Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Extra speakers and audio myths Message-ID: <249@opus.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Mar-84 19:50:16 EST Article-I.D.: opus.249 Posted: Mon Mar 19 19:50:16 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 21-Mar-84 02:22:08 EST References: <13100006@hpfcla.UUCP> <212@opus.UUCP>, <292@nbires.UUCP> <1578@tekig1.UUCP> Organization: NBI, Boulder Lines: 59 <> Gentlemen, (?) please! On the one hand we have, from nbires!winograd... >>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. which elicited a response, from tekig1!gregr... >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 and another from hplabsc!labelle... > Can we ever obtain any sanity in this net? Let's ask for >new group (net.golden ears) where the wackos can throw around words >like presence, ambience, muddy, sparkling, wandering etc.. So the >serious audiophiles can get on with some meaningfull discussions >and comparisons (WITH ACTUAL DATA OR NUMBERS ATTACHED TO THE STATEMENTS) Now, even though I'm mightily skeptical of the "extra-speakers" effect, I happen to know that nbires!winograd is a musician of some ability. Therefore, I would like to proceed on the assumption that he may well have heard some difference - I don't know what or why - and find out what's going on. Just because you can refute a particular explanation of a phenomenon does not mean that the phenomenon does not exist. It only means that if it does exist, you don't yet know why. I can make a convincing technical case against the extra-speaker phenomenon as easily as either of the two respondents above - but that doesn't make the whole issue go away. The arguments that a listener wants to be influenced, needs reinforcement for self-assurance, etc., are just as unacceptable when arguing AGAINST the existence of a phenomenon as when arguing FOR it. DATA OR NUMBERS is a fine idea; sometimes you even need to shout about it to cut thru the BS. BUT there are some effects that we can hear but we can't measure. (Think back to the religious fervor around IC amplifiers, which finally led to the discovery of low-slew-rate problems, measurable as TIM today.) It's not that some effects are UNmeasurable (I'm not a mystic!); it's just that we don't yet know how to measure them. When we hit one of these, we all have to start listening carefully, discussing, doing A/B tests, etc., and we need to go about it properly. That means listen first, then discuss. It means that A/B has to be done as a carefully controlled double-blind experiment, and so on. Why don't we try to figure out, and educate one another, what we mean by things like "muddy", "wandering", etc. Try to bridge the gap between the subjective feeling that "something sounds wrong" and some useful theories and numbers - because we need the subjective results so that we get the desired end result (sound we like) but we can't fix problems unless we understand - in a technical sense - why they happen. Returning to the issue at hand, we can see that the arguments presented in the original posting 'way back when are not technically sound for a couple of reasons. (My best argument is that "telephone handsets" were mentioned but there are no reactive elements that can receive energy from the room. The transducers are strictly resistive.) OK, so what gives here? Is there really something going on? If not, fine. If so, what's the real reason? -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd