Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekig1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!tektronix!tekig1!gregr
From: gregr@tekig1.UUCP (Greg Rogers)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Extra speakers and audio myths
Message-ID: <1578@tekig1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Mar-84 05:04:45 EST
Article-I.D.: tekig1.1578
Posted: Thu Mar 15 05:04:45 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Mar-84 07:24:09 EST
References: <13100006@hpfcla.UUCP> <212@opus.UUCP>, <292@nbires.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 57


	>>One time we knew something was wrong but could not figure
	>>out what.  The most noticable effect was a very muddy low bass.  
	>>We finally found the cause:  my portable cassette deck, sitting 
	>>in the bookcase 10 feet from the speakers, has a 4-inch monitor 
	>>speaker in it.  Removing the deck from the listening room 
	>>immediately cleared up the problem.

My first reaction to this nonsense was to laugh so hard I about fell off
my chair.  Most of us could fill pages explaining the relative absorbtion
capabilities of a four inch cassette deck speaker to low frequencies compared
to everything else in the room, windows, walls, furniture, etc.  We could
also point out the foolishness of the "energy stored in the crossover 
capacitors and reradiated sometime later" claim made in the original article
that started this stupid discussion up again.  Of course in this case
that wouldn't be necessary since the 4-inch speaker is unlikely to have
any crossover network ( to what? ).  

However, I soon had a second reaction, a very sad and disturbing one.  I
really am beginning to feel sorry for people in search of good sound
quality but lacking enough background in physical sciences and electronics
to understand the physical plausibility of some claims made for commercial
purposes.  I know very well the helpless feeling when an auto mechanic
explains to me why my ball joints need replacing when I thought I just
needed a front end alignment.  In audio the pressure to accept an "experts"
opinion can be unbearable to a novice or someone needing peer acceptance
or justification for purchasing an expensive component when a far less
expensive component might have produced the same result.  How does
one respond to something like " there, you see how much better it sounds
now!"?  If this comes from an "expert" (salesman, manufacturer) does
one admit their inability to hear the difference particularly in a group
of their peers?  Indeed under these circumstances it's easy to genuinely
believe differences exist where none do.  This problem is made worse
since an "expert" can only prove himself "expert" by consistently 
demonstrating his ability to discover "incredible sonic improvements"
by making minor changes that others have previously overlooked.  An
"expert" that refuses to acknowledge the new discovery will quickly
lose his "expert" status if the majority of "experts" endorse the new
discovery.  Since this is a no-win risk most new discoveries are quickly
endorsed by all "experts" and another audio myth is born.  

How can someone not technically knowledgeable decide if a new "discovery"
is fact or myth?  I would suggest that if you only hear about it 
amongst the "golden ears" or in the underground audio press, that you 
should be very skeptible.  Any valid significant new idea or
principle will almost certainly receive coverage in the popular
press if it can withstand the examination of the technically 
knowledgeable.  New discoveries that can quickly be refuted are not
likely to be advanced in the popular press for obvious reasons. 
Please note: I'm not saying believe everything you read in the popular
press (particularly with regard specific products), just be wary of 
someone that won't present their ideas outside their own conditioned
group if their ideas are really worthwhile.

				 Greg Rogers