Originally Posted by Jon Lane
You got your mea culpa - as I said, I've learned not to (re)engage at this level, an instinct I formed weeks ago just before the first failed Chase narrative bombed. Now it's two down.
What I would do if I were you, though, is relabel all opposition all over again, preferably before the fact.Classic morphing,
I believe the term was, and something about a basis in reality.
A mea culpa would require admission of having made a mistake by one's own fault; not admission of having made a mistake by someone else's fault.
Regardless, let's continue- as it seems you've already decided to change your mind about "engaging on this level".
"No worries, he's sufficiently incoherent to have me making the same mistake, a blunder he's now taking me by the ear to the veritable woodshed over. I'm considering taking up needlepoint, little that I know.
Seriously, this kook is carping about a ten percent difference in Fs? Probably between two different samples or two different conditions, whichever? And without a concurrent analysis of how, given this monumental 10% margin of error/sample variation/conditional variable, given the same driver all other major parameters will adjust with it, bringing the system response back to probably within a few percent, or maybe a dB? In a system like any other anywhere in its class run with many dB of equalization and at-power thermal variations - like any driver - probably 10x that vast chasm of, what was it, the unholy deception of ten whole percent?
This guy knows less about the subject than he should ever admit in public."
Let's take that last line and let it sink in for a moment.
Quick again to post some simple math before even taking the time to understand the basic context.
The only "kook" carping about a ten percent difference in Fs would be Craig who, without sharing this 19.4Hz Fs measurement from Paul Apollonio at the time, used the same to throw all of my measurements out the window as "invalid". Because I had measured an Fs of 21.53Hz, nothing
I had measured could be correct because Paul measured an Fs of 19.4Hz.... and there is just no way in the world this is reconcilable in our universe.
Ridiculous of course, but I don't have to explain why. You've done that well enough in this quoted post.
You see, Fs was never the issue. I measured a close-mic response, simulated the same response using T/S parameters I measured from a driver and compared them to the 23-200Hz +/-3dB specified response of the subwoofer as I had purchased it.
They were vastly different.
Craig denied all because he noticed a difference in Fs between my measurement and Paul's and was able to use that as his "out".
Now the truth comes out; the original spec from Eminence, my measurement, Paul's measurements. As you note, "two different samples or two different conditions..."; nothing here to justify throwing data out the window.
You know this. You've unknowingly argued my point here convincingly.
As for our mutual friend, I think you summed it up best:"This guy knows less about the subject than he should ever admit in public."