or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779) - Page 2106

post #63151 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I never said it was "better" pointing down.  I am saying it makes no difference - omni being omni (except maybe at 13,000Hz).

The real issue, before we got sidetracked, was about the Audyssey mic and the way it should be pointed (up) and whether this impacts negatively on an Audyssey calibration of in-ceiling R, L and C speakers due to the mic now being pointed close to directly at the speakers as opposed to at 90 degrees to the (conventional) speakers.  I still maintain, based on reports in this thread concerning in-ceiling speakers wrt to Audyssey that Audyssey doesn't do a great job on in-ceiling (main) speakers and that is probably/possibly because of the odd mic orientation wrt to the in-ceiling speakers. It is, and never was, more than a hypothesis though.

Earth to Keith: if, as you say, completely up or down makes NO, as in zero, difference, then how could an omni mike make a difference with ceiling speakers because of an "odd" orientation? I have always, if you look it up, conceded that there would be little, if any, effect in the bass. If you are just as happy having a known dip in your measurement mikes' response centered at 13k or wherever, though that is going to be much lower in frequency and potentially greater in magnitude with the wide flared body of the supplied stock Audyssey mike, then knock yourself out.

I do not mean to overdramatize this, because neither you nor I have seen any measurements of the magnitude and width of this dip with any mike, let alone the mikes we use for measurement. You seem to be working hard, though, at denying and minimizing its presence or significance without any empirical data. Whatever. As for me, if I can orient the mike so that it is even a little tiny bit more linear at some frequencies in picking up useful room reflection information, rather than useless reflections off of a listening chair ( see the sketch artist's diagram you supplied) then, by golly, that is what I am going to do. As I said, it cannot possibly hurt. And, maybe it influences things a bit more than you are stubbornly willing to concede. Who knows? Likely, we will never know for sure.

As a de facto guru in this forum, it's not that you should just be repeating the Audyssey party line about orienting the mike up. But, we now have some documented theoretical evidence of potential mike response issues of perhaps only small importance that help support that view. I do not think you should be going out of your way to deny, minimize or undermine that out of, frankly, what appears to be nothing other than argumentative piqué. Trust me, I am not trying to steal your unofficial guru status from you or challenge it. I am just interested in getting to the truth of the matter, mainly for the sake of other less experienced readers of this forum,

Getting back to the ceiling speaker issue, I feel it is nothing but a tangent. I do not see support for the notion in this forum that it causes special, different or unique measurement problems any more than other configurations, e.g., DSX height speakers. If you wish to waste space and time on it, however, you are, of course free to do so, though you and I both lack any kind of major experience with this kind of configuration. As far as he and I were concerned, the calibration of my brother-in-law's system with ceiling surrounds was just fine, with the mike pointed straight up, of course. Other systems I have done with high wall surrounds were also fine and without incident. I have no clue why you wish to make a fuss about it.
post #63152 of 70896
from the Denon AVR-XX12 thread:

Is the Wide Image the same signal as the Fronts???
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac2000 View Post

Thanks Batpig! That's what I thought but couldn't find it explicitly stated that way.

When PLIIz generates content for heights does it somehow only pull out content that should be above the listener, like a helicopter hovering? If it's not that sophisticated, would there really be any disadvantage if placing speakers front-wide while playing "height" content via PLIIz?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanchoPanza View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by spager View Post

I think the wides image the same signal as the fronts but not sure what the processing for heights do maybe ask this question in the avs audyssey forum and report back as I suspect others would be interested in this info as well.

Interested in that answer myself.
post #63153 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I never said it was "better" pointing down.  I am saying it makes no difference - omni being omni (except maybe at 13,000Hz).

The real issue, before we got sidetracked, was about the Audyssey mic and the way it should be pointed (up) and whether this impacts negatively on an Audyssey calibration of in-ceiling R, L and C speakers due to the mic now being pointed close to directly at the speakers as opposed to at 90 degrees to the (conventional) speakers.  I still maintain, based on reports in this thread concerning in-ceiling speakers wrt to Audyssey that Audyssey doesn't do a great job on in-ceiling (main) speakers and that is probably/possibly because of the odd mic orientation wrt to the in-ceiling speakers. It is, and never was, more than a hypothesis though.

