An Example Of The Shoddy Work Of George Graves
John
What a joke of a review. George doesn't hear much difference among
cables on his Magneplanar speakers. No surprise there with the horrible
frequency response of planars. Of course George was too dumb to see
that.
David Fritzinger
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Didn't you just say you were only going to discuss computers from now
on? Guess that is another lie we can chalk up by the winweasal.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Jim Polaski
David Fritzinger <dfri...@macNoSpam.com> wrote:
Dave you have to understand how the WinWeasel works. if you followed the
thread on the Gibson music product with all the machinations, I
challened WinWeasel to keeping up on the guitar. Steve Carroll was even
going to arrange studio time for him to prove his prowess, but johnny
weaseled and backed out. So I've been after him for backing out.
Then, I was looking for any info on Nikon Cameras and their flash
protection circut. When I found some Nikon postings there was one with
johnny telling someone what kind of camera he should be using to
presumably take as good a pictures as johnny takes with his Canon. So I
posted that and johnny thinks I'm on a personal attack when all I was
showing was that he does the same elsewhere as he does here.
Then johnny has tried to make implications about my health. Now he's
doing this. See the pattern? This puppy just gets sicker as time
passes. Now, he's after George.
Apparenly the WinWeasel thinks he knows more than just about anyone on
any subject. So, johnny 's now going on personal attacks when he's
sorely lacking in any moral or ethical judgement.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting
that he will get nothing in return!"
Jim Polaski
So now you're going to try to make us all think you're an audiophile too?
Here's a suggestion. Why don't you just write the magazine and do your
own review. Do you think they'll believe you?
I'll also head you off at the pass. I'm not claiming to be an audiophile
either. When I need a piece of equipment, I ask a buddy who has written
reviews for nearly 20 years and he more than certainly knows.
Peter Ammon
Why do you call attention to the cogent, intelligent work of people
you're trashing? If you're trying to make yourself look bad, it's working.
--
Pull out a splinter to reply.
David Fritzinger
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
While I understand what you are saying about Wimpy, I have not followed
all the threads in which he was participating. Actually, I was just
yanking his chain a bit.
8^)
--
Dave Fritzinger
John
If you think that is an intelligent review you are an IDIOT.
George Graves
Not worth even discussing with this clown.
--
George Graves
------------------
My Three Favorite Words WRT Women, Wine, food, cars and motorcycles:
"Made in Italy"
Mayor of R'lyeh
to bless us with the following wisdom:
And just what are your favorite speakers and cables?
--
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right
and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.
Ayn Rand
Joey JoJo Junior Shabadoo
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >What a joke of a review. George doesn't hear much difference among
> >cables on his Magneplanar speakers. No surprise there with the horrible
> >frequency response of planars. Of course George was too dumb to see
> >that.
>
> And just what are your favorite speakers and cables?
judging by WinWeasel's well-known painted-on ears, two tin cans and a
string :)
--
making the Internet safer - one troll at a time!
Steve Carroll
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
What mags do you review for Johnny?
Steve
Gregory L. Hansen
Speaking as a guy that knows very little about the audio world, as long as
your cables have the right impedence and are properly shielded, how could
the choice of cable possibly make a difference? Evidently it does make a
difference, but how?
--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin
zurg
> What a joke of a review.
Actually, as someone who has experience working with professional
writers and news copy (including reviews), I can say that George's
writing is excellent, very fluid, clearly organized, expressive and
confident sounding. I'm not sure if that's George's line of work, but
he could be quite successful if he pursued it.
You see, John, unlike you, George's skills open up job possibilities
that involve more than just floor wax.
Jim Polaski
Can you point us to an audio hardware review that you've written for an
equivalent magazine?
George Graves
zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
Zurg that's the funniest thing I've seen in weeks! ROFLMAO!
Mayor of R'lyeh
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) chose to bless us
with the following wisdom:
>In article <1015g0s...@news.supernews.com>,
>John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/848/index6.html
>>
>>
>>What a joke of a review. George doesn't hear much difference among
>>cables on his Magneplanar speakers. No surprise there with the horrible
>>frequency response of planars. Of course George was too dumb to see
>>that.
>>
>
>
>Speaking as a guy that knows very little about the audio world, as long as
>your cables have the right impedence and are properly shielded, how could
>the choice of cable possibly make a difference? Evidently it does make a
>difference, but how?
The audiophile world is one built on snobbery and (mis)perceptions. A
lot of it consists on insisting that the way your favorite equipment
colors the audio is the only proper way for equipment to color music
or insisting that your favorite equipment doesn't color the music but
everyone else's does.
Many of the claims made by various audio cable brand proponents simply
defy the laws of physics. They are not realistic.
I used to be a part of that world but I finally left it when I did
some listening tests with my audiosnob friends and found that they
usually couldn't tell the difference between a CD and an LP without
looking despite all of their prattling on about how different they
sounded. It was (and still is) 'cool' in the audiosnob world to claim
that LPs sound so much better than CDs so that's what gets said
despite the fact that audiosnobs get embarrassed almost every time
they're put to the test.
George Graves
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> In article <1015g0s...@news.supernews.com>,
> John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/848/index6.html
> >
> >
> >What a joke of a review. George doesn't hear much difference among
> >cables on his Magneplanar speakers. No surprise there with the horrible
> >frequency response of planars. Of course George was too dumb to see
> >that.
> >
>
>
> Speaking as a guy that knows very little about the audio world, as long as
> your cables have the right impedence and are properly shielded, how could
> the choice of cable possibly make a difference? Evidently it does make a
> difference, but how?
Well, it's kind of difficult to explain without a lot of electronics
theory thrown in, but in a nutshell: Speaker impedances are quite low.
Most are nominally 8 ohms, but at some frequencies, they CAN actually
dip below 1 ohm. Now looking back into the output of the amplifier, the
speaker should see close to a dead short (source impedance), and
generally does in solid-state amplifiers. Tubes of course, have output
transformers and their secondary windings can be close to a short, but
not as close as a solid-state amp. That's why solid state amps control
bass better than tubes. When the signal stops, the dead short across the
voice coil that is the amplifier causes a 'back-EMF' which acts as a
"brake" and stops the cone -dead. This is called "dampening" and it is
desireable for good low-frequency transient response. I.E. when the
music stops, you want the cone to stop too, or else you get a smearing
of the musical waveform. Now, in this mix of source and driver
impedances, one throws 10 feet of wire. The wire has X number of ohms of
impedance/ft (usually fractions of an ohm), and 10 feet of the stuff is
really 20 ft because it's two wires; one from the amp to the speaker and
the other from the speaker back to the amp, so if one has speaker cable
with say, 0.1 ohms/ft, we have added 2 ohms to a system where at some
frequencies, the speaker itself may have an impedance of less than 1
ohm. Add these together and you see that what you are really dealing
with is a compound value that varies with the size and construction of
the conductors in the wire. This alone will alter the control of the
speaker through changes in the dampning characteristics. But now it gets
complicated. Music consists of frequencies from below 20 Hz out to
beyond 20 KHz - all happening at once. While simple impedance at a
single low frequency can easily and quite understandably describe the
control of the moving cone on the speaker wrt dampening, when you start
to talk about higher frequencies, you find that there are a lot of what
we call reactive elements in the circuit. The speaker voice coil (I'm
restricting this discussion to only one kind of speaker here, a standard
cone speaker, for clarity) has simple DC resistance when measured with
an ohm meter, yes, but when a complex AC signal (like a musical
waveform) is passed through the speaker, it takes on other
characteristics as well. These are called reactance, and there are both
capacitive reactance and inductive reactance, and a speaker voice coil
exhibits both - as well as DC resistance. Added to this, there are also
capacitive elements and inductive elements in the internal speaker
wiring and the crossover -in the case of speaker systems with more than
one driver to cover different frequencies. The equation for this
complex, frequency dependent AC resistance (called impedance) is:
Impedance 'Z' of a series circuit like a speaker is equal to the square
root of the (DC resistance added to the square of inductive reactance
(X sub L) minus the capacitive reactance (X sub C)). And this result is
different for each different frequency in the passband.
