stepped in doo-doo.

I imagine you are the only one here who still believes that my "speculations" are completely implausible. The lengths one goes through to avoid revelation... You seem pretty confident in what you know- why don't you give some speculations to counter my points? Are you afraid they won't wash so well, as you truly don't know the mechanics involved to formulate a discussion?

No I think your speculations do have some merit, however they're just that speculations nothing more nothing less. Also I don't have a problem admitting my knowledge isn't as deep as the engineers who design speakers for a living, that's why I cited the paper written by an engineer with a PhD. I don't pretend to think I know either. My ears is what really matters in the end.

That's the problem with assigning trust like that. Just noting the credentials of the person and assuming what they have written is on the level isn't good enough sometimes. It greatly helps if you endeavor to understand the mechanics of what is being claimed. Anybody can BS. Being a PhD doesn't turn you Vulcan, so you cannot lie. If you understand the mechanics, the claims will either wash or not wash. When your doctor is about to give you a prostate exam and tells you, "I'll be gentle", do you believe him just because he has a medical degree? Get serious.l

I'm not saying this PhD guy is outright lying, though. I'm just adamantly pointing to the absence of the vital phase response curves, which literally makes or breaks the paper.

Yes, naturally you meant to trip on that bump in the ground. You keep forgetting that it is your assertion that the real response graph for your 50 kHz Supertweeter exists in some other magazine. Therefore it is your duty to track one down to support your assertion, not mine. Don't feel like doing it? Fine...but then you have to concede that the true nature of this tweeter is unsubstantiated, as your whitepaper has been debunked.

The graph was one piece of evidence. The research done were the others. Where's yours?

That seems to be your only remaining mantra. The graph was the "money shot". If you can't see that, there isn't anything I can do about it (except point and laugh, perhaps).

I responded to the evidence you supplied. Logically, if you are to cite something, that something is up for scrutiny as to relevance. You don't get to drop a link and then shut your eyes and ears to any criticism over your link.

Yes you responded with speculation nothing more nothing less which didn't make your argument anymore valid.

Anything you don't agree with or recognize from basic physics must be speculation- I see.

You still don't get it. It's not a unbreachable wall. It is simply an acknowledgement that metal domes will typically top out right about there due to a primary break-up mode. Other materials will typically break-up at even lower frequencies, but the quality of damping will determine how much further extension actually occurs. Aside from all of that, something that reaches all the way out to 50 kHz is certainly impressive, but since phase will be so fubarred by various break-up modes occuring prior to 50 kHz, transient performance benefits are no longer a given. If there actually was a material that could facilitate 50 kHz extension w/o a single break-up mode prior to 50 kHz, they would surely be making airplanes out of it as it would be the ultimate wonder material for rigidity with low weight.

That's "a" theory and we all know that some theories can be disproven with current advances in technology.

Current advances tend to follow the established theories of the time. What you are asking for are "breakthroughs", but you also need to realize that most "breakthroughs" are based on marketing than actual technological innovation. It doesn't matter how much you wish it- you can't put 15 lbs of $hit in a 10 lb bag. It's a basic understanding.

Automotive engineers don't sell cars they design them. Your analogy is fubar at best.

??? Are they? You can't even explain why.

I imagine that is exactly what the creator of that whitepaper is thinking of you.

You mean the engineer with the PhD? BTW what kind of degree do you have? An AS? What do you do for a living? Sit at home and speculate on why engineers designed such extended definition speakers?

I see we are down to demeaning career stations now? How very classy. I think this pretty much ends any further motivation for discussion.

If you must know, I have a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering with a specialty in vibrations (nothing too spectacular, at all, but I certainly have spent a great deal of my life studying speakers out of personal interest). I guess that is trumped by a PhD, so what can I say? The thing is, it doesn't require any degree at all to realize that the omission of the real phase response of the tweeter in question is a pretty glaring punt. I know that. You should know that. Case closed.