AVS Forum banner

181 - 194 of 194 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
You spent an hour googling and this is best you could find?
Ummm, it took about 5 seconds. You using a Windows computer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
Two can play that game with posts from other forums:

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.ht...rtOrder%3DDESC


Thread topic: "but personally I find AJinFLA's posts to be incredibly rude and immature"

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.ht...rtOrder%3DDESC


"You Mean Like When AJinFLA Made Sexual Innuendos About My Wife & A Subwoofer?


Not only do those who don't believe in real differences in audio equipment tend to impugn anyone who doesn't share their audio beliefs, but some of that group are mentally & emotionally sick enough, like AJinFLA, that they'll even go so far as making sexual innuendos about my wife and a subwoofer ---{ as if that has anything to do with audio }--- when they cannot rationally or scientifically defend their audio beliefs! "

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.ht...rtOrder%3DDESC


"AJinFLA's Reading Is 0% ((( As Evidenced In This Post )))


If AJinFLA had better than 0% reading comprehension....."

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.ht...rtOrder%3DDESC


"See any of AJinFLA 's posts as to why there is only name calling here. nt"


http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.ht...rtOrder%3DDESC

"Tony You're Wasting Your Time Talking With AJinFLA


When talking with AJinFLA you're speaking with a being who's mind is set harder than concrete. Either he just likes to argue with everyone or else he believes he knows all the answers already so you cannot possibly hope to show or teach him anything new. AJinFLA is a prime example of the type of person Epictetus was speaking about when he said It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.



Too much really to cut and paste. The poison you bring AJ is independent of me.
Ah, the halcyon days of the Audio "Asylum". You should take the time to read my full posts there Amir. I still laugh reading them now. You would fit right in with your woo woo beliefs and fabricated blind tests.

It was there where I first saw this audiophile phenomenon. Faced with overwhelming ridicule at their abject ignorance, Audiophiles started claiming that not only could they "hear" this (SPDIF?) and "hear" that (HDMI?)...but that they had done "BLIND TESTS" to "prove" it. So it wasn't just their imagination. Sound familiar Amir? A rather infantile...but familiar tactic, eh?



cheers,


AJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,334 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger
IMO, the best advice in this thread was by Dennis Erskine. Define the problem in your room and then a solution can be determined. I had a problem in my room (too dead) and Dennis Erskine and Shawn Bryne solved the problem. I now have both intelligibility and spaciousness. Nice combo.
and there in my opinion lies a more fundamental problem - defining 'problems' within a room without knowing first what the particular 'response' is one is wishing to achieve - chicken before the egg.


a 'problem' when emulating one room model (response) may not be a 'problem' for another...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger
However, throwing up a bunch of bass traps, diffusers any which way does not solve a problem as I can attest to.
correct - why would one expect blind application of 'treatments' (which may not even be the proper 'treatments' for a particular problem, let alone the fact that they are probably not placed at areas of high effectiveness), be beneficial to their room?


example: porous (velocity-based) bass traps to absorb LF energy from the room to address modal issues - need to be placed at areas of high particle velocity. yet how many people do we have here on the forums putting porous insulation directly on the boundary - where velocity is near zero?


pressure-based traps are very narrow-band (center-frequency), and as such are effective only if a particular modal issue is known and at the exact frequency. and as such, the bass trap must then be placed at areas of high pressure, not high particle velocity!


diffusers are placed and measured with the ETC - as diffusers break up loud, specular reflections into many reflections (with spatial dispersion) of lower gain. this is clearly detailed with a simple ETC response. the temporal dispersion is also detailed within the ETC - as the ETC is gain with respect to time.


you can go back through my history. im pretty adamant in getting the point across that measured issues first need to be discovered and defined before selecting the best appropriate 'treatment' for that particular issue. and that the 'treatment' must be placed at areas of high effectiveness (confirmed via measurements) ... and then post-measurements taken to verify the problem has indeed been attenuated.


it's a shame if the lowest-common-denominator for those that recommend blind application of treatments is what gets 'remembered' around here...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger
Also, be a little leary of someone just trying to sell panels. A thorough analysis of the room is needed by someone who knows what they are doing. Just my 2 cents.
where is the commentary of someone 'selling' panels? there is a huge DIY community here, and i only wish that community to grow


and if one recommends a particular 'brand' of broadband absorption/insulation, for example, he's usually hounded on by others about the easy and cheapness of building them DIY.