------------------------- *
Z = \/ Rt +(XL - XC) squared
*The \/ and the ---- are supposed to represent a radical. While the Mac
character set has all of these availabe, they likely won't render
properly over usenet on PCs, because they use a different standard
character set, so I did it this way.
Now. Lets complicate this by adding the speaker cable. Not only does it
have DC resistance to add to the above equation, but because speaker
wire is made-up of many strands of smaller, solid wire, so it too has
inductance and capacitance and it's impedance also changes with
frequency and different brands and sizes react differently to different
frequencies. There is also a phenomenon at work with conductors known as
"skin-effect" whereby higher frequencies traves ON the wire rather than
through it, and this changes the high frequency transfer characteristics
of the wire as well. This interrelationship of DC resistances and
frequency dependant reactances, is difficult if not impossible to
characterize. Therefore it's just not possible to know how a given
cable, or indeed, even a given length of cable will perform in any
speaker/amplifier combination without actually trying them out. Also the
cost of speaker cable means nothing. Just because you buy a $50/ft cable
over a $3/ft cable does not in any way guarantee that the expensive
spread will outperform. or indeed, even perform as well as the cheaper
stuff in a given situation. I've heard cheap speaker wire beat the pants
of the expensive stuff because it happens to match better with the
amp/speaker with which it was being used. Audiophiles tend to buy the
expensive stuff when they can because it usually looks cool and often
uses exotic woods on the end caps to the speaker and has fancy braided
jackets and is accompanied by a lot of technical jibberish to justify
the cost. Most don't know that the match between wire characteristics
and application is much more important than looks and cost. Some
expensive wire might work better in some instances and poorer than
others. There is simply no corolation between cost and performance in
this case.
I know this is long, and probably confusing to many. But I hope that
helps to show that the interaction between speaker cable and the system
with which it is used is a very complex one and that speaker cable can,
indeed, make a difference to a greater or lesser extent in any stereo
system.
zurg
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > You see, John, unlike you, George's skills open up job possibilities
> > that involve more than just floor wax.
>
> Zurg that's the funniest thing I've seen in weeks! ROFLMAO!
Hey it was easy, almost embarrassingly so. We have a bloated-ego
pinhead attempting to denigrate what appears to be professional-level
writing. The retort almost writes itself.
I'm curious however. Do you write for a living or was that a one-off
thing? The tone and cadence of what you wrote does have the subtle
touches of a pro.
John C. Randolph
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/848/index6.html
>
> What a joke of a review. George doesn't hear much difference among
> cables on his Magneplanar speakers.
That would be because the cables don't make much difference with
Magneplanar speakers. They take very high current, and all that really
matters when cabling either Magneplanar or Accoustat speakers is that
the cables are of a heavy enough guage for the application.
> No surprise there with the horrible frequency response of planars.
I have a set of Magnepans, which I bought from a person who didn't
realise that the fuses were blown. It wouldn't suprise me that if
anyone you know has a pair of them, that you've never heard them used properly.
> Of course George was too dumb to see that.
Bang goes another irony meter...
-jcr
John
Now expalin why music sounds so bad on them. Hint: Its because they
don't reproduce accurately what goes into them.
John
> In article <10161fg...@news.supernews.com>,
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Ammon wrote:
>>> John wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/848/index6.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What a joke of a review. George doesn't hear much difference
>>>> among cables on his Magneplanar speakers. No surprise there with
>>>> the horrible frequency response of planars. Of course George was
>>>> too dumb to see that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you call attention to the cogent, intelligent work of people
>>> you're trashing? If you're trying to make yourself look bad, it's
>>> working.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you think that is an intelligent review you are an IDIOT.
>
>
> Can you point us to an audio hardware review that you've written for
> an equivalent magazine?
I've never written a review. That puts me ahead of George because I
don't have a history of misleading people into buying something that
sounds like crap.
Nashton
With Polaski, anybody who dares challenge him in his views,
automatically becomes an expert in the field.
On the one hand he whines and bitches when John posts and on the other,
he provokes him to post even more.
WTF.
Nicolas
Nashton
Thanks for taking the time to explain it, George. You seem to know your
stuff in audio. Now why not stop posting in csma and start posting in an
audio ng, because your knowledge of computing is as bad as your
knowledge in audio is good;)
Nicolas
Gregory L. Hansen
Was that 0.1 ohms/ft resistance? That seems dang high for a resistance.
But dang low for an impedence. When I do my data acquisition I just plug
in RG-58 cables; 50 ohm, polyethylene insulation, BNC connectors. That
carries signals that will be amplified by a factor of 1000. But
amplifiers and counters have a pretty reliable input impedence. The main
issue with impedence matching there is that you don't want signals to
reflect back and forth, one pulse should be counted as only one pulse.
Seems to me like the thing to do is that expensive speakers should have a
built-in impedence matching stage, locally and permanently connected to
the speaker with suitable choice of filters or cable or whatever it takes.
Then just attach it to the amp with some standard cable. I suppose those
audio engineers, who make it their life's work to make better equipment
and find new ways to take money from audiophiles, have never thought of
that one, huh?
>of the wire as well. This interrelationship of DC resistances and
>frequency dependant reactances, is difficult if not impossible to
>characterize. Therefore it's just not possible to know how a given
>cable, or indeed, even a given length of cable will perform in any
>speaker/amplifier combination without actually trying them out. Also the
It seems surprising that it's even possible to find cable that will work
well with any given speaker. But it also seems like manufacturers could
do more about it, like publishing transfer curves with their equipment,
recommending specific cables, actually making cables that will work well
with a given speaker, or something.
Gregory L. Hansen
I saw optical cable in a store, said to give cleaner transmission to
digital speakers.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Daniel Dreibelbis
> I know this is long, and probably confusing to many. But I hope that
> helps to show that the interaction between speaker cable and the system
> with which it is used is a very complex one and that speaker cable can,
> indeed, make a difference to a greater or lesser extent in any stereo
> system.
