Originally Posted by Soulburner
Ok, but I didn't read it that way. Maybe an edit is in order?
Originally Posted by Makav3li
After reading this entire thread it's clear that Aaron came on here to badmouth RAAL ribbon tweeters and imply that companies who use them utilize questionable design practices. He was effectively shut down by Dave, Dennis, and the actual manufacturer using his own "evidence" and clear misunderstanding of the science against him. Instead of owning up to defeat he has shifted his position on what his original intentions were under the pretense that we all now agree with him. I don't agree with you! I have a sneaking suspicion that most technical readers wouldn't agree with you having read your posts and the counter arguments put forth by actual speaker designers. I don't think you'll hear much from this silent majority because you've made it clear it's not worth the time and effort to converse with you. This thread is done, put a fork in it.
Yeah, it certainly does look that way, unfortunately. If this is not the case, it's on Aaron to formally concede certain points rather than the half-heatedly shifting his position every which way. Perfect example here:
Originally Posted by aarons915
Your debate "style" is intellectually dishonest, which others have pointed out as well. My position is crystal clear at this point. Nowhere did I say that a speaker could consistently beat what the Harman model predicts, copy pasted from my earlier reply I said No, I think if a RAAL based speaker consistently won against speakers that the Harman model says measure better, it would be clear evidence that the model isn't accurate.
I agree with 3 and 4 except I addressed your claim about SPL when I said No I didn't say that, what I said was as long as a speaker is played within it's operating range as far as distortion, X-max, etc, that the Spinorama can predict with 99.5% accuracy which speaker will be preferred. There isn't a speaker I'm aware of where distortion or Xmax become an issue(aside from maybe a Bose cube) so it's largely an irrelevant point.
These are all previous comments and are crystal clear and is what the current Science says.
You'll notice how he's very vague in how he replies to my comment, where I tried to summarize his position in crystal-clear terms
. Honestly, I'm still confused as to which points I summarized that he precisely agrees are accurate and which are not.
I posted 4 points, each of which are either true of false (or somewhere in between). It's still not explicitly clear which he agrees with, or to what extent. To my best interpretation of his most recent response, it sounds like all my points are pretty much completely accurate, except that he actually wants to walk back a concession he made earlier! That's fine for now though, so let's focus on what we do know (to the best of our ability) of his position:
Given all 4 points (minus the point about SPL), there is only one conclusion: He is effectively claiming to have a more trustworthy assessment of the sound of the RAAL tweeter (and how it relates to Harman style measurements), and speakers that use it, than the very inventor of the RAAL tweeter himself, plus many of the speaker designers that use it who also posted here disputing Aaron's aspersions about RAAL tweeters.
Take that for what you will.