and look how many people know nothing about acoustics, yet have purchased a mic and downloaded Room EQ Wizard for free, and literally took the ball and ran with it!! teach a man to fish .....


im not arguing with you, Randy ... just clarifying on some topics and expanding on what you've stated regarding knowing one's problems.


you mentioned your problem with a 'dead' room ... yet how many times have i mentioned the ETC response (the single most effective tool for measuring and defining the (non-modal) specular response in a room)...and yet it just falls on deaf ears?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127
yet how many times have i mentioned the "ETC response".....
.....without a shred of "ETC response and audible perception in small rooms, utilizing blind test methods, with humans who adapt" papers, studies, links, etc?


Jeez, dunno, about a million times?

Just waiting for the "ISD Gap" and "Studio/Control Room" next, in 3, 2, 1....


cheers,


AJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,334 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA
.....without a shred of "ETC response and audible perception in small rooms, utilizing blind test methods, with humans who adapt" papers, studies, links, etc?
you realize the haas trigger is built and verified with the ETC, correct?

and why do you need "blind studies" with the ETC? the ETC is a measurement tool regarding the rooms total specular response.

the ETC is the measuring tool used for one to achieve the room model/response that they wish their room to have.


do you need a "blind test" when i say one must use the "frequency response" ? what does that even mean?

how do you "blind test" a measuring tool

it's clear you do not understand what the ETC is nor what it is used for.



your last 10 posts have contributed nothing to the thread.

zero substance in your commentary.


NEXT.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,829 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA
Ummm, it took about 5 seconds.
So the other hour was spent figuring out the conspiracy theory? In the words of the Oracle in the movie Matrix, "not so smart!"


Quote:
You using a Windows computer?
Your insults are easy to find whether I use my iPad 2 or Android. Google even auto fills the search box with your name as soon as I type in "audio insults."


Quote:
It was there where I first saw this audiophile phenomenon. Faced with overwhelming ridicule at their abject ignorance, Audiophiles started claiming that not only could they "hear" this (SPDIF?) and "hear" that (HDMI?)...but that they had done "BLIND TESTS" to "prove" it.
You mean just like your blind tests of your speakers to prove they are any good? Or wait.... You used sound engineering so you don't need to run a blind test. It is too hard to run so you don't need to run a blind test. You don't have the money to buy the gear to run a blind test. Well guess what. The rest of the world can use the same excuses if it is good for you to do that. You talk like you have written the book on blind tests yet don't practice it yourself. It is all a cheap tactic to shut down a conversation without adding any data.


AJ, I have debated you for months. I have yet to see you explain a single concept in digital audio. Not one! You complain. You bully. You make insulting remarks. But nothing else. You don't know the math. You don't know circuit design. You have no data of your own. Nothing. Just arguing and fighting with an empty hand.


As the other poster said, your brain is hard as cement when it comes to teaching you something new. Anyone else would step back and say, "I am not an electrical engineer, I have never looked inside of a DAC or learned sampling theory. I have never read any papers on this topic. So let me learn from this guy and not shoot from the hip and get myself in trouble." But not you.

Quote:
So it wasn't just their imagination. Sound familiar Amir?
Yes, it sounds just like you and your speakers. You modify them, think they sound better and trash everyone else's speakers without hearing them. No blind tests. No objective measurements put forth here for review by others even when asked repeatedly by members.


You think just because you read something that makes you an authority. Well, the real world doesn't work that way. I sat through Harman's blind speaker mini-test. In one out of three tests, I slightly preferred the B&W to the JBL even though its measurements were horrible. Now this was not a scientific test as there were too few samples. I point it out because nothing replaces you sitting there and having to vote. You can read all the Floyd/Sean papers you want. IT is not the same thing as having the real experience. Here is a great line from one of all time favorite movies, Good Will Hunting, spoken by Robin Williams as the psychiatrist:

Sean: You're an orphan right?

[Will nods]
Sean: You think I know the first thing about how hard your life has been, how you feel, who you are, because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you?