I may not have understood everything, but it's obvious that you
really know your stuff, George. And that once again WimpWeasel bit off
way more than he could chew when he tried attacking you in revealing his
vast ignorance on this or any subject. ;)
--
Dan Dreibelbis, Guitar Nerd - Better Living Through Home Recording
Newest song - "Get Off My Good Foot", as well as some old favorites, found at:
http://www.soundclick.com/dandreibelbismusic.htm
John
> In article <gmgravesnos-C5EF...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I know this is long, and probably confusing to many. But I hope that
>> helps to show that the interaction between speaker cable and the
>> system with which it is used is a very complex one and that speaker
>> cable can, indeed, make a difference to a greater or lesser extent
>> in any stereo system.
>
> I may not have understood everything, but it's obvious that you
> really know your stuff, George. And that once again WimpWeasel bit
> off way more than he could chew when he tried attacking you in
> revealing his vast ignorance on this or any subject. ;)
George FAILED to even address the issue I brought up on the lousy review
he wrote.
Joey JoJo Junior Shabadoo
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > I may not have understood everything, but it's obvious that you
> > really know your stuff, George. And that once again WimpWeasel bit
> > off way more than he could chew when he tried attacking you in
> > revealing his vast ignorance on this or any subject. ;)
>
>
>
> George FAILED to even address the issue I brought up on the lousy review
> he wrote.
and you ALWAYS fail to prove anything you say, WinWeasel. You have
ZERO credibility on anything you say.
So, once again, calm down and have a nice cup of SHUT THE F^%& UP!
John
Joey Dumbo you are just another idiot.
Joey JoJo Junior Shabadoo
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > and you ALWAYS fail to prove anything you say, WinWeasel. You have
> > ZERO credibility on anything you say.
> >
> > So, once again, calm down and have a nice cup of SHUT THE F^%& UP!
>
>
>
> Joey Dumbo you are just another idiot.
since you're nothing but a loud-mouthed schnook who's all-talk, yet
when it comes to proving anything you shriek and whine and try to change
the subject, your assessment of me - or ANYTHING - holds no water.
If you're so sure everything George said was wrong, why not take it
apart piece by piece and show him where? Or are you going to weasel out
of that yet again?
Tim Adams
The issues are with your tin ears - not Georges writing.
Nashton
So, John, humor us. Is there anything you'd like to add in George's post
or any disagreement? Can you add your knowledge to the subject?
Nicolas
Elizabot
pot.kettle.black
zurg
> George FAILED to even address the issue I brought up on the lousy review
> he wrote.
Even if there were any reason to believe what you're saying, once
something goes to print, most complaints with an article or review land
at the doorstep of the editor-in-chief. But then, why would I expect a
professional mop-pusher like you to understand that?
John
Stereophile magazine must have thought there were problems. A search
showed that was the only article George ever wrote for them. Probably
too many complaints after his stupid statement on the Magnaplaners.
John
Apparently there were complaints. That was the only article George ever
wrote for Stereophile.
Gregory L. Hansen
What would be the point of him addressing the issue you brought up? It's
not like we're all waiting with bated breath for his reply, to decide
whether we still like him after you called him out.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
George Graves
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
You have no idea what you are talking about. I wrote for Stereophile for
SIX YEARS. Stereophile doesn't have every article ever written on
archive, and why they picked the ones that they did is something you'd
have to ask them.
George Graves
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
Optical coupling has been used in digital audio for some time. Several
integrated speaker/amplifier/ D/A converter combos have been sold over
the last decade. The ITT coupler/glassfiber cable does a fine a job of
transferring digital audio in it's digital form. OTOH, most systems use
TOSLINK/plastic cable and it's not really as good as plain old coax. The
plastic fiber is lossy, has too many reflections, and the TOSLINK
transducers don't really seem to fast enough. This can easily be seen
using a PCM error detector. The error rate is much higher with
TOSLINK/plastic than it is with ITT/glass. The more errors, the more
digital interpolation that the D/A converter has to do. Interpolation is
"guessing" at what the missing bits might be, and while it's a marvel of
digital technology, it does introduce distortion and one can hear it.
The reason that Reed-Solomon chose an interpolation scheme is that they
figured, and rightly so, that even distorted audio is better than the
wide-spectrum noise that an uncorrected D/A replaces lost bits with.
Nashton
Let me guess, you're bored again;)
Nicolas
John
> In article <10185k5...@news.supernews.com>,
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> zurg wrote:
>>> In article <1017m0k...@news.supernews.com>, John
>>> <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> George FAILED to even address the issue I brought up on the lousy
>>>> review he wrote.
>>>
>>> Even if there were any reason to believe what you're saying, once
>>> something goes to print, most complaints with an article or review
>>> land at the doorstep of the editor-in-chief. But then, why would I
>>> expect a professional mop-pusher like you to understand that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently there were complaints. That was the only article George
>> ever wrote for Stereophile.
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about. I wrote for Stereophile
> for SIX YEARS. Stereophile doesn't have every article ever written on
> archive, and why they picked the ones that they did is something you'd
> have to ask them.
I see. So Stereohile only thought one of your articles was worth enough
to archive.
George Graves
Remember this is audio frequencies and very high signal levels. At low
levels and very high frequencies such as VHF, UHF or microwave frequency
signals, reflections and impedance matching are crucial. Reflections,
standing waves, and other HF phenomenon are not reall an issue at audio
frequencies. Skin effect can be an issue at audio frequencies but mostly
at high signal levels.
> But dang low for an impedence. When I do my data acquisition I just plug
> in RG-58 cables; 50 ohm, polyethylene insulation, BNC connectors. That
> carries signals that will be amplified by a factor of 1000. But
> amplifiers and counters have a pretty reliable input impedence. The main
> issue with impedence matching there is that you don't want signals to
> reflect back and forth, one pulse should be counted as only one pulse.
>
> Seems to me like the thing to do is that expensive speakers should have a
> built-in impedence matching stage, locally and permanently connected to
> the speaker with suitable choice of filters or cable or whatever it takes.
> Then just attach it to the amp with some standard cable. I suppose those
> audio engineers, who make it their life's work to make better equipment
> and find new ways to take money from audiophiles, have never thought of
> that one, huh?
Sure they have. It's been done too as has terminating actual cables with
some fixed impedance. But it's too expensive for most speakers to
include it and nobody has ever proven that it actually does anything at
audio frequencies.
> >of the wire as well. This interrelationship of DC resistances and
> >frequency dependant reactances, is difficult if not impossible to
> >characterize. Therefore it's just not possible to know how a given
> >cable, or indeed, even a given length of cable will perform in any
> >speaker/amplifier combination without actually trying them out. Also the
>
> It seems surprising that it's even possible to find cable that will work
> well with any given speaker.
You've hit the nail on the head. Luckily, these effects are fairly
subtle most of the time and the changes in frequency response and
speaker dampening are usually not great. But the fact that they do exist
can make a speaker seem dark, or overly bright, or to have sloppy bass.
It gives the audiophile something to "play with" and makes a lot
companies rich catering to the neurosis of the average hobyist. Most
people just buy their electronics, their speakers and ask the salesman
to recommend some good speaker cable. He sells them the highest margin
wire he's got and everybody is happy as a clam. The dealer puts the big
bucks in his pocket, the buyer goes home, connects everything together,
and enjoys his new system unaware that the speaker cable he's using
might not be the best match for his particular system. The audiophile,
OTOH, goes home hooks his new system up, turns it on and immediatly
starts to think about what he can do to make it sound better. Oh, yeah,
it's a disease as the Mayor says. There are degrees of it, and I know
some who are so crazy over this stuff, that you wouldn't believe lengths
that they go to......
> But it also seems like manufacturers could
> do more about it, like publishing transfer curves with their equipment,
Wouldn't do much good unless the buyer or dealer knew how to interpret
that data, and few would. In reality, many dealers would use that data
simply to confuse the hapless buyers into more levels of audio voodoo.
> recommending specific cables, actually making cables that will work well
> with a given speaker, or something.
It's all been tried. The problem is that if you try a speaker/amp combo
out with a variety of cable types, each will sound slightly different.
So which one is right? We don't have the actual, live performance as a
reference, so we have no way of knowing. Therefore, most knowledgable
audiophiles simply use the cables as 'tone' controls to tailor the sound
to their taste. In the absence of any way to actually measure this stuff
in any meaningful context, that's about all one can do. In writing
speaker reviews, all a reviewer can do is to mention the results of
using several different speaker cables with any given system, and that
will basically show whether said speakers are particularly wire
sensitive or not. In the review to which WinWeasel refers, I found that
the Appogee Duetta II speaker system was very reactive and very affected
by cable choice. Magnaplanars, OTOH, are are an almost pure resistive
load, and not very reactive at all. In fact the models I have owned had
the flattest impedance vs frequency curves I've ever seen. Maggies are
VERY insensitive to cable differences and I was quite taken aback to
find the Appogees at the other end of that scale. Most other speakers
that I have reviewed (hundreds) fall somehwere in between those two
extremes wrt sensitivity to cables.
George Graves
I have always enjoyed the things that Magnaplanars bring to the party.
They are an almost purely resistive load to amp and therefore easy to
drive, They are very insensitive to speaker cable choice, and they image
magnificently, are fairly flat across their wide frequency range and
they have, arguably the best tweeter (a true ribbon) in town. They sound
more like real music than most speakers (although today, it's difficult
to find a truly bad speaker what with computer modeling and modern
materials technology). If I have any criticisms about Maggies it's that
they are difficult and time consuming to place properly (like all dipole
radiators) and may not sound their best where you (or your significant
other) wants to place them. Also, Maggies do not like loud, low
frequency transients such as explosions (although the latest models are
much better at this), and therefore don't make the best home theater
speakers, and I probably wouldn't recommend them to someone who listens
predominantly to rock at high volume levels. I would recommend them to
those who listen mostly to classical and jazz, however, because you
really can't do much better at any price-point where Magnapan has a
product.
I still have my Maggie MG-3As although they are about 12 years old, they
still sound fine. They're behind the couch now, because I just replaced
them with a pair of Martin Logan electrostatics which I love (see my
review in the current edition of 'The Audiophile Voice' now on the
newsstand.).
Nashton
ROTF
Nicolas
Tim Adams
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <10185k5...@news.supernews.com>,
> > "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> zurg wrote:
> >>> In article <1017m0k...@news.supernews.com>, John
> >>> <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> George FAILED to even address the issue I brought up on the lousy
> >>>> review he wrote.
> >>>
> >>> Even if there were any reason to believe what you're saying, once
> >>> something goes to print, most complaints with an article or review
> >>> land at the doorstep of the editor-in-chief. But then, why would I
> >>> expect a professional mop-pusher like you to understand that?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Apparently there were complaints. That was the only article George
> >> ever wrote for Stereophile.
> >
> > You have no idea what you are talking about. I wrote for Stereophile
> > for SIX YEARS. Stereophile doesn't have every article ever written on
> > archive, and why they picked the ones that they did is something you'd
> > have to ask them.
>
>
>
> I see. So Stereohile only thought one of your articles was worth enough
> to archive.
>
And I'm sure they picked the one they got the most complaints about to.
BTW, John - you're an idiot.
George Graves
zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-F37C...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > You see, John, unlike you, George's skills open up job possibilities
> > > that involve more than just floor wax.
> >
> > Zurg that's the funniest thing I've seen in weeks! ROFLMAO!
>
> Hey it was easy, almost embarrassingly so. We have a bloated-ego
> pinhead attempting to denigrate what appears to be professional-level
> writing. The retort almost writes itself.
>
> I'm curious however. Do you write for a living or was that a one-off
> thing? The tone and cadence of what you wrote does have the subtle
> touches of a pro.
I'm a technical writer by trade. I write white papers, press releases,
marketing collateral, applications notes, etc. for technology based
companies here in Silicon Valley.
I wrote hundreds of reviews for Stereophile (over about a 6 year period)
when it was still being run by it's founder, J. Gordon Holt (still one
of my closest, dearest friends). In the late eighties, finances drove
Gordon to sell the magazine to a wealthy audiophile (who, apparently
owned a Mercedes dealership in Santa Fe) named Larry Archibald. After
that things started to change. Archibald was determined to make lots of
money from what had been a hobbyist journal. To that end, he hired a
young Brit named John Atkinson away from The English magazine "Hi-Fi
News and Record Review" and brought him to Santa Fe to be the new
Editor. Gordon became "Editor Emeritus" or some such, but basically he
was simply pushed aside. Atkinson made it fairly apparent that he didn't
particularly like the 'old guard' of writers that Gordon had assembled
and tried to make life pretty difficult for them. Like the rest of
Gordon's crew. I finally quit over a quibble with Atkinson who I found
arrogant and overbearing. This would have been about 1990.
I tried a stint at "Absolute Sound", but they too were going through
changes and couldn't keep staff for very long. I'd send in copy, they'd
lose it, etc. They've since gotten their act together but it was sheer
chaos when I was writing for them. For most of the last decade, I've
been writing for "The Audiophile Voice" run by ex-Audio magazine
editor/publisher Gene Pitts. I'm fairly happy there. If your interested,
I have two articles in the latest edition which should be on the
newsstands now.
I am also an automotive journalist. Right now I'm doing a history of
Alfa Romeo series for "Exotic Automobiles."
Didn't mean to give you my life's story, just sort of where I'm coming
from.
John
John Atkinson is one of the greatest editors of any audio magazine ever.
Not surprising he would find your work lacking. As I remember John used
to be found over in the various audio newsgroups and was always
technically competent . No wonder the name George Graves is never seen
over on rec.audio.high-end.
George Graves
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
He didn't find my work lacking, John. He wanted me to become the
magazine's recording equipment editor, and only review recording
equipment. I wanted to review all kinds of equipment as I had done under
Gordon, and didn't want to be niched into one type of equipment. Add to
that the fact that we didn't see eye-to-eye philosophically showed me
that staying with Stereophile was going to be more trouble than it was
worth. So I quit.
> As I remember John used
> to be found over in the various audio newsgroups and was always
> technically competent.
Yes, John Atkinson has a fair technical grasp of audio. My real beef
with him was mostly philosophical. He maintained that electronically
produced rock-and-roll could be used to subjectively evaluate audio
equipment and I disagreed (and still do). How can you know if a piece of
equipment is accurate to the sound of an instrument if the sounds that
instrument makes never existed in real space in the first place? In
other words, an Guarneri violin sounds like an Guarneri violin and no
other. Likewise, a reproduction of a Guarneri either sounds like a
Guarneri or it doesn't. OTOH, a Fender-Rhodes electric piano sounds
different depending on the sound reinforncement PA system into which it
is plugged and whether or not it was plugged directly into a recording
console or a microphone was placed in front of whatever guitar
amp/speaker it was connected to. How can one use something with so many
variables as a reference?
>No wonder the name George Graves is never seen
> over on rec.audio.high-end.
I used to participate there, but I gave it up. Many audiophiles are too
egotistical and caught-up in the rituals and voodoo of the high-end to
carry on intelligent conversations with. Most of the time, the threads
end up degenerating into a shouting match between those who believe that
everything we hear can be measured and those who believe that only what
we hear is important. As far as I'm concerned, that question was
resolved many years ago for ME, and I find revisting the same old
arguments with the same people more than a little boring. Reminds me of
the 1-button vs 2-button mouse argument that pops up here every so
often. Pointless and boring.
As for Atkinson being "one of the greatest editors of any audio magazine
ever", that's a matter of opinion. He certainly took a small, well
respected audio journal and turned it into a mainstream "Stereo Review"
type magazine, and from an business standpoint, I certainly cannot fault
him there. OTOH, Stereophile is not the magazine it once was. The level
of writing and the friendly, homey feel that Stereophile once generated
in it's readers (hell, audiophiles used to call me on the phone and ask
my opinions on equipment and how to troubleshhot problems. I didn't
mind) has deteriorated badly since the days of Bill Sommerwerk, Tony
Cordesman, Dick Olsher, et al in my opinion. And of course, what is
"Stereophile" without the great Gordon Holt, the man who invented the
methodology and the vocabulary of high-end subjective reviewing? Suffice
to say, Stereophile is a different magazine than when I wrote for them.
Not one I would be comfortable with today (for many reasons) but they
certainly are successful.
Snit
And heart broken. Be kind to her in her time of pain.
Elizabot
Straw man.
Don't kid yourself. I have never expressed any "love" interest in you,
although *you* have expressed loving and sharing to me before:
Snit: Actually, if we can get past all this silliness, I would love to
share with you an AIM bot a friend and I wrote...
I turned you down flat. I rejected you and your "bot buddy". That's when
you became angry with me.
Poor, poor Snit. Elizabot rejected Snit and his "bot buddy" over a month
ago.
Go talk dirty to your AIM bot and leave me out of your perverted
fantasies, you sicko. You aren't fooling anyone.
--
Snit: "In your case, well, I was just childishly overreacting." 12/12/03
Snit
> Don't kid yourself. I have never expressed any "love" interest in you,
Elizabot, the evidence is clear. I will keep presenting it as I see fit
until it is clear your infatuation is over.
-------
When 100 of Elizabot's *then* most recent posts were examined:
The vast majority of Elizabot's posts were directed toward Snit
(81%)
The overwhelming majority of Elizabot's posts mentioned Snit
(99%)
Most of Elizabot's posts were about Snit
(some debate here, clearly over 90%)
Once Snit pointed these facts out to Elizabot, she tried to hide it by
posting to others and not directly mentioning Snit for several posts. This
was completely out of character for her posting history, and suggests that
Elizabot felt she had something to hide.
It is a well known phenomena that people often gain crushes on their
teachers or others in authority, this is more true for women than for men.
Snit was recently in a teacher position over Elizabot.
This is even more true for women who are not very mature, as would be
indicated in a Usenet group by cheap name calling and repeated illogical
attacks, as Elizabot has shown.
In one post Elizabot "pretends" to forget someone's name, from her past
posts it is safe to assume that she was trying to insult Snit (though there
is not 100% proof for this).
Elizabot has repeatedly been trying to prove her intelligence to Snit.
While her attempts were clever at first, the more Snit showed they would not
win his love, the more Elizabot became clearly irrational and desperate.
Once this was pointed out to Elizabot, and her avoidance period had
subsided, she started insulting Snit even more. She even suggested he might
need medication to alter his reality - perhaps this was an attempt to get
him to see her differently, or just out of spite.
When presented with the facts, she shows near panic and breaks into a
nervous laughter, with such comments as:
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
>
> ROFLMFAOWTIMEAPMP!!!!
When presented with the facts, Elizabot denied them, but was never able to
say why.
Instead of ignoring the posting of the evidence, or simply denying it, as
any rational person would do, Elizabot became clearly agitated and overly
emotional and started calling Snit names and in other ways showed her lack
of maturity. It was all consistent with the idea of Elizabot's infatuation.
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/25/04 4:54 PM:
>
>
>>Don't kid yourself. I have never expressed any "love" interest in you,
>
>
> Elizabot, the evidence is clear. I will keep presenting it as I see fit
> until it is clear your infatuation is over.
Go ahead and present it all you want. I have a counter I will present.
Face it, Snit. The truth is that *you* are obsessed with *me.* And *you*
are a pervert.
1) You noticed I was engaging other posters and you became jealous, so
you started a new thread designed to get my attention. You even
suggested that other should people ignore me - a typical response from a
jealous, abusive man. You are trying to isolate me so that you can have
me all to yourself.
2) When I responded to the thread, you had a rather lengthy response
waiting - it took you 3 minutes to respond to my post with it, as you
had to add a small amount of new information to the end.
3) You clearly spent time studying my posts and preparing a future
response before I have even responded.
4) You make up a fantasy that I am actually trying to win your love.
5) Reality shows I rejected you in mid-December, 2003.
These are clear signs of your obsession with me.
You've also taken on a classic persona of an adult sexual predator.
You fantasize about me being a little girl, as though I am trying to
earn your love and respect. You fantasize about your being an authority
figure to me. You started a belittling thread about me, in an attempt to
bully me into silence and submission. And *you* keep mentioning "love."
You are sick. You really do need help to get help. Abusive men such as
yourself often do not get help until they injure or kill the object of
their desire.
You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to contact
the Prescott Police Department if you do. And that's a promise.
[snip]
Snit
this post you have shown that I should have done as I first suggested and
simply ignored your irrational focus on me.
I shall not be responding to you in the future.
"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote on 1/25/04 5:41 PM:
Elizabot
> You have now tried to track me down to my home city. By your threats in
> this post you have shown that I should have done as I first suggested and
> simply ignored your irrational focus on me.
>
> I shall not be responding to you in the future.
Good. I don't want to be involved in your little girl sex fantasies.
John C. Randolph
> Now expalin why music sounds so bad on them.
They sound terrific playing the kinds of things I listen to. (Mostly
classical, bluegrass, and traditional Irish music)
If you have a set of magnepans that don't sound good to you, try
replacing the fuses.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
> I have always enjoyed the things that Magnaplanars bring to the party.
Me, too.
> They are an almost purely resistive load to amp and therefore easy to
> drive, They are very insensitive to speaker cable choice, and they image
> magnificently, are fairly flat across their wide frequency range and
> they have, arguably the best tweeter (a true ribbon) in town.
They do take rather more power than conventional speakers, I find. I
was used to the VU meters on my amp barely moving at what I consider a
comfortable listening level, but with the Magepans that's not the case.