Earth to Keith: if, as you say, completely up or down makes NO, as in zero, difference, then how could an omni mike make a difference with ceiling speakers because of an "odd" orientation? I have always, if you look it up, conceded that there would be little, if any, effect in the bass. If you are just as happy having a known dip in your measurement mikes' response centered at 13k or wherever, though that is going to be much lower in frequency and potentially greater in magnitude with the wide flared body of the supplied stock Audyssey mike, then knock yourself out.
 

 

Grazing angle. That is all I ever said. If the mic is pointed directly, or more or less directly, at the speakers, as it is with in-ceiling speakers, then the grazing angle is totally different to when the mic is used with conventional speakers. It's nothing to do with omni-response as such. You may say grazing angle is not important of course, but if that is the case, then one would be able to point the Audyssey mic directly towards the (conventional) speakers with no problem. Good luck in finding someone who will agree that that is a good idea.

 

 

Quote:

I do not mean to overdramatize this, because neither you nor I have seen any measurements of the magnitude and width of this dip with any mike, let alone the mikes we use for measurement. You seem to be working hard, though, at denying and minimizing its presence or significance without any empirical data. Whatever. As for me, if I can orient the mike so that it is even a little tiny bit more linear at some frequencies in picking up useful room reflection information, rather than useless reflections off of a listening chair ( see the sketch artist's diagram you supplied) then, by golly, that is what I am going to do. As I said, it cannot possibly hurt. And, maybe it influences things a bit more than you are stubbornly willing to concede. Who knows? Likely, we will never know for sure.

As a de facto guru in this forum, it's not that you should just be repeating the Audyssey party line about orienting the mike up. But, we now have some documented theoretical evidence of potential mike response issues of perhaps only small importance that help support that view. I do not think you should be going out of your way to deny, minimize or undermine that out of, frankly, what appears to be nothing other than argumentative piqué. Trust me, I am not trying to steal your unofficial guru status from you or challenge it. I am just interested in getting to the truth of the matter, mainly for the sake of other less experienced readers of this forum,

Getting back to the ceiling speaker issue, I feel it is nothing but a tangent. I do not see support for the notion in this forum that it causes special, different or unique measurement problems any more than other configurations, e.g., DSX height speakers. If you wish to waste space and time on it, however, you are, of course free to do so, though you and I both lack any kind of major experience with this kind of configuration. As far as he and I were concerned, the calibration of my brother-in-law's system with ceiling surrounds was just fine, with the mike pointed straight up, of course. Other systems I have done with high wall surrounds were also fine and without incident. I have no clue why you wish to make a fuss about it.
 

 

I find it a little offensive, TBH, that you would think this is something to do with "guru status", which I have never claimed, nor do I think is even deserved in my case.  Similarly, that you seem to believe it is something to do with what you call 'argumentative pique'. Consequently, I will bow out of this discussion now.

post #63154 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanchoPanza View Post

from the Denon AVR-XX12 thread:

Is the Wide Image the same signal as the Fronts???
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac2000 View Post

Thanks Batpig! That's what I thought but couldn't find it explicitly stated that way.

When PLIIz generates content for heights does it somehow only pull out content that should be above the listener, like a helicopter hovering? If it's not that sophisticated, would there really be any disadvantage if placing speakers front-wide while playing "height" content via PLIIz?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanchoPanza View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by spager View Post

I think the wides image the same signal as the fronts but not sure what the processing for heights do maybe ask this question in the avs audyssey forum and report back as I suspect others would be interested in this info as well.

Interested in that answer myself.

 

Height channels have no agreed 'standard' so it is all preference. Just go with whatever seems best to you.  There are no real restrictions on placing Height speakers for Dolby PLIIz - just somewhere above the main speakers. I have tried mine directly above and quite a way off to the side and above. Both give good results. Audyssey give tight spec recommendations for DSX Height speaker placement but I doubt if it is set in stone. I sometimes use DSX with my Height speakers and they are nowhere near the 'correct' DSX placement, but they still give the Height effect. TOW, the Height 'effect' is very much content-dependent. Some movies seem to do it better than others.