It pains me to point out that the Harman speaker didn't finish first across the board. But intellectual honesty and hands on experience requires that I disclose the full data.


Folks like you roam the forums thinking you are the holder of the truth and with mission to set others right. Yet what you know about these topics is the equiv. of saying you can treat yourself without ever going to a doctor because you have read things on the Internet.


To be fair, I admire your work in researching and building speakers. But telling audiophiles about how everything works in audio? On what grounds? That you thought it made sense to you with no hands on experience or engineering/science knowledge whatsoever? You think you can get a job in real world as a digital audio designer? Of course not. Why on earth do you think your views of digital audio are authoritative?

Quote:
A rather infantile...but familiar tactic, eh?
I am glad you have a glimmer of self-awareness there!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,334 Posts
lastly, AJ


since the ETC is the measurement tool that is with respect to time, hence--decay, are you insisting that when people say their room is "too dead" that they don't know what they're talking about?


the ETC details how fast or how slow or how exponential the specular energy decays within a room.


so, do we need to do blind tests for all these people that say their room is "too dead" and "needs to be livened up" ?? of which is clearly visible via the ETC? should we blind test these people to test whether they actually know the difference between a dead room where all specular energy decays within 0.3s and another (too) lively room where the energy takes over 1s to decay? do you question the person when they say their room is "too dead", and ask for proof of blind tests regarding dead rooms vs lively rooms?


im curious how one does perceptual tests and blind tests regarding a measurement tool
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
So the other hour was spent figuring out the conspiracy theory?
No, it was spent in real life. With nearly 13,000 posts just here alone, nothing you would know about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
Your insults are easy to find whether I use my iPad 2 or Android. Google even auto fills the search box with your name as soon as I type in "audio insults."
Wouldn't be surprised if you used itunes and ALAC either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
You mean just like your blind tests of your speakers to prove they are any good?
Direct quote where I claimed they were good? And needed blind tests to prove such?

You claimed to HAVE DONE blind tests. HAVE DONE. See the difference Amir? No? One is your fabrication that I need to prove a fictitious claim, the other is a pure fabrication, by you that you HAVE DONE something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
Or wait.... You used sound engineering so you don't need to run a blind test. It is too hard to run so you don't need to run a blind test. You don't have the money to buy the gear to run a blind test. Well guess what. The rest of the world can use the same excuses if it is good for you to do that.
Except your excuses were none of the above, because YOU DID perform Blind Tests, remember? It wasn't "too hard". Or "too expensive". because YOU DID THEM. Or at least, claimed so. Hmmm, pretty infantile if fabricated eh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
AJ, I have debated you for months. I have yet to see you explain a single concept in digital audio. Not one!
Here's two:

1) Amirs digital HDMI tests are all a fabrication.

2) Amirs digital SPDIF tests are all a fabrication.

There's your digital audio explanations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
You bully.
Amir the victim. Oh dear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
.

To be fair, I admire your work in researching and building speakers.
Yes, I actually produce a product of my own making that many can...and did listen to last weekend. No vaporware or abstracts. Real speakers. Real room. Real listeners. No hiding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
But telling audiophiles about how everything works in audio?
Everything?? I have less than 700 posts, you nearly 13k, in this forum alone, which isn't even your main one. Oh the irony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
That you thought it made sense to you with no hands on experience or engineering/science knowledge whatsoever?
My "associates" didn't design, test and build my loudspeakers (all of them). I did. And you? Amir, name an actual product with your name/engineering on it? Not someone elses? Uh oh....


Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
You think you can get a job in real world as a digital audio designer?
No more than you could. But at least it's because my true interests lie elsewhere.

You know. Like loudspeakers.


You're still invited to hear them, were you not so afraid.


cheers,


AJ
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127
^^why can't you two take that PM?
Oh lord, no please....

Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127
AJ,

nothing in your above post is even related to acoustics or this thread.
Like nothing in your posts is related to perception?

Does that make us even?

Why don't you read the "subwoofer ad" a few more times, find out what "perception" means? "Adaptation"? "Blind tests"? It would be good for you LH.


cheers,


AJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,334 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA
Oh lord, no please....



Like nothing in your posts is related to perception?

Does that make us even?