> They sound
> more like real music than most speakers (although today, it's difficult
> to find a truly bad speaker what with computer modeling and modern
> materials technology). If I have any criticisms about Maggies it's that
> they are difficult and time consuming to place properly (like all dipole
> radiators) and may not sound their best where you (or your significant
> other) wants to place them. Also, Maggies do not like loud, low
> frequency transients such as explosions (although the latest models are
> much better at this), and therefore don't make the best home theater
> speakers, and I probably wouldn't recommend them to someone who listens
> predominantly to rock at high volume levels.
If I listened to rock and roll a lot, I'd probably upgrade my subwoofer.
As it is, they do a fine job on my music, and I just increase the bass
a bit when I'm watching a movie.
> I would recommend them to
> those who listen mostly to classical and jazz, however, because you
> really can't do much better at any price-point where Magnapan has a
> product.
I find they also do a wonderful job on a'capella vocals and classical
guitar.
> I still have my Maggie MG-3As although they are about 12 years old, they
> still sound fine. They're behind the couch now, because I just replaced
> them with a pair of Martin Logan electrostatics which I love (see my
> review in the current edition of 'The Audiophile Voice' now on the
> newsstand.).
BTW, would you happen to know whatever happened to Accoustat?
And in other news, I suppose you noticed that the G5's have S/PDIF
inputs and outputs ;-)
-jcr
Jim Polaski
Nashton <n...@NOSPAMDAMN.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> David Fritzinger wrote:
>
> > In article <jpolaski-7E76DB...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> > Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article <dfritzin-936C3C...@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com>,
> >> David Fritzinger <dfri...@macNoSpam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <1015g0s...@news.supernews.com>,
> >>> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/848/index6.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>What a joke of a review. George doesn't hear much difference among
> >>>>cables on his Magneplanar speakers. No surprise there with the horrible
> >>>>frequency response of planars. Of course George was too dumb to see
> >>>>that.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Didn't you just say you were only going to discuss computers from now
> >>>on? Guess that is another lie we can chalk up by the winweasal.
> >>
> >>Dave you have to understand how the WinWeasel works. if you followed the
> >>thread on the Gibson music product with all the machinations, I
> >>challened WinWeasel to keeping up on the guitar. Steve Carroll was even
> >>going to arrange studio time for him to prove his prowess, but johnny
> >>weaseled and backed out. So I've been after him for backing out.
> >>
> >>Then, I was looking for any info on Nikon Cameras and their flash
> >>protection circut. When I found some Nikon postings there was one with
> >>johnny telling someone what kind of camera he should be using to
> >>presumably take as good a pictures as johnny takes with his Canon. So I
> >>posted that and johnny thinks I'm on a personal attack when all I was
> >>showing was that he does the same elsewhere as he does here.
> >>
> >>Then johnny has tried to make implications about my health. Now he's
> >>doing this. See the pattern? This puppy just gets sicker as time
> >>passes. Now, he's after George.
> >>
> >>Apparenly the WinWeasel thinks he knows more than just about anyone on
> >>any subject. So, johnny 's now going on personal attacks when he's
> >>sorely lacking in any moral or ethical judgement.
> >
> >
> > While I understand what you are saying about Wimpy, I have not followed
> > all the threads in which he was participating. Actually, I was just
> > yanking his chain a bit.
> >
> > 8^)
> >
>
> With Polaski, anybody who dares challenge him in his views,
> automatically becomes an expert in the field.
> On the one hand he whines and bitches when John posts and on the other,
> he provokes him to post even more.
> WTF.
>
> Nicolas
You've challenged me and hardly think you're any kind of expert.
As for johnny WinWeasel, he gets challenged because he's so wrong and
not just by me.
But you're a johnny buddy so that explains a lot.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting
that he will get nothing in return!"
George Graves
"John C. Randolph" <j...@nospam.idiom.com> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
>
> > I have always enjoyed the things that Magnaplanars bring to the party.
>
> Me, too.
>
> > They are an almost purely resistive load to amp and therefore easy to
> > drive, They are very insensitive to speaker cable choice, and they image
> > magnificently, are fairly flat across their wide frequency range and
> > they have, arguably the best tweeter (a true ribbon) in town.
>
> They do take rather more power than conventional speakers, I find. I
> was used to the VU meters on my amp barely moving at what I consider a
> comfortable listening level, but with the Magepans that's not the case.
I used to bi-amp mine with tow 200 watt solid-state amp on the bottom,
and my VTL 140 monoblocs on the midrange/top using Magnapan's passive
low-level crossover. They do take a bit of power. Mine were about 88
dB/watt, which is pretty low efficiency. But what the hey, power's cheap.
> > They sound
> > more like real music than most speakers (although today, it's difficult
> > to find a truly bad speaker what with computer modeling and modern
> > materials technology). If I have any criticisms about Maggies it's that
> > they are difficult and time consuming to place properly (like all dipole
> > radiators) and may not sound their best where you (or your significant
> > other) wants to place them. Also, Maggies do not like loud, low
> > frequency transients such as explosions (although the latest models are
> > much better at this), and therefore don't make the best home theater
> > speakers, and I probably wouldn't recommend them to someone who listens
> > predominantly to rock at high volume levels.
>
> If I listened to rock and roll a lot, I'd probably upgrade my subwoofer.
> As it is, they do a fine job on my music, and I just increase the bass
> a bit when I'm watching a movie.
If you cross them over in the mid-bass to a suitable sub-woofer, they'll
work fine for film. I was referring to stand-alone.
>
> > I would recommend them to
> > those who listen mostly to classical and jazz, however, because you
> > really can't do much better at any price-point where Magnapan has a
> > product.
>
> I find they also do a wonderful job on a'capella vocals and classical
> guitar.
They are marvelous on both voice and guitar due to their low coloration.
Small jazz ensembles like trios, quartets and quintetes are almost so
real that it's like their in the room with you. Same with classical
chamber music. John is full of shit about the way they sound, BTW, You
don't get to be the most popular high-end speaker manufacturer by making
crap (unlike in the computer OS world).
> > I still have my Maggie MG-3As although they are about 12 years old, they
> > still sound fine. They're behind the couch now, because I just replaced
> > them with a pair of Martin Logan electrostatics which I love (see my
> > review in the current edition of 'The Audiophile Voice' now on the
> > newsstand.).
>
> BTW, would you happen to know whatever happened to Accoustat?
Yes, I do. An Arizona company called the Rockford Corporation (same
people who bought Hafler) bought them about 15 years ago. The tried to
sustain the brand, but sagging sales caused them to try to sell it, and
with no takers, they quietly folded the company.
>
> And in other news, I suppose you noticed that the G5's have S/PDIF
> inputs and outputs ;-)
Yes, I read that somewhere. Still haven't bought mine. Waiting for the
daily anticipated speed bump.
>
> -jcr
John C. Randolph
Bummer. I know I haven't seen them around for a while, and they sure
made a nice-sounding speaker.. I need to set up a bot to scan e-bay for them.