 

Height information is derived in different ways, according to which tech you go with. Dolby extract the info from the surround channels while Audyssey extract it from the front left and right. There is also a difference in their methodology - DSX for example attenuates (by about 3dB) and decorrelates the surrounds, giving a 'front-centric' effect that, personally, I dislike. I  find that PLIIz gives me a height effect while also preserving the envelopment 'bubble' I have worked hard to create. But at the end of the day it is all preference - try both and go with the one you prefer.

post #63155 of 70896
FWIW, for those interested, the frequency response anomalies at 180 degrees for microphones are shown on something I htink is called a "polar response plot." Here's one for a highly respected measurement mic, the Earthworks M50 (you can have one for just under $1400). http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/m-series/m50/.
The 1Khz resonse is essentially perfect all the wary around the mic. But at 20 KHz, you see that from straight behind, responsi is down something like 5 or 6 dB, and it also is down by up to 4 dB once you get past about 90 degrees "behind" the mic. Just for grins
post #63156 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanchoPanza View Post

Is the Wide Image the same signal as the Fronts???
Depends on the processing.

Audyssey DSX uses only the signals from the Front L/R speakers to generate early reflections for the Wide speakers, in order to give the impression of being in a larger space. This doesn't mean they are the same signal as the Fronts, put pretty close (a bit of delay and slight smearing to make them sound like reflections).

DTS Neo:X looks for signals that are the same in your Front & Side speakers and extracts them to the Wide speakers, in order to stabilize imaging between those speaker pairs. Those sounds would have phantom imaged at those locations anyway, but now they're coming from the Wide speakers placed at those same locations. Think of it as extracting a centre output between the Fronts & Sides.

BTW, they're just called Wide speakers not Wide Image speakers.
post #63157 of 70896
Image = material
post #63158 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

As a Revel and JBL owner I appreciate that link smile.gif lots of good info in there.
Yup, packed with enough info that it made my eyes glaze over initially.

Which is why I ask people to read just that one page; heck, even just the first paragraph on that page (should be required reading for anyone using more than one sub).

It starts off describing the set-up Keith has (subs on opposing side walls) and ends up with the layout that Jerry has (subs at quarter points of room width), explaining the benefits of both configurations.

The second paragraph shows how this benefits Audyssey users.
post #63159 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanchoPanza View Post

Image = material
Just pointing out that they're not referred to by that name.
post #63160 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

If you are sitting in a null, just moving so you are out of the null will increase the perceived level of the bass - but that isn't the issue under discussion.  Audiofan seems to be saying that he added bass absorbers and somehow ended up with MORE bass. That is impossible - if the bass absorbers were absorbing, then they will, by definition, remove something not add something, Sanjay's example of a dry sponge on a wet countertop is a brilliantly simple way of explaining it.

Ok let's be realistic for a second here and not have to explain everything, and for the sake of argument which I thought was clarified of course there isn't more bass and perhaps, I'll admit a bad description, how about perceived bass rolleyes.gif at the MLP with less cancellation at that position in the room due to less ringing wink.gif
post #63161 of 70896
The new Yamaha CX-A5000 separates has the “new” YPAO™ R.S.C. (Reflected Sound Control) Sound Optimization with Speaker Angle Measurement mic, is this as good as Audyssey XT32 which has always been said to be the best on the market?
rolleyes.gif

http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/aventage/cx-a5000_black_u/?mode=model
post #63162 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Depends on the processing.

Audyssey DSX uses only the signals from the Front L/R speakers to generate early reflections for the Wide speakers, in order to give the impression of being in a larger space. This doesn't mean they are the same signal as the Fronts, put pretty close (a bit of delay and slight smearing to make them sound like reflections).

DTS Neo:X looks for signals that are the same in your Front & Side speakers and extracts them to the Wide speakers, in order to stabilize imaging between those speaker pairs. Those sounds would have phantom imaged at those locations anyway, but now they're coming from the Wide speakers placed at those same locations. Think of it as extracting a centre output between the Fronts & Sides.