Why don't you read the "subwoofer ad" a few more times, find out what "perception" means? "Adaptation"? "Blind tests"? It would be good for you LH.


cheers,


AJ
how do i 'blind test' a measurement tool (ETC).

if one can blind test the ETC, then how does one 'blind test' the 'frequency response' - which is a measuring tool.
what does that even mean?


oh,

and can you answer terry and amir's questions regarding your own blind testing? im still waiting on those...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,199 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger /forum/post/20689449


IMO, the best advice in this thread was by Dennis Erskine. Define the problem in your room and then a solution can be determined.

Easier said than done. Most people like the way their system sounds; they've adapted to it (warts and all), making them much less aware of room related problem(s). That is, until a fresh set of ears points something out or they discover an improvement during the course of experimenting. So it's hard to get a typical hobbiest to "define" a room problem that they don't even know exists.


I suppose measuring could help find problems, but you have to know how those measurements correlate with what we hear. Again, easier said than done. Measured results are wide open to different interpretations, leading to a variety of conclusions. You have to be pretty sharp and open minded enough to make the correct connection between measurements and hearing. For example, Toole describes what C.L.S. Gilford discovered at the BBC:
Quote:
It is interesting to note, at this stage, prescient comments by some early workers in the field. Gilford, in 1959, studied how well recordings of speech made in different BBC studios survived the transition to different broadcast monitoring environments. Observing that they survived very well, he concluded: "The fact that the listening room does not have a predominant effect on quality is very largely due to the binaural mechanism."


In contrast, he showed that test sounds generated in a recording studio, picked up by a studio microphone, reproduced in a listening room, and then quantified using a microphone at the listening position in the playback room, showed that the listening room "had the principal effect."


Conclusion: we measure differences that we seem not to hear.


His colleague, James Moir, added in discussion: "Finally, in my view, if a room requires extensive treatment for stereophonic listening there is something wrong with the stereophonic equipment or the recording. The better the stereophonic reproduction system, the less trouble we have with room acoustics."


These observations imply that some of the problem lies in our interpretations of measurements made in small rooms. The horrendously irregular steady-state “room curves” that we see simply do not correspond to what we hear. Did our problems begin when we started to make measurements? Are we incapable of hearing these things? Or is it that we hear them, but they simply become part of the acoustical context within which other acoustical events occur, and we have some ability to separate the two? The answer turns out to be some of each.

Instead of a couple of smart scientists at the BBC, imagine a non-engineer hobbiest in a typical living room cum listening room. What am I supposed to do with these REW measurements on my laptop that show my room having a big effect on the test signal? It doesn't sound bad to me. But maybe my hearing bad. Or, even if it is good, maybe I don't know what to listen for. Should I trust my hearing (which may have learned to ignore the problems over time) or should I trust the measurements?


Sometimes it is hard to identify what really is a room problem, let alone define it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger /forum/post/20689449


I think Floyd Toole says the same thing (at least that is what I got out of his CEDIA courses and talking to him). Depending on what you are after some rooms may need treatment and some may not.

Indeed, in the section of his book where he makes suggestions for room treatments, he leaves the entire first reflection zone for the front speakers as "optional": reflect (bare walls) or abosorb (broadband) or diffuse (again, broadband). Up to the listener, his tastes, and what works for his particular room.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
861 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 /forum/post/20690494



and can you answer terry and amir's questions regarding your own blind testing? im still waiting on those...

He doesn't blind test his speakers, all he does (we are supposed to believe, here he is a speaker shill for his own designer label yet no measurements or driver details as you have seen) is get a computer print out...when the computer says yes then his job is done.


He has a little moan and whine that 'I don't have a harmon speaker shuffler' sniff, yet of course when anyone else does not blind test their own speakers the response is 'Oh, all too hard is it?''


THIS is the bloke that expects people to buy stuff from him?? A stinking liar and coward?


Man, I pity the poor bastard that does business with him.


Amir, it is good that people are waking up to the typing stimulus response mechanism, you left off mcnarus in your list of examples that are starting to see him for the toxic presence he is. I don't have the exact words, but something like 'don't you know that even for people who agree with you that you stink the place up?'