-jcr
George Graves
The pre-Rockford Acoustats were nice. However, after Rockford took them
over they made a series of hybrids; ES on top cone on bottom, sort of
like a cross between a Martin Logan and an Innersound ES hybrid. They
had two problems. The transformer for the ES unit wasn't big enough and
saturated at even reasonably high volume levels squashing dynamics and
making things sound congested and dirty. Especially noticed on
orchestral music. Secondly, I never thought the cone speaker Rockford
used mated very well with the ES panel, so beware.
zurg
> I see. So Stereohile only thought one of your articles was worth enough
> to archive.
How many of yours have they archived, John?
zurg
<n...@NOSPAMDAMN.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> > I see. So Stereohile only thought one of your articles was worth enough
> > to archive.
> >
>
> ROTF
ROTF? He lies outright and it's funny?
Strange sense of humor we have around here.
zurg
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Didn't mean to give you my life's story, just sort of where I'm coming
> from.
That's fine. I asked. I was interested. It was certainly far more
interesting that John blathering away as usual.
Nashton
As usual, Liz takes it too far. I don't think anybody should respond to
Liz since she will probably threaten with contacting the police where
you live.
I too will avoid responding to her or engaging in any kind of
conversation with her.
Nicolas
Gregory L. Hansen
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>In article <bv0g47$j97$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>> But it also seems like manufacturers could
>> do more about it, like publishing transfer curves with their equipment,
>
>Wouldn't do much good unless the buyer or dealer knew how to interpret
>that data, and few would. In reality, many dealers would use that data
>simply to confuse the hapless buyers into more levels of audio voodoo.
>
>> recommending specific cables, actually making cables that will work well
>> with a given speaker, or something.
>
>It's all been tried.
You mean an ignoramous sitting at his keyboard for two minutes didn't
think of something that generations of professional audio engineers
have missed?
>The problem is that if you try a speaker/amp combo
>out with a variety of cable types, each will sound slightly different.
>So which one is right? We don't have the actual, live performance as a
>reference, so we have no way of knowing.
Seems the cables could have an impedence versus frequency, the speakers an
input impedence versus frequency, and a required cable impedence per
frequency for accurate reproduction. I assume the manufacturers make an
heroic attempt at linearity. For a given speaker, it seems like it should
be very easy to plug in a function generator and graph a deviation from
ideal versus frequency for a particular cable. If there's no simple way
to characterize the cables then a brute-force approach could be used,
including, with each speaker, data from a wide variety of cables. Then
publish a data book.
>Therefore, most knowledgable
>audiophiles simply use the cables as 'tone' controls to tailor the sound
>to their taste. In the absence of any way to actually measure this stuff
I suppose that's what equalizers are for, too.
>in any meaningful context, that's about all one can do. In writing
>speaker reviews, all a reviewer can do is to mention the results of
>using several different speaker cables with any given system, and that
>will basically show whether said speakers are particularly wire
>sensitive or not. In the review to which WinWeasel refers, I found that
>the Appogee Duetta II speaker system was very reactive and very affected
>by cable choice. Magnaplanars, OTOH, are are an almost pure resistive
>load, and not very reactive at all. In fact the models I have owned had
>the flattest impedance vs frequency curves I've ever seen. Maggies are
>VERY insensitive to cable differences and I was quite taken aback to
>find the Appogees at the other end of that scale. Most other speakers
>that I have reviewed (hundreds) fall somehwere in between those two
>extremes wrt sensitivity to cables.
Are there engineering tradeoffs between sensitivity to cables and
desirable properties? Or are some engineers just better at the job than
others?
--
"Very well, he replied, I allow you cow's dung in place of human
excrement; bake your bread on that." -- Ezekiel 4:15
George Graves
Jim Polaski
zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
Nah Zurg. It's nashton by himself that has the wacko sense of humor. A
glance at other posts should have told you that.
Jim Polaski
Nashton <n...@NOSPAMDAMN.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
>
> > In article <buvagg$2a4$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
> > glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article <1015g0s...@news.supernews.com>,
> >>John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/848/index6.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What a joke of a review. George doesn't hear much difference among
> >>>cables on his Magneplanar speakers. No surprise there with the horrible
> >>>frequency response of planars. Of course George was too dumb to see
> >>>that.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Speaking as a guy that knows very little about the audio world, as long as
> >>your cables have the right impedence and are properly shielded, how could
> >>the choice of cable possibly make a difference? Evidently it does make a
> >>difference, but how?
> >
> >
> > Well, it's kind of difficult to explain without a lot of electronics
> > theory thrown in, but in a nutshell: Speaker impedances are quite low.
> > Most are nominally 8 ohms, but at some frequencies, they CAN actually
> > dip below 1 ohm. Now looking back into the output of the amplifier, the
> > speaker should see close to a dead short (source impedance), and
> > generally does in solid-state amplifiers. Tubes of course, have output
> > transformers and their secondary windings can be close to a short, but
> > not as close as a solid-state amp. That's why solid state amps control
> > bass better than tubes. When the signal stops, the dead short across the
> > voice coil that is the amplifier causes a 'back-EMF' which acts as a
> > "brake" and stops the cone -dead. This is called "dampening" and it is
> > desireable for good low-frequency transient response. I.E. when the
> > music stops, you want the cone to stop too, or else you get a smearing
> > of the musical waveform. Now, in this mix of source and driver
> > impedances, one throws 10 feet of wire. The wire has X number of ohms of
> > impedance/ft (usually fractions of an ohm), and 10 feet of the stuff is
> > really 20 ft because it's two wires; one from the amp to the speaker and
> > the other from the speaker back to the amp, so if one has speaker cable
> > with say, 0.1 ohms/ft, we have added 2 ohms to a system where at some
> > frequencies, the speaker itself may have an impedance of less than 1
> > ohm. Add these together and you see that what you are really dealing
> > with is a compound value that varies with the size and construction of
> > the conductors in the wire. This alone will alter the control of the
> > speaker through changes in the dampning characteristics. But now it gets
> > complicated. Music consists of frequencies from below 20 Hz out to
> > beyond 20 KHz - all happening at once. While simple impedance at a
> > single low frequency can easily and quite understandably describe the
> > control of the moving cone on the speaker wrt dampening, when you start
> > to talk about higher frequencies, you find that there are a lot of what
> > we call reactive elements in the circuit. The speaker voice coil (I'm
> > restricting this discussion to only one kind of speaker here, a standard
> > cone speaker, for clarity) has simple DC resistance when measured with
> > an ohm meter, yes, but when a complex AC signal (like a musical
> > waveform) is passed through the speaker, it takes on other
> > characteristics as well. These are called reactance, and there are both
> > capacitive reactance and inductive reactance, and a speaker voice coil
> > exhibits both - as well as DC resistance. Added to this, there are also
> > capacitive elements and inductive elements in the internal speaker
> > wiring and the crossover -in the case of speaker systems with more than
> > one driver to cover different frequencies. The equation for this
> > complex, frequency dependent AC resistance (called impedance) is:
> >
> > Impedance 'Z' of a series circuit like a speaker is equal to the square
> > root of the (DC resistance added to the square of inductive reactance
> > (X sub L) minus the capacitive reactance (X sub C)). And this result is
> > different for each different frequency in the passband.