BTW, they're just called Wide speakers not Wide Image speakers.

Sanjay, as regards to phantom imaging between Front & Side speakers it was once exlained by Chris K. that the prnomenon does not work exactly the same as it work between L & R speakers up front (without a Center speaker).

Here's a discussion with Chris on FB Audyssey Tech Talk:

Ferenc Mógor:
Hi Chris, coming back to the issue of front-surround panning you have mentioned earlier that it is simply not possible to be done seamlessly in a 5.1 array, thus development at Audyssey has lead to DSX, especially the wides with proper placement to over come this psychoacoustical phenomenon. Care to share a bit more thoughts on what we miss in a 5.1 system and how DSX wides overcome the problem? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Feri
April 23, 2012 at 11:19pm


Chris Kyriakakis:
Our sense of auditory source width is greatly enhanced by reflections from the sides. For these to be most effective they need to arrive from a specific angle and with a specific delay relative to the direct sound from the front. They also need to have a particular frequency response shaping in order to match our hearing preferences. Experiments in the literature have shown these effects quite clearly and we have also performed our own at my university lab for several years.

The information must be delivered from a discrete direction that is separate from the fronts or surrounds to be effective. So, the Wides play a key role in soundstage rendering.

If we ever got to the point where content was being authored for more channels then the Wides would also play a key role in filling the front-surround gap. We made an experimental recording of a Shakespeare play happening "in the round" around the audience. When the actor's voice appears in the right surround (there is no picture--this is all presented in the dark), and then he starts slowly walking towards the voices he hears in the front left, the result is chilling. He is in the room with you and you can swear that somebody just walked by you. When we then switch to 5.1 the illusion is gone completely.
post #63163 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Depends on the processing.

Audyssey DSX uses only the signals from the Front L/R speakers to generate early reflections for the Wide speakers, in order to give the impression of being in a larger space. This doesn't mean they are the same signal as the Fronts, put pretty close (a bit of delay and slight smearing to make them sound like reflections).

DTS Neo:X looks for signals that are the same in your Front & Side speakers and extracts them to the Wide speakers, in order to stabilize imaging between those speaker pairs. Those sounds would have phantom imaged at those locations anyway, but now they're coming from the Wide speakers placed at those same locations. Think of it as extracting a centre output between the Fronts & Sides.

BTW, they're just called Wide speakers not Wide Image speakers.

Sanjay, as regards to phantom imaging between Front & Side speakers it was once exlained by Chris K. that the prnomenon does not work exactly the same as it work between L & R speakers up front (without a Center speaker).

Here's a discussion with Chris on FB Audyssey Tech Talk:

Ferenc Mógor:
Hi Chris, coming back to the issue of front-surround panning you have mentioned earlier that it is simply not possible to be done seamlessly in a 5.1 array, thus development at Audyssey has lead to DSX, especially the wides with proper placement to over come this psychoacoustical phenomenon. Care to share a bit more thoughts on what we miss in a 5.1 system and how DSX wides overcome the problem? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Feri
April 23, 2012 at 11:19pm


Chris Kyriakakis:
Our sense of auditory source width is greatly enhanced by reflections from the sides. For these to be most effective they need to arrive from a specific angle and with a specific delay relative to the direct sound from the front. They also need to have a particular frequency response shaping in order to match our hearing preferences. Experiments in the literature have shown these effects quite clearly and we have also performed our own at my university lab for several years.

The information must be delivered from a discrete direction that is separate from the fronts or surrounds to be effective. So, the Wides play a key role in soundstage rendering.

If we ever got to the point where content was being authored for more channels then the Wides would also play a key role in filling the front-surround gap. We made an experimental recording of a Shakespeare play happening "in the round" around the audience. When the actor's voice appears in the right surround (there is no picture--this is all presented in the dark), and then he starts slowly walking towards the voices he hears in the front left, the result is chilling. He is in the room with you and you can swear that somebody just walked by you. When we then switch to 5.1 the illusion is gone completely.