And bigus, he too is getting a handle on this empty vessel. And jorge recently, and AS. All acknowledge the uselessness of the guy.


I give myself a pat on the back that my education campaign is paying dividends. The sooner he is banned the better this place would be.


He is obviously nothing but a troll. Demands answers from all and sundry yet never answers things directed towards him. Is that anything but a troll?

FOURTH TIME


.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post



So a direct question to you too, which will be evaded..just watch, what acoustic phenomenon might that room exhibit that requires treating?


You blind test results on treated and untreated rooms? Your blind test results on your own speakers?


looking forward to them, thanks.


Also, a link to how harmon actually did their tests. How they managed to have treatments in and out of the room, all done blind with no visual or aural cues, and the five second max time frame in which these treatments came and went.


Am seriously curious how they did that, and how you yourself managed to do so.


Oh excellent, another question you have so far avoided answering. Your wares??


So Soundfield audio IS a commercial enterprise?? How is it going btw?


What would dipsyminion now make of things I wonder, he has a pet aversion to people getting in this forum and spruiking their wares, as you do too IIRC.


Can we (royal natch!) now take it that you are against room treatment (and for people buying new speakers..any brand in mind?) because it is commercial opposition?


hmm, but you don;'t ever have a go at ethan.....asked you that many times before too, why is that?.

Oh, should also put in there (to keep it all together) the blind test questions on his commercial wares, whether he has an anechoic chamber.


So does the shill with a commercial interest think of changing his behaviour, if only for completely self centred selfish reasons (hardly be anything else would it)?? Evidently not.


How stupid is that??



So, let's have a look at one of his models shall we? After all, he is not backward in slamming any other speaker.


Remember the hoo hah (and all the lies and false graphs from the coward) about the evils of diffraction? In this very thread as well if I am not mistaken. Well, what steps have been taken to control that evil in this little fellow?




Is that a tiny pencil roundover just before the discontinuity between the baffle and the box? Heroic efforts no?


Or maybe sheer hypocrisy? Or maybe just token lip service to his public stance? Is that a 'wildly' varying speaker size I see there between tweeter and midrange?


Interesting that he is still the same old rattlesnake on heat on THIS forum, note a comment towards the 'new and improved' business shill on AC....

Quote:
This is all a little bittersweet for me, AJ. I wish you all the luck with your venture, but if you're now a 'manufacturer', will you be losing your catchphrase-esque acerbic tone here and at diyAudio?


Already, in this thread, you're all rainbows, unicorns, and panda bears. I don't know, it seems like the end of an era to me. If you're not tearing 'chops' a new one, who will?


Regards,

John

Rainbows and unicorns eh? poetic perhaps, but a natural observation to make. Dunno who chops is tho.


So, what driver do you use in the dipoles? You know, the twelve inch going to a tweeter, that wildly mismatched pairing on the square sided diffraction generator?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
861 Posts
I meant to add some additional comments about the little standmounts, forgot.


Rude of me, sorry,


I think it is an excellent design for it's purpose, standmount. Putting aside the nitpicking about relative driver sizes, absence of diffraction control (I think most understand it is simply a method to point out the arrogant hypocrisy displayed)


I think it is a great design the fills a gaping hole in the market. An effective method of getting a three way with decent bass capabilities onto a market dominated by compromised two ways, effective in that it does this without it becoming a huge box.


That it manages to do that, and give (by all accounts) surprising and very good bass, means that the need most other standmounts have of adding subwoofers (extra system complexity and cost), and for the putative price, is an EXCELLENT marketing position to be in.


Congrats on that, it does not excuse the vitriolic nastiness and abject hypocrisy you display here, but nonetheless I am more than happy to validate the design from where I stand.


I urge you to do your sums properly, $1000 for them seems too cheap to me, in the sense of long term business viability. Still, if you have costed all things correctly, and can earn a good 'income'-I doubt it is your only source-then all the more power to you.


At that price they should be moving like hot cakes. I sincerely hope that in person, and to deal with in a client relationship, the persona you display online is very misleading.


Good luck with that, I admire the courage required to 'follow your dreams'...poetic perhaps but don't let that fool you into thinking it was not sincere.


Now, back to our scheduled programming you POS! haha.
 
181 - 194 of 194 Posts
Top