> >
> > ------------------------- *
> > Z = \/ Rt +(XL - XC) squared
> >
> > *The \/ and the ---- are supposed to represent a radical. While the Mac
> > character set has all of these availabe, they likely won't render
> > properly over usenet on PCs, because they use a different standard
> > character set, so I did it this way.
> >
> > Now. Lets complicate this by adding the speaker cable. Not only does it
> > have DC resistance to add to the above equation, but because speaker
> > wire is made-up of many strands of smaller, solid wire, so it too has
> > inductance and capacitance and it's impedance also changes with
> > frequency and different brands and sizes react differently to different
> > frequencies. There is also a phenomenon at work with conductors known as
> > "skin-effect" whereby higher frequencies traves ON the wire rather than
> > through it, and this changes the high frequency transfer characteristics
> > of the wire as well. This interrelationship of DC resistances and
> > frequency dependant reactances, is difficult if not impossible to
> > characterize. Therefore it's just not possible to know how a given
> > cable, or indeed, even a given length of cable will perform in any
> > speaker/amplifier combination without actually trying them out. Also the
> > cost of speaker cable means nothing. Just because you buy a $50/ft cable
> > over a $3/ft cable does not in any way guarantee that the expensive
> > spread will outperform. or indeed, even perform as well as the cheaper
> > stuff in a given situation. I've heard cheap speaker wire beat the pants
> > of the expensive stuff because it happens to match better with the
> > amp/speaker with which it was being used. Audiophiles tend to buy the
> > expensive stuff when they can because it usually looks cool and often
> > uses exotic woods on the end caps to the speaker and has fancy braided
> > jackets and is accompanied by a lot of technical jibberish to justify
> > the cost. Most don't know that the match between wire characteristics
> > and application is much more important than looks and cost. Some
> > expensive wire might work better in some instances and poorer than
> > others. There is simply no corolation between cost and performance in
> > this case.
> >
> > I know this is long, and probably confusing to many. But I hope that
> > helps to show that the interaction between speaker cable and the system
> > with which it is used is a very complex one and that speaker cable can,
> > indeed, make a difference to a greater or lesser extent in any stereo
> > system.
> >
>
> Thanks for taking the time to explain it, George. You seem to know your
> stuff in audio. Now why not stop posting in csma and start posting in an
> audio ng, because your knowledge of computing is as bad as your
> knowledge in audio is good;)
>
> Nicolas
Because nimrod, johnny brought up the subject HERE, not in an audio
group. George was patient enough to explain things for those interested.
Obviously that's not you, though.
Next time try complaining over a valid reason, not just your personal
wishes-- which is just what your bro, johnny WinWeasel does.
(Note that again WinWeasel was challenged to rebutt George's review on a
point by point basis, but once again he weaseled and ran away.)
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
He always does.
zurg
Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> Nah Zurg. It's nashton by himself that has the wacko sense of humor. A
> glance at other posts should have told you that.
Yeah, given the discussion I'm having with him about mocking John, I'd
say he's either bizarrely simple-minded or just playing dumb to fuel
arguments.
Steve Mackay
> In article <40147018...@nospam.idiom.com>,
> "John C. Randolph" <j...@nospam.idiom.com> wrote:
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>
>> > I have always enjoyed the things that Magnaplanars bring to the party.
>>
>> Me, too.
>>
>> > They are an almost purely resistive load to amp and therefore easy to
>> > drive, They are very insensitive to speaker cable choice, and they image
>> > magnificently, are fairly flat across their wide frequency range and
>> > they have, arguably the best tweeter (a true ribbon) in town.
>>
>> They do take rather more power than conventional speakers, I find. I
>> was used to the VU meters on my amp barely moving at what I consider a
>> comfortable listening level, but with the Magepans that's not the case.
>
> I used to bi-amp mine with tow 200 watt solid-state amp on the bottom,
> and my VTL 140 monoblocs on the midrange/top using Magnapan's passive
> low-level crossover. They do take a bit of power. Mine were about 88
> dB/watt, which is pretty low efficiency. But what the hey, power's cheap.
88DB Low? Hell, that's an easy one... My ET LFTVIIIAs are 82DB. I "biamp"
them with a single Coda-Continuum 4.3.2 running in 4 channel mode at 100W
per channel. I looked at some ATCs that were 79DB, which were some of the
best purely cone speakers for the money I've ever heard. They are butt
ugly though(the ETs ain't much to look at either though).
>> > They sound
>> > more like real music than most speakers (although today, it's difficult
>> > to find a truly bad speaker what with computer modeling and modern
>> > materials technology). If I have any criticisms about Maggies it's that
>> > they are difficult and time consuming to place properly (like all dipole
>> > radiators) and may not sound their best where you (or your significant
>> > other) wants to place them. Also, Maggies do not like loud, low
>> > frequency transients such as explosions (although the latest models are
>> > much better at this), and therefore don't make the best home theater
>> > speakers, and I probably wouldn't recommend them to someone who listens
>> > predominantly to rock at high volume levels.
This is why I chose the LFT8s over maggies. They did the 'music' like no
other cone speaker could match, at that price I wanted to pay, but also
could function in a home theater environment easily.
>> If I listened to rock and roll a lot, I'd probably upgrade my subwoofer.
>> As it is, they do a fine job on my music, and I just increase the bass
>> a bit when I'm watching a movie.
>
> If you cross them over in the mid-bass to a suitable sub-woofer, they'll
> work fine for film. I was referring to stand-alone.
>>
>> > I would recommend them to
>> > those who listen mostly to classical and jazz, however, because you
>> > really can't do much better at any price-point where Magnapan has a
>> > product.
>>
>> I find they also do a wonderful job on a'capella vocals and classical
>> guitar.
>
> They are marvelous on both voice and guitar due to their low coloration.
> Small jazz ensembles like trios, quartets and quintetes are almost so
> real that it's like their in the room with you. Same with classical
> chamber music. John is full of shit about the way they sound, BTW, You
> don't get to be the most popular high-end speaker manufacturer by making
> crap (unlike in the computer OS world).
John, like usual is just being an idiot, and has proven he has tin ears.
>> > I still have my Maggie MG-3As although they are about 12 years old, they
>> > still sound fine. They're behind the couch now, because I just replaced
>> > them with a pair of Martin Logan electrostatics which I love (see my
>> > review in the current edition of 'The Audiophile Voice' now on the
>> > newsstand.).
Which MLs did you get?
btw, GREAT review!
George Graves
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
'Aeon i'
>
> btw, GREAT review!
Which one the Aeon i review in the current TAV or the Stereophile review
which started this thread? Either way, thanks.
Steve Mackay
<snip>
>> Which MLs did you get?
>
> 'Aeon i'
>>
>> btw, GREAT review!
>
> Which one the Aeon i review in the current TAV or the Stereophile review
> which started this thread? Either way, thanks.
The stereophile review. You definately worded it well, so even a 'non'
layman could completely understand your feelings on the speakers.
George Graves
Thanks Steve. I appreciate that.
Tim Adams
That means John didn't understand a word of it.
Elizabot
You'll just make dumb comments about me licking peoples' keyboards.
--
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed... oh wait, he
does.