 

He's a brilliant salesman. 

post #63164 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

If you are sitting in a null, just moving so you are out of the null will increase the perceived level of the bass - but that isn't the issue under discussion.  Audiofan seems to be saying that he added bass absorbers and somehow ended up with MORE bass. That is impossible - if the bass absorbers were absorbing, then they will, by definition, remove something not add something, Sanjay's example of a dry sponge on a wet countertop is a brilliantly simple way of explaining it.

Ok let's be realistic for a second here and not have to explain everything, and for the sake of argument which I thought was clarified of course there isn't more bass and perhaps, I'll admit a bad description, how about perceived bass rolleyes.gif at the MLP with less cancellation at that position in the room due to less ringing wink.gif

 

My apologies for reading what you wrote instead of what you meant wink.gif

post #63165 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

FWIW, for those interested, the frequency response anomalies at 180 degrees for microphones are shown on something I htink is called a "polar response plot." Here's one for a highly respected measurement mic, the Earthworks M50 (you can have one for just under $1400). http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/m-series/m50/.
The 1Khz resonse is essentially perfect all the wary around the mic. But at 20 KHz, you see that from straight behind, responsi is down something like 5 or 6 dB, and it also is down by up to 4 dB once you get past about 90 degrees "behind" the mic. Just for grins

Thanks, that helps to put things in better perspective for at least one, costly, measurement grade omni mike. We have to do a little surmising here that the plot is of polar response in the up/down direction, I.e., zero degrees is the open element end - your "front" - 180 degrees is thicker plug end of the body - your "back". There are no markings of front/back around the body, so it seems a safe assumption. Also, I have never seen a polar measurement of an omni mike in the other direction - horizontal if the mike is held up - that is anything other than a perfect circle at a given frequency.

Others may disagree, but no difference in frequency response between the element and base end of the mike would be an erroneous conclusion, since the HF response is clearly down a fair bit in response as we approach the base end. This is exactly as predicted, and I cannot imagine a possible cause for it other than the blocking action of the body and base of the mike.

Grazing angle? I still am befuddled by that term. In a three-way speaker, does that mean to the tweeter, the midrange or something else? In my planar electrostat hybrids, to what section of the panel should the mike have grazing incidence? Getting back to the graph, it really does not seem to make that big a difference. Yes, HF response at 90 and 270 degrees is a little down from zero degrees. But, the behavior is smooth and gradual over a fairly wide angle. So, here I would agree that if you are off by 10, 20, 30 degrees or more, it is not going to matter much.

Finally, is there any reason to believe that the omni mikes supplied by Audyssey or anyone else are going to be substantially different from this, except possibly in frequency response, but still exhibiting a similar drop in HF response toward the base end? I sure cannot come up with anything.
post #63166 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

My apologies for reading what you wrote instead of what you meant wink.gif

Sometimes I forget this a verbatim and technical forum and a careful choice of words may be necessary smile.gif
post #63167 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanchoPanza View Post

Image = material
Just pointing out that they're not referred to by that name.

Just pointing out I was NOT, not ever have, referring to them by that.

Big THANKS for answering my question!!!
Edited by SanchoPanza - 7/4/13 at 1:59pm
post #63168 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanchoPanza View Post

from the Denon AVR-XX12 thread:

Is the Wide Image the same signal as the Fronts???
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanchoPanza View Post


Just pointing out I was NOT, not ever have, referring to them by that.

 

Looking at your original post, I can see how Sanjay may have interpreted your statement as calling the Wide speakers the Wide Image speakers.  Clearly that isn't what you meant.  Perhaps we could just move on?

post #63169 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

My apologies for reading what you wrote instead of what you meant wink.gif

Sometimes I forget this a verbatim and technical forum and a careful choice of words may be necessary smile.gif

 

I apologise again, this time sincerely, for being snippy. I am a little wound up by a discussion that has unexpectedly descended into a personal attack of sorts, but none of that is any of your fault, so again, my apologies.
post #63170 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I apologise again, this time sincerely, for being snippy. I am a little wound up by a discussion that has unexpectedly descended into a personal attack of sorts, but none of that is any of your fault, so again, my apologies.

No worries!

hope all goes well there, don't let them get you down smile.gif
post #63171 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanchoPanza View Post

Just pointing out I was NOT, not ever have, referring to them by that.
It was in reference to your inititial question, where you used caps on the first letter of the word, as is done with speaker/channel labels or names:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanchoPanza View Post

Is the Wide Image the same signal as the Fronts???
post #63172 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

He's a brilliant salesman. 

Keith, my Dear friend, please feel free to comment again on "him" being a brilliant saleman after you have done your own ear tests on seamless side panning with your DSX enabled Onk 5509. cool.gif Unless otherwise such comments seem pretty much as "null and void". wink.gif
post #63173 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanchoPanza View Post

Just pointing out I was NOT, not ever have, referring to them by that.
It was in reference to your inititial question, where you used caps on the first letter of the word, as is done with speaker/channel labels or names:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanchoPanza View Post

Is the Wide Image the same signal as the Fronts???

iPhone auto correct; anyhow, big THANKS for answering my question!!!
post #63174 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Sanjay, as regards to phantom imaging between Front & Side speakers it was once exlained by Chris K. that the prnomenon does not work exactly the same as it work between L & R speakers up front (without a Center speaker).
Chris is talking about ASW (apparent source width) of the front soundstage, which is enhanced by ipsilateral reflections just outside the L/R speakers. I was talking about phantom imaging between a pair of speakers (front and side, in this case).

If you play pink noise through your left front speaker, and there is a bare wall a couple feet to the left of it, that sound will image outside the speaker (to the left of it). This doesn't require a second speaker and has nothing to do with the phantom imaging between speakers that I was talking about in the context of Neo:X.

By comparison, even if your side walls were 100% absorptive, you would still hear a phantom image between the left front and left side speaker when fed the same signal. No one has to take my word for it, they can try it at home on their own system.

So let's not confuse what I was talking about with what you quoted Chris saying, since they are two different concepts.

As for the Shakespeare demo, Keith is correct about the way Chris sells it.
post #63175 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

As for the Shakespeare demo, Keith is correct about the way Chris sells it.

Really, really sorry to say this, but neither your comment, nor Keith's comment makes any sense. Neither of you have ever proven that you are researchers of another campus, so why should your words be taken granted. Please feel obliged whenever you make a comment to use the acronyms: IMHO, or AFAIK, etc. But please do never show up as a kinda experts spreading out such un-established knowldge base. This nothing but forum life, IMHO the worst of its kind.eek.gifeek.gifeek.gifmad.gifmad.gifmad.gif

Bye for now! cool.gif
Edited by mogorf - 7/4/13 at 3:27pm
post #63176 of 70896
Nothing is funnier than watching steam come out of Feri's ears when somebody dares criticize anything Chris K. says.
post #63177 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

He's a brilliant salesman. 

Keith, my Dear friend, please feel free to comment again on "him" being a brilliant saleman after you have done your own ear tests on seamless side panning with your DSX enabled Onk 5509. cool.gif Unless otherwise such comments seem pretty much as "null and void". wink.gif

 

Since you are deliberately, or maybe out of ignorance or maybe out of fanboyismus extremis, conflating two entirely different issues:

 

He's a brilliant salesman.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 7/4/13 at 4:25pm
post #63178 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Nothing is funnier than watching steam come out of Feri's ears when somebody dares criticize anything Chris K. says.

You know bp, it is really sad to see people comment on something they really know nothing about, while trying hard to show up like "big shots" or something. Nonetheless, it's forum life, gotta get used to it!smile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gif
post #63179 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Ain't that the truth! smile.gif  This is the Law:



The Oracle of Audyssey has spoken the truth
Got that fixed for Ya. smile.gif

Borrowed from Gary J
post #63180 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Nothing is funnier than watching steam come out of Feri's ears when somebody dares criticize anything Chris K. says.

You know bp, it is really sad to see people comment on something they really know nothing about, while trying hard to show up like "big shots" or something. 

 

Don't be so hard on yourself, Feri ;)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)